Aphantasia & Dzogchen / tantric practices

[Malcolm]

The question arises, from where does this grasping at self arise, with its concomitant deluded vision, mind and mental factors, and so on, arise if there is no continuum within which it might arise. How does diversity arise within this state if this state is a ontological singularity? A transpersonal basis must be an ontological singularity, otherwise there is no point in calling it "transpersonal."

I'd just flip this around and ask you, again, to then explain then how the transpersonal experience of "Brahman" that ChNN described arises?

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

Now, the question of where ignorance arises from is unclear in all sorts of traditions.

It's actually extremely clear in Dzogchen.

[Malcolm]

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.

[dharmafootsteps]

The question arises, from where does this grasping at self arise, with its concomitant deluded vision, mind and mental factors, and so on, arise if there is no continuum within which it might arise. How does diversity arise within this state if this state is a ontological singularity? A transpersonal basis must be an ontological singularity, otherwise there is no point in calling it "transpersonal."

I'd just flip this around and ask you, again, to then explain then how the transpersonal experience of "Brahman" that ChNN described arises? If we believe him that the Brahman experience is possible from within Dzogchen, how is this possible if there is nothing transpersonal? See my previous post below. This is the key point that needs clarification. How can people experience Brahman (like ChNN readily admits) if there is nothing transpersonal? He doesn't describe this as some sort of delusion, but as a way of experiencing the basis. I think you know what I'm talking about, but if not, it's from the 1982 Collected Talks in OZ, CA on page 97. I haven't misrepresented him.

Probably better to quote the section you’re talking about so Malcolm can clarify directly. ChNN, from the book/page referenced above:

But here one has to understand a distinction that's made in Tibetan between shizhi (gshis gzhi) and zhi. Zhi means the base, the basis. And shizhi means the basis of everything. When we say shizhi, we mean a general condition. That means the same thing as the term Dharmadhatu in Sanskrit. Dharma refers to everything which exists, all of existence. And dhatu is the condition of that. So this is the same as what we call shizhi. And by that it's simply meant the condition, the field of things. This shizhi, condition or situation, the field in which all happens, is the same for all beings.

But if we know and consider the condition of shizhi. or if we say that an individual when he's in a state of meditation finds himself in the shizhi, this is very similar to what the Brahmins in Hindu thought speak of as being one with Brahma, that is, that everything returns into, that is, integrated into, or unified, with the condition of Brahma, as if the individual no longer had an existence. Because it's considered that the individual exists only in the situation in which one finds oneself in time, within limitation, and here instead there's a kind of union with aII. If the limitation and time boundedness of the individual is liquidated, then they consider that one is in the condition of the totality, the total field of events. And they say that's a unification.

That understanding of the base. the base of everything, total field, is called shizhi. It's essentially the same as the total space, the total condition or field of space. When we talk about the openness of space or space itself, that embraces everything, including everything material. When a material object disappears, what is happening is that it's disintegrating, or integrating into, the total space.

But when we talk about zhi, we're talking about something quite else. we’re talking about the state of the individual as such. That zhi, that condition of the individual is understood. in terms of essence, nature, and energy. That's not a general condition, a total field of all phenomenon. But it's an explanation of a specific condition. We could say that in space, we find the sun. When we say the sun, we’re no longer talking about the totality of space. Yet the sun finds itself in the totality of space. But the sun has its own functioning, it's own particular way of working and being.

So the individual, what we define in terms of the three primordial wisdoms, is understood and explained in terms of these characteristics as individual. At the beginning, at origin or base, during, while on the path, and at realization, the individual continues to exist as individual. It doesn't disappear or get blurred into the all.

[dharmafootsteps]

I’m not sure there’s anything different being said here. Rinpoche is talking about a general (generic) condition, and then stating unequivocally that the basis is individual.

I don’t see that he’s saying there’s anything like a transpersonal Brahmin in Dzogchen, rather just pointing out an experience that’s like that and contrasting it from the basis.

[stong gzugs]

I’m not sure there’s anything different being said here. Rinpoche is talking about a general (generic) condition, and then stating unequivocally that the basis is individual.

Thanks for sharing the text here! He's clearly differentiating two bases: one is the basis, as a condition of everything that exists and all of existence (shizhi), the other is "something quite else" that's a condition of the individual (zhi). He then says that an individual in meditation "can find himself in the shizhi" which transcends the individual and unifies everything into one. It's what even material objects merge into when they disintegrate. (Per the snippet below). It also aligns with how Tenzin Wangyal described things in the quotes I cited earlier.

My question is how this transpersonal experience of merging with Brahman can be possible if we only accept an individual basis (zhi). ChNN clearly says that a person can experience the merging into the shizhi, the condition of the field of everything that is clearly not individual, but transpersonal.

But if we know and consider the condition of shizhi. or if we say that an individual when he's in a state of meditation finds himself in the shizhi, this is very similar to what the Brahmins in Hindu thought speak of as being one with Brahma, that is, that everything returns into, that is, integrated into, or unified, with the condition of Brahma, as if the individual no longer had an existence. Because it's considered that the individual exists only in the situation in which one finds oneself in time, within limitation, and here instead there's a kind of union with aII. If the limitation and time boundedness of the individual is liquidated, then they consider that one is in the condition of the totality, the total field of events. And they say that's a unification.

That understanding of the base. the base of everything, total field, is called shizhi. It's essentially the same as the total space, the total condition or field of space. When we talk about the openness of space or space itself, that embraces everything, including everything material. When a material object disappears, what is happening is that it's disintegrating, or integrating into, the total space.

[Matt J]

That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge. Brahman on the other hand is being/consciousness itself. Knowing other mindstreams is not necessarily the same thing as being other mindstreams.

My question is how this transpersonal experience of merging with Brahman can be possible if we only accept an individual basis (zhi). ChNN clearly says that a person can experience the merging into the shizhi, the condition of the field of everything that is clearly not individual, but transpersonal.

[stong gzugs]

That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge.

Are you using consciousness in an everyday or technical way here? If it's the latter, I don't think that a person's consciousness (shes pa/vijñāna) can expand out to encompass others. It's usually wisdom (ye she/jnana) that is tied to the Buddhas omniscience.

And this doesn't really answer the question, which is that if you think that each individual has their own separate basis, what is the matrix/space within which an individual is "expanding" to reach other individuals? It has to be the matrix of buddha-nature which would, again, imply a transpersonal matrix that connects and unifies all reality, and which is fractally or holographically reflected in the heart of all sentient beings (like how Tenzin Wangyal interprets sugatagarbha/dharmakaya), such that this matrix provides a way for individuals to expand beyond their individual confines to reach others.

(I think this is what Natan was kind of getting at in his moving earlier post about what happened when his mother passed away.)

[Jules 09]

That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge. Brahman on the other hand is being/consciousness itself. Knowing other mindstreams is not necessarily the same thing as being other mindstreams.

My question is how this transpersonal experience of merging with Brahman can be possible if we only accept an individual basis (zhi). ChNN clearly says that a person can experience the merging into the shizhi, the condition of the field of everything that is clearly not individual, but transpersonal.

Knowing other mindstreams is not necessarily the same thing as being other mindstreams.

Knowing other mindstreams is not necessarily the same thing as being other mindstreams.

- Yup, that's it.

[krodha]

That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge.

Are you using consciousness in an everyday or technical way here? If it's the latter, I don't think that a person's consciousness (shes pa/vijñāna) can expand out to encompass others. It's usually wisdom (ye she/jnana) that is tied to the Buddhas omniscience.

And this doesn't really answer the question, which is that if you think that each individual has their own separate basis, what is the matrix/space within which an individual is "expanding" to reach other individuals? It has to be the matrix of buddha-nature which would, again, imply a transpersonal matrix that connects and unifies all reality, and which is fractally or holographically reflected in the heart of all sentient beings (like how Tenzin Wangyal interprets sugatagarbha/dharmakaya), such that this matrix provides a way for individuals to expand beyond their individual confines to reach others.

They don’t “expand,” they simply realize non-arising.

[Malcolm]

That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge.

Are you using consciousness in an everyday or technical way here? If it's the latter, I don't think that a person's consciousness (shes pa/vijñāna) can expand out to encompass others.

Why do you think this? You think vijñāna cannot become jñāna? If so, not only have you not understood anything about Dzogchen, you have not understood anything about Vajrayāna, or even sūtra.

[dharmafootsteps]

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.

[stong gzugs]

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. How is this experience possible if each individual only has their own separate basis? The standard line about the personal basis clearly doesn't apply here, of people experiencing the heat of their individual fire, where the heat just happens to be the same as every other person's individual fire.

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.

They don’t “expand,” they simply realize non-arising.

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.

[Malcolm]

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).

[Malcolm]

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.

It's not a unification experience, it's an experience of being free from references, anālambana.

[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"].

[Natan]

I clarified that “analysis” simply means a yogi’s scrutiny of samsara in whatever form. For example, nirvana being defined as “analytical cessation” [pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha] this does not mean nirvana results from literal scientific style analysis.

That is how it works.

Otherwise, regarding the cellular topic, if you’re some sort of physicalist who is asserting that cells can withstand scrutiny, that would be an interesting deviation from the entire history of these teachings. I’m not sure how novel Guru Natan is planning on getting.

Here's what your master says, "We don't reject outer objects in Dzogchen, which, if you were more studied in the subject, you would understand already. "

Outer objects are not rejected conventionally, but the conventional cannot withstand scrutiny, the same goes for Dzogchen. Objects are not actually real.

Yeah... I understand basic Madhyamaka. Objects are not inherently real by way of analysis. Great

[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.

Cool...

[Natan]

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. It will be non arising realized in the pith instructions. It is stated frequently that analysis does not even get someone to a 1st bhumi.

[Natan]

That is not so difficult--- based on what ChNNR is stating, it is just a matter of an individual reaching an expanded state of consciousness. Since this can include other mindstreams, in theory a Buddha that achieves some sort of universal omniscience would be a sentient being who achieved a very expanded state of knowledge.

Are you using consciousness in an everyday or technical way here? If it's the latter, I don't think that a person's consciousness (shes pa/vijñāna) can expand out to encompass others. It's usually wisdom (ye she/jnana) that is tied to the Buddhas omniscience.

And this doesn't really answer the question, which is that if you think that each individual has their own separate basis, what is the matrix/space within which an individual is "expanding" to reach other individuals? It has to be the matrix of buddha-nature which would, again, imply a transpersonal matrix that connects and unifies all reality, and which is fractally or holographically reflected in the heart of all sentient beings (like how Tenzin Wangyal interprets sugatagarbha/dharmakaya), such that this matrix provides a way for individuals to expand beyond their individual confines to reach others.

They don’t “expand,” they simply realize non-arising.

That's not what Milarepa said. He said ultimate siddhi is awakened and expanded.

[Sharp]

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[...]

The spyi gzhi is here defined as "space," the dharmadhātu, not consciousness, ala brahmin. Within this space [...]

This whole post was very helpful, thanks for going over these points and stong gzugs for bringing it up.

On this bit:

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.

I understand what you are saying.

With what you've said here in mind, on the arising of diversity and individuation from non-diversity and non-individuation, a very simplified summary based on the traditional explanation:

Original purity (ka dag) is intrinsically radiant and clear (gsal mdangs, rang gsal). When this inseparability (dbyer med) is not recognised, delusion (ma rigpa). Because this formless basis does not exist as any one thing (rang bzhin med), it is free to unimpededly (thogs med) appear to arise as any thing (thugs rjes). Fueled by grasping (bdag 'dzin), this self-originated (rang byung) apparent diversity is completely equivalent to an illusion and ultimately unarisen and undifferentiated from the very beginning.

(The Tibetan is supposed to refer to the concepts I'm referencing more than the words per se.)

Roughly accurate?