The difference between causation and reflection

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Tue May 14, 2013 12:52 pm

This is one of those important topics I think. While it is true that as soon as you open your mouth you are wrong (sorry, thats my zen background leaking out....) i would like to see more discussion of this. I am completely unequal to the task which is why I am starting this thread and asking for comment from others.

In another thread, chatter Holybla mentioned it and my own teacher Chorgyal Nhamkai Norbu has also brought it up but only briefly. Neurologists are now telling us that out ideas of causation function from an area of the brain that is inaccessible (ie what has often been called 'the unconscious') and consequently automatic and primitive. Consequently, when we assess 'what causes what' we are very likely to be in error. I wish i could think of an analogy but at the moment i can't.

If we can just make explicit and clear this one idea then we will have done a lot. But when I say explicit and clear, I realize we may have to go through a lot of blah, blah, blah conceptualization to get to the point where we can be brief, where anyone on the street could say "oh, why didn't i see that before?" Or better yet "Oh, everyone knows that." Philosophy has its place but not if it cannot connect with ordinary people.

Soooo......the difference between causation and reflection. What is it?
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue May 14, 2013 7:59 pm

MalaBeads wrote:In another thread, chatter Holybla mentioned it and my own teacher Chorgyal Nhamkai Norbu has also brought it up but only briefly. Neurologists are now telling us that out ideas of causation function from an area of the brain that is inaccessible (ie what has often been called 'the unconscious') and consequently automatic and primitive. Consequently, when we assess 'what causes what' we are very likely to be in error. I wish i could think of an analogy but at the moment i can't.
Arises from the brain, huh? So it is due to inaccessibility? a)Why is it inaccessible? b)Why does it it exist if it is inaccessible? c)How do they know it is inaccessible? I mean if it is inaccessible, then they won't be able to know of its existence, so how can they know where it is and that it exists?
Soooo......the difference between causation and reflection. What is it?
What is this "reflection" that you are talking about? Hard to compare two things if one does not know what they are comparing (or if they are even comparible).
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9794
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Tue May 14, 2013 9:17 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:In another thread, chatter Holybla mentioned it and my own teacher Chorgyal Nhamkai Norbu has also brought it up but only briefly. Neurologists are now telling us that out ideas of causation function from an area of the brain that is inaccessible (ie what has often been called 'the unconscious') and consequently automatic and primitive. Consequently, when we assess 'what causes what' we are very likely to be in error. I wish i could think of an analogy but at the moment i can't.
Arises from the brain, huh? So it is due to inaccessibility? a)Why is it inaccessible? b)Why does it it exist if it is inaccessible? c)How do they know it is inaccessible? I mean if it is inaccessible, then they won't be able to know of its existence, so how can they know where it is and that it exists?
Soooo......the difference between causation and reflection. What is it?
What is this "reflection" that you are talking about? Hard to compare two things if one does not know what they are comparing (or if they are even comparible).


This post is in the dzogchen thread for a reason. The reflection I am talking about is the reflection that comes when you look into a mirror.

As for our ideas of causation that rise in inaccessible areas of the brain, I would refer you to something else I posted from the Brain Science podcast. I am not a neurologist so I cant answer your question. I am not interested in arguing or having a debate and am really asking the question of the dzogchen yogis who are here. And the students of science (if there are any).

I have no answers, only the question.

So if you can contribute something to the discussion, please do.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Tue May 14, 2013 9:51 pm

The other thing I would add is that it is fine with me if no one responds to this thread. I am happy enough to have asked the question.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby T. Chokyi » Tue May 14, 2013 10:53 pm

MalaBeads wrote:The other thing I would add is that it is fine with me if no one responds to this thread. I am happy enough to have asked the question.


Just my 2 cents. The mirror reflects exactly what is there without grasping to that image, it is a temporary, transitory reflection, it is unsubstantial like a dream. The melong or mirror represents, or is a symbol for this idea or concept. For example, when we are like the mirror we are not grasping to the the images that temporarily appear in it, we see the reflections, we see as if we are the mirror, we don't have any reason to grasp anything that appears in the mirror anymore than a mirror grasps the reflections in it. If we do grasp as if those reflections are so real, so concrete, then we have begun to reify what is in the mirror, something the mirror itself does not do, so we are attaching to what we see, we are not being like the mirror, we are not just resting as a mirror does & allowing the reflecting back of what is in front of the mirror, so when we grasp and judge and act upon what we are "seeing" and then not letting go, we are making these attachments with our mind, our reactions, we then follow after what we saw, often "thinking" and "judging" about what is in the mirror, but once again, the mirror itself is not "thinking" or "judging" or attaching to anything in it whether it is what is considered "pretty" or "ugly" etc, there is no "bad" or "good" labels placed by the mirror on anything that is reflected in it. When this grasping, or "thinking" or "judging" starts and there is reification developing in our mind about what is in actuality the empty forms & reflections temporarily appearing in the mirror, then this is how causation begins.
User avatar
T. Chokyi
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

As for our ideas of causation that rise in inaccessible areas of the brain, I would refer you to something else I posted from the Brain Science podcast. I am not a neurologist so I cant answer your question. I am not interested in arguing or having a debate and am really asking the question of the dzogchen yogis who are here. And the students of science (if there are any).
That would be me then. A behavioural scientist actually. So any questions about neural functioning, especially in regards to brain mechanisms, I am your man! That is why I asked the questions that I asked.
I have no answers, only the question.
I am still trying to figure out your question. Maybe somebody else could help?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9794
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby Sherab Dorje » Tue May 14, 2013 11:06 pm

Thanks T.Chokyi. It seems we were having terminology/language difficulties.

You mean what is the difference between apprehending phenomena through the Mirror-like wisdom (Skt. ādarśajñāna; Tib. མེ་ལོང་ལྟ་བུའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་, Wyl. me long lta bu'i ye shes) of Aksobhya instead of the karmically causal mental poison of aversion?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9794
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Tue May 14, 2013 11:18 pm

T. Chokyi wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:The other thing I would add is that it is fine with me if no one responds to this thread. I am happy enough to have asked the question.


Just my 2 cents. The mirror reflects exactly what is there without grasping to that image, it is a temporary, transitory reflection, it is unsubstantial like a dream. The melong or mirror represents, or is a symbol for this idea or concept. For example, when we are like the mirror we are not grasping to the the images that temporarily appear in it, we see the reflections, we see as if we are the mirror, we don't have any reason to grasp anything that appears in the mirror anymore than a mirror grasps the reflections in it. If we do grasp as if those reflections are so real, so concrete, then we have begun to reify what is in the mirror, something the mirror itself does not do, so we are attaching to what we see, we are not being like the mirror, we are not just resting as a mirror does & allowing the reflecting back of what is in front of the mirror, so when we grasp and judge and act upon what we are "seeing" and then not letting go, we are making these attachments with our mind, our reactions, we then follow after what we saw, often "thinking" and "judging" about what is in the mirror, but once again, the mirror itself is not "thinking" or "judging" or attaching to anything in it whether it is what is considered "pretty" or "ugly" etc, there is no "bad" or "good" labels placed by the mirror on anything that is reflected in it. When this grasping, or "thinking" or "judging" starts and there is reification developing in our mind about what is in actuality the empty forms & reflections temporarily appearing in the mirror, then this is how causation begins.



What you wrote Chokyi helps I think. You said a couple of things which are a different way of looking at this for me. I will read it probably several times and let it sink in. It does not answer my whole question though I think because your last phrase, "then this is how causation begins" is still a little puzzling. Yes, I understand that grasping at the reflection, the thinking and judging, is how we slip away from the nature of the mirror. Perhaps my actual question goes back to Holybla's assertion that there are no causes. That might be more where I lose the thread. Let me ponder it some more.

Thanks.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Tue May 14, 2013 11:21 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:You mean what is the difference between apprehending phenomena through the Mirror-like wisdom (Skt. ādarśajñāna; Tib. མེ་ལོང་ལྟ་བུའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་, Wyl. me long lta bu'i ye shes) of Aksobhya instead of the karmically causal mental poison of aversion?


No, I don't think thats what i meant. If that were so, all of dzogchen would be reducible to the realm of Aksobhya. Somehow, i don't think thats so.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby T. Chokyi » Tue May 14, 2013 11:30 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Thanks T.Chokyi. It seems we were having terminology/language difficulties.

You mean what is the difference between apprehending phenomena through the Mirror-like wisdom (Skt. ādarśajñāna; Tib. མེ་ལོང་ལྟ་བུའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་, Wyl. me long lta bu'i ye shes) of Aksobhya instead of the karmically causal mental poison of aversion?


Yes, mirror like wisdom, exactly.

The melong when worn by Dzogchen Yogis represents actually resting in this state of the melong, so to be resting in the natural state (Buddha Nature) which all have, we are like the mirror, we don't attach to anything, we have no action of attachment or aversion, and so there isn't this kind of attachment in our mind, further if we find ourselves not "resting" and some attachment arises in our mind we can train to be aware, we train to do our best to just let it go, this can work, this way we understand in our experience what is this mirror like wisdom.

If we have that experience a few times, then a few more times, we recognize we are allowing the empty forms to appear without necessarily giving them a label then this kind of perception allows non attachment. Causation begins by attaching to some object whether it be some person, or something we "think" we should do, or some urge to do something, or say something, more often then not, following after what we have been taught by our teachers is an "empty appearance" or just like "the reflections in the mirror" thinking it is so "real" or so "important" can send us in the direction of creating or causing actions of body, speech, & mind which later we see as having been production (karma). Mirror does not attribute importance to the reflections.

When we are resting in our Buddha nature this mirror like wisdom is there to experience, if we are not genuinely resting, but trying as practitioners do, even in that form of awareness or mindfulness, we can break the cycle of causation by reminding (being mindful) of the mirror and how the mirror is not clinging or attaching to the reflections, we can be very keenly aware of what is in the mirror, because the melong allows everything to be seen clearly, it allows to arise whatever arises in the space, but all the reflections are there without attachment and aversion to them.
User avatar
T. Chokyi
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby T. Chokyi » Tue May 14, 2013 11:38 pm

MalaBeads wrote:

What you wrote Chokyi helps I think. You said a couple of things which are a different way of looking at this for me. I will read it probably several times and let it sink in. It does not answer my whole question though I think because your last phrase, "then this is how causation begins" is still a little puzzling. Yes, I understand that grasping at the reflection, the thinking and judging, is how we slip away from the nature of the mirror. Perhaps my actual question goes back to Holybla's assertion that there are no causes. That might be more where I lose the thread. Let me ponder it some more.

Thanks.


Sure, you're welcome. If someone strikes you verbally, your "urge" is to defend yourself, or perhaps "strike back"... the mirror does not have this urge, it does not "defend" it does not "strike back", the mirror is just holding the reflections, empty like the space. No clinging, no following after, because these refections are empty, just like us, just like the person saying something we label as "bad" the person is empty, the thing they say is "empty" it is just there, it is all just there, and all just in the mirror, everything is just there, but the mirror is holding the images and those images are clear, the reflections are held perfectly, but the mirror is not attributing action of striking or correcting any image, there is no mental proliferation about the images and reflections.
Last edited by T. Chokyi on Tue May 14, 2013 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
T. Chokyi
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Tue May 14, 2013 11:43 pm

T. Chokyi wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:Thanks T.Chokyi. It seems we were having terminology/language difficulties.

You mean what is the difference between apprehending phenomena through the Mirror-like wisdom (Skt. ādarśajñāna; Tib. མེ་ལོང་ལྟ་བུའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་, Wyl. me long lta bu'i ye shes) of Aksobhya instead of the karmically causal mental poison of aversion?


Yes, mirror like wisdom, exactly.

The melong when worn by Dzogchen Yogis represents actually resting in this state of the melong, so to be resting in the natural state (Buddha Nature) which all have, we are like the mirror, we don't attach to anything, we have no action of attachment or aversion, and so there isn't this kind of attachment in our mind, further if we find ourselves not "resting" and some attachment arises in our mind we can train to be aware, we train to do our best to just let it go, this can work, this way we understand in our experience what is this mirror like wisdom.

If we have that experience a few times, then a few more times, we recognize we are allowing the empty forms to appear without necessarily giving them a label then this kind of perception allows non attachment. Causation begins by attaching to some object whether it be some person, or something we "think" we should do, or some urge to do something, or say something, more often then not, following after what we have been taught by our teachers is an "empty appearance" or just like "the reflections in the mirror" thinking it is so "real" or so "important" can send us in the direction of creating or causing actions of body, speech, & mind which later we see as having been production (karma). Mirror does not attribute importance to the reflections.

When we are resting in our Buddha nature this mirror like wisdom is there to experience, if we are not genuinely resting, but trying as practitioners do, even in that form of awareness or mindfulness, we can break the cycle of causation by reminding (being mindful) of the mirror and how the mirror is not clinging or attaching to the reflections, we can be very keenly aware of what is in the mirror, because the melong allows everything to be seen clearly, it allows to arise whatever arises in the space, but all the reflections are there without attachment and aversion to them.


Ok, that's helpful.

I will ponder.

Thank you.

:anjali:
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby T. Chokyi » Tue May 14, 2013 11:46 pm

MalaBeads wrote:
Ok, that's helpful.

I will ponder.

Thank you.

:anjali:


Later take a look at this nice teacher:

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Melong_Dorje

:anjali:
User avatar
T. Chokyi
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Wed May 15, 2013 12:17 am

T. Chokyi wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:

What you wrote Chokyi helps I think. You said a couple of things which are a different way of looking at this for me. I will read it probably several times and let it sink in. It does not answer my whole question though I think because your last phrase, "then this is how causation begins" is still a little puzzling. Yes, I understand that grasping at the reflection, the thinking and judging, is how we slip away from the nature of the mirror. Perhaps my actual question goes back to Holybla's assertion that there are no causes. That might be more where I lose the thread. Let me ponder it some more.

Thanks.


Sure, you're welcome. If someone strikes you verbally, your "urge" is to defend yourself, or perhaps "strike back"... the mirror does not have this urge, it does not "defend" it does not "strike back", the mirror is just holding the reflections, empty like the space. No clinging, no following after, because these refections are empty, just like us, just like the person saying something we label as "bad" the person is empty, the thing they say is "empty" it is just there, it is all just there, and all just in the mirror, everything is just there, but the mirror is holding the images and those images are clear, the reflections are held perfectly, but the mirror is not attributing action of striking or correcting any image, there is no mental proliferation about the images and reflections.


Yes, I understand what you are saying. I might say it somewhat differently. Rather than the mirror holding the reflections, i would simply say the mirror reflects what is in front of it. The mirror actually does not hold anything. Small distinction perhaps, but then again considering what humans do with language, maybe not so small.

I really want to thank you for you help with the mirror imagery. Now on to causation!
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby T. Chokyi » Wed May 15, 2013 2:52 am

MalaBeads wrote:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I might say it somewhat differently. Rather than the mirror holding the reflections, i would simply say the mirror reflects what is in front of it. The mirror actually does not hold anything. Small distinction perhaps, but then again considering what humans do with language, maybe not so small.

I really want to thank you for you help with the mirror imagery. Now on to causation!



You're very welcome, I agree we can say the mirror simply reflects back what is in front of it, so the mirror isn't "holding" anything, I agree, I just had some other thoughts on the mirror when used in Dzogchen teachings, this innate clarity to reflect all form yet remain empty and clear without being affected is more in step with the example given in Dzogchen teachings for the mirror, and it is called "rolpa". The Buddha nature has no form yet has the potentiality like the mirror to reflect everything, so instead of looking outward we look inward, you could call this your inner mirror, as we are working with mind to go beyond to nature of mind, and we are not using an outer physcial mirror, of course, the melong is worn as a symbol outwardly of an inner process. When we practice and we are moving toward an experience of this intrinsic clarity, our nature has this infinite potentiality like the mirror, this energy to reflect all forms you put in front of it, if you are white AH and tigle, you then are reflecting that, you are white AH and tigle in the clarity of the mirror, this is what you will see, then you drop that and you are just awareness, you experience that.

In the Mexico retreat of CHNNR, I think it was the 2nd day, but could have been Argentina. Rinpoche mentioned that putting on outer reading glasses and looking outside, that even though a stronger pair of glasses can magnify the tinyest of things, he said this is still just looking outside and he compared this looking outside with a pair of glasses to "dualism vision". He compared the mirror and what it does in Dzogchen terms as the "dang" or energy of "rolpa" of the mirror, that the mirror has the infinite potentiality to reflect all things in front of it, all reflections and not be affected, so when you are The White AH and tigle you are reflecting that in the mirror, it is your temporary form just like a reflection in the mirror this is what you are placing in front of your mirror and it is reflecting back to you. The primordial clarity or intrinsic awareness has no form, but this is what is appearing in the mirror or your mind, our nature has this infinite potentiality like the mirror to reflect all forms placed in front of it, thousands of empty forms, and the mirror is not grasping to the form. This symbol of the mirror teaches us what our natural clarity or intrinsic clarity which has no form does, because our nature has this just like the mirror, the infinite potentiality to reflect all form yet has no form.

When we are not resting in rigpa, or not continuing in awareness, but we are getting "distracted" (Dzogchen masters often mention this idea of getting "distracted" which means loosing our awareness) then there is always a possibility to create some problem for ourselves and others and therefore: causation.
User avatar
T. Chokyi
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Wed May 15, 2013 3:59 am

T. Chokyi wrote:if you are white AH and tigle, you then are reflecting that, you are white AH and tigle in the clarity of the mirror, this is what you will see, then you drop that and you are just awareness, you experience that.


It is the "this is what you will see" part that I don't understand. How do you mean that?

The rest of what you wrote I understood.

(Btw, I love being able to read this in a plain english style.)
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby MalaBeads » Wed May 15, 2013 5:18 am

MalaBeads wrote:
T. Chokyi wrote:if you are white AH and tigle, you then are reflecting that, you are white AH and tigle in the clarity of the mirror, this is what you will see, then you drop that and you are just awareness, you experience that.


It is the "this is what you will see" part that I don't understand. How do you mean that?

The rest of what you wrote I understood.

(Btw, I love being able to read this in a plain english style.)


Never mind T. Choyki, i understand now what you are getting at. When I look inside i just reconnect with basic awareness(or some might say, reconnect with the transmission), no visualization involved. But I see what you are saying.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby asunthatneversets » Wed May 15, 2013 6:35 am

Malabeads here's a lot of blah, blah, blah conceptualization (or my blah, blah, blah conceptual interpretation I mean):

Causation would refer to the proliferation of the conditioned phenomena of dualistic mind. The phenomena of dualistic mind and ignorance originate dependently and therefore depend upon causes and conditions to exist. The condition is ignorance [avidyā], and the causation is the interdependent origination which occurs due to attachment and aversion. The mind beguiled by avidyā perceives duality and therefore acts and reacts from within that delusion. Those actions (of attachment and aversion), along with the subtle habits which sustain the ignorance, are one's karma. To overcome karma (causation) the mind which is trapped in delusion must be recognized as empty so that the foundation for karma's proliferation is disarmed. The knowledge which results from recognizing the mind's nature is vidyā [rig pa]. Stabilization and familiarization with vidyā will make it so a) new karma isn't being generated and/or b) the influence of karma which is being generated is greatly diminished. Once vidyā is stable, the latent karma, which resides in the form of propensities, then has to exhaust itself, the fuel which kept the fire going is removed so karma just burns out.

In vidyā, the aspirant recognizes that ignorance and the deluded mind are causes and conditions for phenomena. This is because vidyā is knowledge of the basis [skt. sthāna, tib. gzhi] i.e. primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. The basis is incapable of ignorance, so it has never been involved in affliction at any time. The basis also doesn't depend upon causes and conditions, and so one could say the basis is uncaused, but usually the basis is termed as self-originated primordial wisdom. Self-origination can also be looked at as unafflicted dependent origination i.e. spontaneous natural formation which is completely unestablished in any way. Spontaneous natural formation is lhun grub, and because lhun grub is inseparable from ka dag (primordial purity); from the perspective of primordial wisdom there is no establishment nor unestablishment of anything at any time (freedom from the four extremes). That is why the analogy of reflection is often used, because a mirror's capacity to reflect is never adulterated or sullied by reflections, and in addition to being dynamic and able to appear as anything, the mirror's capacity to reflect is also inseparable from the reflections. Primordial wisdom is the same way: wisdom's capacity to manifest appearances is never adulterated or sullied by those appearances, and in addition to being dynamic and able to appear as anything, primordial wisdom is also inseparable from empty appearance (empty, meaning free from extremes i.e. illusory).

Something I wrote awhile ago...
"...The mirror-analogy is commonly used in attempting to describe the 'nature of mind' and there is a common misconception which tends to arise from this analogy because the implementation of a mirror seems to convey a substantiated background (or unchanging source). I was attempting to point out that the analogy isn't meant to explore the mirror in itself as an unchanging basis, but solely the mirror's capacity to reflect. So the capacity is the aspect the analogy is exploring. Equating the nature of mind to the mirror's reflective capacity (but not the mirror itself). That the reflections are inseparable from that capacity, just like AEN elucidated with the fire-to-heat and water-to-wetness examples. That capacity isn't a conceivable quality, it isn't something which can be 'known' as a substantiated suchness. The capacity (to reflect) cannot be rolled, thrown or bounced, it has no shape, color, location, weight or height. There is nothing there one can point to and declare 'there it is!'. Yet in it's elusiveness it is still fully apparent in the presence of the reflections themselves. The capacity is evident because of the reflections and the reflections are evident because of the capacity, in truth they co-emergent and mutually interdependent qualities which are completely inseparable. Evident, clear and pure, yet unestablished, ungraspable and ephemeral."

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche used the capacity aspect as well in one of his Longde books....

"Our primordial potentiality is beyond form, but we have a symbol, and when we have a symbol then we can get in that knowledge. It is very easy to understand with an example. If you want to discover the potentiality of a mirror, how can you go about it? You can neither see or touch the nature or potentiality of a mirror, nor can you have contact with it in any ordinary way, the only way is to look in a mirror, and then the reflections will appear and through the reflections you can discover it. The reflections are not really the potentiality of the mirror but they are manifesting through that potentiality, so they are something visible for us. With this example we can get in the knowledge of the potentiality of the mirror...."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


"Why then do we have this symbol of primordial potentiality? Primordial potentiality in the Dzogchen teaching is explained with three principles: sound, light and rays. This does not mean that sound, light and rays are manifestations, but rather that these are the root of all manifestations. When you have this potentiality then there is always the possibility of manifestations. If we wonder, for example what the potentiality of a mirror looks like, we couldn't say very much, we could say for example that it is clear, pure, limpid and so forth, but we could not really have contact with it directly through our senses. In the same way sound, light and rays are the essence of potentiality. When we have this potentiality, if secondary causes arise, then anything can manifest.
What do we mean by secondary causes? For example, if in front of a mirror there is tree, or a flower or a person, the object instantly manifests. These are secondary causes. So if there is no secondary cause there is no manifestation. Thus in front of our primordial potentiality there are all the possibilities of manifestation of the secondary causes....."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed May 15, 2013 7:56 am

MalaBeads wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:You mean what is the difference between apprehending phenomena through the Mirror-like wisdom (Skt. ādarśajñāna; Tib. མེ་ལོང་ལྟ་བུའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་, Wyl. me long lta bu'i ye shes) of Aksobhya instead of the karmically causal mental poison of aversion?


No, I don't think thats what i meant. If that were so, all of dzogchen would be reducible to the realm of Aksobhya. Somehow, i don't think thats so.
As far as I know Dzogchen maintains the notion of the Five Wisdoms.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9794
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The difference between causation and reflection

Postby heart » Wed May 15, 2013 12:06 pm

The difference between causation and reflection is self-liberation. Self-liberation is the only approach that is free from activity.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Next

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

>