Natural State and the individual state

[James Sealy]

Recently there was a discussion about that boring "self" and seen by myself, as more an identity than a "self".

Well I want to explain that further, for a better understanding.
That is possible because the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche gives here a very clear explanation.
This explanation stems from the Dringpo Sorzhag / The pith instructions of the Zhang Zhung Nyam Gyud Masters.

=======================


Question:
The question is about the fact that you said this morning that everyone's Natural State is exactly the same, that the quality is exactly the same, yet each one of us still has their own individual State. It seems that we are keeping some kind of individuality, and so there is a trace of Ignorance which remains because there is something distinct which seems to remain even after realization. So could you clarify this point?


The Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche
Answer:
Yes. The Teachings themselves very often say Thigle Nyagchig, Single Point or Unique Nature: Clarity (and) Unification are not separate; it is always saying things like that.

That means the each individual being has individual mind. Nature is very deeply connected wherever there is mind - the mind is like water and Nature is like wetness. Or the mind is like fire and Nature is like heat; we cannot separate them.

Therefore when we are explaining Nature we are explaining the Nature of Mind. Mind is completely individual, we believe that even insects, fish and chickens are all beings. Nobody has given them to us as food, they are not the same as vegetables; fish and flowers are not the same at all. Flowers are not beings but fish are definitely beings. Wherever there is mind there is Nature, and the Dzogchen View explains about Nature, Dzogchen Nature.

Nature cannot be created or changed; it is naturally pure, clear, unified and inseparable. As I explained this morning, it doesn't matter whether you realize Nature or not, Nature is always the same.

When Dharmakaya or someone has achieved Buddhahood, his Nature didn't change at all; he didn't change anything. It is just that the practitioner or whoever realized Nature and then became more and more deeply familiar with it and stable. That can purify all defilements and obscuration, everything.

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

Usually, the Teachings give a general explanation but if a particular person practises and realizes, it is he himself who achieves (Buddhahood), no-one else.

Thousands of Buddhas exist. Maybe you can make a mistake. One Buddha emanated thousands of Buddhas, but that is just one Buddha; their Nature is one. Each individual Buddha has only one Nature and, they are separate emanations; there are many, many thousands of different ones, some of them are Peaceful while some of them are Wrathful according to what is needed, according to the time and circumstances. So don't be mistaken.

Buddha can mean general or private (individual) - like humans, like us, you see. We can generally explain that a human has one head, two eyes, two ears, a nose, two legs, hands and so on, and this is all general. Then privately, someone has a beard, someone has a long beard, someone has no beard - sa it is similar. There are thousands of Buddhas and that can mean the thousands of emanations of one Buddha or thousands of separate Buddhas. There are a lot of separate Buddhas and also one Buddha with one Nature can emanate thousands of Buddhas and (they can show you) whatever you want to know or question. If you want to know the real Buddha, we are explaining Basic Buddha which each individual here has.

Everybody has this Base of Buddha, and if you try and practise it purifies all defilements and obscuration so you yourself can achieve Buddhahood.

That is one Buddha. Then you can emanate thousands or millions of Buddhas if it is necessary, and they are all your Buddhas, not different separate Buddhas. We explain that there are many Buddhas - sometimes (they manifest) one, sometimes more, it depends on the context, on what you want to know.

[heart]

I am afraid you don't understand what Loppon is saying. The teaching that everyone have their own buddha nature have nothing to do with a "self".

/magnus

[James Sealy]

I am afraid you don't understand what Loppon is saying. The teaching that everyone have their own buddha nature have nothing to do with a "self".

/magnus

I fully agree, that boring "self" , we easy can delete forever here in discussion.
So that nobody here , will come up in the next discussions, with that boring Madyamika "self" as a valid reasoning !

Further do i fully agree with Lopon´s explanation .
That is then finally what i tried to explain, because i know this text very well.
Sorry, if you and others had a "mistaken" view about my posts. The above-mentioned explanation was here finally meant by me !

[James Sealy]

I am afraid you don't understand what Loppon is saying. The teaching that everyone have their own buddha nature have nothing to do with a "self".

/magnus

I fully agree, that boring "self" , we easy can delete forever here in discussion.
So that nobody here , will come up in the next discussions, with that boring Madyamika "self" as a valid reasoning !

Further do i fully agree with Lopon´s explanation .
That is then finally what i tried to explain, because i know this text very well.
Sorry, if you and others had a "mistaken" view about my posts. The above-mentioned explanation was here finally meant by me !
So i hope that you and others, can agree with the better interpretation of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche..................

[Arnoud]

I am glad you realized that your view and/or its explanation of it were wrong. It’s an important point.

[James Sealy]

I am glad you realized that your view and/or its explanation of it were wrong. It’s an important point.

Thanks for your comment.

In my Dzogchen meditation there is no "self", So that boring "self" was misunderstood by everybody and again the meaning was that statement from the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche which deals with identity and not with a "self" of the body of illusion also called ego.

Maybe the using of the right words were missing, but the realization in Dzogchen practice that happens in a non-dual state without that boring "self".
Further did i study Madyamika and understood that.
Then i know very well what the state of Trekchöd and Thodgal is, according the practice.

So from now on we go for IDENTITY, that what i also mentioned in my earlier post.
IDENTITY without a "self".

[James Sealy]

Conclusion:

We change then that boring "SELF" with IDENTITY according the explanation of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche .

[heart]

I am afraid you don't understand what Loppon is saying. The teaching that everyone have their own buddha nature have nothing to do with a "self".

/magnus

I fully agree, that boring "self" , we easy can delete forever here in discussion.
So that nobody here , will come up in the next discussions, with that boring Madyamika "self" as a valid reasoning !

Further do i fully agree with Lopon´s explanation .
That is then finally what i tried to explain, because i know this text very well.
Sorry, if you and others had a "mistaken" view about my posts. The above-mentioned explanation was here finally meant by me !

The meaning of Loppons teaching is not a self or even an identity. It is that everyone have their own Buddha nature. This kind of teaching is necessary because a lot of people think that when we attain enlightenment we all merge in a common big Buddha nature. That is not true, we are all separate and have to realise our own Buddha nature by ourselves. The fact that we are separate is not a support for a self or even an identity because everyones Buddha nature is exactly the same and have exactly the same qualities when fully realised.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

Conclusion:

We change then that boring "SELF" with IDENTITY

That also doesn’t work.

[PadmaVonSamba]

We change then that boring "SELF" with IDENTITY according the explanation of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche.

But is the term “identity” referring to some continuous essence of being (an actual someone existing from moment to moment) ?

[Archie2009]

"In the present case, because ultimate truth has never existed as anything whatsoever from the perspective of spacelike rig pa, neither has there ever existed any view, meditation, conduct, or fruition, any mandalas or stages of development and completion, or any samaya or vows, and so forth. This is because rig pa, empty and without identity, is in its very essence beyond all characterization or description." - Longchenpa, chos dbyings mdzod autocommentary, R. Barron translation page 91 (with rig pa substituted for awareness).

Or just experience this for yourself in a direct perception.

[James Sealy]

Conclusion:

We change then that boring "SELF" with IDENTITY

That also doesn’t work.

Then we call it identity (without my comment), like explained by the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche and forget your comment.

[James Sealy]

We change then that boring "SELF" with IDENTITY according the explanation of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche.

But is the term “identity” referring to some continuous essence of being (an actual someone existing from moment to moment) ?

Sorry but "I" without self, never doubt here the statements of our Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche.

[James Sealy]

I am afraid you don't understand what Loppon is saying. The teaching that everyone have their own buddha nature have nothing to do with a "self".

/magnus

I fully agree, that boring "self" , we easy can delete forever here in discussion.
So that nobody here , will come up in the next discussions, with that boring Madyamika "self" as a valid reasoning !

Further do i fully agree with Lopon´s explanation .
That is then finally what i tried to explain, because i know this text very well.
Sorry, if you and others had a "mistaken" view about my posts. The above-mentioned explanation was here finally meant by me !

The meaning of Loppons teaching is not a self or even an identity. It is that everyone have their own Buddha nature. This kind of teaching is necessary because a lot of people think that when we attain enlightenment we all merge in a common big Buddha nature. That is not true, we are all separate and have to realise our own Buddha nature by ourselves. The fact that we are separate is not a support for a self or even an identity because everyones Buddha nature is exactly the same and have exactly the same qualities when fully realised.

/magnus

What does Lopon Tenzin Namdak explain here ?
Only that there exist identity but then without that boring Madyamika "self" of course.
I guess also that Maitreya Buddha has another identity than Tönpa Shenrab.
'But both have never that boring Madyamika "self" that is clear.

[heart]

I fully agree, that boring "self" , we easy can delete forever here in discussion.
So that nobody here , will come up in the next discussions, with that boring Madyamika "self" as a valid reasoning !

Further do i fully agree with Lopon´s explanation .
That is then finally what i tried to explain, because i know this text very well.
Sorry, if you and others had a "mistaken" view about my posts. The above-mentioned explanation was here finally meant by me !

The meaning of Loppons teaching is not a self or even an identity. It is that everyone have their own Buddha nature. This kind of teaching is necessary because a lot of people think that when we attain enlightenment we all merge in a common big Buddha nature. That is not true, we are all separate and have to realise our own Buddha nature by ourselves. The fact that we are separate is not a support for a self or even an identity because everyones Buddha nature is exactly the same and have exactly the same qualities when fully realised.

/magnus

What does Lopon Tenzin Namdak explain here ?
Only that there exist identity but then without that boring Madyamika "self" of course.
I guess also that Maitreya Buddha has another identity than Tönpa Shenrab.
'But both have never that boring Madyamika "self" that is clear.

He explain what I told you but you obviously don't understand.

[James Sealy]

The meaning of Loppons teaching is not a self or even an identity. It is that everyone have their own Buddha nature. This kind of teaching is necessary because a lot of people think that when we attain enlightenment we all merge in a common big Buddha nature. That is not true, we are all separate and have to realise our own Buddha nature by ourselves. The fact that we are separate is not a support for a self or even an identity because everyones Buddha nature is exactly the same and have exactly the same qualities when fully realised.

/magnus

What does Lopon Tenzin Namdak explain here ?
Only that there exist identity but then without that boring Madyamika "self" of course.
I guess also that Maitreya Buddha has another identity than Tönpa Shenrab.
'But both have never that boring Madyamika "self" that is clear.

He explain what I told you but you obviously don't understand.

I can understand what Lopon Tenzin Namdak explains, but sorry your explanations go beyond my intellectual "self" understanding.

[heart]

What does Lopon Tenzin Namdak explain here ?
Only that there exist identity but then without that boring Madyamika "self" of course.
I guess also that Maitreya Buddha has another identity than Tönpa Shenrab.
'But both have never that boring Madyamika "self" that is clear.

He explain what I told you but you obviously don't understand.

I can understand what Lopon Tenzin Namdak explains, but sorry your explanations go beyond my intellectual "self" understanding.

Loppon don't mention the word "identity" or "self" in his teaching because that would be incorrect.

[James Sealy]

He explain what I told you but you obviously don't understand.

I can understand what Lopon Tenzin Namdak explains, but sorry your explanations go beyond my intellectual "self" understanding.

Loppon don't mention the word "identity" or "self" in his teaching because that would be incorrect.

Individual is here the word, which has for me personal, an identity . That identity has a name like Maitreya Buddha.Without a name it has no identity.
it is he himself who achieves (Buddhahood), no-one else. For me that Buddha has an identity , like the 12 oaths of Sangye Menlha and his eastern paradise. He became a Buddha dependent on his oaths and realized a pure realm. He is an individual Buddha with identity.

[heart]

I can understand what Lopon Tenzin Namdak explains, but sorry your explanations go beyond my intellectual "self" understanding.

Loppon don't mention the word "identity" or "self" in his teaching because that would be incorrect.

Individual is here the word, which has for me personal, an identity . That identity has a name like Maitreya Buddha.Without a name it has no identity.

I understand what you are saying but it isn't what Loppon is saying.

[krodha]

Recently there was a discussion about that boring "self" and seen by myself, as more an identity than a "self".

Well I want to explain that further, for a better understanding.
That is possible because the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche gives here a very clear explanation.
This explanation stems from the Dringpo Sorzhag / The pith instructions of the Zhang Zhung Nyam Gyud Masters.

=======================


Question:
The question is about the fact that you said this morning that everyone's Natural State is exactly the same, that the quality is exactly the same, yet each one of us still has their own individual State. It seems that we are keeping some kind of individuality, and so there is a trace of Ignorance which remains because there is something distinct which seems to remain even after realization. So could you clarify this point?


The Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche
Answer:
Yes. The Teachings themselves very often say Thigle Nyagchig, Single Point or Unique Nature: Clarity (and) Unification are not separate; it is always saying things like that.

That means the each individual being has individual mind. Nature is very deeply connected wherever there is mind - the mind is like water and Nature is like wetness. Or the mind is like fire and Nature is like heat; we cannot separate them.

Therefore when we are explaining Nature we are explaining the Nature of Mind. Mind is completely individual, we believe that even insects, fish and chickens are all beings. Nobody has given them to us as food, they are not the same as vegetables; fish and flowers are not the same at all. Flowers are not beings but fish are definitely beings. Wherever there is mind there is Nature, and the Dzogchen View explains about Nature, Dzogchen Nature.

Nature cannot be created or changed; it is naturally pure, clear, unified and inseparable. As I explained this morning, it doesn't matter whether you realize Nature or not, Nature is always the same.

When Dharmakaya or someone has achieved Buddhahood, his Nature didn't change at all; he didn't change anything. It is just that the practitioner or whoever realized Nature and then became more and more deeply familiar with it and stable. That can purify all defilements and obscuration, everything.

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

Usually, the Teachings give a general explanation but if a particular person practises and realizes, it is he himself who achieves (Buddhahood), no-one else.

Thousands of Buddhas exist. Maybe you can make a mistake. One Buddha emanated thousands of Buddhas, but that is just one Buddha; their Nature is one. Each individual Buddha has only one Nature and, they are separate emanations; there are many, many thousands of different ones, some of them are Peaceful while some of them are Wrathful according to what is needed, according to the time and circumstances. So don't be mistaken.

Buddha can mean general or private (individual) - like humans, like us, you see. We can generally explain that a human has one head, two eyes, two ears, a nose, two legs, hands and so on, and this is all general. Then privately, someone has a beard, someone has a long beard, someone has no beard - sa it is similar. There are thousands of Buddhas and that can mean the thousands of emanations of one Buddha or thousands of separate Buddhas. There are a lot of separate Buddhas and also one Buddha with one Nature can emanate thousands of Buddhas and (they can show you) whatever you want to know or question. If you want to know the real Buddha, we are explaining Basic Buddha which each individual here has.

Everybody has this Base of Buddha, and if you try and practise it purifies all defilements and obscuration so you yourself can achieve Buddhahood.

That is one Buddha. Then you can emanate thousands or millions of Buddhas if it is necessary, and they are all your Buddhas, not different separate Buddhas. We explain that there are many Buddhas - sometimes (they manifest) one, sometimes more, it depends on the context, on what you want to know.

Lopön Tenzin Namdak is just explaining that the nature of mind is a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana]. This is not really related to selves or identities beyond acknowledging that persons, places and things have conventional selfhoods and identities.