dwai

The Clarity Aspect in Buddhism

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Actually that's an important question.  It is important to apply effort, for instance in study and practice, but in the final analysis accomplishment comes from the Dharmakaya itself which is already perfected.  So probably the short answer is yes - you have to apply effort to be effortless.

 

 

 

Isn't that like trying to push open a door that opens to the inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Apech said:

I think that Rinpoche is using 'mind' to mean that which knows via subject object division - probably 'manas' or 'citta' - and is distinguishing this from wisdom 'prajna' which literally is 'para' - 'jnana' and in this case means 'beyond knowing'.  It's not really what we would mean by wisdom in English which is more about accumulated learning - but more the direct awareness of non-dual reality ... which is beyond knowing.  Where knowing means to recognise something.

And to confuse matters further, “knowing” is often cited as the most direct possible translation of rigpa but, as you say, it is a very precise and specific, and I might say “active,” knowing as opposed to a collection of facts. The other point being who it is that knows…

 

Quote

You can have clarity of mind which would mean the unobstructed or defect free perception of a thing or an idea - which is still dualistic - there is still an observer and an observed.  Or you can have Clarity where this dualistic distinction falls away leaving just the natural state.

I think this is a reason why dzogchen teachings always use illustrative examples while minimizing conceptual elaboration. They generally include three illustrations in making an important point - example, meaning, and sign (not sure of the Tibetan). At least that is very common in Bön.

 

Quote

 

Just to complicate some Mahamudra texts say that 'ordinary mind is enlightened mind' ... but this is a subtle teaching and what they don't mean is that just what you ordinarily perceive is buddha-nature or some such ... but they do mean that there is nothing to be added or taken away from Buddha-nature, it is complete and does not require effort to fabricate.

Bön dzogchen teachings are similar. Resting in the Nature of Mind does not mean finding some special state beyond, or outside of, the ordinary mind. It points to the direct experience of allowing the discursive and interpretative mind to fully rest, which is not other than the mind’s own original, unfabricated Nature. As Yongdzin Rinpoche often says, it is ‘nothing very special.’ On the other hand, when we have some experience we can see how very special that nothing special can be.

 

Quote

 

 

42 minutes ago, Apech said:


He seems to enjoy some kind of high level trolling politically - I'm never sure how serious it is or how much is just him deliberately unsettling his western students as some kind of teaching point.

I have found it to be off-putting to the point where I no longer follow his public teachings, they can go in some strange directions. Maybe there is a method to the madness (crazy wisdom) or maybe he is only human and open enough to show that side… It doesn’t always seem so skillful. Perhaps if I followed him more closely I’d have a better sense of it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Isn't that like trying to push open a door that opens to the inside?

I would say it is more like taking whatever steps are necessary for the individual to determine which way the door swings before pushing too hard.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Isn't that like trying to push open a door that opens to the inside?

 

 

When is a door not a door?  When it's ajar.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, steve said:

...

I have found it to be off-putting to the point where I no longer follow his public teachings, they can go in some strange directions. Maybe there is a method to the madness (crazy wisdom) or maybe he is only human and open enough to show that side… It doesn’t always seem so skillful. Perhaps if I followed him more closely I’d have a better sense of it. 

 

I still find his youtube talks very interesting, partly because they are so idiosyncratic ... but there is something too mercurial about him which challenges my having total confidence in him all the time.  But I don't think there's any doubt that he has a good grasp of non-dualism.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emptiness (空) is Nothing. Void (无) is Everything  and Nothing. Some thing comes from no thing they are one and the same. Being full or empty rely on each other.

 

The division starts with mind. Mind creates division. Being, not being nothing has changed. We come from no thing and return to no thing.

 

There is simply nothing to know. The knowing mind needs to know where knowing comes from and then that becomes the boss of the knowing mind.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this may clarify it for some:

 

"There was a beginning. There was a beginning before that beginning. There was a beginning previous to that beginning before there was the beginning.

There was existence; there had been no existence. There was no existence before the beginning of that no existence. There was no existence previous to the no existence before there was the beginning of the no existence. If suddenly there was nonexistence, we do not know whether it was really anything existing, or really not existing. Now I have said what I have said, but I do not know whether what I have said be really anything to the point or not."  Chuang Tzu

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, steve said:

I would say it is more like taking whatever steps are necessary for the individual to determine which way the door swings before pushing too hard.

 

Or figuring out where to find the freaking door in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

He seems to enjoy some kind of high level trolling politically - I'm never sure how serious it is or how much is just him deliberately unsettling his western students as some kind of teaching point.

Can you give some examples? I’ve not seen/heard his political views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

(...)

On 30.7.2021 at 1:37 AM, dwai said:

clarity and emptiness, it’s important that we understand both aspects, not only the emptiness aspect

(...)

So there is no definition of 'clarity' in that context.

Simply equating it with emptiness will not do it, hence the articles purpose.
(...)

 

---

 

edit:

so emptiness viewed through the dual mind

and

clarity ('void') viewed through non-dual experience,

so it is but one reality, (still may not be equated ! ) but

it is perceived differently, because the dual mind kind of has sensory filters and glasses to function with ideas and concepts and differentiations?

so the title is a mere remembrance of non-duality? ok.

 

Edited by liberale.ironikerin
redundant
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

L.I.K., I'd say if not possible then we'd be lost to something like the, "Vanity of vanities"....

 

i'm not Buddhist but I'd interpret the following from the historic Buddha as clarifying his teaching down to a few very meaningful words: 

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated - is discerned."

 

(so are poking and prodding with a dozen more terms and a hundred volumes going to clarify that any more?)

 

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LIK, let me try to explain — 

 

Emptiness is the inherent lack of self-nature (svabhāva shunya)  in all phenomena. In other words, all phenomena are ephemeral - they don’t last. Since they don’t last, they are empty of self-nature that would allow them to last forever. It (shunyatā) is a technical term in Buddhism, used in a very specific way, to mean a very specific thing. 
It also means “no-thing-ness” — in that if we try to find the “stuff” that phenomena are made up off, we cannot find any thing that is inherently causative for the existence of those phenomena. One would be given to say, “well of course we know what things are made up of — matter”. And then the question would arise, what is matter made up of? Molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and on and on we go…until we find that it is all essentially dependent on the observer to collapse a wave…

 

In the Mahanirvana Tantra (not Buddhist), Lord Shiva says — “I can pack all the matter in the universe into a space smaller than a single mustard seed!”

 

Science seems to agree — matter seems to be primarily empty space. 
 

Clarity means the unsullied nature of awareness — the “clear light” of awareness. This is which makes it possible for all phenomena to arise and dissolve. In this article, clarity is being used for the technical term “prajña”. 

 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


You are saying that the mind is not useful here and the time is not well spent thinking about this, as it is beyond thinking? @old3bob

 

Emptiness as no-thing-ness. Clarity as ... well, terms are tough, here.

What do you mean with the dependence on the observer to collapse a wave? Thanks for the commentary and the try to explain, @dwai.

Edited by liberale.ironikerin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, liberale.ironikerin said:


You are saying that the mind is not useful here and the time is not well spent thinking about this, as it is beyond thinking? @old3bob

 

Emptiness as no-thing-ness. Clarity as ... well, terms are tough, here.

What do you mean with the dependence on the observer to collapse a wave? Thanks for the commentary and the try to explain, @dwai.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, dwai said:

Can you give some examples? I’ve not seen/heard his political views. 

 

You'd like him - anti imperialism (esp Brits) and pro Hindu ideas - follow him on FB and you'll see.

 

https://www.facebook.com/djkhyentse

Edited by Apech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liberale.ironikerin said:


You are saying that the mind is not useful here and the time is not well spent thinking about this, as it is beyond thinking? @old3bob

 

Emptiness as no-thing-ness. Clarity as ... well, terms are tough, here.

What do you mean with the dependence on the observer to collapse a wave? Thanks for the commentary and the try to explain, @dwai.

 

no, it is just that that is what it boils down to in my understanding,  but sure lots of aspects of mind, emotion and body need dealing with and are important although not as important as what it boils down to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

You'd like him - anti imperialism (esp Brits) and pro Hindu ideas - follow him on FB and you'll see.

Ooh…love it 😜

Nothing better than a good anti-imperialist,  Hindu-loving Buddhist 😁 

 

P.S. Even HH The Dalai Lama is one 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

You'd like him - anti imperialism (esp Brits) and pro Hindu ideas - follow him on FB and you'll see.

 

https://www.facebook.com/djkhyentse

 

It’s always fun when Malcolm Smith has a go at him…

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, steve said:

 

It’s always fun when Malcolm Smith has a go at him…

 

 

Ah the Loppon from dharmawheel ... I don't mind him but he put me in my place a couple of times :)

Edited by Apech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Isn't that like trying to push open a door that opens to the inside?

 

It takes effort to let go .  Not as much effort as the 'original grasping' .....  but over time, we forget about that and it appears 'automatic / without effort ' .

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steve said:

 

It’s always fun when Malcolm Smith has a go at him…

 

Hilarious. Isn’t he the guy who apologized for being a tuchus to people with whom he disagreed in a very public post on dharmawheel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dwai said:

Hilarious. Isn’t he the guy who apologized for being a tuchus to people with whom he disagreed in a very public post on dharmawheel? 

?

I rarely visit Dharmawheel, other than to look at some excellent Bön resources there.

There was definitely some … Malcolm says…  here years ago during the Buddhist wars. I think he’s very knowledgeable as a scholar and translator, don’t know how realized as a practitioner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, steve said:

?

I rarely visit Dharmawheel, other than to look at some excellent Bön resources there.

There was definitely some … Malcolm says…  here years ago during the Buddhist wars. I think he’s very knowledgeable as a scholar and translator, don’t know how realized as a practitioner.

Just by what I’ve seen of his behavior, I question his realization as a practitioner  — but then, I’m a nobody :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites