[NonDualPhil] The ego and tapas

[Guest guest]

On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Insight wrote:

 

P: Excellent, Joyce! Thanks. This puppy is going

on tour, in its edited mode. I hope you don't mind,

being that you are such stickler for posts remaining

where they land.

 

> Nagarjuna, a bhiksu learned in the five branches

> of knowledge, had absorbed the three pitakas and

> also knew perfectly many teachings of the fruit

> of Guhyamantra. He was seeking the ultimate

> meaning of total perfection beyond effort, so

> when he met bhiksuni Dagnyidma he asked her for

> the essence of the teachings. With these words

> Dagnyidma summarized their entirety for him:

>

>

> Analyzing, even analyzing emptiness, is

> nevertheless still illusion.

> Getting attached, even getting attached

> to a deity, is slavery.

> Thinking, even thinking of the dharmakaya,

> is judging.

> Meditating, even meditating on the absence

> of thought, is conceptualizing!

>

> Then Nagarjuna perfectly understood the meaning

> of the primordial state and expressed his realization

> thus:

>

> I am Nagarjuna!

> Beginningless dharmakaya, not being composed

> of aggregates, is happiness.

> The voice that is without interruption

> and transcends the very concept of " voice, "

> not having material characteristics, is

> happiness.

> The mind of wisdom that trancends the very

> concept of " mind, " not having either birth

> or death, is happiness.

> I have understood that bodhicitta is total

> biss!

>

> Manjushrimitra, when asked for the teachings to

> be summarized in their entirety was told:

>

>

> Even if one give a name to mind, it is

> beyond all names.

> However many examples one may use for it,

> it is beyond all examples.

> It is non-dual, transcends thought, and

> cannot be fixed in a concept.

> Meditating means remaining in the dimension

> of knowledge without conceptualizing or

> getting distracted.

>

>

>

> The Supreme Source

> The Fundamental Tantra of

> the Dzogchen Semde - Kunjed Gyalpo

> Norbu & Clemente

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

On Oct 16, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Insight wrote:

 

> Joyce: I think arguing with ancient

> wise-guys is a good thing although " state "

> is not capitalized - but one would have

> to do whatever practices they are doing

> in order to have a basis for argument.

>

>

> State of presence is referring

> to a form of contemplation, resting mind

> in awake awareness without an object

> of meditation as support and without

> any fabrications, it's not a metaphysical

> State or monism entering in though the

> back door.

>

>

> I agree " state of presence " not a good translation

> as it seems to imply something static...and one

> of the pitfalls for a student practitioner

> is that of " frozen " view. Whereas the practice

> is one of coemergent appearances. For example,

> a clear and calm mind settles into the unity

> of its luminous openness, (clarity) there isn't

> a meditation object per se - mind relaxes

> in it's natural state or condition. The mind looks

> at mind with mind. Then looking directly at an appearance

> to the senses such as a visual apparance, perhaps a stone,

> a mountain, a house. Looking at the appearance itself,

> it is spontaneous presence free from solidity. This

> is the experience of coemergence of appearances.

> Thus one sees the unity of the vividness of the

> appearance's perceptive form or texture

> with emptiness. It can't be described but

> the experience is vivid and full certainty that

> just as waves are inseparable from whater, similarily

> appearances are inseparable from their emptiness.

> They arise from causes and conditions through

> the impeded play of the luminosity of mind.

>

>

> So as you say, direct experience of the fact

> of the insubstantiality of appearances. When

> they are insubstantial, transparent, what

> is the to grasp on to? if there is nothing

> to grasp onto, there is no cause of suffering.

>

>

> Joyce

>

>

>

>

>