Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post Reply
zenman
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:24 pm

Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by zenman » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:59 am

Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen. One of the things he says is that the empty awareness or knowing (yeshe) is always separate from thoughts (namshe). This is dualism afaik. What about the the empty nature of thoughts? After that realization both the knowing awareness and whatever mind content are nondual. I would appreciate clarification on this. Thank you.

User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by kalden yungdrung » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:36 pm

zenman wrote:Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen.
One of the things he says is that the empty awareness or knowing (yeshe) is always separate from thoughts (namshe).
The Awareness, experienced in the Natural State , is always experienced without thoughts. If one has a thought, and follows the thought, then one is out
of that Awareness experienced in the Natural State. A thought has an empty Nature and can be dissolved back into Nature. Nature is non-dual, but thoughts are dual and have an object as well subject. So following the thoughts are freezing the objects as well founding a subject, whereas the thoughts have an empty Nature as well the objects.

Out of the Nature comes everything without a knowing of good or bad. It originates from Nature (emptiness), stays and dissolves back into emptiness.
That is the normal procedure of the causeless Nature with her forms, lights, sounds etc.





This is dualism afaik. What about the the empty nature of thoughts? After that realization both the knowing awareness and whatever mind content are nondual. I would appreciate clarification on this. Thank you.

Awareness experienced in the Natural State is non dual if thoughts are not followed. They can come up, natural but if not followed then they dissolve into Nature. That is the non-dual State, without creating by thoughts an objest and subject.
The best meditation is no meditation

User avatar
Paul
Posts: 1726
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by Paul » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:57 pm

zenman wrote:Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen. One of the things he says is that the empty awareness or knowing (yeshe) is always separate from thoughts (namshe). This is dualism afaik. What about the the empty nature of thoughts? After that realization both the knowing awareness and whatever mind content are nondual. I would appreciate clarification on this. Thank you.
Jackson Peterson by any chance? Whoever it is be very careful who you accept as a teacher.
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell

User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by kalden yungdrung » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:05 pm

Paul wrote:
zenman wrote:Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen. One of the things he says is that the empty awareness or knowing (yeshe) is always separate from thoughts (namshe). This is dualism afaik. What about the the empty nature of thoughts? After that realization both the knowing awareness and whatever mind content are nondual. I would appreciate clarification on this. Thank you.
Jackson Peterson by any chance? Whoever it is be very careful who you accept as a teacher.

Yes if it is really him , Jax (Jack Peterson then watch out. :shock:
He did live in many places like London, Vienna and is searching for adherents.
What i know from him that he is a one man show without background (Lineage and authorisation).
He mixes also some teachings together at wish. A clever person and i would classify him as a new agie
The best meditation is no meditation

florin
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by florin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:05 pm

zenman wrote:Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen. One of the things he says is that the empty awareness or knowing (yeshe) is always separate from thoughts (namshe). This is dualism afaik. What about the the empty nature of thoughts? After that realization both the knowing awareness and whatever mind content are nondual. I would appreciate clarification on this. Thank you.
The "content" together with knowing is always in a condition of primordial indivisibility.
There was never a moment when they were separate and now they are nondual.
However the experience of an ordinary individual is mostly dual due to non-recognition of this fact that they are primordially in a condition of indivisibility.

zenman
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by zenman » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:57 pm

alpha wrote:
The "content" together with knowing is always in a condition of primordial indivisibility.
There was never a moment when they were separate and now they are nondual.
However the experience of an ordinary individual is mostly dual due to non-recognition of this fact that they are primordially in a condition of indivisibility.[/quote]

This seems right. How can there be thoughts coming out of Nature/emptiness and dissolving into it again because it is all the same emptiness? That is the issue that I want to understand in the light of dzogchen. This nonduality of thought and thoughtless state is what I think is meant by non-thought. To say that thoughtless awareness is always wisdom and thoughts are always ignorance is a silly idea, completely mis-understood if you ask me. That is not the meaning of non-thought.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by DGA » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:32 pm

zenman wrote: How can there be thoughts coming out of Nature/emptiness and dissolving into it again because it is all the same emptiness? That is the issue that I want to understand in the light of dzogchen. This nonduality of thought and thoughtless state is what I think is meant by non-thought. To say that thoughtless awareness is always wisdom and thoughts are always ignorance is a silly idea, completely mis-understood if you ask me. That is not the meaning of non-thought.
Good question. At the conceptual level, you'll need to get a handle on the concept of rigpa. At the practical level, you'll need to find a teacher.

An authentic one, I mean.

zenman
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by zenman » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:14 pm

I wonder how can anyone with a long study of the field, acting as a teacher, whether authentic or not, be so confused about a basic matter such as this...

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by DGA » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:31 pm

zenman wrote:I wonder how can anyone with a long study of the field, acting as a teacher, whether authentic or not, be so confused about a basic matter such as this...
You've answered your own question. An authentic practitioner isn't confused about this.

Someone who is confused about this, and has been confused about it for a long time, and has trotted his confusion out as though it's a pedigree in the public square, is rather clearly not an authentic teacher.

Malcolm
Posts: 30164
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:59 pm

DGA wrote:
zenman wrote:I wonder how can anyone with a long study of the field, acting as a teacher, whether authentic or not, be so confused about a basic matter such as this...
You've answered your own question. An authentic practitioner isn't confused about this.

Someone who is confused about this, and has been confused about it for a long time, and has trotted his confusion out as though it's a pedigree in the public square, is rather clearly not an authentic teacher.

The problem here is mostly around definitions.

What is meant by "mind"? What is meant by "awareness?" What is meant by "wisdom."

One can certainly find many Dzogchen texts that assert mind and wisdom are mutually exclusive. For example, one of the texts in the Pellucid Transcendent State of Samantabhadra cycle declares:
  • The general dharma systems assert buddhahood for the mind. The system of the Pellucid Transcendent State of the Great Perfection does not assert buddhahood in the mind. The mind is the basis of accumulating various traces. Buddhahood is self-originate pristine consciousness [rang byung ye shes] that is free from thought. There is no place for traces to accumulate in the pristine consciousness that is free from thought.
It then cites a text called Molten Silver:
  • Observe the mind with the mind, there isn’t anything to see;
    likewise, even though the nature of the mind is understood to be empty, this is not buddhahood;
    that removes afflictions, but does not increase wisdom.
    Hoping for buddhahood in the mind is like a feather being carried by the wind.
It finally distinguishes that mind and pristine consciousness [ye shes] have different results:
  • The results are not the same: the mind is mounted on the vāyu, and the mental concepts of the merged vāyu and mind move wildly. An undercurrent of concepts arise, accumulating as an undercurrent of traces. The present cause of birth in samsara is always engaging in the dualism of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject through combining both mind and the breath. Since one possesses a mind of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject, concepts arise in the mind. Since various concepts proliferate, temporary concepts arose. Since the five poisonous afflictions arose in the mind, they increased to eighty-four thousand. Since concepts proliferate in the mind, in every instant of time, one hundred concepts arise and on hundred cease. Therefore, the wheel of suffering is uninterrupted. The result is the ripening of the three lower realms.

    Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning, is without breath, is pellucid, free from the mind, limpidly clear, non-conceptual and completely blissful. Since it is without arising and ceasing, it does not move. Clear in uniformity, unchanging and uninterrupted, clarity and non-conceptuality, bliss and emptiness are the same. The result is self-appearing perfect buddhahood.
So, one needs to be careful.

zenman
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by zenman » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:05 pm

Excellent quotes! Thank you all for clarification.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by DGA » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:25 pm

Malcolm wrote:
DGA wrote:
zenman wrote:I wonder how can anyone with a long study of the field, acting as a teacher, whether authentic or not, be so confused about a basic matter such as this...
You've answered your own question. An authentic practitioner isn't confused about this.

Someone who is confused about this, and has been confused about it for a long time, and has trotted his confusion out as though it's a pedigree in the public square, is rather clearly not an authentic teacher.

The problem here is mostly around definitions.

What is meant by "mind"? What is meant by "awareness?" What is meant by "wisdom."

One can certainly find many Dzogchen texts that assert mind and wisdom are mutually exclusive. For example, one of the texts in the Pellucid Transcendent State of Samantabhadra cycle declares:
  • The general dharma systems assert buddhahood for the mind. The system of the Pellucid Transcendent State of the Great Perfection does not assert buddhahood in the mind. The mind is the basis of accumulating various traces. Buddhahood is self-originate pristine consciousness [rang byung ye shes] that is free from thought. There is no place for traces to accumulate in the pristine consciousness that is free from thought.
It then cites a text called Molten Silver:
  • Observe the mind with the mind, there isn’t anything to see;
    likewise, even though the nature of the mind is understood to be empty, this is not buddhahood;
    that removes afflictions, but does not increase wisdom.
    Hoping for buddhahood in the mind is like a feather being carried by the wind.
It finally distinguishes that mind and pristine consciousness [ye shes] have different results:
  • The results are not the same: the mind is mounted on the vāyu, and the mental concepts of the merged vāyu and mind move wildly. An undercurrent of concepts arise, accumulating as an undercurrent of traces. The present cause of birth in samsara is always engaging in the dualism of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject through combining both mind and the breath. Since one possesses a mind of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject, concepts arise in the mind. Since various concepts proliferate, temporary concepts arose. Since the five poisonous afflictions arose in the mind, they increased to eighty-four thousand. Since concepts proliferate in the mind, in every instant of time, one hundred concepts arise and on hundred cease. Therefore, the wheel of suffering is uninterrupted. The result is the ripening of the three lower realms.

    Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning, is without breath, is pellucid, free from the mind, limpidly clear, non-conceptual and completely blissful. Since it is without arising and ceasing, it does not move. Clear in uniformity, unchanging and uninterrupted, clarity and non-conceptuality, bliss and emptiness are the same. The result is self-appearing perfect buddhahood.
So, one needs to be careful.
Thank you for this.

I'd thought zenman had asked a somewhat different question, hence my response.

Malcolm
Posts: 30164
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:47 pm

DGA wrote: Thank you for this.

I'd thought zenman had asked a somewhat different question, hence my response.
One has to very precise, because different Dzogchen texts say different things depending on context.

The problem is that some people attempt to explain Dzogchen without understanding the principle of different texts and series, and so make a sort of stew of things.

Another problem is the modern intellectual fad of considering the bodhicitta texts such as five earlier lungs translated by Vairocana to be the "authentic original" or "radical" Dzogchen.

As you said, it is better to find an authentic master such as ChNN, Loppon Tenzin Namdag, etc.

User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by kalden yungdrung » Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:58 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning, is without breath, is pellucid, free from the mind, limpidly clear, non-conceptual and completely blissful. Since it is without arising and ceasing, it does not move. Clear in uniformity, unchanging and uninterrupted, clarity and non-conceptuality, bliss and emptiness are the same. The result is self-appearing perfect buddhahood.
Tashi delek M,

- Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning.
Could you explain that maybe ?

_ Free from the Mind.
Could you also explain this ?

- The result is self-appearing perfect Buddhahood.
Could you also explain this ?


Thanks.


Mutsug Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation

Malcolm
Posts: 30164
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:29 pm

kalden yungdrung wrote:
- Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning.
Could you explain that maybe ?
It is something you need to discover within you, since it does not come from some other place.
_ Free from the Mind.
Could you also explain this ?
The mind is connected with the flow of winds or vāyu, rlung in the body. Yeshe, wisdom, pristine consciousness, is free from such movements.
The result is self-appearing perfect Buddhahood.
Buddhahood cannot be made to appear from causes and conditions, it only arises when one's own real state is understood.


M

User avatar
kalden yungdrung
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by kalden yungdrung » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:56 pm

Malcolm wrote:
kalden yungdrung wrote:
- Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning.
Could you explain that maybe ?
It is something you need to discover within you, since it does not come from some other place.
_ Free from the Mind.
Could you also explain this ?
The mind is connected with the flow of winds or vāyu, rlung in the body. Yeshe, wisdom, pristine consciousness, is free from such movements.
The result is self-appearing perfect Buddhahood.
Buddhahood cannot be made to appear from causes and conditions, it only arises when one's own real state is understood.


M
Tashi delek M,


Thanks for your effort.

Have some difficulties to understand her Pristine Consciousness.
Thought that Wisdom self emanating is and so i don't see a relation with Consciousness.
- Could you maybe translate this Pristine Consciousness in Tibetan / Sanskrit?

- It does not come from other places will that mean that here is spoken of a certain Self ?
_ What do you think about this Self, which would not be a copy, has no beginning ?

The mind is connected with the flow of winds or vāyu, rlung in the body.
- Do you make use of two Minds in this explanation?

Yeshe, wisdom, pristine consciousness, is free from such movements.
- So Dzogchen would be obtainable without Tantra ( movements , winds, yoga etc.) ?


Mutsug Marro
KY
The best meditation is no meditation

Malcolm
Posts: 30164
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:26 pm

kalden yungdrung wrote: Have some difficulties to understand her Pristine Consciousness.
Thought that Wisdom self emanating is and so i don't see a relation with Consciousness.
- Could you maybe translate this Pristine Consciousness in Tibetan / Sanskrit?
ye shes = pristine [ye] consciousness [shes].

Wisdom, in English, does not really accurately translate ye shes. In English, wisdom means sagacity, intelligence, sense, common sense, shrewdness, astuteness, smartness, judiciousness, judgment, prudence, circumspection; logic, rationale, rationality, soundness, advisability. ANTONYMS folly, stupidity. as well as knowledge, learning, erudition, sophistication, scholarship, philosophy; lore.

Consciousness means the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings, the awareness or perception of something by a person; the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world: consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

Now, there is in English no word that genuinely captures the sense of the term ye shes. And the sense of ye shes has gone beyond the Sanskrit term jñāna, at least in Dzogchen texts.

Ye shes is not inert, it is conscious; but it is not a conceptual or dualistic consciousness, it is therefore pristine.

- It does not come from other places will that mean that here is spoken of a certain Self ?


_ What do you think about this Self, which would not be a copy, has no beginning ?
The term rang byung ye shes, self-originated pristine consciousness, is noncontroversial. It is not a self, ala Hinduism.
The mind is connected with the flow of winds or vāyu, rlung in the body.
- Do you make use of two Minds in this explanation?
No, there is sems and ye shes.
Yeshe, wisdom, pristine consciousness, is free from such movements.
- So Dzogchen would be obtainable without Tantra ( movements , winds, yoga etc.) ?
Depends on what you mean by tantra, do you mean creation and completion stage? Then yes. Do you mean without doing anything at all related to channels, winds and so on, then no.

krodha
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by krodha » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:10 am

zenman wrote:Hello all

I came across this fellow in the internet who is a teacher of dzogchen.
That fellow (Jackson Peterson) doesn't teach Dzogchen for the record. He teaches some sort of Neo-Avaita wrought with eternalism and nihilism, and then attempts to dress his teaching up in Dzogchen drag by using Dzogchen vernacular and citing Dzogchen texts that he misconstrues.

He also has no permission to teach Dzogchen, very limited experience, and has been denounced by masters such as Lopön Tenzin Namdak. All in all he's one of the biggest charlatans on the Internet when it comes to Atiyoga. I would avoid him like the plague.

zenman
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 9:24 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by zenman » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:43 am

I don't think this person is completely bad in his teachings even though he clearly has his own view which sure does seem like neo-advaita for the most part. I think he is somewhat sincere and that he doesn't purposefully lead his students astray. One thing that I did notice was that he likes when people agree with him and play around him like puppies, wagging their tails and asking him for more. It does look like some sort of ego-tripping that he probably isn't aware of himself. On the other hand, to comments that are not in accordance with his sayings, he denies and rejects them and is not willing to discuss them in a rational way. In those cases he always, without exception as far as I have seen, pulls out some neo-advaita and by doing so he kind of sets himself above others, or at least those who do not agree with what he says. Hence, his teachings are only understood by those who agree with the view of neo-advaita which is just silly play and waste of time for me. I never saw real dzogchen masters having any problems with expressing things in clear understandable language or speaking of the relativity of things. I am sure people with not much experience and discrimination of their own are easy targets for him. Having said all of this there are also positive sides to him and his teachings. I don't think he is all bad apple. There are so many kinds of people seeking so many kinds of things here, like it or not. And there are many kinds of teachers too, some good, some not so good, some clearly harmful. Therefore, from my point of view, I don't think he is that bad and might actually be able to help some in their issues. Even though he is critical of many teachers out there, and has named a few of them, he does also refer to some sources other than him who are recommendable in the light of studying oneself and dzogchen. Because he has openly talked, in the limits of his own experience, about the methods and practice of tregchod and thogyal I actually think his offerings could help people who have enough exp of their own and discrimination. It is always about ones own responsibility, you know.

krodha
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen & Vipashyana on thoughts

Post by krodha » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:00 pm

zenman wrote:I don't think this person is completely bad in his teachings even though he clearly has his own view which sure does seem like neo-advaita for the most part. I think he is somewhat sincere and that he doesn't purposefully lead his students astray.
Sure, he isn't purposefully leading them astray, but he is (leading them astray) if they are interested in pursuing Dzogpachenpo in any effective or meaningful way.
zenman wrote:One thing that I did notice was that he likes when people agree with him and play around him like puppies, wagging their tails and asking him for more. It does look like some sort of ego-tripping that he probably isn't aware of himself. On the other hand, to comments that are not in accordance with his sayings, he denies and rejects them and is not willing to discuss them in a rational way.
Right, he creates an enclosed echo chamber where everyone parrots what he wants to hear back at him. And he then systematically removes dissenters. This is the reason why he limits his presence to closed groups where he can maintain constant control.
zenman wrote:In those cases he always, without exception as far as I have seen, pulls out some neo-advaita and by doing so he kind of sets himself above others, or at least those who do not agree with what he says. Hence, his teachings are only understood by those who agree with the view of neo-advaita which is just silly play and waste of time for me.
What's more though is that his entire view is essentially Neo-Advaita as he makes all of the errors associated with such a view. He attacks mere imputation rather than underlying causes, he inserts the result into the basis, he clings to the ultimate and denies the path, he treats mere clarity as wisdom and the list goes on and on.
zenman wrote:I never saw real dzogchen masters having any problems with expressing things in clear understandable language or speaking of the relativity of things. I am sure people with not much experience and discrimination of their own are easy targets for him.
Yes, he essentially preys on the same crowd that was caught up in the Neo-Nondual circuits around seven years ago.
zenman wrote:Having said all of this there are also positive sides to him and his teachings. I don't think he is all bad apple. There are so many kinds of people seeking so many kinds of things here, like it or not. And there are many kinds of teachers too, some good, some not so good, some clearly harmful. Therefore, from my point of view, I don't think he is that bad and might actually be able to help some in their issues.
Sure, he can help some people in certain ways in their relative lives, but the main issue is that he states that he is teaching Dzogchen, and these people come away from interacting with him believing they've received something authentic. This is a problem.
zenman wrote:Even though he is critical of many teachers out there, and has named a few of them, he does also refer to some sources other than him who are recommendable in the light of studying oneself and dzogchen. Because he has openly talked, in the limits of his own experience, about the methods and practice of tregchod and thogyal I actually think his offerings could help people who have enough exp of their own and discrimination.
No, he cannot help anyone in terms of Dzogchen because he does not teach Dzogchen. Also, he has no business giving teachings on tregchö or thögal since it is clear his experience in either department is that of a novice. He is doing far more harm than good when it comes to these matters.
zenman wrote:It is always about ones own responsibility, you know.
Correct, and those with fortunate karmic connections to the teachings will stay away from him. It is just unfortunate that many are beguiled by his charade. The only positive aspect of this whole mess is that he introduces people to Dzogpachenpo, in that they encounter the name and teaching in general, but past that they do not receive Ati teachings and if they follow Jackson then they end up wasting a considerable amount of precious time. In the end I personally have no problem calling a spade a spade, Jackson has virtually nothing redeemable to offer and is a burden to the teachings and those who are unfortunate enough to cross his path.

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CoconutMan, Leif and 48 guests