Dharma Wheel

Why chase after thoughts, which are superficial ripples of present awareness? Rather look directly into the naked, empty nature of thoughts; then there is no duality, no observer, and nothing observed. Simply rest in this transparent, nondual present awareness. Make yourself at home in the natural state of pure presence, just being, not doing anything in particular. ~ Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche

yeshe

looking into the empty nature of thoughts does not reveal the sameness of all things/objects. their non duality can only be seen after extinction of the relative little flame of ego, and then on through the excercise of prajna.

im not sure i understand what Jamgon is trying to say. but in my own experience non duality or sameness of thoughts. their emptiness does not directly reveal non duality of observed objects, except perhaps in a very complicated way... which is not helpful.

on the other hand once ego is gone then basic awareness does reveal non duality, but i would not under nornal circumstances call basic awareness ''thought''.

sorry Jax and Muni for picking up on what i perceive an irregularity in this teaching.

best wishes, Tom.

He is talking about directly seeing the emptiness which is the true nature of all thought, not the philosophical emptiness which is clothed in the convoluted apologies of a scholar.

directly seeing emptiness of thoughts and objects as one is a great attainment, however it is not intuitively one i would point towards. thoughts need a lot of work before one can see their emptiness, in someways they are more substantial than objects.

White Lotus, I would recommend more shamatha. Examine the origin, abiding and cessation of thoughts until their emptiness is obvious. It doesn't take any work or effort as thoughts are primordially devoid of independent or inherent existence. They always self-liberate immediately upon the arising. They never attain to the status of being an existing entity. The emptiness of objects is their emptiness based on the emptiness of the thoughts that conceive them. Without thoughts or concepts, independently and inherently existing objects can't be found. This is easily seen upon applying the dialectics of Madhyamaka regarding inherently existent independent objects. Or you could also enter the samadhi of nirvikalpum and discover this non-conceptually. For that shamatha must be perfected.

White Lotus wrote:directly seeing emptiness of thoughts and objects as one is a great attainment, however it is not intuitively one i would point towards. thoughts need a lot of work before one can see their emptiness, in someways they are more substantial than objects.

He didn't speak about objects because from Yogacara everything is mind so objects are not the concern, only thoughts.
Its like talking of bubbles to a bird. They might be a concern for fish but not for birds, unless these silly birds stick their beaks into the water of ontological speculation, which they probably wouldn't. So it seems the yogi has much in common with the bird.

to directly see the emptiness of thoughts one must compare the thoughts to ones own nature. it is possible to speculate that thoughts are non abiding, impermanent and therefore empty, however to directly see that thoughts are empty there must be a comparison with the emptiness of own nature within.

one does not see non duality unless one compares an object with the own nature within. it is then seen that subject within and object without are one. the reference point is own nature, not thoughts. one does not compare objects with thoughts to see non duality. one compares objects with own nature. it all comes back to seeing own nature.

if i use thoughts as a reference point, it is less intuitive than useing own nature as the reference point that shows me non duality. i still dont understand Jamgons using thoughts as the reference point for seeing non duality/emptiness... for me that just is counter intuitive and seems to be missing the main issue which is to use seeing of own nature as the source of all prajna/wisdom seeing.

there is reference to ''being'' in Jamgons statement. however i do wonder from his wording whether he actually saw the inner nature of that being, beyond speculation about thoughts and their non-duality.

yes, everything is non dual, but the reference point from which all things are seen as nondual is the own nature, not thoughts. did Jamgon talk about nature, or was his thing 'being'. it makes me wonder whether he had direct seeing of his own nature. if this were the case he would be a bodhisattva and not a buddha.

in the nirvanah sutra we are told that even a tenth bhumi bodisava does not see his own nature clearly.

it is important to question the teachers and not to accept everything they say as a given, even a teacher as great as Jamgon should be questioned.

thank you jax for the compassionate advice to practice shamatha.

thank you maybay for pointing out the yogacara view, however i would say that thoughts are objects and can be directly seen as empty objects with practice. it is true from a yogacara view that there is only mind that the mind is a non duality. some are against talk of subject and object since the two are seen as only mind, but in trying to understand jamgon i need to refer to subject and object. also from my own experience subject and object do exist. i am not a nihilist. they may be empty, but they still can be distinguished.

once again, muni, teacher my apologies for nit picking a well formulated statement by Jamgon. my respect for you will always remain.

best wishes, Tom.

White Lotus wrote:it is important to question the teachers and not to accept everything they say as a given, even a teacher as great as Jamgon should be questioned.

Questioning comes after listening Tom. If there is so much in his quote you find to disagree with, perhaps you need to step back and get some perspective on just who he is and what is this ocean of a legacy he left for you to know him by.

White Lotus wrote:to directly see the emptiness of thoughts one must compare the thoughts to ones own nature. it is possible to speculate that thoughts are non abiding, impermanent and therefore empty, however to directly see that thoughts are empty there must be a comparison with the emptiness of own nature within.

Not so, Tom. All of this "comparison" you talk of is conceptual. "Directly seeing" is not.

When Kongtrul talks about this method or technique, he's not talking about any "reference point," whether it be "thoughts," or "own nature." Those "differentiations" are concepts of your own making, elaborations which completely miss the point of Kongtrul's profound instruction.

conebeckham wrote:

White Lotus wrote:to directly see the emptiness of thoughts one must compare the thoughts to ones own nature. it is possible to speculate that thoughts are non abiding, impermanent and therefore empty, however to directly see that thoughts are empty there must be a comparison with the emptiness of own nature within.

Not so, Tom. All of this "comparison" you talk of is conceptual. "Directly seeing" is not.

When Kongtrul talks about this method or technique, he's not talking about any "reference point," whether it be "thoughts," or "own nature." Those "differentiations" are concepts of your own making, elaborations which completely miss the point of Kongtrul's profound instruction.

Exactly right...

i will continue to practice and perhaps one day will see things as they truly are.

best wishes, Tom.

ps i appreciate the balanced responses here.

Tom... Yes, at least some balance. It seems there is similarity between some positions here as expressed in "The Great Debate" at Samye in Tibet in the 800's (if it actually occurred!). The debate centered between the "sudden" or "all at once school" of the Chan school and the "gradual approach" of Kamalasila. Dzogchen would fall much more in the "sudden" approach because at "direct introduction" a sudden and profound insight into the true Nature of Being occurs. That's a major part of the differences expressed here. For others the "lineage transmission" is the important topic. For me the topic is transmission of insight, not it's mode. Is real transmission occurring, meaning that lineage students are all realizing Rigpa... Is that happening? Rarely... So I recommend a more direct, focused approach... More intimate: one on one, as done in Tibet in the old days. That lineage style worked then. We can do better... Perhaps the new young Lamas will recognize the loss of intimacy between teacher and student and will propose improvements. The giant retreat mode is not doing the job, in my opinion... (having attended many).

Jax wrote:Tom... Yes, at least some balance. It seems there is similarity between some positions here as expressed in "The Great Debate" at Samye in Tibet in the 800's (if it actually occurred!). The debate centered between the "sudden" or "all at once school" of the Chan school and the "gradual approach" of Kamalasila.

This solely concerned sutrayāna teachings and had nothing to do with Varjayāna. In his seminal Lamp of the Eye of Concentration, Nubchen clarifies that even though Mahāyoga is "gradual" is still superior to Chan because of the presence of introduction in Mahāyoga and its absence in Chan. Of course, Dzogchen is yet again superior to Mahāyoga, etc.

Nam, Nubs was wrong. He didn't realize that Chan realization is Mahamudra and trekchod, realizing kadag. Boy, you don't read my posts. I explained that earlier. Nubs should have stayed within his own knowledge base.

Jax wrote:Nam, Nubs was wrong. He didn't realize that Chan realization is Mahamudra and trekchod, realizing kadag. Boy, you don't read my posts. I explained that earlier.

Realization of Chan, Mahāmudra, and Dzogchen are all the same. The length of time it takes to gain that realization is what makes the distinction.

Your concept of ka dag is a bit limited though. Kadag is not simply emptiness, though it has been dumbed down in that way for people like you.

Nubs should have stayed within his own knowledge base.

Nonsense, Nubchen had personal experience of Chan.

The giant retreat mode is not doing the job, in my opinion... (having attended many).

Why do you harbor this opinion, Jax? Is it because you went to retreats where there were a bunch of people and it was hard to decipher the meaning of what was being taught?

Or is it because you've talked to other folks who have made this complaint?

Or - is it something that you're assuming about the state of other's experience.

You're uniquely qualified to comment if we're talking about the first instance - but I don't want to assume - so I'm asking why you're making this assertion - i.e. - That the current mode of dissemination of the teachings is inadequate, and that you are qualified to improve upon it.

I'm genuinely curious to hear the reasons you're making this assertion.

Cap'n, ask around to people who had either large retreat "direct introduction" or webcast. Ask them if they experienced the non-dual Rigpa. In Tibet the populace came to Dzogchen masters for a "blessing", they weren't seriously engaged as practitioners (per Norbu). Real practitioners met in private for the Tsal Wang and other forms of "direct introduction". You need almost daily contact with a teacher until the retreat practice is completed as well as afterward. I know many people , for many years... As Tenzin Wangyal said "only about 1% of disciples will recognize actual rigpa". To me that id unacceptable, it's not that difficult when one on one instruction is available easily, lineage or not. Senior students have the same capacity if they have really "recognized".

Jax wrote:Cap'n, ask around to people who had either large retreat "direct introduction" or webcast. Ask them if they experienced the non-dual Rigpa. In Tibet the populace came to Dzogchen masters for a "blessing", they weren't seriously engaged as practitioners (per Norbu). Real practitioners met in private for the Tsal Wang and other forms of "direct introduction". You need almost daily contact with a teacher until the retreat practice is completed as well as afterward. I know many people , for many years... As Tenzin Wangyal said "only about 1% of disciples will recognize actual rigpa". To me that id unacceptable, it's not that difficult when one on one instruction is available easily, lineage or not. Senior students have the same capacity if they have really "recognized".

Jax, you have no idea what rigpa is. Just admit it, come clean man.

N

You are exactly right Namdrol, I have no "idea" what Rigpa is. There you have it, I came clean man. And I also know, you have only "ideas" about what Rigpa is. I have never been able to capture Rigpa as an idea.