Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential

[C T]

10 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

 

An odd statement.  What do you consider a real quiescent extinction to be?  I interpret it to be the ability to jump from dual to singularity when observing something - the two ways of understanding it as per the DDJ.  But I've never heard that expression before.  Can you clarify, or what does it mean to you?

 

They are far from realizing that is like a rock pressing down on the grass. Though for a time they become aware that the scene is cut off, nevertheless the root and branches are still there: when will they experience quiescent extinction to the full?

 

And yet an odder statement.  A rock pressing down on the grass?  And then referring to root and branches?   It's there, I'm sure.  I'm just not seeing it.

 

I suppose it might be more meaningful to a Buddhist practitioner, but not exclusively. 

 

'Quiescent extinction' is not a 'what'. If you maybe try to drop the 'what', the clarity will find its way into your understanding. 

 

Quote

 

Generally, gentlemen who have been overly involved in worldly affairs for a long time have long been stuck like glue in the afflictions of the senses. When unexpectedly it happens that someone instructs them to do some meditation in a quiet place, and they temporarily get a feeling of unconcern, they immediately take this as the ultimate in peace and happiness.

 

They are far from realizing that is like a rock pressing down on the grass. Though for a time they become aware that the scene is cut off, nevertheless the root and branches are still there: when will they experience quiescent extinction to the full?

 

When a rock is placed over grass, the visibility of this new object gains primacy as far as the senses are concerned. Conditioned mind, habituated by accessing and depending upon the limited functions on these senses, seeks to evaluate phenomenon within the narrow confines of seen and unseen.

 

A person heavily invested in worldly affairs will assume the little peace he got, this temporary stress relief from being taught meditation, is like that rock placed over grass - he confounds his own mind by assuming that one glimpse of quiescence to be the ultimate. Just remove this rock, and within a span of time, the patch of brown will once again return to its conditioned green existence. Likewise, when meditation is unstable, it is easy for delusion to seep back in. And not stabilising meditation is like having to lift a rock and place it over unsightly patches of grass each time that unsightliness disturbs our vision. Surely there must be a more workable and dependable solution? 

 

Assuming that one truly intends to remove the potential of unsightly habits from recurring, the way is not to put a rock over it, but to sever the roots. 

 

 

 

 

 

[C T]

1 hour ago, manitou said:

 

I used to dream a lot.  Now I don't dream at all, haven't for years - unless it is something for a healing, and occasionally I'll get a message of what to do.  If there are no dreams to go to, where would the momentum of a practice end up?  

 

I suppose they remain latent somewhere in the storehouse of memories scattered throughout the cells of one's bodymind until certain conditions become ripe for their appearance, either in dreams or as some other psychic activity, like the healing you mentioned, for example. 

 

[manitou]

LOL.  I still think the rock over grass metaphor was made by one with limited imagination 

[C T]

4 minutes ago, manitou said:

LOL.  I still think the rock over grass metaphor was made by one with limited imagination 

 

A simple analogy that is freely available to anyone interested enough to see the truth behind the words. 

[manitou]

 

The quiescent extinction, although no doubt reserved for the understanding of Buddhists -- is this in some way referring to the diminishing of ego required for oneness?

[C T]

41 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

The quiescent extinction, although no doubt reserved for the understanding of Buddhists -- is this in some way referring to the diminishing of ego required for oneness?

If I may, I'd like to point out that no such inference was made about that which was alluded to above. 

 

The second part of the question is predicated on the assumption that our understanding of oneness is identical, or at least similar, but unfortunately, the subjectivity of the premise means its unlikely consensus can be reached where a mutually agreeable answer can be drawn. 

[steve]

On 5/1/2020 at 3:47 PM, manitou said:

 

The quiescent extinction, although no doubt reserved for the understanding of Buddhists -- is this in some way referring to the diminishing of ego required for oneness?

 

If you substitute the word "emptiness" for "oneness" you might get a bit more engagement from Buddhists.

Holding on to the concept or experience of oneness is considered falling into the extreme position of eternalism in Bön and Buddhism.

I've been listening to some superb teachings on this very subject for that past few days.

[ilumairen]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

If you substitute the word "emptiness" for "oneness" you might get a bit more engagement from Buddhists.

Holding on to the concept or experience of oneness is considered falling into the extreme position of eternalism in Bön and Buddhism.

I've been listening to some superb teachings on this very subject for that past few days.

 

Would you share what you've been listening to?

[steve]

46 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Would you share what you've been listening to?

 

Teachings by Khenpo Tenpa Yungdrung from Nepal on the 21 Nails. He spent quite a bit of time trying to make sure that participants were clear on this very subtle and tricky area. On the one hand we have our life experience of individuality. On the other hand there is the notion and experience of a fundamental essence that is non-differentiated and pervasive. It’s very easy for the mind to grab hold of a concept or label to try and understand but this mind cannot capture truth and is likely to lead us astray if we’re not precise. I think the dual nature of our experience necessarily requires paradoxical elements in any description we contrive.

[ilumairen]

4 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Teachings by Khenpo Tenpa Yungdrung from Nepal on the 21 Nails. He spent quite a bit of time trying to make sure that participants were clear on this very subtle and tricky area. On the one hand we have our life experience of individuality. On the other hand there is the notion and experience of a fundamental essence that is non-differentiated and pervasive. It’s very easy for the mind to grab hold of a concept or label to try and understand but this mind cannot capture truth and is likely to lead us astray if we’re not precise. I think the dual nature of our experience necessarily requires paradoxical elements in any description we contrive.

 

Would this be similar to appearance not negating emptiness, and emptiness not negating appearance?

 

And as it relates to what you posted earlier, "oneness" can become a "position" held - kinda like putting an eyepatch over one of the "two eyes of valid cognition"?

 

Along with the mentioned potential pitfall of eternalism?

 

[ilumairen]

59 minutes ago, ऋषि said:

n Hinduism, and in particular Jnana Yoga and Advaita Vedanta, neti neti (नेति नेति) is a Sanskrit expression which means "not this, not that", or "neither this, nor that" (neti is sandhi from na iti "not so"). It is found in the Upanishads and the Avadhuta Gita and constitutes an analytical meditation helping a person to understand the nature of Brahman by first understanding what is not Brahman. One of the key elements of Jnana Yoga practice is often a "neti neti search." The purpose of the exercise is to negate rationalizations and other distractions from the non-conceptual meditative awareness of reality.

 

Welcome to the Buddhist sub-forum, and thank you for your contribution. 

[steve]

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

Would this be similar to appearance not negating emptiness, and emptiness not negating appearance?

 

I do think that is one aspect of what is a very complex philosophical discussion with multiple layers.

 

 

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

And as it relates to what you posted earlier, "oneness" can become a "position" held - kinda like putting an eyepatch over one of the "two eyes of valid cognition"?

 

It can be a position, it can perhaps simply be a description of experience (direct cognition).

But even with direct and valid cognition the language and conceptual interpretation part walks a razor's edge in Buddhist philosophy.

Tough to know without a thorough, theoretical discussion.

 

 

1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

Along with the mentioned potential pitfall of eternalism?

 

Yes, oneness usually means there is a degree of eternalism present in the argument. 

[ilumairen]

 

 

31 minutes ago, steve said:

It can be a position, it can perhaps simply be a description of experience (direct cognition).

But even with direct and valid cognition the language and conceptual interpretation part walks a razor's edge in Buddhist philosophy.

Tough to know without a thorough, theoretical discussion.

 

And this is where, "leave it be, and return" becomes fruitful instruction?

 

31 minutes ago, steve said:

Yes, oneness usually means there is a degree of eternalism present in the argument. 

 

May I ask if "what is unborn and undying" escapes this pitfall of eternalism owing only to it's non- existence? And how easily can certain understandings of this "unborn and undying essence" land one in said pitfall?

I suppose this is what the teachings addressed, and as I've asked this same question of others, I should find and listen to the teachings you've mentioned.

[steve]

15 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

 

And this is where, "leave it be, and return" becomes fruitful instruction?

 

For engaging in practice, yes, don’t question or doubt, don’t analyze or explain, just leave it as it is. Simply abide in the view. Granted that does not mean there is no value in theoretical discussion. It is simply a pith instruction for practice.

 

 

Quote

 

May I ask if "what is unborn and undying" escapes this pitfall of eternalism owing only to it's non- existence?

 

When you look for “what is unborn and undying” you only find unbounded spaciousness that is self-aware. You can’t say it is non-existent because it is very clear and fresh and present. And yet you don’t find anything in particular, just clarity and openness undisturbed by whatever arises.

 

 

Quote

 

And how easily can certain understandings of this "unborn and undying essence" land one in said pitfall?

 

I would say all “understandings” of essence are necessarily limited as they are creations of mind. They tend to lead to one of the extremes. Mind’s essence is beyond mind’s contents. In dzogchen, there is no conceptual effort to understand essence just an effort to understand how to experience it and an understanding of what it is not. That said there are many descriptions of various qualities and characteristics to help guide us in practice and understanding but care is needed not to infer that “it” is “a something” that has qualities and characteristics or that it can be captured by a number or any other conceptual framework or measurement. 

 

 

Quote

I suppose this is what the teachings addressed, and as I've asked this same question of others, I should find and listen to the teachings you've mentioned.

 

They were wonderful but today was the last day. In 12 days we got through 4.25 nails. The first took 6 days but is the most important. He is a thorough and patient teacher. 

 

[ilumairen]

18 hours ago, steve said:

 

For engaging in practice, yes, don’t question or doubt, don’t analyze or explain, just leave it as it is. Simply abide in the view. Granted that does not mean there is no value in theoretical discussion. It is simply a pith instruction for practice.

 

I've actually been utilizing it (as occasion arises) as a pith instruction for life (although it was certainly presented in the context of practice. It seems to support arising response (instead of habituated reaction).

 

18 hours ago, steve said:

When you look for “what is unborn and undying” you only find unbounded spaciousness that is self-aware. You can’t say it is non-existent because it is very clear and fresh and present. And yet you don’t find anything in particular, just clarity and openness undisturbed by whatever arises.

 

Interesting my language choices (which were meant to express what you more accurately describe as finding nothing in particular) still carry a habituated tendency towards nihilism. 

 

Thanks for pointing towards this in your gentle manner.

 

18 hours ago, steve said:

I would say all “understandings” of essence are necessarily limited as they are creations of mind. They tend to lead to one of the extremes. Mind’s essence is beyond mind’s contents. In dzogchen, there is no conceptual effort to understand essence just an effort to understand how to experience it and an understanding of what it is not. That said there are many descriptions of various qualities and characteristics to help guide us in practice and understanding but care is needed not to infer that “it” is “a something” that has qualities and characteristics or that it can be captured by a number or any other conceptual framework or measurement. 

 

_/\_

 

18 hours ago, steve said:

 

 

They were wonderful but today was the last day. In 12 days we got through 4.25 nails. The first took 6 days but is the most important. He is a thorough and patient teacher. 

 

 

After having posted, I went through the process of signing up, and was pleasantly surprised when all the practices and teachings populated on my screen. 

[steve]

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

I've actually been utilizing it (as occasion arises) as a pith instruction for life (although it was certainly presented in the context of practice. It seems to support arising response (instead of habituated reaction).

 

I do as well, informal practice

 

 

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Interesting my language choices (which were meant to express what you more accurately describe as finding nothing in particular) still carry a habituated tendency towards nihilism. 

 

Thanks for pointing towards this in your gentle manner.

 

 

_/\_

 

My pleasure, language limitations make it difficult to speak about.

 

 

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

After having posted, I went through the process of signing up, and was pleasantly surprised when all the practices and teachings populated on my screen. 

 

Wonderful!

I didn’t know you could sign up after the fact and access the recordings. I’d highly recommend starting with part 1, of you have access, and working through them very slowly. Part 1 is all nail 1, by far the most important material. There is enormous depth there. If you want to discuss, let me know. If you struggle, be easy on yourself, it can be very difficult material. Bottom line, its all trying to connect you to the Inner Refuge.

[manitou]

On 5/3/2020 at 7:47 AM, steve said:

 

If you substitute the word "emptiness" for "oneness" you might get a bit more engagement from Buddhists.

Holding on to the concept or experience of oneness is considered falling into the extreme position of eternalism in Bön and Buddhism.

I've been listening to some superb teachings on this very subject for that past few days.

 

You're right.  Substituting emptiness for oneness is a better understanding.  I do see it.  I understand that there is no there there.  I understand that it cannot be spoken of, I understand the silence.  I love the silence, the peace.

I guess I use the phrase Oneness because it's functional in the everyday world - to realize that every other being is One with me.  It makes me kinder, less short tempered, more tolerant, certainly more loving - including to myself.

But I do see that the Void, the Emptiness is the basis.  The void where the templates arise.  

Thanks for the clarification, Steve.

Edited May 4, 2020 by manitou

[steve]

29 minutes ago, manitou said:

 

You're right.  Substituting emptiness for oneness is a better understanding.  I do see it.  I understand that there is no there there.  I understand that it cannot be spoken of, I understand the silence.  I love the silence, the peace.

I guess I use the phrase Oneness because it's functional in the everyday world - to realize that every other being is One with me.  It makes me kinder, less short tempered, more tolerant, certainly more loving - including to myself.

But I do see that the Void, the Emptiness is the basis.  The void where the templates arise.  

Thanks for the clarification, Steve.

 

I’m fine with whatever words, I know what you’re referring to. Once you’ve shared that, words don’t matter so much.

[manitou]

I do love you, you know.....

[silent thunder]

*deep bow of respect*

 

Such treasure, this conversation!

Pearls among the awakening...

 

Deep gratitude for you all.

[steve]

1 hour ago, manitou said:

I do love you, you know.....

 

And I love you too!

[steve]

2 hours ago, manitou said:

 

You're right.  Substituting emptiness for oneness is a better understanding.

 

PS - For me, it is better. For others, not necessarily better. Whatever works for the individual on their path to guide them in the right direction. That is better.

 

 

 

[manitou]

5 hours ago, steve said:

 

PS - For me, it is better. For others, not necessarily better. Whatever works for the individual on their path to guide them in the right direction. That is better.

 

 

 

 

More succinct description, as I understand it.  And 'better' is pretty relative, you're right.

[C T]

∞ LONGCHENPA ∞ 

Spaciousness: The radical Dzogchen of the Vajra-Heart

 

 

 

Looking at the reality that is unchanging spontaneity 

 

With its intrinsic presence that is free of intellectual interference

 

Looking again and again, we see nothing --

 

Nonseeing is the empowering view of pure presence. 

 

 

 

[C T]

∞ DAN LUSTHAUS ∞ 

Buddhist phenomenology

 

“A deceptive trick is built into the way consciousness operates at every moment. Consciousness projects and constructs a cognitive object in such a way that it disowns its own creation - pretending the object is "out there" - in order to render that object capable of being appropriated. Even while what we cognize is occurring within our act of cognition, we cognize it as if it were external to our consciousness. Realization of vijñapti-mātra exposes this trick intrinsic to consciousness's workings, thereby eliminating it. When that deception is removed one's mode of cognition is no longer termed vijñāna (consciousness); it has become direct cognition (jñāna). Consciousness engages in this deceptive game of projection, dissociation, and appropriation because there is no "self." According to Buddhism, the deepest, most pernicious erroneous view held by sentient beings is the view that a permanent, eternal, immutable, independent self exists. There is no such self, and deep down we know that. This makes us anxious, since it entails that no self or identity endures forever. In order to assuage that anxiety, we attempt to construct a self, to fill the anxious void, to do something enduring. The projection of cognitive objects for appropriation is consciousness's main tool for this construction. If I own things (ideas, theories, identities, material objects), then "I am." If there are eternal objects that I can possess, then I too must be eternal. To undermine this desperate and erroneous appropriative grasping, Yogācāra texts say: Refute the illusory separate object, and the fictional, perceiving self is also negated.”