What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"

[Jules 09]

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?

"Are these semantics about "external" vs "internal" in terms of the objects of experience important for one's practice? "

- Maybe not, more likely they are just a dead end side-track.
Milarepa didn't see them as helpful for practice. Here is an excerpt from his parting advice to Gampopa:

"My son, when ultimate reality beyond description
Appears in your mind,
Do not be tempted to engage in sophistries,
Lest you become proud,
And get caught up in the eight worldly dharmas.
Son, rest in humility, free from arrogance.
Do you understand this, monk from U?
Do you understand this, physician from Dakpo?

My son, when self-liberation arises within,
Do not be tempted to engage in logical speculation,
Lest you waste yourself in useless exertion.
Son, rest in the state free from discursive thought.
Do you understand this, monk from U?
Do you understand this, physician from Dakpo?

When you realize the empty nature of mind,
Do not get caught up in ideas of one or many,
Lest you fall into the extreme of nihilism.
Son, rest at ease in the sphere of simplicity,
Beyond words.
Do you understand this, monk from U?
Do you understand this, physician from Dakpo? "

- From 'The Life of Gampopa',
translated by Jampa Mackenzie Stuart.

[Shunyatagarbha]

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?

Yes, Mal. And it's a crackerjack: "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 Wnagchuk.

"It cannot be otherwise".

[Malcolm]

...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?

Yes, Mal.

Malcolm, not Mal.

And it's a crackerjack: "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 Wnagchuk.

This is translated somewhat incorrectly. There is no such "self-cognizing primordial wisdom", there is such thing as rang rig ye shes, which is shorthand for so sor rang gi rig pa'i ye shes, which in turn is the translation of pratyatmyavedanajñāna, that is, "personally intuited gnosis," i.e. gnosis which one has realized for oneself.

Now to the meat:

What exactly is this object that is being referred to? What is this apprehender?

[Gyurme Kundrol]

- 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?

Its refuted by Longchenpa completely in Precious Treasury of the Genuine Meaning, Berotsana Edition, page 137-139.

[Malcolm]

- 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?

Its refuted by Longchenpa completely in Precious Treasury of the Genuine Meaning, Berotsana Edition, page 137-139.

Yes, there as well. And as he says, one should not waste one time arguing against those assert appearances are in fact mind.

[Josef]

- 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?

Its refuted by Longchenpa completely in Precious Treasury of the Genuine Meaning, Berotsana Edition, page 137-139.

“My head is my butt…”
The sound of the assertion that Dzogchen is some kind of esoteric yogacara.

[Archie2009]

I'm trying to get the Tibetan terms clear.

This is the distinction in Longchenpa between snang ba'i yul (apparent object) and snang ba (appearances)? Malcolm mentioned this distinction on the previous page.

However, the Berotsana translation of Precious Treasury of the Genuine Meaning on page 137-139 speaks of appearances. The word list in the back lists appearances as snang ba. Isn't the passage 137-139 actually translating snang ba'i yul as appearances then?


(I haven't had time to read the Berotsana translation yet. I just bought it and got the lung and so skipped ahead.)

[Shunyatagarbha]

What exactly is this object that is being referred to? What is this apprehender?

The apprehended would be destructible objective external things, like a pillar or a vase, and the apprehender is the mind or subjective internal mental things such as the experience of the vase. Or more broadly, the object is the outer container of the universe and the apprehenders are the contents of that container. Using the dream analogy, the object being referred to would be the visions of sleep - from a vase up to and including an entire universe - and the apprehender, the dreamer's mind. As is said often in the higher vehicles including the Treasuries, external, objective appearances such as these various dreamlike appearances of temporary phenomena like pillars, vases and universes are neither mind, nor separate from the mind, being only subjective mental experiences, so how could there be duality (or nonduality, strictly speaking)? It would mean that such names such as duality and nonduality were both left behind. They couldn't be purely objective because a person with jaundice sees a yellow conch and hungry ghosts see nectar as pus; but they couldn't be purely subjective because a fire doesn't burn the mind.

[Malcolm]

What exactly is this object that is being referred to? What is this apprehender?

The apprehended would be destructible objective external things, like a pillar or a vase, and the apprehender is the mind or subjective internal mental things such as the experience of the vase. Or more broadly, the object is the outer container of the universe and the apprehenders are the contents of that container.

You need to read the passage that Gyurme Kundrol mentioned, it will put an end to your silly sophistries on this point forever. You read some words and utterly failed to understand their meaning. You clearly need to find a teacher.

In this case the subject is wisdom, and the object is emptiness. When wisdom nonconceptually apprehends emptiness on the path of seeing, indeed it is true that subject and object merge, because the subject in this case cannot be distinguished from the object, since both are signless.

[oldbob]

integrating in non-dual contemplation, with what arises or doesn't arise - all these arguments are answered in the golden glow of going beyond words.

"Am I Chaung Tsu dreaming I am a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming I am Chaung Tsu?

Maybe this is what Jim Valby means by "Pure Perfect Presence."

[Jules 09]

"Buddhism is not claiming that there is nothing existing 'out there'.
It's simply saying: You have no access to it.
What you have is your experience.
Each of us has to work with our own experience."

- James Low,
Doing Less, Experiencing More. (@4:15:29)

[krodha]

"Buddhism is not claiming that there is nothing existing 'out there'.
It's simply saying: You have no access to it.
What you have is your experience.
Each of us has to work with our own experience."

- James Low,
Doing Less, Experiencing More. (@4:15:29)

Buddhism also is not saying there are noumenal svabhāvas “out there.”

[Shunyatagarbha]

In this case the subject is wisdom, and the object is emptiness. When wisdom nonconceptually apprehends emptiness on the path of seeing, indeed it is true that subject and object merge, because the subject in this case cannot be distinguished from the object, since both are signless.

In the case that I'm referring to - in the context of nonexistence - subject and object are taught to be the mind and objects, also described as the universe and the beings in it (which might be said to be identical to emptiness and wisdom):

"No matter how apprehender [subject] and objects to be apprehended [object] - i.e., the inner and outer phenomena of the universe [object] and beings [subject] (samsara and nirvana) - may appear, the fact is that in the very moment of their appearance, they are but the empty forms of the mind's subjective experience"
....
"It is thus that, without accepting some appearances and rejecting others, one essentializes the key points of the nonexistence of all appearances in the fact that they are awareness alone, the state of equality. It is then that both appearances and the mind blend into one - the great expanse of the mind's equality and evenness. Everything remains evenly in the vast expanse of equality. It is said in The Great Gardua Tantra.

The ground of utter openness and freedom
Free from the first from all specific features
Effortlessly cancels, in a way that's free of action
The sticking point of the ordinary mind.
Regarding objects of the three encounters:
The key to this display is not to push away whatever may appear
But to bind the objects and the mind as one.
....

This is something beyond the power of words to describe; it is beyond the learning and explanations of scholars, trained as they are in conventional language".

Tenpe Wangchuk, Khangsar Rinpoche Bontrul pp 108-09, 112, Commentary on the Precious Treasury of the Fundamental Nature.

[Passing By]

is 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.

Practically speaking though, would anyone relate differently to an object vs its appearance? Because either way, this is your experience. When someone is interacting with you, you may recognize the whole thing as an appearance of your own mind but even then you are generally going to interact with them as normal, ie they are some other person and not merged with you or something. It's not natural to interact with the world on the basis of some checklist of theories no? How do these concepts actually influence us?



BTW Malcolm, the entire schema of the five lights/five elements/five wisdoms and the three visions of sound lights and rays. Since they refer to your own manifested objects of experience, it's also not proper to claim that they are, at the root, absolutely divorced from the rangzhin (nature clarity) right? (and yes, I know the clarity and essence emptiness are inseperable, but nevertheless, everyone would be as conscious as a rock if the emptiness was inert)

[Shunyatagarbha]

Practically speaking though, would anyone relate differently to an object vs its appearance? Because either way, this is your experience. When someone is interacting with you, you may recognize the whole thing as an appearance of your own mind but even then you are generally going to interact with them as normal, ie they are some other person and not merged with you or something. It's not natural to interact with the world on the basis of some checklist of theories no? How do these concepts actually influence us?

It would be like the difference between recognizing that dream images are your own mind, against not having such recognition. Either way, it is your experience, but in the former case, you can enjoy having mastery over everything while in the latter, you are helpless and suffer.

All of which begs the proverbial question, how to understand all this in light of the visions of the leaping-across stage of meditation? The visions are said to be objective appearances, while also arising from yourself - isn't that right? That sounds like the nonduality of subject and object par excellence - since unlike ordinary appearances like pillars and vases, or stars and planets, they only appear to you through yogic cultivation and yet, paradoxically, they are if I'm not mistaken, said to have the same objective status as ordinary things (although presumably no one else can see them, like a person with a ringing noise in their ear that no one else hears) - and as such a good place to mine for nuggets of wisdom.

[Passing By]

Practically speaking though, would anyone relate differently to an object vs its appearance? Because either way, this is your experience. When someone is interacting with you, you may recognize the whole thing as an appearance of your own mind but even then you are generally going to interact with them as normal, ie they are some other person and not merged with you or something. It's not natural to interact with the world on the basis of some checklist of theories no? How do these concepts actually influence us?

It would be like the difference between recognizing that dream images are your own mind, against not having such recognition. Either way, it is your experience, but in the former case, you can enjoy having mastery over everything while in the latter, you are helpless and suffer.

All of which begs the proverbial question, how to understand all this in light of the visions of the leaping-across stage of meditation? The visions are said to be objective appearances, while also arising from yourself - isn't that right? That sounds like the nonduality of subject and object par excellence - since unlike ordinary appearances like pillars and vases, or stars and planets, they only appear to you through yogic cultivation and yet, paradoxically, they are if I'm not mistaken, said to have the same objective status as ordinary things (although presumably no one else can see them, like a person with a ringing noise in their ear that no one else hears) - and as such a good place to mine for nuggets of wisdom.

I am not talking specifically about thogal practice. Essence/Nature/Compassion and the Sound Lights Rays aren't restricted to just thogal. Thogal itself....well, public forum outside a teaching setting isn't really appropriate to discuss

[oldbob]

[Jules 09]

[Matt J]

I think the confusion is held on these discussions imagining that there is 1) a universally accepted POV on this and 2) confusion between ultimate and relative. For example, Malcolm tends to hew tightly to the POV of Longchenpa, but there are post-Longchenpa commentators that are more willing to accept Chittamatra views relatively speaking (like Mipham).

However, ultimately, both the object and its appearance are empty, otherwise you risk falling into a svatantrika view. So really, it is more of a question about relative knowledge and which set of inferences one wishes to adopt (since asking what an object is apart from appearances is incoherent-- it would lack color, shape, form, size, texture, etc.).

Practically speaking though, would anyone relate differently to an object vs its appearance? Because either way, this is your experience. When someone is interacting with you, you may recognize the whole thing as an appearance of your own mind but even then you are generally going to interact with them as normal, ie they are some other person and not merged with you or something. It's not natural to interact with the world on the basis of some checklist of theories no? How do these concepts actually influence us?

[Malcolm]

....
"It is thus that, without accepting some appearances and rejecting others, one essentializes the key points of the nonexistence of all appearances in the fact that they are awareness alone, the state of equality. It is then that both appearances and the mind blend into one -

You need to reread section 1:5, from pp. 80-81. You have not correctly understood the text.