The mind

Jeffrey

You are pure consciousness

within it a thought appears

and thinks that it is an individual entity

yet this thought is imaginary

and it does not change the fact

that you are pure consciousness

Ajon Halel Geva

Jeffrey

LET YOUR MIND SPONTANEOUSLY RELAX AND REST

"Despite the innumerable names that are tagged onto it,
Know that the real meaning is as follows:

Let your mind spontaneously relax and rest.
When left to itself, ordinary mind is fresh and naked.
If observed, it is a vivid clarity without anything to see,
A direct awareness, sharp and awake.
Possessing no existence, it is empty and pure,
A clear openness of non-dual luminosity and emptiness.

It is not permanent, since it does not exist at all.
It is not nothingness, since it is vividly clear and awake.
It is not oneness, since many things are cognized and known.
It is not plurality, since the many things known are inseparable in one taste.

It is not somewhere else; it is your own awareness itself.
The face of this Primordial Protector, dwelling in your heart,
Can be directly perceived in this very instant.
Never be separated from it, children of my heart!

The Flight of the Garuda

Lama Shabkar

"If you want to find something greater than this in another place,
It’s like going off searching for footprints although the elephant is right there.
You may scan the entire three-thousand-fold universe,
But it is impossible that you will find more than the mere name of Buddha.

This is the song which indicates the natural state of the main practice."

Lama Shabkar

pegembara

@Jeffrey said:
Ajon Halel Geva

Consciousness is a dependent coarising.

Without thoughts, is there a thinker?
Without the experience, is there an experiencer?
Without sound, is there a hearer?

Can a pure consciousness be known if there is no-thing to be conscious of?
Is consciousness separate from its object? Subject and object coarise.

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the root] and produces much demerit for himself?"

"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

Jeffrey

@pegembara, is what you say different from what Halel Gava says? Those quotations are not what Lama Shenpen says. They are from a Dzogchen teacher's facebook page. I think the yogacara teaches about a 7th and 8th level of consciousness that are not included in the Theravada. Your quotation sounds more similar to the Gelug view. My teacher teaches a Shentong view of emptiness though of course it does not contradict the fact that everything arising anywhere is conditional.

Jeffrey

When you can bear your own emptiness ,

you are free.

~ Mooji

federica

(I have made this point countless times: please always add comment and opinion to 'outside' sources: provide details of provenance (links, addresses) and explain the rationale behind the post and inclusion of any material that is neither personal or first-hand!

THANK YOU!

lobster

All together now . . .

♪♫•¨•.¸¸❤¸¸.•¨•♫♪
"Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form ...."
♪♫•¨•.¸¸❤¸¸.•¨•♫♪

pegembara

@Jeffrey said:
pegembara, is what you say different from what Halel Gava says? Those quotations are not what Lama Shenpen says. They are from a Dzogchen teacher's facebook page. I think the yogacara teaches about a 7th and 8th level of consciousness that are not included in the Theravada. Your quotation sounds more similar to the Gelug view. My teacher teaches a Shentong view of emptiness though of course it does not contradict the fact that everything arising anywhere is conditional.

Absolutely. Gava spoke like Bhikkhu Sati ie. You are not your thoughts but pure consciousness within which experiences arise. Nothing can harm "you".

But without form there is no emptiness. They depend on each other like sheaves of reeds.

You are pure consciousness

within it a thought appears

and thinks that it is an individual entity

yet this thought is imaginary

and it does not change the fact

that you are pure consciousness

"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

The fact is there is no you or me anywhere in any form or guise.

When you can bear your own emptiness ,

you are free.

~ Mooji

Cinorjer

Some people think of the mind like an onion. You have layers of consciousness that can get peeled away one after the other until you end up with...what? What comes after the 8th or 9th or 20th level of consciousness? A pearl of great value? It's still only onion, all the way in. And there must be a limit to the layers of consciousness.

But at the end of this voyage of discovery we suddenly realize we're asking the wrong question. Instead of, "What's at the center of the onion?" we should be asking, "Who is doing the peeling?"

Jeffrey

@federica said:
(I have made this point countless times: please always add comment and opinion to 'outside' sources: provide details of provenance (links, addresses) and explain the rationale behind the post and inclusion of any material that is neither personal or first-hand!

THANK YOU!

Sorry Federica. In my opinion these express the nature of mind. They were found on Jackson Peterson FB page. https://www.facebook.com/jackson.peterson.73?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab And that page is all public domain.

The rational is to perceive the quotations and analyze if they represent the nature of mind. In the case of the 2 OP these are dzogchen quotations. I think we can have a discussion about various people and their reactions.

federica

Thanks for coming back @Jeffrey...

lobster

@Cinorjer said:
But at the end of this voyage of discovery we suddenly realize we're asking the wrong question. Instead of, "What's at the center of the onion?" we should be asking, "Who is doing the peeling?"

Outstanding xx

Mr Cushion is preparing a medal ceremony for services to educating hopeless crustaceans . . .

Jeffrey

@Cinorjer said:
Some people think of the mind like an onion. You have layers of consciousness that can get peeled away one after the other until you end up with...what? What comes after the 8th or 9th or 20th level of consciousness? A pearl of great value? It's still only onion, all the way in. And there must be a limit to the layers of consciousness.

But at the end of this voyage of discovery we suddenly realize we're asking the wrong question. Instead of, "What's at the center of the onion?" we should be asking, "Who is doing the peeling?"

the first lojong slogan is to be a child of illusion in that you see the vividness but shiftiness of phenomena. Like a child of illusion post meditation.

The next slogan is to throw the rug out of that realization and analyze WHO is the child of illusion.