Home > ~ Buddhism: Wisdom Bliss ~

Kyle Dixon on Clear Light and Dzogchen

• An Eternal Now

  27 Nov 12, 18:35

  • 
    
  • 

    Kyle Dixon I pressed enter to send this to Dannon (responding to the same inquiry Joel mentioned) to discover the thread was gone:
    
    (Luckily I learned my lesson long ago and now type these things out on word documents)
    
    My experience is that this capacity of clear light (awareness) you're speaking of is an illusion (either illusory or as in some cases, that furthest pure aspect of awareness which is simultaneously the substratum that these teachings claim is imprinted with vestigial imprints, either way it is considered the all-ground according to dzogchen). You state that it isn't a phenomena and that it doesn't depend on phenomena to exist, but that assertion presupposes that 'phenomena' can actually be found and are indeed valid aspects of experience. I take it you didn't read those links that Soh posted but the second one addresses this capacity of 'awareness' that can indeed remain throughout the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep and it is considered to still be ignorance in the eyes of dzogchen, but isn't according to other traditions so it just depends. Don't get me wrong that's a fantastic ability and is truly amazing, but I'm just addressing it in the context of this conversation with the teaching being discussed.
    
    I would argue that under the influence of ignorance, that capacity of awareness does indeed become a valid aspect of experience, just as due to imputation various other perceptions and designations become present that we interact with, notions of others, notions of self, ideas of the world, these become what 'the world' or 'universe' truly is. Likewise, due to this capacity initially not 'recognizing it's own face' as dzogchen posits. Attachment and aversion arise, which spawns subject and object, which creates further proliferation and perceptions that dominate our experience entrenching us in delusion and ignorance... seemingly separating us from that initial condition. Though all that ever creates the appearance of separation is ignorance. But at any rate, that awareness or consciousness then really does appear to be inside a body, relating to phenomenal objects and other qualities etc... and the more and more this becomes solidified as a truly existent modality, the more it is literally solidified and therefore seems to be a valid aspect of experience that is truly fundamental and inescapable. In my experience, seeing the emptiness of the substratum forever removed this notion of a localized awareness etc... I saw that appearance itself is that clear light, dancing in it's own unestablished and wondrous display.

    10 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3
  • 

    Kyle Dixon My other response to Jackson (hopefully I didn't make any last minute additions or changes when I put it in the field... oh well):
    
    To respond to the OP: I find that Jackson is misconstruing these notions he's addressing. For example, Jackson's claim that there has been a suggestion of 'luminous sensations that allegedly lack 'awareness' or 'beingness' beyond or behind or within appearances', no one has said anything of the sort. The luminous sensations, are precisely that which we would call awareness itself, but this model allows for one to let go of the substantiated and localized substratum of 'awareness' as a designation existing in relation to sensation, and sees that the two (sensation and awareness) are inseparable and always have been. Dzogchen shares this view in positing a reflexive luminosity, but the difference being that dzogchen is careful to maintain that this reflexive capacity is wholly unestablished. Otherwise dzogchen would be no different than Yogacara.
    
    "The terms reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity are often used in the Great Perfection, and figure frequently in the Longchen Nyingtig texts themselves. Jigme Lingpa cannot criticize the use of the terms themselves. He must object to the designation of them as being truly established, that is, existent."
    - Sam Van Schaik
    
    "Thus these criticisms of the Yogacara are rooted in the Seminal Heart (dzogchen) distinction between two types of basis, the nirvanic basis known as the ground (gzhi) and the samsaric basis of consciousness, the alaya (kun gzhi). Because this distinction is not made in the Indian Yogacara texts, the versions of reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity found there are considered flawed."
    - Sam Van Schaik
    
    Moving on to the aspersions against the statement that rigpa is merely the uncontaminated experience of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness, Jackson interprets this as nihilistic because it, again, is showing how awareness as a modality is precisely the experiences apprehended by what we misconstrue as the five senses. So these elements, earth, water, fire, air, space are traditionally considered by many teachings to constitute the nature of a world and experience as a whole. In saying that rigpa is the purified or uncontaminated experience of these, we are then knowing these appearances in their basic and true form as primordial wisdom. This isn't advocating that earth, water, fire etc... are truly existent aspects of experience in and of themselves that lack an awareness coming into contact with them, like suggesting a materialist view, it's nothing of the sort. It's merely stating that since we know primordial purity in dzogchen, that both appearances and awareness are nothing but imputed designations and are empty from the very beginning, ergo reaching the same reflexive capacity where experience is precisely in and of itself the basis itself completely unestablished. Very difficult to frame these notions in words. But the error in reifying awareness is a product of grasping at the clarity facet of the natural state, we know that this modality of clarity is primordially suffused and nondual with emptiness i.e. primordial purity, so to maintain that this clarity or awareness is truly existent as a ground of being is to deviate from the view of dzogchen.
  • 

    Kyle Dixon And the one to Joel:
    
    I apologize for that, at any rate your constructive questions are appreciated, there are other buddhist traditions that posit an absolute ground of being, such as Yog�c�ra/Cittamatra. It's not about whether Dzogchen isn't buddhist or not, Dzogchen actually came from the area of Oddiyana which is now the present day Afghanistan/Pakistan area but (as a tradition) really started to come together in Tibet/India and survived in Tibet. The ground of being controversy is precisely based what was said above though, that if one reifies a 'ground' then we lose dzogchen and start advocating some sort of Vedanta or crypto-Advaita... it becomes no different than the vedic 'atman=brahman' notion (Buddhism was founded as a refutation of that model), so the originators of dzogchen were very, very careful to ensure that they specifically refuted these other positions (which may advocate for an inherent ground of being etc...). The traditional texts and teachings refute aspects of countless traditions, even parts of dzogchen itself.
    
    To which Joel inquired which aspects of dzogchen does dzogchen itself refute?
    
    There are aspects of the later mennagde (instruction series) style teachings and insights that negate the conceptual constructs posited in the semde (mind series) class. Which is perfectly in accord with the nature of the teaching being purely and experiential endeavor. But those conceptual notions are needed and useful, so it's more of a pointer to say don't cling to those ideas and concepts as truths.

    10 hours ago · Like · 1