Further discussion

[manitou]

 

We are talking about what Dzogchen masters 'transmit' to their students or what Alan Wallace says to break on through to the other side into.

 

In a sense, I'm pretty sure that's what Jim Morrison meant too. The other side of the brain.

[Tibetan_Ice]

was that satisfactory proof that rigpa = knowledge?

 

That is the problem. Your simple definition is lacking.

 

It says in your second quote that while "knowledge can refer to ordinary, worldly knowledge, in the Nyingma lineage it is the primary term designating the inherent wisdom within, the awakened state itself." This is a better definition as the Nyingma are known for Dzogchen.

 

However, to say "rigpa = knowledge" lacks the proper elucidation of the proper meaning within the proper context.

 

In the book "Stilling The Mind" by Alan Wallace, he defines rigpa as this:

 

 

rigpa (Skt. vidya). Pristine awareness, the absolute ground state of consciousness, more profound than the substrate consciousness, for it pervades all of reality and not just one’s own mind.

 

Wallace, B. Alan (2011-08-23). Stilling the Mind: Shamatha Teachings from Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence . Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

 

 

The aspect of pervading all of reality in his definition clarifies the whole aspect of 'breaking on through to the other side', which is how Alan has always described rigpa.

 

This clarifies the idea for me that the Dzogchen transmission or introduction is not the transmission of enlightenment, nor is it the transmission of Buddhahood, for enlightenment and Buddhahood cannot be transmitted. Therefore, the transmission must be the pointing out of simple personal awareness, or perhaps, like you say "just simple knowledge", which explains the three forms of transmission: orally - spoken word, read - written word, mentally - mind transmission.

 

In the sense that Alan Wallace defines rigpa, it would be easy to tell once you hit rigpa, because in essence your awareness would become omniscient, which is exactly what "Buddhahood Without Meditation" says is the goal.

 

Edited August 10, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

In a sense, I'm pretty sure that's what Jim Morrison meant too. The other side of the brain.

 

Hi Manitou

I don't think it is the other side of the brain, for apparently, that is the subconscious and I've been there many times. It is full of thoughts/visions/images, thousands and thousands of them. This is something else. It is when all of the layers of consciousness collapse down into the heart, revealing omniscience... You know and are aware of absolutely everything (generic definition of the term)... which actually makes me wonder if Buddha really didn't know that that piece of pork was bad..

 

However, thank you very much for posting that post about Jesus' brother, about how Jesus told his brother that the "I AM" consciousness was within him. I've been reading the Nag Hammadi and I came accross this section, which I found very interesting:

 

In his recent popular study, The American Religion, Harold Bloom suggests a second characteristic

of Gnosticism that might help us conceptually circumscribe its mysterious heart. Gnosticism, says

Bloom, "is a knowing, by and of an uncreated self, or self-within-the self, and [this] knowledge

leads to freedom...." 9 Primary among all the revelatory perceptions a Gnostic might reach was the

profound awakening that came with knowledge that something within him was uncreated. The

Gnostics called this "uncreated self" the divine seed, the pearl, the spark of knowing:

consciousness, intelligence, light. And this seed of intellect was the self-same substance of God, it

was man's authentic reality; it was the glory of humankind and the divine alike. If woman or man

truly came to gnosis of this spark, she understood that she was truly free: Not contingent, not a

conception of sin, not a flawed crust of flesh, but the stuff of God, and the conduit of God's

immanent realization. There was always a paradoxical cognizance of duality in experiencing this

"self-within-a-self". How could it not be paradoxical: By all rational perception, man clearly was

not God, and yet in essential truth, was Godly. This conundrum was a Gnostic mystery, and its

knowing was their greatest treasure.

 

I suspect that this 'spark of knowing consciousness' is the same "I AM" that Nisargadatta talks about, the same "I AM" in the bible, the same source that Ramana speaks of, the very same source just to the right of the heart where the little 'me' lives.

 

All the best.

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

@TI - I'm afraid that seems to confirm what Alwayson is saying ... he seems to me to have bolted dzogchen on as an end point whereas the whole point of not just Dzogchen but also Mahamudra and Lamdre teachings is basis, path and fruit.

 

In any case if you want to be clear about Dzogchen its the Dzogchen master you should refer to.

 

I think this whole thread is out of hand and lacking in the basic kindness for which Buddhism is revered. I realise that the way Alwayson expresses himself upsets a lot of people BUT you have to remember that it is his right to express himself how he chooses ... why it causes everyone else to get angry and start to belittle him I don't know ... but it reflects poorly on those who allow this reaction to dominate. There is absolutely no reason why Alwayson should accept what anyone says about what Dzogchen is or isn't apart from those fully qualified to teach it if he doesn't want to. That's got to be the same for all of us surely.

 

Hey, listen. Perhaps you may have been abused when you were younger and you somehow identify with outright maliciousness, elitist attitudes and abuse as a marker of authority, I don't know, but I refuse to be a victim here. I have more self respect than that.

 

When people say that Jesus did not exist, that Buddhism is the only way to gain liberation, that truth is limited to what only select historians/scholars have written and is the definitive source of the only true knowledge, that New Age is shit, etc. etc. etc. it not only demonstrates a definite lack of Buddhist behaviour, ethics and understanding but really pisses off and offends alot of people. How it is their fault for being pissed when someone tries to put down and destroy their religions or belief systems is beyond me.

 

Remember, people judge you not on what you say, but on how you behave.

[RongzomFan]

that Buddhism is the only way to gain liberation,

 

According to the divine tertons, Buddhadharma is the only way to gain liberation.

 

Feel free to disagree.

Edited August 10, 2013 by alwayson

[Apech]

Hey, listen. Perhaps you may have been abused when you were younger and you somehow identify with outright maliciousness, elitist attitudes and abuse as a marker of authority, I don't know, but I refuse to be a victim here. I have more self respect than that.

Well, congratulations you have managed to speculate about my private life on no evidence and use the language of a victim while claiming not to be one. Think about this. If I was a abused what right have you to drag this into the current conversation? If I wasn't what right have you to imply that I was? Then you imply that I identify with maliciousness and so on ... when I was simply defending the right of another poster to speak and hold certain views. Your hostility shines through your words which I think you should withdraw.

 

I don't know if you are a genuine Buddhist or not, but I think the following applies to anyone anyway. The watchwords are kindness and compassion. The method is to treat others as yourself and indeed hold dear those who are hurtful or cause you distress as they are your greatest teachers. If you don't believe me then read the Eight Verses of Mind Training or similar.

When people say that Jesus did not exist, that Buddhism is the only way to gain liberation, that truth is limited to what only select historians/scholars have written and is the definitive source of the only true knowledge, that New Age is shit, etc. etc. etc. it not only demonstrates a definite lack of Buddhist behaviour, ethics and understanding but really pisses off and offends alot of people. How it is their fault for being pissed when someone tries to put down and destroy their religions or belief systems is beyond me.

 

Remember, people judge you not on what you say, but on how you behave.

I do not say Jesus did not exists. In fact I respect greatly Jesus the person. His ethical teachings, love thy neighbour and so on are practically indistinguishable from the Mahayana. However there is a distinction between the rest of what he taught and dharma. He might have been like a bodhisattva but he was not a bodhisattva because he did not teach emptiness and so on. That's just a fact.

 

What you say is part of how you behave, in fact on here since we do not really know each other, then it is all of how we behave in relation to each other.

 

I would ask you kindly to stop speculating about my personal life and allow me the freedom to make up my own mind about Buddhism, Christianity and New Age including the freedom to express myself.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Apech

[C T]

Hey, listen. Perhaps you may have been abused when you were younger and you somehow identify with outright maliciousness, elitist attitudes and abuse as a marker of authority, I don't know, but I refuse to be a victim here. I have more self respect than that.

 

When people say that Jesus did not exist, that Buddhism is the only way to gain liberation, that truth is limited to what only select historians/scholars have written and is the definitive source of the only true knowledge, that New Age is shit, etc. etc. etc. it not only demonstrates a definite lack of Buddhist behaviour, ethics and understanding but really pisses off and offends alot of people. How it is their fault for being pissed when someone tries to put down and destroy their religions or belief systems is beyond me.

 

Remember, people judge you not on what you say, but on how you behave.

Quite alarmist, totally inaccurate.

[Ish]

-

Edited August 10, 2013 by Ish

[manitou]

 

Hi Manitou

I don't think it is the other side of the brain, for apparently, that is the subconscious and I've been there many times. It is full of thoughts/visions/images, thousands and thousands of them. This is something else. It is when all of the layers of consciousness collapse down into the heart, revealing omniscience... You know and are aware of absolutely everything (generic definition of the term)... which actually makes me wonder if Buddha really didn't know that that piece of pork was bad..

 

However, thank you very much for posting that post about Jesus' brother, about how Jesus told his brother that the "I AM" consciousness was within him. I've been reading the Nag Hammadi and I came accross this section, which I found very interesting:

 

 

 

I suspect that this 'spark of knowing consciousness' is the same "I AM" that Nisargadatta talks about, the same "I AM" in the bible, the same source that Ramana speaks of, the very same source just to the right of the heart where the little 'me' lives.

 

All the best.

TI

TI - I didn't mean to infer that Morrison was an enlightened one. I equate his 'Break on Through...' Doors song to what we are talking about here. Both 'sides' of the brain must be united, must be explored (conscious and subconscious) to achieve the Whole. Remember the picture earlier that was posted where the adept was connecting the tendrils of the two lotuses? This to me is symbolic that both parts of our character, conscious and unconscious, must first be united and explored for the I Am to be understood and internalized. Please note that the adept is sitting in front of a large ball of Oneness. We are One. There is only one 'god' and we seem to be It. It matters not how we find it, as long as we find it. It's not of the mind. It is a Knowing that occurs once the conscious and subconscious are merged and understand each other.... not a Belief Structure. Those following a specific path, whether Buddhism, Islam, Christianity - are all looking for the same thing that was mysteriously implanted in all of our hearts and which beckons us to find it, because it wants to be Found. It wants us all to merge in Oneness and Love and be a communal physical incarnation of Itself. The funny thing is that even a stone atheist (one who chooses not to bother with any of this and denies his inner call) is doing nothing more than rebelling from this implantation.

 

Once our subconscious (break on through to the other side) is explored, whether it be by Buddhist meditation wherein one can examine one's subconsciousness through meditation - or whether it's by purging one's inner self by working the steps of recovery and seeking our own motives which are directed by ego usually - they are all separate paths going up the same mountain and ending up in the same spot. When we sit at the intersection of all paths and are capable of reaching into any path to speak of these things, then it's an indication that the first glimpse of enlightenment is occurring.

 

My guess is that enlightenment is not a destination; rather it is a starting point for perfecting our words and our actions, getting them into alignment with the Love that wants to manifest. Ego is no longer the motivating factor; love is. The relationships (or fellow posters on this board) that are the most challenging and anger us the most are truly our teachers. One's inner ire is a gage that we can use to see our own placement on the path. If we are easy to anger, that's a nice clue that the conditions underlying Ego have not yet been addressed in some particular way. The answers lie in our childhood, the pre-programming we received from the lies that we were told by well-intentioned but unaware people. Like our folks, our little friends, our teachers. And even the repetitious playing of mean spirited computer games. Would they not be negative input as well to a young formative brain?

 

Those who can love one another as ourselves are evolved indeed. But what a challenge! And I don't believe there is a magic pill for it at all; but there are certainly aids that mankind has developed over the centuries, including all spiritual paths (and I include the path of the prodigal son here too). It is in the coming together and discovering the common essential overlay of the paths that the Oneness is found. then and only then will our words and actions reflect the inner glow of understanding within us.

Edited August 10, 2013 by manitou

[Anderson]

@Alwayson...

Are you a supporter and student of Tsem tulku ?

[RongzomFan]

@Alwayson... Are you a supporter and student of Tsem tulku ?

 

I'm not familiar with him.

 

I don't prefer the Gelug school.

[RongzomFan]

I don't believe in Tsongkhapa

[Colonel Goji]

Lol @ Morrison being enlightened. Really? Jk I know you didn't mean that but I want to have some fun with it.

 

Ram Dass and Leary must have been enlightened too I suppose. But probably were just more delusional than anything and a little self absorbed after having met 'God' or 'figured it all out' on LSD. Hey at least they were trying to find some kind of peace.

 

Now if someone accidentally were to infer that someone along the lines of, let's say James Allen for instance, the late 19th early 20th century British philosophical writer known for his inspirational books and poetry and as a pioneer of the self-help movement, was indeed enlightened, I might just have to agree.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Colonel Goji

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Well, congratulations you have managed to speculate about my private life on no evidence and use the language of a victim while claiming not to be one. Think about this. If I was a abused what right have you to drag this into the current conversation? If I wasn't what right have you to imply that I was? Then you imply that I identify with maliciousness and so on ... when I was simply defending the right of another poster to speak and hold certain views. Your hostility shines through your words which I think you should withdraw.

 

I don't know if you are a genuine Buddhist or not, but I think the following applies to anyone anyway. The watchwords are kindness and compassion. The method is to treat others as yourself and indeed hold dear those who are hurtful or cause you distress as they are your greatest teachers. If you don't believe me then read the Eight Verses of Mind Training or similar.

 

I do not say Jesus did not exists. In fact I respect greatly Jesus the person. His ethical teachings, love thy neighbour and so on are practically indistinguishable from the Mahayana. However there is a distinction between the rest of what he taught and dharma. He might have been like a bodhisattva but he was not a bodhisattva because he did not teach emptiness and so on. That's just a fact.

 

What you say is part of how you behave, in fact on here since we do not really know each other, then it is all of how we behave in relation to each other.

 

I would ask you kindly to stop speculating about my personal life and allow me the freedom to make up my own mind about Buddhism, Christianity and New Age including the freedom to express myself.

Apech,

I gave you the opportunity here to demonstrate what you suggest that everyone should practice: you said: "but it reflects poorly on those who allow this reaction to dominate. " And you are right. Your reaction to my hypothetical observation demonstrates that you yourself have allowed your reaction to dominate you. How can you recommend something to others that you are incapable of performing yourself?

 

Then you say " when I was simply defending the right of another poster to speak and hold certain views." The right to speak and hold certain views on a public forum is a priviledge, not a right. There are forum rules, as you are well aware of. When you defend someone's right to speak but that person continually denigrates others' beliefs, misrepresents the opinions, insults people and aggrevates nearly everyone, you deserve some of that karma too, don't you?

 

For example, here are some statements that Alwaysoff has made:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=461430

 

You are completely clueless

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=461436

 

seriously, I don't give a fuck about jesus

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=461445

Once Tibetan Ice supports your position, you know you are wrong.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=461524

Posted 04 August 2013 - 07:41 PM

idiot_stimpy, on 04 Aug 2013 - 18:10, said:

The sad thing is, Joe Fisher committed suicide.

He took the New Age path all the way to its conclusion.

 

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=461667

I personally believe that Yahweh and Allah are also hungry ghosts

 

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=461945

You are not even a Buddhist, let alone a Vajrayana practitioner.

 

You are a self-admitted New Age Christian.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=400403

Like zombies?

 

For me, Columbia PhD in Ancient History Richard Carrier convinced me that Jesus never existed.

 

 

And this video convinced me that Mohammed never existed:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=403257

Zen teachers are not authorities on anything. Zen people are incredibly stupid.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/28469-atheism-is-realist-buddhist-definition-just-like-theism/?p=435770

My attitude? Atheists are the one who have an undeserved sense of arrogance. These people are just ex-Christians for the most part, and have the philosophical intelligence of christians. Not every atheist is Richard Dawkins.

 

And then, for a history of Alwaysoff's ability to piss people off, try this:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&keywords=alwayson

 

I think you get the picture.

 

Two points:

my comments pertaining to views and derogatory statements were not directed to you. I don't really care what you believe. I don't think you are malicious, arrogant, self-serving or promoting hatred or elitism.

 

Being bound in heavy scholasticism, relying on books that scholars have written is counter to Buddhism.

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha

 

Why a pseudo scholar, with poor english, gets to lord their elitist dogma found in books over others in the Buddhist forum, the Vedanta forum and the General Discussion forum is beyond me. There is no way that Alwaysoff has practical knowledge of the numerous sources he quotes; he relies soley on what he has found in religious books, and which has been handed down for many generations. This contradicts the spirit of Buddha's teachings and is leading others away from the true spirit of Buddhism, isn't it?

 

Edited August 11, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

What is wrong with the statement:

 

"I personally believe that Yahweh and Allah are also hungry ghosts"

 

 

Loppon Namdrol thinks Yahweh and Allah are mundane tribal gyalpos.

This is a standard Buddhist sentiment.

 

 

And Atheists believe that Yahweh and Allah are fictional characters.

Edited August 11, 2013 by alwayson

[Apech]

Apech,

I gave you the opportunity here to demonstrate what you suggest that everyone should practice: you said: "but it reflects poorly on those who allow this reaction to dominate. " And you are right. Your reaction to my hypothetical observation demonstrates that you yourself have allowed your reaction to dominate you. How can you recommend something to others that you are incapable of performing yourself?

 

Then you say " when I was simply defending the right of another poster to speak and hold certain views." The right to speak and hold certain views on a public forum is a priviledge, not a right. There are forum rules, as you are well aware of. When you defend someone's right to speak but that person continually denigrates others' beliefs, misrepresents the opinions, insults people and aggrevates nearly everyone, you deserve some of that karma too, don't you?

 

...

 

I will defend everyone's right to express themselves whether I agree with them or not. If they break the forum rules I will not defend that. Not sure what you mean by my deserving some karma, what you say about it doesn't make much sense. My reaction to your 'hypothetical observation' is that it comes close to breaking forum rules and you should not use this kind of argument against another poster as it is potentially hurtful, as if for instance I had been abused in childhood say, then why would you wish to bring that up? Or perhaps you merely wished to discount what I had to say because you found it too difficult.

 

If you find something wrong with anything Alwayson says then you should report it and let the mods decide what action to take.

[Anderson]

TI - I didn't mean to infer that Morrison was an enlightened one. I equate his 'Break on Through...' Doors song to what we are talking about here. Both 'sides' of the brain must be united, must be explored (conscious and subconscious) to achieve the Whole. Remember the picture earlier that was posted where the adept was connecting the tendrils of the two lotuses? This to me is symbolic that both parts of our character, conscious and unconscious, must first be united and explored for the I Am to be understood and internalized. Please note that the adept is sitting in front of a large ball of Oneness. We are One. There is only one 'god' and we seem to be It. It matters not how we find it, as long as we find it. It's not of the mind. It is a Knowing that occurs once the conscious and subconscious are merged and understand each other.... not a Belief Structure. Those following a specific path, whether Buddhism, Islam, Christianity - are all looking for the same thing that was mysteriously implanted in all of our hearts and which beckons us to find it, because it wants to be Found. It wants us all to merge in Oneness and Love and be a communal physical incarnation of Itself. The funny thing is that even a stone atheist (one who chooses not to bother with any of this and denies his inner call) is doing nothing more than rebelling from this implantation.

 

Once our subconscious (break on through to the other side) is explored, whether it be by Buddhist meditation wherein one can examine one's subconsciousness through meditation - or whether it's by purging one's inner self by working the steps of recovery and seeking our own motives which are directed by ego usually - they are all separate paths going up the same mountain and ending up in the same spot. When we sit at the intersection of all paths and are capable of reaching into any path to speak of these things, then it's an indication that the first glimpse of enlightenment is occurring.

 

My guess is that enlightenment is not a destination; rather it is a starting point for perfecting our words and our actions, getting them into alignment with the Love that wants to manifest. Ego is no longer the motivating factor; love is. The relationships (or fellow posters on this board) that are the most challenging and anger us the most are truly our teachers. One's inner ire is a gage that we can use to see our own placement on the path. If we are easy to anger, that's a nice clue that the conditions underlying Ego have not yet been addressed in some particular way. The answers lie in our childhood, the pre-programming we received from the lies that we were told by well-intentioned but unaware people. Like our folks, our little friends, our teachers. And even the repetitious playing of mean spirited computer games. Would they not be negative input as well to a young formative brain?

 

Those who can love one another as ourselves are evolved indeed. But what a challenge! And I don't believe there is a magic pill for it at all; but there are certainly aids that mankind has developed over the centuries, including all spiritual paths (and I include the path of the prodigal son here too). It is in the coming together and discovering the common essential overlay of the paths that the Oneness is found. then and only then will our words and actions reflect the inner glow of understanding within us.

 

There isn't oneness , we are not one and all the paths dont lead to the same place.This is the view of hippies or new age-ists.

You should understand that every path has its own view and the result of that path is based entirely on that view.No view no result.

This is the first thing anybody should understand before making claims about how all paths lead to the same place.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Anderson

[C T]

There isn't oneness , we are not one and all the paths dont lead to the same place.This is the view of hippies or new age-ists.

You should understand that every path has its own view and the result of that path is based entirely on that view.No view no result.

This is the first thing anybody should understand before making claims about how all paths lead to the same place.

Says you?

[Jetsun]

 

There isn't oneness , we are not one and all the paths dont lead to the same place.This is the view of hippies or new age-ists.

You should understand that every path has its own view and the result of that path is based entirely on that view.No view no result.

This is the first thing anybody should understand before making claims about how all paths lead to the same place.

What's the difference between oneness and non duality? my personal experience has shown me that we are one, in quite a shocking way we are all the same being, yet we are also all unique in the way that every snowflake is unique.

[Protector]

Sword and Crown are worthless here.
I invite everyone to dance.
Laborers, Lawyers, Church, and Gown, All make thair little prance.

Men and Women, Young and Old, reject my prophet hand.
I don't implore them, nor ignore them.
I firmly take my stand.

This life is full of random death.
And heaps of greif and shame.
So few are soothed by "accident",
You wnat someone to blame.

Fire, Plague, or Strange Disease,
Drowned, Murdered, or, if you please,
A long fall down the basement stairs.

None are expected,
No one cares.

I know the steps very well,
All must learn my little dance.

Families may die and loved ones cry, but no one is left to chance.

I often must work very hard, sweat running down my skin.
After the dance, I then must rest, and the eating can begin.

[RongzomFan]

There isn't oneness , we are not one and all the paths dont lead to the same place.This is the view of hippies or new age-ists.

You should understand that every path has its own view and the result of that path is based entirely on that view.No view no result.

This is the first thing anybody should understand before making claims about how all paths lead to the same place.

 

Exactly

[C T]

Exactly

exactly stuck you mean.

[RongzomFan]

exactly stuck you mean.

 

You are supposed to be stuck. Dudjom Rinpoche says "Don't toss away a gem to search for a trinket. Since we have the extreme good fortunate to have met with such profound instructions, the heart blood of the dakinis, be inspired."

 

And where do you get the notion that all paths lead to the same place?

 

There is a difference between Bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas and arhats.

 

There are 6 different lokas that people get reborn in samsara.

 

etc. etc.

Edited August 11, 2013 by alwayson

[Ish]

 

 

You should understand that every path has its own view and the result of that path is based entirely on that view.No view no result.

 

A view of any sort is a concept correct?

 

In my opinion Dzogchen in its essence is concept-less so does it fall into the "no view, no result" category?

 

This would make sense to me

[steve]

You should understand that every path has its own view and the result of that path is based entirely on that view.No view no result.

 

So it appears that your belief is that the path and the result of that path creates reality.

While I agree that it certainly does, that reality is a relative reality, not the underlying truth.

It is the creation of a conceptual path.

 

Our true nature is the same, regardless of the conceptual framework that obscures it.

The Daoist, Christian, Dzogchenpa, and new age hippie are of one taste.

All are a dance (thanks Protector) of emptiness and clarity, just as thoughts and the matrix from/within which they arise are of one taste.

 

The truth is not created by the path but the fortunate may find that the proper path combined with the proper view and guidance help to strip away that conceptual framework and allow 'knowledge' to take the place of concepts. And even this is not enough. Once the knowledge is encountered, that knowledge must be brought into each and every moment of our lives and deaths.