Meditation people roll call!

Try watching the video again. Maybe you judged too quickly.

So you see the appeal of living distractedly. Now, you don't have to wonder why if everything was supposedly always perfect we ended up in a position where we are looking for ways to live contentedly.

I'm afraid I don't follow this.

Or maybe you did. Maybe you put yourself in a box by having that thought and will have to extricate yourself.

if one is engaged with one's own life,

This perception is the distraction I am talking about: "Engage".

By disengaging you live less distractedly because you never forget what's really going on.

You can choose to focus on anything. Focusing on God is one choice - often a good one. But I do not live my life viewing other choices as "distractions."

Or maybe you did. Maybe you put yourself in a box by having that thought and will have to extricate yourself.

I didn't have the thought, I merely observed and pointed it out to you.

You can choose to focus on anything.

Best to focus on what's real, though, and not get caught up in distractions.

What? You've got to be kidding me. You did have a thought. And you made a judgement. "I merely observed and pointed it out to you" - talk about arrogance!

No, the thought was the judgement. I observed it and pointed it out.

That's just engaging in silly semantics. Do you really object so strongly to the phrase "I had a thought?" "I had it" - meaning it came from me a la "I had a baby."

the thought was the judgement.

I don't think my post merited a coy koan. I was pointing out two things - you had a thought and you made a judgement. I didn't state that they occurred separately.

"I" don't "have" thoughts.

Thoughts come out of our empty cognizance. They don’t come only from the empty quality. Space doesn’t have any thoughts, nor do the four elements. Sights, sounds, and other sensations do not think. The five sense doors do not think. Thoughts are in the mind, and this mind is the unity of being empty and cognizant. If it were only empty, there would be no way thoughts could arise. Thoughts come only from the empty cognizance. Once confused thoughts have subsided to some extent, it is easier to recognize the clear insight of emptiness.

People have different personalities. One person may be very gentle, disciplined, and kind— but while he is just sitting there, you won’t know that. Another one may be very crude, short-tempered, and violent, but you won’t know that either while he is just sitting there. These characteristics only show themselves once a person’s thoughts begin to move again. When thoughts move, we usually become caught up in delusion. At the same time, our nature is primordially free of the obscuration of emotions and thoughts. Thoughts and emotions are only temporary. The actual character of mind is one of self-existing wakefulness, the state realized by all buddhas.

Yes, as I have said, I understand those principles. I still don't see the point of the semantics. You are an individual, therefore, using the English language, you refer to yourself with the first person "I." If a thought occurs in your mind, it is yours to do with what you like. You possess it, therefore we use the verb "to have."

My practice is thought-less because in the base there is no thought, and when there is a thought, there is no practice. You might say at times I am carrying thoughts, but I don't have thoughts. In moments, they have me when I am distracted. Semantics are the only way to point out and all one can do is to continually point out until it is "caught."

To carry is to have, at least temporarily. That is the reality.

all one can do is to continually point out until it is "caught."

As I have said, I caught it. In fact, I understood it before this conversation took place. All I can do is to continually point out my (first person possessive) thoughts on the subject, presumably until THEY are "caught!"

"All karma and conditions, causes and results are false. Meditators are prisoners of thoughts; they keep thoughts in a prison and are prison guards! All these intellectuals who debate don't realize they cast a net in the darkness. All these discussions are like a joke and a play, a weapon of words. All the sacred tantras are merely elaborations of one's mind. All these knowledgeable persons are meaningless - they know and have no experience. These great views are bubbles of words - all these things are meaningless and make no sense. The real condition cannot be changed. The real essence cannot be practiced. Self-arising wisdom cannot be obscured. When you realize, you cannot re-realize or try to realize again. So what is the matter? Who is complaining?"
http://www.ligmincha.org/program/description/tapihritsa.html

"Life is meaningless" = a nihilistic position.

Yes, it is. But, what has that to do with anything and everything?

I don't know what you're asking.

Well, what is the meaning of life?

There is no "meaning" to life. Particular things take on meanings as they occur.

So, is that nihilism, then?

So, when I am criticizing the assertion of life being meaningless as propounded in that quote, I am talking about the process of life as one moves through time and has experiences.

Because the assertion is that these experiences, thoughts and emotions are meaningless. Indeed, they are meaningless in relation to God. To assert that they are meaningless to persons is nihilistic.

When two people argue over something as a result of what they have "learned" and "think" they "know," when each only has a uniquely ignorant perspective, does that "engage" them with reality and provide them with "meaning?" Or are these people lost in developing thoughts which are ultimately meaningless and unsatisfying?

If a third person watching the debate sits silently and enjoys an ice cream cone, is his life meaningless?

The issue is that you insist on characterizing thought, in general, in negative terms. All thought represents an "ignorant perspective." These thoughts are not "reality." One is "lost" when experiencing thought. The only positive for you is God. Life is inherently negative.

There is a saying in Dzogchen, "To speak about Dzogchen to a thousand people who are interested is not enough. To speak about Dzogchen to even one person who is not interested is too much." I am trying to figure out if you are interested or not.

What about you sitting and watching the exchange in that video? Were you distracted by your thoughts and judgements? Would it have been better for you to have been sitting silently and enjoying an ice cream cone?

x-post: I am interested in the subject. I have offered viewpoints on the thoughts on the subject that you have shared here. It seems to me that you are perhaps suggesting that someone offering criticisms must mean that that person is not truly interested in the subject. If that is your position, I find it to be arrogant.

The issue is that you insist on characterizing thought, in general, in negative terms. All thought represents an "ignorant perspective."

Thought is an incomplete perspective.

These thoughts are not "reality."

They are reality, but they are not a complete picture of reality.

One is "lost" when experiencing thought.

One is distracted by an incomplete perspective.

The only positive for you is God.

I don't believe in God, actually.

Life is inherently negative.

Life is inherently neutral.

What about you sitting and watching the exchange in that video? Were you distracted by your thoughts and judgements?

Not really, although I was drunk, so maybe a little bit. Contemplation is different from becoming one with thought, which is how thought is generally experienced. There are two truths: relative and absolute truth. Even Dzogchen masters write books and make judgements, but this comes from a state of rigpa. After direct introduction to this state, one has a "taste" and never forgets it. The life's work then is to remain solid in this state without becoming distracted. In this state, thoughts arise, sense experiences are enjoyed and emotions are felt all without losing track of the "one taste."

Would it have been better for you to have been sitting silently and enjoying an ice cream cone?

Possibly.

Thought is an incomplete perspective.

Earlier, you used the term "ignorant perspective."

They are reality, but they are not a complete picture of reality.

I was responding to the question you phrased in this way: "When each only has a uniquely ignorant perspective, does that "engage" them with reality and provide them with "meaning?"

Life is inherently neutral.

That is not the sense that one gets from your perspective when you make statements characterizing most human activity as "people lost in developing thoughts which are ultimately meaningless and unsatisfying?"

(Question mark should not have been there.)

IMO, "ignorant" and "incomplete" are both accurate. And thoughts are certainly real. For example, someone with a scowling face might cut you off on the sidewalk and you might think, "God, what an asshole!" and you might begin thinking about all the people who do this to you everyday and you might get pretty upset. You might vow to knock down the next "asshole" that disrespects you this way. When the reality might be that someone was squinting because the sun was in his eyes and didn't see you, thus the "scowl" and thus the "offense." This would make your previous assessment of the situation both ignorant and incomplete. Nevertheless, these thoughts are real. They are reflections of reality. In fact, reality is nothing but one big reflection spontaneously arising in the mirror of your mind.

OK, but you have purposefully chosen an instance of misunderstanding to illustrate the assertion that all thought is "ignorant."

Can you think of one example of thought which does not ultimately show incomplete reality and ignorance?

Why must you use the term "ignorance?" I believe it to reflect elements of nihilism in the dogma. I am fine with "incomplete."

Dean was more enlightened when he was drunk.

If the state of rigpa is true awareness, anything else must be a state of ignorance, because ignorance means "unaware." If you are experiencing the incompleteness of thought as "reality" then you are unaware of a simultaneous presence occurring right under your nose. It is this presence which experiences thought, but it is not thought itself. It is a shock to "see" and it is incredibly difficult to show because in truth it is invisible and only conceptualized symbolically. Like all of our experience, it takes "form" as an incomplete "picture" to our thinking, rational mind, but in the experience itself no words or symbols are needed. Symbols are, in fact, seen to be spontaneously arising aspects of the void. All we know of reality is what we perceive, but our perception is all wrong. You could say it's "inside-out".

Dean was more enlightened when he was drunk.

Maybe it was just the abstract metaphors.

I believe that I basically live in this state of "rigpa" as you describe it, by the way. But there are things that occur in the mind that are not easily gotten rid of by releasing them unto God. I believe that this occurs because people have particular purposes in choosing to incarnate. The thoughts relating to these purposes will claim their presence.

It may, however, be a part a part of one's purpose to learn to distance oneself from these desires through spiritual discipline. One may even wish to take a very rigorous approach to this discipline. A lot of the rhetoric I see being proferred here, however, takes this tone suggesting that rigorous discipline is truly everyone's purpose and that they just haven't realized it yet. These people are doomed to live unsatisfying lives in ignorance.

If the state of rigpa is true awareness, anything else must be a state of ignorance, because ignorance means "unaware."

Again, I take issue with the vocabulary. "True awareness?" There is only awareness. One may be aware of God or one may be aware of a thought.

:-(

"True awareness?" There is only awareness.

What I meant by that is awareness of awareness and the Vision of nonduality.

One may be aware of God or one may be aware of a thought.

What is God and what does God do? Or is God a personality?

One may be aware of a thought. But, unless one is aware of awareness and experiencing the Vision of nonduality, this is not rigpa.

My use of the term God is synonymous with what you just described as "the Vision of nonduality."

One may be aware of a thought. But, unless one is aware of awareness and experiencing the Vision of nonduality, this is not rigpa.

Right. I'm less apt to call engagement with a thought a "state of ignorance," however.

My use of the term God is synonymous with what you just described as "the Vision of nonduality."

If it was, I don't think there would be a continuing discussion about the state of ignorance resulting from perspective of thought.

dear oh dear

Well, you're wrong there. (x-post)

Recognizing the reality of the Absolute does not necessarily entail the need to refer to thoughts and emotions in your rhetorical vocabulary.