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.