Dzogchen via intrisic Kundalini

[trd]

When you cross the ocean of samsara you discard the boat. It is not necessary to continue to carry the boat once you have reached the shore.

[RandomSand]

If it was so easy or even possible to comprehend then we wouldn't even be talking about it.

What if comprehending was the action of not comprehending ?

Edited February 12, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

Help me; I wish to see my eyes.

Edited February 12, 2014 by RandomSand

[huli]

Rocky said:

"The one thing we know absolutely is that we exist.

Lets live this life to its maximum potential free of aversion, greed & delusion."

My response:

Rocky,

IMO it is a mistake to make this statement from a Buddhist perspective.

It is quite like saying "I think therefore I am", which leads to Western thought.

It is the opposite of Buddha's teaching on selflessness.

If we want to live lives free of delusion, this is the ultimate delusion, according to my understanding of basic Buddhism.

It is possible to defend the statement, sure, but to say it is the one thing we know absolutely, that I think is wrong.

For what it's worth

Huli

Edited February 13, 2014 by huli

[trd]

What you can say is, "I am".

This cannot be refuted. You cannot say, "I am not" because it would require a witness to make that statement and therefore someone must exist to say it. If I call your name you answer.

The crucial thing is this primary thought, I am, is itself an illusion. When investigated it is found that "I am" is impermanent and for ever changing. It is the transcending of that illusory thought that leads to the unbounded emptiness of no self. The mind cannot go back further than the primary "I amness" thought. This is where practice comes in. By innocently putting the attention at the door of this primary thought, eventually the door will open to that prior to mind which is beyond both mind and experience of individual self.

[rockyysdt]

I see what you're saying.

We could be an illusion.

Maybe I can rephrase and say, if I am an illusion, then I'm a real illusion.

Illusion or not though, whilst in this state it feels real enough.

Until something else is experienced or revealed this fathom long carcass is all we have.

If we go further, if there is nothing on the other side of the curtain (as the Buddha taught) means just that, and delusion turns out to be our ego's attachment to religion and the desire to be immortal, then such Buddhists might be in for a nasty shock.

The Buddha lived in a world where every facet of life was governed by religion.

The Buddha never coined the word, "Enlightenment" which is a 19th century word.

He spoke of Awakening.

What if Awakening, was to experience that Brahmanism & all the other religions were simply made up over time and had no bases in fact.

That Awakening, rather than a big bang thing, turns out to be, experiencing our inner natural nature.

Then Awakening could turn out to be simply that, to free oneself of conditioning, and to live in a state of mental clarity, bathing in "stillness of mind".

A state so profound, it allows the one who experiences it, to be in ones natural state.

A state free of greed, aversion, & delusion, thus freeing oneself of suffering.

Rocky said:

"The one thing we know absolutely is that we exist.

Lets live this life to its maximum potential free of aversion, greed & delusion."

My response:

Rocky,

IMO it is a mistake to make this statement from a Buddhist perspective.

It is quite like saying "I think therefore I am", which leads to Western thought.

It is the opposite of Buddha's teaching on selflessness.

If we want to live lives free of delusion, this is the ultimate delusion, according to my understanding of basic Buddhism.

It is possible to defend the statement, sure, but to say it is the one thing we know absolutely, that I think is wrong.

For what it's worth

Huli

[trd]

It "feels" real. Find out to whom this feeling arises.

[trd]

When you step back as it were and ask this question, mind disappears. Does this give you a clue?

[rockyysdt]

What you can say is, "I am".

This cannot be refuted. You cannot say, "I am not" because it would require a witness to make that statement and therefore someone must exist to say it. If I call your name you answer.

The crucial thing is this primary thought, I am, is itself an illusion. When investigated it is found that "I am" is impermanent and for ever changing. It is the transcending of that illusory thought that leads to the unbounded emptiness of no self. The mind cannot go back further than the primary "I amness" thought. This is where practice comes in. By innocently putting the attention at the door of this primary thought, eventually the door will open to that prior to mind which is beyond both mind and experience of individual self.

I can see what you are saying.

I can see how letting go of that which is impermanent and always changing (self) will reveal unbounded emptiness of no self.

This can deepen with practice and eventually result in living in a continuous state of unbounded emptiness of no self.

What I'm exploring is whether consciousness of this unbounded emptiness of no self continues forever, or whether it ceases once this fathom long carcass expires.

In other words, perhaps the Universe is in a state of unbounded emptiness, but being conscious of unbounded emptiness is impermanent/clinging as consciousness is a skhandas.

The fifth Skhandas:

1. Consciousness or "discernment" (Skt. vijñāna, Pāli vinnana Tib. rnam-par-shes-pa):
   1. In the Nikayas/Agamas: cognizance, that which discerns.
   2. In the Abhidhamma: a series of rapidly changing interconnected discrete acts of cognizance.
   3. In some Mahayana sources: the base that supports all experience.

So in summary, when one transcends the illusion of "I' and becomes conscious of unbounded emptiness of no self, this ceases upon death, or if there is a higher permanent self does unbounded emptiness of no self continue for eternity.

It seems that the last possibility was abandoned by the Buddha, if you read his early works.

Edited February 13, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Deepening of practice means that the transition from the surface experiences of mind to the one pointedness of samadhi becomes quicker and more easily accessible as practice matures.

Unbounded emptiness is not time bound. It has no beginning or end. That is why it is unbounded. The individual self is time bound and ceases to exist when the body dies.

The universe cannot be in any kind of state. It is an object just like the mind and body. All illusions.

[rockyysdt]

Deepening of practice means that the transition from the surface experiences of mind to the one pointedness of samadhi becomes quicker and more easily accessible as practice matures.

Unbounded emptiness is not time bound. It has no beginning or end. That is why it is unbounded. The individual self is time bound and ceases to exist when the body dies.

The universe cannot be in any kind of state. It is an object just like the mind and body. All illusions.

So in other words, when the body dies, is there no longer any consciousness of "unbounded emptiness of no self" for that individual or that individuals essence?

[trd]

Unbounded pure transcendent consciousness survives, but individual consciousness is obliterated with the demise of the body. You have got it the wrong way round. It is the unbounded emptiness that is the essence, not the individual.

That is what I meant when I said the unbounded is not time bound. It is timeless therefore cannot be destroyed with the destruction of the body. It exists prior to birth.

You are not an individual.

[RandomSand]

Hey guys. I was reading that the Buddha taught not to discuss these things openly. It can be confusing to the observer.

I feel kinda bad myself to have carried this on so far from my initial questions. It would be better if such conversations continued privately, if necessary, between your good selves.

Cheers.

Edited February 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

Hey guys. I was reading that the Buddha taught not to discuss these things openly. It can be confusing to the observer.

I feel kinda bad myself to have carried this on so far from my initial questions. It would be better if such conversations continued privately, if necessary, between your good selves.

Cheers.

That's interesting RandomSand. What's the reference?

[trd]

I'm very intrigued by your remark. What we have been discussing is available in thousands of books. This knowledge is readily available. And this is a forum after all.

However I do feel that discussions concerning what can be very subtle experiential elements of practice are best dealt with one on one.

[RandomSand]

To the lay person who respects your outlook, trd, it could be very disturbing for them to read "You are not an individual".

Sure it's nice to help people and clear-up misunderstandings but what's the possible side effect of this speech? ...Unknowingly putting someone into their own existential crisis, perhaps? That might be appropriate for some people at certain times but this is a public forum.

Edited February 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[trd]

But the idea that the self is false is absolutely fundamental to the Buddha's teachings and this is a forum on Buddhism is it not? Is it possible to talk about motor cars without acknowledging there is an engine under the bonnet?

Edited February 13, 2014 by trd

[RandomSand]

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

Śāntideva (an 8th-century Indian Buddhist philosopher and practitioner) informs us that in order to be able to deny something, we first of all need to know what it is that we are denying.

Without contacting the entity that is imputed
You will not apprehend the absence of that entity. (Bodhicaryāvatāra)

______________________________________________________

Over the past several decades (dating back to at least 1939), a movement of monks and meditation masters, later called the "Dhammakaya Movement", has developed in Thailand. The Dhammakaya Movement teaches that it is erroneous to subsume nirvana under the rubric of anatta (non-self); instead, nirvana is claimed to be the "true self" or dhammakaya.

Edited February 13, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

From the same wikipedia page:

The 14th Dalai Lama on the "subtle person or self".

In 2005, commenting on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, a text in the highest yoga tantra, the 14th Dalai Lama explained how this tantra conceives both of a temporary person, and a subtle person or self, which it links to the Buddha nature. He writes:

… when we look at [the] interdependence of mental and physical constituents from the perspective of Highest Yoga Tantra, there are two concepts of a person. One is the temporary person or self, that is as we exist at the moment, and this is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross physical body and conditioned mind, and, at the same time, there is a subtle person or self which is designated in dependence on the subtle body and subtle mind. This subtle body and subtle mind are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect which has the quality of awareness, which can reflect and has the power of cognition, is the subtle mind. Simultaneously, there is its energy, the force that activates the mind towards its object – this is the subtle body or subtle wind. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in Highest Yoga Tantra, as the ultimate nature of a person and are identified as buddha nature, the essential or actual nature of mind.

[trd]

That is one reference from one buddhist philosopher. And the word atman as defined here is not used in mainstream Buddhism. It is more appropriate to speak of anatta (not self).

If you want to stick with wikipedia then go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

I cannot agree at all with your premise. How can you discuss these teachings without being completely open to the knowledge.

[RandomSand]

To the lay person who respects your outlook, trd, it could be very disturbing for them to read "You are not an individual".

I think without proper guidance, the person who might already intuitively recognise some embryonic qualities of Buddha nature in themselves, could very well read the statement "You are not an individual", get confused and then deny themselves of their true nature unnecessarily. Worse; they might even question everything and, not being able to come up with an answer, suffer needlessly.

[trd]

But that's not where I'm coming from. We could quote this stuff at each other until the cows come home. That doesn't interest me.

[RandomSand]

I think it's more helpful to say like this: "Your true nature is that you have the same mind as the Buddha. In nirvana this is realized".

[trd]

I think it's more helpful to say like this: "Your true nature is that you have the same mind as the Buddha. In nirvana this is realized".

That is just a mental concept and is open to any number of interpretations. What is the mind of Buddha?

[RandomSand]

Your true nature

[trd]

Your true nature

OK, I'll go with that.

If you look at my posts carefully, you will see that everything I have said is intimately connected with practice and direct experience. You should believe nothing except what can be verified experientially. Now that is not to say that Buddha's teachings have no value, far from it. But the whole purpose surely is to point the mind away from concepts to what is real. The problem is that the words can so easily become just concepts because they are conveyed and understood within the duality of mind when what they are really pointing to is a non dual state. It is indeed a paradox.

[RandomSand]

Yeah, I agree with you, indeed it is.

[rockyysdt]

Hi TRD.

How does this reconcile with teachings that there is nothing inside other than the 5 aggregates or skhandas.

Soul or spirit are not the best words both include the characteristics of permanence & unconditioned but,whether universal or not, that is what is being suggested.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[trd]

Hi TRD.

How does this reconcile with teachings that there is nothing inside other than the 5 aggregates or skhandas.

Soul or spirit are not the best words both include the characteristics of permanence & unconditioned but,whether universal or not, that is what is being suggested.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hi rockyysdt

Not sure what you are getting at. The illusory self I was discussing was characterised by Buddha as being composed of the 5 skhandas of form, perception, sensation, mental formations and consciousness. Not sure what more I can add.

[rockyysdt]

Hi TRD.

How does this reconcile with teachings that there is nothing inside other than the 5 aggregates or skhandas.

Soul or spirit are not the best words both include the characteristics of permanence & unconditioned but,whether universal or not, that is what is being suggested.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hi rockyysdt

Not sure what you are getting at. The illusory self I was discussing was characterised by Buddha as being composed of the 5 skhandas of form, perception, sensation, mental formations and consciousness. Not sure what more I can add.

The Ego, which is associated with our 5 skhandas (including body) is the illusory, impermanent and conditioned entity, but

Your description:

Quote:

• Unbounded emptiness is not time bound. It has no beginning or end. That is why it is unbounded. The individual self is time bound and ceases to exist when the body dies.
• Unbounded pure transcendent consciousness survives, but individual consciousness is obliterated with the demise of the body. You have got it the wrong way round. It is the unbounded emptiness that is the essence, not the individual.
• That is what I meant when I said the unbounded is not time bound. It is timeless therefore cannot be destroyed with the destruction of the body. It exists prior to birth.

implies that there is something associated with our impermanent & conditioned body/mind/consciousness which continues (unbounded, timeless, essence).

If the Buddha said there is nothing inside other than the 5 aggregates how can there be something with the properties of soul/spirit (permanent/unconditioned boundless/timeless essence)?

The other implication is that:

Impermanent & conditioned as they were, previous Egos (lives/hosts/carriers) with individual consciousness (with no awareness of what went before them and what may occur after), which died unawakened, will never know the unbounded timeless essence.

Why should these Egos be concerned?

Hundreds of thousands of them die every year.

They slip into oblivion, never to know?

They lived their lives with consciousness.

Impermanent & conditioned as they were (second class), how can we tell them they are illusions?

And of the Ego (life) which is associated with awakening (permanent/unconditioned boundless/timeless essence), what privilege is this, as the host is obliterated?

It seems that the Essence (permanent/unconditioned boundless/timeless) is not conscious of itself and needs a procession of illusions to embark on a lifetime of practice for it to be revealed to itself.

What is the ultimate game plan?

Is the Essence trying to reveal itself to itself, or is the Essence trying to reveal itself to to an impermanent & conditioned Ego/carrier?

Is the Essence lost & trying to get back to the collective?

Edited February 14, 2014 by rockyysdt