Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2014 12:05:49 GMT -5
Anyone here have first-hand experience with this? Lama Surya Das and others say it can't be learned or taught, only transmitted. If we're talking about the natural state this seems a little suspicious. I've been eagerly reading Sam Harris' latest and he went from Theravedan Buddhism to advaita Vedanta (a la Papaji/Maharshi) to Dzogchen. Also, he's a PhD in Neuroscience. So all this makes me interested in Dzogchen but not if I have to travel. edit: surprise surprise "According to Dzogchen literature, Dzogchen is the highest and most definitive path to enlightenment." wiki
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 16, 2014 19:38:38 GMT -5
Anyone here have first-hand experience with this? Lama Surya Das and others say it can't be learned or taught, only transmitted. If we're talking about the natural state this seems a little suspicious. I've been eagerly reading Sam Harris' latest and he went from Theravedan Buddhism to advaita Vedanta (a la Papaji/Maharshi) to Dzogchen. Also, he's a PhD in Neuroscience. So all this makes me interested in Dzogchen but not if I have to travel. edit: surprise surprise "According to Dzogchen literature, Dzogchen is the highest and most definitive path to enlightenment." wikiThe only reason I'm suspicious is that there is no path to enlightenment. As you may be implying, the only path to a natural state would be to stop creating unnatural states, like maybe Dogchow. I see that shutting down those states may be the goal, but applying effort to attain effortlessness is misguided. It's that same mind game of wanting unnatural states and also wanting the natural state. Kinda like trying to break a bad habit.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 11:52:15 GMT -5
Hello maxdprophet....I have not had a teacher in the specific direct lineage of Dzogchen. Some years ago I was introduced to Dzogchen by an internet friend, if I remember correctly, I met her here on ST's. The book she recommended was The Crystal and the Way of Light, Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. From that I have since acquired over twenty books on Dzogchen. Without looking through them the book that stands out is also by Norbu, The Mirror, Advice on the Presence of Awareness, 1996. It is short, 80 pages, out of print and rather expensive used ($45.00, used-$80.00, new, on Amazon). I suspect it will not be reprinted as Norbu probably wrote some things that he shouldn't have, things probably meant only for oral transmission. I will check through my books and recommend one. Most of the books have a long unnecessary introduction about lineage before they get into specifics. And then there is the also extra trappings about Buddhism-stuff. Dzogchen is the highest teaching I've encountered in relation to specific interior spiritual practices written about. Dzogchen is a nondual teaching. However, it makes a distinction between our primordial nature (a term that means the same as those used below, empty essence and cognizant nature) and our ego. Ego is an obstruction to experiencing our primordial nature (dzogchen), so to experience the latter, ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing.
Saying that, I read your post earlier this morning (not having been here for a while). I looked around for a Dzogchen book. I happened to pick up the last book on Dzogchen I bought some months ago, used for $6.00, Fearless Simplicity, The Dzogchen Way of Living Freely in a Complex World, 2003 by Tsoknyi Rinpoche, a book which I had not yet read. I opened it randomly to the following (which also speaks to E's post). Some time later I will post on this subject again.
"Conceptual mind cannot really grasp the fact that empty essence is beyond arising, dwelling, or ceasing. It has to give up. Ego cannot cope with the groundlessness of the ground. It simply cannot face it. Overwhelmed, it just has to give up. In this kind of showdown, ego cannot compete any longer. Empty essence always wins.
The superiority of Dzogchen teachings compared to other viewpoints does not consist in only recognizing empty essence or in only recognizing cognizant nature (just defined as our natural way of knowing, the knowing quality of the empty essence, note sdp). That is just not good enough to be the Dzogchen view. We must recognize in actuality the indivisible identity of essence, nature, and the capacity in a way that is totally free of the clinging to the concept of being empty and any attachment to the concept of being cognizant. That is called recognizing rigpa. When the recognition is completely free of any conceptual attitude-when it is totally pure and authentic-this is said to be....superior to meeting a thousand buddhas.
This mind essence is not something new that we must get our hands on. We recognize our essence as already present, something we already have. If it were a new thing that we needed to achieve by means of the path, then every attempt to achieve it would become an act of artifice, something contrived through deliberate effort. Such a practice could never be called "sustaining the natural state". Also, if we somehow achieve a state that first was not, then only later is, it becomes something formed, a product. Therefore it is also impermanent. The view as fruition as something we achieve, rather than discovering what is already present as ground, is incorrect and can be faulted in many ways". (pages 88,89)
..................
sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 12:50:34 GMT -5
maxdprophet, I neglected to respond to one thing in your OP. I don't consider it necessary that you have to travel to find a Dzogchen teacher, I hesitate to add, at least in the beginning (meaning, probably for years). I would say that it is exceptionally difficult to get to the point where you feel it necessary to find a teacher, meaning, only a few people will ever get to that point, for numerous reasons. I have used the following example here before. I consider it relevant to Dzogchen teaching.
Take a clean white sheet of typing paper. That represents your primordial nature (What? and what?, discussed further below) when you are born. Find all the different colored pens and pencils you can find. Draw a line across the paper, that's your first second as a baby. Draw another, any angle and any length, that's the second second. These lines are recorded in the neural structure of the brain as memory. Each line is an experience and a recording of the experience. Keep drawing lines all day, and a second day, hours, week months and years. The lines represent the formation of ego. By about the age of six you can see no white paper, primordial nature has been completely covered over, and in a very real sense, imprisoned, by the information recorded in the brain. At this point you cease to be your primordial nature and call the contents of the neural structure, (falsely) self (IOW, you call ego, self). Dzogchen (and any true "spiritual" teaching) seeks to recover primordial nature so ~you~ once again live through primordial nature instead of all the lines on the paper.
Now, what is a thought? A thought is a line on the paper. What is a negative emotion? A negative emotion is a line on the paper. Buddhism discusses various types of meditation. Dzogchen is said to be the highest teaching of Buddhism. Why? Dzogchen takes you directly to the white sheet of paper. All secondary types of meditation (Buddhist or otherwise) seek to erase all the colored lines on the paper.
Now, any teacher you would ever find must necessarily point to one's primordial nature, via words. You would have to take the words to look and find what the words are pointing to. Now, some day you might say, I'm just not getting it. A teacher could refine the pointing, but you still have to find it. Don't consider the following as instructions, just a means of experimenting.
Just sit still, nothing else, just sit still. In a few seconds a thought will pop up, that's ego. Ignore it, just sit. Your nose will itch, hard to ignore, scratch it, then just sit. We're seeking to experience our primordial nature, the ground. How do you know your nose itches? So there is something (what?)[a] more basic than the itching nose. Thoughts come up about what I'll eat for dinner. That puts you in the future. How do you know a thought has arisen? Then you remember that you forgot to tell your boss about some something. That puts you in the past. Just sitting puts you in the present. ........Now, primordial nature is always in the present moment, but ego is always trying to take (what?) [a] either into the past through memory or the future through imagination. Ego is nothing but the past as memory. The white sheet of paper is still there underneath all the lines.
You can find your primordial nature, but it's not easy (not easy as in it's not easy to just-be-here-now). Ego as thoughts, (negative) emotions/feelings and actions (what the body does through muscles) is constantly jumping up to take center stage. A good place to start is with sensing (a form of which could be watching the breath). To stay alive and active, ego as thoughts, feelings and actions is continually stealing your energy, is continually taking (what?) [a] This what? [a] is part of your primordial nature.....so it is the means to your primordial nature. But that which is simple is not easy. The what? [a], you can get very easily. It's written about here all the time. What? [A] and a subset of What? [A], what? [a], is how a baby functions. [A-a]
......................................
Oh...and.....FWIW...I have looked through most of Lama Surya Das' books. I haven't found anything to make me want to buy, or read.
sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2014 13:23:56 GMT -5
Hello maxdprophet....I have not had a teacher in the specific direct lineage of Dzogchen. Some years ago I was introduced to Dzogchen by an internet friend, if I remember correctly, I met her here on ST's. The book she recommended was The Crystal and the Way of Light, Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. From that I have since acquired over twenty books on Dzogchen. Without looking through them the book that stands out is also by Norbu, The Mirror, Advice on the Presence of Awareness, 1996. It is short, 80 pages, out of print and rather expensive used ($45.00, used-$80.00, new, on Amazon). I suspect it will not be reprinted as Norbu probably wrote some things that he shouldn't have, things probably meant only for oral transmission. I will check through my books and recommend one. Most of the books have a long unnecessary introduction about lineage before they get into specifics. And then there is the also extra trappings about Buddhism-stuff. Dzogchen is the highest teaching I've encountered in relation to specific interior spiritual practices written about. Dzogchen is a nondual teaching. However, it makes a distinction between our primordial nature (a term that means the same as those used below, empty essence and cognizant nature) and our ego. Ego is an obstruction to experiencing our primordial nature (dzogchen), so to experience the latter, ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing.Saying that, I read your post earlier this morning (not having been here for a while). I looked around for a Dzogchen book. I happened to pick up the last book on Dzogchen I bought some months ago, used for $6.00, Fearless Simplicity, The Dzogchen Way of Living Freely in a Complex World, 2003 by Tsoknyi Rinpoche, a book which I had not yet read. I opened it randomly to the following (which also speaks to E's post). Some time later I will post on this subject again. "Conceptual mind cannot really grasp the fact that empty essence is beyond arising, dwelling, or ceasing. It has to give up. Ego cannot cope with the groundlessness of the ground. It simply cannot face it. Overwhelmed, it just has to give up. In this kind of showdown, ego cannot compete any longer. Empty essence always wins. The superiority of Dzogchen teachings compared to other viewpoints does not consist in only recognizing empty essence or in only recognizing cognizant nature (just defined as our natural way of knowing, the knowing quality of the empty essence, note sdp). That is just not good enough to be the Dzogchen view. We must recognize in actuality the indivisible identity of essence, nature, and the capacity in a way that is totally free of the clinging to the concept of being empty and any attachment to the concept of being cognizant. That is called recognizing rigpa. When the recognition is completely free of any conceptual attitude-when it is totally pure and authentic-this is said to be....superior to meeting a thousand buddhas. This mind essence is not something new that we must get our hands on. We recognize our essence as already present, something we already have. If it were a new thing that we needed to achieve by means of the path, then every attempt to achieve it would become an act of artifice, something contrived through deliberate effort. Such a practice could never be called "sustaining the natural state". Also, if we somehow achieve a state that first was not, then only later is, it becomes something formed, a product. Therefore it is also impermanent. The view as fruition as something we achieve, rather than discovering what is already present as ground, is incorrect and can be faulted in many ways". (pages 88,89) .................. sdp I'm not an expert on nondual teachings, but I've never encountered on that taught that ego is anything but an illusion and an obstruction.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 15:09:41 GMT -5
Hello maxdprophet....I have not had a teacher in the specific direct lineage of Dzogchen. Some years ago I was introduced to Dzogchen by an internet friend, if I remember correctly, I met her here on ST's. The book she recommended was The Crystal and the Way of Light, Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. From that I have since acquired over twenty books on Dzogchen. Without looking through them the book that stands out is also by Norbu, The Mirror, Advice on the Presence of Awareness, 1996. It is short, 80 pages, out of print and rather expensive used ($45.00, used-$80.00, new, on Amazon). I suspect it will not be reprinted as Norbu probably wrote some things that he shouldn't have, things probably meant only for oral transmission. I will check through my books and recommend one. Most of the books have a long unnecessary introduction about lineage before they get into specifics. And then there is the also extra trappings about Buddhism-stuff. Dzogchen is the highest teaching I've encountered in relation to specific interior spiritual practices written about. Dzogchen is a nondual teaching. However, it makes a distinction between our primordial nature (a term that means the same as those used below, empty essence and cognizant nature) and our ego. Ego is an obstruction to experiencing our primordial nature (dzogchen), so to experience the latter, ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing.Saying that, I read your post earlier this morning (not having been here for a while). I looked around for a Dzogchen book. I happened to pick up the last book on Dzogchen I bought some months ago, used for $6.00, Fearless Simplicity, The Dzogchen Way of Living Freely in a Complex World, 2003 by Tsoknyi Rinpoche, a book which I had not yet read. I opened it randomly to the following (which also speaks to E's post). Some time later I will post on this subject again. "Conceptual mind cannot really grasp the fact that empty essence is beyond arising, dwelling, or ceasing. It has to give up. Ego cannot cope with the groundlessness of the ground. It simply cannot face it. Overwhelmed, it just has to give up. In this kind of showdown, ego cannot compete any longer. Empty essence always wins. The superiority of Dzogchen teachings compared to other viewpoints does not consist in only recognizing empty essence or in only recognizing cognizant nature (just defined as our natural way of knowing, the knowing quality of the empty essence, note sdp). That is just not good enough to be the Dzogchen view. We must recognize in actuality the indivisible identity of essence, nature, and the capacity in a way that is totally free of the clinging to the concept of being empty and any attachment to the concept of being cognizant. That is called recognizing rigpa. When the recognition is completely free of any conceptual attitude-when it is totally pure and authentic-this is said to be....superior to meeting a thousand buddhas. This mind essence is not something new that we must get our hands on. We recognize our essence as already present, something we already have. If it were a new thing that we needed to achieve by means of the path, then every attempt to achieve it would become an act of artifice, something contrived through deliberate effort. Such a practice could never be called "sustaining the natural state". Also, if we somehow achieve a state that first was not, then only later is, it becomes something formed, a product. Therefore it is also impermanent. The view as fruition as something we achieve, rather than discovering what is already present as ground, is incorrect and can be faulted in many ways". (pages 88,89) .................. sdp I'm not an expert on nondual teachings, but I've never encountered on that taught that ego is anything but an illusion and an obstruction. E, are you saying that the fact that ego is an illusion (I'll grant, for the purposes of discussion, may or may not be true, and including the fact you have to define illusion, etc....) is the same as saying nobody possesses an ego? Point being, how does one arrive at the understanding that ego is an illusion? Or are you saying that's unnecessary? Keeping in mind, this thread is about Dzogchen. My quote is directly from a book about Dzogchen. I can't get around nor do I want to, the use of and the meaning of the word ego, in Dzogchen. (You make my point about what I think is the failing of modern, "new", nonduality teachings......let's just sweep ego under the rug.....In the same sentence you underline, I say ego is an obstruction). sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 15:36:08 GMT -5
maxdprophet......I looked through my books. On the whole, dropping the Buddhist language and trappings, and for its specific help on arriving at and understanding our Primordial Nature, I can highly recommend Present Fresh Wakefulness, A Meditation Manual on Nonconceptual Wisdom, 2002, by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche (born 1951). The book comes from seminars in Nepal and the USA, 1997 & 1998. Amazon has it. Back cover:
Present Fresh Wakefulness is more than a set of general instructions on how to practice, it is the quintessential advice of an experienced, living master on what he considers to be the absolute necessities for today's yogis to arrive at liberation and complete enlightenment.
.........................
We should know how to make the distinction between self-existing wakefulness and dualistic mind. Believing that we are sustaining the natural state of mind while we are caught up with ordinary thinking is not much use. We need to identify the genuine, the authentic--this is important. We need to identify that which is utterly empty, utterly naked, not confined to anything, totally clear and cognizant yet not fixed on anything. --Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2014 17:51:46 GMT -5
I'm not an expert on nondual teachings, but I've never encountered on that taught that ego is anything but an illusion and an obstruction. E, are you saying that the fact that ego is an illusion (I'll grant, for the purposes of discussion, may or may not be true, and including the fact you have to define illusion, etc....) is the same as saying nobody possesses an ego? Point being, how does one arrive at the understanding that ego is an illusion? Or are you saying that's unnecessary? Keeping in mind, this thread is about Dzogchen. My quote is directly from a book about Dzogchen. I can't get around nor do I want to, the use of and the meaning of the word ego, in Dzogchen. (You make my point about what I think is the failing of modern, "new", nonduality teachings......let's just sweep ego under the rug.....In the same sentence you underline, I say ego is an obstruction). sdp I don't know what you're talking about. you said:ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing. I'm saying to my knowledge nonduality teachings don't 'think' that's not possible or even necessary. I didn't mean to imply ego is dismissed as 'not real'. I'm saying the personal self is an illusion. Ego refers to a separate person, and there is no separate person as a separate volitional troll.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 18:51:45 GMT -5
E, are you saying that the fact that ego is an illusion (I'll grant, for the purposes of discussion, may or may not be true, and including the fact you have to define illusion, etc....) is the same as saying nobody possesses an ego? Point being, how does one arrive at the understanding that ego is an illusion? Or are you saying that's unnecessary? Keeping in mind, this thread is about Dzogchen. My quote is directly from a book about Dzogchen. I can't get around nor do I want to, the use of and the meaning of the word ego, in Dzogchen. (You make my point about what I think is the failing of modern, "new", nonduality teachings......let's just sweep ego under the rug.....In the same sentence you underline, I say ego is an obstruction). sdp I don't know what you're talking about. you said:ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing. I'm saying to my knowledge nonduality teachings don't 'think' that's not possible or even necessary. I didn't mean to imply ego is dismissed as 'not real'. I'm saying the personal self is an illusion. Ego refers to a separate person, and there is no separate person as a separate volitional troll. Yes, I understand that, I understand it conceptually. Above, I was trying to point out the difference between conceptual understanding and authentic realization, functionally operating ~without~ ego (using the language, back seat, in a manner of speaking). Saying so doesn't make it so. sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 19:19:04 GMT -5
Hello maxdprophet....I have not had a teacher in the specific direct lineage of Dzogchen. Some years ago I was introduced to Dzogchen by an internet friend, if I remember correctly, I met her here on ST's. The book she recommended was The Crystal and the Way of Light, Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. From that I have since acquired over twenty books on Dzogchen. Without looking through them the book that stands out is also by Norbu, The Mirror, Advice on the Presence of Awareness, 1996. It is short, 80 pages, out of print and rather expensive used ($45.00, used-$80.00, new, on Amazon). I suspect it will not be reprinted as Norbu probably wrote some things that he shouldn't have, things probably meant only for oral transmission. I will check through my books and recommend one. Most of the books have a long unnecessary introduction about lineage before they get into specifics. And then there is the also extra trappings about Buddhism-stuff. Dzogchen is the highest teaching I've encountered in relation to specific interior spiritual practices written about. Dzogchen is a nondual teaching. However, it makes a distinction between our primordial nature (a term that means the same as those used below, empty essence and cognizant nature) and our ego. Ego is an obstruction to experiencing our primordial nature (dzogchen), so to experience the latter, ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing.Saying that, I read your post earlier this morning (not having been here for a while). I looked around for a Dzogchen book. I happened to pick up the last book on Dzogchen I bought some months ago, used for $6.00, Fearless Simplicity, The Dzogchen Way of Living Freely in a Complex World, 2003 by Tsoknyi Rinpoche, a book which I had not yet read. I opened it randomly to the following (which also speaks to E's post). Some time later I will post on this subject again. "Conceptual mind cannot really grasp the fact that empty essence is beyond arising, dwelling, or ceasing. It has to give up. Ego cannot cope with the groundlessness of the ground. It simply cannot face it. Overwhelmed, it just has to give up. In this kind of showdown, ego cannot compete any longer. Empty essence always wins. The superiority of Dzogchen teachings compared to other viewpoints does not consist in only recognizing empty essence or in only recognizing cognizant nature (just defined as our natural way of knowing, the knowing quality of the empty essence, note sdp). That is just not good enough to be the Dzogchen view. We must recognize in actuality the indivisible identity of essence, nature, and the capacity in a way that is totally free of the clinging to the concept of being empty and any attachment to the concept of being cognizant. That is called recognizing rigpa. When the recognition is completely free of any conceptual attitude-when it is totally pure and authentic-this is said to be....superior to meeting a thousand buddhas. This mind essence is not something new that we must get our hands on. We recognize our essence as already present, something we already have. If it were a new thing that we needed to achieve by means of the path, then every attempt to achieve it would become an act of artifice, something contrived through deliberate effort. Such a practice could never be called "sustaining the natural state". Also, if we somehow achieve a state that first was not, then only later is, it becomes something formed, a product. Therefore it is also impermanent. The view as fruition as something we achieve, rather than discovering what is already present as ground, is incorrect and can be faulted in many ways". (pages 88,89) .................. sdp I'm not an expert on nondual teachings, but I've never encountered on that taught that ego is anything but an illusion and an obstruction. Confusion can be understood as the mistaken way that ordinary beings experience reality. Confusion means to be mistaken about what is; believing that things are real and permanent while they are not. In fact, it is impossible for anything to really exist; existence is only something one believes. This belief happens because we are unaware of, ignorant of, the true nature of all things. First there is ignorance, then the act of holding onto an 'I', a self, where no such identity actually exists, and of believing there is an 'other' where no such 'other' exists. This ignorance is the very basis for the notion of 'self' and 'other': it is the failure to know that these concepts have no reality to them whatsoever. The basis ignorance triggers attachment to 'self' and aversion to 'other' and has been perpetuated in our mind stream for a very long time, in a vast, immense way. We need to dissolve this strong habitual ignorance, but this is not something that happens from one moment to the next. While dreaming, the dreamer only believes that what is dreamt is real. He is not likely to think, 'This is all an illusion.' Even if he were to think it, it would be very hard to simultaneously experience the dream as unreal. In exactly the same way, all that we experience right now is illusory. But it is very difficult to have that confidence and to actually experience everything as being insubstantial and unreal. page 64 Present Fresh Wakefulness, A Meditation Manual on Nonconceptual Wisdom, 2002 by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2014 19:30:59 GMT -5
I don't know what you're talking about. you said:ego has to take "back seat". I don't get the sense that current non-dual teachings thinks that's necessary, or even possible, and for me that is their failing. I'm saying to my knowledge nonduality teachings don't 'think' that's not possible or even necessary. I didn't mean to imply ego is dismissed as 'not real'. I'm saying the personal self is an illusion. Ego refers to a separate person, and there is no separate person as a separate volitional troll. Yes, I understand that, I understand it conceptually. Above, I was trying to point out the difference between conceptual understanding and authentic realization, functionally operating ~without~ ego (using the language, back seat, in a manner of speaking). Saying so doesn't make it so. sdp Okay, I'll just respond to what you posted. "E, are you saying that the fact that ego is an illusion (I'll grant, for the purposes of discussion, may or may not be true, and including the fact you have to define illusion, etc....) is the same as saying nobody possesses an ego?" Ego is essentially a mental structure, so I have trouble with the ideas that one 'possesses' it or doesn't. Everyone seems to develop that structure, yes. It's a realization, though a rather common one, I think. Yes, I'd say it's necessary. I agree it's an obstruction. I'm pretty sure any nonduality teacher would agree too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2014 19:37:03 GMT -5
I'm not an expert on nondual teachings, but I've never encountered on that taught that ego is anything but an illusion and an obstruction. Confusion can be understood as the mistaken way that ordinary beings experience reality. Confusion means to be mistaken about what is; believing that things are real and permanent while they are not. In fact, it is impossible for anything to really exist; existence is only something one believes. This belief happens because we are unaware of, ignorant of, the true nature of all things. First there is ignorance, then the act of holding onto an 'I', a self, where no such identity actually exists, and of believing there is an 'other' where no such 'other' exists. This ignorance is the very basis for the notion of 'self' and 'other': it is the failure to know that these concepts have no reality to them whatsoever. The basis ignorance triggers attachment to 'self' and aversion to 'other' and has been perpetuated in our mind stream for a very long time, in a vast, immense way. We need to dissolve this strong habitual ignorance, but this is not something that happens from one moment to the next. While dreaming, the dreamer only believes that what is dreamt is real. He is not likely to think, 'This is all an illusion.' Even if he were to think it, it would be very hard to simultaneously experience the dream as unreal. In exactly the same way, all that we experience right now is illusory. But it is very difficult to have that confidence and to actually experience everything as being insubstantial and unreal. page 64 Present Fresh Wakefulness, A Meditation Manual on Nonconceptual Wisdom, 2002 by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche Sure.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 19:37:11 GMT -5
Yes, I understand that, I understand it conceptually. Above, I was trying to point out the difference between conceptual understanding and authentic realization, functionally operating ~without~ ego (using the language, back seat, in a manner of speaking). Saying so doesn't make it so. sdp Okay, I'll just respond to what you posted. "E, are you saying that the fact that ego is an illusion (I'll grant, for the purposes of discussion, may or may not be true, and including the fact you have to define illusion, etc....) is the same as saying nobody possesses an ego?" Ego is essentially a mental structure, so I have trouble with the ideas that one 'possesses' it or doesn't. Everyone seems to develop that structure, yes. It's a realization, though a rather common one, I think. Yes, I'd say it's necessary.I agree it's an obstruction. I'm pretty sure any nonduality teacher would agree too. So you're saying an illusion is necessary? sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 18, 2014 19:43:31 GMT -5
Okay, I'll just respond to what you posted. "E, are you saying that the fact that ego is an illusion (I'll grant, for the purposes of discussion, may or may not be true, and including the fact you have to define illusion, etc....) is the same as saying nobody possesses an ego?" Ego is essentially a mental structure, so I have trouble with the ideas that one 'possesses' it or doesn't. Everyone seems to develop that structure, yes. It's a realization, though a rather common one, I think. Yes, I'd say it's necessary.I agree it's an obstruction. I'm pretty sure any nonduality teacher would agree too. So you're saying an illusion is necessary? sdp No, what's necessary is the understanding that ego is an illusion. All I did was agree with you, as I've been doing all along.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 18, 2014 19:50:02 GMT -5
So you're saying an illusion is necessary? sdp No, what's necessary is the understanding that ego is an illusion. All I did was agree with you, as I've been doing all along. So you are saying that you are free of ego? sdp
|
|