[Anderson]

 

 

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's statement that there is no basis for non-recognition, if that is something he said, does not contradict the necessity of recognition. The entire praxis of Dzogchen, Mahamudra, etc., is predicated on recognition.

 

"But the difference between samsara and nirvana is simply a matter of of either recognizing or not recognizing. The very moment you recognize, there is nothing simpler than that. In the moment of seeing mind-essence [sems nyid], it is already recognized; there is nothing more that needs to be done. At that very moment it is not necessary to meditate even a speck. Shamatha needs to be meditated, cultivated. This emptiness does not posses an atom of anything to meditate on.

 

After recognizing, of course, we lose the continuity. We get distracted. Losing the continuity, becoming distracted, is itself the state of delusion. Meditating on buddha nature as if it were an object is the work of conceptual mind. This conceptual mind is exactly what keeps us spinning through samsara."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

"We need to recognize this, train in it and attain stability in the recognition. Recognizing is like the example of an infant who grows up into a twenty-five year old man. From infancy, the training is to recognize and continue recognizing until full mastery... The paths and levels toward enlightenment describe degrees of stability in recognition. We need to recognize empty cognizance - what this present moment of unmade wakefulness really is. Allow that to simply be as it is; let be in naturalness. That is the whole teaching in a nutshell. Having recognized this, train in it through uncontrived naturalness. Finally attain stability."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

"Mind [sems] and its essence [sems nyid] are not separate, just like the sun and its rays are not separate. Coemergent wisdom and coemergent ignorance are also as inseparable as fire and smoke. We have never been separate from this essence for even a moment. Our true nature is Samantabhadra - the nature pervading both samsara and nirvana. Even though it's always been present, this alone doesn't help, because it hasn't been recognized. We need to recognize it."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

So, as you can see Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche gives much credence to recognition, as he should.

 

Yes the nature [rang bzhin] of that state is naturally perfected clarity [lhun grub gsal ba], however the essence [ngo bo] is emptiness [stong pa nyid], and if you only have the clarity without the recognition of emptiness, then you simply have a mind [sems] with no insight into the nature of that mind [sems nyid].

 

As Tsoknyi Rinpoche states:

"Sometimes I say emptiness in the clarity and sometimes emptiness in the appearance. These mean exactly the same thing because emptiness is emptiness in each case and because the clarity part and the appearance part come down to the same meaning. Clarity is the knower and appearances are what it knows.

 

Now, when we do not know this emptiness and appearance we stay in duality and staying in duality we are confused. The definition of confusion is: 'Not directly seeing the actuality of things'."

 

Discovery and recognition are synonymous. You are recognizing the natural and uncontrived dharmatā which is your nature. Or you are discovering the actuality of mind and phenomena, their dharmatā. Same either way.

 

Also, the fact that recognition is first and foremost means that in the wake of that recognition, there is no doubt as to what one is seeking to revisit and familiarize with. That is why recognition is the first step.

 

"Meditation is not foremost, realization is foremost; If realization is not entered with confidence, the meditator is merely meditating on a conceptual state, the seeker is seeking with an afflicted clinging."

- kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa

 

"Just be" is a very dangerous notion to throw around which can easily be misinterpreted. It is true that in the instance of recognition you simply rest and allow the continuity of that insight to be natural. However that does not mean that one has arrived at the place indicated and can abandon effort. It simply means one has recognized mind-essence, and now the praxis is to integrate with that insight.

 

You also seem to be fixating on the nature [rang bzhin lhun grub] of the basis [gzhi], however again, the nature alone is not the basis. The basis is essence, nature and compassion. The aspect of continuity, or continuum, is the non-dual essence and nature. The nature alone is insufficient, and truly, the essence [ngo bo ka dag] is held to be the only definitive aspect of the basis according to the Dzogchen tantras.

 

The last excerpt from the kun byed rgyal po that you cite is referencing the view from the standpoint of dharmatā. If you interpret that statement as applying to your relative condition then you will be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

 

You dont seem to understand.

Your dogma has blinded you .

 

Again.

The teacher gives you the explanations and you follow them to the letter.Up until that point you haven't known yet rigpa but through your teachers explanations and directions you are led to that place.When in that place you may still not know what the implications or full meaning of that might be.But you are in it, in rigpa. Mingyur Dorje for example explains in "Meditators guide to great perfection"the method of looking.According to him you look you see it and you stay there.What you see it may not be familiar to you but you definitely see something.

Then in another place , based on these same instructions and directions he states:

Once you have entered rigpa, you just stay there. If it’s rigpa,

it’s rigpa; if it’s not rigpa, it’s not rigpa; but you just stay there, any-

way. Whether it’s mind you’ve gone into or not mind, it doesn’t

matter; you just stay there. Whether you stay in rigpa or not, still

you stay in it! Whether there are discursive thoughts coming up or

not, still you stay with that. Whatever happens, happens; it is all right.

Here he highlights some of the issues us beginners face which usually arise as a result of NOT understanding, trusting WHAT WE SEE at the place we were led by the instructions and directions of our teacher.

For example one has never heard of and doesn't know what a supermarket is.Then someone comes along and says you take first right and walk 10 m then turn left and walk 100 m and on you right you will see a large building surrounded by parked cars.He may not know what he sees or be unfamiliar with that sight but he trusts the directions given to him and eventually arrives at the place indicated.

[steve]

Another quote, this from the Dalai Lama, attributed to Sakya Pandita:

In the gap between past and future thought, the clear light nature of mind dawns uninterruptedly.

[Anderson]

Another quote, this from the Dalai Lama, attributed to Sakya Pandita: In the gap between past and future thought, the clear light nature of mind dawns uninterruptedly.

 

What this statement points to is quite often misunderstood.

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

 

You dont seem to understand.

Your dogma has blinded you .

 

Again.

The teacher gives you the explanations and you follow them to the letter.Up until that point you haven't known yet rigpa but through your teachers explanations and directions you are led to that place.When in that place you may still not know what the implications or full meaning of that might be.But you are in it, in rigpa. Mingyur Dorje for example explains in "Meditators guide to great perfection"the method of looking.According to him you look you see it and you stay there.What you see it may not be familiar to you but you definitely see something.

Then in another place , based on these same instructions and directions he states:

Once you have entered rigpa, you just stay there. If its rigpa,

its rigpa; if its not rigpa, its not rigpa; but you just stay there, any-

way. Whether its mind youve gone into or not mind, it doesnt

matter; you just stay there. Whether you stay in rigpa or not, still

you stay in it! Whether there are discursive thoughts coming up or

not, still you stay with that. Whatever happens, happens; it is all right.

 

Here he highlights some of the issues us beginners face which usually arise as a result of NOT understanding, trusting WHAT WE SEE at the place we were led by the instructions and directions of our teacher.

 

For example one has never heard of and doesn't know what a supermarket is.Then someone comes along and says you take first right and walk 10 m then turn left and walk 100 m and on you right you will see a large building surrounded by parked cars.He may not know what he sees or be unfamiliar with that sight but he trusts the directions given to him and eventually arrives at the place indicated.

That is all well and good Anderson, I'm not out to sink your battleship. You appear to be quite invested in the idea that recognition is something which is a vague, grey area, undefined and questionable. If that works for you that is great, but that has not been my experience.

 

Sure the practices which are applied in the wake of introduction (to either reveal - or further solidify one's knowledge of - mind essence) may initially be inferential, but that does not mean that recognition itself is inferential. It is quite the opposite.

 

In fact my teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu just said today that one's recognition of their primordial state is something concrete, free of mind and the ignorance which gives rise to the illusions of time, space, subject, object, etc., it is not an inferential and vague species of experiential insight by any means.

 

But to each their own, we are all different and have varying capacities. How you choose to interpret your experience of recognition is hardly indicative of a dogmatic misunderstanding on my part, but you are welcome to convince yourself of whatever you'd like.

Edited April 5, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Anderson]

That is all well and good Anderson, I'm not out to sink your battleship. You appear to be quite invested in the idea that recognition is something which is a vague, grey area, undefined and questionable. If that works for you that is great, but that has not been my experience.

 

Sure the practices which are applied in the wake of introduction (to either reveal - or further solidify one's knowledge of - mind essence) may initially be inferential, but that does not mean that recognition itself is inferential. It is quite the opposite.

 

In fact my teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu just said today that one's recognition of their primordial state is something concrete, free of mind and the ignorance which gives rise to the illusions of time, space, subject, object, etc., it is not an inferential and vague species of experiential insight by any means.

 

But to each their own, we are all different and have varying capacities. How you choose to interpret your experience of recognition is hardly indicative of a dogmatic misunderstanding on my part, but you are welcome to convince yourself of whatever you'd like.

 

In most peoples cases direct transmission fails , that is, they don't discover their nature at that time.

Because they don't discover their nature they dont know it.If they don't see it they cant recognize it next time.

i am pretty sure you've heard the example Rinpoche gives sometime when he says IF YOU DON'T KNOW how someone looks and are unfamiliar with their appearance it will be impossible to RECOGNIZE them in a crowd.

 

Now explain this to me .How is it possible to RECOGNIZE something you haven't seen before or you are unfamiliar with?

If this is not possible then the only other way is to follow the instructions of one's teacher of how to get to "the place" where your nature "resides".

Once you are there you stay there as per Mingyur Dorje's words :

you just stay there. If it’s rigpa,

it’s rigpa; if it’s not rigpa, it’s not rigpa; but you just stay there, any-

way. Whether it’s mind you’ve gone into or not mind, it doesn’t

matter; you just stay there. Whether you stay in rigpa or not, still

you stay in it! Whether there are discursive thoughts coming up or

not, still you stay with that. Whatever happens, happens; it is all right.

Why would anybody say this other than reassuring practitioners that they are in the right place ?

The reason is that we dont understand what we see and we are creating countless doubts therefore falling into mind.

 

And i have never said that discovery is inferential.If you want to call following your teacher's advise and instructions, inferential , be my guest.

 

 

Here are the two meanings of the word "recognition" and none of these meanings are apppripriate in the case of "recogniton of the nature of mind " or of "the recognition of the primordial state:

1. 1.

   identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again.

   "I recognized her when her wig fell off"
2. 2.

   acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Anderson

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Aiming at the space between thoughts.

 

That was never the sort of phrase that proved remotely helpful to me.

 

Between thoughts there is space.

 

If you aim at it, you try and fill it with a thought!

 

Then you get endless constant stream of neurotic thought!

 

You don't want that!

 

You need to wait for the mind to learn to still itself naturally.

 

I'm not sure there is any other way.

...

[C T]

"Stilling the mind" is often imagined to be some blissful, serene state. It can be that, but also, it can be that a practitioner reaches a point in his or her practice where there is a kind of realization that its ok to remain unfettered in/by whatever arises, then there is no room for distraction to knock one off-balance.

 

Discursive thoughts are ok, settling is also ok... no more chasing or rejecting, be ok with whatever arises, that is the ultimate meaning of "stilling the mind". When everything is ok, then there is a sort of equilibrium, balance... the ability to maintain this balance with awareness, one resides in a non-literal "space between thoughts".

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

In most peoples cases direct transmission fails , that is, they don't discover their nature at that time.

Because they don't discover their nature they dont know it.If they don't see it they cant recognize it next time.

i am pretty sure you've heard the example Rinpoche gives sometime when he says IF YOU DON'T KNOW how someone looks and are unfamiliar with their appearance it will be impossible to RECOGNIZE them in a crowd.

 

Now explain this to me .How is it possible to RECOGNIZE something you haven't seen before or you are unfamiliar with?

If this is not possible then the only other way is to follow the instructions of one's teacher of how to get to "the place" where your nature "resides".

Once you are there you stay there as per Mingyur Dorje's words :

you just stay there. If its rigpa,

its rigpa; if its not rigpa, its not rigpa; but you just stay there, any-

way. Whether its mind youve gone into or not mind, it doesnt

matter; you just stay there. Whether you stay in rigpa or not, still

you stay in it! Whether there are discursive thoughts coming up or

not, still you stay with that. Whatever happens, happens; it is all right.

 

Why would anybody say this other than reassuring practitioners that they are in the right place ?

The reason is that we dont understand what we see and we are creating countless doubts therefore falling into mind.

 

And i have never said that discovery is inferential.If you want to call following your teacher's advise and instructions, inferential , be my guest.

 

 

Here are the two meanings of the word "recognition" and none of these meanings are apppripriate in the case of "recogniton of the nature of mind " or of "the recognition of the primordial state:

•  

  1.

   

  identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again.

  "I recognized her when her wig fell off"

•  

  2.

  acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.

You are recognizing something you haven't seen before and are unfamiliar with because recognition of the mind's nature is a discovery. You are recognizing dharmatā. It is not something you have previously known. The recognition is a discovery, your nature is revealed, and so whereas you did not before, you now have that intimate experiential knowledge of dharmatā.

 

Mingyur Dorje's exposition in that excerpt is instructions on the placement of the mind when training. You rest in the causal ālaya, which is the provisional meditation, and you maintain that view. That practice aids in creating the fertile circumstances for prajñā to flash forth. That is why he is saying that is the placement for practice, and that is maintained, if vidyā appears then it does, if it doesn't then you still maintain that placement. In time that provisional view will flower into the definitive view.

 

Also, I have never heard the 'face in the crowd' metaphor explained in the way you are referencing it. The actual application of that example is to convey the conviction and certainty that comes with recognizing the nature of mind. It is a doubtless certainty which does not require secondary confirmation. Just as you would not need anyone to confirm that you had just seen the face of an old friend in a crowd. You simply know that is your friend. Recognizing dharmatā is like that, hence "The Beacon of Certainty", recognizing your nature is like meeting an old friend, there is no doubt.

[Anderson]

You are recognizing something you haven't seen before and are unfamiliar with because recognition of the mind's nature is a discovery.

This doesn't make sense.

A discovery is when something never seen before comes or makes itself known to the mind.

 

You are recognizing dharmatā. It is not something you have previously known.

 

Yes.Previously unknown.And more accurate would be "you are discovering dharmata"

 

 

The recognition is a discovery.

 

 

No.It is only a discovery. Since what you are presented with at that moment is an aspect of your condition previously unknown to you.

 

 

Mingyur Dorje's exposition in that excerpt is instructions on the placement of the mind when training. You rest in the causal ālaya, which is the provisional meditation, and you maintain that view. That practice aids in creating the fertile circumstances for prajñā to flash forth. That is why he is saying that is the placement for practice, and that is maintained, if vidyā appears then it does, if it doesn't then you still maintain that placement. In time that provisional view will flower into the definitive view.

 

I have said this same thing before.If one sticks to their teacher's instructions one will be led to the place where one meets face to face with their primordial nature although initially they might not understand the meaning or the full implication of what that might be.

[GrandmasterP]

In Mindfulness Practice ©

we teach to observe thoughts non-judgementally then return to the breathing.

Not so much a 'space between thoughts' but a place apart from thoughts.

Next step is to ponder ' who is observing?'

 

That can take a while.

 

 

:-)

Edited April 6, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[steve]

When we talk about recognition, the mother and son imagery is useful for me.

I think Anderson is more talking about when we start working with the son (effulgent rigpa) - knowing, discernment, clear light.

Just working with that and stabilizing it can be a subtle and tentative process.

As it deepens and stabilizes, there is more confidence and certainty.

 

Asunthatneversets seems to be pointing more to the son returning to the mother (kungzhi; the base)

That knowing is profound. It is like the discovery of a new memory, long forgotten or never known, that is extraordinarily rich and comforting and familiar.

It is an altogether different experience and overflowing with certainty but at the same time totally new.

The key characteristic of that experience is overwhelming bodhicitta.

No mistaking that!

[asunthatneversets]

This doesn't make sense.

A discovery is when something never seen before comes or makes itself known to the mind.

This is really just semantical nitpicking at this point.

 

Whatever context you'd like to present the notion in; (i) as a practitioner you are informed of dharmatā, then you receive pointing out instructions to recognize dharmatā, and you either recognize or you don't. (ii) when you recognize dharmatā you have discovered the nature of your mind.

 

Either way, in the relative sense when the notions of recognition and/or non-recognition are discussed, this is all pertinent to your mind. The teachings also make it a point to state that samsara and nirvāna are not apart from the mind.

 

Yes.Previously unknown.And more accurate would be "you are discovering dharmata"

Sure, whatever context works for you. Either is applicable.

 

If you are in recognition of your nature, that is the path of liberation. If you are not in recognition of your nature, that is the path of suffering.

 

No.It is only a discovery. Since what you are presented with at that moment is an aspect of your condition previously unknown to you.

Right, and because it is an aspect of your condition there is either recognition, or non-recognition of it.

 

I have said this same thing before.If one sticks to their teacher's instructions one will be led to the place where one meets face to face with their primordial nature although initially they might not understand the meaning or the full implication of what that might be.

Which means that one's knowledge will remain provisional or inferential until the definitive recognition occurs.

 

After recognition one's knowledge will then be definitive, but will remain incomplete until karmic traces are fully exhausted.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Effulgent rigpa.

 

I like that phrase.

 

I'm not really Dzogchen.

 

Is that Dzogchen?

 

But I fancy perhaps a former incarnation (or more than one who knows) was definitely a lama.

 

He helps me a great deal.

 

So, I like to sit and work with effulgent rigpa, yes.

 

It surrounds me like a cloak.

 

And yes, I serve the mother Earth.

...

Edited April 6, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Anderson]

...

Effulgent rigpa.

 

I like that phrase.

 

I'm not really Dzogchen.

 

Is that Dzogchen?

 

But I fancy perhaps a former incarnation (or more than one who knows) was definitely a lama.

 

He helps me a great deal.

 

So, I like to sit and work with effulgent rigpa, yes.

 

It surrounds me like a cloak.

 

And yes, I serve the mother Earth.

...

 

Mother Earth is very tolerant.

[GrandmasterP]

Mother Earth is very tolerant.

 

She has to be.

 

Look at some of of her kids!

 

( self included!)

 

 

:-)

[steve]

Another quotation pointing at the space between thoughts.

This one is by Shechen Gyaltsab Pema Namgyal, excerpted from Perfect Clarity by Marcia Binder Schmidt, et al:

 

"Well, what is meditation then? When your past thought has ceased and your future thought has not yet arisen and you are free from conceptual reckoning in the present moment, then your genuine and natural awareness, the union of being empty and cognizant, dawns as the state of mind, which is like space - that itself is dzogchen transcending concepts, the cutting through of primordial purity, the open and naked exhaustion of phenomena."

 

Whether or not you like the "aiming at the space between thoughts" idea, I find this to be an eloquent description of the natural state.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Another quotation pointing at the space between thoughts.

This one is by Shechen Gyaltsab Pema Namgyal, excerpted from Perfect Clarity by Marcia Binder Schmidt, et al:

 

"Well, what is meditation then? When your past thought has ceased and your future thought has not yet arisen and you are free from conceptual reckoning in the present moment, then your genuine and natural awareness, the union of being empty and cognizant, dawns as the state of mind, which is like space - that itself is dzogchen transcending concepts, the cutting through of primordial purity, the open and naked exhaustion of phenomena."

 

Whether or not you like the "aiming at the space between thoughts" idea, I find this to be an eloquent description of the natural state.

 

Hi Steve ,

Are you speaking from experience here? Can you describe the natural state? Is it a clear luminous dark open space or is it filled with white light?

 

[steve]

Hi Steve , Are you speaking from experience here?

Yes

 

Can you describe the natural state?

No

 

Is it a clear luminous dark open space or is it filled with white light?

No… it is neither of those things,

 

and also, yes - it may exhibit either of those displays.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Yes

 

No

 

No… it is neither of those things,

 

and also, yes - it may exhibit either of those displays.

 

Hi Steve,

Since I like pointing out inconsistencies, I thought I'd point out that there is a descrepency between your statement of "Whether or not you like the "aiming at the space between thoughts" idea, I find this to be an eloquent description of the natural state" and your response of not being able to describe the natural state. For, if you cannot describe the natural state, then how can say that something is an eloquent description of it? LOL. Not a big deal..

 

Excellent book, by the way.

 

The only way I can make sense of 'aiming at space between thoughts" idea is this. There are three components to the puzzle: awareness, the subject and the object. When the subject no longer has an object to focus on (the object has disappeared), then the subject disappears leaving behind that which is aware of no subject or object. In my experience, this is the wide open space which seems to be endless, aware and always there.

 

So, aiming at the space between thoughts may be part of a preliminary step, but if one grasps at the 'lack of thought' or open space in the gap between thoughts, there is still a subject. It is only upon relinquishing of the subject that the third party (awareness) becomes known.

 

So, although these are probably good instructions, they should be taken in context of the rest ..

 

 

Well, what is meditation then? When your past thought has ceased and your future thought has not yet arisen and you are free from conceptual reckoning in the present moment, then your genuine and natural awareness, the union of being empty and cognizant, dawns as the state of mind, which is like space— that itself is dzogchen transcending concepts , the cutting through of primordial purity, the open and naked exhaustion of phenomena.

 

This is exactly what you should recognize. To sustain the practice means simply to rest in naturalness after recognizing. In any context, whether it be view, meditation, or conduct, this is exactly what should be revealed in its naked state. Unless you experience and understand that, one teaching will tell you to be free from arising, dwelling, and ceasing, while another will claim, “It is such and such!” With these ideas in mind, you are simply naming the nameless. Within that mire of intellectual assumptions, you’ll never find the chance for realization.

 

Dharmakaya is naked and empty awareness that transcends concepts and cannot, apart from a mere mental image, be established as having concrete existence by means of descriptive words or by the analytical intellect. But, when the blessings of your master coincide with the power of your own meditation practice, you will cut through misconceptions, just like a small child awakening to the faculty of intelligence. When this has happened, it is essential not to abandon your discovery but to cultivate it continuously with diligence.

 

Kunsang, Erik Pema (2012-10-16). Perfect Clarity: A Tibetan Buddhist Anthology of Mahamudra and Dzogchen (pp. 134-135). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.

 

 

There is a danger there that the practitioner/reader may interpret 'lack of thought' as the natural state. The gap between thoughts presents only a momentary opportunity so long as the subject does not get a chance to cling or grasp.

 

For, if "lack of thoughts" and "natural state" were mutually inclusive, the text would not go on to say the following:

 

 

 

Whether there is stillness, thought occurrence, or the noticing of them, it is essential to practice while looking directly into the fresh awareness of the observer. 21

 

While meditating in this way, the sign of manifest awareness is when it seems that you have even more thought activity, agitation, and disturbing emotions than before. Also, an endless number of variations on the three experiences of bliss, clarity, and nonthought appear. But don’t have hope or fear about them . Don’t try to accept or reject them, or cling to or fixate on them in any way. Rather, practice while looking directly into the awareness that experiences them. In this way they become your friends. If you cling to or fixate on those experiences, you will simply get entangled in fixation.

 

Kunsang, Erik Pema (2012-10-16). Perfect Clarity: A Tibetan Buddhist Anthology of Mahamudra and Dzogchen (pp. 135-136). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.

 

 

If my understanding of the previous quote is correct, the sentence "while looking directly into the fresh awareness of the observer" is the equivalent of my 3 parts of awareness/subject/object, that is, the third party awareness is looking directly at the fresh awareness of the subject. For, when a myriad of phenomenon appear, the subject also appears.

 

Therefore, since I don't like the gap analogy, I would say this: fixate on a thought until it dissolves. Notice that the subject also dissolves when there is no more motion, grasping or conceptual clinging. Remain there. Or, while the subject is grasping at thoughts, notice that there is something watching the subject as it grasps at the object..

 

I guess I'm just emphasizing that it is possible to be in the natural state while a plethora of thoughts/visions/movements are occuring, and that if a plethora of thoughts/visions/movements are occuring, according to that text, it is a sign that one can be in the natural state.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[steve]

Hi Steve,

Since I like pointing out inconsistencies, I thought I'd point out that there is a discrepancy between your statement of "Whether or not you like the "aiming at the space between thoughts" idea, I find this to be an eloquent description of the natural state" and your response of not being able to describe the natural state. For, if you cannot describe the natural state, then how can say that something is an eloquent description of it? LOL. Not a big deal..

I said that I can't describe it (to be more accurate, I choose not to try as I don't consider myself enough of an authority to do so)…

I didn't say that the Carefree Vagrant couldn't.

In fact, I quoted him because I think he does a good job of it …

 

 

Excellent book, by the way.

 

The only way I can make sense of 'aiming at space between thoughts" idea is this. There are three components to the puzzle: awareness, the subject and the object. When the subject no longer has an object to focus on (the object has disappeared), then the subject disappears leaving behind that which is aware of no subject or object. In my experience, this is the wide open space which seems to be endless, aware and always there.

 

So, aiming at the space between thoughts may be part of a preliminary step, but if one grasps at the 'lack of thought' or open space in the gap between thoughts, there is still a subject. It is only upon relinquishing of the subject that the third party (awareness) becomes known.

 

So, although these are probably good instructions, they should be taken in context of the rest ..

 

 

 

 

There is a danger there that the practitioner/reader may interpret 'lack of thought' as the natural state. The gap between thoughts presents only a momentary opportunity so long as the subject does not get a chance to cling or grasp.

 

For, if "lack of thoughts" and "natural state" were mutually inclusive, the text would not go on to say the following:

 

 

 

 

 

If my understanding of the previous quote is correct, the sentence "while looking directly into the fresh awareness of the observer" is the equivalent of my 3 parts of awareness/subject/object, that is, the third party awareness is looking directly at the fresh awareness of the subject. For, when a myriad of phenomenon appear, the subject also appears.

 

Therefore, since I don't like the gap analogy, I would say this: fixate on a thought until it dissolves. Notice that the subject also dissolves when there is no more motion, grasping or conceptual clinging. Remain there. Or, while the subject is grasping at thoughts, notice that there is something watching the subject as it grasps at the object..

 

I guess I'm just emphasizing that it is possible to be in the natural state while a plethora of thoughts/visions/movements are occuring, and that if a plethora of thoughts/visions/movements are occuring, according to that text, it is a sign that one can be in the natural state.

 

As far as the rest of your post goes, I've already addressed most or all of those points in earlier comments so I won't respond point by point.

 

I would like to add this, however - I suspect that the vast majority of folks participating in this forum are beginners or less (as am I) in their Dzogchen practice. Until one is able to find some stability in the Nature, it's VERY difficult to remain there, undisturbed, as thoughts arise, dwell in mind, and liberate, or while engaging in activity off the cushion. Not only that, it's VERY difficult (perhaps I should say impossible) to even recognize the Nature in the midst of mental chatter, let alone stabilize it, for anyone other than an advanced practitioner. As my teacher recently emphasized, this is a lifelong practice, not something we master in a few months or even a few years.

 

So far I've quoted from Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche, Sakya Pandita, and Shechen Gyaltsab Pema Namgyal. I've heard Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche speak of this in his teachings, and if I'm not mistaken he mentions it in Wonders of the Natural Mind, although I can't quote the page offhand, and I may be mistaken. I would bet that other teachers use this concept as well. Rather than taking the time to research this point, I prefer to simply make note as I come across examples, as I'm doing here.

 

I suspect that these masters and teachers of Dzogchen use this aspect of meditation in their teachings, because they find (found) it to be of some value to practitioners. I acknowledge that you, Paul, and a few others don't like this approach - I respect your privilege to practice as you see fit. As for me, if the masters use a concept repeatedly in their teachings (gap between thoughts, mirror analogy, preciousness of human birth, etc…), I prefer to diligently look for how it can be useful to me in my practice, rather than focus on why I (a rank amateur) think it is of no use.

 

In my own practice, I generally do not enter into the Natural State with thoughts in mind, although it certainly can be done. I allow thoughts to settle through appropriate shamatha practice(s). Once there is some stability, I am then able to rest in the Nature for periods of time and allow the process of thoughts to arise, dwell, and liberate, without being distracted. Similarly, when I am distracted by thoughts and find myself out of the Nature, I often bring myself back by exploiting that space that exists after the last thought has liberated and before the next arises. This is how I was instructed but just because this works for me, it is not necessarily appropriate for everyone. I find the concept a very useful starting point and suspect that other practitioners may as well, hence the continued quotations from the masters. Another method as you allude to is, in fact, to focus on the distracting thought until it is liberated and then turn back to look for the observer. The two mutually liberate. This is also a very useful technique and a good way to enter or return to the Nature when distracted.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[Anderson]

Our teachers never give us an indication of how difficult is to discover our nature.They just say one day you will discover it.

But from what i can see for the majority of practitioners it takes years of practice and investigations until they can say with some degree of certainty that they have discovered their nature and know beyond any doubt what that is.

Of course, there might be others for which the process of discovery has taken much less time...months maybe.I guess one can discover their nature in a matter of months if they do some kind of retreat but otherwise for people who have busy lives this is not so easily accomplished.

[asunthatneversets]

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

"The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training. I mention this because, if [you believe] the goal of the main training is to construct a state in which thoughts have subsided and which feels very clear and quiet, that is still a training in which a particular state is deliberately kept. Such a state is the outcome of a mental effort, a pursuit. Therefore it is neither the ultimate nor the original natural state.

 

The naked essence of mind [sems nyid] is not known in śamatha, because the mind is occupied with abiding in stillness; it (mind essence) remains unseen. All one is doing is simply not following the movement of thought. But being deluded by thought movement is not the only delusion; one can also be deluded by abiding in quietude. The preoccupation with being clam blocks recognition of self-existing wakefulness and also blocks the knowing of the three kāyas of the awakened state. This calm is simply one of no thought, of the attention subsiding in itself while still not knowing itself."

[C T]

resting in non-activity and in the midst of activity is the same. It only becomes separated and delusional when the self seeks for non-activity.

 

in order that awareness of mind essence remain uninterrupted in both instances (whether in the presence of activity or otherwise), one has to gain insight and generate confidence in the knowledge that 'self' is an illusion. This knowledge allows limitless space to permeate awareness instead of a limited, grasping subject looking to stabilize awareness of rigpa.

 

To see both confusion and calmness with equal taste, without chasing or rejecting one or the other, is dharmata itself. Those who think rigpa comes and goes, and seek to practice in the direction of stabilizing its presence, has work to do yet. Truth is, problem arises when 'you' think its no longer present.

 

Rigpa, being the essence of the union of space and clarity, can never not be whatever state you are in right now. In fact, Rigpa manifests even clearer in the midst of great confusion!

[Ish]

When one is well versed in the "natural state" do thoughts then naturally cease, or do they continue to arise and pass continuously?

 

I'd appreciate response from direct experience if possible

Edited May 4, 2014 by Ish

[idiot_stimpy]

Can a thought unnaturally cease?

 

I'm confused by the definition.