asunthatneversets

When it comes to Buddhist dialectics and inquiries Greg does keep the 'Direct Path' view and rhetoric separate, even to the point of telling someone interested in the Buddhist view to avoid the Direct Path: Q: I am trying to realize no self and am trying to deconstruct things like trying to see everything as the six senses, taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else. anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it. dont know what I am doing wrong. but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice. please help me out. p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. dont know what I am missing. would love to get some guidance. p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice but also recommended that I ask my question here as there are more members here and a lot of people who have already realized anatta. Greg Goode wrote: Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

Mind and consciousness are synonymous in my opinion. You may have misread what I wrote above.

I would say that citta [tib. sems] does indeed carry the connotation of being defiled. Which is why the prefix 'bodhi' when added to 'citta' no longer signifies mere 'citta', just as byang chub sems cannot be said to be the same as mere sems (the prefix 'byang chub' altering the meaning in the tibetan term, just as 'bodhi' does with the sanskrit). As far as the buddhadharma goes, the terms 'mind' and 'consciousness' are more often than not synonymous.

Actually Malcolm did clarify not too long ago: Bodhicitta is the kun gzhi, the all-basis, in sems sde texts. The commentary on the rig pa'i khu byug, The Sun that Illuminates the Meaning states: Therefore, bodhicitta, the all-basis, is classified as "the basis of purification of afflictions." But this terminology of an "all-basis" as the equivalent of bodhicitta and so on does not actually occur in the 18 original bodhicitta texts themselves and is a later commentarial gloss. You should understand that bodhicitta = primordial state is ChNN's language. Translators evolve, and we are still in a very early stage of settling what these texts actually mean. This will not be achieved by one person, but we will arrive eventually a sounder translations through a process of dialectics. Anyway, these days it is often the case that translations are obsolete within 15 years or less. M

That kun byed rgyal po translation is quite old. Not sure if 'consciousness' is a translation for bodhicitta (in that 'Supreme Source' translation) because the term bodhicitta appears to be used itself, around pages 28 - 29. 'Consciousness' appears to be referencing wisdom, which is an inaccurate translation of wisdom. Consciousness [tib. rnam shes, skt. vijñāna] does originate dependently according to Dzogchen, and is therefore conditioned and afflictive. Wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna] in the other hand is unafflicted, and appears to be what the term 'consciousness' in that translation is supposed to represent. Unlike Vedanta, there is no undefiled consciousness in Dzogchen. The way 'consciousness' is used in that kun byed rgyal po translation is inaccurate.

Cognition [gsal ba] is simply the clarity of mind. The mind possesses and is defined by its characteristic of clarity, it is wakeful, bright, present and has the faculty of cognizant knowing. That factor, is what is recognized as empty, meaning unborn, lacking inherency, free from extremes when the nature of mind [sems nyid] is referenced. This 'emptiness of clarity' is demonstrated in expositions such as the bāhiya sūtra and so on. Which conveys insight such as; in seeing there is only the seen, in hearing - only the heard, in thinking - only the thought. The emptiness of the clarity is the emptiness of that quality of cognizance being mistaken as a fixed reference point. So there is no 'seer' which is seeing, no 'hearer' which is hearing, no thinker of thoughts and so on. Likewise those varying modalities, exemplified by the faculties of seeing, hearing, thinking are also nothing in themselves, but rather are precisely the sheer exertion and nature of so-called cognizance. The inseparability of clarity and emptiness is the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The nature of mind is 'non-dual emptiness and clarity', so either (i) clarity (cognizance) must be recognized as empty, or (ii) emptiness must be recognized as non-dual with clarity. Clarity (cognizance) alone implies a subtle reference point and a subtle grasping, but when clarity is sealed with emptiness that reference point is freed up and the grasping is cut. Clarity alone (divorced of the recognition of its emptiness) is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of mind. All sentient beings function from the standpoint of the mind, buddhas are free of mind because they know its emptiness, meaning; they know that clarity is non-arisen. The inseparability of clarity and emptiness is not a 'oneness', because emptiness is a freedom from extremes. That inseparability may imply a 'single taste' or 'one taste' which is devoid of subject and object, but that doesn't mean that subject and object are merged into one [advaita], it means there is an intimate recognition that the illusory dichotomy of subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya].

The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness. Ultimately the appearances are not valid either, but the reason the emptiness of clarity is stressed, is due to the fact that clarity [cognizance] is the factor which becomes conditioned, and so traditions like Dzogchen consider that conditioning (which appears as mind) to be the linchpin that the whole charade is centered upon. So recognition of the nature of mind is the definitive insight which causes the house of cards to collapse. The mind is the factor which is sustaining ignorance and manifesting the appearance of an external world and the being(s) which inhabit(s) it. The very first link in the specific theory of dependent origination i.e. the Twelve Nidānas [the links in the cycle of pratītyasamutpāda]; is avidyā [ignorance]. The logic then follows that severing that initial ignorance means that the other 11 links have no foundation to stand on. As Padmasambhava said, “Do not seek to cut the root of phenomena, cut the root of the mind", Tilopa has insight which is very close to the same: "Cut the root of a tree and the leaves will wither; cut the root of your mind and samsara falls." So recognition of the mind's nature, as co-emergent emptiness and clarity (rather than a individuated substratum) means that the 'grasper' [subject] who grasps at experience and causes the proliferation, is emptied out, implying the emptying of other-than-subject [object] (though the exhaustion of so-called outer-phenomena, and the complete exhaustion of mind, usually come later in the path).

He discusses both the emptiness of self and phenomena, and has mentioned before that there isn't really a dichotomy made between the two when it comes to Madhyamaka. The elements which comprise the self are truly no different than the factors which comprise what we take to be external to the self.

'Mediating' not 'meditating'.

However, there is no mirror. The nature of mind is not an X which is itself unstained. The nature of mind is the non-arising of mind, the recognition that the mind is and always has been a misconception. The moment we posit a mirror, or a substantial 'something' which is itself unstained, then we have deviated from the teaching of the buddhadharma and are venturing into Hindu Vedanta and so on. The 'unconditioned' is simply the correct understanding of the 'conditioned'. There is no 'unconditioned something' which is the nature of conditioned phenomena. Phenomena are empty, their emptiness is their unconditioned nature and recognizing that is wisdom.

'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya].

In terms of what is cognized, there isn't truly anything which is 'cognized' per se, in terms of cognition it is said that recognition of our nature is a 'correct cognition', though this title is merely a conventional designation. From the standpoint of the definitive view, empty appearance is known to be empty appearance. Which means appearances are known to be non-arisen, essenceless, coreless, selfless, like illusions. Nothing within or behind appearance.

Yes but the 'mirror' suggests a 'something' which is not stained by reflections, 'something' which is unchanged or is itself unchanging. Dharmatā is not a 'something' which is a thing in itself that is unstained, dharmatā is simply the non-arising nature of appearances themselves, their lack of inherency, their emptiness. So yes, the dharmatā [nature] of dharmins [phenomena] is never stained, it does not waver or change (because it never arose in the first place) and so on, but that dharmatā is inseparable from the so-called thing itself. It is the absence of inherency, or the unfindability of whatever phenomena is in question. The 'writing on water' part is describing a different aspect of recognizing that non-arising nature. Recognition of the nature of mind [cittatā] voids the subjective knowing reference point and results in experience being 'self-luminous' and 'self-knowing', Dzogchen terms this self arising [tib. rang byung] and self liberation [tib. rang grol]. Self-liberation [rang grol] occurs because in the absence of a mind that grasps, empty dharmas, being non-arisen are unmediated and so there is no clinging. It also points to the fact that dharmas are liberated of an essence, core or being i.e. self. So recognition of the nature of mind frees up the illusory reference point of mind and therefore mind no longer mediates experience and appearances self-arise [rang byung] and self-liberate [rang grol]. The 'writing on water' attempts to convey this lack of mediation in relation to empty appearances, for without foundation, root, or an observing reference point which abides in relation to them, they simply liberate upon arising. The flight of a bird through the sky which leaves no trace is another way this is framed, but in either case, the water or the sky are not aspects of the metaphor which are pertinent. The metaphor is simply attempting to describe the manner in which unmediated and non-arising occurrence manifests itself. Dzogchen does sometimes parse one's nature as 'non-existent', but will do it while suggesting an avenue of expression or appearance at the same time. So for instance the example you questioned says that one's nature is non-existent, yet it cognizes everything. So it isn't an utter absence. Vajrayogini uses this same description: "The earth outside, the stones, mountains, rocks, plants, trees and forests do not truly exist. The body inside does not truly exist. This empty and luminous mind-nature also does not truly exist. Although it does not truly exist, it cognizes everything." Garab Dorje says something to the same effect: "This vidyā is devoid of true existence. Its natural expression arises as everything without obstruction." Longchenpa comments on the metaphor of 'space' in relation to our nature: "Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself [skt. cittatā, tib. sems nyid], pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest." You are right however that one's nature is usually presented as being free from extremes (the quotes above are intended to suggest that as well). And that is the safest way to describe it, otherwise the lack of inherent existence can be misinterpreted as a nihilistic statement. It isn't that one's nature is equally nothing yet at the same time everything, yet neither of those. The freedom from the four extremes is a way to convey that our nature is non-arisen and empty from the very beginning. Meaning, it therefore is nothing which can accord with any of the four extremes: (i) existence, (ii) non-existence, (iii) both, (iv) neither. It cannot truly be non-existent, because it is nothing which has ever existed in the first place.

In my opinion the 'mirror' itself is an aspect of the analogy that can be dispensed with altogether (or just ignored). Much like in the analogy of the moon reflected in water, the water itself isn't an important aspect of the analogy, the important part is seeing that the moon appears, yet it is not a moon, it is simply an image, apparent yet unreal. Same goes for appearances in a mirror, they are apparent yet unreal. Inseparable from the capacity to reflect, yet that capacity isn't anything. Just like they say in Dzogchen; the nature of mind does not exist, and is nothing at all in itself, yet it cognizes everything. I just feel once the 'mirror itself' is introduced into the equation it too easily lends to an idea of 'something' substantial, much harder to go down that road if it is simply the mirror's capacity or potentiality that is used, and I think Norbu Rinpoche took note of that as well, being that he distinctly referenced the potentiality rather than the mirror itself. But to each their own! The ability for interpretation and so on is the beauty of analogies, metaphors and so on.

Something I wrote awhile ago, and some quotes from Chögyal Namkhai Norbu: The mirror-analogy is commonly used in attempting to describe the 'nature of mind' and there is a common misconception which tends to arise from this analogy because the implementation of a mirror seems to convey a substantiated background (or unchanging source). I was attempting to point out that the analogy isn't meant to explore the mirror in itself as an unchanging basis, but solely the mirror's capacity to reflect. So the capacity is the aspect the analogy is exploring. Equating the nature of mind to the mirror's reflective capacity (but not the mirror itself). That the reflections are inseparable from that capacity, just like AEN elucidated with the fire-to-heat and water-to-wetness examples. That capacity isn't a conceivable quality, it isn't something which can be 'known' as a substantiated suchness. The capacity (to reflect) cannot be rolled, thrown or bounced, it has no shape, color, location, weight or height. There is nothing there one can point to and declare 'there it is!'. Yet in it's elusiveness it is still fully apparent in the presence of the reflections themselves. The capacity is evident because of the reflections and the reflections are evident because of the capacity, in truth they co-emergent and mutually interdependent qualities which are completely inseparable. Evident, clear and pure, yet unestablished, ungraspable and ephemeral. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche used the capacity aspect as well; "Our primordial potentiality is beyond form, but we have a symbol, and when we have a symbol then we can get in that knowledge. It is very easy to understand with an example. If you want to discover the potentiality of a mirror, how can you go about it? You can neither see or touch the nature or potentiality of a mirror, nor can you have contact with it in any ordinary way, the only way is to look in a mirror, and then the reflections will appear and through the reflections you can discover it. The reflections are not really the potentiality of the mirror but they are manifesting through that potentiality, so they are something visible for us. With this example we can get in the knowledge of the potentiality of the mirror...." - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu "Why then do we have this symbol of primordial potentiality? Primordial potentiality in the Dzogchen teaching is explained with three principles: sound, light and rays. This does not mean that sound, light and rays are manifestations, but rather that these are the root of all manifestations. When you have this potentiality then there is always the possibility of manifestations. If we wonder, for example what the potentiality of a mirror looks like, we couldn't say very much, we could say for example that it is clear, pure, limpid and so forth, but we could not really have contact with it directly through our senses. In the same way sound, light and rays are the essence of potentiality. When we have this potentiality, if secondary causes arise, then anything can manifest. What do we mean by secondary causes? For example, if in front of a mirror there is tree, or a flower or a person, the object instantly manifests. These are secondary causes. So if there is no secondary cause there is no manifestation. Thus in front of our primordial potentiality there are all the possibilities of manifestation of the secondary causes....." - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

Buddhahood does occur via tregchö alone, it just takes a lot longer to achieve and doesn't incorporate lhun grub like the other energy based practices do. Yang ti nag po and klong sde practices also work with lhun grub.

Yeah he has stated elsewhere in passing that tregchö is the basis, thögal is the path, and the result is one of the few forms of death, be it rainbow body, atomic body, etc. Also that 'tregchö' [khregs chod] is essentially any means which is implemented to cut through delusion and/or fixation towards delusion, and in that way, tregchö begins to naturally imply the other integrative practices found in man ngag sde and klong sde. Each of those practices in relation to one another is a combination naturally akin to two sides of the same coin. Dzogchen practices are tregchö by definition though, for example; people have asked Chögyal Namkhai Norbu why he doesn't regularly teach tregchö, and in response he laughed and said he's always teaching tregchö. At the same time though, Malcolm has also stated that the result of tregchö is the realization of ka dag, which is emptiness free from extremes as unobscured buddha mind [dharmakāya]... while through the other man ngag sde practices (that incorporate energy) is it possible to realize ka dag chen po [nondual ka dag and lhun grub] which reveals the unobscured three kāyas in their entirety.

Not necessarily, since each cycle actually has its own introduction and so on. They are different cycles and aren't meant as a progression. Klong sde is actually not too widely practiced, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has gone out of his way to make it available whereas for the most part sems sde and man ngag sde practices are the most common.

The third testament of Garab Dorje is 'continuation', which is the state of one's condition after the second testament [confidence or familiarity i.e. integration] has been brought to its culmination and there is no longer a difference between equipoise and post-equipoise. It is said that this level occurs only for those practitioners who are very close to buddhahood. Most individuals are generally not capable of this. It should be understood that the three testaments of Garab Dorje coincide with the basis, path and result in Dzogchen. The first (i) introduction, is recognition of the basis. Once that recognition has occurred the basis then becomes the path, which is the second testament, 'confidence', which involves integration and familiarity as mentioned above. After one's rigpa has been brought to its full measure, then the path becomes the result, as buddhahood, and that is the third testament i.e. 'continuation'.

Yes, however... "The Dagpo Kagyüpas designate thoughts and emotions as the dharmakāya; we Dzogchen practitioners do not make that designation." - Namkhai Naljor Lhatsün

Thusness also has some succinct insight on this: "Depending on the conditions of an individual, it may not be obvious that it is 'always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought.' or 'the watcher is that thought.' Because this is the key insight and a step that cannot afford to be wrong along the path of liberation, I cannot help but with some disrespectful tone say, For those masters that taught, 'Let thoughts arise and subside, See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.' With all due respect, they have just 'blah' something nice but deluded. Rather, See that there is no one behind thoughts. First, one thought then another thought. With deepening insight it will later be revealed, Always just this, One Thought! Non-arising, luminous yet empty!"

Extending the space between thoughts is an excellent (and necessary) preliminary practice, however the assumption that there is a gap between thoughts (which becomes more apparent) would still be a subtle byproduct of ignorance. A gap between thoughts assumes that thoughts sequence consecutively in a linear fashion, and that they arise and fall. This assumption however is predicated on a fundamental misconception and therefore the 'gap' will not reveal the definitive nature of mind [sems nyid]. Recognition of the definitive nature of mind is recognizing the non-arising of thoughts and gaps. Achieving a stable śamatha is important to sever (or decrease) the compulsory habit of conceptualization, but simply increasing that space between thoughts is nothing more than a stable śamatha [tib. zhi gnas]. Yes you marry the śamatha with vipaśyanā but whether it is wisdom or ignorance makes all the difference. The true vipaśyanā of the natural state is resting in svayambhu vidyā [tib. rang byung rig pa], which only occurs when the stillness and movement of mind are recognized to have been inseparable since beginningless time... and the clarity [cognizance] of mind is then recognized as empty i.e. non-arisen. Thoughts sequencing consecutively with gaps in between is still a subtle structuring of ignorance. The illusion of a space abiding between apparent occurrences is partly responsible for the idea of an entity (or capacity) which exists in time and is subject to experiences in the first place. When mentation is recognized to be the immediate and disjoint clarity of mind itself, then it's suddenly realized there was never a space between thoughts (beyond conventionality) and the foundation for the chain of conceptualization and cyclic existence is undone. Only then does the primordially non-arisen display of wisdom [ye shes] become fully apparent. Resting in the stillness of mind and refraining from involvement with thought still assumes there is something that can accept or reject thought. The idea is to see that 'thought objectifying thought' is one of the main culprits which sustain the illusion of the mind's continuity, along with the various implications, tendencies, proclivities, habits, propensities etc., which arise as a direct result of that error. The underlying substratum (or gap) that seems to abide apart from thought is actually an illusion created by the supposition that thoughts are relating to each other in time. So thought B is supposing that it follows thought A etc., and then thought B will even suppose it can refer to thought A, but by the time that's occurring it's thought C. None of them ever touch, no two thoughts are ever present together in the immediacy, so a thought isn't referencing anything, but only infers that other thoughts have preceded it, it is an illusion. Even the idea that there is more than one thought. That very idea creates the notion that there is a space between them etc.

I would beg to differ, but you're welcome to your opinion.

His knowledge of Madhyamaka and so on is excellent. He's a fan on Tsongkhapa's Prasangika, which doesn't resonate with me as much but it is very interesting to learn about it. He has been able to give great teachings on Nāgārjuna and others as well.

I'm not sure what that means, but okay.