Kalachakra's unique view of Bodhicitta, deserves a mention as well.Passing By wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:33 pm It is not just Dzogchen. Maha/Anuyoga and Sarma Anuttarayoga as well
What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
Completely different meaning, but since you brought up:Kai lord wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:44 pmKalachakra's unique view of Bodhicitta, deserves a mention as well.Passing By wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:33 pm It is not just Dzogchen. Maha/Anuyoga and Sarma Anuttarayoga as well
There is Mahāyāna bodhicitta, the altruistic intent to awaken.
There is Secret Mantra jasmine bodhcitta, the basis of experiencing bliss.
There is Dzogchen's bodhicitta, the sole, unique bindu, which encompasses all phenomena of samsara and nirvana.
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
"This also why we distinguish byang chub sems and rig pa. The former is the object of the latter."Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:09 pmIt 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.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.
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.
- Are you quite sure that, within the context of Dzogchen, rig pa has an object?
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
100%, as Vimalamitra states in the commentary of the Tantra Without Syllables, among the different kinds of rig pa, or knowledge, that he defines, he defines Dzogchen rig pa as knowledge of the essence.
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
- Are you saying that you understand this to mean that in the moment of knowing(rig pa), there is a knower(subject) that cognizes an object(the essence)?
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
When one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:05 am- Are you saying that you understand this to mean that in the moment of knowing(rig pa), there is a knower(subject) that cognizes an object(the essence)?
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
- So, not quite 100% sure...Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:50 pmWhen one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
100% pecent sure. Rig pa arises from ma rig pa at the time the appearance (the five lights) of the basis arose from basis (one's unfabricated consciousness), which was taken as an object, and was recognized to be one's own state. Because of this, for example, Samantabhadra attained buddhahood without entering into delusion and without engaging in a single virtue, and we entered samsara's delusion without engaging in a single misdeed. Rather than recognize the appearances of the basis as being our own state, we imputed self and other on to them, etc. This is all really very clearly explained in many places. If there were no appearance, potential (rtsal), for ma rig pa to mistake for being "other," there would be no means by which rig pa could recognizes the appearances of the basis as its own state. Even the term "recognize" implies, conventionally, something which recognizes and something which is recognized.Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 7:32 pm- So, not quite 100% sure...Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:50 pmWhen one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
If you want to quibble over whether rtsal is an object or not, go ahead. Just be aware that while ka dag can never be a basis of delusion, both lhun grub and thugs rje are the basis for delusion, and this would not be possible if they did not present as objects. Thus is why I am 100% sure.
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
- "- Are you quite sure that, within the context of Dzogchen, rig pa has an object?"Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:50 pmWhen one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
"100%, as Vimalamitra states in the commentary of the Tantra Without Syllables, among the different kinds of rig pa, or knowledge, that he defines, he defines Dzogchen rig pa as knowledge of the essence."
"When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy."
- ...
-
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
When we are in a moment of instant present, there are still the appearances of the six senses. We do not reject outer objects—they still appear to us—but we understand that our perception of them (rtsal) is just our own state (byang chub sems, the essence), separate from the apparent objects themselves (rolpa). This is what is means to say, "When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy." In other words we do not reify our perception into subject and object. That does not mean that there are no objects for rig pa.Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:45 pm- "- Are you quite sure that, within the context of Dzogchen, rig pa has an object?"Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:50 pmWhen one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
"100%, as Vimalamitra states in the commentary of the Tantra Without Syllables, among the different kinds of rig pa, or knowledge, that he defines, he defines Dzogchen rig pa as knowledge of the essence."
"When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy."
- ...
Again, this is clearly explained by Longchnepa in the commentary of the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu, beginning in chapter eight. Why don't you read it and then get back to me?
Dzogchen is not Advaita. In fact, Dzogchen tantras explicitly reject nondualism and Advaita
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
- There is no conception of internal and external in the state of rigpa, and I don't need to read the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu, or any other book, in order to tell you that.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:00 pmWhen we are in a moment of instant present, there are still the appearances of the six senses. We do not reject outer objects they still appear to us, but we understand that our perception of them (rtsal) is just our own state (byang chub sems, the essence), separate from the apparent objects themselves (rolpa). Again, this is clearly explained by Longchnepa in the commentary of the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu, beginning in chapter eight. Why don't you read it and then get back to me?Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:45 pm- "- Are you quite sure that, within the context of Dzogchen, rig pa has an object?"Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:50 pm
When one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
"100%, as Vimalamitra states in the commentary of the Tantra Without Syllables, among the different kinds of rig pa, or knowledge, that he defines, he defines Dzogchen rig pa as knowledge of the essence."
"When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy."
- ...
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
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
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
- I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that you have been taught incorrectly...Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:20 pmOf 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
"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?
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
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.Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:00 pm- I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that you have been taught incorrectly...Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 9:20 pmOf 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
"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?
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?
-
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
It is a bizarre position to hold. You remain a human being with a body, a brain, etc. As said above, why would the senses stop engaging sense objects, why would thoughts stop arising, etc. Or how would a realized being like Longchenpa have functioned in life, crossed from Bhutan to Tibet, written his treatises, etc?
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
- You have already stated this yourself:Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:03 amYes, 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.Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 10:00 pm- I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that you have been taught incorrectly...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
"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?
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?
" When we are in a moment of instant presence, or trekcho's rigpa, then no, there is no subject-object dichotomy."
"Inside" = subject, "Outside" = object.
One stops at a red light by pressing on the brake pedal. Do you know how to drive without constantly having to think about it?
-
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:49 pm
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 7:56 pm100% pecent sure. Rig pa arises from ma rig pa at the time the appearance (the five lights) of the basis arose from basis (one's unfabricated consciousness), which was taken as an object, and was recognized to be one's own state. Because of this, for example, Samantabhadra attained buddhahood without entering into delusion and without engaging in a single virtue, and we entered samsara's delusion without engaging in a single misdeed. Rather than recognize the appearances of the basis as being our own state, we imputed self and other on to them, etc. This is all really very clearly explained in many places. If there were no appearance, potential (rtsal), for ma rig pa to mistake for being "other," there would be no means by which rig pa could recognizes the appearances of the basis as its own state. Even the term "recognize" implies, conventionally, something which recognizes and something which is recognized.Jules 09 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 7:32 pm- So, not quite 100% sure...Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:50 pm
When one is distracted, yes, of course there is a subject-object bifurcation. Further, in Dzogchen teachings, we do not negate outer objects, etc., since it is not a yogacāra system [see Longchenpa'a commentary on the Treasury of Dharmadhātu for further clarification on this point].
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." It is important to understand that this is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object, as in yogacāra. It is just resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis (so sor rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes).
If you want to quibble over whether rtsal is an object or not, go ahead. Just be aware that while ka dag can never be a basis of delusion, both lhun grub and thugs rje are the basis for delusion, and this would not be possible if they did not present as objects. Thus is why I am 100% sure.
In simple person speak, Malcolm, for clarification purposes.....What you are saying is basically clarity and appearances/manifestations are facets of the mind. You don't magically fall unconscious into a coma when you recognize the basis. Quite common sensical and obvious.
Is that it? Dzogchen lamas I receive them from usually say this in their Q and As also usually in response to questions how people can function when in the natural state.
Also, what do you mean by these?
vsthis is not a reflexive cognizance where vidyā takes itself as an object
Usually I just hear instructions as "resting in clarity/ clear light." That seems to match with your former statement more than the latter TBH. After all, if the appearances came from the basis, why can't we say cognizance takes its own appearances as its object?resting in a moment of personally intuited gnosis
And on that note, what are the objects supposed to be in Dzogchen anyway? The 5 elements?
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2022 3:08 am
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
...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.
Last edited by Shunyatagarbha on Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: What Does Jim Valby Mean by "Pure Perfect Presence"
You have a citation for that? And how about Candrakīrti's refutation of svasamvedana in the Madhyamakāvatāra? Rongzom, for example, declares out that this idea of the absence of subject and object is just the ultimate Mahāyāna conclusion, but that "nondual" refers to the inseparability of the two truths, which is the Dzogchen point of view.Shunyatagarbha wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 11:20 am...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.
It is true that in the Kun byed rgyal po, it is declared that bodhicitta is free of subject and object, but since bodhicitta is just a name for emptiness, this makes sense, of course there is no ultimate subject or object, but who ever said there was?