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.
Fundamental Innate Mind of Clear Light
taiyaki
Veteran
Question: Is the fundamental innate mind of clear light dependent on causes and conditions? If it is not dependent, how can it be empty of independent existence?
HHDL: This is a very good question. Often in texts we find mention of the fundamental innate mind of clear light being not produced by causes and conditions. Now here it is important to understand that in general when we use the term 'produced phenomena' there are different connotations. Something can be called 'produced' because it is a production of delusions and the actions they induce. Again, it may also refer to a production by causes and conditions. And there is also a sense of 'produced' as being cause by conceptual thought processes.
Certain texts speak of the activities of the Buddha as permanent and non-produced in the sense that they are continuous, and that as long as there are sentient beings, the activities of the buddhas will remain without interruption. So, from the point of view of their continuity, these activities are sometimes called permanent.
In the same manner, the fundamental innate mind of clear light, in terms of its continuity, is beginningless, and also endless. This continuum will always be there, and so from that specific point of view, it is also called 'non-produced'. Besides, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is no a circumstantial or adventitious state of mind, for it does not come into being as a result of the circumstantial interaction of causes and conditions. Rather, it is an ever-abiding continuum of mind, which is inherent within us. So from that view point, it is called 'non-produced'.
However, although this is the cause, we still have to maintain that, because it possesses this continuity, the present fundamental innate mind-this present instant of consciousness-comes from its earlier moments. The same holds true of the wisdom of Buddha-the omniscient mind of Buddha-which perceives the two truths directly and simultaneously, and which is also a state of awareness or consciousness. Since it is a state of awareness, the factor which will eventually turn into that kind of wisdom, namely the fundamental innate nature of clear light, will also have to be maintained to be a state of awareness. For it is impossible for anything which is not by nature awareness to turn into a state of awareness. So from this second point of view, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is causally produced.
From Dzogchen: Heart Essence of Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
HHDL: This is a very good question. Often in texts we find mention of the fundamental innate mind of clear light being not produced by causes and conditions. Now here it is important to understand that in general when we use the term 'produced phenomena' there are different connotations. Something can be called 'produced' because it is a production of delusions and the actions they induce. Again, it may also refer to a production by causes and conditions. And there is also a sense of 'produced' as being cause by conceptual thought processes.
Certain texts speak of the activities of the Buddha as permanent and non-produced in the sense that they are continuous, and that as long as there are sentient beings, the activities of the buddhas will remain without interruption. So, from the point of view of their continuity, these activities are sometimes called permanent.
In the same manner, the fundamental innate mind of clear light, in terms of its continuity, is beginningless, and also endless. This continuum will always be there, and so from that specific point of view, it is also called 'non-produced'. Besides, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is no a circumstantial or adventitious state of mind, for it does not come into being as a result of the circumstantial interaction of causes and conditions. Rather, it is an ever-abiding continuum of mind, which is inherent within us. So from that view point, it is called 'non-produced'.
However, although this is the cause, we still have to maintain that, because it possesses this continuity, the present fundamental innate mind-this present instant of consciousness-comes from its earlier moments. The same holds true of the wisdom of Buddha-the omniscient mind of Buddha-which perceives the two truths directly and simultaneously, and which is also a state of awareness or consciousness. Since it is a state of awareness, the factor which will eventually turn into that kind of wisdom, namely the fundamental innate nature of clear light, will also have to be maintained to be a state of awareness. For it is impossible for anything which is not by nature awareness to turn into a state of awareness. So from this second point of view, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is causally produced.
From Dzogchen: Heart Essence of Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
0
Comments
Is it possible for a dog to arise from anything which is not by nature a dog?
If not so by what evidence is awareness established as composed of awareness elements? ...................................
I don't even know where to begin to answer your questions.
But I'm sure if you dig and search you'll find the answers.
It seems there are various schools of thought on various things. At first I believed what they were talking about were the same things but that was out of ignorance. Now I am trying to study what different schools of thought were pointing to.
I believe in some sense that the continuity is regarding the union of clarity and emptiness via Rigpa. But this is just my limited understanding.
Where do we speak from? Experience or philosophy? Depending on where we speak from they language and practicality of what we speak of will differ.
thanks taiyaki...
it is case not cause. sorry about the typo guys!
does it mean to say that since all our understanding is done through mind, so the mind is due to its conditioning of craving, clinging, becoming, birth, is taking rebirth - and the continuity series which Buddha had said - was this the continuity series of this mind? But this mind is also dependent of other factor of material body, so mind is inherently empty as it is devoid of inherent existence.
So is this the continuity series of mind - which itself has no inherent existence? So in a way, this Samsara and Nirvana are in our minds only? Please suggest.
For the nature of mind is clear light."
The mind = first turning of the wheel of Dharma (four noble truths)
Devoid of mind = second turning of the wheel of Dharma (wisdom sutras)
For the nature of mind is clear light = third turning of the wheel of Dharma (Highest Yoga Tantra)
I think one should understand the whole realm of the three vehicles and then see how innate clear mind applies.
Rigpa, clear light, buddha nature are all basically the same thing, though people may disagree on this statement.
I am going to use the word Rigpa because this the word I like to use. Rigpa is relaxed presence/awareness. This is mind prior to dualistic clinging. Such mind never grasps at objects to begin with. Thus in the Dzogchen tradition Rigpa is taught as the ground, path and fruition.
Because we chase after thoughts, the pure innate mind cannot be seen. When there is a gap between a thought then pure innate mind can be seen. After it is seen, it is known to be no different from a thought.
But just on that understanding/experience alone is not enough. Dependent origination, emptiness and the previous two turning of the wheel of Dharma must also be included.
So rigpa is an experience and at its best a realization that it is always already present.
So from a non dual perspective, rigpa and phenomena are not dualistic. Meaning Rigpa is the phenomena. Thus thought, smells, sensations, forms, sounds, and tastes and really anything experiencing is Rigpa itself. That is just the self-luminous aspect of Rigpa.
Now with the understanding of dependent origination/emptiness/non-self one can see that Rigpa is complete empty. Meaning one thought has no direct relationship with another thought. Thought is unfindable, unlocatable, ungraspable, disjointed. Yet thought vividly appears (self-luminous), but is complete devoid of inherent existence. Why/How? Because it is dependently originated.
So rigpa is the confidence in presence/awareness of the union of luminosity and emptiness of all phenomena. So from this point of view everything by itself is already liberated. This cuts the inherent/dualistic ignorance.
So one can assert that Rigpa is both produced and non-produced depending on what vantage point one is looking from. Experiential there is absolutely no reference point to even call Rigpa and thus we can call this traceless liberation. But conventionally appearances arise and fall and appearances are dependent on karmic projections.
So this is why we can see an object as an object, and as a cup, and as a ceramic. Fundamentally it is empty of any inherency. But since we project karma we see the white ceramic object as a cup. Yet it is empty because it is dependent on various causes/conditions. So it is holding these two point of views at hand (dualistic and non dualistic).
I am sorry if this isn't clear as it is hard to really deconstruct something that I am currently learning & practicing.
I'd like to share this:
"Now according to the Dzogchen teachings of the Nyigma school of Vajrayana, once the yogin has reached a definitive experience by analyzing the view of selflessness, and he or she is maintaining the state of rigpa as the main practice, no ordinary analysis is employed. Instead, consciousness itself simply rests. So there seems to be an extraordinary key point here, and Dodrupchen agrees.
In his commentary to his Treasury of the Dharmadhatu, Longchen Rabjam writes that the way in which things appear is proof of their essential emptiness. How does he describe this? He takes the fact that things are interdependently and infallibly at his reason, and on the basis, he arrives at his proof. And this is exactly what the Prasangika school describes as 'appearances dispelling the extreme of existence and emptiness dispelling the extreme of non-existence'. In fact, Longchen Rabjam then goes on to quote Nagarjuna to this effect. But first he says: Therefore, since appearances manifest in all their variety, they are emptiness.
The Reverberation of Sound states:
Furthermore, I shall explain the nature of dharmata: Such a nature as this cannot be determined to be any one thing, So however you label it, that is how it appears. From the basis underlying the variety of names Appear the elaborations of many terms. On account of the variety of names, in no way determinate, The underlying meaning is empty by virtue of merely being labeled. Since emptiness has never existed as anything whatsoever, The nature of things manifests as though pure.
Arya Nagarjuna says:
Since there are no phenomena
That do not occur interdependently
Therefore there are no phenomena
That are not empty."
-From Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html
"There are different understandings about unborn... Related to different realisations.
At the I AM (realization of luminosity but inherent and dualistic) and substantial nondual (nondual but inherent) level, unborn is understood in terms of an unchanging, inherent, birthless and deathless awareness. At this point, we discover ourselves as an all-pervading presence not bounded by the birth and death of this body-mind. As an analogy, you used to think you are one of the wave arising and subsiding in the ocean, but now you realize you are the whole ocean. Or you used to think you are the drop of water, until that drop of water sinks into the ocean and you can no longer find a separate identity or drop of water apart from the entire ocean. Or the outbreathe merges with the air in the environment, the air in the vase becomes inseparable from the air of the whole world when the vase breaks. These analogies should give you a sense of the 'all-pervadingness' of Pure Presence, and how 'deathlessness' is experienced when the sense of 'individuality' is overcome in the discovery of one's true identity as this all-pervading Presence. At this level of insight, the transience (the birth and death of waves on the ocean) in contrast is understood to be illusory, unlike the real, absolute unchanging awareness (the deathless oceanic Presence)... it should be understood that the lack of individual identity in the all-pervading Presence is not to be understood as the no-self of Anatta which will be explained further on.
Even though it might be understood that the unchanging awareness is inseperable from illusory, transient experiences (nonduality of subject and object). This is understanding unborn from an inherent (albeit nondual) perspective. This is also the understanding of advaita vedanta (though a common understanding among some zennists, shentongpas, etc). This is understanding things from the substantialist non-dual point of view.
Second is unborn from the perspective of anatta... Due to the insight of anatta it is seen that there is no inherent self anywhere, no subject, no substantiality to any phenomena including a superawareness of sorts... Seeing is the seen, scenery sees! Awareness is realized to simply be a label collating the various transient experiences in the same way that the word weather is a label collating the various diverse, dynamic and ungraspable manifestations like clouds, rain, lightning, wind, etc. Similarly awareness is not an unchanging essence located anywhere but is simply the self-luminous transient manifestations.
So how is this anatta linked to unborn if there is no unchanging awareness? It is the absence of a self at the center that links and persists throughout experience - walking from point A to point Z, there is no sense that there is a self unchanged throughout point A to point Z - instead, experiences are experienced as disjoint, unsupported, self-releasing and spontaneous. In other words, point A is point A complete in itself, same goes to point B, C, to Z.
Do take note that experience is effortlessly and implicitly non-dual, just a refinement of 'view' after this new found experience and realization. That is, from this implicitly and effortlessly non-dual experience and without having the need to reify and rely on a 'source', how is 'unborn' understood?
If we keep on penetrating this, it will come a time that 'boom' we suddenly realized that why is there a need to do so? Why is the relying of the Source so persistent? It is because we have relied on a wrong view despite the right experience.
Once the willingness to let go of the 'wrong dualistic and inherent view' arose, it suddenly it became clear that all along I am still unknowingly relying on 'wrong view'. For example, seeing the same 'mind' being transformed into the transience manifestation.
In actuality there is in seeing just the seen, no seer, in hearing just sounds, no hearer. How is this deathless if there is just manifestation? Just as Zen Master Dogen puts it: firewood does not turn into ashes, firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood while ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, while at the same time ash contains firewood, firewood contains ash (all is the manifestation of the interdependent universe as if the entire universe is coming together to give rise to this experience and thus all is contained in one single expression).
The similar principle applies not just to firewood and ash but to everything else: for example you do not say summer turns into autumn and autumn turns into winter - summer is summer, autumn is autumn, distinct and complete in itself yet each instance of existence time contains the past, present and future in it. So the same applies to birth and death - birth does not turn into death as birth is the phenomenal expression of birth and death is the phenomenal expression of death - they are interdependent yet disjoint, unsupported, complete. Accordingly, birth is no-birth and death is no-death... Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself. And every manifestation does not leave traces: they are disjoint, unsupported and self-releases upon inception. This wasn't dogen's exact words but I think the gist is there, you should read dogen's genjokoan which I posted in my blog.
Lastly is understanding the unborn dharma from the perspective of shunyata. This perspective should complement with the perspective of anatta for true deep experiential insight (without realization of anatta, there will still be clinging to a base, ground, somewhere).
I should say the realization of the unborn dharma (from shunyata) arose the day after you sent me this PM - the details of which can be found in the last ten to twenty pages of my ebook - new materials just added on sunday, in a new chapter called "shunyata". The realization arose spontaneously while simultaneously reading and contemplating an article from a highly experienced mahamudra practitioner/blogger, Chodpa, owner of the blog luminous emptiness.
The realization of unborn from the perspective of emptiness is the realization that everything experienced - thoughts and sensate perceptions are utterly unlocatable, ungraspable, empty. In investigation where did thought arise from, where is thought currently located, and where will thought go to, it is discovered that thoughts are indeed like a magician's trick! No source can be located, no destination can be found, and the thought is located nowhere at all - it is unfindable, ungraspable... Yet "it" magically and vividly appears! Out of nowhere, in nowhere, to nowhere, dependently originated and empty... A magical apparition appears, vividly luminously yet empty. When this is seen, there is an amazement, wonder, and great bliss arising out of direct cognition of the magic of empty luminosity. So how is this linked to unborn? It is realized that everything is literally an appearance, a display, a function, and this display is nowhere inherent or located anywhere - so like a dream, like a tv show, characters of the show may vividly appear to suffer birth and death and yet we know it is simply a show - it's undeniably there (vividly appearing) yet it's not really there. It has no actual birth, death, place of origin, place of abidance, place of destination, ground, core, substance.
However in the insight of emptiness, this is different from substantial nonduality as there is no referencing of the manifestations and appearances as being part of an unchanging awareness. Awareness is the unborn display - not the display is appearing in/as an unborn, unchanging Awareness. This is the difference between unborn understood from a nondual and noninherent view, and unborn understood from a nondual but inherent view. Even though it is realised all is mind/experience, there is no substance to mind/experience. It is not the same as the subsuming of all experiences to a "one mind" like substantial nondualism. There is also no cosmic mind (this is actually a nonbuddhist view) but individual, unique and nondual mindstreams.
Lastly if you are interested in dzogchen (oh and just wondering, are you more into mahamudra or dzogchen?) you might want to chat with loppon namdrol in dharmawheel (vajrahridaya informed me that namdrol has recently started posting in that forum, previously namdrol posted mostly in esangha before it was taken down), namdrol is very knowledgeable, has realization of emptiness and is an experienced dzogchen practitioner under chogyal namkhai norbu rinpoche. He is a loppon which means he has like a phd in buddhism, and if memory serves he was asked by a lama to teach dzogchen though he rejected it.
Finally just a note, whenever there is any mentions of permanence, it is not a permanent metaphysical essence of awareness or substance... But emptiness (the absence of inherent existence) is the permanent nature of everything.
Also, as Loppon Namdrol pointed out, Mahaparinirvana sutra and other teachings on Tathagatagarbha on permanence, self etc shld be understood in terms of Emptiness and No-self - it is simply the subversion of Hindu concepts of atman and brahman into emptiness and noself - the true essence is lack of essence. And as Lankavatara sutra points out, the teachings of true self by Buddha is not the same as non-Buddhist teachings of an all-pervasive creator and Self but is simply a skillful means to lead those who fear emptiness to the profound prajna wisdom. It (true self, tathagatagarbha, etc) is not meant to be taken literally as pointing to an inherently existing metaphysical essence. It is a teaching device.
"Both cyclic existence and nirvana
Do not inherently exist.
Just that which is knowledge of cyclic existence
Is called 'Nirvana.'"
-Nagarjuna in his Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning
This is the Mahayana position and the Fundamental school of Buddhism pretty much disagree with this assertion. So keep that in mind.
Also I found this gem:
"As is said in an oral transmission from the great lama Kyen-dzay Jam-yang-cho-gyi-lo-dro, when the great Nying-ma-ba adept Longchen-rap-jam gives a presentation of the ground, path, and fruit, he does so mainly from the perspective of the enlightened state of a buddha, whereas the Sa-gya-ba presentation is mainly from the perspective of the spiritual experience of a yogi on the path, and the Ge-luk-ba presentation is mainly from the perspective of how phenomena appear to ordinary sentient beings. This statement appears to be worthy of considerable reflection; through it, many misunderstandings can be removed." - The Dalai Lama from The Meaning of Life, p. 121.
Some more thoughts to digest. Sorry!
even i do not know who is Nagarjuna, even though i have seen his name written in many places - so you can understand how much i will be knowing about various Buddhist traditions.
i have started reading Buddha's teachings for nearly 4 to 6 months now and now i am able to little bit understand some of the teachings of Buddha.
so i was unable to understand most of what you said above, so sorry for it. How does this understanding is going to help? Please suggest. Please explain this in detail. Thanks in advance.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
on the second thing:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
I am linking you there because the writer(s) on this blog deconstruct various experiences and realizations in a very straightforward way. But it is important to really examine in meditation and in life experience what they are pointing to.
It is pretty daunting because it is a lot. I would personally start with anatta. Then eventually the rest of the views. I'm not sure what your practice is. Its best to determine where you are at and what you need to figure out.
If you have more questions, I'll answer them through PM. best of wishes.