The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya

[Malcolm]

No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)]

this is the actual definition of svabhava.

There is no diversity in a svābhāva. There is diversity in lhun grub. This is the reason why ka dag is termed ngo bo, or svabhāva; while lhun grub is termed prakriti or rang bzhin.
N

[PadmaVonSamba]

The clear luminosity of person A would be the same clear luminosity of person B.
It's like 2 people wearing blindfolds in a brightly lit room, and then taking the blindfolds off.
they both experience the same light.
Even if A & B continue to have differentiating mental or physical characteristics,
these individual traits do not contradict the oneness of realization
because both are included in it.
A & B both see the individual characteristics as mere appearances,
as manifestations of dharmakaya
and so those appearances do not create obstacles to realization.

This is somewhat similar to the Theist view that all phenomena are aspects of Brahma
except that instead of a personification,
all phenomena are simply aspects of the same overall truth.
Everything is included in an infinite reality.

It's like talking about the properties of fire.
It produces light, it produces heat, it can spread, it can be contained, it can be easily extinguished, it can be difficult to extinguish. it can have different colors, it can help, it can hurt, and so forth. But these characteristics, although sometimes seemingly contradictory and individual traits, are actually all manifestations of the same fire.
Whether a fire hurts you or helps you, meaning whether it is good or bad,
that depends on your temporary situation. It doesn't change the nature of fire.

So, the infinite truth of things is expressed as finite (individual) characteristics
based on the projections of the unawakened mind.
and the projections of unawakened mind arise due to temporary conditions
and the temporary conditions arise due to karma.

Now, the question might come up,
If the (individual) thinker is, after all, just a thought (a projection of mind), who is thinking it?

is that what you are asking?
.
.
.(By the way, I may be totally wrong.)
.
.
.

[Sönam]

What causes the difference is the differentiation ... meditation/meditator, observation/observator, and so on. If the differentiation disappears, it remains sameness ... one then experimentes it's the same.

Sönam

[asunthatneversets]

For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.

Ooooohhhh, you will be surprised. I had been hearing from Zen people that trees, grass and stones can get enlightened. Whether this POV is purely a Zen koan or they actually believe in it, is still a mystery........at least to me.

I had been around Zen people for a long time, and the only similar teaching I heard was: "Everything is already enlightened, including trees, etc." This is a symbolic way to say that everything is good as it is, the root of confusion lies in our mind. But when it comes to "attaining" enlightenment, it requires a mind, which pebbles and trees lack of.

Also one of the nyams of their practice or realization is that everything around them comes alive... Chairs, rocks, the ground, the sky etc.. Everything feels like ones own body feels right now.. Which is naturally because everything is a manifestation of ones own nature and that is a direct experiencing of that. But not everyone has that nyam.

[Pero]

For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.

Its more akin to an analogy of the ocean and it's waves. For the sake of the discussion say the waves could bare sentience. Each wave would only see itself as a wave and remain ignorant of the ocean it's inseparable from. At some point a wave would realize it's part of the entire ocean and was never separate to begin with. But the other waves still under the impression of their sole existence would say "cool man but that's just your realization it doesn't belong to me" it's fundamentally a failure to let go of conditioned views which have become so engrained they seem 100% rational in contrast to this other perspective which is also true... In fact "more true" but is seen as utterly counterintuitive.

Sounds like Brahman to me.

There seems to be someone else proposing a different point of view. But it's only due to attachment to a current perception that an 'alternate perception' is projected. The rock is not just a rock. If it was... The body would be just as 'lifeless'.

The body is not lifeless precisely because since it has a mind. The rock does not.

[Pero]

How can anything possess dharmakaya?

I'm listening if you have a better way of expressing it.

Dharmakaya isn't possessed.
If anything, you could say that dharmakaya possesses...everything.
It is simply the unobstructed truth, meaning a total summation of everything and the nature of everything,
but it doesn't possess anything either.
When it is said that an individual possesses dharmakaya
it would be better to say that
there is nowhere outside of the ultimate truth about everything
where any individual mind exists.

Do you have a mind, PVS?

[asunthatneversets]

For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.

Its more akin to an analogy of the ocean and it's waves. For the sake of the discussion say the waves could bare sentience. Each wave would only see itself as a wave and remain ignorant of the ocean it's inseparable from. At some point a wave would realize it's part of the entire ocean and was never separate to begin with. But the other waves still under the impression of their sole existence would say "cool man but that's just your realization it doesn't belong to me" it's fundamentally a failure to let go of conditioned views which have become so engrained they seem 100% rational in contrast to this other perspective which is also true... In fact "more true" but is seen as utterly counterintuitive.

Sounds like Brahman to me.

There seems to be someone else proposing a different point of view. But it's only due to attachment to a current perception that an 'alternate perception' is projected. The rock is not just a rock. If it was... The body would be just as 'lifeless'.

The body is not lifeless precisely because since it has a mind. The rock does not.

I wouldn't take the analogy too literally(in a metaphorical sense) or strictly.

And as for the rock; If you insist that's the way it is then only you can allow that view to subside... all I'd ask is you remain open to the possibility. And perhaps do some investigation as to whether the mind is in the body, or the "body" in the mind. Or if either exist at all apart from conventionality, including the rock. I'm not out to convince you of anything. And wouldn't want you to believe me either. Just rest in your uncontrived naturalness and allow your conditioned views and habitual tendencies to exhaust themselves.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The body is not lifeless precisely because since it has a mind. The rock does not.

The human brain is composed of:
Water: 78%
Fat: 11%
Protein:8%
Soluble organic substances: 2%
Inorganic salts: 1%
please tell me, which of these components is conjuring up thoughts?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Do you have a mind, PVS?

I am happy to answer this question, but first please clarify these terms, and tell me precisely what you mean by:
"you"
"have"
and
"mind"

Thank you.

[Pero]

The body is not lifeless precisely because since it has a mind. The rock does not.

The human brain is composed of:
Water: 78%
Fat: 11%
Protein:8%
Soluble organic substances: 2%
Inorganic salts: 1%
please tell me, which of these components is conjuring up thoughts?

Well I suppose it is fruitless to talk to a rock.

I am happy to answer this question, but first please clarify these terms, and tell me precisely what you mean by:
"you"
"have"
and
"mind"

[PadmaVonSamba]

There is a brain, that lives all by itself in a dark little box made of stone (calcium).
There is electrochemical, called neurological activity going on in that brain
just as there are acids churning away in the stomach,
marrow growing in bones,
and various things happening in the liver and kidneys.
Glands shoot up doses of drugs such as adrenaline and pheromones into the blood
and the brain gets a fix.

But who is the one watching this science project take place?
he was here just a second ago, but now there is somebody else here
(although there is a striking similarity between the two!).

The body changes slowly over a lifetime.
The body that came into this world, that baby's body, it died a long time ago,
a slow death, cell by cell.

but the mind is like water gushing from a broken pipe.
If you can catch it and show it to me, please do.

The Dhammapada begins with these words:
All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts.

So, how can you say "My Body" produce "My Mind" ?
.
.
.

[Pero]

And as for the rock; If you insist that's the way it is then only you can allow that view to subside... all I'd ask is you remain open to the possibility. And perhaps do some investigation as to whether the mind is in the body, or the "body" in the mind. Or if either exist at all apart from conventionality, including the rock. I'm not out to convince you of anything. And wouldn't want you to believe me either. Just rest in your uncontrived naturalness and allow your conditioned views and habitual tendencies to exhaust themselves.

Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. If you think a rock has a mind, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. If you think a rock has a mind, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

how many molecules is in a mind?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. If you think a rock has a mind, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

there are a lot of molecules in a rock.
how many molecules are in a mind?

I am not saying that a rock has a mind.
but if a mineral doesn't have a mind,
then how can something composed of minerals have a mind?

how many non-thinking minerals does it take before they start thinking?

[asunthatneversets]

And as for the rock; If you insist that's the way it is then only you can allow that view to subside... all I'd ask is you remain open to the possibility. And perhaps do some investigation as to whether the mind is in the body, or the "body" in the mind. Or if either exist at all apart from conventionality, including the rock. I'm not out to convince you of anything. And wouldn't want you to believe me either. Just rest in your uncontrived naturalness and allow your conditioned views and habitual tendencies to exhaust themselves.

Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. If you think a rock has a mind, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

Frankly that would be a ludicrous thing to think, which is why I said nothing of the sort.

[Pero]

Uhh I insisted that a rock has no mind, no dharmakaya, is not a sentient being and cannot achieve enlightenment and you proceeded to tell me how my view is conditioned and only I can allow it to subside and to remain open to the possibility etc.

[catmoon]

Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. If you think a rock has a mind, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

there are a lot of molecules in a rock.
how many molecules are in a mind?

I am not saying that a rock has a mind.
but if a mineral doesn't have a mind,
then how can something composed of minerals have a mind?

how many non-thinking minerals does it take before they start thinking?

I'd have to think about that one.

[Acchantika]

Uhh I insisted that a rock has no mind, no dharmakaya, is not a sentient being and cannot achieve enlightenment and you proceeded to tell me how my view is conditioned and only I can allow it to subside and to remain open to the possibility etc.

Dharmakaya pervades everything. If it were multiple and unique, the Buddhist conclusion would be solipsistic, and the Dharmakaya itself would be limited, I think.

As for the elusive rock, Lonchenpa's answer is: "neither mind nor anything but mind".

[PadmaVonSamba]

Uhh I insisted that a rock has no mind, no dharmakaya, is not a sentient being and cannot achieve enlightenment and you proceeded to tell me how my view is conditioned and only I can allow it to subside and to remain open to the possibility etc.

Dharmakaya pervades everything. If it were multiple and unique, the Buddhist conclusion would be solipsistic, and the Dharmakaya itself would be limited, I think.

As for the elusive rock, Lonchenpa's answer is: "neither mind nor anything but mind".

None of the parts of the brain attain enlightenment either.

[catmoon]

None of the parts of the brain attain enlightenment either.

Then what attains enlightenment?