goldisheavy

"Knowing is imaginary?" Then why do you keep going on about it?

 

Right, and you are the same. From your point of view of mind-only, there is only one correct way of seeing things -- mind-only.

That's not true. Seeing things as mind-only is one option among many. It just happens to be an exceptionally skillful option. But it's not an absolutely correct option.

I didn't say knowns were external to knowing. In fact, I said the opposite. They are dependent. Seamlessly linked but not the same.

That's not good enough because in your formulation you reject intentionality of knowing. You're kind of blending everything together, truth and fiction. It's like a politically correct version of Buddhism that tries to be non-offensive to physicalists.

Could you explain more about this 'intentionality' in relation to mind? Is this implying mind has a sort of in-born propulsion?

I wouldn't call it propulsion. It's more like directionality or orchestration. When you conduct an orchestra you don't propel each individual orchestra player. When you move the flock of sheep you don't propel the sheep, you just give them a direction. These examples are not to be taken literally. The only purpose of these examples is to demonstrate the quality of relative effortlessness or non-propulsion.

You can think of intention as a propulsion, but if you do that, your actions will not appear effortless. It will appear to you as if you are struggling against some external-to-intent resistance if you think that way.

Maybe 'reflecting' might be a more appropriate term, GiH? If mind simply refers to the fact of knowing, there would be no ignorance in the buddhist sense, relatively speaking.

Ignorance is not real. When someone is ignorant, that ignorance never enters the extreme of ignorance. In other words, the potential for wisdom always remains, so no one is utterly hopelessly ignorant.

Because ignorance can be transformed into wisdom and vice versa, it's an appearance.

Generally we can say that some beliefs are ignorant if they cause a lot of needless strife in life.

So i am proposing mind is beyond both knowing and not knowing, like a mirror is beyond dark and light, merely an agent comprising of temporary reflective compounds that then reflects whatever comes before it while the compounds are in the manifested realm, or existing realm, subject to gradual or sudden disintegration at some point. As mirror dulls, reflective strength diminishes and vice versa. Same with mind. At some point, mind will cease knowing, but will it still be 'mind'?

 

Just thinking here.

Well, we conceive of mirrors as passive reflectors. Mind is not passive. Mind is intentional and intentionality is beyond passivity and activity, but it is not passive. I think a mirror is a good analogy for some aspects of mind, but the mind is not like a mirror in every single aspect.

What do you mean by "appearance"?

I am affirming the fact that visions occur.

Ok...knowing requires something to know, right?

Knowing doesn't require things external to itself. If such things existed, they couldn't be known. Knowing is imaginary.

Otherwise what is the point of knowing? If there is no known, "knowing" is nonsensical.

Knowing is not nonsensical because depending on how you choose to know things, you'll experience either suffering or bliss or anything in between. Because knowns don't really exist apart from knowing, knowing is creative and intentional. How you choose to know will impact the life you lead.

From a physicalist point of view there is only one correct way to know things: the way that accords with the external-to-mind reality. From a non-physicalist point of view ways of knowing are neither correct nor incorrect, but are instead distinguished as skillful and clumsy. There is more than one skillful way to know things and more than one clumsy way, but no truly correct way that is imposed on you by some external-to-mind reality.

Ok, so this mind is bigger than just our individual mind? Is it like a container? As in, this greater mind contains the smaller mind and matter?

Your mind encompasses more than you are currently conscious of. You can think of the mind as a container, but that's not totally accurate. Normally containers have an inside and an outside. The mind doesn't have an outside, and mind's innerness is an abstract quality that's not to be taken literally.

Matter doesn't exist at all. Mind's contents are appearances. Some appearances are well formed, with sharp outlines. Some are not. Some appearances are suggestive of matter. Some are not. When a naive person looks at a suggestive appearance, the person doesn't question the suggestion, but instead acts as if the appearance really is what it suggests.

Immaterial appearances are conditioned by habit energy and by beliefs. The mind is capable of experiencing arbitrary amounts of pain and pleasure.

So you don't have a body?

That's correct in a sense. I don't have a material body. I have an appearance body.

You also don't understand that mind itself implies matter.

It only implies that prior to analysis. Mind simply refers to the fact of knowing. Knowing does not imply a material underpinning.

Is the mind formless?

The mind is not formless. Instead formed and formless experiences appear within the mind.

How does matter "not exist at all"?

Literally. Appearances suggestive of matter exist, and that's it. Beyond these suggestive appearances no matter can be found.

Sure, in the sense that everything is interdependent with everything else. If it weren't for dreams, there would be no waking life and vice versa. This still doesn't prove your point that mind is prime. Both dreams and waking life are physical and non-physical.

I'm not saying the mind is prime. I am saying the mind is all that exists. It has nothing to dominate. There is no matter for mind to dominate.

No, you really don't know. As long as you keep going to extremes and asserting the primacy of mind over matter, you have no idea where I'm coming from.

The mind has primacy over appearances. Matter simply doesn't exist at all. Instead appearances suggestive of matter exist.

Both physical and non-physical. If it weren't for the physical forms that one sees and takes into ones mind in waking life, there would be no dreams.

We can say the reverse of this. If it weren't for dream contents, there would be no waking life experience. Do you agree?

Again, when you say things like "it has both a constant and changing aspect," it sounds like you're just talking about emptiness. Not sure why you keep calling it awareness.

I know the nature of your doubt. It has to do with your ideas about physicality.

It means that it has a form, it is material. It is visible. It is not formless like the mind.

Are dream contents physical?

Well it's the most effective approach. Buddhism starts and ends with investigation of the self. Even if you figure out that you aren't a thing in the end, you still have to start with logic, which creates the assumption that you are a "thing."

You have to be accurate and careful in your analysis for it to be effective. If you do a sloppy job, you might as well not even bother at all.

And that requires the eyeball, which is physical. And that requires the finger, which is physical.

What does it mean to say that the eyeball is physical?

Beginningless inter-dependent-causation. There is no starting point, just different forms of the endless cycle.

Right. With regard to the specifics of the appearances we can see that there is a cycle. With regard to the fact that some kind of cognition is always occurring there is no cycle. In other words, it's not true that sometimes cognitions occur and sometimes they do not. Cognitions always occur without interruption.

But cognitions are not truly separate because cognitions have meaning only in relation to other cognitions, both apparent and those that could be apparent but are currently not, i.e. potential.

So awareness is something grander than any one specific cognition. Awareness is a reality that has a constant aspect and a changing aspect and to deny either aspect is wrong.

Does cognition need something to cognize?

No, it doesn't. I'll explain what I mean. Close your eyes first, then push on your eyeballs. You'll see some colored shapes appear. Do the colored shapes need to exist in order for you to cognize them?

Cognition works like a man blind from birth seeing rainbows.

Awareness arises due to causes and conditions as well.

That's not true. The fact that some cognition is taking place at all times, where does that fact arise from?

No, see through it, not reject it. It's the physical constituents one is reverting into pure expressions of the sambhogakaya without being hampered by dense limitations.

What does it mean to reject physicality? It means to reject the view that phenomena are physical. It doesn't mean to reject the phenomena themselves. Rejecting physicality means rejecting one specific explanation of the nature of phenomena.

You want to be talking about seeing through the appearances instead of seeing through physicality. Physicality is a view that you should reject after examining it thoroughly first.

No, that would be independent origination, or solipsism. I am a product of inter-influencing both including and beyond myself.

Heh... OK. Whatever your solipsistic intent says is right, is what's right for you. If you truly believe you are a product of inter-influencing, you'll discover your experience will mostly conform to that view.

It helps, there is a power about that which makes the experience of another persons state of being more visceral.

There is more than one way to help. Don't think that the only way to do good in the world is how you imagine at this time.

No, I know that words are limited. But words can point. If you can't even communicate about something/point to it clearly, what is the point of saying it is there? If you can't even talk about it clearly, it's just nonsense.

 

I don't want to prove its non-existence. I want to prove its dependent arising.

When you say that awareness is dependently arisen, you are putting awareness on the same level as causes and conditions. Doing so denies the visionary nature of causes and conditions.

Causes and conditions affect the specifics of whatever manifests. Awareness as a general fact that some kind of cognition is always taking place is not dependent on anything.

Who knows, maybe aspects you don't accept now you might accept later as wisdom deepens.

There is no doubt about that. I think my wisdom is nowhere near perfection. In other words, I can easily imagine someone who is wiser than myself. I am never happy with my level of understanding, that's why I seek to understand more and more. Maybe some day I will become happy with what I understand, but I don't see that day coming soon.

More like see through it and see that physical is not really physical but not necessarily not physical either.

Not exactly. You're describing a vacillating and wobbly state of mind. You'll need to reject physicality completely if you want rainbow body.

I know I'm involved in the process, I always had the potential, but my understanding of it and the transmissions of mind to mind that helped me experience it for myself come from lineage empowerments.

You're involved in more ways than you realize. You think you're just caught up in the process. I am saying you've actually engineered the process.

That's not exactly true.

What's not exactly true?

Whatever, but I will challenge your lineage bashing and extreme negative view of religion.

That's fine.

If you are so highly realized, you should intermingle with people more, get out more, hang out with sanghams and affect people with your personal self transcending presence. Widen your field of influence.

So I should widen my field of influence by believing I need to stand right next to the person I want to affect?

Why not write a book, get it published, and reach many people if you're so realized? Or, is this the one manifestation that is the super pundit here on TTB's only and you have other incarnations doing other things simultaneously teaching in other ways? Actually, don't answer that, I'm pretty sure you'll say yes.

There are many truly excellent books in this world. For example, Kunjed Gyalpo and Nang-jang are truly superb, superlative books. And there are many many more. If I wrote a book, it would just be another great book in the sea of great books. This is why I am not in any hurry to write books. If I wrote a book it would be more about my own self-expression than about filling a void. Those who are determined will find more than enough books to do whatever they want to do.

The real value I bring is that I am a living presence. Unlike with a book, you can ask me questions and I can answer them.

Oh GIH, you're so high, so realized, I'm so ignorant,

You're not all that ignorant. I never said that. You're pretty wise yourself.

I should learn from you and listen to you, meanwhile, please, bash all my lineages and teachers, they are crap compared to you GIH. You are the true holder of wisdom that they are not qualified to teach!

Lineages bring harm in a political and social sense Vajra. Some people who participate in the lineages really do have wisdom worth learning. In other words, even a thief who does harm by stealing can sometimes be wise enough to teach you a thing or two. But just because you learned something worthwhile from a thief does not mean you should embrace the thieving lifestyle wholesale. It's OK to reject some things and accept others.

I accept wisdom and reject certain attitudes and social practices inherent in various lineages.

Get a life dude. Seriously. Self proclaimed Godman.

Still, because you are turning your physical constituents into an elongated expression of the sambhogakaya past the appearance of physical density, the karmic connections with beings on this plane of existence is as well elongated.

You have to understand this intuitively, as if you make any one of these statements above really solid, or completely not solid, you are missing the point.

I do understand this. I am telling you that if you want this process to be smooth, or even to proceed at all, you have to let go of physicality altogether.

Including your conclusions of the intentions of various Masters of antiquity.

Various masters of antiquity are my emanations. If you say the same thing, you will be correct. So I am not saying this from an exclusive point of view, as in, they're mine and no one else's emanations. I don't make ignorant conclusions about any master, past, present or future.

No, the difference is that my confidence is brought forth from within me by empowered lineage, while yours is not.

That's not true Vajra. Your confidence is self-arisen in the same sense you claim mine is. The lineage impresses you only insofar you want to be impressed and create conditions for that to happen. You are involved in the process even if you are not conscious of it yet.

Such arrogant BS. Do you think you are some sort of Avatar? Some supreme godhead manifest? Krishna's new form or something?

Nope. I am just me.

You flatter yourself too much, as you think your words are like golden gods.

That's not exactly true.

But even if it were, we each have a right to experience this kind of pure vision.

I believe my words are both true and useful to more than just me alone, but to say that I see them as golden gods is an exaggeration.

It would help you gain more recognition thereby reaching more people with your "wondrous" message of independent thinking.

But when people listen to my message for the wrong reasons they can't hear the message.

You're like the reincarnation of Jiddu Krishnamurti.

 

Whatever dude.

My, my. Someone is not happy.

phenomena neither physical, nor non-physical.

Phenomena are definitely not physical in the way physicalists understand the meaning of the word "physical."

Like a dream, not really a dream.

Yes.

Experienced my own body dissolving into rainbow light, it was a bit scary at first and I could feel the death process setting on, then Ganesh sat on my chest, held me down and turned into Rinpoche, repeated a mantra then disappeared and my physical constituents coagulated (sort of speak) again into physically felt peace and calm. It was quite astounding. Many, many other things have happened as well to show me the validity of the Jalus.

That's good. So you can see at least one way how such an experience could potentially unfold. If you weren't scared, and if you were resolved on it completely, you could have remained in that state indefinitely.

A good contemplation would be to sit down and bring up that fear you felt during the vision you describe. Once you allow yourself to feel that fear again, look into its causes. You'll see right away what is holding you back. I do this kind of fear examination process myself all the time and I highly recommend it. Eventually you'll rise above all fear, there is no doubt.

This was just while laying in bed I had many other visions while in between waking and dreaming. Stuff like this happened many times for the first few years after my first transmission from Norbu in order to show me various direct insights about the tradition of Dzogchen that is both unique and beautiful.

All that is wonderful. However you do see how attached you are to the idea of an objective world, right? You get very personally inflamed when I talk in ways that contradict the validity of the conventional reality. You should ponder on that.

During a Jnana Dakini transmission, a female Buddha of the Dzogchen tradition:

Making sense of Tantra: Berzin Archives.

"Because the audience for Buddha's teachings consisted of a variety of beings, not only humans, some of them safeguarded material for later, more conducive times. For example, the half-human half-serpent nagas preserved The Prajnaparamita Sutras in their subterranean kingdom beneath a lake until the Indian master Nagarjuna came to retrieve them. Jnana Dakini, a supranormal female adept, kept The Vajrabhairava Tantra in Oddiyana until the Indian master Lalitavajra journeyed there on the advice of a pure vision of Manjushri. Moreover, both Indian and Tibetan masters hid scriptures for safekeeping in physical locations or implanted them as potentials in special disciples' minds. Later generations of masters uncovered them as treasure-texts (terma, gter-ma). Asanga, for example, buried Maitreya's Furthest Everlasting Continuum, and the Indian master Maitripa unearthed it many centuries later. Padmasambhava concealed innumerable tantra texts in Tibet, which subsequent Nyingma masters discovered in the recesses of temples or in their own minds."

 

Anyway, I saw her in the room, my third eye filled with blissful light, she was just made of light and smiling, such bliss and wonder. It was very nice. Norbu said after the transmission that it's possible to see Jhana Dakini, as a confirmation of this experience.

Again, that's a wonderful experience. Just make sure you don't grasp that experience as absolutely real. It's somewhat real and the experience of this Earth is also somewhat real, just like that Dakini vision. The difference is that you have a huge habit and belief system supporting this Earth vision while only a modest habit and belief system supporting the Dakini vision. Moreover, you are not yet consciously in charge of your own realm. You are like a drunk captain whose hands are tied to the steering wheel, yet who is afraid to steer his ship and due to fear imagines oneself to be doing something or other in some cabin on the ship. So your hands are on the wheel, but your mind is elsewhere.

Sure, but it's more nuanced than that. Have you read Norbu's Kunjed Gyalpo?

It's not really Norbu's. Yes, I've read it.

You only have an idea, but you don't know directly.

Wrong.

Your lack of humility reveals that lineage can offer far more than you.

I don't really lack humility. You just wish I was a bit more afraid. I am not going to play your game Vajra, but you are going to play my game as long as you mentally fight me using naive and ignorant methods.

Right, that's what I just said. You can only see non-division and division through division -- concepts, logic. Distinguishing requires division. Like I said before, you are caught up in logic/intellect itself and can't see what it is pointing to. You are looking at a wave (the divisive content of thought) and can't see the ocean (the non-dual way thoughts manifest, without a controller). You have to use the wave to see the ocean, but you won't let go of the wave. I can tell from the extremely intellectual nature of yours and GIH's posts that this the problem with both of you.

 

Could you give me a clear explanation of what this awareness is? Is this awareness "aware of" something?

 

Actually, let's move this out of the realm of theory and into real life. Wherever you are, right now, describe to me this awareness in that moment.

You won't get the kind of "clear" explanation you want. You expect an objective explanation of awareness. In other words, you want people to explain to you the location and functioning of awareness as an object among objects. When that's done, you'll accept it as a clear explanation, and then you'll proceed to use the logic that stresses ultimate nonexistence of objects to stress that awareness is also ultimately nonexistent. This is what you want, but you won't have that kind of satisfaction.