What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[Paul]

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.

 

I don't play Wittgensteinian category games.

[Paul]

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.

 

Dzogchen separates the mind from wisdom.

[goldisheavy]

I don't play Wittgensteinian category games.

 

I don't read Wittgenstein. I'm using my own words here. And it's not a game, because the distinction between the mind and the mindset is crucial. I think most of the time Buddhists, and especially Dzogchenpas, talk about mind, they'd be better served talking about the mindset. It is the mindset that they're discussing and not the mind.

[Paul]

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.

There's no uncommon psychic power. Those are the words you are putting in my mouth. Your problem is you assume you know what I know. Or at least you figure you've climb the mountain far enough to look down on Dzogchen. But perhaps, it ain't so.

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

Samaya gya gya gya. That means "Covenant of Secrecy Secrecy Secrecy".

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)?

Dzogchen must be discovered within. There can be a path and a map, but not a description of the destination.

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?

I might consider a Skype. The point is I need to see sincerity.

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.

I'm not confused or unhappy, thanks to my gurus who showed me nirvana. And don't hold your breath. I would never ask you for any thing.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Paul

[goldisheavy]

Dzogchen separates the mind from wisdom.

 

The problem is that wisdom can be latent or actively recognized. The mind can never be latent or actively recognized because the mind is never an object of cognition as I define it. The mind is a capacity to know, to experience and to will. As such it is never an object of experience, because nothing in our experience can uniquely represent the capacities I speak of.

 

So it's skillful to separate the mind from wisdom, but for completely different reasons. It's much more important to separate the mind from the mindset.

[Paul]

The problem is that wisdom can be latent or actively recognized. The mind can never be latent or actively recognized because the mind is never an object of cognition as I define it. The mind is a capacity to know, to experience and to will. As such it is never an object of experience, because nothing in our experience can uniquely represent the capacities I speak of.

 

So it's skillful to separate the mind from wisdom, but for completely different reasons. It's much more important to separate the mind from the mindset.

 

Oh

[Paul]

I don't read Wittgenstein. I'm using my own words here. And it's not a game, because the distinction between the mind and the mindset is crucial. I think most of the time Buddhists, and especially Dzogchenpas, talk about mind, they'd be better served talking about the mindset. It is the mindset that they're discussing and not the mind.

 

I've read you write this twice now. I don't care.

[Paul]

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.

 

Short cut, please.

[Paul]

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.

 

We're completely tolerant of folks enjoying whatever practice they want. But we don't tolerate debating about Dzogchen, at least, we won't join.

[goldisheavy]

There's no uncommon psychic power. Those are the words you are putting in my mouth. Your problem is you assume you know what I know. Or at least you figure you've climb the mountain far enough to look down on Dzogchen. But perhaps, it ain't so.

 

Your exact words were "uncommon siddhis" and the best translation for siddhi is "psychic power." You offered "accomplishment" as a translation, and I never accepted it because it's too wide in scope, too unspecific. Siddhi is pretty specific compared to accomplishment, I think, at least in the Buddhist context.

 

http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/sanskrit-dictionary.aspx try putting in "accomplishment" and observe the broad choice of translations you can get.

 

In any case, you also said your teachers had common siddhis, and I think we all know what that means.

 

Samaya gya gya gya. That means "Covenant of Secrecy Secrecy Secrecy".

 

That's the rules of your club.

 

Dzogchen must be discovered within. There can be a path and a map, but not a description of the destination.

 

I agree.

 

I might consider a Skype. The point is I need to see sincerity.

 

You don't need anything. You mean you want sincerity. I am sincere all the time.

 

I'm not confused or unhappy, thanks to my gurus who showed me nirvana.

 

Then you should already know why I am pestering you. Your question makes no sense no matter how you slice it. If it's a sincere request for information, you should already know. If it's your way to ask me to go away, you know you can't do that and you know why not.

[goldisheavy]

Paul, a person can be bereft of wisdom in some sense, as is the case with a person considered foolish, but a person can never be bereft of the mind as a capacity to know, to experience and to will. That's the difference between wisdom and the mind.

 

And the difference between the mind and the mindset is that a mindset is a specific state that a mind must undertake of many possible optional such states.

 

Both types of differences are important for different reasons.

Edited July 9, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Paul, one more thing.

 

Personally, I prefer cordial, friendly, and lateral relationships. This means the best relationship to my mind is friendship, and this is what I offer to you -- friendship -- the best relationship I know.

 

However, if you absolutely insist that between you and me one of us is a Lord and one is a supplicant, what I call a vertical relationship, you must understand beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I am your Lord and you are my supplicant, unconditionally. It's not important what you think your accomplishments are, etc. It's not important what anyone else thinks of you, including your long list of "esteemed" teachers. I don't even consider such things. If you insist on someone being a Lord, congratulations, you've made me your Lord. I don't like supplicants much, but if you insist, I will accept you as a supplicant instead of as a friend.

 

Your choice.

 

And remember, that while I may enjoy our possible friendship, there is nothing I need from you, and there is absolutely nothing you can show me or teach me that I don't already know on some level, perhaps better than you can possibly imagine.

[Paul]

Your exact words were "uncommon siddhis" and the best translation for siddhi is "psychic power."

 

That's because you don't know what the uncommon siddhi is. And you won't until you accept a Vajrayana teacher.

[Paul]

you must understand beyond any doubt whatsoever, that I am your Lord and you are my supplicant, unconditionally.

 

Hilarious.

 

Let me rephrase:

 

Droll... banal.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Paul

[goldisheavy]

That's because you don't know what the uncommon siddhi is. And you won't until you accept a Vajrayana teacher.

 

You're not in control of defining the scope of my knowledge. On the contrary, I can declare that your knowledge is null and void and I will get away with it if that's what I decide to do.

Edited July 9, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Paul]

You're clueless. Dzogchen is the ultimate siddhi.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Paul

[goldisheavy]

You're clueless. Dzogchen is the ultimate siddhi.

 

You're saying it as if you're informing me.

[rex]

 

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?

Unfortunately Steve the majority of posters here do not extend the same courtesty to Buddhism or Dzogchen that you extend to them and their paths.

Edited July 9, 2014 by rex

[Apech]

@Goldisheavy - could you define precisely what you mean by mind and what you mean by mindset ... I think I get the points you made above but I want to be sure.

[Paul]

 

You're saying it as if you're informing me.

Bueno

[Paul]

@Goldisheavy - could you define precisely what you mean by mind and what you mean by mindset ... I think I get the points you made above but I want to be sure.

Nothing to do w dzogchen

[Apech]

Nothing to do w dzogchen

 

 

I wasn't asking you.

[Paul]

 

 

I wasn't asking you.

This is a dzogchen thread. Go back to Hindu. Keep it on topic.

[Apech]

This is a dzogchen thread. Go back to Hindu. Keep it on topic.

 

Stop telling me or anyone else what to do.

[Paul]

 

Stop telling me or anyone else what to do.

Shut up