Realization

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 9:40 pmAs i explained before, self view is a necessary condition for the perception of change.
So you would say that a Buddha or an Arhat (somebody that has overcome the grasping to self-view) would/could not observe the arising and passing of phenomena???

That phenomena require the presence of an observer possessed by self-view in order to arise and pass away?
I would add that self view is not only the cause of impermanence, but the cause for causality itself.
At this point you had better start hitting me with some citations...
"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 9:23 pm 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.
I can relate to what you are saying even though i am not very familiar with the terminology. The presence of experience is what i tend to call un-defiled consciousness. Consciousness is a necessary condition for attention and attention is the necessary condition for conceptual knowledge. The constant correlation between the three is what led to the defiled "self consciousness". The very arising of knowledge gives the false impression that there is knower. This is my current understanding.
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 »

Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:53 pm So you would say that a Buddha or an Arhat (somebody that has overcome the grasping to self-view) would/could not observe the arising and passing of phenomena???

That phenomena require the presence of an observer possessed by self-view in order to arise and pass away?
No, and yet, Nibbana is described as the unconditioned, not subject to change. What ends from my understanding is the identification with conditioned phenomena. When the practitioner sees how reality is constructed, it gets deconstructed. The delusion of self view disappears. He knows that the mind itself is a construct, a conditioned phenomena.
At this point you had better start hitting me with some citations...
I can provide you with examples from everyday life. Our knowledge of cause and effect is useful in our everyday life. Even though compounded things are ultimately subject to decay because their existence is dependently arising, they somehow endure to various degrees, and your example of the diamond in a previous post is a good example. If you want to build a new construct that is made from various components, you need to be able to imagine them as independent and enduring (rather than dependent and changing) for the time being.

So, the ability to use self view is extremely useful in our everyday life. And that which is useful, with time and due to our tendency to form habits becomes an end in itself, and misused.
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 10:23 pmNo, and yet, Nibbana is described as the unconditioned, not subject to change.
Nirvana is not a phenomenon.
What ends from my understanding is the identification with conditioned phenomena. When the practitioner sees how reality is constructed, it gets deconstructed. The delusion of self view disappears. He knows that the mind itself is a construct, a conditioned phenomena.
Which has nothing to do with your claim that self-view is the cause of impermanence and even causality.
I can provide you with examples from everyday life. Our knowledge of cause and effect is useful in our everyday life. Even though compounded things are ultimately subject to decay because their existence is dependently arising, they somehow endure to various degrees, and your example of the diamond in a previous post is a good example. If you want to build a new construct that is made from various components, you need to be able to imagine them as independent and enduring (rather than dependent and changing) for the time being.

So, the ability to use self view is extremely useful in our everyday life. And that which is useful, with time and due to our tendency to form habits becomes an end in itself, and misused.
No, I want scripture. I also have all sorts of cock-eyed ideas of what reality is, doesn't mean they are correct though. AND I am talking about scriptural sources for your view that self-view is the cause of impermanence and causality. It doesn't accord with anything I have ever read. But then again I have not read everything. Maybe you would like to share where you read it?
"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
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Realization

Post by Wayfarer »

Rick wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:37 pm Sure.

Buddhism (all schools, afaik) and most other Eastern teaching methodologies differentiate very strongly between understanding and realizing.

'Understanding' is ... understandable: an intellectual/rational comprehension. But 'realizing' is quite mysterious.

For example, consider the profound difference between:

I understand the unity of the two truths.
I realize the unity of the two truths.
Just noticed this now, Rick. It's a distinction I'm interested in and have done some writing on. I think the real differentiation ought be made by distinguishing 'realisation' and 'experience'.

I say that 'experience' is a transitive verb i.e. a verb that requires an object: 'I experience it'. So whenever and whatever we experience, there is a knowing subject that is experiencing some phenomenon or sensation. So to that extent, experience implies a duality of subject and object.

However a realisation might not comprise an experience. When you realise something, it might or might not involve or trigger or require an experience. But a realisation of some profound truth might not be an experience, but an insight or an intuitive grasp of an idea. It operates along a different kind of plane to that of experience.

I think that non-dualism 'gets' this. A typical non-dualist saying is that in non-dual awareness, 'knower and the thing known are one'. This is made explicit in the higher stages of jhana and implies a kind of perspective on the nature of knowledge which transcends the division of subject and object. One aspect of that, is the loss of the sense of being a separate self or subject standing apart from existence. That is the domain of 'realisation' as distinct from 'experience'. So my aphoristic way of parsing that is that 'reality is realised, existence is experienced'. So - 'realising emptiness' is a cognitive shift; it's not an experience, although it might give rise to experiences (especially when a vivid realisation occurs, like tearing up.)

The best and most succinct statement of this distinction I have found is by Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, who says:
In Buddhism, we distinguish between spiritual experiences and spiritual realizations. Spiritual experiences are usually more vivid and intense than realizations because they are generally accompanied by physiological and psychological changes. Realizations, on the other hand, may be felt, but the experience is less pronounced. Realization is about acquiring insight. Therefore, while realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences, they are not identical to them. Spiritual realizations are considered vastly more important because they cannot fluctuate.

The distinction between spiritual experiences and realizations is continually emphasized in Buddhist thought. If we avoid excessively fixating on our experiences, we will be under less stress in our practice. Without that stress, we will be better able to cope with whatever arises, the possibility of suffering from psychic disturbances will be greatly reduced, and we will notice a significant shift in the fundamental texture of our experience.
Letting go of spiritual experience
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Bundokji
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Re: Realization

Post by Bundokji »

Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:50 pm No, I want scripture. I also have all sorts of cock-eyed ideas of what reality is, doesn't mean they are correct though. AND I am talking about scriptural sources for your view that self-view is the cause of impermanence and causality. It doesn't accord with anything I have ever read. But then again I have not read everything. Maybe you would like to share where you read it?
Why do you think in the following sutta, the Buddha made a distinction between dependent co-arising & dependently co-arisen phenomena? What was the significance of this distinction in your understanding?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

If cause and effect was a perfect law, would there be suffering? why our ability to predict the future is flawed? and how is this related to self view?
Last edited by Bundokji on Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Also Hume's work on causality can be an interesting read.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/
The cleverest defenders of faith are its greatest enemies: for their subtleties engender doubt and stimulate the mind. -- Will Durant
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Realization

Post by Rick »

Wayfarer wrote:I say that 'experience' is a transitive verb i.e. a verb that requires an object: 'I experience it'. So whenever and whatever we experience, there is a knowing subject that is experiencing some phenomenon or sensation. So to that extent, experience implies a duality of subject and object.

However a realisation might not comprise an experience. When you realise something, it might or might not involve or trigger or require an experience. But a realisation of some profound truth might not be an experience, but an insight or an intuitive grasp of an idea. It operates along a different kind of plane to that of experience.
Very helpful, thanks.
Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche wrote: ... realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences,
Is this always true? Or can realizations arise out of intellectual/contemplative experiences? For example, slogging through a difficult dharma book when suddenly, unpredictably ... you get a deep Aha! that connects all the dots that seemed previously unconnected.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:53 pm
Grigoris wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:50 pm No, I want scripture. I also have all sorts of cock-eyed ideas of what reality is, doesn't mean they are correct though. AND I am talking about scriptural sources for your view that self-view is the cause of impermanence and causality. It doesn't accord with anything I have ever read. But then again I have not read everything. Maybe you would like to share where you read it?
Why do you think in the following sutta, the Buddha made a distinction between dependent co-arising & dependently co-arisen phenomena?
He didn't make such a distinction in this sutta.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Bundokji wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:56 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:23 pm 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.
I can relate to what you are saying even though i am not very familiar with the terminology. The presence of experience is what i tend to call un-defiled consciousness. Consciousness is a necessary condition for attention and attention is the necessary condition for conceptual knowledge. The constant correlation between the three is what led to the defiled "self consciousness". The very arising of knowledge gives the false impression that there is knower. This is my current understanding.
Conventionally, there is knower, a self, a person, and so on. Ultimately, no knower, self, person, and so on.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Realization

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:25 pm
Rick wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:04 pm What does it mean to 'realize' something?
Understanding + experience = realization.
1. Understanding is an experience. (In common parlance, at least. Perhaps not in Dzogchen?) So can the experience of understanding, if sufficiently powerful, be the 'experience' in the above formula?

2. Slightly different: Understanding can spark an experience (separate from the experience of understanding itself). For example, if a sufficiently 'ripe' student reads about emptiness, it could spark an experience of the emptiness of the reading and reader (and read). Can this be the 'experience' in the formula?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Realization

Post by kirtu »

Rick wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:27 am
Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche wrote: ... realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences,
Is this always true? Or can realizations arise out of intellectual/contemplative experiences?
Realizations can arise out of intellectual/contemplative experiences (generally subsumed under analytic meditation). This is esp. asserted by the Gelug but also has support in the Sakya school (and some Nyingma for sure).

I 'm pretty sure that Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche would have included this and probably did explicitly somewhere.

Kirt
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Realization

Post by Wayfarer »

Rick wrote:can realizations arise out of intellectual/contemplative experiences?
Realisations generally arise from an innate understanding; buddha-nature teachings can be understood in those terms. So, a realisation of buddha nature is like remembering or recalling something which has actually always been the case, but (as the scriptures say) 'obscured by adventitious defilements'. That's why it's liberating, is it not? Because it liberates you from your previous sense of what you were. Like a gestalt shift, a change in perception. The distinctively Buddhist perspective is that you lose your sense of being a static persona.That's part of what 'realisation' consists of, in the Buddhist context.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Rick wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:36 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:25 pm
Rick wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:04 pm What does it mean to 'realize' something?
Understanding + experience = realization.
1. Understanding is an experience. (In common parlance, at least. Perhaps not in Dzogchen?) So can the experience of understanding, if sufficiently powerful, be the 'experience' in the above formula?

2. Slightly different: Understanding can spark an experience (separate from the experience of understanding itself). For example, if a sufficiently 'ripe' student reads about emptiness, it could spark an experience of the emptiness of the reading and reader (and read). Can this be the 'experience' in the formula?
Understanding here refers to go ba, which in Tibetan means "intellectual understanding." Experience is "nyams," and experience comes from applying in practice that which one has understood intellectually. That results in realization [rtogs pa]. Practice in Tibetan is "nyams len," "to take into experience.

This definition was given by Lama Karma, the resident lama at Tara Mandala. I think it is a very useful definition.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Realization

Post by Malcolm »

Wayfarer wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:44 am
Rick wrote:can realizations arise out of intellectual/contemplative experiences?
Realisations generally arise from an innate understanding...
No, in Dzogchen, realization arises from an explanation which one has understood, and applied in practice. Please pay attention to the forum you are posting in.
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6290
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Realization

Post by heart »

florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:27 pm Yes i am just a baby.
You never dissapoint Magnus. :smile:
You are hardly a baby Florin. Primordial purity and impermanence are closely connected and because of that contemplating impermanence is very important in Dzogchen.

/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)
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Realization

Post by Grigoris »

Off-topic discussion on karma moved here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=29326
"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
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6290
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Realization

Post by heart »

For Florin.
mindtraining.jpg
mindtraining.jpg (397.78 KiB) Viewed 2439 times
/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)
florin
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Realization

Post by florin »

heart wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:03 am
florin wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:27 pm Yes i am just a baby.
You never dissapoint Magnus. :smile:
You are hardly a baby Florin. Primordial purity and impermanence are closely connected and because of that contemplating impermanence is very important in Dzogchen.

/magnus
I would say impermanence "happens" before dzogchen. It Is when we conventionally have "things" that appear to arise, decay and pass out of existence.
Impermanence is something that is observed when one hasn't yet understood the real "essence" of one's state.

"When my nature is not understood and the phenomena that manifest from me become the object of judgement, desire and attachment give rise to the creation of concrete vision that is impermanent and destined to vanish like a magical apparition, and one becomes like a blind man who does not know what is happening."

"Self-arising wisdom, the essence of all the Buddhas, exists prior to the division of samsara and nirvana and is beyond the limits of transmigration and liberation. As it transcends the four conceptual limits and is intrinsically pure, this original condition is the uncreated nature of existence that has always existed, the ultimate nature of all phenomena. It cannot be identified with a stable and eternal substance allowing the assertion "It is thus!" and is utterly free of all the defects of dualistic thought, which is only capable of referring to an object other than itself. It is given the name ineffable and inconceivable "base of primordial purity"
KG
florin
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Realization

Post by florin »

heart wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:05 am For Florin.

/magnus
Sure, but that is not dzogchen yet Magnus
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”