asunthatneversets

Yes I did, sharing something like that is a rare occurrence for me, and not something I would repeat. I was not as informed regarding that phenomena at the time, but am now and what was written in the link you cited will be the last and only post from me on that subject.

In the end it is how the individual relates to these principles which makes or breaks a problem.

Yeah that is how it works, outer guru is the initial support needed for the practitioner to encounter the inner guru.

Still, powers and psychic phenomena are simply signs of resting in equanimity like that you would find in śamatha practice. They are merely mundane siddhis and are not a sign of realization. You can have a siddha who practices dhyāna and has a great many siddhis yet has no realization. And then you can have a yogi with great realization and little siddhis... So the siddhis are really irrelevant.

Believe what you'd like.

Still that is not saying thought is dharmakāya. I never said anything about hoping for non-thought or a lack of thought in general. The thought and dharmakāya thing is a bit more technical than it appears on the surface, but it is the position that Atiyoga takes on the matter. "The Dagpo Kagyüpas designate thoughts and emotions as the dharmakāya; we Great Perfection practitioners do not make that designation." - Namkhai Naljor Lhatsün

Right, because you have an issue with authority.

I'm sure Tulku Pema Rigtsal's exposition would have to be read in it's complete context... but generally yes Dzogchen differentiates between thought and wisdom. In Ati these days, conceited elephants [claim] the mass of discursive concepts is awakened mind (bodhicitta); this confusion is a dimension of complete darkness, a hindrance to the meaning of the natural great perfection. - Chos dbyings mdzod

You bash tradition, authority, organization, and so on, religiously. How might as well stamp how you feel about the subject on your forehead, for there is no mystery about it. A blatant double standard. And will continue to do so. Whatever helps you sleep well at night.

I share from my experience but very rarely talk about my experience... broadcasting one's practices and insights for all to see is bad form.

Yes, the definitive view.

Then they never will suffice as your confirmation biases will not allow it.

Dzogchen disagrees that thought is dharmakāya. That is a Mahāmudrā view. And recognizing the definitive nature of thought does not dissolve thought, it reveals that thought has never arisen in the first place. That is the purpose of that exercise.

Who qualifies the seventeen tantras as worthy? All of you obviously, sitting around in a web forum with the name Dzogchen in your mouths. Really a very odd question coming from someone who appears (or claims) to be interested in Atiyoga.

You can't be serious.

That is quite different than thought merely dissolving. The chain of thought must be completely uprooted through recognizing its nature, otherwise that method has not worked.

With Dzogchen, the definitive view [lta ba] is the true knowledge. Direct knowledge of dharmatā. The practice you are referencing with thought is not meant to watch thought dissolving.

The Dzogchen tantras set out guidelines and define a qualified teacher quite specifically. Teachers are to be evaluated and examined closely... it is said an unexamined teacher is to be avoided at all costs.

Either way, it isn't the Dzogchen view he purports it to be. Neither recalling nor dissolving thought have anything to do with the definitive view of Dzogpachenpo. Better to seek instruction from a qualified teacher.

How patterns of grasping construct and sustain delusion.

However the phenomena you are listing here are nothing but nyams and mundane siddhis... none of that is the "extraordinary cognition" that Dzogchen is concerned with. The only extraordinary cognition or knowledge that Dzogchen is concerned with is vidyā.

Thinking there is not someone out there who experiences victimhood is also a form of grasping. This is why a balance of the conventional and ultimate is important.

Grasping is much more subtle than that. For your assertion here is grasping too if you are not aware of the implications involved with that identification and how that process serves to reify affliction. In terms of grasping, you are falling victim to the very form of clinging you believe you are pointing out in those who value their lama's instructions.

This is just grasping at nyams (meditational experiences). If you had a teacher they would warn you against identifying with these experiences as well. There is a famous story of Padmasambhava relating his experiences in practice to his teacher Śri Singha. Padmasambhava goes to see Śri Singha numerous times, each time relaying a few experiences (some very profound) to his teacher, and each time Śri Singha essentially says "how unfortunate" and sends him away to continue in his practice. Eventually Padmasambhava is of course liberated, but he too had many deviations along the way which involved identifying with meditation experiences. Hence these teachings say experiences are like a patch which eventually wears off. Not to be identified with as anything definitive.

Which is simply grasping at the relative clarity of mind as ultimate. One of the three main errors Dzogchen warns against.