The Two Truths

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

That is wrong. you are confusing meditation with awareness. What you call 'rest ones mind in awareness' belongs to meditation, the province of ordinary mind:

In the direct encounter between your consciousness and sense objects,
you identify consciousness as a bare state of resting naturally. As I
indicated earlier, in letting go-by resting imperturbably, resting in the
immediacy of perception, resting naturally-you gain natural freedom,
the natural state of naked dharmakaya.

you seem to be attached to zen-like meditation which has nothing to do with 'resting in awareness'. 'resting' here just means not to slip into ordinary mind and it is the natural effortless condition of awareess. It does not mean a specific physical posture as it is characteristic for meditation sessions. you can't 'rest in awareness' without having been directly introduced by phenomena. The intention 'Now I meditate and rest in awareness' is ludicrous as is the intention 'if I meditate nonconceptually I will rest in awareness.'

From pg 219.

The decisive experience that you come to-the way of abiding as awareness-is itself shown to be implemented through naturally settled meditative stability.

That is, it is a special feature of this approach that utter lucidity
abides as a natural attribute when you rest without discarding or
adopting anything so that pure, naked awareness is settled in its own
place.

So pretty much exactly what I said.

To continue on with how I said that he is talking about what people call meditation by meditating on a object... Lets continue with pg 220-221.

As for the distinction between meditation and true meditative stability,
many developmental frameworks are spoken of in more ordinary
spiritual approaches in general and, even in this approach, as methods
for instructing those of lesser acumen. Briefly, all meditation techniques
are subsumed under two headings, based on whether or not their frame
of reference involves a support. Techniques that involve a support consist
of focusing one's mind without distraction on an appropriate object
perceived outwardly-a form (such as the image of a deity, a symbolic
implement, a twig, or a pebble), a sound, an odor, a taste, or a tactile sensation. Techniques that involve no outer support are the province of
mind. Some involve mental images and are held to elicit nonconceptual
states of awareness through focus on specific visualizations entailing the
subtle channels, subtle energies, and bindu. Others involve focusing on
syllables, spheres of light, or chakras in the subtle channels, visualizations
of fire in the practice of chandali, and so forth.

Now I broke out his next sentence for special attention.

A technique that involves no mental image is to sit cross-legged, gaze straight ahead, and
settle one's mind without distraction in a completely nonconceptual
state; this, therefore, takes the state of pristine emptiness as its nonconceptual frame of reference.

That is what he is teaching...

To summarize, everyone holds that "meditation" refers to some
state with a single reference point, positing that it is essentially a state of
mind at rest, that its purpose lies in some hoped-for goal that can be
reached through stabilization, and that its function is to arrest dualistic
perception.

To continue on...

True meditative stability is a particular feature of the great perfection
approach. ....

Once you have been directly
Introduced to awareness, you abide in that naturally settled meditative
stability, so that even though you do not deliberately cultivate meditative experiences of bliss, lucidity, and nonconceptual awareness, they
arise naturally.

Once you forge the spiritual path using ordinary mind, it is in the
very nature of the process that you either have the experience of meditating
when you strive or lose it when you do not. But as soon as you
forge the path using awareness-timeless awareness- [Io5b] you abide
in the ongoing flow of naturally settled meditative stability, so that you
abide at all times in that state in which enlightened qualities come about
as a matter of course and there is no possibility of its being lost.

Here is the real difference in what he is describing..

Furthermore, both the state of ordinary mind resting naturally and
the innate abiding of awareness resting naturally have a vivid quality.
These states are similar insofar as they are lucid yet nonconceptual, but
the aspect of ordinary mind remains anchored in dualistic perception, so that any quality of abiding entails an element of fixation. There is a
vast difference here, in that in the latter case there is no interruption of
awareness, which is unobstructed.

He is arguing against using an object, like shine with object, the Zen methods or even using the breath.

In brief, meditation with ordinary mind, which involves some frame
of reference, is anchored in dualistic perception, while awarenessnaturally
settled meditative stability-is the ongoing and naturally settled
state that is the true nature of phenomena. And so there is a difference
between achieving those worldly states of ordinary mind that lead to the higher realms (and perpetuate samsara) and abiding in your own
natural state within the enlightened intent of buddhahood (which actually
connects you with the liberation of nirvana).

He then goes on with the rest of the chapter to teach how to do this and progress deeper along the path.

[jonesboy]

double post.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

In the direct encounter between your consciousness and sense objects,
you identify consciousness as a bare state of resting naturally. As I
indicated earlier, in letting go-by resting imperturbably, resting in the
immediacy of perception, resting naturally-you gain natural freedom,
the natural state of naked dharmakaya.

That is wrong. There is no letting go and no gaining anything.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

To continue on with how I said that he is talking about what people call meditation by meditating on a object... Lets continue with pg 220-221.

Wrong again. Meditation includes nonconceptual meditation without object as I have quoted above.

you just don't get this:

Originally Posted by Longchen Rabjam, A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, Padma Publishing 2001

Just as heat is present as a natural attribute the moment there is fire, and wetness is naturally present in water, naturally settled meditative stability is present in awareness.

There is no meditation in the sphere of awareness, because awareness is natural meditative stability. So if you aren't directly introduced there is no meditative stability. you may meditate but that's not what is meant with 'meditative stability' because meditation is not timeless awareness but an artifice of ordinary mind.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

Is your ' rest in awareness ' mindfulness ?

No. Mindfulness is dual perception but awareness is not perception.
If during everyday life, at work, in family, in debates, after having been directly introduced you slip back into ordinary mind and notice 'That isn't it' then that may be called 'a kind of mindfulness'.

[Bohdiyana]

I like that phrase people been posting.... "Rest in awareness."

Seems peaceful. Doing nothing, "at rest" just passively being aware.

[Bohdiyana]

To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float. Alan Watts

[sky]

Originally Posted by Ground

No. Mindfulness is dual perception but awareness is not perception.
If during everyday life, at work, in family, in debates, after having been directly introduced you slip back into ordinary mind and notice 'That isn't it' then that may be called 'a kind of mindfulness'.

I understand what you mean now, I call this ' no mind '.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by sky123

I understand what you mean now, I call this ' no mind '.

' no mind ' may also be appropriate considering that what one usually associates with the term 'mind' is ordinary mind because ordinary mind is what everybody experientially knows but rarely natural mind is known which is the original state of mind empty of anything and which is kind of underlying all states of ordinary mind. This 'mind empty of anything' leads to the danger of the term 'no mind' as it may be fixated on emptiness as it is often the case in a Zen context. However timeless awareness, the ground of being, isn't just emptiness but it is also spontaneous presence. Emptiness and so called 'pristine cognition' are inseparable.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Ground

' no mind ' may also be appropriate considering that what one usually associates with the term 'mind' is ordinary mind because ordinary mind is what everybody experientially knows but rarely natural mind is known which is the original state of mind empty of anything and which is kind of underlying all states of ordinary mind. This 'mind empty of anything' leads to the danger of the term 'no mind' as it may be fixated on emptiness as it is often the case in a Zen context. However timeless awareness, the ground of being, isn't just emptiness but it is also spontaneous presence. Emptiness and so called 'pristine cognition' are inseparable.

Early morning when I first wake is the best time for me to experience 'Pure Awareness' it is just a natural state of being one with the universe, sometime's I get glimpses at other times.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

That is wrong. There is no letting go and no gaining anything.



Wrong again. Meditation includes nonconceptual meditation without object as I have quoted above.

you just don't get this:


There is no meditation in the sphere of awareness, because awareness is natural meditative stability. So if you aren't directly introduced there is no meditative stability. you may meditate but that's not what is meant with 'meditative stability' because meditation is not timeless awareness but an artifice of ordinary mind.

You do realize that what you said is wrong was a direct quote from the book don't you?