Dharma Wheel

alpha wrote: But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself.

Not sure I understand what you mean here, can you give me an example?

/magnus

heart wrote:

alpha wrote: But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself.

Not sure I understand what you mean here, can you give me an example?

/magnus

The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at.

alpha wrote:The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at.

And if nothing else, gives a hell of a headache

This is the whole point that noone gets e.g. knowing does not need to turn in on itself. This is a hangover from the idea of svasaṃvedana (rang rig) used in Buddhist logic. That step of knowing turning in on itself is not needed, in fact, it is a deviation.

But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself

I have never heard my teachers (ChNN, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa) say anything like this ever

The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at

This phrase "The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at"

The mind looking (A) is the same as the mind being looked at (B)
A=B or, more accurately, B doesn't exist whatsoever except as a reflexive property (deviation) of A looking for itself, which can never happen in the same way as an eyeball, can't see itself.

Is that it?

CapNCrunch wrote:

This is the whole point that noone gets e.g. knowing does not need to turn in on itself. This is a hangover from the idea of svasaṃvedana (rang rig) used in Buddhist logic. That step of knowing turning in on itself is not needed, in fact, it is a deviation.

But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself

I have never heard my teachers (ChNN, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa) say anything like this ever

The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at

This phrase "The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at"

The mind looking (A) is the same as the mind being looked at (B)
A=B or, more accurately, B doesn't exist whatsoever except as a reflexive property (deviation) of A looking for itself, which can never happen in the same way as an eyeball, can't see itself.

Is that it?

Tashi delek,

The mind looking (A) is the same as the mind being looked at (B is based here on dualistic principles which are commonly left aside in case of abiding into the Natural State.

Here the NS is aware of itself and that is called Clear Light of Self-Awareness. This NS cannot appear to thoughts, conciousness and mind.


Further the main point here is that one must undergo an introduction about the knowing of the Natural State.

This contains:
To be introduced to or know the NSis when one can realize what the NS is and one is clearly able to understand what one is knowing and are able to keep it and be familiar with your own Nature; that means you have beeen introduced and realized to one' s own Nature.


Mutsog Marro
KY

CapNCrunch wrote:This phrase "The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at"

The mind looking (A) is the same as the mind being looked at (B)
A=B or, more accurately, B doesn't exist whatsoever except as a reflexive property (deviation) of A looking for itself, which can never happen in the same way as an eyeball, can't see itself.

Is that it?

It doesn't work with eyeball It's more like a lamp that illuminates itself.

CapNCrunch wrote:

This is the whole point that noone gets e.g. knowing does not need to turn in on itself. This is a hangover from the idea of svasaṃvedana (rang rig) used in Buddhist logic. That step of knowing turning in on itself is not needed, in fact, it is a deviation.

But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself

I have never heard my teachers (ChNN, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa) say anything like this ever

The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at

This phrase "The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at"

The mind looking (A) is the same as the mind being looked at (B)
A=B or, more accurately, B doesn't exist whatsoever except as a reflexive property (deviation) of A looking for itself, which can never happen in the same way as an eyeball, can't see itself.

Is that it?

I think there is a dynamic at play when doing this kind of work.There is "this thing" doing "that thing" and then there is something happening as a result.Something like that.
It cant be denied though that there is some kind of doing ,some kind of movement happening. This movement between this and that requires a belief in an existent .Because there is this thing which has to look at that thing.Its still dualistic.And this can lead to some erroneous views.
This is how i see it.

kalden yungdrung wrote:
Tashi delek,

The mind looking (A) is the same as the mind being looked at (B is based here on dualistic principles which are commonly left aside in case of abiding into the Natural State.

Here the NS is aware of itself and that is called Clear Light of Self-Awareness. This NS cannot appear to thoughts, conciousness and mind.


Further the main point here is that one must undergo an introduction about the knowing of the Natural State.

This contains:
To be introduced to or know the NSis when one can realize what the NS is and one is clearly able to understand what one is knowing and are able to keep it and be familiar with your own Nature; that means you have beeen introduced and realized to one' s own Nature.


Mutsog Marro
KY

But in most of the cases "same" sounds improper ... "identical" would fit better ... I guess.

Sönam

Sönam wrote: But in most of the cases "same" sounds improper ... "identical" would fit better ... I guess.

Sönam

Same=identical

Is it not that "same" there is only one, and identical they maybe more than one but they look the same?

Sönam

alpha wrote:

heart wrote:

alpha wrote: But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself.

Not sure I understand what you mean here, can you give me an example?

/magnus

The mind looking at itself is the same mind as the mind that is being looked at.

Well, that is a method not a philosophical statement. The knife can't cut itself and so on cover the philosophical view. However, when a qualified master during pointing-out instructions ask a student to "look inside" that is a method.

"Looking again and again at the mind which cannot be looked at,
The meaning which cannot be seen is vividly seen, just as it is.
Thus cutting doubts about how it is or is not,
May the unconfused genuine self-nature be known by self-nature itself."

The aspiration of Mahamudra by the third Karmapa http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/Aspi ... _Mahamudra" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

/magnus

kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek,

The main method of the Dzogchenpa Master is the introduction into ones Natural State, the start many people here aboard did miss......

Further do we have for Mahamudra topics etc. the Mahamudra sub-forum. This because it is very boring to discuss or compare Mahamudra with / v.s. Dzogchen, in an endless way on Dzogchen forums.


Mutosg Marro
KY

I am not comparing anything Kalden, I am sorry if you find the Mahamudra quote out of context, but the point is exactly the same for Dzogchen;




/magnus

i would say that there is at least one line of instruction which has to be added to the advice written on the picture.
This piece of advice is absolutely fundamental,esential and can make the difference between seeing your nature or remaining fixated in a dualistic kind of way.
So as far as i know and was instructed this is not "the whole picture"

alpha wrote:i would say that there is at least one line of instruction which has to be added to the advice written on the picture.
This piece of advice is absolutely fundamental,esential and can make the difference between seeing your nature or remaining fixated in a dualistic kind of way.
So as far as i know and was instructed this is not "the whole picture"

Tashi delek,

I am curious to see the whole picture here, if possible

Mutsog Marro'
KY

alpha wrote:i would say that there is at least one line of instruction which has to be added to the advice written on the picture.
This piece of advice is absolutely fundamental,esential and can make the difference between seeing your nature or remaining fixated in a dualistic kind of way.
So as far as i know and was instructed this is not "the whole picture"

Whatever you add is just elaborations, it is not in the words you know.

/magnus

heart wrote:

alpha wrote:i would say that there is at least one line of instruction which has to be added to the advice written on the picture.
This piece of advice is absolutely fundamental,esential and can make the difference between seeing your nature or remaining fixated in a dualistic kind of way.
So as far as i know and was instructed this is not "the whole picture"

Whatever you add is just elaborations, it is not in the words you know.

/magnus

sure,is not in the words but that has to be said in words.

kalden yungdrung wrote:

alpha wrote:i would say that there is at least one line of instruction which has to be added to the advice written on the picture.
This piece of advice is absolutely fundamental,esential and can make the difference between seeing your nature or remaining fixated in a dualistic kind of way.
So as far as i know and was instructed this is not "the whole picture"

Tashi delek,

I am curious to see the whole picture here, if possible

Mutsog Marro'
KY

is to do with release .
you are not out into the movement and spontaneity if a focus on something seen( the fourth line) is maintained .

alpha wrote:

kalden yungdrung wrote:

alpha wrote:i would say that there is at least one line of instruction which has to be added to the advice written on the picture.
This piece of advice is absolutely fundamental,esential and can make the difference between seeing your nature or remaining fixated in a dualistic kind of way.
So as far as i know and was instructed this is not "the whole picture"

Tashi delek,

I am curious to see the whole picture here, if possible

Mutsog Marro'
KY

is to do with release .
you are not out into the movement and spontaneity if a focus on something seen( the fourth line) is maintained .

Tashi delek,

Thanks for the elucidation.

When i understood it well then is seeing with an object and subject not seeing the Natural State.
This because the dualisms are not integrated by the Natural State, whereas the Natural State does encompass everything.


Mutsog Marro
KY

kalden yungdrung wrote:
When i understood it well then is seeing with an object and subject not seeing the Natural State.
This because the dualisms are not integrated by the Natural State, whereas the Natural State does encompass everything.

KY[/color]

No, it is not "seeing" with a subject and object that is a problem. It is attachment to the same as a discrete or real subject and object that is the problem.

When you eyes sees, it sees an object. This is not a problem for as long you are do not reify this as a discrete subject and object.

People are really confused about this because of a) a poor understanding of Yogacara (mind only) b) confusing Advaita with Buddhist non-dualism.