No creator in Buddhism?

[steve]

 

 

I've found that projector a few times now... I'm not the only one, am I?

 

 

 

If you've found something, that's not it.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

If you've found something, that's not it.

We'll it was more like it found me...

 

The energy of the five pure lights arises in the primordial base and creates and gives substance to internal and external reality. In the mandala of the human body, this clear light energy resides in the heart, rises through the channels, and is projected through the eyes. It is the basis of all vision and moves from the inner to the outer dimension.

 

...

 

 

primordial awareness is spontaneously self-perfected. According to an explanation that is unique to the Zhang Zhung Nyan Gyud, in the heart there is pure emptiness, which is the Dharmakaya; this generates light which is the Sambhogakaya and this light is communicated to the eyes; the inseparability of the emptiness in the heart and the light generated in the heart is the Nirmanakaya, the dimension of

 

...

 

The Dharmakaya is the spontaneously self-perfected primordial awareness that resides in the empty space element in the heart. The Sambhogakaya is the potential quality of manifestation of movement of the sound, light, and rays spontaneously perfected in the empty space of the heart. There is a tendency towards dualism here and the Sambhogakaya is connected with individual reality. Another image from the Zhang Zhung Nyan Gyud is of a red stone covered by a crystal. The red stone stands for the heart and the crystal for the flesh and fat of the human body. This indicates that the light resides in the physical heart, as explained in the "Five Lights."

 

...

 

The base (or "base enlightened") Buddha is the primordial awareness or self-perfected inner wisdom in the heart. Actually, whether we discover the primordial state in ourselves or not, it is always there. it is inherent in all existence. The primordial wisdom in the heart has the potential quality to manifest sound, light, rays, bliss, and the awakened state. When the primordial awareness that opens all the doors of realization awakens, we start to "see" in a different way. The rigpa wisdom that appears from the channels and chakras through the eyes, which are the doors of light, is the path or manifest Buddha when we discover and practice it. It is the perfection Buddha when we realize it, when our eyes (and all our senses) are open and we integrate with whatever arises, understanding that everything is the manifest Buddha, regardless of whether what appears is a Buddha or an animal. To integrate wisdom with vision and the other senses completely and never to return to illusion is the perfection Buddha. In terms of their physical location, the primordial awareness in the heart is the primordial Buddha; the doors of potential awakening in the channels connected with the heart are the perfection Buddha; their manifestation outside these doors is the manifest Buddha.

 

 

From https://kindle.amazon.com/work/wonders-natural-mind-dzogchen-tradition-ebook/B000AJJHG4/B001W0ZA02

 

[deci belle]

There is no thing.

 

Find that.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Even found a practice for it from Robert and Rachel Olds' book called "Luminous Heart of the Earth".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Luminous-Heart-Earth-Survival-Original/dp/0983194599

 

 

[dawei]

There is no thing.

 

Find that.

 

I found your post. Does that count

[asunthatneversets]

Even found a practice for it from Robert and Rachel Olds' book called "Luminous Heart of the Earth".

 

http://www.amazon.com/Luminous-Heart-Earth-Survival-Original/dp/0983194599

 

LuminousHeartOfTheEarth.JPG

 

None of these practices correspond with any of the assertions you're making.

[Anderson]

moreover the Olds are not legit.

There was a discussion a while ago about how they went against their lama's advice with regards to the practice of thogal.

[GrandmasterP]

moreover the Olds are not legit.

There was a discussion a while ago about how they went against their lama's advice with regards to the practice of thogal.

 

The curse of DW here on TTB!

We need an exorcist.

:-)

 

Here's the Olds argument on DW from 2011.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3351&start=100

 

It really is 'Old' too.

The lama groupies on DW are the buddhist version of olden days TTB posts along the lines of " My cultivation/ teacher can beat up your cultivation."

 

Thankfully most of that seems to have gone from TTB.

Those space panda people carry the flame for sure but I've not seen it on here much if at all since returning.

If the Olds books or seminars help some people then that's all good.

That some lama or his disciples are miffed that the Olds decided to go freelance underpins the DW sniffiness.

It's what underpins all such ' My way is RIGHT but your way is WRONG' nonsense.

The 'right' way is what suits and works for each individual.

One size does not fit all.

[asunthatneversets]

The curse of DW here on TTB!We need an exorcist.:-)Here's the Olds argument on DW from 2011.http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3351&start=100It really is 'Old' too.The lama groupies on DW are the buddhist version of olden days TTB posts along the lines of " My cultivation/ teacher can beat up your cultivation."Thankfully most of that seems to have gone from TTB.Those space panda people carry the flame for sure but I've not seen it on here much if at all since returning.If the Olds books or seminars help some people then that's all good.That some lama or his disciples are miffed that the Olds decided to go freelance underpins the DW sniffiness.It's what underpins all such ' My way is RIGHT but your way is WRONG' nonsense.The 'right' way is what suits and works for each individual.One size does not fit all.

Nothing to do with DW, and everything to do with having some common sense and integrity. The Old's never completed the practice in the first place, and so are not qualified to teach it. As far as the practice goes, broadcasting it in general is career suicide.

 

Further, they completely decimated their transmissions by including drawn depictions of their visions in books they published and sold to Joe Blow and Jane Doe off the street for a profit. It's bad news all around in my opinion, and not something that I would touch with a ten foot pole.

[Creation]

In my opinion, just because the movie that is projected on the screen is empty and without substance, does not mean that the projector is also without substance.

Hi Tibetan_Ice.

 

This is the view of a school of Buddhist philosophy, namely Yogacara aka "Mind Only". Many Dzogchen ideas have a precedent in Yogacara. The analogy of a crystal for the nature of mind and the arising of ignorance first apears in the foundational sutra for Yogacara. Seeing everything as a the display of the mind is characteristic of Yogacara, and they use light as a metaphor for cognition. The idea of consciousness operating in the mode of enlightenment or delusion based on if it recognizes the true nature of things or not, and spiritual training being about making the switch was also first clearly expounded out in the Yogacara school.

 

FYI, the question of grasping and perception without grasping that you started a thread about is analyzed in detail in Yogacara with the idea of the transformations of consciousness and the three self-natures.

 

The conclusion of late Indian Buddhism that was transferred into Tibet is that in so far as Yogacara reifies the mind it is not a faultless view, and needs to be supplemented by Madhyamaka. In particular, this is the opinion of the "omniscient" scholar-yogis of the Nyingma school: Rongzompa, Longchenpa, and Jigme Lingpa. There is a minority view though, the "Shentong" view, that actually Yogacara and Madhyamaka, properly understood, are pointing to the same thing, because the enlightened mind is beyond concepts so cannot be refuted by Madhyamaka dialectics like conventional phenomena can.

 

I'm still learning about these things, but this is my present understanding.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Creation

[steve]

Rangtong - 'self empty'

Shentong - 'other empty'

 

The debates and definitions of these concepts can be very confusing but I do think its worth some time and effort for those interested in the Buddhist path.

 

I also think it is very valuable to spend time in skillful practice. Direct experience of the inseparability of space and clarity is the perfect teacher and points out the inherent weakness in all conceptual models.

 

Lots of good resources on the topic.

 

From "Shentong and Rangtong, Two Views of Emptiness," by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche:

"What we should understand is the Buddha's view. We should not impose our notions created from our own concepts upon Buddhadharma. Therefore, we need to understand the traditions of the Rangtong and Shentong. If we don't understand the Rangtong tradition, we will have attachment to things as if they had a true existence. Therefore we need to examine and understand the Svatrantika and Prasangika traditions of the Rangtong. Having understood the absence of reality, we go on to the ultimate aspect in which there isn't just plain emptiness but there is Buddha nature, clarity, and ultimate wisdom, as explained in the Shentong tradition. The Shentong tradition, therefore, clarifies the Rangtong teachings, and the Rangtong teachings clarifies the Shentong teachings. Thus both assist each other. We can see that there is no contradiction between them, but that they mutually assist each other." Thrangu Rinpoche.

 

The Bön seem to take a similar approach, while acknowledging the empty aspect of inherent existence, we are constantly reminded of the inherent clarity that is inseparable from emptiness.

[rex]

The curse of DW here on TTB! We need an exorcist. :-)

 

Nothing to do with DW, and everything to do with having some common sense and integrity. The Old's never completed the practice in the first place, and so are not qualified to teach it. As far as the practice goes, broadcasting it in general is career suicide.

 

My teacher is incredibly kind and generous (ok, so I'm biased), and freely gives out all sorts of transmissions and teachings. However when it comes to Thogal he's very uncompromising. Don't read about the method, don't try it, wait until you've received the instructions from a qualified teacher. Given his generosity in other teaching areas, he's not being a meanie but being concerned for students' welfare, as he states that it's easy to misinterpret and appropriate the visions and instead of being a practice of liberation, they can lead to becoming further embroiled in subtle samsaric visions and ruin one's potential for that lifetime. Because he's so sound in other areas I have no reason to doubt him.

 

Edit: typos

Edited April 20, 2014 by rex

[Tibetan_Ice]

Malcolm's logic is correct and sound in his statements regarding the basis [gzhi]. You are misinterpreting the term "real" in the citations you are providing. "Real dimension" means "authentic", "accurate", "veridical", "valid", etc., not real in the sense you are attempting to assert, which is an essentialist view akin to that found in eternalist doctrines.

 

Also, the appearance of the basis [gzhi snang] is precisely the basis [gzhi], the appearances are the nature [rang bzhin] and compassion [thugs rje] aspects of the basis to be exact.

 

The basis is completely illusory and unreal, and so its appearances are equally illusory and unreal. This is what the Tibetan phrase "med par gsal snang" i.e. clearly apparent non-existent, is conveying. Why is that? Because the nature and compassion aspects of the basis are never separate from the aspect of original purity [ka dag], meaning they are non-arisen and free from extremes.

 

In Dzogchen there is no "movie projected onto a screen", this is importing Vedantic notions into Dzogchen.

 

If the basis was "real" meaning "existent" it would be unable to manifest anything due to being fixed and devoid of potentiality for dynamic expression. A "real" basis is completely unintelligible, flawed logic through and through.

 

You say that Malcolm's logic is correct.

 

Then you say that "The basis is completely illusory and unreal, and so its appearances are equally illusory and unreal. "

 

Have you got another Dzogchen source that you can quote, which supports this view?

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State" it states that "Reality is the emptiness, the primordial purity, that is the basis from which all phenomenon arise and these phenomema have no essence." -page 24

 

And then later it states: "In this chapter, the Teacher says "I am the origin, the essence, and also the end of all Enlightened Ones and of all sentient beings.".

 

The basis is the primordial state, therefore, the primordial state (origin) has essence, yet what arises from the basis has no essence.

 

Therefore, the basis, which is the essence, manifests phenomena with no essence.

 

This is an example of something derived from the basis which does not contain something from the basis.

 

If Malcolm's statement were true, then the preceding statements from "The Marvelous Primordial State" would be false.

 

Are you and Malcolm saying that "The Marvelous Primordial State" is not right?

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

My teacher is incredibly kind and generous (ok, so I'm biased), and freely gives out all sorts of transmissions and teachings. However when it comes to Thogal he's very uncompromising. Don't read about the method, don't try it, wait until you've received the instructions from a qualified teacher. Given his generosity in other teaching areas, he's not being a meanie but being concerned for students' welfare, as he states that it's easy to misinterpret and appropriate the visions and instead of being a practice of liberation, they can lead to becoming further embroiled in subtle samsaric visions and ruin one's potential for that lifetime. Because he's so sound in other areas I have no reason to doubt him.

 

Edit: typos

 

Good call.

If we have a trusted teacher then listening to teacher can only pay dividends.

I've no brief to defend or castigate Mr and Mrs Old.

They have their students as do other teachers and if what they teach works to the benefit of their students then students they will keep.

It isn't unusual for teachers to freelance and deliver adopted and adapted materials, even to develop something quite new.

If what is taught does not suit them then the students will decamp elsewhere.

All teachers expect a churning audience, some people come and then go, some come and then stay.

It's all good, everyone's on a journey; teachers and students alike.

The only teacher I would ever avoid is one who claimed that her or his way was the ONLY way.

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Neither of those tantras are stating that reality is created. And both the kulayarāja [kun byed rgyal po] and the mejung [byang chub kyi sems rmad du byung ba] are bodhicitta texts belonging to the sems sde series of Ati Dzogpa Chenpo.

 

Samantabhadra is a symbolic personification of the natural state, a literary device, certainly not a creator by any means.

 

Apparently, what you read and what I read must be totally different, either that or what you understand and what I understand are totally different.

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State", it says:

 

"I am the creator" and "I have created everything". (however, it is not a separate God or universal creator, but the self, the primordial state).

 

and:

 

 

"The real sense refers to the primordial state of the individual that by its very nature possess the potentiality to effortlessly and with intentionality manifest the whole universe and the beings who inhabit it."

 

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

moreover the Olds are not legit.

There was a discussion a while ago about how they went against their lama's advice with regards to the practice of thogal.

 

It is so sad that people shoot the messengers rather than think for themselves and assess the teachings on their own grounds.

The Olds themselves state that they accomplished all the levels and judging by their recommended practices which are all from the heart, they have found something incredibly sacred and profound.

 

But then, it is not unusual to shoot the messenger, isn't it? I thought Buddha taught to evaluate everything on its own merits.

[idiot_stimpy]

I am the great self-arisen naturally-abiding one

 

Known from the beginning as the origin of all things.

 

You, strenuously seeking me and yearning for me,

 

Fatigue yourselves; even over many eons you do not find me.

 

This nature of mine is unique among all things,

 

Not comparable to what is not me or what tries to be me.

 

- Gal mDo Tshal ma

[asunthatneversets]

Apparently, what you read and what I read must be totally different, either that or what you understand and what I understand are totally different.

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State", it says:

 

"I am the creator" and "I have created everything". (however, it is not a separate God or universal creator, but the self, the primordial state).

 

and:

 

 

"The real sense refers to the primordial state of the individual that by its very nature possess the potentiality to effortlessly and with intentionality manifest the whole universe and the beings who inhabit it."

 

 

Creator.JPG

It is definitely not the self. The primordial state is not the self, nor anything like that. This is again conflating eternalist doctrines with Dzogchen.

 

Longchenpa states:

"The final [turning] for the sake of those who had reached fulfillment and who were of sharpest capacity taught the nature of all that is knowable, as it really is. As such, it bears no similarity to the self [ātman] of the Hindu heretics because these people in their ignorance speak of a 'self' that does not actually exist, being a mere imputation superimposed on reality."

 

The personification of the primordial state does not mean that it is a "creator", and in the context of the proper view of Dzogchen, the primordial state does not "create" anything at all. That is why liberation is possible, because the alleged "creation" called the universe, or any other alleged creation, are nothing more than figments of ignorance. When ignorance is overturned, the non-arising of phenomena is recognized, and the implications of mistaking those abstractions as genuinely created persons, places, things, etc., are liberated.

 

Our nature possesses potentiality for manifesting empty appearances, but nothing is "created", nothing ever arises or comes into existence. The extremes of existence, non-existence, etc., are misunderstandings. Projections of confusion.

 

Moreover, the aspect of the primordial state that appears, which is the nature [rang bzhin] of primordial wisdom, is lhun grub, and lhun grub means "sus ma byas" i.e. not "made by anyone". So lhun grub is simply the sheer exertion of the potentiality of the primordial state, inseparable from the essence [ngo bo] of primordial wisdom, which is ka dag. Meaning that nothing is ever "created" at any time, empty appearance never began.

 

So how does the so-called "universe" arise? It arises due to non-recognition of the primordial state. The appearance of the basis [gzhi snang] is mistaken for conditioned phenomena, and this is how alleged "creation" occurs.

 

"From the seed of attachment and aversion, the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes."

- Uprooting Delusion Tantra

Edited April 21, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

You say that Malcolm's logic is correct.

 

Then you say that "The basis is completely illusory and unreal, and so its appearances are equally illusory and unreal. "

 

Have you got another Dzogchen source that you can quote, which supports this view?

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State" it states that "Reality is the emptiness, the primordial purity, that is the basis from which all phenomenon arise and these phenomema have no essence." -page 24

 

And then later it states: "In this chapter, the Teacher says "I am the origin, the essence, and also the end of all Enlightened Ones and of all sentient beings.".

 

The basis is the primordial state, therefore, the primordial state (origin) has essence, yet what arises from the basis has no essence.

 

Therefore, the basis, which is the essence, manifests phenomena with no essence.

 

This is an example of something derived from the basis which does not contain something from the basis.

 

If Malcolm's statement were true, then the preceding statements from "The Marvelous Primordial State" would be false.

 

Are you and Malcolm saying that "The Marvelous Primordial State" is not right?

 

Vimalamitra states:

"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist."

 

Also:

 

"Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:

 

Everything arose from non-arising;

even arising itself never arose.

 

Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning."

 

The sgra thal gyur tantra states:

 

"Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness."

 

It also states:

 

"Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist."

 

The basis has no essence because its "essence" is ka dag i.e. emptiness free from extremes. The basis is not the essence, the basis is essence, nature and compassion, which are all merely conventional descriptions and designations used to describe what is conventionally termed the "basis". The basis is only the "basis" because it has not been recognized, once the basis is recognized then it becomes the path, and when the path is complete it is then the result.

 

The statements from "The Marvelous Primordial State" are just fine in their context, however you are misinterpreting them and taking them out of context. To be honest I am not a big fan of some of the choices in translation in that book, but to each their own.

 

Bottom line is the view you are asserting is that of the Brahman of Vedanta, which is an eternalist doctrine and is not related to Dzogpa Chenpo in any way shape or form. In fact, the view of Advaita Vedanta is refuted by name in the Dzogchen tantras.

[asunthatneversets]

It is so sad that people shoot the messengers rather than think for themselves and assess the teachings on their own grounds.

The Olds themselves state that they accomplished all the levels and judging by their recommended practices which are all from the heart, they have found something incredibly sacred and profound.

 

But then, it is not unusual to shoot the messenger, isn't it? I thought Buddha taught to evaluate everything on its own merits.

 

Well, there's two sides to that story, and of course the Old's are going to attest they have completed the practice. The other side of the story is that they did not complete all levels. They deluded themselves into believing they did, disagreed with their teacher, Lama Drimed Norbu, heart student of Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche, when he clarified for them that they had only reached the second vision, and they then proceeded to leave and publish a book. So believe what you'd like, but as for myself, placing bets on the validity of a controversial account, in the context of a practice which requires perfect conduct, is not a gamble I would ever want to take. Such a transmission is far too rare and valuable to squander on wishful thinking.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...In "The Marvelous Primordial State" it states that "Reality is the emptiness, the primordial purity, that is the basis from which all phenomenon arise and these phenomema have no essence." -page 24...

Reality is the emptiness...THAT is the basis... and these phenomena have no essence.

 

Looks pretty clear to me. The basis is emptiness, and so phenomena are empty.

 

The basis is the one taste of emptiness and luminosity of all phenomena. It is not an underlying substantial essence.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Seeker of Tao

[GrandmasterP]

Opinions please as to...

 

1: The "Primordial State".

2: Mr and Mrs Old as teachers.

3: The opinionated mind.

3a: Psychodynamics on internet fora.

Discuss.

 

:-)

 

Most excellent thread as a great resource to get first year Philosophies of Education undergrads thinking and talking.

Cheers guys, you've saved me some prep.

Edited April 21, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[steve]

"No matter what comes from Wisdom Awareness (Yeshe Rigpa), nothing whatsoever can exist inherently. We all think that everything is concrete, reality, but we have merely created that by ourselves. So the creator is called ignorance."

- last teaching of Drushaza from Heart Essence of the Khandro

[xabir2005]

Hi Xabir

Long time no see!

I hope you are doing well.

 

I think if Malcolm had thought about that statement (bolded), he wouldn't have said it.

 

In "The Marvelous Primordial State", it starts out by saying "The marvelous primordial state is the real dimension".

 

In my opinion, just because the movie that is projected on the screen is empty and without substance, does not mean that the projector is also without substance.

 

Miracle_of_the_Primordial_State.JPG

 

The basis and its manifestions are not the same.

 

According to Tenzin Wangyal, the basis (kunzhi) has the following characteristics.. and these characteristics serve to differentiate the real from the illusion. For example, no manifestation or object is permanent. Yet the basis is permanent, everlasting:

 

 

 

 

Thus, if the basis is real it obviously can manifest things which although they seem to 'real', are impermanent and dependantly origininated, mere appearances. Therefore Malcolm's statement that the basis is not real is not true. So his resulting logic is flawed.

 

 

 

Hello Tibetan_Ice, I'm doing well, thanks for asking... just a little busy lately with studies so not much time to participate in discussions. Hope you're doing well too

 

Having realized the formless Beingness/Presence, there is a tendency to reify that formless Beingness/Presence as being of a higher, more ultimate status than other forms and experiences. Then with the view of inherency and duality, it may be treated as an Eternal Witness, and later the One Mind subsuming all experiences.

 

However, after anatta, the 'mere appearances' are not treated as 'passing, unimportant stuff' but are realized to be Buddha-nature themselves. Then that intensity of luminosity of SOUND, of SCENERY must be directly experienced (and will naturally be experienced after anatta). The key that leads to this transition is the realization of anatta (as an insight, not merely a nondual peak experience): In hearing only ever sound, no hearer, in seeing only ever just scenery, no seer. There has never been an actual agent, seer, seeing the seen - the seer-seeing-seen framework is a delusional reification. What is this 'SOUND'? It is Pure Presence itself... Then next is to see the illusoriness of this self-luminous-display (and the self-luminosity IS the display, the spontaneous manifestation), still as vividly bright, present, yet like an illusion/dream, empty and non-arising. Then there is truly One Taste in all manifestations and in its essence as self-luminous clarity and its empty nature.

 

When Self-originated primal awareness is realized to be always this spontaneous manifestation, then all manifestation are recognized to be one's empty clarity. Just this is the Dharmata, the nature of reality.

 

I was reminded of something Thusness wrote some months ago. As I said in the other thread Thusness does not represent Dzogchen whatsoever (and he is always careful not to be mis-associated as some Dzogchen-related person hence this disclaimer), but still I feel there is some relevance to this thread.

 

He said to Jackson Peterson in Dharma Connection (fb group):

 

''

John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up.

 

This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who.

 

In hearing, it's that "sound".

 

In seeing, it's that "scenery".

 

In thinking, it is that "eureka"!

 

In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping".

 

Just marvelous such as it is on the fly.

 

So no "it" but thoroughly empty.

 

To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory.

 

I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him.

 

Nice chat And happy journey jax!

 

Gone!

December 12, 2013 at 8:24am · Unlike · 10

 

.........

 

John Tan Hi Kyle,

 

Actually I am saying instead of attempting to deconstruct endlessly, why not resolved that that pure experience itself is empty and non-arising.

 

In hearing, there is only sound. This clear clean and pure sound, treat and see it as the X (treat and see it like an imputation/conventional designation as u explained), empty and non-arising.

 

In seeing, just scenery, just this clear clean and lurid scenery. Where is this scenery? Inside, outside, other’s mind or our mind? Unfindable but nonetheless appears vibrantly.

 

This arising thought, this dancing sensation, this passing scent, all share the same taste. All experiences are like that -- like mirages and rainbows, illusory and non-arising, they are free from the 4 extremes.

 

Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste. Realize this to be the nature of experience and illusory appearances will taste magic and vajra (indestructible)! Groundless and naturally releasing!

 

Just my 2 cents of blah blah blah in new year.

 

Happy New Year Kyle. 2 minutes ago • Unlike • 1

February 6 at 1:50am · Edited · Like'

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. Kyle (asunthatneversets) also shared with me his realization of anatta years ago:

 

...my most shocking and powerful

experience so far was anatta in the theme of that first stanza thusness wrote:

There is thinking, no thinker, There is hearing, no hearer, There is seeing,

no seer. It actually came on suddenly one day and it was intensely profound

for me, brought me to tears... in that experience thought actually cut out

completely as if it was buried... and I unknowingly forced it to come back so

I could jot down mental notes on the experience which were actually exactly

the same as his stanza, seeing no seer, hearing no hearer, experience IS...

 

 

Edited April 22, 2014 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Vimalamitra states:

"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist."

 

Also:

 

"Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:

 

Everything arose from non-arising;

even arising itself never arose.

 

Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning."

 

The sgra thal gyur tantra states:

 

"Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness."

 

It also states:

 

"Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist."

 

The basis has no essence because its "essence" is ka dag i.e. emptiness free from extremes. The basis is not the essence, the basis is essence, nature and compassion, which are all merely conventional descriptions and designations used to describe what is conventionally termed the "basis". The basis is only the "basis" because it has not been recognized, once the basis is recognized then it becomes the path, and when the path is complete it is then the result.

 

The statements from "The Marvelous Primordial State" are just fine in their context, however you are misinterpreting them and taking them out of context. To be honest I am not a big fan of some of the choices in translation in that book, but to each their own.

 

Bottom line is the view you are asserting is that of the Brahman of Vedanta, which is an eternalist doctrine and is not related to Dzogpa Chenpo in any way shape or form. In fact, the view of Advaita Vedanta is refuted by name in the Dzogchen tantras.

Nice quotes.

 

Here's another one you often quote:

 

 

 

Within self-emergent primordial gnosis,

there are no objects to be experienced,

There is nothing which has previously passed away,

Nor anything which will subsequently emerge,

Nor anything at all which currently appears.

 

There is no karma,

There are no latent karmic propensities,

There is no dimmed awareness,

There is no mind,

There is no psyche,

There is no insight,

There is no cyclic existence,

And there is no transcendence of misery -

It is not the case that even awareness itself exists.

 

There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis.

 

- excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret

(Absence Of Letters | yi ge med pa) or (Letterless Tantra | yi ge med pa'i rgyud)