NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by Wayfarer »

I think that the ideas of 'nature' and 'natural state' in Buddhist teaching, and how Western thinking understands 'nature', is very different.

Actually it is so different it would be very hard to explain without writing a very long essay about it, so here I will just mention some ideas.

'The natural state' in Buddhism, might refer to the state of 'natural samadhi' (sahaja samadhi)
Wikipedia wrote:Sahaja (Sanskrit: सहज, meaning "spontaneous, natural, simple, or easy") is a term of some importance in Indian spirituality, particularly in circles influenced by the tantra. Ananda Coomaraswamy describes its significance as "the last achievement of all thought", and "a recognition of the identity of spirit and matter, subject and object", continuing "There is then no sacred or profane, spiritual or sensual, but everything that lives is pure and void."
The 'natural state' as understood in Western thought is very different to that, because it is understood as being 'unspoilt by civilization' or 'of or pertaning to nature as distinct from culture.' That is a distinction that goes back to the philosopher Jean-Jaques Rousseau and then was later taken up by the Romantic movement of artists, philosophers and poets, and then by the environmental movement. Then, of course, many of the 1960's counter-culture movement that went to India and Nepal and encountered Buddhist teachings, were naturally disposed towards the idea that their romantic-environmentalist-hippie 'naturalism' really was the same thing as the 'natural state' that was spoken of in such teachings.

In actual fact they are worlds apart (even though the counter-cultural movement was naturally more open to such ideas, as they were critical of Western materialism). But 'the natural state' referred to in the OP comes from high spiritual culture, meditative insight, and transcendental philosophy. 'The natural state' in western thinking is 'living close to nature', being unspoilt by civilization, and so on. So they're from very different cultural backgrounds. They might get along OK, but I think it is worth making that distinction.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
krodha
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by krodha »

kalden yungdrung wrote:Thanks for your replies. There is no self or somebody who thinks in Dzogchen "meditation".
Right, because Dzogchen meditation proper is resting in a direct, experiential knowledge of dharmatā. And that means that the non-arising of the mind (that the so-called "self" is subsequently imputed onto) is directly cognized.

However in truth there's never been a "self" at any time, all that is ever occurring in this dance between ignorance and wisdom is the arising or cessation of afflictive causes and conditions. A "self" is something secondary that is imputed onto these afflictive causes and conditions after the fact, but the so-called self is never real, and never truly arises or ceases. This is why Samantabhadra clarifies that in Dzogpachenpo, there is only ever one basis, two paths and two results - and this is because Dzogchen is only concerned with the recognition and non-recognition of a certain principle (the basis), and the respective results that ensue from said recognition or non-recognition.

If we fail to recognize dharmatā we become caught up in ignorance [ma rig pa], and through exteriorizing and grasping at our own appearances [rang snang] we then reify them as objective phenomena. With the arising of what is misperceived as apparently objective, a subjective mind appears to form (because the act of grasping implies objects that are "grasped" and a subjective "grasper"). In this sense it is merely the presence of ignorance that acts as a cause for the arising of a subjective point of reference we call "mind" [sems] that is mistaken as a substantial entity. The so-called "self" is then simply imputed onto that seemingly subjective point of reference that is maintained by the continual habit of grasping.

And so when we cut through that ignorance and recognize the nature of (said) mind [sems nyid], the ignorance which previously acted as a catalyst for the arising of the entire charade, collapses... removing the misconception (and mistaken perception) of a substantial entity with it, thus removing the compelling feeling of being a "self". No 'self' is actually ever removed though, all that is undone is the ignorance that mistook "clarity" i.e. cognizance, as being a substantial reference point i.e., an abiding background substratum. Hence; the nature of mind's definition as non-dual clarity and emptiness.

Yet even that being the case; we would still say that kalden yungdrung recognizes the nature of his mind and "kalden yungdrung" is therefore a useful nominal title. So a conventional self is still accepted.
kalden yungdrung wrote:This self is easily scrutinized because it is illusion.
Sure it is easily scrutinized, but actually experientially cognizing its emptiness, or its nature is a different story.
kalden yungdrung wrote:In the NS there is no self but only self awareness which is causeless.
There is rig pa - which is expressed as wisdom [ye shes] when it directly knows the natural state [gnas lugs], but your rigpa is not mine and vice versa. And in that way we still conventionally impute a "self" onto those processes, even if said self is ultimately unreal.
kalden yungdrung wrote:But this self awareness is connected to the self emanating visions which are not visible like a movie for everybody
Right, those visions are visible to those who have become acquainted with one of the practices that work with the subtle expressions of lhun grub.
kalden yungdrung wrote:like is seen by so many different eyes on the "same" way.
Right, different people see the same type of display because as humans endowed with a mind, our minds - though different - all function the same in a fundamental sense.
kalden yungdrung wrote:This does mean the NS is different experienced because the Sugata-garbha is different?
The sugatagarbha is the same from person to person, like the nature of heat is the same from fire to fire, but the heat of one fire is not the heat of another fire, and the sugatagarbha of one individual is not the sugatagarbha of another individual.

And as I"m sure you know because our teachers have said, we will have different experiences related to our respective natures because we have slightly different constitutions in our body, speech and mind. For instance, we may have different elements that are more dominant in our respective conditions that will affect our experience in many ways, even in the visionary sense pertaining to what we cognize through the aforementioned practices that work with lhun grub.
kalden yungdrung wrote:The Tathagata-garbha is endless encompassing this all?
Tathāgatagarbha becomes sugatagarbha in Vajrayāna and Dzogchen, it is essentially the same principle but sugatagarbha is a bit more nuanced. According to Malcolm; (in the context of Dzogchen) the sugatagarbha is the rgyu thig le which is synonymous with the anahata bindu or mi shigs thig le in the heart, it is composed of consciousness, the five elemental vāyus and the material from one's father and mother and is the basis of the visions.
kalden yungdrung wrote:Maybe i could make use of macro and micro cosmos ? Only as an understanding for Sugata garbha and Tathagata garbha? Only meant here as example.
Tathāgatagarbha and sugatagarbha are synonymous I believe (someone correct me if I'm mistaken), the principle of tathāgatagarbha in sutra texts is just elaborated upon and re-named "sugatagarbha" in the context of tantra.
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by kalden yungdrung »

Tashi delek asunthatneversets, :)

Thanks for your elucidations.

At the moment, i am studying a text named the Namkha Truldzo and will come back today or tomorrow with useful answers / remarks, regarding Nature and Natural State.

Mutsug Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by kalden yungdrung »

quote="asunthatneversets"]
kalden yungdrung wrote:Thanks for your replies.

kalden yungdrung wrote:The Tathagata-garbha is endless encompassing this all?
[/quote]
Tathāgatagarbha becomes sugatagarbha in Vajrayāna and Dzogchen, it is essentially the same principle but sugatagarbha is a bit more nuanced. According to Malcolm; (in the context of Dzogchen) the sugatagarbha is the rgyu thig le which is synonymous with the anahata bindu or mi shigs thig le in the heart, it is composed of consciousness, the five elemental vāyus and the material from one's father and mother and is the basis of the visions.

------------------------------------------

Tashi delek asunthatneversets,

I just see here in the Namkha Truldzo that instead of Thatagata garbha we use Dharmakaya which encompasses all.
This is in Bon Tradition called : Bon sku = Dharmakaya.

So we have:
The Path where the Base of Nature is practiced. Experienced is here Clarity , emptiness and unification = 3 Kayas of the Path
- Emptiness practice = Bon sku / Dharma kaya
- If Clarity is practiced then we call that Dzog sku / Sambhoga kaya
- If different visions appear = Tul sku / Nirmana kaya.

Mutsug Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation
krodha
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by krodha »

kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek asunthatneversets,

I just see here in the Namkha Truldzo that instead of Thatagata garbha we use Dharmakaya which encompasses all.
This is in Bon Tradition called : Bon sku = Dharmakaya.
Tathāgatagarbha is a term used to convey latent and obscured dharmakāya in sentient beings. Just like the basis [gzhi] is one's nature that has not yet been recognized, once recognized the basis becomes the path [lam] and when all afflictive obscurations are dispelled, the path becomes the result [bras 'bu]. In the same way, the tathāgatagarbha is just our latent potential for omniscience, once we recognize tathāgatagarbha and completely uproot afflictive obscurations, then we actualize omniscient buddhahood as the result, which is dharmakāya.

So Bön has tathāgatagarbha too... it is just called "the basis" [gzhi]. The difference between tathāgatagarbha and dharmakāya can be explained in terms of the basis, path and result in Dzogchen, because these terms are describing the same process and principles, for instance Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche states:

  • To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears... In fact, there is no difference whatsoever between the basis and result. In the state of the basis the enlightened qualities are not acknowledged, but they are manifest at the time of the result. These are not new qualities that suddenly appear, but are like the qualities of a flower that are inherent in the seed. Within the seed are the characteristics of the flower itself. The seed holds the potential for the flower's color, smell, bud and leaves. However, can we say that the seed is the result of the flower? No, we cannot, because the flower has not fully bloomed. Like this analogy, the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear.
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by kalden yungdrung »

asunthatneversets wrote:
kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek asunthatneversets,

I just see here in the Namkha Truldzo that instead of Thatagata garbha we use Dharmakaya which encompasses all.
This is in Bon Tradition called : Bon sku = Dharmakaya.
Tathāgatagarbha is a term used to convey latent and obscured dharmakāya in sentient beings. Just like the basis [gzhi] is one's nature that has not yet been recognized, once recognized the basis becomes the path [lam] and when all afflictive obscurations are dispelled, the path becomes the result [bras 'bu]. In the same way, the tathāgatagarbha is just our latent potential for omniscience, once we recognize tathāgatagarbha and completely uproot afflictive obscurations, then we actualize omniscient buddhahood as the result, which is dharmakāya.

So Bön has tathāgatagarbha too... it is just called "the basis" [gzhi]. The difference between tathāgatagarbha and dharmakāya can be explained in terms of the basis, path and result in Dzogchen, because these terms are describing the same process and principles, for instance Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche states:

  • To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears... In fact, there is no difference whatsoever between the basis and result. In the state of the basis the enlightened qualities are not acknowledged, but they are manifest at the time of the result. These are not new qualities that suddenly appear, but are like the qualities of a flower that are inherent in the seed. Within the seed are the characteristics of the flower itself. The seed holds the potential for the flower's color, smell, bud and leaves. However, can we say that the seed is the result of the flower? No, we cannot, because the flower has not fully bloomed. Like this analogy, the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear.

Tashi delek A,


Thanks for the replies.

Well we spoke about the Nature.

The Nature is the base and encompasses everything because emptiness is here the essence.But this emptiness has more which is causeless and self emanating (Wisdom). Therefore Dharmakaya would be this emptiness as Kuntu Zangpo and Kuntu Zangmo.

For me it was important to see this emptiness as number 1 because it connects everything it is the base of everything it "is " in everything it is everything.
The so-called "personal /individual" factor was also for me important because yes there is identity.

I know this as Bodhicitta which has to be developed or not.
For Bodhicitta we know also other names. Depends upon the philosophy.

Mutsug Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: NATURE AND THE NATURAL STATE

Post by kalden yungdrung »

Tashi delek Dzogchenpa' s,

The Natural State (NS), was for me always the being or dwelling in Nature, where the lights, sounds and rays are experienced.
Both are seen by me as water which is poured into water.

"Identity" is there was also always there since beginningless time.

- But what is identity?


Mutsug Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”