Impermanence, No-Self and Suffering

I notice a slightly grim tone to this discussion as we realize for the umpteenth time that in spite of our best efforts, thought cannot capture the essence of Reality (or even agree on whether such an essence exists). So, we return to first principles and the mission of this site: this site is dedicated to helping people find the happiness that is not dependent upon conditions.

Contemplative practice works! Enlightenment really does lead to happiness. It's easy to get mired in the sticky mud of intellectual discussion and forget to look up at the sky. I love the group of people who contribute to this site and the prodigious gobs of grey matter they bring to bear in discussing these matters. Just don't forget to look up at the sky!

As your mind grinds to a halt or spins out of control in response to some thought or other, consider this remarkable fact: this experience is known. Who is the agent of that knowing? And if there is no one there, then who is aware of that?

Kenneth

Point accepted! I'll be the last person to claim prodigious amounts of anything, let alone grey matter. But what little grey matter I do have is perfectly capable getting in the way of my dharma practice. A lot

"

Hi David,
I didn't realise your analogy started from them being enlightened (trying to type out a quick post while I should be working, next time I will read it properly first before butting in) ..."

Hi Jeff,

No you didn't misread, in the example, neither Native #1 or #2 are enlightened.
If Native #1 is to a Theravada Arahant as Native #2 is to a Dzogchen Master, then Native #3 is to a ?

I thought Native #3 was mixing metaphors a bit, or applying the metaphor too literally to the situation - but then I tend to be picky about such things, being a former philosophy major. For purposes of the metaphor, the screen *is* real in a relative sense.

I suppose that's one of the failings of this metaphor. It presumes that there is a "screen" which is knowable, and that therefore the Dzogchen Master has the more complete view - which may or may not be really true.

It's hard to think of an equivalent counter-metaphor - though I think your "Native #3" was an attempt.

I think the point that you are trying to make is that from the point of view of the Theravada Arahant, any perception of a "Buddha Nature" will be comprised of some kind of sensations - which are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self *by definition*.

The argument might go something like this:
"All of the content of experience is comprised of sensations. All sensations are impermanent, not self, and unsatisfactory. The perception of Buddha nature is part of the content of experience, and is therefore comprised of sensations. The experience of Buddha Nature is therefore impermanent, not self, and unsatisfactory - and therefore cannot truly be reflective of "Buddha Nature." Buddha Nature (if it can be said to exist at all), is therefore *not* part of the content of experience, but rather an abstract philosophical concept, and cannot be experienced directly."

"
"All of the content of experience is comprised of sensations. All sensations are impermanent, not self, and unsatisfactory. The perception of Buddha nature is part of the content of experience, and is therefore comprised of sensations. The experience of Buddha Nature is therefore impermanent, not self, and unsatisfactory - and therefore cannot truly be reflective of "Buddha Nature." Buddha Nature (if it can be said to exist at all), is therefore *not* part of the content of experience, but rather an abstract philosophical concept, and cannot be experienced directly."

"

I detest making my opponent's arguments for them, but there it is.

This is the heart of the controversy really. The Dzogchen masters are claiming that there are a certain set of sensations that are neither impermanent, not self, nor unsatisfactory. They are saying Buddha Nature can be directly known - rather like the perception of the movie screen involves the perception of visual qualities - it's white, shimmery, etc.

Native #1 might say "Anything you see up there is an illusion," and conclude that if the perception of the screen is "seen" then it is also an illusion. We know, as civilized people, that there is a movie screen, even though it is perceived visually. That's my point - that it is therefore not inconceivable in this case that Buddha Nature could be directly known.

But on the other hand, we (the Dzogchen camp) could be fooling ourselves.

P.S. Thanks Kenneth, for reminding us to look at the sky!

It's not clear to me why it is so difficult for those of the Hinayana persuasion to grasp the view of the Dharamakaya, other than to conclude that they, like most of us, can't see beyond our own beliefs - come to the conversation with preconceptions, and are not truly listening.

It really is profoundly simple - that is why Kenneth has referred to it as the simplest thing. That which apprehends all possible sensations IS Buddha Mind!! It is not a thing. It is not a sensation. It is not a formation. It is not dependently arising, or in any way contingent. It does not come and go. It is not permanent nor impermanent. It is utterly empty. It is self-existent and self-shining. It is that which apprehends all of these; and the thought that "I get it", "he's wrong", and "oh, now I get it".

Your sitting there right now, aware of your first-person experience RIGHT now, correct? Well, that which apprehends your first-person experience right now IS Buddha Nature. That is YOU. However, due to fixation on sensations and their misidentification, or mis-attribution, you take yourself to be ego, or you continue to notice all possible sensations, but not that which apprehends said sensations. So you persist with a false apprehension of YOU. In the absence of Buddha Nature (1) you would not exist; and (2) you would be unconscious of your first-person experience; and any and all sensations.

[cont.]

The fact that your conscious is proof of Buddha Mind. Awakeness is NOT a formation. It is intrinsic to reality. How simple is that. That which is conscious - aware - present - awake.

Native #1, you keep missing it because it is that which apprehends all possible sensations, including those aggregate sensations you take yourself to be. Take your attention off the sensations for a moment and notice that which apprehends them! That is your fundamental nature. Proof being that in any and ALL conceivable realizations 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th path, by definition, there must be that which apprehends that realization; otherwise, you would be unconscious, and there would be NO realization!!! Buddha Mind-Dharmakaya is Empty, self-luminous cognizance itself. It is that which apprehends emptiness, phenomena, sensations, luminosity etc!!! It is the clarity or sentience of reality itself.

Would someone like to point out to me what I am missing, since I can't fathom what the difficulty is.

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for typo.

"Would someone like to point out to me what I am missing, since I can't fathom what the difficulty is." -Adam West

LOL, Adam. I got a good chuckle out of your perfectly understandable frustration.

Story:

The Mullah Nazrudin goes to the marketplace and addresses the crowd gathered there. "Do you know," he asks, "what I've come here to tell you?"

"No!" they reply, eager to hear what the sage has to say.

"Well if you don't know, we have no basis for communication," says the Mullah, and goes home.

The next day, Nasrudin returns to the market place and addresses the gathered crowd. "Do you know," he asks, "what I've come here to tell you?"

The people in the marketplace, having learned their lesson the previous day and not wishing to repeat their mistake, shout, "Yes!"

"Well, if you know," reasons Nasrudin, "there is no need for me to tell you." And he goes home.

On the third day, the Mullah Nasrudin returns to the marketplace. "Do you know," he urgently intones, "what I've come here to tell you?"

A clever man steps forward from among the throng and says, "Half of us know and half of us do not know."

"Then let those of you who know tell those of you who do not," replies the Mullah... and goes home.

Lol!! ;-P Thanks bro! Too funny!

"Would someone like to point out to me what I am missing, since I can't fathom what the difficulty is.

"

Umm... Yeah, I have a few guesses at what they're doing.

But first, let me make their argument for them again. Some would deny the reality of a "first person viewpoint." They might say that that too, is comprised of subtle sensations, as is the thought "I get it", "he's wrong," or "oh - I see now." They might say the perception of first person experience is illusory - a story, and that arises and passes along with the sense of something apprehending that or this sentence, or becoming aware of self-aware cognizance. (Now what has insight into the nature of that kind of impermanence, I have no idea ). I've read some Adavaita literature like this, where someone will ask the teacher, "Why do I have the sense that I'm a specific person with specific memories if it is as you describe?" And the teacher will answer, "I have no idea. Don't worry about that, it's an illusion," and go on to encourage a kind of hyper-Witness perspective. None of it's real, including the sense of having a perspective.

Others lump the self-cognate awareness in with the sensations, such that they can't' be separated from the sensations. Cognizance is seen as a feature of the experienced reality. The sensations can be seen as self-aware, as it were. That's why that bundle of sensations over there seems to self-organize into the perception of a chair. When they look for who is aware of that, they can't find anything... and they've already been told that there is no self, so why look further?

"

...Let's say that we define suffering in the fundamental sense as that artificial duality created by habitual misperception of seeing some sensations as Subject, in this case patterns of sensations that sometimes appear in control but sometimes don't seem to be in control, sensations that are struggling with whether or not to surrender or even how to do this, whether or not to investigate, whether or not they are enlightened, whether or not they have finished the thing up, whether or not the Tibetans or the Theravadans or Zen kids are right, in short, this sort of suffering is created by not understanding fundamental things about this pattern of sensations (and perhaps others)...

...If the sensations of Subject are understood as more sensations that are aware where they are, this is the luminosity spoken of by those who describe how this happens using terms such as primordial awareness or cognizant emptiness, use this sort of language to describe that these sensations simply present where they are. In this parlance, the primordial awareness is an aspect of phenomena, not as a separate thing.

The perfect flip side of this linguistic coin that makes the same point is when the Therevadans say things like, "In the seeing, just the seen, in the thinking, just the thought, in the hearing, just the heard, in the feeling, just the felt," etc. In which they are also saying that phenomena are just manifest where they are with out a dualistic observer or Subject in the separate sense, but the point is the same, it is just a question of which side of things they fall on descriptively.

"

Reference post #1 on this thread by Daniel.

Hi Dave!

Sounds great!

"Some would deny the reality of a "first person viewpoint."

Yes, this absolutely correct. Both Hinayana and Mahayana realization is a direct seeing through of, or the unreality of, the 'first-person viewpoint'. My reference to the first-person 'experience' is merely a teaching aid and starting point. For, undeniably, those without realization experience themselves and reality from the first-person point of view. Clearly that reality is nothing but sensations that are mis-attributed to be a stable 'self' or ego.

Even in the realized state of direct real-time cognizance of the emptiness of phenomena, this same blazing clarity exists - the clarity that apprehends the realization of the 4th path; which is what we have been pointing to time and again. Clearly stating this very same self-luminous clarity is self-existent and NON-CONTINGENT and always ever present; meaning it is not a formation arising out of sensations or phenomena, rather, it is that which apprehends them - and yet is intimately fundamental to said phenomena - not separate - not two - non-dual. For, unlike Advaita, this clarity is not primary, separate or above phenomena as some kind of ontological essence; rather, luminous emptiness is the play or co-emergence of the same pristine reality - Dharmakaya - of the same nature and inseparable.

[cont.]

So in a sense, awareness IS co-emergent with phenomena, and inseparable from it, and yet, it does not arise out of it as some secondary 'effect' - NOT a formation, or in anyway contingent upon phenomena - rather, both phenomena and intrinsic luminosity - clarity - are fundamental to Dharmakaya just as it is.

"As is the thought I get it"

Yes, exactly. All just sensations. But the point is, regardless of said sensations, and any others conceivable, there is always cognizance of these sensations - whether they be seen as empty in real time, or from the first-person perspective. And that is what I was pointing to, with the above example. Even right now, in the unenlightened state - as the first-person point of view is experienced and thought to be fundamental and foundational to reality - ego - this pristine clarity of awareness that sees these sensations is present, but does not attribute anything to them.

There is not two different cognizances - an unenlightened and enlightened cognizance. The view of phenomena is different, but the pristine, content-less awareness that apprehends the view, is the same for both. There is one cognizance, the same for everyone - just that, for one person, an attribution is made to and about perceived sensations, following from confusion, and karmic propensities of the 8th consciousness; and for the other, there is merely 'clear seeing' as it is. Indeed, it is the very same empty, pristine awareness on both accounts; however, on the former there is no 'second-order' attribution taking place, and no longer any identification with the sensations that were previously thought to be the ego.

[cont.] edited for typo.

The awareness is primary, and the attrition is secondary (though automatic, following from habit patterns yet to be dissolved) and intimately conjoined with the confusion and misapprehension arising out of the 8 consciousnesses.

"sensations can be seen as self-aware, as it were."

However, that is fundamentally false, is it not? In the same way science cannot explain where or how consciousness arises out of the neurological chemical soup of the brain, neither can cognizance or sentience be explained as an effect of phenomena or sensations. Rather, Primordial Awareness is fundamental to Dharamakaya - fundamental to reality.

It would seem, as Kenneth has said, and as you have alluded to Dave, with out consciously noticing that which apprehends real-time emptiness, a 4th pather may never notice the fundamental nature of the sentience of reality itself; presumably due to ongoing habit patterns of the 8th consciousness. However, I am skeptical that were one to continue to practice such methods as choiceless awareness, and others, one would not naturally stumble upon it sooner or later. The question is, would they necessarily notice the difference - a shift in view? A shift in realization?

[cont.] Edited for clarity.

A more charitable interpretation would be: maybe they see it anyway, but fail to recognize it as significant due to fundamental differences in language and traditional conceptual frameworks that attribute ongoing meaning to their enlightenment?

Clearly Hinayana and Mahayana adepts have a different 'view', but do they have different realizations? Or do they merely apprehend the same thing, and yet, conceptually represent and talk about it differently?

Kenneth seems to suggest not - two fundamentally different realizations. It is as though emptiness has been realized on one account, but not the luminous clarity that is fundamental to reality; and on the other, both have been attained and seen to be the playful co-emergent empty luminosity that is none other than reality itself.

On this account then, must the Hinayana realization be considered partial; and ought western egalitarian politeness be put aside, in recognition of an incomplete enlightenment?

Should the realization of luminous empty clarity be considered the fifth and final path? One that can be attained to instantly, through accidentally noticing what is here right now, stumbling upon the recitation of a Zen scripture; or through the successful pointing out by an adept?

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for clarity.

"On this account then, must the Hinayana realization be considered partial; and ought western egalitarian politeness be put aside, in recognition of an incomplete enlightenment?
Should the realization of luminous empty clarity be considered the fifth and final path?"

Hi Adam,

I want to answer your question without really answering the question! Actually I think I want to ask more questions and branch from your topic.

If there be no desire how much can be done to create it? Then you might even question whether anything should be done. In this respect I see no difference between first Enlightenment, 2nd Enlightenment and no Enlightenment. For me the flavour of desire is not staic. My experience is the seeking is not like it use to be, the intensity is similar or greater; if I put it in a nutshell it use to be about reaching the big E and now it's more like a knowing reality clearer without going anywhere. Anyway to the point, I think broadly speaking we are all guided in these things by insights and one enlightenment 1, enlightenment 2 or no enlightenment all amount to the same thing in the end because it is insight driven. Putting one enlightenment above another would be equivalent to an Enlightened being telling an unenlightened being he is Enlightened. Helpful only if he be seeking!

What causes one to say "its done" and another to give no consideration and another to be in a search. If one says "its done" would they or could they give consideration to "another Enlightenment". I think the answer to this would depend on a few factors. The paradox is, I think if these factors were fully recognised within ourselves we would probably be Enlightened (edit - suggesting there probably are some who think themselves to be enlightened having only satisfied some aspect of their ego even though maybe far along the path to true Enlightenment ).

Regards
Gary

On this account then, must the Hinayana realization be considered partial

Hi Adam,

Could it be that both Hinayana and Mahayana views are equally correct and dependent on their frame of reference and that this points to something very fundamental and profound about the nature of reality

appreciated
Jeff

"Hi Adam,

I want to answer your question without really answering the question! Actually I think I want to ask more questions and branch from your topic. blah blah blah ...

"

Please forgive my previous rant. It overlooks the value of insights and draws conclusions about Enlightenment that I know nothing about. Above all it is of absolutly no practical value.

Regards
Gary

Hey Gary!

"if I put it in a nutshell it use to be about reaching the big E and now it's more like a knowing reality clearer without going anywhere"

This is well said, and I think it is a great insight too! I suspect many of us fail to even see this, let alone a direct recognition of reality as it is, here and now.

" if I put it in a nutshell it use to be about reaching the big E and now it's more like a knowing reality clearer without going anywhere"

Yes, clearly, we mustn't confuse the two propositions: (1) reality is perfect right now, as it always has been, and will be; and (2) 'X' has an ongoing 'recognition' in real-time, of the perfect nature of reality, that I am and always was, here and now. The enlightened mind is always present, for it is nothing other than the self-luminous emptiness of the ordinary nature of mind; however, recognizing that nature is a different matter.

"What causes one to say "its done" and another to give no consideration and another to be in a search"

Presumably different degrees of insight or recognition into one's fundamentally unsatisfying experience will result in seeking; and stages of realization into the luminous emptiness and misapprehension of this suffering and reality as it really is, will result in the end to this suffering.

"If one says "its done" would they or could they give consideration to another Enlightenment"

[cont.]

It would seem, not until they recognize that deeper strata of reality, and in so doing, notice their current recognition is incomplete. Perhaps it is not a matter of strata of reality, rather, it is a matter of the conceptual frameworks ascribed to reality, falling away or being seen through, thus, a clearer recognition of what has already been realized takes place.

For reality is here right now - we go nowhere - however, indeed, we are blinded by what we think we know, and how we unconsciously represent, and relate to it. The prism of distorted human awareness is what we must see through, not so much reality itself. Of course there is a subtlety here involving philosophy of science concerning the debates of positivism, interpretivism and critical realism, which I have previously mentioned in another thread; and which David has alluded to also on the social constructionist thread (which is interpretivism). It is both an epistemological and ontological question of what exactly reality is, and how to know it.

"Please forgive my previous rant ... Above all it is of absolutly no practical value. "

Please forgive me if I disagree with you, Garry. I thought it was most thoughtful and stimulating. Your rants seem just as "ranty" as mine and David's! ;-P

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi Jeff!

"Could it be that both Hinayana and Mahayana views are equally correct and dependent on their frame of reference and that this points to something very fundamental and profound about the nature of reality?"

Most definitely! That would be the charitable interpretation; and one that I took Dan to be presenting in his first post - same realizations; however, different representations and language.

The question is, does Dan live in Rigpa, since having completed 4th path, but just does not feel the need to call it that or frame his enlightenment from that perspective?

Kenneth has said that he can move in and out of Rigpa as a matter of being momentarily distracted (which is standard Dzogchen theory) - lost in identification with the play of phenomena, even though they continue to be seen as empty, presumably - and then he simply notices distraction, and shifts back again. Does this imply being in Rigpa is different for him than the completion of 4th path? Can Dan be distracted and fail to notice '4th path realization' in real time, and then notice this, and be instantly in recognition of reality as it is - is this the same thing?

There has been much discussion about the experiential feel of Rigpa - the spacious, open, clarity of ease, perfection and fundamental completeness of reality, as apprehended in real time. On the face of it, this seems different to the Hinayana view, and Dan's experience of enlightenment. So, it is looking like they're two different apprehensions of reality as it is.

Kenneth???

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi Adam,

Yes, I continue to maintain that the 4th Path attainment and rigpa are two distinct phenomena. Chris made a concise but compelling case in post 58 that Daniel is using the word rigpa in a way that is not consistent with definition given by others.

By my definition, someone who lives continuous rigpa is a buddha, an attainment that Daniel, to his credit, has never claimed. Such a person would be an entirely perfected human being, "never straying into dualistic thought," as is said of Samantabhadra, the Primordial Buddha of the Dharmakaya. I doubt there has ever been such a person (which is why the Tibetans bothered to invent such a mythological creature and annoint him as foremost of all the buddhas). So, we can establish a continuum with Samantabhadra on one end and someone who has never realized rigpa for even an instant on the other. Every possible human (or god) fits somewhere on this scale. What is the relationship of the 4th Path attainment to this scale? There is no relationship. 4th Path does not confer Realization of buddha nature. 4th Path is a developmental marker in a quasi-physiological process, i.e., a process of accessing and developing energy channels and nexuses. I believe there is abundant evidence for arahats (by my defintion) who have never realized and/or do not recognize the significance of rigpa.

Tulku Urgyen in his book *Rainbow Painting* writes: "Each of [the first 8 vehicles (not including Dzogchen)] from the very beginning feels that it is putting the genuine, authentic view into practice, and not a false one. But when viewed from the vehicle above, it appears that the view of the vehicle below is incomplete..."

It seems to me that without the 4th Path attainment we cannot reach our potential with regard to stabilizing rigpa. So, these two distinct phenomena go together like bread and butter. But both are required, and one does not automatically grant the other.

Wonderful reply, Kenneth! I find intuitive truth in it - without reservation. Gota say, as aside from intuitive resonance, I do love a nice neat model!!

Thanks mate!

Would be interesting to hear what Dan would say in response. I hope he pops back in.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"
"Some would deny the reality of a "first person viewpoint."

Yes, this absolutely correct. Both Hinayana and Mahayana realization is a direct seeing through of, or the unreality of, the 'first-person viewpoint'. My reference to the first-person 'experience' is merely a teaching aid and starting point. For, undeniably, those without realization experience themselves and reality from the first-person point of view. Clearly that reality is nothing but sensations that are mis-attributed to be a stable 'self' or ego. "

Hi Adam,

I was a little bit confused by this paragraph, and I felt that I should go ahead and ask...

How *does* an enlightened person experience the Nirmanakaya?

From my own point of view, I've long dispensed of the notion that there is a separate "I" that is some sort of real entity that is both separate, permanent, and controlling the experience. Most of the time there is a kind of merging of subject and object - though some polarization is still present in varying degrees (for this writer). The sense of linear time is more or less seen through. If anything I'm a process...

On the other hand, the general sense that most of the experience seems to involve a particular body, and most people seem to believe that there is a particular person named David attached to that body - all that is definitely central to the plot. There is certainly the sense that what "I" am is something that transcends all possible content of experience -
and yet this embodied experience continues - in what sense is that "first person viewpoint" seen through?
How does Rigpa lead to that insight?

David

Hey Dave!

"in what sense is that "first person viewpoint" seen through?"

Yep, I mean exactly as you have described it; that is, what you have described is the result of the seeing through or 'cutting through', more traditionally - though there is an ebb and flow across a continuum, as you have alluded to, until I assume, stable Buddhahood has been fully realized. That was a great description, by the way. Thanks!

More particularly, the quoted phrase refers to no longer seeing or experiencing oneself as a stable independent 'subject', separate from, and subjected to, a mind independent reality out there - a breaking down of the 'clear' boundaries of the subject-object dichotomy. Rigpa seems to be an opening up of a spacious, pristine clarity of non-local cognizance that directly apprehends the empty and luminous process of phenomena in real-time; or rather, in a timeless present.

Speaking of which, I wonder as a thought experiment, if you were a strong atheist, rejecting all spiritual traditions and phenomena as psycho-social constructions, as a practicing psychiatrist, would you consider the above described person mentally ill, considering their presentation of depersonalization and de-realism? I suppose it would be on a continuum - and whether or not clinically significant distress, disturbance and impaired function was also present?

Thanks mate!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Speaking of which, I wonder as a thought experiment, if you were a strong atheist, rejecting all spiritual traditions and phenomena as psycho-social constructions, as a practicing psychiatrist, would you consider the above described person mentally ill, considering their presentation of depersonalization and de-realism? I suppose it would be on a continuum - and whether or not clinically significant distress, disturbance and impaired function was also present?
."

Hi Adam,

With rigpa the first person viewpoint is not lost in the sense it is not understood. I describe rigpa as an experience where there is no self referencing. Without self there is no other, however, all objects are still known relative to another as an appearence including this body/mind. To external appearence functioning remains the same, although I am intuitivly understanding the meaning of depersonalisation and de-realism. I would think it would be differcult to externally detect, although I don't know the methods that could be employed. Have you an example of how you think this might be detected?

Regards
Gary