What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[Simple_Jack]

A well founded argument is based on creative ways of stating one's position as opposed to repeating memorized phrases. Your arguments are based on the latter.

 

Says the guy who deferred to Hegel's dialectic of Being.

[asunthatneversets]

A well founded argument is based on creative ways of stating one's position as opposed to repeating memorized phrases. Your arguments are based on the latter.

And your assessment is misguided.

[Paul]

Let me get this straight. You say dzogchen cannot be taught.

 

Right.

 

But your Dzogchen teachers said you know Dzogchen.

 

Right.

 

At the same time, when asked directly, you say you don't know Dzogchen (answering "no" to "are you a realized being").

 

Right.

 

And you offer your services in transitting Dzogchen teachings?

 

Is this just about right?

 

Correct.

 

On the money.

[goldisheavy]

On the money.

 

Finally I got something right.

 

So earlier you said you considered certain people your teachers because you considered them realized beings.

 

If I were to use your own standard to evaluate you, would I consider your transmission worth something?

[Paul]

Finally I got something right.

 

So earlier you said you considered certain people your teachers because you considered them realized beings.

 

If I were to use your own standard to evaluate you, would I consider your transmission worth something?

 

How would I know what you consider?

[ralis]

You obviously have no idea what constitutes a foundation.

 

What facts do you base that assessment on? For someone in the legal profession or so you claim, your ability to state a reasonable argument doesn't show.

 

I have friends that are well educated scientists, lawyers and academics. I am well acquainted with well thought out discussions.

Edited July 9, 2014 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

How would I know what you consider?

 

I'm asking you to put yourself in my shoes.

 

Consider what you are saying. You're saying that the reason you think of certain people as your teachers is because you think they are realized beings with psychic powers of all kinds. This sets up an idea of what a teacher is like.

 

Then you say you are a teacher too, but when I ask you about your realization, you say you have none. So you don't quite live up to the teacher idea that you've described earlier.

 

Also you say that you teach that which cannot be taught. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a scam?

Edited July 9, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Anderson]

LOL. I'm a lawyer! Of course I know what it means.

 

Hi Paul,

 

a criminal defense lawyer to be exact.

[Apech]

---Moderator Message ---

 

I've locked this thread temporarily while I decide what to do about all the insults and bickering.

 

I'll switch it back on later.

 

--- Message Ends ---

 

--- On second thoughts ---

 

Unlocked again .. please avoid personal insults as it is a rule break and will result in suspension or even banning.

 

Sorry for delay had to clear a drain in my back yard. It was full of bad smelling nastiness.

 

--- Thank you ---

[Paul]

What facts do you base that assessment on? For someone in the legal profession or so you claim, your ability to state a reasonable argument doesn't show.

 

I have friends that are well educated scientists, lawyers and academics. I am well acquainted with well thought out discussions.

 

Because creativity has nothing to do with setting the preconditions for factual assertion. Facts come from other facts.

[Paul]

I'm asking you to put yourself in my shoes.

 

Consider what you are saying. You're saying that the reason you think of certain people as your teachers is because you think they are realized beings with psychic powers of all kinds. This sets up an idea of what a teacher is like.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I said those are common siddhis. The uncommon, the ultimate siddhi, is contemplation, the realization of Mahamudra/Dzogchen.

 

Then you say you are a teacher too, but when I ask you about your realization, you say you have none. So you don't quite live up to the teacher idea that you've described earlier.

 

The first rule of Dzogchen is we don't talk about Dzogchen.

 

Also you say that you teach that which cannot be taught. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a scam?

 

Dzogchen cannot be taught, so why do teachers spend hours and hours giving teachings? Because they show you how to be in that nature with methods, namely, direct introduction. Anyone who has sat through a retreat with Choegyal Namkhai Norbu knows that.

 

It is the definition of liberation, not a scam. When are you going to stop being a little pest?

[Paul]

 

Hi Paul,

 

a criminal defense lawyer to be exact.

 

That's right. Fighting for the rights of Americans since 2003.

[Simple_Jack]

---Moderator Message ---

 

I've locked this thread temporarily while I decide what to do about all the insults and bickering.

 

I'll switch it back on later.

 

--- Message Ends ---

 

--- On second thoughts ---

 

Unlocked again .. please avoid personal insults as it is a rule break and will result in suspension or even banning.

 

Sorry for delay had to clear a drain in my back yard. It was full of bad smelling nastiness.

 

--- Thank you ---

 

You know what's funny? This is playing out exactly like when Vajrarhidaya was still posting on here...except dwai was fulfilling the role of supreme Vedantin when he was telling the Buddhists they "don't get it".

[Jetsun]

You know what's funny? This is playing out exactly like when Vajrarhidaya was still posting on here...except dwai was fulfilling the role of supreme Vedantin when he was telling the Buddhists they "don't get it".

 

You have repeated this many times and repeated the same post at Gatito many times, any more and it will be considered spam and it will be reported for moderation action.

[Simple_Jack]

You have repeated this many times and repeated the same post at Gatito many times, any more and it will be considered spam and it will be reported for moderation action.

 

Gatito's the prototypical neoadvaitan telling everyone they "don't get it", while correcting the understanding of an entire lineage. He's represented by the brown bear in this video:

 

[steve]

People love to hear themselves wax poetic.

 

I try to appeal for some kindness and restraint and all you can do is be critical of me.

I've tried to maintain some hope that this could be a place that is supportive and warm, where we can interact and share and help each other rather than criticize and denigrate one another. I'm beginning to realize that it's not possible on an open forum.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't toot my own horn, unlike you or Steve.

 

Is that all you could see in my post?

 

 

How would you describe your contributions?

 

Go jump in a lake.

 

 

Puke face

 

 

You're most unwelcome

 

 

Go back to smelling your farts in the bathtub, genius.

 

 

My mummy died. I hate you.

 

 

oh, that's funny... I was going to ask you to eat my shit. In case you didn't notice, I wasn't requesting a meeting with you...

 

 

I'm rich bitch! And I fuck all the hot girls without saying a word, nerd.

 

 

No. In my bed. The ladies love me... My wife is a 10. AND she's a yogini. I rule, dude. Honestly. It's the blessing of Vajrayogini.

 

 

You're an asshole.

 

 

Wow you're slow too.

 

I can give transmission.

 

 

I'm a lawyer!

 

Very sad if this is the behavior of someone who has been authorized to offer Dzogchen transmission.

It reflects quite poorly on your teachers.

I wonder how they would feel reading these posts of yours?

 

 

The first rule of Dzogchen is we don't talk about Dzogchen.

 

Then what is it exactly that you are doing here?

[Paul]

I try to appeal for some kindness and restraint and all you can do is be critical of me.

I've tried to maintain some hope that this could be a place that is supportive and warm, where we can interact and share and help each other rather than criticize and denigrate one another. I'm beginning to realize that it's not possible on an open forum.

 

 

It would be if it were a place for Dzogchen practitioners to discuss Dzogchen issues with Dzogchen practitioners. Instead it is a place for all-comers to intervene in a sincere request for explanations to post statements that denigrate Dzogchen. I would throw rocks if I could.

 

Is that all you could see in my post?

 

 

How would you describe your contributions?

 

At this point, I'm throwing rocks.

Very sad if this is the behavior of someone who has been authorized to offer Dzogchen transmission.

It reflects quite poorly on your teachers.

I wonder how they would feel reading these posts of yours?

 

There was a guy who came to our center and wanted to question everyone and offer his opinions about everyone, until it finally degenerated into him telling us Kali wants to cut off our heads. The response was to tell him, sorry, we have no time for you, as we opened the front door for him to go as my teacher laughed his ass off at him. My teacher is a mahasiddha. He's laughed at me too. He's called me a liar. Don't expect ordinary courtesy from someone who rests in the natural state. Expect the truth.

 

Then what is it exactly that you are doing here?

 

If there is a Dzogchen practitioner with a teacher I can tell her/him all manner of stuff. If there is someone interested in Dzogchen and interested in general terminology, I can provide some basic terms. Most of the basic terms are shared among Mahayana. So there's not much danger there.

 

All our Dzogchen teachers say do not debate Dzogchen, especially with people from other traditions. We are to respect other traditions and not criticize them. I have never criticized the Hindu Advaita. I have training in that from a little boy by my grandfather, Puri Baba Ji. I know this tradition very well. I respect it very much. I won't be venturing into that thread to play saboteur or semantic wrestling.

 

The tantra tradition is not about being warm and fluffy all the time. We can get aggressive when necessary. We protect this. For me, it's better for you to think I'm some bad guy and don't like me or my teachers than to denigrate the teachings or even to act like you already know what this is about.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Paul

[Paul]

BTW, for those who have an interest in Dzogchen, the teaching and introduction are very simple. The method taught is the actual teacher. Thus, the teacher's act is not a measure. People generally come to Dzogchen after having signs in dreams and other interdependent signs. It is a self-exclusive club. We don't give invitations and we don't proselytize. In fact, it is discouraged for people to join. HH the Dalai Lama says you should stay with your own tradition. Unless someone has a yearning devotion to lineage, there's no reason to teach these methods. No one comes to Dzogchen without having a seriously long past life history with it. It's usually way too much for folks. Why? It's completely beyond the mind

Edited July 9, 2014 by Paul

[steve]

It would be if it were a place for Dzogchen practitioners to discuss Dzogchen issues with Dzogchen practitioners. Instead it is a place for all-comers to intervene in a sincere request for explanations to post statements that denigrate Dzogchen. I would throw rocks if I could.

 

 

At this point, I'm throwing rocks.

 

There was a guy who came to our center and wanted to question everyone and offer his opinions about everyone, until it finally degenerated into him telling us Kali wants to cut off our heads. The response was to tell him, sorry, we have no time for you, as we opened the front door for him to go as my teacher laughed his ass off at him. My teacher is a mahasiddha. He's laughed at me too. He's called me a liar. Don't expect ordinary courtesy from someone who rests in the natural state. Expect the truth.

 

 

If there is a Dzogchen practitioner with a teacher I can tell her/him all manner of stuff. If there is someone interested in Dzogchen and interested in general terminology, I can provide some basic terms. Most of the basic terms are shared among Mahayana. So there's not much danger there.

 

All our Dzogchen teachers say do not debate Dzogchen, especially with people from other traditions. We are to respect other traditions and not criticize them. I have never criticized the Hindu Advaita. I have training in that from a little boy by my grandfather, Puri Baba Ji. I know this tradition very well. I respect it very much. I won't be venturing into that thread to play saboteur or semantic wrestling.

 

The tantra tradition is not about being warm and fluffy all the time. We can get aggressive when necessary. We protect this. For me, it's better for you to think I'm some bad guy and don't like me or my teachers than to denigrate the teachings or even to act like you already know what this is about.

 

I appreciate your sincere reply.

 

While we certainly don't need to be warm and fluffy all the time, I'm hoping to appeal to the sincere practitioner in you and others (myself included) to look at this place in a different light. What if we viewed the Buddhist sub-forum here as a Gompa of sorts and treated the space with respect as we (hopefully) treat the teachings? More and more the web is being used for legitimate teachings and empowerments. The potential is limitless as long as we create the right environment.

 

What if we were to treat others here with respect, knowing that they were once our parents or children? At least, those of us who take this stuff seriously and try to live it. The others are free to agree, disagree, believe, disbelieve - it's fine. It's all part of the thig le nyag gcig, no?

 

When folks act like spoiled children, moderators will deal with them appropriately, and sincere practitioners will show some compassion and disengage if necessary. I think this is a better strategy than throwing rocks.

 

I recently returned from a short retreat and went to my neighbor's house to do them a favor. The whole family did nothing but hammer me with questions, knowing that I'd been on retreat, challenging and trying to poke holes in my answers whenever they didn't make sense with their non-Buddhist world view. I think folks feel insecure about their place in the world and whenever someone seems a bit too comfortable or seems to have some answers, they attack them, looking for weaknesses. Then when they find a weakness, they feel better about their own insecurity. It's quite dysfunctional and sad but rather than get angry and feed into the conflict we can practice compassion.

 

Anyway, I may sound fluffy and idealistic and maybe a bit arrogant, and I can live with that. But I am being sincere here. There are a few folks on the forum who are genuine practitioners and some who are quite knowledgeable and I think that we can be better than this. But those who do have the goods need to set the example. Otherwise we'll just keep circling the intellectual drain...

[asunthatneversets]

At least, those of us who take this stuff seriously and try to live it. The others are free to agree, disagree, believe, disbelieve - it's fine. It's all part of the thig le nyag gcig, no?

 

The thigle nyag gcig is the nature of mind... so no in the ultimate sense it's not all a part of the nature of mind. Going back to the snake-rope metaphor; the snake ends up being unfindable and non-arisen, meaning the snake was never actually a part of anything other than one's delusion. In the same way, the various things that conventionality suggests are also mere abstraction and fabrication, and so are not all a part of one's nature in the ultimate sense.

 

The thigle nyag gcig isn't 'one thing' which encompasses all things like brahman... the thigle nyag gcig is 'one' in the sense that there is one nature, all things are empty, but that 'emptiness' is not a single 'thing' or substance. It also means there are not multiple liberations, but truly only 'one' mode; you are either liberated or you aren't, but the thigle nyag gcig is nothing which would suggest "it's all a part of the thig le nyag gcig".

Edited July 9, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[steve]

The thigle nyag gcig is the nature of mind... so no in the ultimate sense it's not all a part of the nature of mind. Going back to the snake-rope metaphor; the snake ends up being unfindable and non-arisen, meaning the snake was never actually a part of anything other than one's delusion. In the same way, the various things that conventionality suggests are also mere abstraction and fabrication, and so are not all a part of one's nature in the ultimate sense.

 

The thigle nyag gcig isn't 'one thing' which encompasses all things like brahman... the thigle nyag gcig is 'one' in the sense that there is one nature, all things are empty, but that 'emptiness' is not a single 'thing' or substance. It also means there are not multiple liberations, but truly only 'one' mode; you are either liberated or you aren't, but the thigle nyag gcig is nothing which would suggest "it's all a part of the thig le nyag gcig".

 

 

I appreciate your comments and efforts to help me understand.

 

While the thig le nyag gcig is certainly not a thing consisting of parts, it does represent an underlying nature and a wholeness, or completeness, e.g. Complete Perfection, no?

And while this may not imply a big, happy One-ness that includes everything and everyone a la Brahman, there is some sort of sense of completeness, a single taste, isn't there? Nothing is excluded.

 

And I don't mean to imply the universality of such nature, but I also don't mean to exclude it.

That shared nature is empty of any characteristics, 'like' the sky, and even empty of itself and yet that emptiness is not an absence because it is the nature of all the various manifestations.

Hence the importance of understanding the fault of the four extremes.

 

We certainly need to guard against the extreme of eternalism.

Similarly, we need to guard against nihilism.

Some of the earlier comments in this thread border nihilism, IMO.

 

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I'm not very good with the words and I appreciate the constructive criticism and information.

I spend much more time practicing than studying, for better or worse...

[GrandmasterP]

People love to hear themselves wax poetic. Bottom line is this is a Buddhist thread and non-buddhists want to come here and start a fight, and I won't argue. I'll just laugh. That's the most loving thing I can do, because Dzogchen cannot be communicated to skeptics and denouncers. It would cause both speaker and listener to descend to the lower realms. If someone persists in trying to pick a fight, the most loving thing to do is to give them the boot. That's much better than both falling into dialogue hell. If someone has a genuine interest or has a sincere question asked respectfully, then of course the loving thing to do is to spend as much time as needed to help that person. And these are pearls. Those who come here to denigrate these teachings are swine. I love swine. I have swine coming out of my ear.

 

Well buddy whichever sort of Buddhist you are, or claim to be ; from reading your posts thus far on here I'd venture that it's one of the less tolerant sects.

As long as you're happy with it, that's the main thing.

There's a path out there to suit all types and conditions of folks.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Enjoy.

 

[asunthatneversets]

I appreciate your comments and efforts to help me understand.

 

While the thig le nyag gcig is certainly not a thing consisting of parts, it does represent an underlying nature and a wholeness, or completeness, e.g. Complete Perfection, no?

And while this may not imply a big, happy One-ness that includes everything and everyone a la Brahman, there is some sort of sense of completeness, a single taste, isn't there? Nothing is excluded.

 

And I don't mean to imply the universality of such nature, but I also don't mean to exclude it.

That shared nature is empty of any characteristics, 'like' the sky, and even empty of itself and yet that emptiness is not an absence because it is the nature of all the various manifestations.

Hence the importance of understanding the fault of the four extremes.

 

We certainly need to guard against the extreme of eternalism.

Similarly, we need to guard against nihilism.

Some of the earlier comments in this thread border nihilism, IMO.

 

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I'm not very good with the words and I appreciate the constructive criticism and information.

I spend much more time practicing than studying, for better or worse...

 

Though that underlying nature is emptiness, a lack of inherency, freedom from extremes etc.

 

'Wholeness' would not apply in that context, 'complete' perhaps but it isn't 'complete perfection'... Dzogpa Chenpo means Great Perfection. Which is alluding to the fact that so-called conditioned phenomena have actually been in an unconditioned state from the very beginning (though this is unrecognized). That 'unconditioned' state means that allegedly conditioned dharmas (meaning phenomena which can accord with extremes) are primordially unreal and non-arisen, hence; empty appearance is perfected by nature. 'Perfected' because the misconception of conditioned existents, which are subject to non-existence and so on have in truth never occurred. When this is directly realized it is known intimately that empty appearance is originally pure and naturally perfected.

 

Single taste (or one taste, same taste etc.) refers to the principle of equality when it comes to the emptiness of phenomena, they are equal in their emptiness. For instance, the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states: "The dharmadhātu, the element of sentient beings the element of space and the element of all phenomena, those are the same. If it is asked why they are the same, because they are the same as emptiness, they are the same."

 

That 'nature' is shared, like two candle flames share the nature of heat, or two drops of water share the nature of wetness. The heat of fire is universal in that sense, the wetness of water is universal in that sense, the dharmatā of dharmins is universal in that sense... but it is not a 'universal' nature which encompasses everything like a single field. It simply means that conditioned relative phenomena are abstractions and so they are never separate from the fact that they are ultimately unreal, never separate from their nature.

 

Understanding these principles properly avoids the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. If there were nihilistic comments earlier in the thread I did not see them, certainly none came from myself. Non-arising is not nihilism. Nihilism is negating phenomena, holding to its non-existence (the mind grasping at a position in relation to what it perceives as an object which is capable of lacking existence). Emptiness instead recognizes that alleged phenomena which could exist (or not-exist) have been mere figments of confusion from the very beginning. Like the rope-snake metaphor; once the snake is realized to actually be a rope, the principles of existence, non-existence, both or neither no longer have any snake to apply to, and are thus liberated on the spot. There simply never was a snake. In the same way, when you realize the nature of phenomena, you realize that they simply never were in the first place.

Edited July 9, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[goldisheavy]

It's completely beyond the mind

 

The mind or the mindset? People always confuse the two. The mind is a tri-capacity to know, to experience and to will. I split those three for intuitive clarity, but really they are so intertwined as to be inseparable. There is no knowing without willing, no knowing without experience, no experience without knowing, no experience without willing and so on. Any connection, in any order, between any of the aspects of the tri-capacity is a valid one.

 

By contrast the mindset is some specific and particular state that the mind can get into.

Edited July 9, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said those are common siddhis. The uncommon, the ultimate siddhi, is contemplation, the realization of Mahamudra/Dzogchen.

 

I don't put any words in your mouth. You said the people on your list exhibited common and uncommon psychic powers, both. Maybe you want to go back on that. Maybe now you want to say that the people on your list exhibit mostly uncommon psychic powers and none of the "common" ones.

 

The first rule of Dzogchen is we don't talk about Dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen has no rules. It can't. You're basically lying here. You're confusing the rules of your little club with Dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen cannot be taught, so why do teachers spend hours and hours giving teachings? Because they show you how to be in that nature with methods, namely, direct introduction. Anyone who has sat through a retreat with Choegyal Namkhai Norbu knows that.

 

So if I teach you a method of cooking a potato, can I still say that cooking potatoes cannot be taught? If you answer yes, then how is Dzogchen unique in that it can't be taught when nothing at all can be taught (assuming you agree with my previous example)?

 

It is the definition of liberation, not a scam. When are you going to stop being a little pest?

 

If I put conditions on your life, am I liberating you? So if you say, you need to come here and get a transmittion from me before you can liberate yourself, aren't you putting conditions on people?

 

As for being a little pest, to really understand what's happening to you here, you need to meet me first. Otherwise you'll be really confused and unhappy for a very long time.

Edited July 9, 2014 by goldisheavy