Clarity

User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by Queequeg »

davyji wrote:Hey Queequeq

cetasika adhimokkha?

Is this samadhi without seed? Clarity from this viewpoint?

dave
To be completely honest, I only have a vague idea as to what adhimokkha means (also Skt. adhimukti). I have done a good deal of research on it, and frankly, I have not found any source that has been particularly helpful. Seems most people only have a vague idea about it.

Its an indeterminate cetasika - as best I can gather, its the moment a phenomena appears, but before any understanding arises. In Poussin's translation of Abhidharmakosaabsayam, there's a footnote that describes it as "approbation" of an object. Another way to describe it is the most rudimentary recognition of a dharma, but even recognition might imply too much mental activity.

From the descriptions of clarity, it seems there may be some overlap...

What do you mean by samadhi without seed?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by Queequeg »

Thank you, Anjali. I'm going to take that reference in.

***

Here is an attempt at a restatement in the terms I use to talk to myself, which hopefully will make sense to others...

In the subject-object dynamic, clarity is the quality that distinguishes the subject from the object at the point of contact; notwithstanding the indivisibility of subject and object.

Is this the right track?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Clarity

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: To be completely honest, I only have a vague idea as to what adhimokkha means (also Skt. adhimukti). ?
It primarily means inclination, interest.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by Queequeg »

Hm. I think I've been confused by an alternate meaning of "decision" or "determination"... On reviewing my notes, I take back my comments on Adhimokkha/Adhimukti above.

Sorry for the confusion.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by anjali »

Queequeg wrote:Thank you, Anjali. I'm going to take that reference in.
If you've never tried to wad through something Berzin has written, be warned--it's tough slogging.Initially you might want to just scan through the link and do a "find" on all the stuff related to clarity and appearances.
Queequeg wrote:Here is an attempt at a restatement in the terms I use to talk to myself, which hopefully will make sense to others...

In the subject-object dynamic, clarity is the quality that distinguishes the subject from the object at the point of contact; notwithstanding the indivisibility of subject and object.

Is this the right track?
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. I would have thought that the "distinguishing" function is more of a prajna thing? Others can correct me if this is not right.
Image
User avatar
Thomas Amundsen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Helena, MT
Contact:

Re: Clarity

Post by Thomas Amundsen »

Malcolm wrote:
tomamundsen wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Tony Duff maintains many things...
Well I didn't mean to say that in order to pit him against you and argue over who's right and wrong. I'm more curious about why exactly it would not be understood as an abbreviation in that usage? He has an explanation of what gsal ba means as an adjective/adverb: "To be evident to the senses. Although this could be taken as "clear", the term is used in the sense of "obvious", "evident", "distinct", and hence clear to the senses." Which seems to line up with your explanation.

I guess this distinction is more relevant when you're look at an actual instance when translating a text... Maybe not as helpful when just trying to understand the word.
The sanskrit term underlying gsal ba is vivṛta (and a few other terms that mean the same thing). For example, in one commentary on Hevajra, we find གསལ་བ་ནི་མངོན་པའོ, i.e., "clear" means "evident." A long commentary on Abhidharma states,"Clear means fully knowing, but unclear means it is not clear."

Your mind is empty, because it cannot be established, but it is "clear" because it is distinct.
Thank you, loppon :namaste:
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by Queequeg »

Started the slogging... LOL So far, not so bad...

The "distinguishing" is not in the subject-object dynamic, but rather, the distinguishing is in identifying "clarity" as a quality distinguishing subject from object... we, in considering the meaning of "clarity" are making a distinction. In clarity, as I can see, there is not distinguishing.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Thomas Amundsen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Helena, MT
Contact:

Re: Clarity

Post by Thomas Amundsen »

Queequeg wrote:Started the slogging... LOL So far, not so bad...

The "distinguishing" is not in the subject-object dynamic, but rather, the distinguishing is in identifying "clarity" as a quality distinguishing subject from object... we, in considering the meaning of "clarity" are making a distinction. In clarity, as I can see, there is not distinguishing.
Hmmm. I would suspect that there is distinguishing, but not in the every-day thinking-mind sense. More like the wisdom of discernment (so sor rtog pa'i ye shes, pratyavekṣanājñāna) in the five wisdoms scheme. No? How does clarity relate to wisdom/jñāna?
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by anjali »

Queequeg wrote:The "distinguishing" is not in the subject-object dynamic, but rather, the distinguishing is in identifying "clarity" as a quality distinguishing subject from object... we, in considering the meaning of "clarity" are making a distinction. In clarity, as I can see, there is not distinguishing.
LOL. I misinterpreted "the quality that distinguishes" as "the quality (of the mind) that makes distinctions"! Carry on, nothing to see here...;)
Image
User avatar
Thomas Amundsen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Helena, MT
Contact:

Re: Clarity

Post by Thomas Amundsen »

anjali wrote:
Queequeg wrote:The "distinguishing" is not in the subject-object dynamic, but rather, the distinguishing is in identifying "clarity" as a quality distinguishing subject from object... we, in considering the meaning of "clarity" are making a distinction. In clarity, as I can see, there is not distinguishing.
LOL. I misinterpreted "the quality that distinguishes" as "the quality (of the mind) that makes distinctions"! Carry on, nothing to see here...;)
Oops, did I just do that too? :oops:
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Clarity

Post by Queequeg »

Now that we have some clari... oh, forget it.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
amanitamusc
Posts: 2124
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: Clarity

Post by amanitamusc »

ChNN explains it best, Kadak and Lhundrup non dual is Dzogchen..Recognizing this through experiences ,clarity being one of the 3,is Rigpa.

Not Recognized it is Marigpa.

Crystal and the way light would explain it much more skillfully than I can.
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”