Dependent origination

[jonesboy]

Natural Perfection
LONGCHENPA'S RADICAL DZOGCHEN Natural Perfection
LONGCHENPA'S RADICAL DZOGCHEN

Now here, now gone, thoughts leave no trace,
and opened wide to seamless rigpa
hopes and fears are no longer credible,
the stake that tethers the mind in its field is extracted,
and Samsara, the city of delusion, is evacuated.

Whosoever recognizes the events appearing in the external field
and the internal mental emanation, all that play of energy,
all alike, as utterly empty openness,
to him is disclosed everything as this key-this crucial openness.

Virtue and vice are just thoughts-they cannot be fixed anywhere in
time and space; they are nothing substantial, having neither specific nor
general characteristics. And insofar as we believe in duality (due to our
moral conditioning), we create a delusory personality in our heads that
ought to behave in some specific way to avoid being chastised by society,
punished by a god, or to avoid karmic retribution. Such imaginary persons,
however, never existed, never exist, and will never exist in the spaciousness
of rigpa, so there is never any karmic fruit to be consumed by anyone. The
ordinary imaginary (morally conditioned) person is a victim of his own
imagination.

A Treasure Trove of
Scriptural Transmission
A Commentary on The Precious Treasury
of the Basic Space of Phenomena
Longchen Rabjam

Throughout the entire universe, all beings and all that
manifests as form
are adornments of basic space, arising as the ongoing principle
of enlightened form.
What is audible, all sounds and voices without exception,
as many as there may be,
are adornments of basic space, arising as the ongoing principle8
of enlightened speech.
All consciousness and all stirring and proliferation of thoughts,
as well as the inconceivable range of nonconceptual states,
are adornments of basic space, arising as the ongoing principle
of enlightened mind.

Once you have understood the essence of awareness, then regardless
of what happens-whether awareness is at rest or arises as thoughts, or
whether dullness, agitation, and the like occur-there is nothing but the
essence and display of naturally occurring timeless awareness itself.
There are no errors or obscurations that must be eliminated. Errors and
obscurations themselves are not something "other" that is not included
in awareness; awareness abides timelessly as dharmakaya, the supreme
state of spontaneous presence, in which nothing need be done.

Now, the key point concerning yogins with realization is that they are
not affected by what manifests as the stirring and proliferation of
thoughts or by the manifesting of sense objects in their perceptions, for
these are merely the play of illusion:

Through realization, within the vast expanse of being,
of the true nature of phenomenacoming
from nowhere, going nowhere, and abiding nowhere
at allthere
is "the enlightened intent of the total freedom of
the three realms."
This is the transmission of ati-spontaneous presence,
the vajra heart essence,
arising from the wholly positive expanse of supreme
spaciousness. [ 5 5 a]

[Phaelyn]

Going into what one of the authors quoted here explained, the terms self and no-self were not talking about the self at all. They were talking about experience. Right now you are having an experience. This experience is not the only experience that is possible or available to you. You have the potential, in this moment, to have a zillion different experiences all with the same existing stuff that is here now with you, all available to you here now. This now moment is filled with stuff. Some of this stuff we are aware of and some is not. How we experience what is here (aware of) and what is not here (here but un-aware of) is up to us. We are the "remote control" that picks the channel of what the experience of this now is. So what this teacher was doing with these two terms, self and no-self, was describing two different possible experiences of now. There was a "self" experience of now and a "no-self" experience of now. He stated the no-self experience was what Buddha was telling us to pursue and the self was the experience we were normally having.

Then he went on and on talking about the aspects of the no-self and self experience with the normal Buddhist dogma. Just pointing out Buddhism is always talking about an experience. Talking about the self is very abstract thinking because we are what we are talking about. So we are always talking about ourselves in third person. It's pretty funny actually. The self asking if there is a self. The self asking, do I exist? Asking, What am I? Really this is experiential confusion if one actually is denying they exist while they are the one doing the denying. While we exist, and this is self evident, what we exist as is up to us. We create what we exist as. We can be a mean person, a nice person, anger, love, what we project outward and hold inward becomes in a sense, in this physical world of interaction, what we are. We are the creators of ourselves and the creators of how we experience or perceive. We create what this is. What we are. I'm not talking about the underlying substance, the un-namable, the un-perceivable, which is what we are, I'm talking about what we do with all this stuff within and without. It's like a bunch of actors showing up to a job to be in a film. They will pick their roles and costumes, determine who and what they will be.

Buddha never talked about the self, the soul, the consciousness, whatever word one uses to refer to their experiential awareness they exist, they experience, they assert, interact and all the rest of what we do everyday. Buddha didn't care to go into what we are for a good reason. The self cannot perceive itself. Try it sometime. The self is self evident. We know we exist. But try to explain or define what you are and you can't do it in any real way. One reason why we can't define what we are is we encompass all we perceive, yet we are not the things we perceive. So when we try to explain what we are, we will always point to things we are perceiving. My ideas, my thoughts, awareness, and on and on.... all concepts we are perceiving. Ideas. Images. All things that come and go as Buddha would say. Impermanent things. A camera lens cannot see itself. The eyes cannot look at themselves, and a reflection is not the thing.

So anyway not to go too deep into thinking here, there is no way we can ever perceive ourselves. We are that which perceives. There is no way to represent our-self through concepts or symbols or language or any image at all. Buddha discovered this and was trying to get us to understand how to have a new experience, that was not only free of mentally self caused suffering but also resulted in us experiencing this now in a very pleasurable way, that also resulted in us perceiving ourselves as a part of the whole, as our actions and experience became harmonious, loving, at peace and on and on. Full of compassion and empathy and loving kindness. We can experience ourselves and now as peace or conflict, as loving kindness or anger, as quiet or noisy, as clarity or confusion, up to us. We are creators living among other creators, making reality and our experience of it what it is. But then like my actor metaphor, there is a "emptying" we can do and so we project and experience what we actually are under all this stuff we have falsely determined represents us. A thought comes, we identify with it, follow where it leads, it becomes projected inward and outward into behavior, speaking, feeling, emotions... why? Because we were not aware we could relate to that thought in a different way.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Using the mental method is like working with an ice berg. You are just working with the tip that is exposed.

Also, if the mental aspect worked psychologist would be spiritual guru's and nobody thinks that now do they?

Not to put you on the spot here, as this question may not be answerable as it is beyond our knowledge, but who are you (and me) if not a mental process or a mental aspect?

Like you came to the understanding all is energy, who is holding this understanding, this knowledge? If this knowledge, knowing, understanding, is not of a mental nature, could it be this kind of understanding is not a physical aspect at all?, not even a part of the brain?, but is instead, a type of energy, which is in fact, a part of what we really are beyond this body and it's brain?

Now you can say everything is energy, me my body and my brain but how I am, how I perceive, how I experience, how I act all, may be determined by how much I understand my own nature, how much I realize what is me and not me as far as habitual thought and such, automatic emotional reactions.

I basically can get an understanding of the body and it's mind, so this points to me not being of the same nature of the things I am understanding. I understand these things, withdraw my attention from them, my perception "of this" changes.

Is this all a mental method? Seems to me "I" have the same, if not more of, the qualities the brain does. It can think, understand, form conclusions, but "I" can too. I can observe the brains operations. I am consciousness, awareness, and my "mental processes" while not mechanical like the brains, exist. They are energy based and not physically based in my opinion. So maybe "mental" is not the right word if you are imaging mind as only a product of the brain. But if "I" can understand, be aware of, and produce a change in perception and experience and action based on my all encompassing "understanding and awareness," I am a "mental" processor. But yea the word is not the best, but it is the only one we have. Awareness is not singular. Awareness is an action of something or someone. It's a "push." A verb. An action word. A pulling in as well. An assertion of truth into, onto, what exists now as potential. It's still the tip of the ice burg though. Awareness is infinite as a potential.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Not to put you on the spot here, as this question may not be answerable as it is beyond our knowledge, but who are you (and me) if not a mental process or a mental aspect?

Like you came to the understanding all is energy, who is holding this understanding, this knowledge? If this knowledge, knowing, understanding, is not of a mental nature, could it be this kind of understanding is not a physical aspect at all?, not even a part of the brain?, but is instead, a type of energy, which is in fact, a part of what we really are beyond this body and it's brain?

Now you can say everything is energy, me my body and my brain but how I am, how I perceive, how I experience, how I act all, may be determined by how much I understand my own nature, how much I realize what is me and not me as far as habitual thought and such, automatic emotional reactions.

I basically can get an understanding of the body and it's mind, so this points to me not being of the same nature of the things I am understanding. I understand these things, withdraw my attention from them, my perception "of this" changes.

Is this all a mental method? Seems to me "I" have the same, if not more of, the qualities the brain does. It can think, understand, form conclusions, but "I" can too. I can observe the brains operations. I am consciousness, awareness, and my "mental processes" while not mechanical like the brains, exist. They are energy based and not physically based in my opinion. So maybe "mental" is not the right word if you are imaging mind as only a product of the brain. But if "I" can understand, be aware of, and produce a change in perception and experience and action based on my all encompassing "understanding and awareness," I am a "mental" processor. But yea the word is not the best, but it is the only one we have. Awareness is not singular. Awareness is an action of something or someone. It's a "push." A verb. An action word. A pulling in as well. An assertion of truth into, onto, what exists now as potential. It's still the tip of the ice burg though. Awareness is infinite as a potential.

All that you are describing is from the ego mind. What you notice as awareness is overlayed with thoughts on top of thoughts. You look at the trees and say that is my awareness noticing the trees.

That is not the awareness of the Buddha's.

You mentioned infinite potential. What is that infinite potential, just to observe or is it that which creates and is one with everything?

Some Buddhist schools say's it is all an illusion of the mind, what makes that illusion?

If you read the Dzogchen teachings on Buddha Nature it has 3 aspects. Void, Energy and Clarity.

Void being emptiness, Energy being what all things are and clarity the true nature of thoughts.

You can't dismiss any one of them, it is not a feeling or a noticing of one of them or all of them. It is a realization that you are all of them. Not a mental realization but a being. Your body is energy, therefore empty which is not separate or different than your awareness or the mountain in front of you.

[Gem]

[quote=jonesboy]Not a self that makes up a permanent being or a permanent aspect.

Why? Because the aggregates are not permanent.. but nowhere does it say that is not an aspect of you. As a matter of fact he says exactly that.[quote]


Well I did quote the exact words whch were "not self" and "not myself"

Now go back and read that again. Don't skip over "the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are".

That seems strande considering the numerous suttas where He says "not myself"

But "to be a true self, has to be permanent" "but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent."

Simple and easy to understand.

First you say the aggregates are what you are, then contradict that by saying that can't be a self because they are not permanent. Such a direct contradiction isn't understandable at all, but I'm not here to quabble over self theories. Merely saying that not self, not myself, not mine predominates Buddhist teachings. If people want to have the impression that they are the feelings and so forth, then that's their self theory, and the teachings on not-self are not not like an answer that says I'm a self but not the things. It's basically an attitude in mere observation, "this is body/mind", sans self-referential thoughts such as "I am" "this is mine" "this is myself". That's what I consider to be the the underlying understanding of the thing.

[sentient]

Pure Awareness itself being vast, empty, open, space-like and not having form, substance, content, self-nature ….. and yet it is lucid, awake, beyond duality and unobstructed by conceptual overlays…….
I’d call this the ‘spatial dimension’.

It seems to me that Anatta teachings are the pointers that lead to the experience, the realization of Shunyata.


But when we ignore the ‘spatial dimension’ altogether and just focus on the 'form dimension' - after a while this becomes our default mode …… and there we have it. A separate self-identity - Ego is born.


To me the skandhas/aggregates are like a DIY - project.
How to build a separate self - ego with seemingly solid, seemingly permanent and impenetrable walls - in 5 easy steps.

https://www.beezone.com/Trungpa/fiveskandas.html


Teachings and Meditation starts to reverse this process ….

*

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

when we ignore the ‘spatial dimension’ altogether and just focus on the 'form dimension' - after a while this becomes our default mode

This body and it's brain makes the form filter we view and experience things through. Seems to me this is no random event from Darwin's theories. It is designed by an intelligent being or beings as a base that encourages the development of higher awareness. Stick consciousness in the body around the time of birth, let it develop a false identity as it is designed to do based on the body's innate functions, let it then suffer from this false identification, then it is compelled to find a solution to the conflict and suffering which can only be solved though non-identifying which takes more awareness to pull off.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

This body and it's brain makes the form filter we view and experience things through. Seems to me this is no random event from Darwin's theories. It is designed by an intelligent being or beings as a base that encourages the development of higher awareness. Stick consciousness in the body around the time of birth, let it develop a false identity as it is designed to do based on the body's innate functions, let it then suffer from this false identification, then it is compelled to find a solution to the conflict and suffering which can only be solved though non-identifying which takes more awareness to pull off.

Basically – yes.

Except that (realizing Shunyata) .... if or when we arrive “at the mansion of the universal monarch” – we find that “everything is present and dancing” - yet nobody is home. No-self-nature anywhere. No “God” entity/being as such.

& I agree ..... The 5 skandhas just show how to keep on validating this false-self-identity from ‘here till eternity’ from one corner to the next .... and suffer as a consequence.

*

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

Basically – yes.

Except that (realizing Shunyata) .... if or when we arrive “at the mansion of the universal monarch” – we find that “everything is present and dancing” - yet nobody is home. No-self-nature anywhere. No “God” entity/being as such.

we arrive

we find that

we is there

If somebody insult's you, and you don't feel anything negative towards them, you are egoless
- they might even say nobody is home in you
but you are more there than somebody who automatically gets mad

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Now go back and read that again. Don't skip over "the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are".

But "to be a true self, has to be permanent" "but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent."

Simple and easy to understand.

The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent.

Do you not understand that this is saying according to this (mis)interpretation, the five aggregates are what you are.

You either don’t understand English, or have some pathological approach to truth telling.

I’m convinced after multiple discussions with you that you cannot accept or ever admit that you are wrong, even when the truth is in plain sight. Deflection, denial, twisting words and facts to fit an agenda.

Ergo, if you can’t even be honest, no wonder you don’t understand Buddhist teachings, and cannot penetrate the truth of them.

Energy? Pff. So basic,

Jl