question on distingushing mind from it's nature

[Pema Rigdzin]

Hope it helps! I'd love to hear your thoughts down the road after you've worked with it a bit.

[conebeckham]

So, simply stated....thoughts are not equivalent to the Nature of Mind.
However, the nature of thoughts is at all times equivalent to the nature of mind.

The nature of concepts is beyond concepts. The nature of mind is beyond "mind," but not beyond the Knowledge of Mind's own nature, which is Rigpa. It is not "the nature of mind" which is Rigpa, to be clear. It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

When one is uncertain, less than confident, regarding distinguishing between mind and mind's nature, this is a sure sign of dwelling in conceptual mind and thoughts. This happens to 99.9% of us, even those lucky enough to have successfully experienced the unshakable knowledge, because of the force of habitual tendencies and the fleeting nature of experience, right? That is the most interesting part of the discussion, for me...the issue Johnny Dangerous raised ( I think?) about how someone with an experience of this confidence falls back into marigpa. The old adage "Decide on One Thing. Remain in that Decision," to paraphrase, is a nice quip, and a profound instruction--but definitely not a complete praxis.

[Simon E.]

Elegantly put Cone.

[Kris]

Elegantly put Cone.

+1

[Johnny Dangerous]

That is the most interesting part of the discussion, for me...the issue Johnny Dangerous raised ( I think?) about how someone with an experience of this confidence falls back into marigpa. The old adage "Decide on One Thing. Remain in that Decision," to paraphrase, is a nice quip, and a profound instruction--but definitely not a complete praxis.

This really gets to the heart of it in a practical sense, and it kind of begs the question of whether or not truly having confidence involves also properly identifying marigpa....lol.

[amanitamusc]

So, simply stated....thoughts are not equivalent to the Nature of Mind.
However, the nature of thoughts is at all times equivalent to the nature of mind.

The nature of concepts is beyond concepts. The nature of mind is beyond "mind," but not beyond the Knowledge of Mind's own nature, which is Rigpa. It is not "the nature of mind" which is Rigpa, to be clear. It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

When one is uncertain, less than confident, regarding distinguishing between mind and mind's nature, this is a sure sign of dwelling in conceptual mind and thoughts. This happens to 99.9% of us, even those lucky enough to have successfully experienced the unshakable knowledge, because of the force of habitual tendencies and the fleeting nature of experience, right? That is the most interesting part of the discussion, for me...the issue Johnny Dangerous raised ( I think?) about how someone with an experience of this confidence falls back into marigpa. The old adage "Decide on One Thing. Remain in that Decision," to paraphrase, is a nice quip, and a profound instruction--but definitely not a complete praxis.

We might or might not be familiar with mind and Nature of Mind through books or practice.Thoughts are empty and so the nature.
Could you give some quotes on thoughts and nature of thoughts?

[amanitamusc]

So, simply stated....thoughts are not equivalent to the Nature of Mind.
However, the nature of thoughts is at all times equivalent to the nature of mind.

The nature of concepts is beyond concepts. The nature of mind is beyond "mind," but not beyond the Knowledge of Mind's own nature, which is Rigpa. It is not "the nature of mind" which is Rigpa, to be clear. It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

When one is uncertain, less than confident, regarding distinguishing between mind and mind's nature, this is a sure sign of dwelling in conceptual mind and thoughts. This happens to 99.9% of us, even those lucky enough to have successfully experienced the unshakable knowledge, because of the force of habitual tendencies and the fleeting nature of experience, right? That is the most interesting part of the discussion, for me...the issue Johnny Dangerous raised ( I think?) about how someone with an experience of this confidence falls back into marigpa. The old adage "Decide on One Thing. Remain in that Decision," to paraphrase, is a nice quip, and a profound instruction--but definitely not a complete praxis.

We might or might not be familiar with mind and Nature of Mind through books or practice.Thoughts are empty and so the nature.
Could you give some quotes on thoughts and nature of thoughts?

Just to be clear Nature of Mind is introduced by a Master.Books can give an intellectual understanding only.
I always had the impression thoughts and conceptions are empty.You say thoughts are different from your true nature?

[Johnny Dangerous]

So, simply stated....thoughts are not equivalent to the Nature of Mind.
However, the nature of thoughts is at all times equivalent to the nature of mind.

The nature of concepts is beyond concepts. The nature of mind is beyond "mind," but not beyond the Knowledge of Mind's own nature, which is Rigpa. It is not "the nature of mind" which is Rigpa, to be clear. It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

When one is uncertain, less than confident, regarding distinguishing between mind and mind's nature, this is a sure sign of dwelling in conceptual mind and thoughts. This happens to 99.9% of us, even those lucky enough to have successfully experienced the unshakable knowledge, because of the force of habitual tendencies and the fleeting nature of experience, right? That is the most interesting part of the discussion, for me...the issue Johnny Dangerous raised ( I think?) about how someone with an experience of this confidence falls back into marigpa. The old adage "Decide on One Thing. Remain in that Decision," to paraphrase, is a nice quip, and a profound instruction--but definitely not a complete praxis.

We might or might not be familiar with mind and Nature of Mind through books or practice.Thoughts are empty and so the nature.
Could you give some quotes on thoughts and nature of thoughts?

Just to be clear Nature of Mind is introduced by a Master.Books can give an intellectual understanding only.
I always had the impression thoughts and conceptions are empty.You say thoughts are different from your true nature?

He's saying the nature of thoughts is not different from the nature of mind, I think. Again it's subtle, it's not like saying "conceptual thought is Rigpa" or something like that.

[haha]

After the DI, ChNNR generally used to give some instructions or advice about what to do next; if one felt, one was not certain about it. During that time everyone has experienced that. But one may not be certain about it. Sometimes following his instruction, sometimes reading other highly realized master’s teachings could clear our doubt. It is said that the blessing would be more powerful when the master is not in the physical dimension.
Once I asked one master about similar questions using some Zen jargon; even though setting was different. I was not even conceptually close. Lol

Only the authentic state of samadhi can purify or clear up this self-created confusion. More appearances and further fixating will not destroy this. This profound state is present in each individual, if only they would know it! The ultimate nature is already fully present. It is given names like dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya.

As for the real, remember that mind is primordially empty. It is original wakefulness that is empty in essence, cognizant by nature, and all-pervasive in its capacity. This original wakefulness, yeshe, is not a blank void; it is cognizant. It has the ability to know.

As It Is I by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

You can check out both volumes.

[weitsicht]

@cone excellently put

It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

But how sure are you that this is a personal knowledge?
There is no difference between conebeckham's gzhi and mine.
This is a dzoghcen view and I assume this is where mahamudra and dzogchen split.

It is said that the blessing would be more powerful when the master is not in the physical dimension.

Interesting, I had that feeling already. Good to get this somehow confirmed!

[haha]

Interesting, I had that feeling already. Good to get this somehow confirmed!

Even "doing long life prayer" is considered good.

[conebeckham]

@cone excellently put

It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

But how sure are you that this is a personal knowledge?
There is no difference between conebeckham's gzhi and mine.
This is a dzoghcen view and I assume this is where mahamudra and dzogchen split

It is to be experienced by and for oneself, in one’s own continuum. Whether basis is same for others or not is a question that arises in mind. But from the point of view of concepts and mind, I don’t believe Mahamaudra and Dzogchen differ on this doctrinal point.

Put another way, how could one’s experience and knowledge be anything but personal?

[conebeckham]

So, simply stated....thoughts are not equivalent to the Nature of Mind.
However, the nature of thoughts is at all times equivalent to the nature of mind.

The nature of concepts is beyond concepts. The nature of mind is beyond "mind," but not beyond the Knowledge of Mind's own nature, which is Rigpa. It is not "the nature of mind" which is Rigpa, to be clear. It is one's personal knowledge of the nature of one's own mind, as distinguished from the contents of mind, which is an unshakable and un-mistaken confidence, personally "experienced."

When one is uncertain, less than confident, regarding distinguishing between mind and mind's nature, this is a sure sign of dwelling in conceptual mind and thoughts. This happens to 99.9% of us, even those lucky enough to have successfully experienced the unshakable knowledge, because of the force of habitual tendencies and the fleeting nature of experience, right? That is the most interesting part of the discussion, for me...the issue Johnny Dangerous raised ( I think?) about how someone with an experience of this confidence falls back into marigpa. The old adage "Decide on One Thing. Remain in that Decision," to paraphrase, is a nice quip, and a profound instruction--but definitely not a complete praxis.

We might or might not be familiar with mind and Nature of Mind through books or practice.Thoughts are empty and so the nature.
Could you give some quotes on thoughts and nature of thoughts?

Just to be clear Nature of Mind is introduced by a Master.Books can give an intellectual understanding only.
I always had the impression thoughts and conceptions are empty.You say thoughts are different from your true nature?

Agree that direct introduction by a master is the pivotal point. I think there are some great books out there, but I am not going to quote anything. Others have provided some good material.

Emptiness is certainly an apt description of the nature of thoughts, and of mind and nature of mind.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I'm assuming nearly everyone participating in this thread has had introduction....the theme is 'what next'...

[Simon E.]

Hard work Johnny.

[florin]

I'm assuming nearly everyone participating in this thread has had introduction....the theme is 'what next'...

Namkhai Norbu used to say that after introduction we repeat that G.Y method or other different ones until we have some clarity as to what our nature is.
Then once we have some confidence about that we develop capacity to stay in that as long as possible and try to integrate the manifestations of our condition with that state of knowledge.
Having confidence about the nature of mind does not ensure we have capacity to stay in our natural state. At this point we need to ask ourselves why can't we continue in that state-although we have clarity about what this state is- and integrate with what arises ?
So here we need to work with our ordinary awareness and pay attention at what exactly are we doing that prevents us from continuing. What are we doing that blocks the continuation .The answer is always very personal but generally it is a combination of strong karmic tendencies and various conceptual positions we hold onto that we borrowed from lower yanas. But with constant mindfulness we can discover how we condition ourselves with the limiting views of various yanas. When we discover that, there is a chance to go beyond the control of our ego-mind that is constantly at work in generating this conceptual infrastructure in order to keep control over what it thinks is the process of enlightenment.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I'm assuming nearly everyone participating in this thread has had introduction....the theme is 'what next'...

Namkhai Norbu used to say that after introduction we repeat that G.Y method or other different ones until we have some clarity as to what our nature is.
Then once we have some confidence about that we develop capacity to stay in that as long as possible and try to integrate the manifestations of our condition with that state of knowledge.
Having confidence about the nature of mind does not ensure we have capacity to stay in our natural state. At this point we need to ask ourselves why can't we continue in that state-although we have clarity about what this state is- and integrate with what arises ?
So here we need to work with our ordinary awareness and pay attention at what exactly are we doing that prevents us from continuing. What are we doing that blocks the continuation .The answer is always very personal but generally it is a combination of strong karmic tendencies and various conceptual positions we hold onto that we borrowed from lower yanas. But with constant mindfulness we can discover how we condition ourselves with the limiting views of various yanas. When we discover that, there is a chance to go beyond the control of our ego-mind that is constantly at work in generating this conceptual infrastructure in order to keep control over what it thinks is the process of enlightenment.

It's a good answer, and this is my understanding as well. In many ways though, it seems that this means functionally "going backwards", we are back to the Two Accumulations approach, we are working with Karmic situation. Now wait for the ensuing poopstorm as I insult other practitioners by insinuating they are not constantly living from the highest View.

Even if we choose to name it or map it otherwise, and claim we are not involved with the view of lower yanas, practically speaking working with the Karmic situation seems unavoidable for many of us, even in Dzogchen.

[amanitamusc]

I'm assuming nearly everyone participating in this thread has had introduction....the theme is 'what next'...

Namkhai Norbu used to say that after introduction we repeat that G.Y method or other different ones until we have some clarity as to what our nature is.
Then once we have some confidence about that we develop capacity to stay in that as long as possible and try to integrate the manifestations of our condition with that state of knowledge.
Having confidence about the nature of mind does not ensure we have capacity to stay in our natural state. At this point we need to ask ourselves why can't we continue in that state-although we have clarity about what this state is- and integrate with what arises ?
So here we need to work with our ordinary awareness and pay attention at what exactly are we doing that prevents us from continuing. What are we doing that blocks the continuation .The answer is always very personal but generally it is a combination of strong karmic tendencies and various conceptual positions we hold onto that we borrowed from lower yanas. But with constant mindfulness we can discover how we condition ourselves with the limiting views of various yanas. When we discover that, there is a chance to go beyond the control of our ego-mind that is constantly at work in generating this conceptual infrastructure in order to keep control over what it thinks is the process of enlightenment.

It's a good answer, and this is my understanding as well. In many ways though, it seems that this means functionally "going backwards", we are back to the Two Accumulations approach, we are working with Karmic situation. Now wait for the ensuing poopstorm as I insult other practitioners by insinuating they are not constantly living from the highest View.

Even if we choose to name it or map it otherwise, and claim we are not involved with the view of lower yanas, practically speaking working with the Karmic situation seems unavoidable for many of us, even in Dzogchen.

Florin expanded a little on what ChNNR calls being present.Not really related to the two accumulations.
There really is no going backward while holding the Dzogchen view and working with anything really that helps
you rest in your true nature.This would include making use of all other Yanas.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Namkhai Norbu used to say that after introduction we repeat that G.Y method or other different ones until we have some clarity as to what our nature is.
Then once we have some confidence about that we develop capacity to stay in that as long as possible and try to integrate the manifestations of our condition with that state of knowledge.
Having confidence about the nature of mind does not ensure we have capacity to stay in our natural state. At this point we need to ask ourselves why can't we continue in that state-although we have clarity about what this state is- and integrate with what arises ?
So here we need to work with our ordinary awareness and pay attention at what exactly are we doing that prevents us from continuing. What are we doing that blocks the continuation .The answer is always very personal but generally it is a combination of strong karmic tendencies and various conceptual positions we hold onto that we borrowed from lower yanas. But with constant mindfulness we can discover how we condition ourselves with the limiting views of various yanas. When we discover that, there is a chance to go beyond the control of our ego-mind that is constantly at work in generating this conceptual infrastructure in order to keep control over what it thinks is the process of enlightenment.

It's a good answer, and this is my understanding as well. In many ways though, it seems that this means functionally "going backwards", we are back to the Two Accumulations approach, we are working with Karmic situation. Now wait for the ensuing poopstorm as I insult other practitioners by insinuating they are not constantly living from the highest View.

Even if we choose to name it or map it otherwise, and claim we are not involved with the view of lower yanas, practically speaking working with the Karmic situation seems unavoidable for many of us, even in Dzogchen.

Florin expanded a little on what ChNNR calls being present.Not really related to the two accumulations.
There really is no going backward while holding the Dzogchen view and working with anything really that helps
you rest in your true nature.This would include making use of all other Yanas.

Florin's description is pretty much about working with one's Karma, whether or not we choose to call it the Two Accumulations, that's what it is, or least exactly what it sounds like. This dovetails for me with what ChNN would say about working with circumstances and doing relative practices, I don't see a big difference functionally other than Dzogchen practitioners often not liking the insinuation of "lower", but if you do, feel free to point it out.

To me this conversation always basically goes "It's like the two accumulations but there's no such thing as time"...or something like that. The end result for the practitioner is the same, living in relative reality and working with obscurations etc..from the Dzogchen view

The way this connects with my OP is, though a person might have recognition, even some degree of confidence, if things are literally or figuratively in the way of resting in that recognition..then that is the practice, or so it seems.

[Simon E.]

In reality 'resting in our true nature' is more akin to log rolling on a swift stream than it is to blissful ease.