Not Accepting, Not Rejecting

[MalaBeads]

It is easier for me to understanding the instruction "not rejecting". It is more difficult for me to see what is meant by "not accepting".

My own lifelong habit has been more to simply accept whatever was happening in my life and work with it. And then whenever I would reject something, someone, it would be with a vengeance.

So what do there's understand by this instruction "not accepting"?

Any and all help is gratefully accepted.

[Fa Dao]

If I understand it correctly it basically means transcending all duality. If you "accept" or "reject" anything it is dualistic..means you are "doing" something with whatever arises or doesnt arise...means it is not self-liberating. If you are doing you are not Present. Thats just my take on it..

[Simon E.]

Aversion arises....attraction arises. They pass.

[MalaBeads]

Thanks to you both. I get it. Just more work to be done.

[dharmagoat]

Thanks to you both. I get it. Just more work to be done.

The aversion and attraction are the work.

[asunthatneversets]

Aversion arises....attraction arises. They pass.

This is only tentatively true, an arising (and the act of passing) would require an abiding background to gauge those distinctions against, there should be no arising/abiding/passing if one is genuinely resting in the natural state.

[asunthatneversets]

Thanks to you both. I get it. Just more work to be done.

Notice that experience is fresh and new every single moment, all qualities which constitute (and serve to create) this present moment simply appear alone to themselves. "I experience this" is simply a thought which appears to no one and points to nothing. There is a subtle flow always immediately present, so so subtle, if you try to apprehend it you've already done too much. I know it's a cliche in these teachings but in truth everything is already spontaneously accomplished, there is truly nothing to do. Just as Fa Dao said, accepting/rejecting presupposes (and serves to create/sustain) a separate entity, existing apart from experience (where no such entity exists). This is why dzogchen isn't a causal vehicle, it's perfectly accomplished since the very beginning, "you" cannot attain it, or "get it". It's like those zen sayings "You cannot grasp it; Nor can you get rid of it. In not being able to get it, you get it. When you speak, it is silent; When you are silent, it speaks". To accept or reject something there first has to be a quality or "thing" to accept/reject and one to do the accepting and rejecting. Acceptance and rejection appear to happen, yet it's only illusory. Everything simply seemingly "happens". When you rest presently(which is the only way one can), there's never been a moment prior to this, there will never be a moment after this, nothing has to be done to attain one's true nature, you simply have to recognize it. This inconceivable, indescribable, inexplicable conscious presence IS the reality-field in it's entirety. Your "being" is experience itself, yet you are not, and experience is likewise unestablished.

Take a dream for example, in the dream, you as the dream character are merely a conglomerate of dream qualities, an image, thoughts in the dream, sensations, yet none of these appearances truly creates a truly existing entity, just an appearance in the dream. The same appearances likewise create the dream-environment and dream-world, yet no world is truly created, just an appearance in the dream. And in fact the dream itself IS these appearances. This present experience is no different and in fact appears the same way. You are this timelessly present field of potentiality, and everything appearing is of one taste just as all dream appearances are of the dream. Just like the dream, in this present experience the body is an image appearing nowhere and belonging to no one, thoughts are appearances pointing to nothing and belonging to no one, sensations simply arise, nothing is felt, no one feels, nothing is seen, no one sees, nothing is heard, no one hears.

It's incredible that it's actuality is such utter simplicity yet at the same time attempting to describe it is nearly impossible.

[Pero]

It is easier for me to understanding the instruction "not rejecting". It is more difficult for me to see what is meant by "not accepting".

My own lifelong habit has been more to simply accept whatever was happening in my life and work with it. And then whenever I would reject something, someone, it would be with a vengeance.

So what do there's understand by this instruction "not accepting"?

Any and all help is gratefully accepted.

Context would be nice I guess. But in general not rejecting reffers to not rejecting the things we consider negative and not accepting reffers to not accepting the things we consider positive. That's how we work normally, no? Accept what we like, reject what we don't like.

[Malcolm]

It is easier for me to understanding the instruction "not rejecting". It is more difficult for me to see what is meant by "not accepting".

My own lifelong habit has been more to simply accept whatever was happening in my life and work with it. And then whenever I would reject something, someone, it would be with a vengeance.

So what do there's understand by this instruction "not accepting"?

Any and all help is gratefully accepted.

The term is more like "not rejecting, not adopting".

[oldbob]

It is easier for me to understanding the instruction "not rejecting". It is more difficult for me to see what is meant by "not accepting".

My own lifelong habit has been more to simply accept whatever was happening in my life and work with it. And then whenever I would reject something, someone, it would be with a vengeance.

So what do there's understand by this instruction "not accepting"?

Any and all help is gratefully accepted.

Dear MalaBeads, all and All.

All really great answers.

My 2 cents.

Rejecting, not rejecting, accepting, and not accepting are all "sides" of the same, single sided, coin. Instant presence has no preference as to what occurs, or doesn't occur in your continuum. When something arises it does not cause a reaction. There is no trace: like writing on air or water. The instruction "not accepting" is not an instruction for you to do anything. It is a statement of how instant presence is.

This is poetically described in the 6 Vajra Verses.

http://www.awakening.net/WVajra.html

This is experienced through "direct introduction" from a Master.

Hope this helps.

May the Dzogchen Masters live long, in good health and with success in all things.

[MalaBeads]

Thank you,all. Wonderful answers and very helpful. I'm not sure why suddenly the word "accepting" became an obstacle but it did. I very much feel like I'm past that stickiness.

Back to writing on water.

[MalaBeads]

Maybe to add just one more thought to this, and then it's complete for me.

I see how I was reading the words 'not accepting' as an instruction instead of seeing them as a description of the result of instant presence. What you wrote oldbob was helpful in that regard.

Quite helpful.

[Andrew108]

All good answers.
In short, my answer is that neither what you accept or reject has self-identity. And so you work with the consequence of that.