asunthatneversets

Prior existence? You'll have to elaborate on your misunderstanding.

Yes.

Beautiful place, incredible teacher.

Yes it is a problem, however if you choose to believe it isn't then you are of course entitled to that opinion. There is no contradiction, and I don't see how a non-sequitur applies in this context. A sentient being results from ignorance, and suffering is therefore implied. How it cannot be proven I'm not sure, it is blatantly obvious that one's relative condition is delusion and is the cause of suffering if you have truly recognized your nature. Yes, absolutist thinking in an error, you should be careful not to fall into that trap further than you already have, but you are of course free to do as you please.

I mean, it's pretty simple; if you aren't mindful of your karma then you end up reifying delusional propensities and samsara continues to proliferate, hence suffering proliferates. Samaya is a suggested set of guidelines for conduct, if you aren't mindful of your conduct then you end up reifying delusional propensities and samsara continues to proliferate, hence suffering proliferates. An excerpt from the section on "Retaining the Blessings" from a soon-to-be published commentary on the Padma Garbha Tantra: Samayas are the commitments that need to be upheld so that the blessings and benefits of the empowerment do not dissipate. Thrangu Rinpoche once said that if you can break the samaya then you hadnt received the real empowerment in the first place, for if you had actually received the empowerment then it is impossible to break the samaya. From that point of view there is never anything to worry about. However, actually receiving the true empowerment, rather than just going through the motions, appears to be quite rare; so we should consider what samayas are and how they can benefit our practice to help us attain complete enlightenment. People commonly see a vow as something additional that one takes on, such as a promise that we make; if we do not keep it then we are said to break our vow. The word samaya, however, means not to become separate from, therefore the samayas describe how to avoid straying from the intrinsic qualities of our innate nature. For example, the empowerments all lead to the recognition of the primordially pure emptiness of all phenomena, so the samaya of the view is to never lose sight of that basic truth; thus, from this perspective, whenever you become distracted, you can be said to have broken your samaya. There is a tendency to believe that if you break samaya, then you are to be punished in some way; for example, you will go to hell, get sick, have an accident or such. However, the fact is that simply by not maintaining the view or by not acting in accordance with the view, you naturally suffer. As ignorance or unknowing (Skt. avidya, Tib. marigpa) is the single root cause of samsara, any so-called punishment is contained in the very straying itself. It hurts when you put your hand in the fire, otherwise you wouldnt pull your hand away and you would suffer horrible burns; likewise we should be thankful that losing the view results in pain and suffering, as otherwise we would never seek the complete liberation of buddhahood and instead just continue perpetuating samsara. According to the viewpoint of Vajrayana, even hell is a pure realm of great bliss. It is just a matter of perspective; if you dont recognize the ground of primordial purity then you are going to suffer your own personal hell, but if you do recognize it then wherever you are will be a pure buddha field. It is really quite logical and reasonable. Far from anything which even remotely resembles a medieval belief system

Quite often in the tantras too... it's as fresh as fresh can be.

The certainty comes through direct experiential realizations and insights. And that certainty results in deep appreciation for the teachings.

Yes, unbroken lineages which have maintained the teachings for centuries. This means that you can today, receive the same instruction and practices which were given to aspirants hundreds of years ago. The fact that integrity has been preserved for so long, passed down through the generations from the old to the new, is incredible. Truly invaluable.

Perhaps that is how it is in whichever tradition or view you are partial to, but in the buddhadharma and Dzogpachenpo there is no issue with upholding the principles of the system.

No that would be Brahman or purusha as presented in Advaita or Samkhya yogas. The dharmakāya is not equivalent to or synonymous with those notions.

Yeah, been figuring that out in the past couple days actually... :/

I take it your comment "Bull", followed by "the dharmakāya is omnipresent" is suggesting that you believe dharmakāya to be transpersonal?

Uh, did you just quote Jax's misinterpretation of dharmakāya in that dharma connection blog link? Which I will not comment on any further seeing as how the entire discussion in that link is between he and I.

A valid opinion.

Post did not format correctly.

'Pervasive awareness' is just a term being thrown around today that stems from a translation of the Tibetan term 'khyab rig'. Khyab rig is the sugatagarbha or tathāgatagarbha, which is the dharmakāya encased in affliction, abiding as a latent potentiality. So it can't be pointed out. It is simply a given that sentient beings are sugatagarbha, because all sentient beings possess buddhanature. Though whether that nature is recognized and divested of obscuration is a different story. What is pointed out during direct introduction can vary depending on the individual. The Vajrayāna path requires pointing out instruction, or intimate instructions, and liberation which is brought about via those means would be the end of those means (and therefore require intimate instruction). But liberation in general, actualized through any other vehicle in the buddhadharma does not require intimate instruction (though it is of course advised one seeks the support of a living teacher or mentor).

Jean-Luc's insight is on point, and he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Dzogpachenpo. This is equivalent to Advaita Vedanta or any other tīrthika non-dual view. A common error in interpretation when it comes to Dzogchen. It is a view that the Dzogchen tantras try very hard to distance themselves from. Khyab rig (what you are calling 'pervading rigpa') is the sugatagarbha, it is a potentiality which must be actualized through recognition. Hence; the inborn and latent rigpa which pervades the hearts of sentient beings. It does not pervade material existence like awareness pervades materiality in Vedanta. When Lopon Rinpoche mentions the 'nature' pervading objects, he is addressing their respective dharmatās. The notion of a singular field which pervades everything is precisely the misconception that Jean-Luc and Lopon Tenzin Namdak are refuting. Yes, but you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'nature' here and this mistake is actually addressed specifically by Lopon Tenzin Namdak. He states that misunderstanding 'nature' in this way goes directly against the Dzogchen view, breaking the Dzogchen dam tsigs of gcig pu and phyal ba. Lopon Rinpoche addressing gcig pu: "...it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen. Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one' pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."

Yes, hopefully Jean-Luc's insight on this principle clarifies khyab rig for you, as it is the sugatagarbha which abides as the latent potential for awakening within sentient beings, and is not related to hearing far away sounds in any way.

Neither of those definitions have anything to do with the two modalities of rigpa you are referencing. Effortlessly hearing far away sounds has nothing to do with khyab rig, and willfully directing attention has nothing to do with bsam rig.

Those are just mundane siddhis, indications of meditation and practice but not signs of realization.

That is why you would not tell a person in the street that everything is non-arisen.

Simple Jack's comments on the previous page are excellent. I'm not sure why there is such contention towards a term such as 'non-arising', it is a perfect term to describe that species of insight in my eyes. Non-arising entails recognizing that appearance does not actually create anything, it is suddenly apparent there is no identity or entity within or behind appearance, like a reflection, no arising in apparent arising, that is non-arising. It is a direct non-conceptual cognition, just like seeing the color blue, or tasting an apple. Just as you see an object you see that nothing is truly 'there'. No core or essence, no linking qualities which extend that appearance in time or space. It feels like you are seeing something correctly for the very first time, directly perceiving the actuality of phenomena. No longer beguiled by taking things to be real, like waking up from a dream, and you know intimately that nothing is real. The recognition is so immediate and intimate, carrying a doubtlessness about it, requiring no evaluation or outside confirmation like you wouldn't need someone to confirm that you had just been stung by a bee. This is me trying to put it in words for you, since you feel so put off that I don't speak about my experience, but how to actually capture that? Seeing appearances yet knowing without any doubt or uncertainty that there is nothing 'there', and never has been, it really cannot be communicated. It is beautiful.

I'm also sorry you seem to have such an incredibly negative perception of me.

I wouldn't give answers or insight which isn't based on my own experience. I don't like to talk about my experience (because there is a very thin line where pride and grasping can step in), but I will always talk from my experience. I would never ever speak or write about something I don't have experience of, for the very reason that it would be unfair to people who may read it and would be a lie.