Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology

[Josef]

The rest of our bodies are connected to the brain via the nervous system.
One of the major flaws in how we interpret awareness in a western scientific sense is that we make a distinction between the brain and the nervous system. They are clearly functioning in tandem.
This idea frees awareness from the confines of the skull and integrates it into the entire body.
When we understand that our experience is completely integrated we will have an easier time understanding the three vajras and how we can then take that integration and apply it to what we perceive as the outer environment do to karmic vision.

[Paul]

The rest of our bodies are connected to the brain via the nervous system.
One of the major flaws in how we interpret awareness in a western scientific sense is that we make a distinction between the brain and the nervous system. They are clearly functioning in tandem.
This idea frees awareness from the confines of the skull and integrates it into the entire body.
When we understand that our experience is completely integrated we will have an easier time understanding the three vajras and how we can then take that integration and apply it to what we perceive as the outer environment do to karmic vision.

We actually asked Dr. Antonova about that exact thing. There's a lot of talking in Dzogchen that rigpa resides in the heart. She said that it'd be great to do a full body scan to see how resting in rigpa effects the whole body's nervous system. Of course that's far easier said than done. I don't even know if a machine exists that is big enough to be capable of taking a 'live' recording of the whole nervous system. So far they're just big enough for your head, as far as I know.

The change from experiencing your mind in your skull and experiencing it in your heart centre is a verity interesting development for a meditator - it indicates the force of one's meditation. From a western physiological point of view I guess it's caused by the cessation of the medial prefrontal cortex being so active and so the rest of the body and nervous system gets to play more of a role. Not sure about the traditional view regarding the winds.

[Andrew108]

The awareness in Dzogchen is different since it is not a manifestation of brain-based or nervous system activity. It's outside of time. Any awareness in our nervous system or brain is temporal and conditioned. When spontaneous presence (lhundrub) is talked of, one of it's qualities is that it is seen as unborn and outside of a temporal realization. I have had lots of doubts about this issue, but seem to have cleared them up at the moment. One great textural source for overcoming doubts is Longchenpa. Amazing Longchen Rabjam quotes from the 'Cutting Through the Three Times' by Garab Dorje (in the section discussing spontaneous presence):

''What is meaningful about awakened mind is that it is unborn.
It's unborn nature is spontaneously present.
The unborn essence is indeterminate.
What is meaningful about what is unborn is that it does not come into existence,
So the unborn, since it has never come into existence, is free of any time frame with beginning or end.'' p186 The precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding.

[asunthatneversets]

The awareness in Dzogchen is different since it is not a manifestation of brain-based or nervous system activity. It's outside of time. Any awareness in our nervous system or brain is temporal and conditioned. When spontaneous presence (lhundrub) is talked of, one of it's qualities is that it is seen as unborn and outside of a temporal realization. I have had lots of doubts about this issue, but seem to have cleared them up at the moment. One great textural source for overcoming doubts is Longchenpa. Amazing Longchen Rabjam quotes from the 'Cutting Through the Three Times' by Garab Dorje (in the section discussing spontaneous presence):

''What is meaningful about awakened mind is that it is unborn.
It's unborn nature is spontaneously present.
The unborn essence is indeterminate.
What is meaningful about what is unborn is that it does not come into existence,
So the unborn, since it has never come into existence, is free of any time frame with beginning or end.'' p186 The precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding.

The awareness in Dzogchen is not different, it is this very awareness (although awareness isn't an accurate word in my opinion). The problem is that we misunderstand the nature of this awareness and mistakenly take it to be something it isn't. There isn't a brain-based awareness and then another separate one which has yet to be attained, if that was the case then buddhahood would be temporal (since it was something gained it could also be lost). Buddhahood is innate and atemporal just as this presence is innate and atemporal, neither are subject to cause and effect. The idea that there is anything existing (including an awareness) which is temporal is a product of misunderstanding. Lhungrub is an innate and natural quality/attribute of this present wakefulness, and the removal of ignorance only allows it to shine in it's fullness.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification....
- Samantabhadra

[greentreee]

The awareness in Dzogchen is different since it is not a manifestation of brain-based or nervous system activity. It's outside of time. Any awareness in our nervous system or brain is temporal and conditioned. When spontaneous presence (lhundrub) is talked of, one of it's qualities is that it is seen as unborn and outside of a temporal realization. I have had lots of doubts about this issue, but seem to have cleared them up at the moment. One great textural source for overcoming doubts is Longchenpa. Amazing Longchen Rabjam quotes from the 'Cutting Through the Three Times' by Garab Dorje (in the section discussing spontaneous presence):

''What is meaningful about awakened mind is that it is unborn.
It's unborn nature is spontaneously present.
The unborn essence is indeterminate.
What is meaningful about what is unborn is that it does not come into existence,
So the unborn, since it has never come into existence, is free of any time frame with beginning or end.'' p186 The precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding.

The awareness in Dzogchen is not different, it is this very awareness (although awareness isn't an accurate word in my opinion). The problem is that we misunderstand the nature of this awareness and mistakenly take it to be something it isn't. There isn't a brain-based awareness and then another separate one which has yet to be attained, if that was the case then buddhahood would be temporal (since it was something gained it could also be lost). Buddhahood is innate and atemporal just as this presence is innate and atemporal, neither are subject to cause and effect. The idea that there is anything existing (including an awareness) which is temporal is a product of misunderstanding. Lhungrub is an innate and natural quality/attribute of this present wakefulness, and the removal of ignorance only allows it to shine in it's fullness.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification....
- Samantabhadra

first off, regarding the samatabhadra quote, what is it's source? next, i think the translation has a minor flaw...where? so far i can see is in it's incompleteness.
again "gnostic" isn't really a specific term either, since it pertains to "knowledge, particularly esoteric knowledge" , it has a definition but it's rooted in another language with terminology that may or may not obscure the original terms used to describe that which the translator attempted to, fill the void, so to speak. and yes i do consider dzogchen to be a form of esoteric buddhism.

but to the other quoted text. there are two levels of awareness, according to the mind only school. there is the perceived and perceiving portions of our thought process. the perceiving can perceive the perceived, but teh perceived cannot perceive the perceiving. sort of like hind sight! you can't see what your seeing with what youve seen, you only see with what you see with, and the mind attempts to associate the objects and forms as they appear, and associations form. once the mind starts associating, then the perceived portion of the brain begins to work in conjunction with the perceiving. kind of like if you were to do something for the first time and there is no knowledge to rely on, but the second time around, the brain is using what it has already learned, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

i'm not good at grammar but i think i got the tenses right! in essence i think what that means is that we can see what we've seen, but what we've seen can't see! ha, i'm going to start sounding like a crazy madhyamaka soon! i joke

[asunthatneversets]

The awareness in Dzogchen is different since it is not a manifestation of brain-based or nervous system activity. It's outside of time. Any awareness in our nervous system or brain is temporal and conditioned. When spontaneous presence (lhundrub) is talked of, one of it's qualities is that it is seen as unborn and outside of a temporal realization. I have had lots of doubts about this issue, but seem to have cleared them up at the moment. One great textural source for overcoming doubts is Longchenpa. Amazing Longchen Rabjam quotes from the 'Cutting Through the Three Times' by Garab Dorje (in the section discussing spontaneous presence):

''What is meaningful about awakened mind is that it is unborn.
It's unborn nature is spontaneously present.
The unborn essence is indeterminate.
What is meaningful about what is unborn is that it does not come into existence,
So the unborn, since it has never come into existence, is free of any time frame with beginning or end.'' p186 The precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding.

The awareness in Dzogchen is not different, it is this very awareness (although awareness isn't an accurate word in my opinion). The problem is that we misunderstand the nature of this awareness and mistakenly take it to be something it isn't. There isn't a brain-based awareness and then another separate one which has yet to be attained, if that was the case then buddhahood would be temporal (since it was something gained it could also be lost). Buddhahood is innate and atemporal just as this presence is innate and atemporal, neither are subject to cause and effect. The idea that there is anything existing (including an awareness) which is temporal is a product of misunderstanding. Lhungrub is an innate and natural quality/attribute of this present wakefulness, and the removal of ignorance only allows it to shine in it's fullness.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification....
- Samantabhadra

first off, regarding the samatabhadra quote, what is it's source?

Keith Dowman's translation of Longchen Rabjam's Treasury Of Natural Perfection, although I don't know if this excerpt is part of the original text, Dowman added it in the commentary to make a point regarding the innate completeness of the great perfection.

next, i think the translation has a minor flaw...where? so far i can see is in it's incompleteness.

This is the text, it is accurate in what I was attempting to convey, complete or incomplete.

The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence -
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.

My nature is like elemental space
(that all-applicable simile):
we exist in pure space, so we need not strive for it;
we exist as pure space, so space is all our striving;
and all-creating space transcends any exertion.
Pure mind, the ubiquitous essence, is like that,
so transcending all cognitive activity
I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts.
- Samantabhadra

again "gnostic" isn't really a specific term either, since it pertains to "knowledge, particularly esoteric knowledge" , it has a definition but it's rooted in another language with terminology that may or may not obscure the original terms used to describe that which the translator attempted to, fill the void, so to speak. and yes i do consider dzogchen to be a form of esoteric buddhism.

Yes the term "gnostic" has been discussed on this forum, some agree with you that it doesn't accurately represent the intended meaning. I'm merely writing what is there.

but to the other quoted text. there are two levels of awareness, according to the mind only school. there is the perceived and perceiving portions of our thought process. the perceiving can perceive the perceived, but teh perceived cannot perceive the perceiving. sort of like hind sight! you can't see what your seeing with what youve seen, you only see with what you see with, and the mind attempts to associate the objects and forms as they appear, and associations form. once the mind starts associating, then the perceived portion of the brain begins to work in conjunction with the perceiving. kind of like if you were to do something for the first time and there is no knowledge to rely on, but the second time around, the brain is using what it has already learned, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

This isn't the mind only school. None of that applies.

i'm not good at grammar but i think i got the tenses right! in essence i think what that means is that we can see what we've seen, but what we've seen can't see! ha, i'm going to start sounding like a crazy madhyamaka soon! i joke

I would not interpret it as meaning that, I don't think it's attempting to say that at all, but you're welcome to your opinion.

[Andrew108]

So in what sense can Rigpa be said to be brain-based? Or not. Plain language please.

[Josef]

So in what sense can Rigpa be said to be brain-based? Or not. Plain language please.

Well, rigpa is knowledge of the natural state.
I guess our recollection of experience is brain/mind based but the actual experience is not.

[Paul]

So in what sense can Rigpa be said to be brain-based? Or not. Plain language please.

For what it's worth, I don't believe either the mind or rigpa to be caused by the brain, as per a completely physicalist point of view. But I also think that it's clearly incorrect to say that they are not intimately connected.

[greentreee]

This is the text, it is accurate in what I was attempting to convey, complete or incomplete.

The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence -
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.

My nature is like elemental space
(that all-applicable simile):
we exist in pure space, so we need not strive for it;
we exist as pure space, so space is all our striving;
and all-creating space transcends any exertion.
Pure mind, the ubiquitous essence, is like that,
so transcending all cognitive activity
I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts.
- Samantabhadra

again "gnostic" isn't really a specific term either, since it pertains to "knowledge, particularly esoteric knowledge" , it has a definition but it's rooted in another language with terminology that may or may not obscure the original terms used to describe that which the translator attempted to, fill the void, so to speak. and yes i do consider dzogchen to be a form of esoteric buddhism.

Yes the term "gnostic" has been discussed on this forum, some agree with you that it doesn't accurately represent the intended meaning. I'm merely writing what is there.

but to the other quoted text. there are two levels of awareness, according to the mind only school. there is the perceived and perceiving portions of our thought process. the perceiving can perceive the perceived, but teh perceived cannot perceive the perceiving. sort of like hind sight! you can't see what your seeing with what youve seen, you only see with what you see with, and the mind attempts to associate the objects and forms as they appear, and associations form. once the mind starts associating, then the perceived portion of the brain begins to work in conjunction with the perceiving. kind of like if you were to do something for the first time and there is no knowledge to rely on, but the second time around, the brain is using what it has already learned, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

This isn't the mind only school. None of that applies.

i'm not good at grammar but i think i got the tenses right! in essence i think what that means is that we can see what we've seen, but what we've seen can't see! ha, i'm going to start sounding like a crazy madhyamaka soon! i joke

I would not interpret it as meaning that, I don't think it's attempting to say that at all, but you're welcome to your opinion.

Hi! thanks for the full translation. i have no authority to speak on such things, regarding it's validity. it may be close. again, i just may have a different view on such, translated texts. i could be my interpretation. at this point in time i'm not about to criticize in here.

[Clarence]

Without being critical about the brain research, it always makes me worry that it reduces everything to being a result of certain processes in the brain. What then is the use of practicing at all if we can just use a tuning fork to get the same results? I am asking this sincerely btw, not to put down the research or the people posting the research.

Malcolm could probably explain this but I guess it would have something to do with the fact that while the brain is certainly important, in Dzogchen it is not the only part of the body contributing to your mind and hence anything affecting solely the brain cannot really bring complete realization.

Thanks Sherlock. I guess I just don't know enough about neurological reseearch to make any educated guesses, let alone draw proper conclusions about their relationship. Other people seem to have read more about this stuff and know a lot more about it than I do.
It just seems like materialism from my POV. How can being intimately linked or how can realization be dependent on the body be anything other than materialism? I guess I don't understand how that works. If Rigpa is dependent on the body, then if the body is gone, what happens to Rigpa?

[Paul]

It just seems like materialism from my POV. How can being intimately linked or how can realization be dependent on the body be anything other than materialism? I guess I don't understand how that works. If Rigpa is dependent on the body, then if the body is gone, what happens to Rigpa?

As described by Malcolm over a long time, and as can be seen from that quote by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzogchen is very materialistic. Even buddhas are said to have a very, very subtle body.

If a person does not have any kind of experience with Dzogchen, when they die they don't recognise rigpa and their dualistic mind creates a new subtle material body that continues through the bardo. They then gain a new body in one of the six realms.

If they recognise the display of the bardo of dharmata to be their own display, they are liberated. Being liberated in the bardo is much easier as rigpa is much easier to recognise because of the nature of the body - it doesn't 'weigh you down' as much as a gross physical body with its channels and winds. Practices like togal and yangti etc. use the body to overcome this limitation, though. This is why most practitioners who gain liberation do it in the bardo, not while they have a human body.

I really recommend reading through all of Malcolm's posts on this issue to clarify things.

[asunthatneversets]

It just seems like materialism from my POV. How can being intimately linked or how can realization be dependent on the body be anything other than materialism? I guess I don't understand how that works. If Rigpa is dependent on the body, then if the body is gone, what happens to Rigpa?

As described by Malcolm over a long time, and as can be seen from that quote by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzogchen is very materialistic.

Not at all. The solidity of one's experience is congruent to the solidity of one's ignorance.

If a person does not have any kind of experience with Dzogchen, when they die they don't recognise rigpa and their dualistic mind creates a new subtle material body that continues through the bardo. They then gain a new body in one of the six realms.

The dualistic mind has created this present body as well. This body is a product of ignorance.

If they recognise the display of the bardo of dharmata to be their own display, they are liberated. Being liberated in the bardo is much easier as rigpa is much easier to recognise because of the nature of the body - it doesn't 'weigh you down' as much as a gross physical body with its channels and winds. Practices like togal and yangti etc. use the body to overcome this limitation, though. This is why most practitioners who gain liberation do it in the bardo, not while they have a human body.

Physicality is a misnomer, this body is no more physical than a body in a dream or bardo. It's an appearance like a dream... All limitations are self-inflicted due to habitual tendencies. Thogal and yangti remove doubt/conditioning, what appears to be the transmutation of solid matter into the natural state is merely the removal of ignorance.

I really recommend reading through all of Malcolm's posts on this issue to clarify things.

I do too but I'm not sure if a materialist view is being propagated. I don't discount the fact that gross physicality is unbelievably compelling and seems 100% real but investigate this belief. The body in a dream can also seem very real and subject to compelling experiences.

[Paul]

It just seems like materialism from my POV. How can being intimately linked or how can realization be dependent on the body be anything other than materialism? I guess I don't understand how that works. If Rigpa is dependent on the body, then if the body is gone, what happens to Rigpa?

As described by Malcolm over a long time, and as can be seen from that quote by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzogchen is very materialistic.

Not at all. The solidity of one's experience is congruent to the solidity of one's ignorance.

What I meant is that it's materialistic in the sense it's not Cartesian or idealist, quite different to a lot of other Buddhist views - but it's very clearly not at all realist. You seem to think I have a weird realist view of things, which I don't.

[asunthatneversets]

As described by Malcolm over a long time, and as can be seen from that quote by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzogchen is very materialistic.

Not at all. The solidity of one's experience is congruent to the solidity of one's ignorance.

What I meant is that it's materialistic in the sense it's not Cartesian or idealist, quite different to a lot of other Buddhist views - but it's very clearly not at all realist. You seem to think I have a weird realist view of things, which I don't.

Oh ok, I'm still not sure about the term "materialistic" what attracts you to that term? I don't think you have a weird realist view, I try to avoid putting people into boxes like that. Maybe it was the way you worded what you said, but it sounded like you were implying that we're stuck with these gross physical bodies which are almost cage-like to the point that they're a burden to work with. Such a suggestion would give the wrong impression to those seeking to establish correct view in my opinion.

[Paul]

Oh ok, I'm still not sure about the term "materialistic" what attracts you to that term?

Dzogchens unique approach to what matter is, ie the quasi-panpsychism type view that Malcolm has been explaining for some time with his quotes from the Dzogchen tantras. Also, from a practical point of view, that the winds, channels and drops have a profound influence on our mind and ability to experience rigpa (which is the kind of thing that made me start this thread)

sounded like you were implying that we're stuck with these gross physical bodies which are almost cage-like to the point that they're a burden to work with. Such a suggestion would give the wrong impression to those seeking to establish correct view in my opinion.

I have read and also had it explained to me that the body can be something of an impediment to realisation because of its nature - something that isn't a problem in the bardo, where the body is of a different, subtle nature - hence one of the side effects being that the mind is much clearer there. I will look for some more info in my books, recordings and notes - that'll take time, though.

[Malcolm]

I really recommend reading through all of Malcolm's posts on this issue to clarify things.

I do too but I'm not sure if a materialist view is being propagated. I don't discount the fact that gross physicality is unbelievably compelling and seems 100% real but investigate this belief. The body in a dream can also seem very real and subject to compelling experiences.

The five elements form out of the five light of the wisdom of rigpa under the influence of ignorance. Everything is made out of the five elements. The division between sentient and non-sentient appears, but do not believe in it.

[Clarence]

So, one uses Thogal to bring the 5 elements back to the 5 lights?

[Malcolm]

So, one uses Thogal to bring the 5 elements back to the 5 lights?

When one has eliminated the tracesof afflcition and action in one's own five elements ones body reverts to its original state as five lights, hence "The body of light".

[Clarence]

So, one uses Thogal to bring the 5 elements back to the 5 lights?

When one has eliminated the tracesof afflcition and action in one's own five elements ones body reverts to its original state as five lights, hence "The body of light".

And one uses Thogal to accomplish that?