Realization

Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:54 pm What is the cause/condition of impermanence?
Self view. I asked you the same question before, but instead of answering, you resorted to ambiguity asking me about the cause of emptiness avoiding the issue at hand, and when i told you that it depends on what you mean, you did not like my answer :shrug:

So, it is clear who is the eel wriggling here. No offense is meant.

Peace :namaste:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:34 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:14 pm
florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:41 pm

And i thought permanence-impermanence are conceptual obscurations only.
Depends on whether one is discussing things from the point of view of the relative or the ultimate. And before you go tossing out the two truths, the Mdo bcu states:

By means of relative words and syllables
the ultimate is realized to be inexpressible,
therefore, the relative and ultimate are connected.


This is identical to what Nāgarjuna states about the relation between the relative and ultimate in MMK. Also the Kun byed rgyal po states:

By means of both the ultimate and the relative
both the definitive scriptures and the provisional scriptures
are explained with example, meaning, logical sign, and argument.
Sure .But for me these pasages only make sense with regards to pointing out the connection between the teoretical ideas presented during the oral transmission, where certain ultimate truths are expressed and the ultimate meaning of our nature and how one can connect these ideas with actual experience.
Yes, that is the point.

Since" impermanence " is a concept of sutra i do not see how the above passages point to a connection between conceptuality and the so called experience of "impermanence".
The idea that polarities such as impermanent and permanent are concepts that are not ultimately valid is also a key tenet of Mahāyāna sūtras, and Dzogchen does not go beyond Mahāyāna in this respect.

I do not see how the conceptuaity of " impermanence" can lead one beyond itself where one experiences "impermanence " as "impermanence" without the involvement of the partial mistaken apprehension by the deluded mind .
You are not distinguishing the two kinds of relative. A mind perceiving a conventional truth may be confused about essences (but not necessarily), but it is not confused about aspects. A delusion is confusion about aspects, such as perceiving two moons in the sky, or seeing white as yellow, and so on.

Because a mind that is not confused about aspects may be led to realization through words and meanings, there is no reason to invalidate conventions such as impermanent and so on, since they validly describe conventional phenomena.
What i am trying to say is that "impermanence " becomes a caracteristic, an atribute and i dont see how one can escape that, so in the end impermanence remains a label.
Yes, impermanence is a label we impose upon things we observe which undergo change-- anything that is a product. As long as we do not label impermanent things permanent, or permanent things impermanent, there should be no problem.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Realization

Post by Grigoris »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:04 pmSelf view.
Self view is the cause of impermanence? How so?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:04 pm
Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:54 pm What is the cause/condition of impermanence?
Self view.
Huh? This does not make any sense at all. It is because there is no self and nothing that belongs to a self that there is impermanence.
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:11 pm
Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:04 pmSelf view.
Self view is the cause of impermanence? How so?
You can refer back to my answer. I have nothing more to add. If you find something missing in my answer, then please state it clearly.

:spy:
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Realization

Post by Grigoris »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:14 pmYou can refer back to my answer. I have nothing more to add. If you find something missing in my answer, then please state it clearly.

:spy:
Which answer? You have made a number of statements.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:14 pm
Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:11 pm
Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:04 pmSelf view.
Self view is the cause of impermanence? How so?
You can refer back to my answer. I have nothing more to add. If you find something missing in my answer, then please state it clearly.

:spy:
Your answer is false and unsupportable.
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:13 pm Huh? This does not make any sense at all. It is because there is no self and nothing that belongs to a self that there is impermanence.
I explained how the perception of change is a conclusion and why change cannot be perceived directly. Did you have any problem with my explanation?

The explanation is easy to refute by the way if there is a clear refutation. It is two premises and one conclusion. If you think i had it wrong, where?

By the way, I respect your and Gregoris's seniority on this forum, so if i am crossing any red lines, please let me know and i will stop :namaste:
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6288
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Realization

Post by heart »

florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:34 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:14 pm
florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:41 pm

And i thought permanence-impermanence are conceptual obscurations only.
Depends on whether one is discussing things from the point of view of the relative or the ultimate. And before you go tossing out the two truths, the Mdo bcu states:

By means of relative words and syllables
the ultimate is realized to be inexpressible,
therefore, the relative and ultimate are connected.


This is identical to what Nāgarjuna states about the relation between the relative and ultimate in MMK. Also the Kun byed rgyal po states:

By means of both the ultimate and the relative
both the definitive scriptures and the provisional scriptures
are explained with example, meaning, logical sign, and argument.
Sure .But for me these pasages only make sense with regards to pointing out the connection between the teoretical ideas presented during the oral transmission, where certain ultimate truths are expressed and the ultimate meaning of our nature and how one can connect these ideas with actual experience.
Since" impermanence " is a concept of sutra i do not see how the above passages point to a connection between conceptuality and the so called experience of "impermanence".
I do not see how the conceptuaity of " impermanence" can lead one beyond itself where one experiences "impermanence " as "impermanence" without the involvement of the partial mistaken apprehension by the deluded mind .
What i am trying to say is that "impermanence " becomes a caracteristic, an atribute and i dont see how one can escape that, so in the end impermanence remains a label.
You are probably to young, but you will see that impermanence is not a concept or a label. How could anything be primordially pure if wasn't impermanent?

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:26 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:13 pm Huh? This does not make any sense at all. It is because there is no self and nothing that belongs to a self that there is impermanence.
I explained how the perception of change is a conclusion and why change cannot be perceived directly. Did you have any problem with my explanation?

The explanation is easy to refute by the way if there is a clear refutation. It is two premises and one conclusion. If you think i had it wrong, where?

By the way, I respect your and Gregoris's seniority on this forum, so if i am crossing any red lines, please let me know and i will stop :namaste:
When you say that change cannot be perceived directly, are you referring to a pratyakṣa, a nonconceptual direct cognition? If so, please define your terms more carefully.
LolCat
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:50 am

Re: Realization

Post by LolCat »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:26 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:13 pm Huh? This does not make any sense at all. It is because there is no self and nothing that belongs to a self that there is impermanence.
I explained how the perception of change is a conclusion and why change cannot be perceived directly. Did you have any problem with my explanation?

The explanation is easy to refute by the way if there is a clear refutation. It is two premises and one conclusion. If you think i had it wrong, where?

By the way, I respect your and Gregoris's seniority on this forum, so if i am crossing any red lines, please let me know and i will stop :namaste:
I am not very well versed when it comes to these things, but am trying to follow anyway(apologies if this is a stupid question), am I understanding your argument correctly?

A1 experiences state S1.

Time passes, let A2 be the state of A1 at this point in time. (Yeah this doesn't make sense without self view)

A2 experiences state S2.
Now without referring to a memory of A1 and S1, A2 cannot directly infer change, and thus change is not directly experienced but inferred?
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Realization

Post by Grigoris »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:26 pmI explained how the perception of change is a conclusion and why change cannot be perceived directly. Did you have any problem with my explanation?
Change is a consequence of impermanence (the compounded nature of phenomena.) change=/=impermanence.

And yes, one can understand impermanence without observing change, via a direct experience of the selfless nature of phenomena, of emptiness.

Let's say I gave you a diamond as an object of meditation. You could stare at it for your whole life without seeing any change in it's structure. But you can still understand that it's name, it's value, it's properties, etc... are merely imputed and that it lacks essence/self nature. You can also understand that although it does not seem to be changing now it was not always a diamond and will not always remain a diamond.

So...
By the way, I respect your and Gregoris's seniority on this forum, so if i am crossing any red lines, please let me know and i will stop :namaste:
The only lines one can cross are those in the Terms of Service. Disagreeing is not a red line.

Now back to this idea that "self view" is the cause of impermanence.

Care to elaborate?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:32 pm When you say that change cannot be perceived directly, are you referring to a pratyakṣa, a nonconceptual direct cognition? If so, please define your terms more carefully.
"a non-conceptual direct cognition" is an oxymoron. Why?

Cognition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

If there is such a thing as non-conceptual direct cognition as you are claiming, then it cannot be conceptualized as non-conceptual.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

LolCat wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:42 pm Now without referring to a memory of A1 and S1, A2 cannot directly infer change, and thus change is not directly experienced but inferred?
:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:

Is not our ability to recall thing and use this knowledge to predict the future is what gives us the impression that there is an unchanging self through time and space?
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Realization

Post by Grigoris »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:32 pm When you say that change cannot be perceived directly, are you referring to a pratyakṣa, a nonconceptual direct cognition? If so, please define your terms more carefully.
"a non-conceptual direct cognition" is an oxymoron. Why?

Cognition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

If there is such a thing as non-conceptual direct cognition as you are claiming, then it cannot be conceptualized as non-conceptual.
Non-conceptual direct realisation.

Stop playing word games.

Please explain your statement regarding "self view" as the cause of impermanence.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
LolCat
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:50 am

Re: Realization

Post by LolCat »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:54 pm
LolCat wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:42 pm Now without referring to a memory of A1 and S1, A2 cannot directly infer change, and thus change is not directly experienced but inferred?
:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:

Is not our ability to recall thing and use this knowledge to predict the future is what gives us the impression that there is an unchanging self through time and space?
If a sentient being has accepted interdependence(by this I mean that the being through study, reflection and meditation has complete confidence in cause and effect, no doubts), and then experiences the impermanent nature of self(by this I mean the absence of self referential thoughts), would this not result in an experience of the impermanence of all compounded phenomena despite not holding self view?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:32 pm When you say that change cannot be perceived directly, are you referring to a pratyakṣa, a nonconceptual direct cognition? If so, please define your terms more carefully.
"a non-conceptual direct cognition" is an oxymoron. Why?

Cognition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

If there is such a thing as non-conceptual direct cognition as you are claiming, then it cannot be conceptualized as non-conceptual.
A pratyakṣa (mngon sum) is a simple impression upon the senses, a direct perception or a cognition, take your pick, since they are synonyms. These are defined as nonconceptual in Buddhadharma. Since you are posting in the Dzogchen forum, you need to understand this word and concept is critically important in Dzogchen teachings, as well as important in Buddhadharma in general. For example, the direct, nonconceptual cognition of the ultimate truth is called yogapratyakṣa, yogic direct perception, etc.

Concepts are assembled out of these direct perceptions by the mental factors. For example, in the first moment of observing a blue cup, there is no concept of cup or blue, etc, there is only a naked cognition of a blue shape. The fact that one is perceiving a blue cup is assembled by the samjñā skandha. The vijñāna skandha is always nonconceptual consciousness by nature.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:54 pm
LolCat wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:42 pm Now without referring to a memory of A1 and S1, A2 cannot directly infer change, and thus change is not directly experienced but inferred?
:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:

Is not our ability to recall thing and use this knowledge to predict the future is what gives us the impression that there is an unchanging self through time and space?
Not all uses the term "self" imply that one is subject to the fetter of satkāyadṛṣṭi.
florin
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Realization

Post by florin »

heart wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:28 pm
florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:34 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:14 pm

Depends on whether one is discussing things from the point of view of the relative or the ultimate. And before you go tossing out the two truths, the Mdo bcu states:

By means of relative words and syllables
the ultimate is realized to be inexpressible,
therefore, the relative and ultimate are connected.


This is identical to what Nāgarjuna states about the relation between the relative and ultimate in MMK. Also the Kun byed rgyal po states:

By means of both the ultimate and the relative
both the definitive scriptures and the provisional scriptures
are explained with example, meaning, logical sign, and argument.
Sure .But for me these pasages only make sense with regards to pointing out the connection between the teoretical ideas presented during the oral transmission, where certain ultimate truths are expressed and the ultimate meaning of our nature and how one can connect these ideas with actual experience.
Since" impermanence " is a concept of sutra i do not see how the above passages point to a connection between conceptuality and the so called experience of "impermanence".
I do not see how the conceptuaity of " impermanence" can lead one beyond itself where one experiences "impermanence " as "impermanence" without the involvement of the partial mistaken apprehension by the deluded mind .
What i am trying to say is that "impermanence " becomes a caracteristic, an atribute and i dont see how one can escape that, so in the end impermanence remains a label.
You are probably to young, but you will see that impermanence is not a concept or a label. How could anything be primordially pure if wasn't impermanent?

/magnus
Yes i am just a baby.
You never dissapoint Magnus. :smile:
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:48 pm Change is a consequence of impermanence (the compounded nature of phenomena.) change=/=impermanence.

And yes, one can understand impermanence without observing change, via a direct experience of the selfless nature of phenomena, of emptiness.

Let's say I gave you a diamond as an object of meditation. You could stare at it for your whole life without seeing any change in it's structure. But you can still understand that it's name, it's value, it's properties, etc... are merely imputed and that it lacks essence/self nature. You can also understand that although it does not seem to be changing now it was not always a diamond and will not always remain a diamond.

So...
That is interesting, a new way of looking at things. However, i am not sure if your distinction between impermanence and change is warranted. And even if it was, how this distinction is useful to the practice remain unclear.

[/quote]The only lines one can cross are those in the Terms of Service. Disagreeing is not a red line.

Now back to this idea that "self view" is the cause of impermanence.

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

As i explained before, self view is a necessary condition for the perception of change. The delusion of change is caused by the imaginary self trying to grasp itself all the time, because the shadow of the illusory self is a sense of lack. It is explained in the teachings of dependent origination.

I would add that self view is not only the cause of impermanence, but the cause for causality itself. The delusion of free will cannot be more relevant here.
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”