Mind of Definite Emergence

[wayland]

I'm just looking for definitions of the above. I have an idea that it's about renunciation but is there more to it?

[Malcolm]

I'm just looking for definitions of the above. I have an idea that it's about renunciation but is there more to it?

No. It is an overly literal translation of the Tibetan term "nges 'byung", which is a translation of Sanskrit niḥsaraṇa, which in turn means "riddance".

N

[wayland]

No. It is an overly literal translation of the Tibetan term "nges 'byung", which is a translation of Sanskrit niḥsaraṇa, which in turn means "riddance".
N

Thanks Namdrol. Does it refer to one who is rid of the poisons or one who genuinely aspires to be?

[Malcolm]

No. It is an overly literal translation of the Tibetan term "nges 'byung", which is a translation of Sanskrit niḥsaraṇa, which in turn means "riddance".
N

Thanks Namdrol. Does it refer to one who is rid of the poisons or one who genuinely aspires to be?

both.

[wayland]

both.

Thanks Namdrol. I've also heard that this mind is one of five requisite conditions for a successful outcome within tantra. Would this be correct in your opinion?

[Malcolm]

both.

Thanks Namdrol. I've also heard that this mind is one of five requisite conditions for a successful outcome within tantra. Would this be correct in your opinion?

It is necessary to have a mind that has given up attachment to samsara in order to practice tantra, otherwise, there is no point.

[wayland]

It is necessary to have a mind that has given up attachment to samsara in order to practice tantra, otherwise, there is no point.

That's where I find a paradox. On the one hand this mind has necessarily given up attachment to samsara whilst tantra utilizes desire? How can this contradiction be clarified in your opinion?

[Dechen Norbu]

When you take a vaccine you inject nasty organisms (mostly disabled to put it simply) in your body. Do you want to become sick? No.
The use of desire and other emotions, feelings and experiences in the path aims to free oneself from samsara, not binding oneself to them. This makes the difference. This and the proper method, guidance and so on and so forth.
It's a fight fire with fire situation if you will.

For instance, one may get laid to have fun, taking delight in samsara. Or one may practice karmamudra to swiftly attain enlightenment. One may also screw oneself completely if one decides to do this without proper guidance and preparation.
See it this way if you want: according to Vajrayana enlightenment is already present, from the very beginning, but we fail to realize it. An ashtray can be made of gold and a Buddha statue can be made of gold. You realize gold is the same in both. They have the same nature: gold and the gold of the ashtray isn't less pure than the gold of the statue. However, having this pure vision is easier said than done, but this is fundamental to Vajrayana practice.

Then there are all those yogic methods that deal with our body and especially our subtle energies. By controlling prana your mind becomes easier to tame and one can have better access to meditative stages important for the progress of the practitioner. So this very body is used as a base to the practice and there's a sort of loop regarding the way one works with energy and mind, both fueling each other. In the end one is not doing this for its own sake, but aiming the realization of enlightenment.

So, the fact that one uses this set of tools (emotions, body, subtle energies and so on) doesn't mean one wants to stay under a samsaric experience. Renunciation must be even stronger and deeper as one may have the temptation to go astray when dealing with these methods. They are not without danger, so a strong, well rooted and clear renunciation must be the foundation of all this process.

[wayland]

Thanks Dechen,
I was coming at it from a slightly different angle. Let me give an example - say food, there's stuff we like and stuff we don't. If we have a choice we choose the stuff we like. The 'not wanting' the other food must be similar to a renounced mind which does not want desire - perhaps has already seen the drawbacks involved.

How do you get such a mind to start working with something it no longer has any wish for at all? If, on the other hand, it still had some desire, then it would not be the right mind for tantra, as Namdrol has pointed out.

[Malcolm]

Thanks Dechen,
I was coming at it from a slightly different angle. Let me give an example - say food, there's stuff we like and stuff we don't. If we have a choice we choose the stuff we like. The 'not wanting' the other food must be similar to a renounced mind which does not want desire - perhaps has already seen the drawbacks involved.

How do you get such a mind to start working with something it no longer has any wish for at all? If, on the other hand, it still had some desire, then it would not be the right mind for tantra, as Namdrol has pointed out.

What you wish to give up is suffering. Wishing to give up suffering and being free from desire, hatred and confusion are two different things entirely.

N

[wayland]

What you wish to give up is suffering. Wishing to give up suffering and being free from desire, hatred and confusion are two different things entirely.
N

I think I see what you mean Namdrol, if you mean that 'wishing to give up suffering' is aspirational and 'being free from the three poisons' is the result. They certainly are two entirely different things.

Regarding the aspirational aspect of "nges 'byung", you wrote earlier:

It is necessary to have a mind that has given up attachment to samsara in order to practice tantra, otherwise, there is no point.

To what extent would this mind have needed to give up attachment?

I'm thinking that if it's not given up enough, then it's going to slide right back into the trap it wishes to escape from. On the other hand, if it has deeply ascertained suffering within the three poisons and has developed a revulsion towards them it could pass a point where it no longer wishes (or is able) to employ tantric means. Dechen Norbu describes it as "a fight fire with fire situation", which implies that nges 'byung relies on attachment to samsara, to some extent at least.

Is this a fair conclusion?

[Malcolm]

What you wish to give up is suffering. Wishing to give up suffering and being free from desire, hatred and confusion are two different things entirely.
N

I think I see what you mean Namdrol, if you mean that 'wishing to give up suffering' is aspirational and 'being free from the three poisons' is the result. They certainly are two entirely different things.

Regarding the aspirational aspect of "nges 'byung", you wrote earlier:

It is necessary to have a mind that has given up attachment to samsara in order to practice tantra, otherwise, there is no point.

To what extent would this mind have needed to give up attachment?

I'm thinking that if it's not given up enough, then it's going to slide right back into the trap it wishes to escape from. On the other hand, if it has deeply ascertained suffering within the three poisons and has developed a revulsion towards them it could pass a point where it no longer wishes (or is able) to employ tantric means. Dechen Norbu describes it as "a fight fire with fire situation", which implies that nges 'byung relies on attachment to samsara, to some extent at least.

Is this a fair conclusion?

Giving up attachment to samsara means that you do not want to take afflictive rebirth here anymore. If you practice tantra, it is because you realize that afflictions are too strong to make the path of renunciation of sense objects feasible, since instead you work with sense objects on the path.

[wayland]

Giving up attachment to samsara means that you do not want to take afflictive rebirth here anymore. If you practice tantra, it is because you realize that afflictions are too strong to make the path of renunciation of sense objects feasible, since instead you work with sense objects on the path.

Thanks Namdrol,
That's a good explanation.