What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

oldbob
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by oldbob »

:namaste:

There is no end to words and rhetoric until you find yourself in the state of Pure Perfect Presence and then the words stop.

Similar to writing on water or air (but here we are talking illumination, not the dull state) the issue does not resolve / corespond - or can be honestly discussed - outside of the experience.

There are no words that capture Pure Perfect Presence.

So if you want to understand what Jim Valby, or any insider means by pure Perfect Presence, you need to go to a Dzogchen Master and ask for a Direct Introduction. The experience conveys the meaning - beyond the intellect.

Or if you want more words from Jim Valby, you can read Jim's books:

https://shop.garudabooks.ch/en/tags/jim-valby/

Or you can write to Jim:

[email protected]

Jim can teach Dzogchen. His courses at Tseygyalgar East were fun and informative.

For many years he taught in the IDC, and served as the US coordinator of the SMS - until the "Snake Pit" circulated a false rumor that Jim's translations were 50% false. (For many years the "Snake Pit" circulated false rumors that I had worked for the CIA. :woohoo:)

Also, I believe that Jim was cut out of the $50,000 Euros, retirement funding, that the International Instructors received, after Jim's receiving only $8,000. :broke:

I think that this left Jim a bit discouraged as a translator, and as one of the three, (now only two) highest level, SMS Instructors.

He stopped Teaching in the IDC - still translates and publishes: most recently, Volume 13, Essential Teachings, 2022.

So if you have read one of his books and have some nice words about Jim's meaning of Pure Perfect Presence - please send lots of nice words on to Jim and encourage him to Teach again. :hug:

:heart:
Passing By
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Passing By »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 am


Yes, actually, so I can explain what you’ve misunderstood.please make sure you include pages numbers, etc. Direct perception is nonconceptual, but if you get hit in the face with a baseball, do you remain in a state where there are no objects? The idea that being n a state of instant presence means there are are no objects is ridiculous. If that’s your point of view, it does not go behind yogacara svasamvedana.
Yogacarins really deny experiences? Isn't that a nihilistic extreme and thus not Buddhist? Also what is their reasoning when its obvious that they themselves are having conscious experience and not a comatose rock? If they say that's because appearances and objects arise from one's own cognition isn't it just boiling down to semantics over whether tsal is an external object rather than them literally refusing to accept that they are perceiving stuff?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Passing By wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:20 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 am


Yes, actually, so I can explain what you’ve misunderstood.please make sure you include pages numbers, etc. Direct perception is nonconceptual, but if you get hit in the face with a baseball, do you remain in a state where there are no objects? The idea that being n a state of instant presence means there are are no objects is ridiculous. If that’s your point of view, it does not go behind yogacara svasamvedana.
Yogacarins really deny experiences?
No, they assert that percepts are traces activated in the all basis which are misperceived as external objects, when in fact there are no external objects at all.
If they say that's because appearances and objects arise from one's own cognition isn't it just boiling down to semantics over whether tsal is an external object rather than them literally refusing to accept that they are perceiving stuff?
Longchenpa, in trying to remove the errors of some sems sde adherents, makes very forceful arguments that external objects are not negated in Dzogchen teachings. His arguments are too lengthy to reproduce here.
oldbob
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by oldbob »

:namaste:

Lots of semantics.

Endless argument.

Emaho!

Isn't it wonderful!

What happened to the OP and Jim Valby?

:heart:
User avatar
Jules 09
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Jules 09 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 am
Jules 09 wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:00 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:20 pm

Of course there is. You've been taught incorrectly. Otherwise you would be like a piece of wood, unable to move, talk, drive, and all of these things one can do in a state of instant presence. One is operating in a state of direct perception without reification. Longchenpa explains in the Lama Yangthig that the point of direct perception discussed by Dharmakīrti, etc., is basically the same point as trekcho. This is also how Chogyal Namkhai Norbu taught me, You remind me of the passage in the Chos dbyings mdzod about conceited oxen of Ati
- I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that you have been taught incorrectly...

"One is operating in a state of direct perception without reification."

- Yes, and that state is free of the conceptualization of experience, meaning there are no concepts of 'internal' or 'external'.

- Do I really have to go to all the trouble of quoting Longchenpa on this for you?
Yes, actually, so I can explain what you’ve misunderstood.please make sure you include pages numbers, etc. Direct perception is nonconceptual, but if you get hit in the face with a baseball, do you remain in a state where there are no objects? The idea that being n a state of instant presence means there are are no objects is ridiculous. If that’s your point of view, it does not go behind yogacara svasamvedana.

If there is no inside and outside, do you stop for red lights? If so how?

What do you make of the instructions to leave the six senses in contact with the six sense objects?
"In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called the spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom.

But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogacarya, the Mind Only school does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind.

As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehender and apprehended have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual.

As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness.
This is called Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes.

Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the the naked self-clarity Intrinsic Awareness, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it.

It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity and non-duality of apprehended and apprehender of the Mind Only school."

- Longchen Rabjam, 'The Practice of Dzogchen'
('Distinction Between the Buddha-Essence of Dzogpa Chenpo and of Yogacarya, pp.103-4.)

"(according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind."
- Hence, in the authentic state of Rigpa, Pure Perfect Prescence, there is no conception of internal or external.

"As there is no mind and mental events,"
- Hence, authentic Rigpa is free of the conceptualization of experience.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Jules 09 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:00 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 am
Jules 09 wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:00 pm

- I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that you have been taught incorrectly...

"One is operating in a state of direct perception without reification."

- Yes, and that state is free of the conceptualization of experience, meaning there are no concepts of 'internal' or 'external'.

- Do I really have to go to all the trouble of quoting Longchenpa on this for you?
Yes, actually, so I can explain what you’ve misunderstood.please make sure you include pages numbers, etc. Direct perception is nonconceptual, but if you get hit in the face with a baseball, do you remain in a state where there are no objects? The idea that being n a state of instant presence means there are are no objects is ridiculous. If that’s your point of view, it does not go behind yogacara svasamvedana.

If there is no inside and outside, do you stop for red lights? If so how?

What do you make of the instructions to leave the six senses in contact with the six sense objects?
"In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called the spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom.
Ultimately. The essence is ka dag, emptiness. So of course when one actually realizes emptiness nothing at all is established, much less subject and object.
But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogacarya, the Mind Only school does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind.
Ultimately.
As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehender and apprehended have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual.
Correct, but not the way you think it is.
As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness.
This is called Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes.
Of course, ultimately.
Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the the naked self-clarity Intrinsic Awareness, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it.
Yup.
It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity and non-duality of apprehended and apprehender of the Mind Only school."
Which is what I pointed out to you above.

"(according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind."
- Hence, in the authentic state of Rigpa, Pure Perfect Prescence, there is no conception of internal or external.
Bodhicitta and vidyā are not the same thing. The former is the basis; that latter is the recognition of the nature of the basis, which recogniton must, in the end, also be exhausted.
"As there is no mind and mental events,"
- Hence, authentic Rigpa is free of the conceptualization of experience.
This does not mean that when one is in instant presence one has no thoughts, it means that one does not chase thoughts, etc. ChNN explained this hundreds of time, "Nonconceptuality in Dzogchen teachings does not mean one has no concepts, it means one does not chase concepts."

Since you have not offered a substantive rebuttal, I am going to leave this conversation here.
User avatar
Jules 09
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Jules 09 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:22 pm
Jules 09 wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 6:00 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 am

Yes, actually, so I can explain what you’ve misunderstood.please make sure you include pages numbers, etc. Direct perception is nonconceptual, but if you get hit in the face with a baseball, do you remain in a state where there are no objects? The idea that being n a state of instant presence means there are are no objects is ridiculous. If that’s your point of view, it does not go behind yogacara svasamvedana.

If there is no inside and outside, do you stop for red lights? If so how?

What do you make of the instructions to leave the six senses in contact with the six sense objects?
"In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called the spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom.
Ultimately. The essence is ka dag, emptiness. So of course when one actually realizes emptiness nothing at all is established, much less subject and object.
But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogacarya, the Mind Only school does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind.
Ultimately.
As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehender and apprehended have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual.
Correct, but not the way you think it is.
As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness.
This is called Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes.
Of course, ultimately.
Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the the naked self-clarity Intrinsic Awareness, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it.
Yup.
It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity and non-duality of apprehended and apprehender of the Mind Only school."
Which is what I pointed out to you above.

"(according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind."
- Hence, in the authentic state of Rigpa, Pure Perfect Prescence, there is no conception of internal or external.
Bodhicitta and vidyā are not the same thing. The former is the basis; that latter is the recognition of the nature of the basis, which recogniton must, in the end, also be exhausted.
"As there is no mind and mental events,"
- Hence, authentic Rigpa is free of the conceptualization of experience.
This does not mean that when one is in instant presence one has no thoughts, it means that one does not chase thoughts, etc. ChNN explained this hundreds of time, "Nonconceptuality in Dzogchen teachings does not mean one has no concepts, it means one does not chase concepts."

Since you have not offered a substantive rebuttal, I am going to leave this conversation here.
"This does not mean that when one is in instant presence one has no thoughts, it means that one does not chase thoughts, etc. ChNN explained this hundreds of time, "Nonconceptuality in Dzogchen teachings does not mean one has no concepts, it means one does not chase concepts."

- That is what you heard your teacher saying to you.

I have received teachings and pointing out instructions from my own teachers, which obviously may well differ from what you heard ChNN say. As stated previously, I would not be so arrogant, as you appear to be, as to say that you have been taught incorrectly.
Shunyatagarbha
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2022 3:08 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Shunyatagarbha »

oldbob wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:44 pm There are no words that capture Pure Perfect Presence.

So if you want to understand what Jim Valby, or any insider means by pure Perfect Presence,
It looks like that idea was what is the underlying Tibetan term translated as Pure Perfect Presence because between the various modern English translators, they seem to maybe translate different words by the same English term, e.g., in different place both rigpa and bodhicitta seem to end up as "presence", which is somewhat confusing. I think the idea was to determine if here it was rigpa or bodhicitta being called "presence", and it would appear that it is the latter.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Shunyatagarbha wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:03 pm
oldbob wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:44 pm There are no words that capture Pure Perfect Presence.

So if you want to understand what Jim Valby, or any insider means by pure Perfect Presence,
It looks like that idea was what is the underlying Tibetan term translated as Pure Perfect Presence because between the various modern English translators, they seem to maybe translate different words by the same English term, e.g., in different place both rigpa and bodhicitta seem to end up as "presence", which is somewhat confusing. I think the idea was to determine if here it was rigpa or bodhicitta being called "presence", and it would appear that it is the latter.
The term being translated as "presence" is sems, citta. There is no subject or object in byang chub sems because byang chub sems in the "mind series" term for emptiness free from four extremes.

Longchenpa describes this as follows:

"Bodhicitta, which is not established in any way, becomes the basis for everything, like space. It's potential (rtsal) has an unceasing mode of arising. like a mirror. Play is the phenomena arising as the diversity, like the eight examples of illusion. These three, from the perspective of emptiness, are nondual because they are not established in anyway. From the perspective of appearance, from the moment cognizance (rig pa), sleep, and dreams arise one after another, they have the nature of being without any basis, appearing as bodhicitta, potential, and play. These, from the perspective of their essence, are beyond singular and diverse phenonena, from the perspective of appearance, they are conventionally described as three. When having defined their essence, when defined conventionally, since it is invalid to for play and bodhicitta to be the same, from this perspective, play is divided into appearances and apparent objects. Though there is neither inside nor outside, thorugh understanding the eight examples of illusion, though phenomena and their characteristics, and so on, are designated, it is the position of the system of the Great Perfection that they are a great, nonexistent, clear appearance."

-- pp.310-311, Lung gyi gter mdzod, Gangtok, 1983
Shunyatagarbha
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2022 3:08 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Shunyatagarbha »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:40 pm The term being translated as "presence" is sems, citta.
Right. The confusion has arisen from the fact that other translators from the same umbrella group it would seem also translate rigpa as presence, or even as pure presence. This makes it sound like rigpa and sems are synonyms, since they are being called the same thing in English (neither of which are actual word translations..!) And it would follow that with that passage quoted, someone else might translate it as "Pure perfect presence, which is not established in any way..."
Last edited by Shunyatagarbha on Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
Shunyatagarbha
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2022 3:08 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Shunyatagarbha »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:02 pm
Shunyatagarbha wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:20 am
Malcolm wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:00 pm Dzogchen is not Advaita. In fact, Dzogchen tantras explicitly reject nondualism and Advaita
...Yes, because there are no such things as Atman and Brahman to unify...but there is a difference between Advaita nondualism, and nonduality in Buddhism. In all Buddhist vehicles, well at least in the very highest ones, nonduality of subject and object is emphasised.
You have a citation for that?
"The object to be apprehended and the apprehender blend indivisibly into in the one great state of equality. It does not happen in any other way. The apprehender and the object to be apprehended are naturally and evenly immersed in the state of self-cognizing primordial wisdom. They never fall outside this vast expanse". Khangsar Tenpe Wangchuk, commentary on the Precious Treasury of the Fundamental Nature, page 99.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by muni »

oldbob wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 3:44 pm :namaste:

There is no end to words and rhetoric until you find yourself in the state of Pure Perfect Presence and then the words stop.

Similar to writing on water or air (but here we are talking illumination, not the dull state) the issue does not resolve / corespond - or can be honestly discussed - outside of the experience.

There are no words that capture Pure Perfect Presence.

So if you want to understand what Jim Valby, or any insider means by pure Perfect Presence, you need to go to a Dzogchen Master and ask for a Direct Introduction. The experience conveys the meaning - beyond the intellect.
:namaste: Good morning Oldbob,

I always had the idea when my mind stops with all the great and so beautiful concepts I learned, my mind would for sure turn completely dull. Once I came with such concepts to Master, thinking he will be very happy with these, but he answered me: I have no cleverness to say. How could he say so!? Should I have to turn stupid perhaps? Anyway I already did.

Now very recently, a Dzogchen Master explained how mind remains limited, and how to expanse/widen. He explained how concepts are like bars, keeping mind limited. Perhaps instead of turning dull, at least a second of "meditation" or even less could be greater then any of my concept. To widen the mind, allowing the bars to open.

However like you say if more words can help to realize what is not dullness, then as well gratitude for these.

All the best for Jim Valby, all the best for all.


_/\_
Passing By
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Passing By »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:43 pm
Passing By wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:20 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 am


Yes, actually, so I can explain what you’ve misunderstood.please make sure you include pages numbers, etc. Direct perception is nonconceptual, but if you get hit in the face with a baseball, do you remain in a state where there are no objects? The idea that being n a state of instant presence means there are are no objects is ridiculous. If that’s your point of view, it does not go behind yogacara svasamvedana.
Yogacarins really deny experiences?
No, they assert that percepts are traces activated in the all basis which are misperceived as external objects, when in fact there are no external objects at all.
If they say that's because appearances and objects arise from one's own cognition isn't it just boiling down to semantics over whether tsal is an external object rather than them literally refusing to accept that they are perceiving stuff?
Longchenpa, in trying to remove the errors of some sems sde adherents, makes very forceful arguments that external objects are not negated in Dzogchen teachings. His arguments are too lengthy to reproduce here.
I see, thanks.

Well then, I guess the most important question is:

Are these semantics about "external" vs "internal" in terms of the objects of experience important for one's practice? It seems (or so as I have always been taught) you practice on the basis of your own lived condition and methods utilizing the support of your own psycho-physiological anatomy rather than some theoretical view that you must hold like in sutric paths for example. Of course, if you want to communicate to others about Dzogchen you have to know these concepts precisely but for the individual practitioner, is it critical how one defines external and internal with regards to objects?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Passing By wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:06 amis it critical how one defines external and internal with regards to objects?
The purpose of studying such tenets is to eliminate concepts, in this case, the concept, "there is nothing outside the mind/rigpa." So while it is fine to assert appearances as established as mind, it is not fine to assert "apparent objects" are established as mind.
User avatar
Jules 09
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Jules 09 »

Passing By wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:06 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:43 pm
Passing By wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:20 pm

Yogacarins really deny experiences?
No, they assert that percepts are traces activated in the all basis which are misperceived as external objects, when in fact there are no external objects at all.
If they say that's because appearances and objects arise from one's own cognition isn't it just boiling down to semantics over whether tsal is an external object rather than them literally refusing to accept that they are perceiving stuff?
Longchenpa, in trying to remove the errors of some sems sde adherents, makes very forceful arguments that external objects are not negated in Dzogchen teachings. His arguments are too lengthy to reproduce here.
I see, thanks.

Well then, I guess the most important question is:

Are these semantics about "external" vs "internal" in terms of the objects of experience important for one's practice? It seems (or so as I have always been taught) you practice on the basis of your own lived condition and methods utilizing the support of your own psycho-physiological anatomy rather than some theoretical view that you must hold like in sutric paths for example. Of course, if you want to communicate to others about Dzogchen you have to know these concepts precisely but for the individual practitioner, is it critical how one defines external and internal with regards to objects?
"Do not divide appearances as being there and awareness as being here.
Let appearance and awareness be indivisible."

- Tulku Urgyen
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Jules 09 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:41 pm
"Do not divide appearances as being there and awareness as being here.
Let appearance and awareness be indivisible."

- Tulku Urgyen
Sure, appearances, but not apparent objects.
User avatar
Jules 09
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Jules 09 »

Jules 09 wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:39 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:09 pm
stoneinfocus wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:59 pm

The dang rolpa tsal schema is a unique feature of Namkhai Norbu's system, so youre not going to find it in the tantra or commentaries. The more typical schema is tsal, rolpa, bodhicitta as explained by Longchenpa is his Treasuries.
It is important to understand that Longchenpa's byang chub sems, rtsal, and rol pa scheme is explained in order clarify that Dzogchen does not reject outer objects (rol pa). Some people in Tibet took the "sems" part to be something resembling Yogacāra idealism.

ChNN's scheme is related to the three kāyas, so completely different in meaning.

To this we can add the explanation of byang chub sems found in Kunzang Dorje's 12th century text, the Vajra Bridge (klong sde). Byang refers to purity, that's obvious. But he states very clearly:

Comprehension means (chub pa) means [6/b] 1) the comprehensions imbued with the five poisons when there is ignorance or delusion about the reality of the mind essence and 2) it means the comprehension imbued with the five pristine consciousnesses when there is knowledge and realization of that reality.

One point that the gloss "perfect" does not reach as a translation is the the definition of chub pa as understanding or realization (rtogs pa).

sems is explained as follows:

Next, because so-called “mind” (sems) is not the mind, it is the mind essence (sems nyid). The temporary concepts of mental processing arise from conditions and perish because of conditions. Being conditioned and relative, since [the mind] cannot endure and are transformed by conditions, [mind] is not ultimate.

The mind essence (sems nyid) has always been unconditioned. The meaning of not being destroyed by conditions and never changing in the three times is the reality that is luminous and nonconceptual.



Dorje Gyaltsen's 13th century commentary on the Cuckoo of Vidyā gives the following definitions:

The meaning: “Purity [byang]” means all phenomena that are the primal nature (rang bzhin, prakṛti) of delusion have never been established in the core of the true state, bodhicitta [byang chub sems]. Also there is no purifying antidote, its intrinsic essence beyond thought and expression is pure.

However all the phenomena of samsara and nirvana or the universe and beings appear, they are one in bodhicitta through the principle of being free from departing and gathering, and are inseparable. Since those are free from partiality, they are comprehended (chub) to be pure.

That “Mind of” [kyi sems] is the unmixed totally complete essence, the primal nature of the eight consciousnesses endowed with a luminous (‘od gsal) identity which inherently never wavers into any extreme at all, free from all extremes, naturally pure and unwavering in the three times.

Now then, if it is asked “Is it not impossible for such a pure primal nature to appear to the mind of a person?” It is possible, it is called “vidyā” (rig pa). The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness manifests as self-originated wisdom, and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of apprehending subject and apprehended objects) bring samsara to an end. The pristine consciousness (ye shes, jñāna) of one’s vidyā (without root or leaf) — naturally perfected as it totally encompasses and subsumes everything — is the true state [de kho na nyid, tattva].


Thus, another way to translate byang chub sems is "The mind essence of the comprehension of purity."

This also why we distinguish byang chub sems and rig pa. The former is the object of the latter.

This should clear up some questions and cause more.
"This also why we distinguish byang chub sems and rig pa. The former is the object of the latter."

- Are you quite sure that, within the context of Dzogchen, rig pa has an object?
"Now then, if it is asked “Is it not impossible for such a pure primal nature to appear to the mind of a person?” It is possible, it is called “vidyā” (rig pa). The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness manifests as self-originated wisdom, and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of apprehending subject and apprehended objects) bring samsara to an end. The pristine consciousness (ye shes, jñāna) of one’s vidyā (without root or leaf) — naturally perfected as it totally encompasses and subsumes everything — is the true state [de kho na nyid, tattva]."

"The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects."

- So, are you saying that, according to Longchenpa, "apparent objects," as distinct from "apprehended objects,' have an existence of their own, independent of, and 'outside' of, the mind of a sentient being?

In which case, how is it possible for you to assert that with any certainty?
Given that it is something that you cannot actually know yourself, as a sentient being...

With regards to this point, Lama Yeshe used to say: "How can we ever really know if there is a real relative reality 'out there', or not?"
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Malcolm »

Jules 09 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:31 pm
"Now then, if it is asked “Is it not impossible for such a pure primal nature to appear to the mind of a person?” It is possible, it is called “vidyā” (rig pa). The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness manifests as self-originated wisdom, and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of apprehending subject and apprehended objects) bring samsara to an end. The pristine consciousness (ye shes, jñāna) of one’s vidyā (without root or leaf) — naturally perfected as it totally encompasses and subsumes everything — is the true state [de kho na nyid, tattva]."

"The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects."
Thus, rig pa has objects.

And
- So, are you saying that, according to Longchenpa, "apparent objects," as distinct from "apprehended objects,' have an existence of their own, independent of, and 'outside' of, the mind of a sentient being?
Absolutely this is the case, they exist as dependently originated phenomena through their own causes and conditions which are to be understood through the eight examples of illusion.
In which case, how is it possible for you to assert that with any certainty?
How can you be certain you are posting on Dharmawheel on a computer in one place and I am reading your responses on another computer somewhere else? Am I merely your mental projection offering disagreeable and insulting responses to your sincere and heartfelt inquiries? If this is actually the case, you have nothing other than your own mind to blame for insulting itself. Otherwise, you have to accept I am an apparent object, etc. and we can cease with this silly charade of questioning the existence of external objects, dependently originated and illusory though they may be. Some things are just matters of fact, like the existence of things outside mind and its appearances.
User avatar
Jules 09
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:18 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Jules 09 »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 5:53 pm
Jules 09 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:31 pm
"Now then, if it is asked “Is it not impossible for such a pure primal nature to appear to the mind of a person?” It is possible, it is called “vidyā” (rig pa). The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness manifests as self-originated wisdom, and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of apprehending subject and apprehended objects) bring samsara to an end. The pristine consciousness (ye shes, jñāna) of one’s vidyā (without root or leaf) — naturally perfected as it totally encompasses and subsumes everything — is the true state [de kho na nyid, tattva]."

"The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects."
Thus, rig pa has objects.

And
- So, are you saying that, according to Longchenpa, "apparent objects," as distinct from "apprehended objects,' have an existence of their own, independent of, and 'outside' of, the mind of a sentient being?
Absolutely this is the case, they exist as dependently originated phenomena through their own causes and conditions which are to be understood through the eight examples of illusion.
In which case, how is it possible for you to assert that with any certainty?
How can you be certain you are posting on Dharmawheel on a computer in one place and I am reading your responses on another computer somewhere else? Am I merely your mental projection offering disagreeable and insulting responses to your sincere and heartfelt inquiries? If this is actually the case, you have nothing other than your own mind to blame for insulting itself. Otherwise, you have to accept I am an apparent object, etc. and we can cease with this silly charade of questioning the existence of external objects, dependently originated and illusory though they may be. Some things are just matters of fact, like the existence of things outside mind and its appearances.


"Thus, rig pa has objects."

- Rig pa in it's usage as 'the one who sees'. Not rig pa in the context of Dzogchen (Treckcho) which is what this charade has been about. Remember what you wrote?
> "Rigpa in this context however is just knowledge of one's own state. When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy. We are resting in the knowledge of our own state. This is called "knowledge of the essence."

"How can you be certain you are posting on Dharmawheel on a computer in one place and I am reading your responses on another computer somewhere else?"

- Bottom line is - I can't.

"Am I merely your mental projection offering disagreeable and insulting responses to your sincere and heartfelt inquiries?"

- Possibly... But I can tell you for sure, that the enquiries are not "sincere and heartfelt," however much you might like to think that you are someone special. :rolling:
I find this interesting, amusing, and possibly informative.., but don't forget the eight analogies of illusion.

"Some things are just matters of fact, like the existence of things outside mind and its appearances."

- I would call that hearsay, but now we are just splitting illusory hairs. :cheers:
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2611
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

Post by Josef »

I feel like I have seen this discussion before...
"All phenomena of samsara depend on the mind, so when the essence of mind is purified, samsara is purified. Since the phenomena of nirvana depend on the pristine consciousness of vidyā, because one remains in the immediacy of vidyā, buddhahood arises on its own. All critical points are summarized with those two." - Longchenpa
Locked

Return to “Dzogchen”