The brain and Dzogchen...

[Dechen Norbu]

We are conscious during the bardo, after death, but that consciousness can't be affected by, let's say a mushroom, but can be affected by other events. This consciousness we have during the bardo is too defiled.

Oh it's affected by the mushroom. A user of psychedelics will be accustomed to the bardo experience and (depending on their karma) that experience will have an effect on their visions in the bardo. Strong psychedelics basically induce bardo. Depending on your path you can see Yama or Vajradhara.

I'm just saying that once you're dead you can't eat a mushroom. Or digest food or breathe and so on.

[Dechen Norbu]

But the first paragraph is quite interesting. I was under the impression that matter was a particular type, or case if you prefer, of mind and not the other way around.

In Abhidharma yes, matter comes from mind. In Dzogchen, no. Matter comes from the non-recognition of the five lights.

N

And mind? The same , no?

[Dechen Norbu]

In a real sense, however there is neither mind no matter. Mind and matter are equally produced through non-recognition of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy.

The essence is emptiness (the middle way). Nature (clarity) and energy (continuous) are also emptiness, let's not forget. There's no unified field of consciousness. So I don't fully agree with "matter is conscious." Nothing is conscious. Consciousness is just an illusion. I think the Dzogchen tantras support my take. Without this key bit, Dzogchen becomes Upanishadic.

I haven't forgotten.

I did not say there was a unified field of consciousness. Nor is there a unified field of matter.

It is incorret to say nothing is conscious. This is to deny the illusion. The best thing you can say is that consciousness is like a moon in the water, it is neither true nor is it false. But the same goes for matter.

Practically speaking however, ancient Dzogchen tantras and instructions completely dispense with the lower yāna dichotomy between nāma and rūpa. For example, the Rigpa Rangshar names the vāyu or rlung, that generates consciousness in the body.

So little has been published on the important Dzogchen tantras, that most people (apart from those literate in Tibetan who are not wasting their time translating repetitious sadhanas) really have very little idea what the true position of Dzogchen as a system is regarding this or that.

N

This seems very well put.
Don't bother answering the above. I got it here: "The best thing you can say is that consciousness is like a moon in the water, it is neither true nor is it false. But the same goes for matter. "

[deepbluehum]

It is incorret to say nothing is conscious. This is to deny the illusion. The best thing you can say is that consciousness is like a moon in the water, it is neither true nor is it false. But the same goes for matter.

Yes I appended a bit about illusion perhaps that was cross-posted. I feel the middle way dispenses with dichotomies.

Re Abhidharma: I don't think they knew what the hell they were talking about half the time. Nagarjuna is the real Abhidharma.

[Malcolm]

I feel the middle way dispenses with dichotomies.

Yes, this is why the best thing we can say about the two truths is that they are neither truth nor are they false. Dichtomy resolved.

N

[Dechen Norbu]

Cool discussion

[Malcolm]

But the first paragraph is quite interesting. I was under the impression that matter was a particular type, or case if you prefer, of mind and not the other way around.

In Abhidharma yes, matter comes from mind. In Dzogchen, no. Matter comes from the non-recognition of the five lights.

N

And mind? The same , no?

The mind ultimately comes from the ignorance of non-recognition. The ignorance of non-recognition itself is predicated on a dispensible or relative latent awareness that exists at the time of the basis in the basis and is a function of the movement of vāyu or rlung in the basis, the movement that is responsible for the arising of the basis from the basis. When the display of the basis is recognized as being ones own display, that latent awareness becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes avidyā.

[Dechen Norbu]

Thank you for detailing it.
You should write a book, man! Clarifying those aspects on a more didactic way. Can we ever hope to see such happening?
You should definitively write a book, especially because you have a queen perception about the typical confusions around.

[deepbluehum]

I feel the middle way dispenses with dichotomies.

Yes, this is why the best thing we can say about the two truths is that they are neither truth nor are they false. Dichtomy resolved.

N

To me this is the two truths as unity of the two truths, aka only one truth, and Dzogchen isn't that special.

[Malcolm]

I feel the middle way dispenses with dichotomies.

Yes, this is why the best thing we can say about the two truths is that they are neither truth nor are they false. Dichtomy resolved.

N

To me this is the two truths as unity of the two truths, aka only one truth, and Dzogchen isn't that special.

Nah, the sole truth in Dzogchen is not the unity of the two truths, because relative truth is only delusion, avidyā. There are no two truths in Dzogchen.

The sole truth in Dzogchen is vidyā.

N

[Dechen Norbu]

I laugh each time I see the blazè attitude of some people when then say things like "Dzogchen isn't that special".
Seriously, it cracks me up!

[deepbluehum]

I laugh each time I see the blazè attitude of some people when then say things like "Dzogchen isn't that special".
Seriously, it cracks me up!

I'm just teasing.

[Dechen Norbu]

No worries

[deepbluehum]

Yes, this is why the best thing we can say about the two truths is that they are neither truth nor are they false. Dichtomy resolved.

N

To me this is the two truths as unity of the two truths, aka only one truth, and Dzogchen isn't that special.

Nah, the sole truth in Dzogchen is not the unity of the two truths, because relative truth is only delusion, avidyā. There are no two truths in Dzogchen.

The sole truth in Dzogchen is vidyā.

N

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

The relative truth, if you know it's just relative, and knows it's an illusion, then is not avidya anymore isn't it? [Unity of two truths to the rescue!]

[Andrew108]

Let me say this another way, there is no question of whether there is a physical or biologic property of consciousness. Consciousness is a result of biological processes, like metabolism. If you don't eat, drink and breath, you pass out, unconscious. It really is this damned starkly simple.

Then, rebirth is not a question of a mind floating on somehow. The karmic mechanics are beyond comprehension, so Buddha says. A rebirth is simply the continuation of an eventuality. "Karma makes all possibilities arise," says Jestun Milarepa. The assemblages of conditions for the continuation of a sentient being simply can't be stopped from recurring, without the path. To really understand rebirth, you need to be enlightened. I don't understand it that well, I studied what Buddha said.

deepbluehum - this is well said.

[deepbluehum]

Let me say this another way, there is no question of whether there is a physical or biologic property of consciousness. Consciousness is a result of biological processes, like metabolism. If you don't eat, drink and breath, you pass out, unconscious. It really is this damned starkly simple.

Then, rebirth is not a question of a mind floating on somehow. The karmic mechanics are beyond comprehension, so Buddha says. A rebirth is simply the continuation of an eventuality. "Karma makes all possibilities arise," says Jestun Milarepa. The assemblages of conditions for the continuation of a sentient being simply can't be stopped from recurring, without the path. To really understand rebirth, you need to be enlightened. I don't understand it that well, I studied what Buddha said.

deepbluehum - this is well said.

My thanks to you friend.

[Malcolm]

The relative truth, if you know it's just relative, and knows it's an illusion, then is not avidya anymore isn't it? [Unity of two truths to the rescue!]

This is the flaw of tregchö.

[Lhug-Pa]

Ah, great discussion indeed.

I'll bet that a 'mental body' (that Namdrol mentioned) that is experienced in various Bardos—which isn't perceivable to ordinary physical sight during the Bardo between physical birth and death—could have its own 'mental-biology' or 'mental-physiology'.


About your mentioning of mushrooms, deepbluehum, I think that the following that Namdrol wrote is interesting:

According to Garab Dorje, the purpose of using hallucinogens is to the see that the mind is malleable, not a fixed or permanent substance. So, in fact hallucinogens do have a use in Dharma, albeit an extremely limited and narrow one.

So little has been published on the important Dzogchen tantras, that most people (apart from those literate in Tibetan who are not wasting their time translating repetitious sadhanas) really have very little idea what the true position of Dzogchen as a system is regarding this or that.

Oftentimes when a new book comes out I'll get all excited thinking it might have something along the lines of the root text of a major Dzogchen Tantra, only to see more Lam-Rim and Ngondro. Nothing against Ngondro; in fact if I had more means to, I would like to do extensive Ngondro. It's just that I don't know why many translators package books with titles that imply specific and/or more detailed Tantra or Dzogchen teachings, when actually the book is almost entirely Lam-Rim and Ngondro from cover to cover.

I'm currently working my way through Padmakara Translation Group's Treasury of Precious Qualities by Jigme Lingpa, as H.H. the Dalai Lama recommended; although as much as I'm learning from it, I'm puzzled as to why the said translators have not yet published the main Tantra and Dzogchen sections of this work.

Wish I would have started learning Tibetan when I was younger.

I'm also very interested in the Lama Yangthig and the Khandro Nyingthig. And hopefully Richard Barron will soon complete Longchen Rabjampa's Seven Treasuries (although to complain again, as much as his work is appreciated, it would be nice if he used at least the more well known Tibetan or Sanskrit terms in the main text, such as Vidya, Prajna, Jnana, gZhi, Ngowo, Rangzhin, etc.)

[deepbluehum]

The relative truth, if you know it's just relative, and knows it's an illusion, then is not avidya anymore isn't it? [Unity of two truths to the rescue!]

This is the flaw of tregchö.

Thregcho and togal are inseparable. I feel this notion of a flaw, one truth and such comes from thinking thregcho is its own path and togal is something different. In other words, I feel what you are laying out is a discourse and a modality. It could be explained in a slightly different way to accord with the two truths without imposing any impediment to enlightenment, the contrary, things could be consistent. Another way to explain base, path and fruit is thregcho is the base, togal is the path and inseparability is the fruit.

[mzaur]

What isn't "damned starkly simple" is why you then become conscious if you happen to die. Or if you have an NDE, for instance, with your brain functions completely impaired. Namdrol provided an interesting hypothesis from the tantras. .

Have you ever died?

NDE stories are interesting, but who knows? Maybe there is still subtle electrical activity in the brain. It's not like these people are hooked up to EEG or fMRI to measure such activity, though this would be a fascinating study.