Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Clear Light - Emptiness - Objective Reality
zen_world
Veteran
I have one question and also need to hear your opinion on another subject.
My question: Do you believe that there is an objective reality that we can point out and say "hey, there it is, this is real!" instead of a subjective reality, which is only valid in relation to something.
Now, if you say no, there is no objective reality, what would you say about HHDL comment about the clear light - you can read it here
http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light
HHDL says that there is a clear light and this light is the fundamental truth, its permanent and never changes.
Obviously he is pointing out an objective reality here...
Is this clear light the same as emptiness? Then emptiness is light? but then what is this light? it is not made of photons obviously...maybe the term "light" confused me and it is nothing but my confusion in terminology.
Finally, he also explains how to identify the clear light as follows:
"With respect to identifying the clear light in the Great Perfection: when, for instance, one hears a noise, between the time of hearing it and conceptualizing it as such and such, there is a type of mind devoid of conceptuality but nevertheless not like sleep or samadhi, in which the object is a reflection of this entity of mere luminosity and knowing. It is at such a point that the basic entity of the mind [clear light] is identified."... Can someone please elaborate on this paragprah, I think my english is not enough to comprehend this?
Thanks in advance
My question: Do you believe that there is an objective reality that we can point out and say "hey, there it is, this is real!" instead of a subjective reality, which is only valid in relation to something.
Now, if you say no, there is no objective reality, what would you say about HHDL comment about the clear light - you can read it here
http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light
HHDL says that there is a clear light and this light is the fundamental truth, its permanent and never changes.
Obviously he is pointing out an objective reality here...
Is this clear light the same as emptiness? Then emptiness is light? but then what is this light? it is not made of photons obviously...maybe the term "light" confused me and it is nothing but my confusion in terminology.
Finally, he also explains how to identify the clear light as follows:
"With respect to identifying the clear light in the Great Perfection: when, for instance, one hears a noise, between the time of hearing it and conceptualizing it as such and such, there is a type of mind devoid of conceptuality but nevertheless not like sleep or samadhi, in which the object is a reflection of this entity of mere luminosity and knowing. It is at such a point that the basic entity of the mind [clear light] is identified."... Can someone please elaborate on this paragprah, I think my english is not enough to comprehend this?
Thanks in advance
0
Comments
but i believe HHDL is pointing to non symbolic/non discriminative awareness that is even prior to consciousness.
in many ways it is an objective point of view because it is prior to all distinctions and in another way it is completely subjective because it is happening from your point of reference. this is assuming that there are others out there that have this awareness but even that doesn't even matter. a radical subjectivity is an objective reality.
light can be seen as a metaphor for the luminous mind that is free from all symbolic clinging. it just shines and shines. it itself isn't aware of itself shining.
it would appear that emptiness and this awareness is the same. for they are both clear and void with no-thing. we cannot measure of describe it. we can't even call it a thing for it is the lack of everything. what's left is a void or in many ways a fullness. the paradox is something to dance with.
"Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves."
— Nisargadatta Maharaj
Well, at the end you are saying it is an objective reality and it implies a definitive state.
See, emptiness is not like that, emptiness is form and form is emptiness, it is not definitive and because of emptiness phenomena can come into existence, the nature of emptiness if flexible. But clear light implies "something", boundry, a definite state. For instance, I can ask why light but not darkness? Because the aggregates of the mind dissolved already at this stage, light cannot be any interpretation or a symbol or perception or concept so light is light at its purest form...light has quality, it is bright...how emptiness can be bright? I don't get it...I am confused once again:) There is something that doesn't make sense here...
none of this makes any sense because its not for the mind to get.
clear light is just what is left when you take away everything. just a vast spaciousness that rests upon itself. it is awareness itself that becomes aware of itself.
this isn't a state for it is the lack of all states. it is where all states occur. it is the space where everything arises and falls.
there is nothing to get. there is nothing to achieve. just this is enough.
Obviously there is something to achieve! did you see the light? No...then obviously you didn't achieve...now there is something to achieve because if we define something like "light" then it implies a specific metaphysical state...
clean the mirror. then throw the mirror out.
it is merely belief in a concept that prevents you from your original seeing.
you'll figure it out eventually.
then how do you explain darkness? what is its nature?
what notices both and can what is seeing be seen?
there is nothing to explain. there is nothing to give your mind.
the seeker is sought. find that which is seeing. can you find it?
The ultimate nature is emptiness and emptiness cannot be defined as "light"...
light is something, it is an attribute, if it is an energy, even energy is empty...
(less you take that truth as existent)
no form
no feeling
no perception
no formations
no consciousness
no eye
no ear
no nose
no tongue
no eye
no mind consciousness
it isn't literally light. it functions like light. it is always luminous even if obscured with dust.
the sun is always shining, yet we have night.
stop. be and see what is.
Even if you can with your mind when your eyes shut, it is the emptiness manifesting itself. But that doesn't mean emptiness is light. Darknes is also emptiness.
we can't say what moves the flag, yet we open our mouths.
emptiness is what it is. whether a demon with no head or a compassionate gesture of a smile.
I don't even know if Buddha ever mentioned "light" when he discussed emptiness. Otherwise he would say emptiness is form and form is light etc...
I don't know but I start to think that HHDL is referring to "light body" which is a particular attainment of enlightenment state but here light doesn't imply emptiness...
but when we are talking about light or emptiness in the way we speak of it then we are poetically expressing the qualities of non dual awareness, which has no inherent qualities.
For instance, when we communicate with a person, there is their subjective understanding of their experience, and there is the objective experience. What they think is happening (such as a student observing their angry boss yelling at them and feeling stress) and what is really happening (the student projects meaning into shapes and colors, and illumine those projections with their emotions and consciousness.)
This isn't to say there is a "real" and "permanent" quality to it, a static label, but there are specific patterns to the physical world that dictate all unfolding experience. Clear light could also be called dharma view or don dam, and represents the essential teachings of the buddha being expressed.
Imagine two buddhas observing a student convinced the angry boss is real. Their view is fertile and empty, and able to see with clarity... or clear light. The student isn't incorrect in viewing the angry boss, but is describing a subjective point of view based from varying levels of ignorance.
The buddhas wouldn't need to discuss whether or not the student was correct, because when the mind is free from baggage, a person's subjective suffering is luminous. If the student's mind was free, he would never generate stress, and only see the boss' luminous, subjective patterns of suffering.
My head is going to explode soon:) I will re-read your post again tomorrow morning.
But what you are saying reminds me of matrix, anyhow:) I didn't even know it is possible to see object-subject interaction in terms of light patterns...
something to investigate...