It is called connate ignorance in other teachings than Dzogchen because sentient beings do not recognize the nature of their own minds, inseparable clarity and emptiness. The way the Sakypas frame this, for example, is because the emptiness of the mind is not recognized, this causes nirvana. Because the clarity of the mind is not recognized, this causes samsara. Because their inseparability is not recognized, this is the source of the misperception of self. So, it is not simply a matter of lacking insight into emptiness alone. It is a matter of not recognizing the nature of the mind in its totality. The Dzogchen account, given above, is very different. The Sakya theory has another interesting twist— they identify tathāgatagarbha as the inseparability aspect of inseparable clarity and emptiness because clarity and emptiness are themselves extremes to be avoided.Sherab wrote:I would argue that the lack of insight on the emptiness of all phenomena is what enable a grasping at a self. If there is insight on emptiness, there will be no grasping at a self.Malcolm wrote:Grasping at a self is the fundamental perceptual error plaguing sentient beings. It is connate. It has always been there.Sherab wrote: So why is there a grasping of a self?
Practical Recognition of Ignorance
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
Consciousness is unaware of itself. Is this the same as consciousness without an object? Is there consciousness without an object?Malcolm wrote: There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
If the ignorance is identical with the cause, it would mean the end of consciousness and its display (8 consciousnesses) in full Buddhahood, no? Where do you put this reflexive awareness (svasamvedana)?
Please try to answer simply, if possible.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
Anonymous X wrote:Consciousness is unaware of itself. Is this the same as consciousness without an object? Is there consciousness without an object?Malcolm wrote: There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
If the ignorance is identical with the cause, it would mean the end of consciousness and its display (8 consciousnesses) in full Buddhahood, no? Where do you put this reflexive awareness (svasamvedana)?
Please try to answer simply, if possible.
Svasamvedana is not part of Dzogchen teachings. It is a theory of Sautrantikas and Yogacara.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
You didn't answer the first part of my question about consciousness unaware of itself.Malcolm wrote:Svasamvedana is not part of Dzogchen teachings. It is a theory of Sautrantikas and Yogacara.Anonymous X wrote:Consciousness is unaware of itself. Is this the same as consciousness without an object? Is there consciousness without an object?Malcolm wrote: There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
If the ignorance is identical with the cause, it would mean the end of consciousness and its display (8 consciousnesses) in full Buddhahood, no? Where do you put this reflexive awareness (svasamvedana)?
Please try to answer simply, if possible.
Svasamvedana is a feature that is hotly debated and not agreed upon by various schools and you probably have some sort of take on it.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
It looks as if you use "connate" here to mean "inherent" or inborn. Whereas when you use "connate" in relation to Dzogchen, you appear to mean "co-emergent" or "arising simultaneously". Am I understanding you correctly?Malcolm wrote:It is called connate ignorance in other teachings than Dzogchen because sentient beings do not recognize the nature of their own minds, inseparable clarity and emptiness. The way the Sakypas frame this, for example, is because the emptiness of the mind is not recognized, this causes nirvana. Because the clarity of the mind is not recognized, this causes samsara. Because their inseparability is not recognized, this is the source of the misperception of self. So, it is not simply a matter of lacking insight into emptiness alone. It is a matter of not recognizing the nature of the mind in its totality. The Dzogchen account, given above, is very different. The Sakya theory has another interesting twist— they identify tathāgatagarbha as the inseparability aspect of inseparable clarity and emptiness because clarity and emptiness are themselves extremes to be avoided.Sherab wrote:I would argue that the lack of insight on the emptiness of all phenomena is what enable a grasping at a self. If there is insight on emptiness, there will be no grasping at a self.Malcolm wrote:
Grasping at a self is the fundamental perceptual error plaguing sentient beings. It is connate. It has always been there.
When one talks of extremes, one normally talks of polar opposite. Therefore I find it strange that Sakya theory considers clarity and emptiness as polar opposites. A combination of polar opposites i.e. extremes, if at all possible, simply gives rise to a third extreme.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
I prefer to think of this third consciousness as primary, basic or fundamental 'consciousness'. Or perhaps, pre-consciousness may be more accurate.Malcolm wrote:There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
Sherab wrote:I prefer to think of this third consciousness as primary, basic or fundamental 'consciousness'. Or perhaps, pre-consciousness may be more accurate.Malcolm wrote:There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
It is actually termed "neutral consciousness" in Dzogchen teachings.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
Connate means connate, not innate.Sherab wrote:It looks as if you use "connate" here to mean "inherent" or inborn. Whereas when you use "connate" in relation to Dzogchen, you appear to mean "co-emergent" or "arising simultaneously". Am I understanding you correctly?Malcolm wrote:It is called connate ignorance in other teachings than Dzogchen because sentient beings do not recognize the nature of their own minds, inseparable clarity and emptiness. The way the Sakypas frame this, for example, is because the emptiness of the mind is not recognized, this causes nirvana. Because the clarity of the mind is not recognized, this causes samsara. Because their inseparability is not recognized, this is the source of the misperception of self. So, it is not simply a matter of lacking insight into emptiness alone. It is a matter of not recognizing the nature of the mind in its totality. The Dzogchen account, given above, is very different. The Sakya theory has another interesting twist— they identify tathāgatagarbha as the inseparability aspect of inseparable clarity and emptiness because clarity and emptiness are themselves extremes to be avoided.Sherab wrote: I would argue that the lack of insight on the emptiness of all phenomena is what enable a grasping at a self. If there is insight on emptiness, there will be no grasping at a self.
When one talks of extremes, one normally talks of polar opposite. Therefore I find it strange that Sakya theory considers clarity and emptiness as polar opposites. A combination of polar opposites i.e. extremes, if at all possible, simply gives rise to a third extreme.
It is not the case that clarity and emptiness are polar opposites, they are inseparable, but as I said, "the emptiness of the mind is not recognized, this causes nirvana. Because the clarity of the mind is not recognized, this causes samsara. Because their inseparability is not recognized, this is the source of the misperception of self."
These are three aspects to the nature of the mind, also termed the all-basis. You can consult any text on Lamdre.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
Definition of connateMalcolm wrote:Connate means connate, not innate.
1
: akin, congenial
2
: innate, inborn
3
: born or originated together
4
: entrapped in sediments at the time of their deposition connate water
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connate
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
You said:
The Sakya theory has another interesting twist— they identify tathāgatagarbha as the inseparability aspect of inseparable clarity and emptiness because clarity and emptiness are themselves extremes to be avoided.
I replied:
When one talks of extremes, one normally talks of polar opposite. Therefore I find it strange that Sakya theory considers clarity and emptiness as polar opposites. A combination of polar opposites i.e. extremes, if at all possible, simply gives rise to a third extreme.
You replied:
It is not the case that clarity and emptiness are polar opposites, they are inseparable...
I refer to the underlined portion of the abbreviated thread above.
If clarity and emptiness are polar opposites type of extremes such as 'conditioned' and 'unconditioned', then there is no way of combining two. It would also make no sense to say that they are inseparable because polar extremes are mutually exclusive.
If clarity and emptiness are extremes in themselves and are extremes not in the sense of being polar opposites but in the sense of being independent (or orthoganal to borrow a term from mathematics), a combination of the two extremes would simply produce a third extreme.
If clarity and emptiness are inseparable, then there is no such thing as clarity by itself or emptiness by itself. If so, then it makes no sense to say that clarity is an extreme and emptiness is an extreme. You can only say that clarity-emptiness is an extreme because the two, clarity and emptiness, are inseparable.
The Sakya theory has another interesting twist— they identify tathāgatagarbha as the inseparability aspect of inseparable clarity and emptiness because clarity and emptiness are themselves extremes to be avoided.
I replied:
When one talks of extremes, one normally talks of polar opposite. Therefore I find it strange that Sakya theory considers clarity and emptiness as polar opposites. A combination of polar opposites i.e. extremes, if at all possible, simply gives rise to a third extreme.
You replied:
It is not the case that clarity and emptiness are polar opposites, they are inseparable...
I refer to the underlined portion of the abbreviated thread above.
If clarity and emptiness are polar opposites type of extremes such as 'conditioned' and 'unconditioned', then there is no way of combining two. It would also make no sense to say that they are inseparable because polar extremes are mutually exclusive.
If clarity and emptiness are extremes in themselves and are extremes not in the sense of being polar opposites but in the sense of being independent (or orthoganal to borrow a term from mathematics), a combination of the two extremes would simply produce a third extreme.
If clarity and emptiness are inseparable, then there is no such thing as clarity by itself or emptiness by itself. If so, then it makes no sense to say that clarity is an extreme and emptiness is an extreme. You can only say that clarity-emptiness is an extreme because the two, clarity and emptiness, are inseparable.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
I find the phrase "consciousness is unaware of itself" a little oxymoronic. Is a consciousness that is unaware of itself capable of being aware of anything at all? If yes, what is it aware of?Malcolm wrote:There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
An excellent question!Sherab wrote:I find the phrase "consciousness is unaware of itself" a little oxymoronic. Is a consciousness that is unaware of itself capable of being aware of anything at all? If yes, what is it aware of?Malcolm wrote:There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
If ignorance arises with the display of consciousness, why does wisdom not arise with it? Why does ignorance naturally arise with consciousness, but not wisdom? Let's say a new Kalpa comes into existence.. is there still karma from the previous? If not, why does ignorance arise here, and not wisdom?Malcolm wrote:In Dzogchen teachings, when the potential of consciousness manifests as its own display, if that display is not recognized as its own state, this is called "the connate ignorance." It is called connate (lhan gcig skyes) because it arises in the presence of a similitude of subject and object perception, i.e. it is the the ignorance that arises with the display. Even Samantabhadra experiences this ignorance.Anonymous X wrote:What is short answer for grasping at a self in Dzogchen teachings?Malcolm wrote:
Grasping at a self is the fundamental perceptual error plaguing sentient beings. It is connate. It has always been there.
While the answer to why there is a grasping at a self is answered in Dzogchen teachings, the rest of Buddhist teaching merely treat it as an ineluctable fact of being sentient.
When the perceived display is reified as other, self-grasping ensues immediately. This reification following nonrecognition is called "the imputing ignorance." Following this the twelve limbs of dependent origination begin and there is a bifurcation between samsara and nirvana, often described as "samsara and nirvana turning their backs on one another."
There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
Is wisdom not a natural (by natural I mean inherent) aspect of consciousness?
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
There is a reflexive identification with the display of consciousness. In a sense, it is automatic. Recognition of this is wisdom. Wisdom is non-identification and free of extremes. Nothing is to be grasped including wisdom. This is my interpretation. There may be a set interpretation that Dzogchen or other schools use that is 'official'.Jesse wrote:If ignorance arises with the display of consciousness, why does wisdom not arise with it? Why does ignorance naturally arise with consciousness, but not wisdom? Let's say a new Kalpa comes into existence.. is there still karma from the previous? If not, why does ignorance arise here, and not wisdom?Malcolm wrote:In Dzogchen teachings, when the potential of consciousness manifests as its own display, if that display is not recognized as its own state, this is called "the connate ignorance." It is called connate (lhan gcig skyes) because it arises in the presence of a similitude of subject and object perception, i.e. it is the the ignorance that arises with the display. Even Samantabhadra experiences this ignorance.Anonymous X wrote: What is short answer for grasping at a self in Dzogchen teachings?
When the perceived display is reified as other, self-grasping ensues immediately. This reification following nonrecognition is called "the imputing ignorance." Following this the twelve limbs of dependent origination begin and there is a bifurcation between samsara and nirvana, often described as "samsara and nirvana turning their backs on one another."
There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
Is wisdom not a natural (by natural I mean inherent) aspect of consciousness?
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:00 am
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
If you're interested, Ignorance in some contexts may refer to the state prior to generation of information, the state before there is information. All things that are, thus stem from Ignorance. Ignorance leads to efforts that generate information.
Re: Practical Recognition of Ignorance
I would argue that prior to the manifestation of a pre-consciousness as a consciousness, there is neither ignorance nor wisdom as we know it since ignorance and wisdom only makes sense in the realm of dependencies or as some would put it, relativity.Jesse wrote:If ignorance arises with the display of consciousness, why does wisdom not arise with it? Why does ignorance naturally arise with consciousness, but not wisdom? Let's say a new Kalpa comes into existence.. is there still karma from the previous? If not, why does ignorance arise here, and not wisdom?Malcolm wrote: In Dzogchen teachings, when the potential of consciousness manifests as its own display, if that display is not recognized as its own state, this is called "the connate ignorance." It is called connate (lhan gcig skyes) because it arises in the presence of a similitude of subject and object perception, i.e. it is the the ignorance that arises with the display. Even Samantabhadra experiences this ignorance.
When the perceived display is reified as other, self-grasping ensues immediately. This reification following nonrecognition is called "the imputing ignorance." Following this the twelve limbs of dependent origination begin and there is a bifurcation between samsara and nirvana, often described as "samsara and nirvana turning their backs on one another."
There is a third ignorance, which exists prior to these two, called "the ignorance identical with the cause." This simply means that prior to the potential of consciousness arising as a display, consciousness is unaware of itself.
Is wisdom not a natural (by natural I mean inherent) aspect of consciousness?
When consciousness manifest, at that time, when it does not recognize the manifestation as itself, there begins the subject-object or self-other duality. That is ignorance. That is my 2 cents interpretation.
My 2 cent speculation is that when the manifestation is recognized as a self display, that is wisdom. As the subject-object duality becomes more and more reified, there is more and more of the illusion of what is mental and what is matter.
My 1 cent speculation is that the mental is merely where the reflexive aspect of the manifested consciousness is and the matter is where the reflexive aspect of the manifested consciousness is not. Thus the relative truth.