Ego-less Mind

[username]

Hi KY,
Up to your comment on space, the comments are mostly and basically on non-duality. Of course there is 'apparent' duality in marigpa illusory subjective POV of unenlightened beings. That is why I gave so many examples like looking at a cup from different angles etc.. Ultimately, in the true way things are, there is no duality. different levels, subsets and concurrent, sharing the same space non-dual. And the space example was regarding the way non-duality of rigpa/marigpa is all concurrent as well as the way tri-kayas are inseparable too. Not what you talk about as I wasn't talking about those. So to answer your question, both occur, dualism of subjective marigpa in it's reduced dimensions and the non-duality of everything. However everything is inherently non-existent and the marigpa dualistic view is worse, a trick of a magician, completely false. And it gets worse as it causes near infinite suffering. So I was on topic as all those examples were for dualism vs. non-dualism and the 3 (or 4 or 5) kayas as one as it is very clear.


On the list of your practices, I think it is very good for you, in fact perfect. I would say try one method at a time. Check for results and if something seems to happen check with your gurus. If after a while one method is not working then try another for quite some time. I wouldn't move on from that list before you confirm results of their fruits with your gurus.

On the other point, yes when the ultimate knowledge (rigpa) of true reality self arises (rangjung yeshe not other lower forms of yeshes) in case of a practitioner, non-duality dawns like the first rays of the sun in the early morning sky.

You then again say there is marigpa separate self or ego. Of course it is as I said before and in the first paragraph above, in its false dimension and ultimately false. Though it causes suffering for all beings. These are basics and no need to repeat them in case people think you mean they are inherently existing.

As to rigpa encompassing thoughts. When I explained so carefully that dharmakaya encompasses lower two kayas inseparably, like subsets and actually more as they are the same, then no need again to repeat the given elements and axioms on which the deduction was made. ie: when I say everything including the cosmos and all sentient beings, then 'everything' includes thoughts too. And emotions and habitual tendencies. Next: Samye debate (Hashang) was not exactly zen (then northern school or southern school chaan). There is a debate as to excatly what his position/tradition was and there is scholarly progress being made. Next: And thoughts not only do not necessarily obstruct being in the state of rigpa of kadak/lhundrub but actually if used with trekcho methods and grols and other methods help us achive the NS. Again basics that need not stating. I proved that emptiness alone without clarity (or other methods etc.) is misleading and a pitfall that wastes a precious life or sends you into space frozen for eons.

On your last point I did not dismiss the first part. I just elaborated on the second part. As I said in dharmakaya all is included, including deluded beings' POV and subjective karmic dimensions.

Now I like to open a second category on some suggestions to you. I think you ask questions to initiate debate and that is good. But can I ask you not to mention methods and practices which have samaya in either Bon or TB. Also if either tradition forbids disclosure in a method's case then we should respect it. The same regarding the view and any teachings on thogal. You have not done it as far as I can see. Secondly I think it is best if for discussion on a thread the subject remains focused. For another subject you can open another thread. This way you get deep into discussions and get more results in a focused way. Also if people diverge, as OP you can bring it back on-topic.

Now a third category for slight criticism. I think you interconnect too many diverse concepts. For example in Dzogchen one talks of base path and fruit. Or in a subset, of sound light and rays. Or contrasting semde longde and mengagde. Or dbang rolpa and tsal. We should not take one from each list and link them together like making a topping for a pizza unless referencing a valid teacher's teaching. They all have their tradtional way of being taught. Slowly from the ground up and within proven systems. If there is interlinking, then it should be referenced by a teaching of a master. That is how results are achieved. By mixing things up haphazardly, only a chaotic mind results and one has to stop all and go back to shiney. I am not saying this is the case for you, but some people who are not advanced and reading here can be confused. Secondly Dzogchen is not a debate. Like Madhyamika vs. Yogacara etc. I think some of the westerners writing books on Dzogchen do not have realization, others obviously do though we can never be sure in either case. They are scholars but we can not just list topics and worse go on to debate them. Dzogchen is essentially an experiential process within a lineage under a master. And the NS is self discovered by those experiences on the path. Again I am not saying you are doing that but from some responses people do engage you in that way and as OP and responder the responsibilty becomes partly yours. Anyway don't take these criticisms seriously as I am probably wrong, just a couple of thoughts. I also think asking a realized being such as H.H. Lopon Namdak on Lhundrub might be a great opportunity if you ever get the chance as well as clarifying your experiences with him and asking for advice.
All the best.

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek Username,

Thanks a lot for your replies.

I understood your way of thinking and agree to most points. Will later on respond to some things you did wrote.

But also to you nevertheless your done replies would i ask, if you could make a choice between the 3 possibilities : one, two or none of the above mentioned 2 Visions.

Untill now did nobody made a choice between the possibilities and could motivate that, and that was here the final meaning, yes.



For the good order, the question was:

1) - The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.


2) - Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.


Best wishes
KY

[username]

Hi KY,
To me ego-less mind is a fully enlightened deity or buddha or at least someone on very high bhumis and so my reply is both though on different levels and conditions, eg: a deity's apparent specialized functioning identity being on the lower concurrent level of arising active manifestation though like all of cosmos inherently non existent:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 585#p47076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
all the best.

[kalden yungdrung]

Hi KY,
To me ego-less mind is a fully enlightened deity or buddha or at least someone on very high bhumis and so my reply is both though on different levels and conditions, eg: a deity's apparent specialized functioning identity being on the lower concurrent level of arising active manifestation though like all of cosmos inherently non existent:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 585#p47076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
all the best.

Tashi delek Username,

Thanks for your reply.

That's it, just an opinion from you and that is always respected.
If it would be in line or not etc. does not the matter here, asked was to make a choice and to be able to motivate that done choice.



Thanks for your effort and attention

Best wishes with our personal practice

Mutsog Marro
KY

[username]

Hi KY,
To me ego-less mind is a fully enlightened deity or buddha or at least someone on very high bhumis and so my reply is both though on different levels and conditions, eg: a deity's apparent specialized functioning identity being on the lower concurrent level of arising active manifestation though like all of cosmos inherently non existent:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 585#p47076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
all the best.

Tashi delek Username,

Thanks for your reply.

That's it, just an opinion from you and that is always respected.
If it would be in line or not etc. does not the matter here, asked was to make a choice and to be able to motivate that done choice.



Thanks for your effort and attention

Best wishes with our personal practice

Mutsog Marro
KY

Thanks KY, Also if a practitioner achieves the state of being in the perfect rigpa of primordial state then even if she is not in the 4th vision and much lower just as an ordinary practitioner then for those few moments of achieving dharmakaya, her mind is also ego-less and equal to the buddhas' while also successfully integrating causal-temporal ordinary mind/body/world. Just repeating basics. As the buddha said, if one achieves the perfect state of contemplation in the time it takes an ant to cross the forehead from the eyebrows to the hairline, then that is more precious than a life of practice and merit accumulation. Few moments of ego-less-ness!
Best.

[Sönam]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

Egoless Mind has an identity ... Perfect Buddha's mind is egoless.
Rigpa is with no concept ... but a self can be revealed.

what is the trick ?
Sönam

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek,

Some great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the point of view that:

- The egoless Mind has an identity.
The Dalai Lama does fully agree to this point of view.

- Other great Dzogchen Masters adhere to the position that the Rigpa does not have a concept of self.

What do you think?


Best wishes
KY

Egoless Mind has an identity ... Perfect Buddha's mind is egoless.
Rigpa is with no concept ... but a self can be revealed.

what is the trick ?
Sönam

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your reply.

There is no trick inside this thread, am not David Copperfield

The question was:
To make a choice between the 2 views. You could prefer 1 , both or none of the above mentioned examples.
Further would it be nice that you could briefly motivate / elucidate / explain, your chosen point of view, if possible of course.

Best wishes
KY

[Sönam]

If the question is preference ... I've no real answer, therefore sorry to have interfered.

Sönam