Questions about energy

[Malcolm]

Namdrol, I know in another post somewhere on this board you had mentioned that the elements can come from conciousness but conciousness does not come from the elements. It would seem that on a large cosmic scale at some point say the earth element would have had to spun off from the basis of someone's delusional mind and become a seperate entity. For instance, right now there is a wooden chair in my room and so speaking if we trace back the origins of the elemental parts they would have had there basis from someone's mind or perhaps the solidification of one of their 5 wisdoms transforming out of delusion into say the earth element?

Basically, the way it works is that we do not recognize the wisdom of equality for what it is; that non-recognition solidifies our perception of the yellow radiance of the wisdom of equality, and the external earth element arises from that misperception.

N

[wisdom]

Since we are talking about energy, what is the equivalent of Kundalini? Inner Heat is usually taken as a manifestation of Kundalini, but "Kundalini" as a raw energy is usually made distinct in Hindu Tantra as a specific manifestation of an extremely potent force.

[mint]

Is this energy "real" - in the sense that, though it is the manifestation of my primordial nature, it has the ability to affect me, help me, harm me? Is there any objectivity to a brick, for instance? Is there any objectivity to a brick hitting me in the head? Or is it all just a manifestation of energy from my primordial nature?

It is objective because you are in the grip of duality, and therefore, subject to karma.

So, when a person enters nyamnyid and/or lhundrub, does the pain typically associated with getting hit by a brick cease? Is this due the dissolution between subject and object, realizing that the energy of getting hit by a brick is the same sort of energy as having sex, etc.?

[gad rgyangs]

Delusion is not a part of the basis and is not fundamentally pure.

Dzogchen states that basis is free from ignorance from the very beginning. All of our deluded experience comes from not recognizing the basis itself. There is no ignorance in the basis. The Transcendence of Sound states:

“Ignorance” is not possible
in the essence, the wisdom of original purity.

The Letterless states:
Since my self-originated wisdom is pure of delusion from the start, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being.

Also the Luminous Clarity states:

The essence, the wisdom of original purity,
is free from the stain of ignorance

The Rosary of Pearls states very clearly:

The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.

what about this from tshig don mdzod:?

ye don gyi kun gzhi ni rig pa’i steng na ye thog dang po’i dus nas gser dang g.ya’ bzhin lhan cig skyes pa’i cha rig pa la ltos pa’i ma rig pa ste/

i can't entirely grasp it, but the translation by Tulku Thondup goes :

“The aspect of (unenlightenment, not knowing the intrinsic awareness which is) simultaneously arisen with the intrinsic awareness, like gold and its oxide from primordial time is the ‘ultimate primordial universal ground’”

and Van Schaik:

“The primordial alaya: the attendance of nescience upon gnosis - that aspect [of nescience] that from the beginning arises simultaneously with gnosis, like tarnish on gold; it serves as the initial ground for all samsaric phenomena."

[Malcolm]

what about this from tshig don mdzod:?

Wisdom can serve as a "cause" for ignorance in the sense that it comes from the non-recognition of wisdom. But even the example you give shows that ignorance is not a part of wisdom no more than the tarnish is a part of the gold.

Also you did not provide enough of the citation -- you need to supply what comes after the སྟེ་, in order for me to understand the entire sense of the passage (or a page number).

N

[gad rgyangs]

Wisdom can serve as a "cause" for ignorance in the sense that it comes from the non-recognition of wisdom. But even the example you give shows that ignorance is not a part of wisdom no more than the tarnish is a part of the gold.

Also you did not provide enough of the citation -- you need to supply what comes after the སྟེ་, in order for me to understand the entire sense of the passage (or a page number).

N

i've attached the page 53v. Isn't it saying though that the rigpa and marigpa are equally primordially arisen? like two sides of the same coin?

[Malcolm]

Wisdom can serve as a "cause" for ignorance in the sense that it comes from the non-recognition of wisdom. But even the example you give shows that ignorance is not a part of wisdom no more than the tarnish is a part of the gold.

Also you did not provide enough of the citation -- you need to supply what comes after the སྟེ་, in order for me to understand the entire sense of the passage (or a page number).

N

i've attached the page 53v. Isn't it saying though that the rigpa and marigpa are equally primordially arisen? like two sides of the same coin?

First, this is defining the all-basis, based on a citation from the sgra thal gyur:

The definition: "all" (kun) is a collection;
basis (gzhi) is accumulating and gathering...

So here, ignorance is being defined as the all-basis. When that all basis is divided into four, the first is "...the ever-present actual all-basis is the aspect that arose at the same time on top of vidyā from the start, like gold and tarnish, the avidyā that depends on vidyā (rig pa la ltos nas ma rig pa), i.e."

The point is not different than what I outlined above, there is never ignorance in the basis; even though ignorance can cover over the basis. That ignorance is called the "all-basis". The basis and the all-basis are completely different.

After giving the definitions of the four types of all-basis, Longchenpa then goes on to analyze assertions such as the assertion that the all-basis is stained vidyā, etc.

[krodha]

So, when a person enters nyamnyid and/or lhundrub, does the pain typically associated with getting hit by a brick cease? Is this due the dissolution between subject and object, realizing that the energy of getting hit by a brick is the same sort of energy as having sex, etc.?

I'd say don't even try to form an idea of what any aspect of fruition would be like. Holding the expectation negates abiding in the base and is actually a projection of mind. See that an expectation of a 'future' event (or state) is just a presently arising thought, and the presently arising thought is merely an empty play of the primordial nature. Which as Namdrol was pointing out above, seems to arise, seems to abide, and seems to fall... but does it? Be here now. The base is ever-present.

But for the sake of conventional conversation; upon the dissolution of duality, the qualities(characteristics/properties) which constitute a brick or pain would be empty expressions of the primordial nature. Putting it into words becomes clumsy because one has to use descriptive language which conveys elements of experience which are absent in the base. Even now, our language actually conveys elements which are not present in experience. Alan Watts gives the example of the famous 'it' in "it is raining"... what is this 'it'? It's just a convention of language. All language is like that, it populates experience with 'things' which are not evident when investigated empirically. Some are harmless, like the 'it' in 'it is raining' and some are very powerful and become engrained subconsciously like 'you' and 'me'.

So for this reason a nondual experience cannot be described accurately at all. But to ignore that fact for a moment, and attempt to frame an answer to your question in a clumsy way which ultimately misrepresents the actuality of what it would be like: you would BE the pain, and the pain would be a play of your nature, but 'you' would be absent so the pain would appear to itself and any notion of it being an unpleasant or pleasant experience would not arise. I mean, we can't even comprehend how profound a state that is at that point. That's why you read all these stories of miracles and 'powers' because the constructs of space and time, subject and object are no more. But THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is; do not strive for that, don't want or wish for that, don't expect that, in practice if miraculous experiences such as visions or experiences of nonduality arise view them with an attitude of indifference... do not care, never think you have achieved anything. Know that all is a play of the primordial nature, reflection on the mirror, if something miraculous arises and there's an inkling of achievement correct for that immediately and remain unmoved. Just remain in the base and there will be no limit to your practice. Don't postulate any kind of notions about what the culmination of effort would be like, because it's coming from the perspective of ignorance(avidya). Humility and earnestness are of utmost importance.

*All this is my unfounded opinion

[gad rgyangs]

First, this is defining the all-basis, based on a citation from the sgra thal gyur:

The definition: "all" (kun) is a collection;
basis (gzhi) is accumulating and gathering...

So here, ignorance is being defined as the all-basis. When that all basis is divided into four, the first is "...the ever-present actual all-basis is the aspect that arose at the same time on top of vidyā from the start, like gold and tarnish, the avidyā that depends on vidyā (rig pa la ltos nas ma rig pa), i.e."

The point is not different than what I outlined above, there is never ignorance in the basis; even though ignorance can cover over the basis. That ignorance is called the "all-basis". The basis and the all-basis are completely different.

After giving the definitions of the four types of all-basis, Longchenpa then goes on to analyze assertions such as the assertion that the all-basis is stained vidyā, etc.

the point that interests me is the "arose at the same time" and "from the start" (ye thog dang po'i dus nas). Otherwise, there is this implicit assumption that "first" there was vidya, then there was a "fall" and then you get "avidya". To say that they arose together from the very first does not mean that there is avidya in vidya, but rather that they are inseperable. No samsara without nirvana, no nirvana without samsara.

[Malcolm]

First, this is defining the all-basis, based on a citation from the sgra thal gyur:

The definition: "all" (kun) is a collection;
basis (gzhi) is accumulating and gathering...

So here, ignorance is being defined as the all-basis. When that all basis is divided into four, the first is "...the ever-present actual all-basis is the aspect that arose at the same time on top of vidyā from the start, like gold and tarnish, the avidyā that depends on vidyā (rig pa la ltos nas ma rig pa), i.e."

The point is not different than what I outlined above, there is never ignorance in the basis; even though ignorance can cover over the basis. That ignorance is called the "all-basis". The basis and the all-basis are completely different.

After giving the definitions of the four types of all-basis, Longchenpa then goes on to analyze assertions such as the assertion that the all-basis is stained vidyā, etc.

the point that interests me is the "arose at the same time" and "from the start" (ye thog dang po'i dus nas). Otherwise, there is this implicit assumption that "first" there was vidya, then there was a "fall" and then you get "avidya". To say that they arose together from the very first does not mean that there is avidya in vidya, but rather that they are inseperable. No samsara without nirvana, no nirvana without samsara.

Of course they arose together -- there was a state prior to both. When Samantabhadra recognized his state, we did not recognize ours.

Actually, an argument can be made that avidyā precedes vidyā because even Samantabhadra experienced the innate ignorance.

In any case, the essential point is that vidyā and avidyā are completely different. Avidyā depends on vidyā in the sense that the three wisdoms of the basis are the "cause" of ignorance. They are the cause of ignorance in the sense that at the time vāyu stirred in the basis, the three wisdoms were not recognized and samsara and nirvana started from that point.

N

[gad rgyangs]

In any case, the essential point is that vidyā and avidyā are completely different. Avidyā depends on vidyā in the sense that the three wisdoms of the basis are the "cause" of ignorance. They are the cause of ignorance in the sense that at the time vāyu stirred in the basis, the three wisdoms were not recognized and samsara and nirvana started from that point.

If the basis is prior to rigpa/marigpa, then is there no sense of knowing-ness/awareness/cognizance/ye shes in the basis? how would one account for the innate responsiveness (thugs rje) if there is no cognizance? How does the (rang byung) ye shes (wisdom/gnosis) of the basis relate to the rang rig (pa) of sentient beings?

[Malcolm]

In any case, the essential point is that vidyā and avidyā are completely different. Avidyā depends on vidyā in the sense that the three wisdoms of the basis are the "cause" of ignorance. They are the cause of ignorance in the sense that at the time vāyu stirred in the basis, the three wisdoms were not recognized and samsara and nirvana started from that point.

If the basis is prior to rigpa/marigpa, then is there no sense of knowing-ness/awareness/cognizance/ye shes in the basis? how would one account for the innate responsiveness (thugs rje) if there is no cognizance? How does the (rang byung) ye shes (wisdom/gnosis) of the basis relate to the rang rig (pa) of sentient beings?

As for your first question, the basis possesses a "shes pa lung ma bstan", a neutral awareness -- when the lights are recognized as one's own appearances, that neutral awareness becomes discriminating wisdom (shes tab); when not, that neutral awareness becomes consciousness.

For the most part, in Dzogchen, rang byung often just means "comes from oneself", and rang rig nearly always just means "one's knowledge".

N

[gad rgyangs]

For the most part, in Dzogchen, rang byung often just means "comes from oneself", and rang rig nearly always just means "one's knowledge".

N

rung byung ye shes usually refers to the basis, no? rig pa is associated with individual sentient beings? what exactly is the relationship between the two, or are they synonyms?

[Malcolm]

For the most part, in Dzogchen, rang byung often just means "comes from oneself", and rang rig nearly always just means "one's knowledge".

N

rung byung ye shes usually refers to the basis, no? rig pa is associated with individual sentient beings? what exactly is the relationship between the two, or are they synonyms?

As for one, not necessarily -- but you know, you have to find a context. As for two, yes.

[gad rgyangs]

For the most part, in Dzogchen, rang byung often just means "comes from oneself", and rang rig nearly always just means "one's knowledge".

N

rung byung ye shes usually refers to the basis, no? rig pa is associated with individual sentient beings? what exactly is the relationship between the two, or are they synonyms?

As for one, not necessarily -- but you know, you have to find a context. As for two, yes.

yes like in the chod sadhana where it says that beings are in samsara due to not recognizing "rang byung gi rig pa" as the ultimate refuge, so there it seems to be referring to the basis. so how is the rig pa/ye shes of the basis related to the rig pa/ye shes of sentient beings? If its the same, then is it holographic, as in each individual (rang) rig pa is the "same" as the whole, or is there a hypostatization of "miniature" rig pas "proceeding" from the "big daddy" rig pa?

[Malcolm]

yes like in the chod sadhana where it says that beings are in samsara due to not recognizing "rang byung gi rig pa" as the ultimate refuge,

This should be read as "the vidyā that arises from oneself", and is how I read it.

N

[Malcolm]

If its the same, then is it holographic, as in each individual (rang) rig pa is the "same" as the whole, or is there a hypostatization of "miniature" rig pas "proceeding" from the "big daddy" rig pa?

Everyone's knowledge is unique to them, so there is no "big daddy" rigpa

[gad rgyangs]

If its the same, then is it holographic, as in each individual (rang) rig pa is the "same" as the whole, or is there a hypostatization of "miniature" rig pas "proceeding" from the "big daddy" rig pa?

Everyone's knowledge is unique to them, so there is no "big daddy" rigpa

so what is the rig pa of the basis?

[Malcolm]

If its the same, then is it holographic, as in each individual (rang) rig pa is the "same" as the whole, or is there a hypostatization of "miniature" rig pas "proceeding" from the "big daddy" rig pa?

Everyone's knowledge is unique to them, so there is no "big daddy" rigpa

so what is the rig pa of the basis?

Your individual knowledge of the basis. The basis is not rigpa.

N

[gad rgyangs]

yes like in the chod sadhana where it says that beings are in samsara due to not recognizing "rang byung gi rig pa" as the ultimate refuge,

This should be read as "the vidyā that arises from oneself", and is how I read it.

N

interesting. is that an original reading or would 4 out of 5 Lopons recommend it?