I have been contemplating those words of David Bohm, “Frozen Light,” trying to understand them myself. I think we need to go beyond our conceptualization of something frozen as being perfectly still for a period of time. It’s not still, but in a continuous state of flux. Consciousness can briefly fixate upon its object and create the illusion that it hasn’t already changed. But then consciousness itself is in a continuous state of flux. It revisits the object and imputes continuity, as if its first and subsequent perceptions are identical over a period of time. We know this is illusory. Therefore it’s more accurate to think of frozen light as a sequence of moments in which consciousness briefly fixates within its own ground under the illusion of continuity.
I suspect from David’s background that the light he refers to is the energetic nature of clear light, and not light from the sun or some other physical source, but then frozen can only refer to our own fixated illusion of things actually holding still, even for a moment in time. Things bond into forms and dissolve those bonds continuously dependent upon a vast array of causes and conditions all operating simultaneously. What holds them together is the illusion that they are in-fact holding together, and that they have some independent continuity. Perhaps that is Marigpa, which is causal to all our illusions, but I’m not sure if it’s more accurate to say that it is the result of Marigpa.
I think we are so limited by the language, right? It reduces us to relying on mere words to understand these expansive concepts…words like “frozen”, for instance.
Everything is in flux. Nothing is truly frozen. No thing has independent continuity. And light…is an enigma.
What I was trying to say, and not at all clearly, is that “frozen” is not a steady state, but a sequence of very brief moments in which mind fixates upon appearance, objectifying it into the phenomena of self an other. The fixation is the “freeze” that makes appearances seem like they have independent existence, but the “freezing” process is an interdependent happening, giving rise to that illusion.
It’s all moving lightening fast, so like a film made of separate photo frames rapidly reeled through a light seems to produce a singular continuity of motion, the speed of these sequences creates the illusion of continuity in our reality. With a film projector, the ground is created by light from a bulb shining through the film. It projects an image onto a screen where it reflects back in a form that we in the audience can perceive. There is an analogy in this too, but the two analogies should not be fit together.
The ground of light, created by the bulb in the projector, can be compared to the ground of light that we refer to by many names such as Dharmakaya/Sambhogakaya or clear light. The frozen light is a sequence of moments when that light passes through a single frame and forms a projection. Each frame has its moment of fixation as it passes thru the light, but it’s happening too rapidly to comprehend. It is the interdependence of all the elements inside the projector, and the film, the screen, and the position of the audience who views the reflection that creates the Nirmanakaya illusion, which is the movie of our lives.
It’s just an analogy of truth and not truth itself, therefore it’s flawed. However the point is that our minds are not like a projector, which is just a machine. We can slow the action down. The audience can turn its head and look at the projector, rather than the screen. We can turn away from the illusion and examine the source of interdependent elements happening to create it.
Reminds me of breakup time in western Alaska when the frozen Kuskokwim River breaks into huge chunks of ice, then smaller, then even smaller ones that eventually flow into the Bering Sea. At no time is the river NOT water, but if you are fortunate enough to see the three-feet-solid, thick ice, during the Arctic winter— then crack, flow, and then becomes water, you have an analogy of how we perceive the world around us.
The more the analogies hit home, the closer we can get to a moment of realization (moments of realization)—the more the better, eh?
I thought the same for a long time…about a sequence of moments. I even tried to practice abiding in the spaces between the moments in search of emptiness there.
I think, now, that there are no moments. There is never a single place, no matter how short, where one can stop and identify it as “a moment”. Instead, all things exist in an interdependent flux.
But we need to reify existence as “moments” in Nirmanakaya and Sambohgakaya. It is only in the clear light of Dharmakaya, I think, that we can experience that complete and seamless interdependency.
It seems to be concurrent with Turiya (and Turiyatita) which underlie the three levels of Consciousness.
The relationship of the waking state, the dream state and the deep dreamless sleep state to the Trikaya already provides me with a great deal to ponder during the night.
The svabhavikakaya, is defined as the aspect of enlightened form that is distinguished by Two-fold-purity, the natural purity of basic space of reality and the purification of all temporary stains.
although this is of course true and I agree but it only explains reification on a mental level, it does not explain that physical forms keep their general outer forms although they are on quantum level constantly in flux.
So, what keeps the general form of a physical object in its recognizable shape and stops it from deteriorating directly into quantum foam?
of course, it obviously can’t be one‘s conventional daytime consciousness.
If it is just physical forces, then we are back at the mechanistic, representational world view where objects exist and where consciousness in whatever form plays no role.
Hmm… interesting thought… I presume the illusion of time has to do with it, is perhaps one part of the equation. That forms seem to persist for a relative time in dependance of a perceiver is probably part of the answer…
Yes, could be seen that way in terms of kunzhi alaya or substrate consciousness which is „conditioned“ consciousness which as part of its conditioning manifests in form.
Perhaps this consciousness is pervading one‘s body, energy and mind? And is more of a collective than a singular entity?
Yes and no, I think.
yes, a phenomenon like a human body is perceived as „object“ by a perceiver. Without any knower, the „object“ would not be perceived as object, but,
No, even when all possible knowers are not perceiving the „object“, it does not mean that the phenomenon called „object“ has instantaneously disappeared and only reappears when at least one knower turns back to „it“.
True…but it’s “form” will only come into perspective for each observer. If you and I were both looking at a tree…we would each be seeing a different “tree form”.
I think the tree is always being “measured” by some outside force so it always has some form. Even the wind measured the tree, right?
This is similar to certain buddhist esoteric views.
I wonder further: could it be that if conscious pervades matter, that on a sub-atomic level it is basic conditioned consciousness which holds matter together?
As in one of @_Barry “s QM posts, a quantum particle phenomenon seems to be originating from two (dualistic) waves.
Could the substrate consciousness be the basic organising principle to manifested form?
