Originally posted by simpo_:Hi Dharmadhatu,
I don't think i am really qualified to talk about self-liberation. I am really at the very early stage of it.
From my limited experience, all i can say is that thoughts will be clearly seen... When there is no-self and there is clarity, thoughts are not followed. This allows the thoughts to be clearly seen and dissolve. . At times, thoughts may even cease. That mean, when the last thought dissolve there is a temporary space where no thought arise.
So, I will not classify no-self as any particular state. It can have thoughts as well as being without thoughts. In the clarity, these thoughts are very vivid and their dissolving is also very vivd.
Normally, with a sense of self... thoughts are fuzzy.... thoughts form a continunous chain.
Hi Simpo_, thanks for your explanation.
At this point, I am trying not to read too much so avoid building up too many conceptual models of what things should be. I find that mind is beginning to rely on these models too much, rather than actually simply seeing what there is.
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:I have read that Tulku Urgyen said that in rigpa, there is no definitely conceptual thoughts. I have been thinking about this on and off for a long time too. Maybe it has something to do with instantaneous self-liberation of thought when it arises due to recognition of its nature directly.
Just now I went to the bookstore, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche described non-dual presence but still in terms of inherent view, he said something like thoughts arise from you, returns to you, you are the source and everything is the expression of that source. This is the source-view of substantial non-dualism.
Reminded me of what Thusness told me in 2009:
(7:53 PM) Thusness: Tulku Urgyen makes a good statement but that is before understanding stage 5 and 6.
(7:53 PM) Thusness: that is without the source, nothing happens
(7:55 PM) Thusness: However in Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an essence is unnecessary. Once you experience and arise the insight of anatta, u begin open to happening without source, without the need of an essence.
(7:56 PM) Thusness: This is then the beginning of Buddhism.
Then I saw one of his students' book... It went something like "The essence of what thinks is dharmakaya. The thinking itself is not dharmakaya, but the Identity of that which thinks is dharmakaya. Thinking is thought. Thinking is not the thought-free state. It is the identity of that which thinks which is thought-free."
This is very Advaita view... no different from the Brahman of Upanishads:
“Not that which the eye sees, but that whereby the eye can see, know that alone to be Eternal and not what people here adore. Not that which the ear hears but that whereby the ear can hear, know that alone to be Eternal and not what people here adore. Not that which the mind thinks but that whereby the mind can think, know that alone to be Eternal, and not what people here adore.”
That is why Thusness also told me days ago regarding some others though it applies here as well,
I understand what he meant and but the way it is taught is misleading. It
is
simply non-dual experience and experiencing both presence in the
foreground
and background and in the 3 states. That is not realizing our
true empty
nature but our luminous essence (However Dzogchen uses the term
nature and
essence different from how I used them). If you hold steadfastly
this
non-dual luminous state, it helps in lucid dreaming and remember what I
told
u to tell ur teacher chen? Nevertheless, that is not that important
but
understand the difference between luminosity and empty nature.
Very
often, ppl rely on the experience and not true realization of the view.
The
right view is like a neutralizer that neutralizes dualistic and
inherent
views; by itself, there is nothing to hold. So realize what right
view is
pointing and all experiences will come naturally. The right
enlightenment
experience is like what dogen described, not merely a non-dual
state where
experiencer and what experienced collapses into a non-dual stream
of
experience. This I have told u clearly.
Ur current understanding
and experience is able to discern the difference
and should be should be
quite clear now. What lacks is the total exertion
as I told u. Just focus
on that.
True depth of insight is rare... even among famous masters... an unfortunate fact. I prefer what Dakpo Tashi Namgyal says:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/11/few-excerpts-from-clarifying-natural.html
"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the
thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness
of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware
emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.
Also related thread: Gap Between Thoughts, Thought Between Gaps
Normally I don't like to comment on great masters... but this is just for your own clarity and discernment.
Thanks for all the references... they are very clear and I think Dakpo Namgyal's way of investigating is quite useful.
I am unable to conclude anything either. It is better I continue practising and see how it goes. But your pointers much appreciated as this doubt has been haunting me for a long time.
Quote from AEN :
An advise I often give which in my experience is a highly effective method for realizing no-self: "spend quality hours (or however much time you can afford) everyday practicing being naked in awareness (whether in sitting meditation or in movement), which is to say hear the sounds as clear as can be in its pristine clarity and vividness… observe/experience the minutest details of sensations in its crystal clarity and aliveness, the sights, smells, taste, touch. Then contemplate and notice the fact that “there is no experiencer behind experience, just the experience” or “in seeing just the shapes, colours, forms, no seer”... this can eventually lead to non dual experience and insight.”
My question is , will this lead to a preference for luminosity or intention to intensify luminosity rather than an equanaminous state of mind if it is engaged in as a main practice?
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:Quote from AEN :
An advise I often give which in my experience is a highly effective method for realizing no-self: "spend quality hours (or however much time you can afford) everyday practicing being naked in awareness (whether in sitting meditation or in movement), which is to say hear the sounds as clear as can be in its pristine clarity and vividness… observe/experience the minutest details of sensations in its crystal clarity and aliveness, the sights, smells, taste, touch. Then contemplate and notice the fact that “there is no experiencer behind experience, just the experience” or “in seeing just the shapes, colours, forms, no seer”... this can eventually lead to non dual experience and insight.”
My question is , will this lead to a preference for luminosity or intention to intensify luminosity rather than an equanaminous state of mind if it is engaged in as a main practice?
If you practice mindfulness, it will lead to both direct experience of luminosity as well as equanimity.
As Thusness said:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/440368?page=1
And Urgyen Rinpoche states:
"No matter which of the conceptual thoughts of the five poisons may arise --
the afflictions that move toward their mental objects--
do not engage in any mental artifice, either anticipating them or following after them.
Instead, allowing the mental fluctuations to settle into their own state, one is liberated into the Dharma body."
This implies that stillness can occur during the fluctuations. And, once again, Padmasambhava states:
"Do not see the various disturbances of awareness that occur during the son's path
as either faults or virtues. Instead meet them head-on, and incorporate them into the path."
And also:
"By concentrating on the meaning of the letter HUM
my mind enters into the great space of reality; and from that state
awareness suddenly arises on its own in a single instant."
This is telling us that fluctuations exist while the mind is still. Therefore, within the present context. it seems to me a contradiction to accept on the one hand that conceptual thoughts are the Dharma body and to accept on the other that it is impossible for there to be stillness while there are mental fluctuations. But this should be examined in greater detail.
This position (that a still mind can be subject to fluctuations and vice versa) is not unique to the Nyingthig tradition, for the Clear Expanse states:
"The mind that grasps at things dualistically
arises from the six objects of clear gnosis."
So fluctuations can exist while there is stillness. Once again, Longchenpa states:
"No matter how the mind fluctuates, settle naturally into the natural state.
The meaning of reality becomes clear within the very movement and scattering of thought."
So there can be mental stillness even while one is experiencing fluctuations.
~Khonton Peljo Lhundrub, The Wish-Fulfilling Jewel of the Oral Tradition.
From book 'Meditation on the Nature of Mind', Dalai Lama, Khonton Peljor Lhundrub, Jose Ignacio Cabezon
Yes, in this case the stillness means not doing anything or attaching to the very movement of mind itself. It does not however mean that movement of mind cannot arise. This means resting into the natural state (the empty-vividness of that very thought itself), self-arising and self-liberating. Then in the midst of thought itself, there is no movement at all. There is no subject and object, no thinker apart from thought, and therefore no movement (as transience experienced non-dualistically is always simply a complete-in-itself non-dual happening and self-releasing without movement). However the moment we conceive of a subject and an object, we also automatically conceive of movement, which is delusional. There is in truth no thinker, no thought, no movement... just the suchness of primordially pure and unborn appearance.
If one does not rest naturally, but instead becomes very agitated or attached to the mind movements, rather than resting in the natural state of the thought, there is instead a seeking after the contents of thoughts as if they were real, and to do so is to cause a chain of deluded thinking without any stillness. This is the meaning of 'getting carried away' or 'distraction'. This is akin to being in a dream and taking the dream to be real, so one chases after the objects in the dream. In actuality the dream is simply a movement of mind, completely vivid yet unreal. If you are lucid dreaming and you know the tiger is your own projection, will you get agitated? No. This means 'stillness in the midst of thought'. And if you discover a state of complete stillness, there is no need to get elated about it too, since that stillness is just as 'empty and aware' as the thought of a tiger. In both cases their identity is just an intangible awareness. All states are primordially pure, and all states are nothing to be grasped!
Therefore, (Dakpo Tashi Namgyal)
"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the
thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness
of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware
emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.
"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you
investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was
nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing,
natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.
"This being so, is there any difference between calm and movement?
"Is there any difference between thinking and not thinking?
"Is it better to be serenely calm? Do you need to be elated about it?
"Is it worse when a thought abruptly arises? Do you need to be unhappy about it?
"Unless you perceive this hidden deception, you will suffer the meditation famine.
So, from now on, when a thought does not arise you need not
deliberately make one arise so as to train in the state of its arising,
and when the thought does not arise you need not deliberately prevent
it, so as to train in the state of its nonarising. Thus, do not be
biased toward calm or movement.
"The principle for this thought can be applied to all thoughts. However,
the meditator should train for a while in simply making use of
thoughts, so when no thoughts arise, conjure one up on purpose and
sustain its essence. Otherwise, there is a danger of losing sight of the
identity of thoughts.
The meditator should, therefore, be instructed to continue practicing
diligently for several days. If it is preferably, bring in some
quotations to instill certainty.
Tarthang Tulku:
"It's possible to make thought itself meditation... How do we go
into that state? The moment you try to separate
yourself from thought, you are dealing with a
duality, a subject-object relationship. You lose
the state of awareness because you reject your
experience and become separate from it.... But if our
awareness is in the center of thought, the thought itself
dissolves... At the very beginning... stay in the
thoughts. Just be there... You become the center
of the thought. But there is not really any
center -- the center becomes balance. There's no
'being,' no 'subject-object relationships': none of these
categories exist. Yet at the same time, there is... complete
openness... So we kind of crack each thought,
like cracking nuts. If we can do this, any
thought becomes meditation... Any moment,
wherever you are, driving a car, sitting around, working, talking,
any activities you have -- even if you are very
disturbed emotionally, very passionate, or even
if your mind has become very strong, raging,
overcome with the worst possible things and you
cannot control yourself, or you feel depressed... if you really go
into it, there's nothing there. Whatever comes up
becomes your meditation. Even if you become
extremely tense, if you go into your thought and
your awareness comes alive, that moment can be more
powerful than working a long time in meditation practice. (pp.
9-10, 18)"
- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/John%20Welwood
Yes, thanks for the explanation.
Did you listen in to webcast by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche going on these few days?
Nope, kind of busy these days
His explanations are really good from my perspective... learnt alot.