Questions about energy

[mint]

I don't know much about this topic so I don't know how well I'll be able to follow along this topic after I start it, but I'll try to follow for as long as I can.

Some new agey folks talk about all beings having a so-called "energy field." When they say this, I think what they are saying is, quite simply, that all beings are energy. Sometimes they like to throw in Eastern words like "chi."

I'm not really sure what to make of this so-called energy field, nor am I sure how it may possibly relate to Dzogchen. Bear with me as I butcher what Dzogchen has to say about the relationship between the essence of the base and the energy of the base per Dzogchen. From what little I've read, the energy that manifests as thoughts, dualism, and samsaric experience finds its root in the base, our primordial nature.

Now, here's where I'm getting confused. Rather than formulate my concepts, I'll just ask questions:

Is this energy "real" - in the sense that, though it is the manifestation of my primordial nature, it has the ability to affect me, help me, harm me? Is there any objectivity to a brick, for instance? Is there any objectivity to a brick hitting me in the head? Or is it all just a manifestation of energy from my primordial nature?

Second question, is there any objectivity to the people in my life? Or are they manifestations of energy, as well? If everything is to be viewed as if in a dream, then are all the experiences that I imagine as real simply a play of energy/imagination? For instance, if my girlfriend is telling me a secret while a train is rolling by and birds are chirping nearby and I'm thinking about lunch, is there any objectivity to what is happening or is it all just a play of energy of mind (sems)?

Third question, is there any relation between the so-called energy field that the new agey people talk about and the energy that Dzogchen talks about? Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

If there are any texts that I can read which might clarify any of my confusion, I do own the following books so feel free to reference page numbers or other texts that I might consider:

Song of the vajra
The crystal and the way of light
Concise commentary on the short thun
Precious vase
Fearful simplicity
The mirror
Dzogchen the self perfected state
As it is vol 1

Thanks for bearing with me!

[asunthatneversets]

I don't know much about this topic so I don't know how well I'll be able to follow along this topic after I start it, but I'll try to follow for as long as I can.

Some new agey folks talk about all beings having a so-called "energy field." When they say this, I think what they are saying is, quite simply, that all beings are energy. Sometimes they like to throw in Eastern words like "chi."

I'm not really sure what to make of this so-called energy field, nor am I sure how it may possibly relate to Dzogchen. Bear with me as I butcher what Dzogchen has to say about the relationship between the essence of the base and the energy of the base per Dzogchen. From what little I've read, the energy that manifests as thoughts, dualism, and samsaric experience finds its root in the base, our primordial nature.

Now, here's where I'm getting confused. Rather than formulate my concepts, I'll just ask questions:

Is this energy "real" - in the sense that, though it is the manifestation of my primordial nature, it has the ability to affect me, help me, harm me? Is there any objectivity to a brick, for instance? Is there any objectivity to a brick hitting me in the head? Or is it all just a manifestation of energy from my primordial nature?

Second question, is there any objectivity to the people in my life? Or are they manifestations of energy, as well? If everything is to be viewed as if in a dream, then are all the experiences that I imagine as real simply a play of energy/imagination? For instance, if my girlfriend is telling me a secret while a train is rolling by and birds are chirping nearby and I'm thinking about lunch, is there any objectivity to what is happening or is it all just a play of energy of mind (sems)?

Third question, is there any relation between the so-called energy field that the new agey people talk about and the energy that Dzogchen talks about? Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

If there are any texts that I can read which might clarify any of my confusion, I do own the following books so feel free to reference page numbers or other texts that I might consider:

Song of the vajra
The crystal and the way of light
Concise commentary on the short thun
Precious vase
Fearful simplicity
The mirror
Dzogchen the self perfected state
As it is vol 1

Thanks for bearing with me!

"From the point of view of bodhicitta (the natural state), you cannot explain the difference between the base, energy or the reflections. That is because it's nature is emptiness (i.e. the natural state) and to emptiness there is no distinction between them. For example, in the ocean itself, the clearness of the water (energy) and the reflections in it are not different from the water - they appear but they are not beyond the water. If you look from the point of view of reflections (i.e. individual things) there is no contradiction either. From that perspective you can see that the ocean and it's clarity and reflections are distinct from one another. However, according to the natural state none of the reflections has a real base. There is no inherent existence in them."

"The energy to reflect (tsal) is a property of the ocean, so the reflections (rol pa) and the energy are unified in it's nature (gzhi). Sometimes only two terms are used: gzhi (the base), and tsal (reflections), these two referring respectively to the capacity to take reflections (subject side) and the reflections themselves (object side)."

"You cannot say the natural state is empty or has reflections or whatever. Like water which is also wet it is both things at once - neither term captures this reality, which is beyond words. You can't say it is empty because it is not graspable - if you say that it is empty you try to enter the state whilst grasping the concept of emptiness. The real fact is beyond all concepts."

"Nothing exists beyond the natural state. Earth is not independent of the natural state; visions are not independent visions. Everything is a vision of the natural state. The natural state is like a single point; the natural state is like where birds fly - behind there is no trace. If you understand this point you will realize that the natural state is the creator of all things - the king of creators."

"What is reflected in the mind does not independently exist; both internal and external are spontaneous reflections in the natural state. To do this is a natural quality of the primordial state, but it does not mean that these reflections are solid, independent and inherently existent. They arise from the natural state and go back to it; it is our ignorance that grasps them as independent."

"...[Lists a series of things you can imagine or envision] ...Finally dissolve all visions into the natural state. What is left? Then dissolve even your thought itself into the natural state so there is nothing left. Then you will realize that everything is made by thought - everything comes from there. You have to realize how things are created."

"The result is seeing that everything is created by your thought. Once you finally realize this you can check back to find it's origin. All things are created by your thought and mind - and if you look back to the source of your thought and mind you will find that is disappears. It dissolves and goes back to it's nature. That is the limit; every individual thing is dependent on the mind."

"All vision is like a dream. In a dream, a vision is just a vision to the mind, even though whatever appears looks like real material to the dreamer. It is just the same when we are awake. All appearances come from the karmic traces - they all come to the mind. Apart from mind nothing exists at all. The difference between dreaming and awakening is just in time - that is all."

"All the visions come from themselves and are seen by themselves. Everything is the reflection from itself. There are no objects inherently. Everything is the 'Great Vision' therefore there is no way to help others.
Question: If you realize that everything is your own vision then how can you help other beings? What is the answer?
LTN: The answer is that you help them because they are self-vision. Beings are also self-vision. Inherently helping them is not possible."

- Lopon Tenzin Namdak (Heartdrops Of Dharmakaya)

[asunthatneversets]

"....Mind (citta) and mental-function (cetasika), in and of itself, comes into being in three stages.

[First stage:] The accumulation of vestigial-imprints (vasana), derived from the formative impulses (samskara) [of Creation], proliferate [from the first moment onwards] and evolve; when the [compounded] power (prabhava) of that has ripened [i.e., has obtained 'critical intensity'] then Mind-in-itself (cittatva, the essence of citta) manifests forth (abhasa) as subject and object, or in other words as Subjective Being (atmabhava, Tib: lus) and Existence, which nevertheless has no more 'reality' than the life in a pile of bones.

[Second stage:] Identification (lamba) with the activity of the continuum (santana) of evolving imprints (vasana) results in the formation of the 'psychic monad' (manas), experienced as a 'self' (atma), which it is not.

[Third stage:] As a result, the obscuring effect of the impulse-to-come-into-being (samskara) produces a subtle diminution-of-awareness, giving birth to a specific local consciousness.

Through the power of mind combined with the continuum, ensuing conceptual-constructions (kalpa) further negate realization. From that [i.e., from the above three modalities], having the nature of a contaminant (asrava), conceptual-constructions of self (atma) and phenomena (dharma) become serially reiterated...."

"Therefore, from the first instant (ksana) of [the continuum of] mind (citta), the subjective Being (atma-bhava) and all phenomena (sarva-dharma) are present. From the cathectic-functioning of mentation (cinta) there proceeds the appearance of origination. Yet no phenomena exists for either ordinary people or for enlightened Saints other than the continuum (santana) of their own mind (citta). The whole diversity (vicitrata) that exists for the six types [of sentient beings] is just their own internal-contemplation (samadhi)."

"Because there are no boundaries, a focus-of-attention (prabhana) and a locality (sthana), cannot exist. How then can conscious perceiving [i.e., the 'act' of consciousness] arise? Therefore mind is separate from the alternatives of existence and nonexistence, and is neither one nor many. In that the Enlightened state of the Blissful Ones is not [objectifiable], the deceit of appearance (abhasa) is like a magical apparition. In the same way [as Enlightenment is not objectifiable], so also, immaculate Gnosis, and the pure continuum of goodness (kusala) that is the Source of Reality (dharmadhatu), are misconstrued as having an existence, and hence as being objectifiable [i.e., an object separate from consciousness]."

"Since neither the meditator nor the Source of Reality exists, there can be neither uncertainty nor certitude of view. Thus, if one enquires into the conception of "Existence," even as an apparition it is without an independent-nature (svabhava, own-nature). Consequently, even this nonexistence, depending as it would on existence, is not; nor does the nonexistence of nonexistence exist! Since all finite concepts are negational, the concept of "middle" (madhya) is equally negated, and so one should not even try and abide in a Middle View (madhyamaka). However, just as the Lotus Lord of the World (Padmalokisya, i.e., Avalokitesvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassionate Love) does not reject even one [sentient being], but sees all [beings] alike and equal, so too should one understand that even to see [all as] a deceit is itself a deception."

"When there is no identity [of phenomena], everything that exists is the Source of Reality itself. To know this is the Supreme Yoga of the Arhats! Just as space (akasa) is not substantial - it is just a name - positive (kusala) and negative (akusala), being inseparable, never arise."

- Manjusrimitra (Bodhicittabhavana)

[mint]

Question: If you realize that everything is your own vision then how can you help other beings? What is the answer?
LTN: The answer is that you help them because they are self-vision. Beings are also self-vision. Inherently helping them is not possible.

Thanks for posting this. Based on what I just read, to make sure I comprehended it fairly, in this very moment where I think that I am typing a response to this thread on my computer, seeing the computer and the text on the screen as something separate from me, this is all just a play of energy by the primordial nature, right? And it is avidya which attaches itself to these reflections of energy?

So, when I think I see Namdrol offering sound advice on how to practice Dzogchen, there really is no Namdrol or advice separate from the primordial nature? And the things that I mistake as being Namdrol and sound advice are really nothing more than the reflections of the energy of my primordial nature? So, even ChNNR is really nothing more than a play of mine own energy emanating or manifesting from the primordial nature (samantabhadra)?

So, this would mean that the reason why my girlfriend would share a similar karma to mine, the reason why we have a relationship, is because our individual mind streams have crossed in the primordial nature? The reason why we seem to exist to each other is due to the play of interlacing energies?

[asunthatneversets]

Question: If you realize that everything is your own vision then how can you help other beings? What is the answer?
LTN: The answer is that you help them because they are self-vision. Beings are also self-vision. Inherently helping them is not possible.

Thanks for posting this. Based on what I just read, to make sure I comprehended it fairly, in this very moment where I think that I am typing a response to this thread on my computer, seeing the computer and the text on the screen as something separate from me, this is all just a play of energy by the primordial nature, right? And it is avidya which attaches itself to these reflections of energy?

So, when I think I see Namdrol offering sound advice on how to practice Dzogchen, there really is no Namdrol or advice separate from the primordial nature? And the things that I mistake as being Namdrol and sound advice are really nothing more than the reflections of the energy of my primordial nature? So, even ChNNR is really nothing more than a play of mine own energy emanating or manifesting from the primordial nature (samantabhadra)?

So, this would mean that the reason why my girlfriend would share a similar karma to mine, the reason why we have a relationship, is because our individual mind streams have crossed in the primordial nature? The reason why we seem to exist to each other is due to the play of interlacing energies?

Conventionally speaking that is a fair comprehension. But you who would comprehend are a reflection as well, so this comprehension can't be held. If the comprehension is attached-to it gives rise to 'you' and 'other than you', likewise if it is rejected it gives rise to 'you' and 'other than you'. The primordial nature doesn't accept or reject any 'thing' because nothing is separate from it. It just spontaneously manifests.

So it's not like your individual mind-steam crosses paths with your girlfriend's individual mind-stream. This is why what Lopon was saying regarding the recognition that nothing exists separately from thought(concept) is key. And that turning back to investigate the source of the mind and thought is key. Because neither can be found, there's only the primordial nature which is itself empty.

This all has to be done experientially that's why attempting to 'understand' becomes problematic. The base(primordial nature) is free of the 4 extremes(existence, non-existence, both and neither), the recognition of the base is more of an innate knowledge(not intellectual) like one knows they're alive, by 'being' alive. What 'appears' is a timeless manifestation of the base and is not separate from the base, but nothing can be said about what 'appears' since being the same as the base it's free of the 4 extremes. That metaphor; like a bird flying through the sky leaves no trace. Is how appearance manifests as a reflection. Like it flows from nothing to nothing - constantly - and is ever-fresh and new... but the notion of 'time' is only in mind, and mind is empty - so 'fresh and new' is empty - 'flow' is empty - 'constant' is empty. But those empty notions help to "point" from ones current perspective (which is avidya).

So this is why the practice is experientially resting in the primordial nature at all times, all day, every day.

'I comprehend this... fairly' is experientially a thought(i.e. noise/sound/play of energy/reflection - inseparable from the base) which manifests and is immediately self-liberated.

The nature of phenomena is nondual,
but each one, in its own state,
is beyond the limits of the mind.
There is no concept that can define
the condition of "what is"
but vision nevertheless manifests:
all is good.
Everything has already been accomplished,
and so, having overcome the sickness of effort,
one finds oneself in the self-perfected state:
this is contemplation.

- Vairocana

(For the record: What is NOT in italics is my own attempt to describe the indescribable and convey the futility of doing so... I was told to say so... I declare no authority in any of it... <--- pig)

[asunthatneversets]

Oh and there's also a book called

"Healing With Form, Energy And Light: The Five Elements In Tibetan Shamanism, Tantra And Dzogchen"
by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche

which might be a good read if you're interested in learning more about the energetic aspects of the teaching.

I think he has some vids on youtube discussing them too.

[mint]

Conventionally speaking that is a fair comprehension. But you who would comprehend are a reflection as well, so this comprehension can't be held. If the comprehension is attached-to it gives rise to 'you' and 'other than you', likewise if it is rejected it gives rise to 'you' and 'other than you'. The primordial nature doesn't accept or reject any 'thing' because nothing is separate from it. It just spontaneously manifests.

So it's not like your individual mind-steam crosses paths with your girlfriend's individual mind-stream. This is why what Lopon was saying regarding the recognition that nothing exists separately from thought(concept) is key. And that turning back to investigate the source of the mind and thought is key. Because neither can be found, there's only the primordial nature which is itself empty.

This all has to be done experientially that's why attempting to 'understand' becomes problematic. The base(primordial nature) is free of the 4 extremes(existence, non-existence, both and neither), the recognition of the base is more of an innate knowledge(not intellectual) like one knows they're alive, by 'being' alive. What 'appears' is a timeless manifestation of the base and is not separate from the base, but nothing can be said about what 'appears' since being the same as the base it's free of the 4 extremes. That metaphor; like a bird flying through the sky leaves no trace. Is how appearance manifests as a reflection. Like it flows from nothing to nothing - constantly - and is ever-fresh and new... but the notion of 'time' is only in mind, and mind is empty - so 'fresh and new' is empty - 'flow' is empty - 'constant' is empty. But those empty notions help to "point" from ones current perspective (which is avidya).

So this is why the practice is experientially resting in the primordial nature at all times, all day, every day.

'I comprehend this... fairly' is experientially a thought(i.e. noise/sound/play of energy/reflection - inseparable from the base) which manifests and is immediately self-liberated.

So this is what is meant by there being no actual sentient beings to liberate. Sentient beings are the reflections of mind's energy and the mind itself is empty, being only further energy.

So, in actuality, my mind's perception of other people learning and teaching Dzogchen is all just a play of energy of the primordial nature like a motion picture spontaneously manifesting on the big screen of mind.

[heart]

"The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika).Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guruji.
So far as logical reasoning [or philosophical speculation] based on cognitive perception is concerned, it is an established tenet that one can reflect on existence only within the confines of thesis and antithesis.Therefore any attempt whatsoever to define an object-of-experience (visaya) by means of thought, is an affirmation of a "reality" (pramana) inherently negated by its own logical antithesis. If thought is incapable [of positing ultimate reality], then what valid knowledge (pramana) can there be? Hence, the conventional means of reasoning normal to worldly individuals does not apply to the Path of Yoga."

Bodhicittabhavana by Manjusrimitra
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library ... d-mind.htm

[Malcolm]

Is this energy "real" - in the sense that, though it is the manifestation of my primordial nature, it has the ability to affect me, help me, harm me? Is there any objectivity to a brick, for instance? Is there any objectivity to a brick hitting me in the head? Or is it all just a manifestation of energy from my primordial nature?

It is objective because you are in the grip of duality, and therefore, subject to karma.

Second question, is there any objectivity to the people in my life?

Yes. Conventionally speaking.

Third question, is there any relation between the so-called energy field that the new agey people talk about and the energy that Dzogchen talks about?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the energy that new age folks are talking about is what we call "rlung", vāyu or "wind energy". No, because they do not understand this point at all.

Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

Everything manifests through sound, light and rays.

N

[kirtu]

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the energy that new age folks are talking about is what we call "rlung", vāyu or "wind energy". No, because they do not understand this point at all.

Ch'i in Taoism is physical but subtle and there are many different kinds (including geomantic). So is ch'i synonomous with rlung/vāyu or is rlung/vāyu a subset of ch'i as understood in TCM?

Also ch'i as life force or life energy is understood across many different cultures around the world including the Polynesian peoples, South America and Africa (there's an interesting PBS show where a North African shaman (for want of a better word) is trying to pass the teachings on to his son who isn't (and apparently didn't) get it - in their system the energy was more geomantically based because there were always looking for good grazing conditions in an arid climate).

Thanks!

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the energy that new age folks are talking about is what we call "rlung", vāyu or "wind energy". No, because they do not understand this point at all.

Ch'i in Taoism is physical but subtle and there are many different kinds (including geomantic). So is ch'i synonomous with rlung/vāyu or is rlung/vāyu a subset of ch'i as understood in TCM?

These two concepts have points of intersection, but not completely identical.

[Lhug-Pa]

In Taoism, perhaps the best way to begin to understand Chi, at least to start with intellectually, would be to look at how Jing, Chi, and Shen are interrelated.

Is there a difference between Vayu and Prana in Tibetan? Or are they both translated as rLung?

[Malcolm]

In Taoism, perhaps the best way to begin to understand Chi at least intellectually would be to look at how Jing, Chi, and Shen are interrelated.

Is there a difference between Vayu and Prana in Tibetan? Or are they both translated as rLung?

Praṇā is srog i.e. life; vāyu is rlung i.e. air. Praṇā vāyu is the basic vāyu from which all the others arise.

[asunthatneversets]

Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

While this is somewhat off topic in regards to the nature of your question(in the context of the dharma); you should take a look at some 'kirlian photography'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography It's a method used to photograph the energy fields generated by living entities and other objects. You might find it interesting... they did kirlian photography on human subjects and had them produce different emotional states and their energy field(aura) which surrounded them changed colors with each emotion.

Obviously a different notion than rolpa/tsal but your question reminded me of it.

Youtube: Kirlian Photography Explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDOi1BLoN3U

Youtube: ( Kirlian/Aura-Photography ) -of raw foods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBjc9rIFNY

[asunthatneversets]

So this is what is meant by there being no actual sentient beings to liberate. Sentient beings are the reflections of mind's energy and the mind itself is empty, being only further energy.

So, in actuality, my mind's perception of other people learning and teaching Dzogchen is all just a play of energy of the primordial nature like a motion picture spontaneously manifesting on the big screen of mind.

From the perspective of avidya(ignorance/dualistic perception) the notion that one is in 'bondage'(samsara) governs one's point of view... which is then projected onto 'others' who are also in 'bondage'. With the notion of bondage(samsara) the polar idea of 'liberation'(nirvana) automatically comes into being because it's a mutually interdependent co-emergent concept.

From the perspective of vidya(rigpa/nondual perception) the innate knowledge that the 'one' who was in bondage(samsara) was a misconception is made apparent beyond a shadow of a doubt. This apperception literally removes the point of reference(subject) which was used to project the appearance of 'others'(object) in need of liberating. So it isn't that one reaches a 'state of liberation' which was originally conceived from the perspective of the apparent 'bondage', but ascertains that the notion of 'bondage' is a misconception which is dependent on a subject which is illusory. And this knowledge automatically negates the notion of liberation(originally conceived conceptually from the perspective of pseudo-bondage by the pseudo-subject), and that is liberation. It's deeply intuitively perceived that samsara and nirvana are both equally unreal projections of ignorance, and that the seeker is the sought, and when this happens, the individual disappears along with the projected others.

Dzogchen cuts straight to the point and states that experience is fundamentally pure from the very beginning. All that "is" is a spontaneous play of the primordial nature which is itself empty.

So it isn't 'your' minds perception. And clinging to the notion that there are 'no others' or 'no self' is actually a subtle trap and trick of the avidya. Accepting or rejecting the notion that there are 'no others' or 'no self' is exactly the same as accepting/rejecting the notion of 'others' and 'self'. Because both are 'ideas' held in the pseudo-mind, and attachment or rejection to ideas, concepts etc creates the pseudo-self which is a symptom of the apparent thought based entity called the 'mind'.

Dzogchen accounts for this error by discouraging futile attempts at intellectually understanding and states that ALL is a reflection of the base and is inseparable from the base... phenomena is a projection(reflection) of the noumenon(primordial nature) which is itself empty. Experience is viewed in it's suchness without attachment or aversion. And if one has a keen eye, as stabilization in suchness escalates these ideas and concepts we're attempting to discuss are innately apperceived experientially and the nature of experience is altered dramatically.

But bottom line is this can't be understood intellectually. So don't believe any of it, just LOOK at experience empirically and it will 'do the work' for you. Until it dawns experientially treat all as conjecture and take refuge in the actuality of life unfolding in the immediacy.

So your question of the objectivity of a brick, or objectivity of pain from a brick hitting you on the head is conceived from the spontaneous play of the primordial nature mistakenly identifying in relativity with specific elements of it's own 'play' via the projection of conception and attachment to those concepts/specific elements through habitual conditioning. This creates the pseudo-entity. Avidya arises from this identification. It is this pseudo-entity which suffers pain and bondage and seeks liberation. 'I' cannot possibly suffer because 'I' is not equipped with any instrument with which sensation could be experienced. And the base cannot suffer because the base is itself empty and suffering is a reflection of itself. Any experience, pleasant of unpleasant, can only be experienced by the mis-identified phantom object called 'me'.

*This is my own opinion, I declare no authority in any of it and it is open to being dissected, trashed, ridiculed, examined etc...

[Malcolm]

From the perspective of avidya(ignorance/dualistic perception) the notion that one is in 'bondage'(samsara) governs one's point of view...

No, generally speaking sentient beings have no idea that they are in bondage or suffering from some kind of mistaken perception about anything. The Rosary of Pearls explains:

Having been gripped by the apprehending subject and apprehended object
in the aggregates, elements and gateways,
one remains in samsara itself for a long while,
within the belly of the three realms
one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]
bound by the chains of ignorance,
covered with dense black darkness of samsara,
attached to the spicy taste of passion,
one is bound by the noose of confusion,
tormented by the hot fire of hatred,
one’s head is covered by pride,
the gates of jealously are locked,
surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,
tied about the neck with the noose of apprehending subject and apprehended object,
stuck in the swamp of past traces,
one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,
the mother of karma is joined with her child,
one following the other just like a water wheel,
alternating between good and bad bodies,
born in different forms,
and through heightening one’s self-grasping
one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering,
one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies,
one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions.
Fire appears as water to hell beings,
as hunger and thirst to hungry ghosts,
as fog to animals.
the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,
those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,
as weapons and armor to asuras,
and as desirable things to gods.
For example, just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel
one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.
Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope
since what isn’t there is held to be there,
both the outer and inner container and contents form,
and if that is investigated, it is a rope,
i.e. the container and contents are already empty
the ultimate with the form of the relative.

Dzogchen cuts straight to the point and states that experience is fundamentally pure from the very beginning.

Delusion is not a part of the basis and is not fundamentally pure.

Dzogchen accounts for this error by discouraging futile attempts at intellectually understanding and states that ALL is a reflection of the base and is inseparable from the base

Dzogchen states that basis is free from ignorance from the very beginning. All of our deluded experience comes from not recognizing the basis itself. There is no ignorance in the basis. The Transcendence of Sound states:

“Ignorance” is not possible
in the essence, the wisdom of original purity.

The Letterless states:
Since my self-originated wisdom is pure of delusion from the start, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being.

Also the Luminous Clarity states:

The essence, the wisdom of original purity,
is free from the stain of ignorance

The Rosary of Pearls states very clearly:

The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.

[sangyey]

Does everything in the phenomenal universe come from the five wisdoms becoming more solidified due to ignorance?

[Malcolm]

Does everything in the phenomenal universe come from the five wisdoms becoming more solidified due to ignorance?

Everything in the universe is created out of the delusion of not recognizing the basis, yes.

N

[sangyey]

Namdrol, I know in another post somewhere on this board you had mentioned that the elements can come from conciousness but conciousness does not come from the elements. It would seem that on a large cosmic scale at some point say the earth element would have had to spun off from the basis of someone's delusional mind and become a seperate entity. For instance, right now there is a wooden chair in my room and so speaking if we trace back the origins of the elemental parts they would have had there basis from someone's mind or perhaps the solidification of one of their 5 wisdoms transforming out of delusion into say the earth element?

[asunthatneversets]

No, generally speaking sentient beings have no idea that they are in bondage or suffering from some kind of mistaken perception about anything. The Rosary of Pearls explains:

Having been gripped by the apprehending subject and apprehended object
in the aggregates, elements and gateways,
one remains in samsara itself for a long while,
within the belly of the three realms
one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]
bound by the chains of ignorance,
covered with dense black darkness of samsara,
attached to the spicy taste of passion,
one is bound by the noose of confusion,
tormented by the hot fire of hatred,
one’s head is covered by pride,
the gates of jealously are locked,
surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,
tied about the neck with the noose of apprehending subject and apprehended object,
stuck in the swamp of past traces,
one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,
the mother of karma is joined with her child,
one following the other just like a water wheel,
alternating between good and bad bodies,
born in different forms,
and through heightening one’s self-grasping
one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering,
one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies,
one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions.
Fire appears as water to hell beings,
as hunger and thirst to hungry ghosts,
as fog to animals.
the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,
those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,
as weapons and armor to asuras,
and as desirable things to gods.
For example, just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel
one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.
Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope
since what isn’t there is held to be there,
both the outer and inner container and contents form,
and if that is investigated, it is a rope,
i.e. the container and contents are already empty
the ultimate with the form of the relative.

True, good observation. I made the statement coming from the perspective of one who had already formed a relationship with the teachings and didn't account for the fact that this is not the case for most.

Delusion is not a part of the basis and is not fundamentally pure.

Because otherwise one would mistakenly assume that the delusion is the basis and remain deluded, so distinction is necessary... that makes sense.

Dzogchen states that basis is free from ignorance from the very beginning. All of our deluded experience comes from not recognizing the basis itself. There is no ignorance in the basis. The Transcendence of Sound states:

“Ignorance” is not possible
in the essence, the wisdom of original purity.

The Letterless states:
Since my self-originated wisdom is pure of delusion from the start, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being.

Also the Luminous Clarity states:

The essence, the wisdom of original purity,
is free from the stain of ignorance

The Rosary of Pearls states very clearly:

The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.

I'll have to watch how i present what I say and make those necessary distinctions because you're right otherwise it's like you're giving someone license to be complacent and delude themselves further into thinking they're not deluded, which is dangerous. Thanks for pointing that out!