The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

[DarwidHalim]

" That indivisible unity of these two aspects - being empty and cognizant - is called nirmanakaya. At the moment of recognizing you see that these three are inseparable, and this is the svabhavikaya, the essence-body. This is what i mentioned before: seeing no 'thing' is the supreme sight. In this world, is there anything more profound than being face to face with the three kayas? Recognizing this fact is the essential point of all practice."

"....space doesn't see itself. Mind, on the other hand is cognizant as well as empty. The empty quality is dharmakaya, the cognizant quality is sambhogakaya and their unity is nirmanakaya."

There is a difference here with mahamudra, where nirmanakaya is defined as the unobstructed manifestation of essenceless thoughts.

[Malcolm]

I am very much interested in dzogchen but I dont understand the relation between the dharmakaya and the individual natural state.

The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

The three kayas have one essence.

The three kayas do not exist apart from the basis.

Sentient beings occur through non-recognition of the basis.

The result does not arise from a cause.

[Sherab]

since this is the Dzogchen forum, of course theres nothing to "become enlightened", in the sense of a process or attainment actually happening. Illusory holographic fragments may kaleidoscopically change colors, that is all. the point is, there is both the illusory individual fragment holographically containing/contained in the illusory whole, and the illusory whole containing/contained in the illusory fragment. its not an either/or situation.

If so, then this contradicts your earlier statement that "... each fragment contains/reflects the whole..".

[Virgo]

Enough Bob Dylan for tonight.

Kevin

[Sherab]

I am very much interested in dzogchen but I dont understand the relation between the dharmakaya and the individual natural state.

The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

The three kayas have one essence.

The three kayas do not exist apart from the basis.

Sentient beings occur through non-recognition of the basis.

The result does not arise from a cause.

Simple statements but bloody difficult to get your head around them.

[gad rgyangs]

The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

are you an individual? yes
does that mean you and the basis are therefore distinct?

[Sönam]

When not realizing the essence of the appearances of the basis (itself as it is) as they are, then one becomes associated with the unenlightenment of a single self (individual) ... this is how delusion arises.

Sönam

[krodha]

The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

are you an individual? yes
does that mean you and the basis are therefore distinct?

You seem so certain of individuality! Your inquiry is in fact predicated on this certainty which you boldly reinforced by affirming your own initial question. But is individuality inherently so?

[krodha]

I agree with sonam... The manifestation of qualities which appear to be individual in nature are in truth merely an expression and play of 'that'. Only filtered and translated through a veil of delusion born of attachment and aversion. There appears to be distinction, and suffering proliferates from this pseudo-separation. In truth 'what-is' is unborn and timeless. 

[Sherab]

If you hold the position that no one can give you enlightenment/attainments and that enlightenment/attainments is/are to be realized/"attained" by each "person", then there has to be some form of "individuality", don't you think?.

[Pema Rigdzin]

If you hold the position that no one can give you enlightenment/attainments and that enlightenment/attainments is/are to be realized/"attained" by each "person", then there has to be some form of "individuality", don't you think?.

Relatively, in terms of mistaken apprehension, there is individuality - in that dualistic, conceptual context there is reification of self and other and solidification of the concepts "individual" and "all one," supported by the necessary reference points.

In the context of primordial wisdom, the conceptual reference points which "individuality" and "oneness" depend on for their meaning are absent.

[Sherab]

If you hold the position that no one can give you enlightenment/attainments and that enlightenment/attainments is/are to be realized/"attained" by each "person", then there has to be some form of "individuality", don't you think?.

Relatively, in terms of mistaken apprehension, there is individuality - in that dualistic, conceptual context there is reification of self and other and solidification of the concepts "individual" and "all one," supported by the necessary reference points.

In the context of primordial wisdom, the conceptual reference points which "individuality" and "oneness" depend on for their meaning are absent.

So in primordial wisdom, we are just an indistinguishable lump? Are you advocating some form of monism?

[Pema Rigdzin]

If you hold the position that no one can give you enlightenment/attainments and that enlightenment/attainments is/are to be realized/"attained" by each "person", then there has to be some form of "individuality", don't you think?.

Relatively, in terms of mistaken apprehension, there is individuality - in that dualistic, conceptual context there is reification of self and other and solidification of the concepts "individual" and "all one," supported by the necessary reference points.

In the context of primordial wisdom, the conceptual reference points which "individuality" and "oneness" depend on for their meaning are absent.

So in primordial wisdom, we are just an indistinguishable lump? Are you advocating some form of monism?

Of course not, on both counts. I was speaking of complete freedom from conceptual elaboration - no lump, no lack of a lump, nor both or neither. With freedom from conceptual elaboration, what support is their for either monism or dualism, entitities or the concept "lack of entities"?

[Sönam]

What is the relation between the individual natural state and the dharmakaya?

The dharmakaya is the intrinsic awareness unstained by samsara. It is dwelling at the basis with the characteristics of essence, nature, and compassion. The dwelling place of primordial wisdom (Tathagatagarbha) is the dharmakaya.

Sönam

[Mr. G]

Topic Split: The Lack of Cause and Result in Dzogchen

[Malcolm]

The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

are you an individual? yes
does that mean you and the basis are therefore distinct?

Imputing ignorance [kun brtags ma rig pa] reifies the basis as a self and an other. This ignorance does not exist in the basis, has never existed in the basis and will never exist in the basis. Nevertheless, the basis, nature, essence and compassion, serve as its cause in the sense that it is the basis which is reified. However, the basis itself is free from reification and therefore any sort of enumeration. Even the notion of three wisdoms of essence, nature and compassion is merely a way of talking about the basis which in fact has one essence.

Individuals occur because the basis was not recognized at the beginning of the eon, when the neutral awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan, jñāvyakrta] in the basis became conscioussness [rnam shes, vijñāna] through not recognizing the basis as its own state due to the imputing ignorance mentioned above. When that nuetral awareness recognizes the basis as its own display, it becomes prajñā [shes rab] through knowing [rig pa, vidyā] the basis as its own display, there is effortless buddhahood in the state of realization called "Samantabhadra".

Sentient beings in others words are merely a continuation of ignorance about our own true state.

The answer of course is that inviduals are neither the same nor different than the basis. If they were the same, the basis would afflicted, if they were utterly different, sentient beings could not becomes buddhas through recognizing the basis as their own state.

Also bear in mind that the term "basis" is applied to the three wisdoms because they have not been realized. When the three wisdoms are realized, then they are termed the fruit and one rests on the stage of great original purity, uttarajñāna, highest wisdom.

N


N

[gad rgyangs]

Individuals occur because the basis was not recognized at the beginning of the eon, when the neutral awareness [shes pa lung ma bstan, jñāvyakrta] in the basis became conscioussness [rnam shes, vijñāna] through not recognizing the basis as its own state due to the imputing ignorance mentioned above. When that nuetral awareness recognizes the basis as its own display, it becomes prajñā [shes rab] through knowing [rig pa, vidyā] the basis as its own display, there is effortless buddhahood in the state of realization called "Samantabhadra".

here you are already describing this "basis" as a sentient being who, possessing "neutral awareness", either recognizes or doesn't recognize its own state. if what makes a sentient being a sentient being is "its" non-recognition of its own state, then this implies that the sentient being exists first, and then fails to recognize its state, which results in it being a sentient being, which is a circular regress. otherwise, how would the non-recognition ever take place at all? all this talk is of an agent who recognizes or doesn't recognize, so my question is "who is this agent who exists prior to the recognition/non-recognition and then either recognizes or does not recognize"?

[Malcolm]

then this implies that the sentient being exists first, and then fails to recognize its state, which results in it being a sentient being, which is a circular regress.

Yes.

As I have stated elsewhere, Dzogchen cosmology is just a minor variation on the standard abhidharma cosmology. In Abhidharmakośa, at the end of the eon, all sentient beings are reborn in the two upper form realms, where their minds are in a state of dharmatā. After twenty anatarakalpas, intermediate eons, because of traces of latent afflictions, the air mandala forms and so on, resulting in a container universe which is repopulated by sentient beings who take birth in it from top to bottom.

In Dzogchen, at the end of the previous mahākalpa, all sentient beings attain "buddhahood" after taking birth in the Kalavinkaloka. Then after twenty thousand eons while samsara and nirvana does not appear (this is called the bardo (antara) of samsara and nirvana in dzogchen texts), because of the lingering traces of affliction and action left over from the last eon, the basis becomes stirred, the five lights shine out and there is a chance for recognition or non-recognition by the neutral awareness(es) that is/are obscured by the innate ignorance of mere non-recognition while the basis is in a latent state. Depending on the fact of recognition or non-recognition, there is Samantabhadra and sentient beings.

Thus, we understand that the basis has two phases, active and latent. During the bardo of samsara and nirvana, it is in a latent phase.

N

[Pero]

Dharmakāya isn't real.

It also isn't present in all things.
I think in English we could perhaps say that our dharmakayas are equal (instead of the same), no?

Why isn't it present in all things?

Because it is only present in those that have a mind - sentient beings.

[gad rgyangs]

As I have stated elsewhere, Dzogchen cosmology is just a minor variation on the standard abhidharma cosmology. In Abhidharmakośa, at the end of the eon, all sentient beings are reborn in the two upper form realms, where their minds are in a state of dharmatā. After twenty anatarakalpas, intermediate eons, because of traces of latent afflictions, the air mandala forms and so on, resulting in a container universe which is repopulated by sentient beings who take birth in it from top to bottom.

In Dzogchen, at the end of the previous mahākalpa, all sentient beings attain "buddhahood" after taking birth in the Kalavinkaloka. Then after twenty thousand eons while samsara and nirvana does not appear (this is called the bardo (antara) of samsara and nirvana in dzogchen texts), because of the lingering traces of affliction and action left over from the last eon, the basis becomes stirred, the five lights shine out and there is a chance for recognition or non-recognition by the neutral awareness(es) that is/are obscured by the innate ignorance of mere non-recognition while the basis is in a latent state. Depending on the fact of recognition or non-recognition, there is Samantabhadra and sentient beings.

Thus, we understand that the basis has two phases, active and latent. During the bardo of samsara and nirvana, it is in a latent phase.

N

sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava. if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case?