(On the definition of Turiya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya)
A kind admin of Dharmawheel, Astus, helped me salvage some great
posts in an old (closed) topic 'Turiya vs Dzogchen':
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby asunthatneversets » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:56 pm
mr.marigpa wrote:
So the TM practitioner with stable witnessing in
waking and sleeping just has really good dualistic
mindfulness?
The state or position of being firmly established in "the witness"
is merely being stabilized in the alaya(kun gzhi). The term
"witnessing" in and of itself suggests observing phenomena from a
particular standpoint. Stable witnessing is a state of detachment,
In being firmly established in the "witness" phenomena appear as
they normally do except there's no feeling of it being "me" or "I".
The "me"(or 'that' which witnesses) is posited to be something
other. So in witnessing, the body and other phenomena appear
detached from the "knower". And 'that'(pure knowingness) which is
disconnected is then posited to be beyond anything "knowable"
because it is that which knows. 'That' which knows(pure
knowingness/awareness) is considered to be a substantiated and
localized substratum(even though it is considered to be formless)
and for that reason it is the alaya. To describe this state, an
analogy of a movie patron viewing images on a theater screen is
sometimes used.
The witnessing state is equivalent to stabilized œamatha (shiné),
once œamatha is stabilized one is essentially proficient in "really
good dualistic mindfulness" (as you said). After stabilized shiné,
next step is released shiné and once released shiné is achieved and
stabilized, one is said to be officially practicing dzogchen.
"When you have achieved released shiné and remain in the
continuation of this state, you have finally become a dzogchen
practitioner."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu
Even those proficient in advaita vedanta downplay the witnessing
state as dualistic, as shown in this dialogue between Nisargadatta
Maharaj and a questioner.
Q: Well, you told me that I am the Supreme Reality, I believe you.
What next is there for me to do?
M: I told you already. Discover all that you are not. Body,
feelings, thoughts, ideas, time, space, being and not-being, this
or that - nothing concrete or abstract you can point out is you. A
mere verbal statement will not do - you may even repeat a formula
endlessly without any result whatsoever. You must watch yourself
continuously - particularly your mind - moment by moment, missing
nothing. This witnessing is essential for the separation of the
self from the not-self.
Q: The witnessing - is it not my real nature?
M: For witnessing, there must be something else to witness. We are
still in duality!
Q: What about witnessing the witness? Awareness of awareness?
M: Putting words together will not take you far. Go within and
discover what you are not. Nothing else matters.
So yes a TM practitioner with stable witnessing in waking and
sleeping essentially has excellent dualistic mindfulness.
asunthatneversets
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30
pm
Top
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby asunthatneversets » Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:54 pm
I found this description of turiya which is essentially a
description of being firmly established in the alaya. It elaborates
on how one can solidify witnessing by transcending the position of
merely observing sensory phenomena, to firmly witnessing the 3
states of waking, dream and deep sleep (as a whole) in a detached
witnessing manner. Turiya seems to be the perfected witnessing
state, which is still equivalent to ignorance(avidya) as far as
dzogchen is concerned.
The following is an in depth description of being firmly
established in the alaya:
"Our fundamental state of true self-knowledge is sometimes
described in advaita vedanta as the state of 'wakeful sleep' or
'waking sleep' (jagrat-su?upti in Sanskrit, or nanavu-tuyil in
Tamil) because, since it is a state in which we experience no
duality, it is a thought-free state like sleep, but since it is at
the same time a state in which we experience absolute clarity of
self-knowledge, it is also a state of perfect wakefulness.
Since this state of 'wakeful sleep' is beyond our three ordinary
states of waking, dream and deep sleep, in advaita vedanta it is
also sometimes referred to as the 'fourth state' or turiya avastha.
Somewhat confusingly, however, in some texts another term is used
to describe it, namely the 'fourth-transcending' or turiyatita,
which has given rise to the wrong notion that beyond this 'fourth
state' there is some further 'fifth state'. In truth, however, the
non-dual state of true self-knowledge is the ultimate and absolute
state, beyond which no other state can exist.
Since it is the absolute state that underlies yet transcends all
relative states, true self-knowledge is in fact the only state that
really exists. Therefore in verse 32 of Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham
Sri Ramana Maharshi says:
For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, [the real state
of] 'wakeful sleep', [which is] beyond [these three ordinary
states], is named turiya [the 'fourth']. [However] since that
turiya alone exists, [and] since the three [states] that appear
[and disappear] are [in reality] non-existent, [the one real state
that is thus named turiya is in fact] turiya-atita [that which
transcends even the relative concept that it is the 'fourth']. Be
clear [about this truth].
Our fundamental and natural state of 'wakeful sleep' or true
non-dual self-knowledge is described as the 'fourth' only to
impress upon us that it is a state that is beyond our three
ordinary states of waking, dream and sleep. However, when we
actually go beyond our three ordinary states by experiencing our
fundamental state of true self-knowledge, we will discover that
this fundamental state is the only real state, and that our three
ordinary states are merely imaginary appearances, which are
seemingly superimposed upon it, but which in reality do not exist
at all. Therefore, though it is sometimes called the 'fourth
state', the state of true self-knowledge or 'wakeful sleep' is in
fact the only state that truly exists.
Hence, since the term turiya or the 'fourth' implies the existence
of three other states, it is actually not an appropriate name for
the only state that truly exists. Therefore, though the true state
of 'wakeful sleep' is named turiya, it could more appropriately be
named atita, 'that which transcends'.
In other words, since it is the one absolute reality and is
therefore completely devoid of all relativity, it transcends not
only the three relative states of waking, dream and sleep but also
the equally relative concept that it is the 'fourth' state. This is
the reason why it is also described as turiyatita, a term that
literally means 'that which transcends the fourth'.
The above verse was composed by Sri Ramana as a summary of the
following teachings that he had given orally and that Sri Muruganar
had recorded in verses 937 to 939 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
When all the states [waking, dream and sleep], which are seen as
three, disappear in sages, who have destroyed ego [the
self-conceited sense of being a separate individual], turiya [the
'fourth'], which is the exalted state, is that which predominates
in them excessively as atita [that which transcends all duality and
diversity].
Since the states [waking, dream and sleep] that huddle together
[enveloping us] as the three components [of our life as an
individual consciousness] are mere apparitions [that appear and
disappear] in the non-dual atita [the one all-transcending state],
[which is] the state of [our real] self, [which is known as] turiya
[the 'fourth'], [and] which is pure being-consciousness ['I am'],
know that for those [three illusory states] [our real] self is the
Adhi??hana [the single base upon which they appear and disappear,
and] in which they [must eventually merge and] become one.
If the other three [states] were fit [to be described] as real,
[only then would it be appropriate for us to say that] 'wakeful
sleep', [which is the state of] pure jnana [knowledge], is the
'fourth', would it not? Since in front of turiya [the so-called
'fourth'] those other [three states] huddle together [that is, they
merge together and become one], being [revealed to be] unreal [as
three separate states], know that that [so-called 'fourth' state]
is [in fact] atita [the transcendent state], which is [the only]
one [real state].
Whereas the reality of our fundamental state of true self-knowledge
is absolute, the seeming reality of our three ordinary states is
merely relative — relative only to our mind, which alone knows
them. However, when we experience the absolute state of true
non-dual self-knowledge, we will discover that our mind was a mere
apparition that never truly existed. Therefore when the phantom
appearance of our mind is thus dissolved, all our three relative
states of waking, dream and deep sleep, which are mere figments of
our imagination, will dissolve along with it. After this
dissolution of our mind, all that will remain is our natural state
of 'wakeful sleep', the peaceful and non-dual state of absolute
true knowledge."
Rigpa(vidya) is of a different flavor, in rigpa the localized
substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason
it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or
characteristics. Though rigpa(vidya) can't be accurately described
(for purposes of allowing one to get an idea of it's nature) it is
sometimes said to be akin to space itself.
asunthatneversets
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30
pm
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:55 am
mr.marigpa wrote:Would you please define
consciousness and its relationship to rigpa?
Consciousness arises from the admixture of the karmic winds with
the tsal energy of rigpa.
So the nature of Dharmakaya is emptiness and
rigpa? Does it have any other elements?
The dharmakaya is endowed with light in conformity with it’s
essence, emptiness and it’s nature, clarity.
What happens to consciousness when we are
resting in rigpa?
When we are in the state of being in instant presence or rigpa, at
that moment consciousness subsides.
So the TM practitioner with stable witnessing in
waking and sleeping just has really good dualistic
mindfulness?
So it would seem, since they do not have the knowledge of
rigpa.
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby xabir » Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:03 pm
trevor wrote:If witnessing is alaya, then what
does it mean from dzogchen point of view when it collapses? It's
said to be unstable and is supposed to collapse automatically over
time.
Greg Goode describes the process in
interview:
NDM: When this witness
collapsed was there an energetic component to this at all? Anything
unusual occur?
Greg Goode: It happened
suddenly. It happened when I deeply realized that all separation
between self and other, all objectivity, was a set-up. Even the
witness. It was like a benevolent con job.
The witness is
inherently unstable. Yes, it does allow you to see through the
false claims of separation that everything else has. But it
accomplishes this by reinscribing in a very subtle way the very
same separation.
When I saw this, the con
job was revealed. It was as though the "gaps" between seer and seen
became consciousness.
In a flash, the
structure of the witness and its arisings became dismantled. There
was an energetic occurrence, like a flow of sparkles or heat
flowing up form my fingers through the heart area and out of the
top of my head.
This flow lasted for
about 90 minutes and then settled down and vanished. But the
separation has never returned. The other dualities that go along
with the witness-gestalt have never returned either, such as the
feeling of "this ... this ... this" or the sense of coming and
going, or the feeling that anything is being seen. None of it ever
returned.
NDM: Didn't Atmananda
say that just being stabilized as the witness is enough for moksha?
What about residual samskaras? Can one escape samsara with
samskaras or still acting on certain types of negative
vasanas?
Greg Goode: Yes, Sri
Atmananda has said several times that the witness is enough for
moksha. Because of possible copyright considerations, I won't quote
Sri Atmananda, but See Atmananda's NOTES, Sections 125, 205, 884,
906, 913, and 1283.
NDM: Would you say that
when the witness collapses, this is the end of the journey or is
there more to this?
Greg Goode: When the
witness collapses, one is free from language, reference and the
dualistic assumptions required for "pointing." You might experience
things as objectless love and radiance. But again, those very words
are from a particular vocabulary that might or might not assemble
itself for you. You won't have any sense that language hooks on to
anything. In this realization there is freedom from the very path
itself. I call this freedom "joyful irony" and talk about it a lot
in my new book. In this freedom, you will find yourself using
language without believing language. Your freedom is
non-referential.
Because of this, you
won't be able to find a governing spiritual standard that dictates
"you are finished" or "you still have development ahead of
you."
Greg Goode describes a path of deconstructing objectivity by
subsuming all perceptions to be One Awareness through the direct
path pioneered by Advaita teacher Sri Atmananda. Through this
investigation subject-object duality is subsumed into Brahman
(subsuming objects into perceptions into the Awareness itself).
Even though the Witness collapses into non-dual awareness free of
subject-object division, it is still substantial non-duality.
Whereas Dzogchen is about insubstantial (empty) non-duality. A
further step from where Greg comes from would be to deconstruct the
subjectivity and "One Awareness" or Brahman itself and that is
where Buddhism and the teaching of anatta start to come in.
An article I wrote comparing insubtantial and substantial
non-duality:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/08/substantial-and-insubstantial-non.html
P.s. Turiya (the fourth state) falls under the category
"Self-Realization" in my article. Turiyatita (the state beyond the
fourth) is substantial non-dualism after the collapse of the
Witness. Turiyatita is the furthest that Advaita Vedanta
(traditional and neo) and Kashmir Shaivism brings you.
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:53 am
mzaur wrote:
asunthatneversets
wrote:Rigpa(vidya) is of a different flavor, in rigpa the localized
substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason
it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or
characteristics. Though rigpa(vidya) can't be accurately described
(for purposes of allowing one to get an idea of it's nature) it is
sometimes said to be akin to space itself.
Abiding background is pure awareness
separate from phenomena, right? Brahman or Self. Could you clarify
what the bold means? Advaita defines Brahman as empty of
attributes, but I surmise you are using empty in a different
way.
I think I know what you mean. It's just that I
bet some people read these forums and think empty means something
different, like how Advaita uses it.
The abiding background can either be (i)awareness separate from
phenomena or (ii)awareness merged with phenomena. In either case
there is the faculty of awareness which is assumed to be existent.
Advaita defines Brahman as being empty of attributes because it is
'that' which knows(the knower). The "knower" is attributeless
because through investigation it is unaccounted for in anything
perceivable or knowable. In advaita the term neti-neti is
implemented (to discover this faculty) which means "not this, not
that". So using this negative approach one disavows every
conceivable aspect of one's experience until the
"knower"(awareness) itself is all that remains. The process is much
like; "I am not the body, because I am aware of the body - I am not
my thoughts, because I am aware of my thoughts, etc...", so the
process retracts into the realm of the formless observer. Since
this formless awareness is posited to be unstained by any
phenomenal appearance (or designation), it is said to be empty of
attributes, unassailable and eternal. Awareness (then still assumed
to be embodied) is the atman, and upon actualizing the
differentiation between the atman and characteristics which
allegedly compose the personal self(jivatman), and external world,
the next step is to merge the atman with the brahman(universal
self).
Taken from Wikipedia:
"In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism
it refers to one's true self beyond identification with phenomena.
In order to attain salvation/liberation (moksha) a human being must
acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana) which is to say realise
experientially that one's true self is identical with the
transcendent self (paramatman) that is called Brahman."
The merging of the atman and brahman resembles the process involved
in buddhism, however the brahman is conceived to be an ultimate
suchness. Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or
Godhead which is the Divine Ground of all being. Whereas in
buddhism, no such ground nor ultimate suchness exists.
This "ground of all being" is referred to in dzogchen as the alaya.
About this Jigme Lingpa states:
"If... when you examine that which abides, the mere reflexive
luminosity (rang gsal) of the alaya-vijnana comes up as truly
accomplished, then you approach the mistake of the Anekantavada
mind-only doctrine."
Jigme Lingpa sets out what he understands the Anekantavada position
to be(which mirrors the sentiments of advaita vedanta);
"We hold that the outer object does not exist, and the awareness
that apprehends it does not exist either. The awareness that
realizes the apprehender and apprehended as nondual is a reflexive
awareness and a reflexive luminosity. This is designated as truly
existent. This is the alaya-vijnana. Actions and their result are
based on it."
The Anekantavada position is criticized for attributing reflexive
awareness with true existence. The terms reflexive awareness and
reflexive luminosity are often used in the Great Perfection, and
figure frequently in the Longchen Nyingtig texts themselves. Jigme
Lingpa cannot criticize the use of the terms themselves. He must
object to the designation of them as being truly established, that
is, existent. As the passage from the Khyentse Melong suggests,
this is also a criticism of the position that holds the
alaya-vijnana, the basis of consciousness, as the basis of both
samsaric and nirvanic awareness. For Jigme Lingpa, and his Seminal
Heart sources, the alaya-vijnana is samsaric in nature, a result of
delusion and separation from the ground...."
This is why the distinctions between the two types of basis are
employed in Dzogchen, the nirvanic basis known as the ground(gzhi)
and the samsaric basis of consciousness, the alaya(kun gzhi). One
basis, two paths.
So the term "empty" in the context of this statement,
asunthatneversets wrote:....in rigpa the
localized substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this
reason it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive
notions or characteristics....
is using 'empty' to show that the notion of a localized abiding
substratum is erroneous because it is a dependently originated
designation. It is an imputed abstraction born of delusion and is
solely the product of misconstrued illusory faculties of mind,
mistaken as inherent aspects of experience. These faculties do not
constitute being nor non-being and certainly do not result in a
localized and enduring substratum which is subject-to and/or merged
in/with experience. Though the brahman is also considered to be
nondual, timeless, spaceless etc... it is still considered an
enduring suchness which is identified with and considered eternal.
The nondual, timeless and spaceless aspects of brahman are imputed
characteristics or attributes of this 'suchness'(brahman) which is
posited to reside beyond the pale of one's intellect(and limited
scope of understanding) because one is indeed 'that'. A description
along the lines of(and I paraphrase); It hears but cannot be heard,
it sees but cannot be seen, it knows but cannot be known, is used
to point to the brahman which implies that one cannot know it,
because one is indeed it, just as teeth cannot bite themselves, nor
fire burn itself. So it has a flavor of taking your limited and
temporal beingness and transforming it into a limitless and eternal
suchness.
Œakyamuni Buddha came along and revised this testament of eternal
beingness championed by hindus/advaitins proclaiming it wasn't the
final truth. He therefore created the doctrine of anatman(anatta)
where he essentially stated that those who attest that the atman is
equivalent to brahman are still victims of a subtle clinging which
prevents them from accessing the ultimate truth. He taught that the
alleged state of 'being one with brahman' is merely a re-packaging
of one's present state of being, tantamount to simply labeling it
as something else. The claim that one is indeed brahman(vast,
eternal, undying) is merely an escape which doesn't remove the
fundamental delusion (one is fastened to) because one doesn't want
to lose oneself. One hasn't let go.
Dzogchen avoids (the perpetual evolution of) this fundamental
delusion through the direct introduction of one's true nature,
which is the union of clarity(luminosity) and emptiness. So right
from the start, the mistaken ground of brahman is forsaken as a
delusion. This is an empty cognizance, unestablished and illusory.
The aspect of ones nature which is mistaken as an abiding
substratum is the clarity of the natural state.
Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:there
is the irreducible presence of the here and now where we find
ourselves.
It's reducible, thank goodness.
In any event, what you are talking about is the
famous "clarity" aspect of the mind, the famed Descartes trope, "I
can doubt everything but that fact that I am doubting". But this
hardly constitutes "the fact of the existent".
Xabir shared this insight from Zen Priest Alex R. Weith in the
"No-Self And Rigpa" Thread which also addresses the common error of
mistaking clarity as an abiding ground:
xabir wrote: (quote from:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html)
Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it
clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving
phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if
there could still be any ambiguity about that.
On the contrary, I said that what I used to take
for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness,
source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more
than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and
ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing
position.The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of
this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self,
Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatagarbha, or whatever we may call
it,
As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very
clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness
(that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still
the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and
luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.
Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether
past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether
in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far
or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus:
'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'
(Anatta-lakkhana Sutta)."
"What I realized also is that authoritative
self-realized students of direct students of both Ramana Maharishi
and Nisargadatta Maharaj called me a 'Jnani', inviting me to give
satsangs and write books, while I had not yet understood the
simplest core principles of Buddhism. I realized also that the vast
majority of Buddhist teachers, East and West, never went beyond the
same initial insights (that Adhyashanti calls "an abiding
awakening"), confusing the Atma with the ego, assuming that
transcending the ego or self-center (Aha?kara in Sanskrit) was
identical to what the Buddha had called anatta (Non-atma).
It would seem therefore that the Buddha had
realized the Self at a certain stage of his acetic years (it is not
that difficult after all) and was not yet satisfied. As paradoxical
as it may seem, his "divide and conquer strategy" aimed at a
systematic deconstruction of the Self (Atma, Atta), reduced to -and
divided into- what he then called the five aggregates of clinging
and the six sense-spheres, does lead to further and deeper insights
into the nature of reality. As far as I can tell, this makes me a
Buddhist, not because I find Buddhism cool and trendy, but because
I am unable to find other teachings and traditions that provide a
complete set of tools and strategies aimed at unlocking these
ultimate mysteries, even if mystics from various traditions did
stumble on the same stages and insights often unknowingly. "
This also means that the first step is to
disembed from impermanent phenomena until the only thing that feels
real is this all pervading uncreated all pervading awareness that
feels like the source and substance of phenomena. Holding on to it
after this realization can hower become a subtle form of grasping
diguised as letting go.
The second step is therefore to realize that
this brightness, awakeness or luminosity is there very nature of
phenomena and then only does the duality between the True Self and
the appearences arising and passing within the Self dissolve,
revealing the suchness of what is.
The next step that I found very practical is to
push the process of deconstruction a step further, realizing that
all that is experienced is one of the six consciousness. In other
words, there is neither a super Awareness beyond phenomena, not
solid material objects, but only six streams of sensory
experiences. The seen, the heard, the sensed, the tasted, the
smelled and the cognized (including thoughts, emotions, and subtle
thougths like absorbtion states, jhanas).
At this point it is not difficult to see how
relevent the Bahiya Sutta can become.
Bahiya Sutta:
In the seen, there is only the seen,
In the heard, there is only the heard,
In the sensed, there is only the sensed,
In the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here(subject);
This Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
In the seen, only the seen,
In the heard, only the heard,
In the sensed, only the sensed,
In the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there(object),
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that you are therefore
located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.
However this statement could still be misinterpreted as implying
that the sensory processes do indeed give way to established
objects, which in turn constitute some form of suchness. Such a
conclusion would be a grave misunderstanding.
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby Malcolm » Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:20 am
anjali wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Cit is
alaya, something relative which is dispensible, from the
perspective of Dzogchen.
Ok. Here is a glossary definition of chit from a
book of Ramana Maharshi's teachings: "consciousness; this is not
the antonym of unconsciousness, it is unmediated self-awareness."
Perhaps this is not a typical definition within the Advaita
tradition or the one adopted within Dzogchen.
I'm not a scholar so I wouldn't be able to
seriously debate this, but this definition of chit seems to align
with what in Sanskrit might be called svasamvedana, or in Tibetan,
rang-rig (rang gi rig pa), which has been translated as awareness
of itself or self-reflexive awareness.
rang gis rig pa is not svasa?vedana. rang gi rig pa is rang rig.
The latter has the genetive particle gi, where as the former was
the instrumental particle gis.
Rang gi rig pa i.e. svasa?vedana means knowlege of itself. This is
conditioned and relative because it is a self-knowing
consciousness. This is mind, not nature of the mind.
so sor rang gis rig pa i.e. atmyavedana means "personal knowledge"
and is the basis for rang rig in Dzogchen texts. We find this in
constructions common in Dzogchen texts (as well as others) in the
term so sor rang gis rig pa'i ye shes, or as Kapstein translates it
"personally intuited gnosis". This nature of mind, not mind.
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby asunthatneversets » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:04 am
mzaur wrote:
asunthatneversets
wrote:Dzogchen avoids (the perpetual evolution of) this fundamental
delusion through the direct introduction of one's true nature,
which is the union of clarity(luminosity) and emptiness. So right
from the start, the mistaken ground of brahman is forsaken as a
delusion. This is an empty cognizance, unestablished and illusory.
The aspect of ones nature which is mistaken as an abiding
substratum is the clarity of the natural state.
Are you saying that you do not need right view
in Dzogchen? If we look at case study Jax, he received direct
introduction numerous times from Rinpoche, yet his experience, as
he describes it, is very Brahman.
Right view is imperative for those implementing dzogchen as a
gradual path(as opposed to those rare few to immediately actualize
realization). Any wrong misconception can throw one off the right
path... and even once the natural state has been actualized
becoming distracted from the view(or vision/tawa) is a defeating
deviation. Even practitioners moving through the four visions are
in danger of regression if perfect discipline isn't executed;
"Furthermore, when [the meditator] has emerged from the
alaya-vijnana, because of the blazing lamp of the dharmakaya's
luminosity, his nature remains free from elaboration. However, if
he has not perfected his skill in the wisdom that shines out in
vipaœyana(meaning a meditational view employed in tögal in this
context), then, being enveloped in the alaya as before, that lamp
of luminosity will be extinguished and no longer present".
So to clarify what you found questionable, I was just saying that
in dzogchen (and particularly semde) the natural state is presented
as the union of clarity and emptiness, and once the view is
introduced/discovered it is then reinforced further (by the
teacher) as a luminous emptiness implying utter absence(even though
these attributes are quite explicitly known upon it's
actualization). In Advaita Vedanta the state sought after is
presented as an abiding suchness equivalent to one's true nature as
the eternal absolute(brahman).
mzaur wrote:Also, I was wondering about the
mirror analogy used in Dzogchen... as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche wrote
in Crystal and Way of Light:
"And by way of an example, this voidness is said
to be like the fundamental purity and clarify of a mirror. A master
may show the disciple a mirror and explain how the mirror itself
does not judge the reflections arising in it to be either beautiful
or ugly; the mirror is not changed by whatever kind of reflection
may arise; nor its capacity to reflect impaired. It is then
explained that the void nature of the mind is like the nature of
the mirror, pure, clear, and limpid, and that no matter what
arises, the void essence of the mind can never be lost, damaged, or
tarnished."
How is this analogy not talking about an abiding
background?
Yeah the mirror can be mistaken as representing an abiding
background which has the capacity to reflect. But that is only if
one focuses on the mirror as an object beholding reflections (which
I'm sure is a common error but isn't what Rinpoche was suggesting).
It's important to carefully investigate how the analogy is
presented... it's not the mind is like the mirror, but the nature
of mind is like the nature of the mirror, in that, the void nature
of mind is empty yet luminous. So the essential quality (or nature)
of the mirror is that it reflects, but is that essential quality or
characteristic a tangible thing or suchness? Can you roll or bounce
the mirror's capacity to reflect? Is that essence or capacity
located anywhere? Is it blue or green? Or any color or shape? No,
it isn't, it cannot be identified as 'this or that' yet it is known
clear as day. And much like the mirror this innate, empty,
luminous, natural essence and capacity of mind, reflects yet does
not hold and remains unscathed. The reflections are not inherently
part of the mirror's nature, but are product of it and inseparable
from it... and "it"(the nature) is an indistinguishable quality
which cannot be pigeonholed.
(And when I say indistinguishable quality I don't mean to imply
that it's a qualitative suchness or that the quality belongs to an
implied connotative suchness, it's not established or unestablished
in any way... being primordially unborn it evades even
itself).
Re: Turiya VS. Dzogchen
Postby asunthatneversets » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:09 am
mzaur wrote:
asunthatneversets
wrote:Yeah the mirror can be mistaken as representing an abiding
background which has the capacity to reflect. But that is only if
one focuses on the mirror as an object beholding reflections (which
I'm sure is a common error but isn't what Rinpoche was suggesting).
It's important to carefully investigate how the analogy is
presented... it's not the mind is like the mirror, but the nature
of mind is like the nature of the mirror, in that, the void nature
of mind is empty yet luminous. So the essential quality (or nature)
of the mirror is that it reflects, but is that essential quality or
characteristic a tangible thing or suchness? Can you roll or bounce
the mirror's capacity to reflect? Is that essence or capacity
located anywhere? Is it blue or green? Or any color or shape? No,
it isn't, it cannot be identified as 'this or that' yet it is known
clear as day. And much like the mirror this innate, empty,
luminous, natural essence and capacity of mind, reflects yet does
not hold and remains unscathed. The reflections are not inherently
part of the mirror's nature, but are product of it and inseparable
from it... and "it"(the nature) is an indistinguishable quality
which cannot be pigeonholed.
(And when I say
indistinguishable quality I don't mean to imply that it's a
qualitative suchness or that the quality belongs to an implied
connotative suchness, it's not established or unestablished in any
way... being primordially unborn it evades even itself).
Thanks for your response.
Would it be accurate then to say that there is
no mirror apart from the arising reflections, that indeed there
actually is no mirror at all, only reflections?
"All that arises
is essentially no more real
than a reflection,
transparently pure and clear,
beyond all definition
or logical explanation.
Yet the seeds of past action,
karma, continue to cause further arising.
Even so-
know all that exists
is ultimately void of self-nature
utterly non-dual!"
- Nirmanakaya Buddha
"All dharmas are like reflected images,
clear and pure
without turbulence,
ungraspable, inexpressible,
truly arisen from cause and from action."
- (Different translation of the above quote)
"Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness),
the method for entering into it involves three
considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces
behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by
anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own
condition without constructing anything,
awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any
discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a
lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created
by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity
and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated
because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and
clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things
because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside
itself.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of
things."
- Padmasambhava
And here are some other quotes which refute turiya and the view of
tirthikas:
"Although [tirthikas] have many different beliefs, when condensing
the root of all of them, there are two: proponents of eternalism
and proponents of nihilism. The proponents of eternalism believe
that either the Self, Time, the Almighty, […] is the creator of the
entire world. They hold that this creator is permanent. […] The
proponents of nihilism claim that the present world originated by
itself without causes, such as past karma; that consciousness
occurred suddenly from the four elements; and that since it is
discontinued at the time of death, it is pointless to exert oneself
on the path in order to achieve liberation. All of these […] are,
however, proponents of the existence of a self."
- Mipham Rinpoche
"Moreover, as for this diversity of appearances, which represents
relative truth,
not even one of these appearances is actually created in reality,
and so accordingly they disappear again.
All things, all phenomenal existence, everything within Samsara and
Nirvana,
Are merely appearances (or phenomena) which are perceived by the
individual's single nature of the mind.
On any particular occasion, when your own (internal) mind-stream
undergoes changes,
then there will arise appearances, which you will perceive as
external changes.
Therefore, everything that you see is a manifestation of
mind.
And, moreover, all of the beings inhabiting the six realms of
rebirth perceive everything with their own distinct karmic
vision.
The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the
dualism of eternalism as against nihilism.
Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its
own view.
Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be
elucidated in various different ways.
Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise),
becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence.
Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are aware
in your mind,
Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you do
not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood."
- Padmasambhava