RongzomFan

Utter Nonduality

64 posts in this topic

That's ok, but yes, they are different.

 

 

It's experiencing everything as submerged or merged with the light of awareness, it's an experience which can lead to mistaken views because when things come into focus after such an experience, it seems as if they are all coming from this light, when really one was just blinded by ones inner luminosity, the natural shining of mind experienced directly through focus or in samadhi states, basically from a meditative state. Those that are in a high stage of this level of experience can experience this manifesting out of luminosity moment to moment, mistaking this experience as the "light of god" manifesting everything, seeing everything as one.

 

But, with insight into dependent origination, one sees the emptiness of this experience and sees that this experience of manifesting out of the luminosity of mind is merely a personal experience and is not a revelation of "god" or an all mighty "one" behind everything. This mistaken experience is very, very deep, because there are high level beings from other realms which will come to you and say, "yes... I am god"... and they actually think they are and then they say things and give teachings, some good, some limited, some just straight up bad as if from a "jealous god"... and these gods do actually exist in higher realms. Thus the scriptures of many theistic or monotheistic traditions.

 

Buddhist cosmology is very exhaustive and deep, both metaphorically and literally. I do recommend getting into it as it lays out all the possible experiences and mistakes one can make on the path to higher awakening.

 

 

 

Seeing directly that you do not inherently exist, but only relatively exist. That there is no truly self existing personal self, nor is there a truly self existing universal Self of all.

 

That all experiences and phenomena arise inter-dependently and thus are empty of inherent substance, or essence. Even enlightenment is a relative phenomena according to any Buddha and not a revelation of an ultimate, self shining nature, but is rather an insight into inter-dependence, the luminous nature of mind which is also inter-dependent and it's emptiness, which is also dependent and not "independent."

 

What Robert Bruce is on about is called independent origination, as if all things arise from one ultimate thing as the rooftop or core of all things. It's basically taking the experience of luminosity and ascribing ultimate Self to it, thus clinging to the experience as the "source of all things." This merely leads to long lived god realms, like those talked about in various myths from all the worlds myths, Egyptian to Hindu to Greek to Shamanistic.

 

Buddhism is thoroughly atheistic or even polytheistic but with emptiness, thus none of these gods are ultimate.

 

Condensed form: It's not emptiness because there's still a sense of self in that realization, the I AM everything realization, or I AM the source of everything. Emptiness is when there's no longer any reference point. The experience is the same though, but instead of identifying with everything, labeling everything as a part of Something, there is a surrender of attachment and everything just is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Friends,

 

I really don't see the need to put RB down by saying that he doesn't cover this or that or trying to label or group him into one or the other tradition.

 

Just as anyone teaching, the teachings of RB are what they are: He gives people some tools which enable them to understand their bodies better and how to obtain trance-like meditation / visualization experiences. He does that using plain English in a down-to-the-earth fashion that only an Australian can deliver.

 

All the nothingness meditation is great for many people and several Buddhist traditions, but it is not in the syllabus of what I have seen so far from RB. I guess his premise is that rather than waiting for something to appear out of nothingness, one can simply go to where one wants to go (by using ones intent). IMHO that way you can get all the way into the tao and the nature thereof. So, many traditions will disagree - and Vajrahridaya, you have a valid point about running the risk of letting ones visualization fool oneself into thinking that one discovered something great.

 

In other words, I think RB has an interesting proposition and approach to people who want to get started without too much fuss and see where it can lead them - especially for those who can't really seem to get along with all the formalities around many formal religions and even philosophies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condensed form: It's not emptiness because there's still a sense of self in that realization, the I AM everything realization, or I AM the source of everything. Emptiness is when there's no longer any reference point. The experience is the same though, but instead of identifying with everything, labeling everything as a part of Something, there is a surrender of attachment and everything just is.

 

The experience is actually somewhat different, but the only words one can put to it are articulated so many times and mis-construed in so many ways.

 

The same words seem to mean the same thing in different contexts but don't.

 

Sunya,

 

The experience is not the same, though I've said before that it is, it is not. It only seems the same on the outside. Internally, because the reference is different, the bliss has a vaster and more subtler point of reference of no reference.

 

I don't know how to make it more concise of course.. I'm not a Buddha, just someone with a smigen of experience through transmission. If one really reads CHNNRs' books... it becomes quite clear that Buddhism is indeed the clearest form of reference to non-reference. Buuuuut... it's not impossible to come to the realization through other conceptual forms, if one realizes it's dependent origination/emptiness... but most seem to cling to consciousness' experience as independent origination. So, this all goes back to the Hinayana approach which is very important to understand if one is to embrace Vajrayana to the even subtler Dzogchen.

 

I don't know how else to say this at this moment.

 

Sunya,

 

I know you have an understanding of this. ;) You should read CHNNRs' Precious Vase.

Edited by Vajrahridaya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this from a slightly different perspective:

 

Self-awareness, whether it be the self-awareness of a Buddhist or a Taoist, is a channel that must be travelled in addition to the external knowledge we attain from studies, reading, or masters. The self-awareness channel is a going-in process that involves years of internal Aha's!, which is the connecting mechanism for all the external knowledge we acquire through external means. What we are left with is a cosmic basket weave of our own making, each individually expertly fitted.

 

The series of Aha's! only lead to one place. The I Am.

 

It has nothing to do with ego. In fact, ego must be tamed before the room can be entered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The series of Aha's! only lead to one place. The I Am.

 

 

Only if you empty the I AM of self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, "God" is just a metaphor, so "God is inside of us" is also just a metaphor. If one is inclined to be attracted to the metaphor of God, then why not conceptually bring God back into us?

 

After all, non-dual realization is that "life is not outside of me". Nor is "the world" outside of me. So why should "the Source" be? The externalization of God/Tao/Source continues to leave the individual in victimhood, alienated from the world. It also gives rise to fundamentalism (i.e. "my experience of God is actually how/who God is").

 

I think Frantzis' point is to reduce the distinctions within spiritual experience, something I think we can all learn from. And it's to take responsibility for our experience of the transcendent.

 

The more we try to distinguish "emptiness" vs. "Buddhahood" vs. "luminosity", etc., the more we're mucking about in hearsay and presumption (and fundamentalism!). All I can ever possibly know is "the experience of emptiness", not "emptiness" itself. So why insist on distinctions that I can never truly know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, "God" is just a metaphor, so "God is inside of us" is also just a metaphor. If one is inclined to be attracted to the metaphor of God, then why not conceptually bring God back into us?

 

After all, non-dual realization is that "life is not outside of me". Nor is "the world" outside of me. So why should "the Source" be? The externalization of God/Tao/Source continues to leave the individual in victimhood, alienated from the world. It also gives rise to fundamentalism (i.e. "my experience of God is actually how/who God is").

 

I think Frantzis' point is to reduce the distinctions within spiritual experience, something I think we can all learn from. And it's to take responsibility for our experience of the transcendent.

 

The more we try to distinguish "emptiness" vs. "Buddhahood" vs. "luminosity", etc., the more we're mucking about in hearsay and presumption (and fundamentalism!). All I can ever possibly know is "the experience of emptiness", not "emptiness" itself. So why insist on distinctions that I can never truly know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more we try to distinguish "emptiness" vs. "Buddhahood" vs. "luminosity", etc., the more we're mucking about in hearsay and presumption (and fundamentalism!). All I can ever possibly know is "the experience of emptiness", not "emptiness" itself. So why insist on distinctions that I can never truly know?

 

Yes, you can truly know such distinctions through experience, and having knowledge of these distinguishes is what allows you to have deeper realizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experience is actually somewhat different, but the only words one can put to it are articulated so many times and mis-construed in so many ways.

 

The same words seem to mean the same thing in different contexts but don't.

 

Sunya,

 

The experience is not the same, though I've said before that it is, it is not. It only seems the same on the outside. Internally, because the reference is different, the bliss has a vaster and more subtler point of reference of no reference.

 

I don't know how to make it more concise of course.. I'm not a Buddha, just someone with a smigen of experience through transmission. If one really reads CHNNRs' books... it becomes quite clear that Buddhism is indeed the clearest form of reference to non-reference. Buuuuut... it's not impossible to come to the realization through other conceptual forms, if one realizes it's dependent origination/emptiness... but most seem to cling to consciousness' experience as independent origination. So, this all goes back to the Hinayana approach which is very important to understand if one is to embrace Vajrayana to the even subtler Dzogchen.

 

I don't know how else to say this at this moment.

 

Sunya,

 

I know you have an understanding of this. ;) You should read CHNNRs' Precious Vase.

The I AM is the characteristic of experience that always is. The emptiness is the ungraspable character of that. Luminosity as all pervading essence, like what everything is made of, the emptiness is its naturem like the sweetness of peaches (mmmm :lol: ).

 

The terms become confusing once one tries to identify these aspects in experience which is foolish. You can't find the emptiness of phenomena, you can only experience it directly and realize it directly. You can't find I am ness of phenomena, you simply are. The mind cannot hold these two concepts at once, of movement within stillness and stillness within movement because it's function is to construct and label. You can only experience it so. Just rest in the openness of things.

 

As for the feeling of interconnectivity, I don't know. It feels like everything is interconnected not because one knows one thing is caused from another and so on, but there is a sense that nothing really "belongs" to anything, not even any such thing called a mindstream (I don't even know that term is necessary, because even though everything seems to flow, when the perceptions throw time out the window, it seems like life is an expression rather than some living thing in something, just pure creativity).

 

I breathe in and I feel the universe collapsing into my view, I breathe out and I collapse into its view. Like having sex with the universe all the time. :lol: :lol:

 

Everything is like a reflection on reflection on reflection, but this is still conceptual. I haven't experienced this directly. -_- .

Edited by Lucky7Strikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, finally it came with a price tag: $ 197 only for several thousands value :D

 

 

Hmm what are other people's thoughts on it?

 

Manifestation and Healing DVD

 

From what I understand, its like 10 hours long....

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing directly that you do not inherently exist, but only relatively exist. That there is no truly self existing personal self, nor is there a truly self existing universal Self of all.

 

That all experiences and phenomena arise inter-dependently and thus are empty of inherent substance, or essence. Even enlightenment is a relative phenomena according to any Buddha and not a revelation of an ultimate, self shining nature, but is rather an insight into inter-dependence, the luminous nature of mind which is also inter-dependent and it's emptiness, which is also dependent and not "independent."

I think I am finally starting to get this Buddhist emptiness thing...

 

Everything is empty (devoid) of any real "self" or self-identity. A "self" is just the illusion of some separate identity created by a (temporarily) fixed perspective. But once this perspective shifts (Enlightenment), then this illusion is unveiled. Like going from a firsthand to a zerohand POV.

 

 

But still working on the dependent origination thing, though...lol.

Edited by vortex
1 person thanks this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am finally starting to get this Buddhist emptiness thing...

 

Everything is empty (devoid) of any real "self" or self-identity. A "self" is just the illusion of some separate identity created by a (temporarily) fixed perspective. But once this perspective shifts (Enlightenment), then this illusion is unveiled. Like going from a firsthand to a zerohand POV.

 

 

But still working on the dependent origination thing, though...lol.

 

 

Just stick to Dzogchen views, which are definitive.

 

Emptiness in Dzogchen is primordial purity. Thats a lot simpler right? And it supersedes all lower views!

 

Dependent origination in Dzogchen has to do with esoteric practices that self-liberate the human body into the Sambhogakāya (rainbow body phenomenon).

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry another Robert Bruce thread. This forum is a little slow though. Robert Bruce has an interesting take on nonduality. Usually people take nonduality to be a state of mind. But Robert Bruce takes it further saying YOU are literally God. Everyone is a part of YOU. Everyone who prays to God all around the world is actually praying to YOU. Its crazy stuff, that sort of reminds me of some Vajrayana stuff I read about in Chakrsamvara tantra by David Gray.

 

Robert Bruce uses this power to manifest stuff through verbal affirmations. Verbal affirmations apparently work on the astral plane where your "higher self" is more receptive. Maybe this is how eastern mantras work?

 

He just came out with a new product on this stuff:

 

Manifestation and Healing DVD

That site hacked my web browser! Don't click it guys. It has pop-ups. Use ctrl+alt+delete to close the entire windows. Never click on a popup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That site hacked my web browser! Don't click it guys. It has pop-ups. Use ctrl+alt+delete to close the entire windows. Never click on a popup.

 

 

No thats how Timothy designed it, Robert's business partner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stick to Dzogchen views, which are definitive.

 

Emptiness in Dzogchen is primordial purity. Thats a lot simpler right? And it supersedes all lower views!

 

Dependent origination in Dzogchen has to do with esoteric practices that self-liberate the human body into the Sambhogakāya (rainbow body phenomenon).

 

What does primordial purity mean? You say these words as if everybody understands them. What does pure mean? It has many different meanings for people. Purity in Dzogchen means untainted by concepts, so primordial purity is just the Dzogchen way of saying emptiness.

 

Dzogchen views do not supersede 'lower' views because they have the same views but through different perspectives. There is much more to Dzogchen than esoteric practices that transform the body. That's advanced stuff and isn't relevant to us at all. First you realize and stabilize Rigpa, which is a term that many people mistake for something beyond other Buddhist schools. It's not. All Buddhist schools aim for Rigpa because Rigpa is the natural state of being and the recognition and realization of emptiness.

 

As for dependent origination and Dzogchen, you can read this article if you'd like: Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination

 

Dependent origination and emptiness are realizations of the way things are, so I guess yeah it has to do with esoteric practices that liberate the body. Dependent origination also has to do with taking a piss and drinking coffee.

Edited by Sunya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Lee.........Robert Bruce

 

Get it? 'Non-Duality' means they are one and the same... :ninja:

Edited by TheSongsofDistantEarth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does primordial purity mean? You say these words as if everybody understands them.

 

I expect them to do their own homework obviously.

 

 

Dzogchen views do not supersede 'lower' views

 

Yes they absolutely do.

 

There is much more to Dzogchen than esoteric practices that transform the body.

 

Actually thats the main point and critical characteristic of Dzogchen. You may not like it, but its the truth:)

 

 

P.S. I don't know why you linked that article. What was your point? By the way, thats the same guy I get all my Dzogchen info from, Loppon Namdrol.

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they absolutely do.

 

It would be appreciated if you could respond with a little more of thought out response and an actual rebuttal with content rather than an authoritative denial.

 

The Dzogchen view is the same as the view of Madhyamaka which is the same as the view that the Buddha taught. The emphasis is different, but the views are the same. You should read Small Boat, Great Mountain for a dialogue between Theravada and Dzogchen.

 

Actually thats the main point and critical characteristic of Dzogchen. You may not like it, but its the truth:)

 

I didn't say I didn't like it. It's not relevant. There's a reason Tibetans focus on compassion and wisdom and rarely talk about the esoteric stuff. It can turn into an ego wank very easily.

 

P.S. I don't know why you linked that article. What was your point? By the way, thats the same guy I get all my Dzogchen info from, Loppon Namdrol.

 

Perhaps because you said Dzogchen supersedes all views, and right there in that article Namdrol points out that Dzogchen has the same view as Mahayana.

Edited by Sunya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say I didn't like it. It's not relevant. There's a reason Tibetans focus on compassion and wisdom and rarely talk about the esoteric stuff. It can turn into an ego wank very easily.

 

First off, I don't discount compassion and wisdom.

 

Secondly, do you really expect hardcore esoteric stuff to be given openly? Usually you have to do a multi-year retreat. This is coming from people I know.

 

Thirdly, every Dzogchen material atleasts hints about the esoteric practices.

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Lee.........Robert Bruce

 

Get it? 'Non-Duality' means they are one and the same... :ninja:

 

Yep. I'm hungry. Eat for me. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I don't discount compassion and wisdom.

 

Secondly, do you really expect hardcore esoteric stuff to be given openly? Usually you have to do a multi-year retreat. This is coming from people I know.

 

First off, it does not really make an iota of difference whether or not you discount wisdom and compassion because the essence of method and fruition of the path IS wisdom and compassion, so even if, for example, someone blatantly tries to deny Emptiness and Dependent Origination, although on the conceptual level the premise of this denial appears to be arising from ignorance, at the essence level, the level where realized beings view things, there is no judgement at all.

 

A realized being having attained pure vision.... will be able to see that at the source, the energetic force which gives rise to ignorance is Wisdom. (Samsara is Nirvana). Wisdom cannot cause wisdom to arise... this does not make any sense. Wisdom is needed, and in some individuals, craved, simply because ignorance abound. This is why in the Prajnaparamita Sutra it is encouraged that Bodhisattvas-in-waiting train to go beyond all conceptual views, so as to be free of fixated ideas of this and that, where this and that include all concepts of what wisdom and compassion is, because any attempt to define is seen as setting up of mental boundaries, which goes against the very heart of Buddha's teachings.

 

This transcendent, non-dual view can only manifest and stabilize when DO is seen without any doubt whatsoever, for when there are no more doubts, then the being naturally wells up with Compassion. This is one of the reasons why in certain teachings, adepts are taught to regard all sentient beings as having been, at one stage or another, one's own mother or father. There are many layers to the depth of understanding why this is crucial, and those Bums here who are able to 'see' more will be able to immediately recognize the practicality of developing such an inner regard of others, or in buddhist terminology, such a regard is given the term, 'Bodhicitta'. This is what motivates and moves the Bodhisattvas... nothing else. This is the unequalled aspiration, and also one that is common among all the vehicles, from the most basic all the way up to highest yanas.

 

 

 

Btw, esoteric teachings (in Tantrayana) are only given to students hand-picked by lineage masters and hidden yogins, Attending multiple retreats, be they one or three-year ones, is not the criteria/basis for being selected to be given the deeper, secret teachings. I know this for a fact because i have in the past the good fortune of serving as temporary attendant to a number of retreat masters.

Edited by CowTao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you have a point in this post?

 

Also are you aware that in Dzogchen, compassion comes from abiding in rigpa?

 

Its not something artificially manufactured like in other yanas. Longchenpa had some teachings regarding this which was quoted by Namdrol on the old esangha forum.

Edited by alwayson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites