Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices

[Josef]

I don't believe he ever said this. I studied with him for 28 years.

Now that you have the full quote, pasted above, I'd be curious how you interpret it.

In it, ChNN clearly distinguishes between two bases, one transpersonal and one personal, and says that we can experience the transpersonal basis in meditation and this experience transcends the individual and produces a unification akin to the experience of Brahman.

The spyi gzhi is here defined as "space," the dharmadhātu, not consciousness, ala brahmin. Within this space, the dhātu, is rig pa, likened to the sun. But if you think your total space is the same as my total space, you have not understood anything. The dharmadhātu is not established as anything. It is not even a nonexistent since it has never existed to begin with. It's a generic term for emptiness in Mahāyāna.

The reason ChNN here is using brahman as an example is because people tend to be very familiar with this idea of nonduality from Hindu sources. People are much more familiar with these ideas that the more refined understandings of Madhyamaka.

It is easy to.understand that when one is in a samadhi that is free from references that one will not experience time, etc. Why? Because this is state of free of references.

But there is a big difference between brahman, a transpersonal state, and the generic basis, which isn't a thing that exists, it isn't something that has the status of being. The general basis is just original purity.

When ChNN talks about the dharmadhātu, he always described it as a general emptiness, a way of talking about individual emptinessess in aggregate. Individual emptiness, of course is dharmatā śunyatā. In general, in Buddhist lingo, when we talk about elements in the universe, we talk about dhātus, like the sadadhātu, the dhatus of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness. Or we talk about the sattvadhātu, the dhātu of sentient beings, or the buddhadhātu, the dhātu of buddhahood—incidentally, the sattvadhātu and the buddhadhātu are described as being coterminous.

Finally, this original purity is said to be permeated with the three pristine consciousnesses, essence, nature, and compassion: Vimalamitra states:

Now, in particular, the following is the unsurpassed position. This incontrovertible reality is present as kāyas since the essence is unchanging.
It is also present as the basis of the arising of the inseparable three kāyas. It is not established in terms of faces and hands, the signifying attributes. The nature is present as luminosity because it is clear. Though the three luminescences are self-illuminating, they are not established with attributes of color. Compassion is present as the pristine consciousness of vidyā; though manifesting individually, since there is no cessation in the aspect of omniscience, it is neither an agent nor an action.
--Buddhahood, pg. 75

This is very much the same sort of statement as the one I referred to in the commentary of the String of Pearls Tantra which is one of the earliest discussions of the seven positions concerning the basis. If one start claiming that the generic basis "exists" like brahmin, and is transpersonal, one runs into all kinds of logical problems of identity, difference, and so on. So, the best solution to this to understand that the spyi gzhi is a set of generic characteristics that are instantiated in an individual, because if not understand it in this way, there is a conflict between original purity and compassion, that latter defined as an individual instantiation of a person's consciousness. This is just an elaborate way to talk about the nature of the mind and how the three kāyas are established as the inner clarity (nang gsal) of any given sentient being. and that is all.

Why do you think this? You think vijñāna cannot become jñāna?

I said they were different, which they are, not that the former cannot transform into the latter, which it can.

Thus, they form a continuum, therefore consciousness can "expand.", as the Tibetan definition of buddha indicated, once obscurations are cleared away (sangs), ye shes, pristine consicousness expands (rgyas).

"But in this book I read once that was translated 25 years ago it said something that seems vaguely contradictory. I have allowed this idea to calcify so you and Vimalamitra must be wrong" - Internet Mutegpa's

[stoneinfocus]

[Malcolm]

This sort of conversation is the result of people who don't study the six faulty positions about the the basis and the one valid position about the basis.

[Jules 09]

Now that you have the full quote, pasted above, I'd be curious how you interpret it.

In it, ChNN clearly distinguishes between two bases, one transpersonal and one personal, and says that we can experience the transpersonal basis in meditation and this experience transcends the individual and produces a unification akin to the experience of Brahman.

The spyi gzhi is here defined as "space," the dharmadhātu, not consciousness, ala brahmin. Within this space, the dhātu, is rig pa, likened to the sun. But if you think your total space is the same as my total space, you have not understood anything. The dharmadhātu is not established as anything. It is not even a nonexistent since it has never existed to begin with. It's a generic term for emptiness in Mahāyāna.

The reason ChNN here is using brahman as an example is because people tend to be very familiar with this idea of nonduality from Hindu sources. People are much more familiar with these ideas that the more refined understandings of Madhyamaka.

It is easy to.understand that when one is in a samadhi that is free from references that one will not experience time, etc. Why? Because this is state of free of references.

But there is a big difference between brahman, a transpersonal state, and the generic basis, which isn't a thing that exists, it isn't something that has the status of being. The general basis is just original purity.

When ChNN talks about the dharmadhātu, he always described it as a general emptiness, a way of talking about individual emptinessess in aggregate. Individual emptiness, of course is dharmatā śunyatā. In general, in Buddhist lingo, when we talk about elements in the universe, we talk about dhātus, like the sadadhātu, the dhatus of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness. Or we talk about the sattvadhātu, the dhātu of sentient beings, or the buddhadhātu, the dhātu of buddhahood—incidentally, the sattvadhātu and the buddhadhātu are described as being coterminous.

Finally, this original purity is said to be permeated with the three pristine consciousnesses, essence, nature, and compassion: Vimalamitra states:

Now, in particular, the following is the unsurpassed position. This incontrovertible reality is present as kāyas since the essence is unchanging.
It is also present as the basis of the arising of the inseparable three kāyas. It is not established in terms of faces and hands, the signifying attributes. The nature is present as luminosity because it is clear. Though the three luminescences are self-illuminating, they are not established with attributes of color. Compassion is present as the pristine consciousness of vidyā; though manifesting individually, since there is no cessation in the aspect of omniscience, it is neither an agent nor an action.
--Buddhahood, pg. 75

This is very much the same sort of statement as the one I referred to in the commentary of the String of Pearls Tantra which is one of the earliest discussions of the seven positions concerning the basis. If one start claiming that the generic basis "exists" like brahmin, and is transpersonal, one runs into all kinds of logical problems of identity, difference, and so on. So, the best solution to this to understand that the spyi gzhi is a set of generic characteristics that are instantiated in an individual, because if not understand it in this way, there is a conflict between original purity and compassion, that latter defined as an individual instantiation of a person's consciousness. This is just an elaborate way to talk about the nature of the mind and how the three kāyas are established as the inner clarity (nang gsal) of any given sentient being. and that is all.

I said they were different, which they are, not that the former cannot transform into the latter, which it can.

Thus, they form a continuum, therefore consciousness can "expand.", as the Tibetan definition of buddha indicated, once obscurations are cleared away (sangs), ye shes, pristine consicousness expands (rgyas).

"But in this book I read once that was translated 25 years ago it said something that seems vaguely contradictory. I have allowed this idea to calcify so you and Vimalamitra must be wrong" - Internet Mutegpa's

Apart from quoting your own teacher, can you provide any further evidence to support what you say?

[Sharp]

I'm just trying to understand what Dzogchen actually says, what my teachers actually say, what Malcolm's (and other's) scholarly and learned opinions are, and what the difference is if there is one. Worthy of derision? Maybe it is I dunno. Dzogchen hard innit

I see 3 possibilities:

1 The spyi gzhi is a transpersonal x from which everything comes, singular
2 The spyi gzhi is a personal x from which everything comes, plural

There is a third option, 3; the spyi gzhi, the dharmadhatu, which is not an x so much as the basic universal condition of everything, is beyond characterisation (as is stated everywhere). As emptiness, it is unmanifest. Conventionally, it is manifest in the individual as the nature of mind, and thus can only be spoken about in individual terms, realised individually and categorised individually. From the perspective of wisdom, these two aspects are inseparable, and everything is originally pure of dualistic conception from the beginning, since attachment to dualistic conception, such as personal, non-personal, generic, universal etc is basically a definition of marigpa in the first place. There is no one, there is no many, there is not third state that is free of one or many etc. Diversity appears because the Dharmadhatu, free from being any one thing, is free to appear as anything. Nevertheless, diversity is what appears, not singularity, and thus this individual condition is the one in which we find ourselves. Conventionally, there is separation and distinction which, though not existing nor not-existing etc. in reality, is how reality functions and therefore is how the path functions.

So @ Malcolm, Krodha, whomever, are you saying 2, 3 or 4. Because they are completely different but sound similar in certain contexts and I would like to be clear. And statements such as saying the dharmadhatu, spyi gzhi, is a linguistic abstraction like the word "society" could be applied to either 2 or 3.

Of course no one is obligated to engage with my posts. I am just seeking clarity. If no one is interested, that's cool, I still appreciate the discussion and the explanations given so far. Thanks.

[Josef]

The spyi gzhi is here defined as "space," the dharmadhātu, not consciousness, ala brahmin. Within this space, the dhātu, is rig pa, likened to the sun. But if you think your total space is the same as my total space, you have not understood anything. The dharmadhātu is not established as anything. It is not even a nonexistent since it has never existed to begin with. It's a generic term for emptiness in Mahāyāna.

The reason ChNN here is using brahman as an example is because people tend to be very familiar with this idea of nonduality from Hindu sources. People are much more familiar with these ideas that the more refined understandings of Madhyamaka.

It is easy to.understand that when one is in a samadhi that is free from references that one will not experience time, etc. Why? Because this is state of free of references.

But there is a big difference between brahman, a transpersonal state, and the generic basis, which isn't a thing that exists, it isn't something that has the status of being. The general basis is just original purity.

When ChNN talks about the dharmadhātu, he always described it as a general emptiness, a way of talking about individual emptinessess in aggregate. Individual emptiness, of course is dharmatā śunyatā. In general, in Buddhist lingo, when we talk about elements in the universe, we talk about dhātus, like the sadadhātu, the dhatus of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness. Or we talk about the sattvadhātu, the dhātu of sentient beings, or the buddhadhātu, the dhātu of buddhahood—incidentally, the sattvadhātu and the buddhadhātu are described as being coterminous.

Finally, this original purity is said to be permeated with the three pristine consciousnesses, essence, nature, and compassion: Vimalamitra states:

Now, in particular, the following is the unsurpassed position. This incontrovertible reality is present as kāyas since the essence is unchanging.
It is also present as the basis of the arising of the inseparable three kāyas. It is not established in terms of faces and hands, the signifying attributes. The nature is present as luminosity because it is clear. Though the three luminescences are self-illuminating, they are not established with attributes of color. Compassion is present as the pristine consciousness of vidyā; though manifesting individually, since there is no cessation in the aspect of omniscience, it is neither an agent nor an action.
--Buddhahood, pg. 75

This is very much the same sort of statement as the one I referred to in the commentary of the String of Pearls Tantra which is one of the earliest discussions of the seven positions concerning the basis. If one start claiming that the generic basis "exists" like brahmin, and is transpersonal, one runs into all kinds of logical problems of identity, difference, and so on. So, the best solution to this to understand that the spyi gzhi is a set of generic characteristics that are instantiated in an individual, because if not understand it in this way, there is a conflict between original purity and compassion, that latter defined as an individual instantiation of a person's consciousness. This is just an elaborate way to talk about the nature of the mind and how the three kāyas are established as the inner clarity (nang gsal) of any given sentient being. and that is all.




Thus, they form a continuum, therefore consciousness can "expand.", as the Tibetan definition of buddha indicated, once obscurations are cleared away (sangs), ye shes, pristine consicousness expands (rgyas).

"But in this book I read once that was translated 25 years ago it said something that seems vaguely contradictory. I have allowed this idea to calcify so you and Vimalamitra must be wrong" - Internet Mutegpa's

Apart from quoting your own teacher, can you provide any further evidence to support what you say?

The past 23 pages of this thread. The Vimalamitra quotes and scriptural references do the job.
A cursory study of the 11 topics would easily resolve this confusion.

[Sharp]

I would like to try one last time to make sure I understand. Consider the statement:

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

Conventionally speaking, is this fairly accurate as a basic summary?

[Malcolm]

I would like to try one last time to make sure I understand. Consider the statement:

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

Conventionally speaking, is this fairly accurate as a basic summary?

Correct. Thus, the point of Longchenpa critiquing some sems sde adherents, who fall into the extreme of asserting everything is nothing other than one’s mind.

While nothing is established in bodhicitta, emptiness, there is a distinction between appearances and apparent objects in dualistic vision (play), which appear in one’s mind (rtsal), like a mirror. The apparent objects do not exist in rtsal, they externally exist by way of eight examples of illusion. Thus is why Dzogchen is not the same as Yogacara. Appearances are not mental factors.

[Josef]

I would like to try one last time to make sure I understand. Consider the statement:

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

Conventionally speaking, is this fairly accurate as a basic summary?

Correct. Thus, the point of Longchenpa critiquing some sems sde adherents, who fall into the extreme of asserting everything is nothing other than one’s mind.

I think this might actually get at the point of some of the general confusion around the nature of the basis that are being expressed in this thread.
Reading books about Dzogchen that are regularly available one often finds an emphasis on semde style instructions. When this is contrasted with upadesa teachings those distinctions are highlighted and can seem contradictory.

[Natan]

I like simplify things. When we look at a yellow flower like a dandelion we all have the same experience of it, as we look at, touch it, etc. That experience is an expression of the inner workings of our bodies. The flower was not a concretized five lights. The five lights are not operating directly on the world that way. Our minds did not generate that flower.

It generated the way the flower appears, the representation, not the outer object. The way the flower appears is its snang lugs, mode of appearnce, the way that appearance of the flower actually exists is its gnas lugs, bhutatā, reality. The appearance of that flower does not exist as a mental factor. In Dzogchen teachings, it is held to exist as rtsal, the potential of the mind to appear in any form without being any of those forms (hence the mirror example). This is why it is clearly explained that the colors of the five lights arise from the contamination of the karma vāyus. The five lights, which are the expression of the five pristine consciousnesses, have no color of their own.

Distinguishing between the representation ('dra ba) and the basis that is being represented ('dra gzhi) is an important topic in Dzogchen teachings.

If the colors which are so called pure appearances and in fact colored to due karma, then they are colored due to bias not some bleaching agent like an imagined pure vayu. The bias of inner and outer, pure and impure are mere illusion of equal status.

Then whatever is being called s basis and or appearing from the basis also another one..

[Sharp]

I would like to try one last time to make sure I understand. Consider the statement:

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

Conventionally speaking, is this fairly accurate as a basic summary?

Correct. Thus, the point of Longchenpa critiquing some sems sde adherents, who fall into the extreme of asserting everything is nothing other than one’s mind.

While nothing is established in bodhicitta, emptiness, there is a distinction between appearances and apparent objects in dualistic vision (play), which appear in one’s mind (rtsal), like a mirror. The apparent objects do not exist in rtsal, they externally exist by way of eight examples of illusion. Thus is why Dzogchen is not the same as Yogacara. Appearances are not mental factors.

Fantastic, thank you Malcolm. I got there in the end

And point taken about how appearances are treated differently. Thanks for that caveat.

[Malcolm]

If the colors which are so called pure appearances and in fact colored to due karma, then they are colored due to bias not some bleaching agent like an imagined pure vayu.

They are colored due to the movement of karmavāyus in one's body, not due to some bias; they are called "appearances of pristine consciousness" because they do not arise from traces karma, like the outer appearances of mountains, and so on.

This is why there are so many instructions written in Dzogchen literature about the importance of allowing the vāyus to become still. When we are exhausting the five elements, what we are actually exhausting is the karma vāyus. The doctrine of elements in Dzogchen is very complicated, much more complicated than in Mahāmudra and other teachings.

[krodha]

Non-arising is realized even through analytical meditation a la Nagarjuna. It certainly isn't the kind of unification experience that ChNN is describing in the above quote.

Non-arising is the key realization in all of these teachings, Dzogchen is no exception.

The Rig pa rang shar:

• When the nonarising nature of phenomena is realized, that is buddhahood and nothing else. All phenomena are delusions of the mind. The mind is the one gathering all traces. Phenomena are free from all clinging traces. [139a] Through confidence that there is no buddhahood in the mind, that person who has seen the view for themselves is said to have been ultimately liberated without going anywhere.

Further, on this topic of vijñāna and jñāna, non-arising [anutpāda] is again, a key factor as explained in the Ārya-akṣayamati-nirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which dedicates a section to comparing and contrasting vijñāna and jñāna, concluding with the following:

• Furthermore, abiding in arising and perishing is vijñāna [rnam shes]. Abiding in nonarising and non-perishing is jñāna [ye shes]. This is "relying on jñāna and not relying on vijñāna" [which is the fourth of the "four reliances"].

But this will not be a non arising by way if Madhyamaka analysis.

Never asserted it was.

[yagmort]

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

...There are only individual minds, they possess no identity per se, but they are all individual and unique.

to both Malcolm and Sharp (or others who want to chime in).

could you please explain that perhaps in simplier terms? i don't understand - what does "individual" mean in that case?

i don't know Dzogchen terminology, let me try to explain it in my own terms, based on my own experience.

i'd say personality/identity is an illusory "self". identity is comprised of self-importance, personal history, concepts, concerns, biases, what i think right or wrong, this is good, this is bad, gender, age, etc. etc.. the biggest cornerstone of this personality/identity is rational, discursive mind. the mind which constantly thinks and explains things through concepts, logic and reasoning. this personality/identity is like a fictional character which is animated by awareness, which for some reason became confused and percieves/thinks of itself as "me" - personality/identity. from my experience this awareness is pure, does not have gender, age, character or any other qualities, it is beyond time, seeming separation and petty concerns of this life. during meditative "awareness mode" this awareness - which btw is not "me", texting this words at the moment - does not perceive separation, it's kind of all-encompassing. so "me/them/world" separation is like another illusion, sustained by personality/identity. therefore, it seems that "individual" cannot be applied to this "awareness" i am talking about.

...There are only individual minds, they possess no identity per se, but they are all individual and unique.

so if minds possess no identity per se, what makes them all individual and unique? i don't think this awareness i tried to describe can be any different for another person if they experience it and it seems it doesn't possess any characteristics/qualities which would make it "unique/individual". isn't it the same awareness we all share?

i used the term "awareness" - what is the dzogchen term to desribe it? i could also say "self-awareness" because it is aware of itself, but is not actually any "self"..

[Kai lord]

If the colors which are so called pure appearances and in fact colored to due karma, then they are colored due to bias not some bleaching agent like an imagined pure vayu.

They are colored due to the movement of karmavāyus in one's body, not due to some bias; they are called "appearances of pristine consciousness" because they do not arise from traces karma, like the outer appearances of mountains, and so on.

This is why there are so many instructions written in Dzogchen literature about the importance of allowing the vāyus to become still. When we are exhausting the five elements, what we are actually exhausting is the karma vāyus. The doctrine of elements in Dzogchen is very complicated, much more complicated than in Mahāmudra and other teachings.

So appearances of external objects originated from karmic traces while apparent objects are results of wind movements?

[Natan]

If the colors which are so called pure appearances and in fact colored to due karma, then they are colored due to bias not some bleaching agent like an imagined pure vayu.

They are colored due to the movement of karmavāyus in one's body, not due to some bias; they are called "appearances of pristine consciousness" because they do not arise from traces karma, like the outer appearances of mountains, and so on.

This is why there are so many instructions written in Dzogchen literature about the importance of allowing the vāyus to become still. When we are exhausting the five elements, what we are actually exhausting is the karma vāyus. The doctrine of elements in Dzogchen is very complicated, much more complicated than in Mahāmudra and other teachings.

This is why it is clearly explained that the colors of the five lights arise from the contamination of the karma vāyus. The five lights, which are the expression of the five pristine consciousnesses, have no color of their own.

So karmavayus do not arise from traces of karma? Or the karmic contamination of color does not arise from karmic traces?

Complicated indeed. Also makes no sense.

[Passing By]

I would like to try one last time to make sure I understand. Consider the statement:

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

Conventionally speaking, is this fairly accurate as a basic summary?

Correct. Thus, the point of Longchenpa critiquing some sems sde adherents, who fall into the extreme of asserting everything is nothing other than one’s mind.

While nothing is established in bodhicitta, emptiness, there is a distinction between appearances and apparent objects in dualistic vision (play), which appear in one’s mind (rtsal), like a mirror. The apparent objects do not exist in rtsal, they externally exist by way of eight examples of illusion. Thus is why Dzogchen is not the same as Yogacara. Appearances are not mental factors.

Appearances appear in one's mind like a reflection in a mirror.....but are not mental factors (ie, not part of the mind)? I don't understand this.(Note: I am not saying that appearances are the mind. That's obviously not the case otherwise cognition would be some Brahman-ish panpsychic mass which it empirically isn't. I am asking how appearances can be generated by the mind but are independent of it.)

Also is it explained anywhere why emptiness can be substantiated in an individual when emptiness is signless? Or is this meant on the relative level and not ultimately?

[Malcolm]

If the colors which are so called pure appearances and in fact colored to due karma, then they are colored due to bias not some bleaching agent like an imagined pure vayu.

They are colored due to the movement of karmavāyus in one's body, not due to some bias; they are called "appearances of pristine consciousness" because they do not arise from traces karma, like the outer appearances of mountains, and so on.

This is why there are so many instructions written in Dzogchen literature about the importance of allowing the vāyus to become still. When we are exhausting the five elements, what we are actually exhausting is the karma vāyus. The doctrine of elements in Dzogchen is very complicated, much more complicated than in Mahāmudra and other teachings.

So appearances of external objects originated from karmic traces while apparent objects are results of wind movements?

No. Not at all. Apparent objects are the results of their own causes and conditions, by virtue of the eight examples of illusion.

The appearance of apparent objects is a result of traces: for example, the liquid substance in the six realms, an example that we find in the Dzogchen tantras.

The appearance of the five lights, which is an internal appearance with no corresponding outer object, has colors because of the karma vayus.

[stoneinfocus]

Objects and subjects are not found under analysis. They are empty. This emptiness is not a transcendental object but a universal principle or condition of everything. Nevertheless, there is an awareness or intelligence that knows this. This capacity to cognize is not a transcendental subject, but a manifestation of the dynamic radiance of emptiness or original purity itself, to the extent that it is substantiated in an individual. These things can only occur together because they are dependently arisen. Therefore, this realisation as a lived experience can only take place in the context of an individual continuum. Therefore, the individual continuum, an unfabricated mindstream, is the basis, since there could be no other kind of basis in which realisation or non-realisation could occur.

...There are only individual minds, they possess no identity per se, but they are all individual and unique.

to both Malcolm and Sharp (or others who want to chime in).

could you please explain that perhaps in simplier terms? i don't understand - what does "individual" mean in that case?

i don't know Dzogchen terminology, let me try to explain it in my own terms, based on my own experience.

i'd say personality/identity is an illusory "self". identity is comprised of self-importance, personal history, concepts, concerns, biases, what i think right or wrong, this is good, this is bad, gender, age, etc. etc.. the biggest cornerstone of this personality/identity is rational, discursive mind. the mind which constantly thinks and explains things through concepts, logic and reasoning. this personality/identity is like a fictional character which is animated by awareness, which for some reason became confused and percieves/thinks of itself as "me" - personality/identity. from my experience this awareness is pure, does not have gender, age, character or any other qualities, it is beyond time, seeming separation and petty concerns of this life. during meditative "awareness mode" this awareness - which btw is not "me", texting this words at the moment - does not perceive separation, it's kind of all-encompassing. so "me/them/world" separation is like another illusion, sustained by personality/identity. therefore, it seems that "individual" cannot be applied to this "awareness" i am talking about.

...There are only individual minds, they possess no identity per se, but they are all individual and unique.

so if minds possess no identity per se, what makes them all individual and unique? i don't think this awareness i tried to describe can be any different for another person if they experience it and it seems it doesn't possess any characteristics/qualities which would make it "unique/individual". isn't it the same awareness we all share?

i used the term "awareness" - what is the dzogchen term to desribe it? i could also say "self-awareness" because it is aware of itself, but is not actually any "self"..

It's just convention. Relatively, we're individuals. You arent me. Im not you. Ultimately, nothing is established. So emptiness does not mean that we all share the same awareness due to lack of characteristics; it means that there is no awareness that can actually be established, so how could we say that we all share "one thing"?

Really, we need to look at this from the point of non-arising. Our delusion tells us that concrete, inherently existing phenomena are created, sustained, and ended when really, nothing has actually arisen in the first place.

[stong gzugs]

stong gzugs, try reading “Namkhai Norbu, Talks in Conway, 1983” last paragraph on page 36, first few on page 37. It may help clear up the meaning of the “ Collected Talks” passages for you.

Thanks for the reference! Any chance you could share or summarize the key points of this section as they relate to this conversation? It'd be much appreciated.

The spyi gzhi is here defined as "space," the dharmadhātu, not consciousness, ala brahmin. Within this space, the dhātu, is rig pa, likened to the sun. But if you think your total space is the same as my total space, you have not understood anything. The dharmadhātu is not established as anything. It is not even a nonexistent since it has never existed to begin with. It's a generic term for emptiness in Mahāyāna.

The reason ChNN here is using brahman as an example is because people tend to be very familiar with this idea of nonduality from Hindu sources. People are much more familiar with these ideas that the more refined understandings of Madhyamaka.

It is easy to.understand that when one is in a samadhi that is free from references that one will not experience time, etc. Why? Because this is state of free of references.

This was a very helpful comment, many thanks! Just one last area of clarification: so ChNN is saying we can experience either the space (dharmadatu, which is generic emptiness instantiated within ourselves, which he describes as the condition of shizhi and is experienced as the dropping of all limitations and time-boundedness) or the sun (rigpa, which is instantiated within ourselves in the heart, which he describes as the condition of zhi and is experienced as the luminous visions etc.) during meditation, and that both are experienced within ourselves as individuals. Okay, got it. What is the relation between these two meditative experiences? What determines whether a person has one vs. the other experience? Is it that some instructions are more oriented toward the former and other instructions are more oriented to the latter? Are both necessary for enlightenment? Thanks again.