What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[Apech]

Kind of ironic that the OP wanted to discuss yeshe in everyday terms and we end up debating the meaning of rigpa using long quotes again ...

[ralis]

Now watch someone attempt to assert that the Kunjed Gyalpo has been mistranslated or that you can't understand it without the reinterpretation of the Buddhist priesthood

 

That is the most troublesome part of this discussion. The priesthood or as the Lama's call themselves; 'the Dharma KIngs' who sit on their thrones and dispense wisdom. For me to be subservient by bowing and scraping was preposterous. That is why I left.

Edited July 7, 2014 by ralis

[GrandmasterP]

We all know of another path where the 'holy scriptures' are preached and expounded by salaried clergy for the edification of their paying congregations.

Some folks mistake reading for cultivation and listening to someone else for 'hearing' their own path.

[idiot_stimpy]

'Pervasive awareness' is just a term being thrown around today that stems from a translation of the Tibetan term 'khyab rig'. Khyab rig is the sugatagarbha or tathāgatagarbha, which is the dharmakāya encased in affliction, abiding as a latent potentiality.

 

So it can't be pointed out. It is simply a given that sentient beings are sugatagarbha, because all sentient beings possess buddhanature. Though whether that nature is recognized and divested of obscuration is a different story.

 

What is pointed out during direct introduction can vary depending on the individual.

 

The Vajrayāna path requires pointing out instruction, or intimate instructions, and liberation which is brought about via those means would be the end of those means (and therefore require intimate instruction).

 

But liberation in general, actualized through any other vehicle in the buddhadharma does not require intimate instruction (though it is of course advised one seeks the support of a living teacher or mentor).

 

Thanks that was really good.

[Simple_Jack]

Lopon Rinpoche addressing gcig pu:

 

"...it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.

 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one'

pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that each sentient being has their own darmakaya. Sugatagharba is just another word for dharmakaya.

You are saying that "all pervasive" means it pervades only the individual's being.

You are saying that each individual has heir own private hell, nirvana, creation of the planes, and there is nothing that pervades all sentient beings.

You are saying that there is no "one" in Tibetan Dzogchen?

How then can we read other peoples' minds?

Is there no omnipresence in Dzogchen?

 

Do you recall these posts distinguishing the basis as personal or transpersonal in Dzogchen:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221

 

Nyibum* states:

 

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

 

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less than this.

 

*the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig...

 

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218256#p218256

 

In order for there to be a reified sentient beings, there has to be a mind which reifies, it is an inescapable reduction. Reification cannot occur without a reifying mind. When a mind ceases to reify, it simply dissolves into its own nature, which is described in Dzogchen texts as the basis. The basis is just one's own unfabricated mind. Any other explanation is complete gibberish...

 

As such, one’s mind present as the nature of all the phenomena of buddhahood is realized as buddha.

-- Nyima Bum

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Buddhahood is characterized as omniscient, but not an omnipresence, in buddhadharma.

 

Now watch someone attempt to assert that the Kunjed Gyalpo has been mistranslated or that you can't understand it without the reinterpretation of the Buddhist priesthood

 

The "Supreme Source" is an overall inaccurate translation of the Kunjed Gyalpo..."all the things that exist in the animate and inanimate universe, are the nature of pure and total consciousness."

This is not an interpretation of Brahman!

 

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

 

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

 

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip.

 

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

 

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Suck it gatito!

Edited July 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[steve]

From the TTB's thread you reference above, SJ:

 

"...basically the point being underscored is that matter and intelligence are non-dual. For example, it is a special tenet of Dzogchen that even the formless realms are material, i.e., that basically, wherever there is matter, there is consciousness, wherever there is consciousness, there is matter. You can either say that matter is intrinsically conscious or that consciousness is intrinsically embodied. Either way it amounts to the same thing. "Sentient" and "non-sentient" are merely conventional designations based on appearances generated by ignorance.... "

 

 

Edit - that dharmawheel thread is well worth reading, thanks for that link

Edited July 7, 2014 by steve

[Simple_Jack]

From the thread you reference above, SJ:

 

"...basically the point being underscored is that matter and intelligence are non-dual. For example, it is a special tenet of Dzogchen that even the formless realms are material, i.e., that basically, wherever there is matter, there is consciousness, wherever there is consciousness, there is matter. You can either say that matter is intrinsically conscious or that consciousness is intrinsically embodied. Either way it amounts to the same thing. "Sentient" and "non-sentient" are merely conventional designations based on appearances generated by ignorance.... "

 

As Malcolm explains in the preceding paragraph:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=519642

 

The point is that in Dzogchen teachings mind and matter are not treated as different substances as they are in other Buddhist systems. They are equally treated as producers of the five elements....

 

Which has a correlation with the 'body of light':

 

The theory of the body of light is predicted on the fundamental state of reality being something called wisdom, which has five lights, which are reified as physical matter. Upon completion of the path, one sees this matter in its real nature once again and the elements of the body "revert" to their original nature as wisdom (i.e. through the process of thogal one eradicates all the afflictive obscurations which prevent one from seeing things just as they are (yathabhutaṃ)); Body of light is a realization....

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221

 

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception....

 

Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings....

 

Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is....

 

Dzogchen does not reject the outer universe in the same. Instead it interprets the pre/non-afflictive states of the five elements as "the five lights". But we can understand that the most subtle form of the five elements exist within consciousness. Wisdom is also just a name for a pre/un-obscured consciousness.

 

The basis is not a universal phenomena. though it is discussed in a manner resembling that for convenience. Each person has their own basis. This is why each person experiences delusion and liberation separately and at different times.

 

Because the basis seems to be discussed as it it were some universal "pleroma", to borrow a phrase from the Gnostics, this causes some people to go off the deep end and conclude it is some universal phenomena out of which everything arises rather than be a quality shared by everything that arises....

 

...since this ye shes is personal, never transpersonal, and at the time of the basis, is merely describing the mind (shes pa, sems) in a pre-afflictive state.

 

Tibetans translate jñāna as ye shes. That term "ye shes" is frequently translated as "pristine awareness" or "primordial wisdom", etc. I am saying that Dzogchen authors take this term very literally (a literalism criticized by people like Sakya Pandita) because they are taking this mode of shes pa (jñatā, jñānatā, parijñāna, etc.), which they describe as ye shes to mean that the original state (ye nas) of the mind (shes pa) is pre-afflictive, and Dzogchen is the path to recover that primordial state.

 

I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap.

 

Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light.

 

The fault that I suffered from was not seeing the fact that rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā), ye shes (jñāna), shes pa (jñatā) are all talking about one thing, different modalities of a single continuum from sentient being hood to Buddhahood, based on language in man ngag sde texts, reinforced very strongly by Longchenpa, which make a very hard distinction between sems (citta) and yeshe (jñāna) without recognizing the distinction is not in substance, but merely in mode i.e. afflicted/non-afflicted.

 

Really, I am not saying anything that is terribly controversial. I am recognizing that I was mislead by the hard distinction made by Longchenpa and others who, for didactic reasons, make a hard distinction between mind and wisdom when what they are really doing is making a hard distinction between utterly afflicted minds and utterly pure minds, and providing a literary mythology (the universe arises out of the basis) to explain the separation of sentient beings and buddhas.

 

I have similarly come to the conclusion that the account of the basis arising out of the basis and the separation of samsara and nirvana at some imagined start point unimaginable eons ago is just a literary myth, and it does not need to be taken literally.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533222

 

The basis is not the five lights. The five lights are expressions of wisdom.

Those all just exist in one's mind, as Shabkar points out.

The basis is not something separate from you the person, and it is not some uniform transpersonal field. It is just your own mind and it's essence.

By the way, I never thought the basis was a transpersonal field. But have become aware that many people interpret it as such, and therefore, I'm writing to correct this misapprehension.

In other words, Dzogchen teachings about the basis are actually "disappointingly" Buddhist and not so radical after all.

~ Loppon Namdrol

[Simple_Jack]

Jean-Luc's insight is on point, and he is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.

 

 

This is equivalent to Advaita Vedanta or any other tīrthika non-dual view. A common error in interpretation when it comes to Dzogchen. It is a view that the Dzogchen tantras try very hard to distance themselves from.

 

 

Khyab rig (what you are calling 'pervading rigpa') is the sugatagarbha, it is a potentiality which must be actualized through recognition. Hence; the inborn and latent rigpa which pervades the hearts of sentient beings. It does not pervade material existence like awareness pervades materiality in Vedanta. When Lopon Rinpoche mentions the 'nature' pervading objects, he is addressing their respective dharmatās.

 

The notion of a singular field which pervades everything is precisely the misconception that Jean-Luc and Lopon Tenzin Namdak are refuting.

 

 

Yes, but you are misunderstanding the meaning of 'nature' here and this mistake is actually addressed specifically by Lopon Tenzin Namdak. He states that misunderstanding 'nature' in this way goes directly against the Dzogchen view, breaking the Dzogchen dam tsigs of gcig pu and phyal ba.

 

Lopon Rinpoche addressing gcig pu:

 

"...it explains in the text that this Nature equally encompasses everything from Dharmakaya right down to the hells. This means that the qualities or characteristics of Nature are the same, but the Nature itself is not the same at all. (So the misinterpretation is that) without knowing and distinguishing between these two, (you think that) there is one thing which pervades everything from Dharmakaya down to the hells. That is mistaken. It says many things here. Vedanta has this idea, too. It is the characteristics which are the same... If you don't understand this clearly but think that one mind pervades everything, then that is what is kept and learnt in Vedanta; that is their very strong view. If you believe this then your Damtsig is broken and you go against the meaning of Dzogchen.

 

Is that clear? You must make sure (of this point). If you think that (Nature) is one without individual partitions, that this 'one'

pervades everything, then that is breaking your Dzogchen Damtsig and goes against the Dzogchen View. Hopefully you have understood clearly."

Do you recall these posts distinguishing the basis as personal or transpersonal in Dzogchen:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221

 

Nyibum* states:

 

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

 

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less than this.

 

*the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig...

 

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218256#p218256

 

In order for there to be a reified sentient beings, there has to be a mind which reifies, it is an inescapable reduction. Reification cannot occur without a reifying mind. When a mind ceases to reify, it simply dissolves into its own nature, which is described in Dzogchen texts as the basis. The basis is just one's own unfabricated mind. Any other explanation is complete gibberish...

 

As such, one’s mind present as the nature of all the phenomena of buddhahood is realized as buddha.

-- Nyima Bum

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Buddhahood is characterized as omniscient, but not an omnipresence, in buddhadharma.

 

 

The "Supreme Source" is an overall inaccurate translation of the Kunjed Gyalpo..."all the things that exist in the animate and inanimate universe, are the nature of pure and total consciousness."

This is not an interpretation of Brahman!

 

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

 

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

 

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip.

 

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

 

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

As Malcolm explains in the preceding paragraph:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=519642

 

The point is that in Dzogchen teachings mind and matter are not treated as different substances as they are in other Buddhist systems. They are equally treated as producers of the five elements....

 

Which has a correlation with the 'body of light':

 

The theory of the body of light is predicted on the fundamental state of reality being something called wisdom, which has five lights, which are reified as physical matter. Upon completion of the path, one sees this matter in its real nature once again and the elements of the body "revert" to their original nature as wisdom (i.e. through the process of thogal one eradicates all the afflictive obscurations which prevent one from seeing things just as they are (yathabhutaṃ)); Body of light is a realization....

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221

 

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception....

 

Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings....

 

Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is....

 

Dzogchen does not reject the outer universe in the same. Instead it interprets the pre/non-afflictive states of the five elements as "the five lights". But we can understand that the most subtle form of the five elements exist within consciousness. Wisdom is also just a name for a pre/un-obscured consciousness.

 

The basis is not a universal phenomena. though it is discussed in a manner resembling that for convenience. Each person has their own basis. This is why each person experiences delusion and liberation separately and at different times.

 

Because the basis seems to be discussed as it it were some universal "pleroma", to borrow a phrase from the Gnostics, this causes some people to go off the deep end and conclude it is some universal phenomena out of which everything arises rather than be a quality shared by everything that arises....

 

...since this ye shes is personal, never transpersonal, and at the time of the basis, is merely describing the mind (shes pa, sems) in a pre-afflictive state.

 

Tibetans translate jñāna as ye shes. That term "ye shes" is frequently translated as "pristine awareness" or "primordial wisdom", etc. I am saying that Dzogchen authors take this term very literally (a literalism criticized by people like Sakya Pandita) because they are taking this mode of shes pa (jñatā, jñānatā, parijñāna, etc.), which they describe as ye shes to mean that the original state (ye nas) of the mind (shes pa) is pre-afflictive, and Dzogchen is the path to recover that primordial state.

 

I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap.

 

Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light.

 

The fault that I suffered from was not seeing the fact that rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā), ye shes (jñāna), shes pa (jñatā) are all talking about one thing, different modalities of a single continuum from sentient being hood to Buddhahood, based on language in man ngag sde texts, reinforced very strongly by Longchenpa, which make a very hard distinction between sems (citta) and yeshe (jñāna) without recognizing the distinction is not in substance, but merely in mode i.e. afflicted/non-afflicted.

 

Really, I am not saying anything that is terribly controversial. I am recognizing that I was mislead by the hard distinction made by Longchenpa and others who, for didactic reasons, make a hard distinction between mind and wisdom when what they are really doing is making a hard distinction between utterly afflicted minds and utterly pure minds, and providing a literary mythology (the universe arises out of the basis) to explain the separation of sentient beings and buddhas.

 

I have similarly come to the conclusion that the account of the basis arising out of the basis and the separation of samsara and nirvana at some imagined start point unimaginable eons ago is just a literary myth, and it does not need to be taken literally.

 

Suck it gatito!

Edited July 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

The 'experience' in this case is direct introduction from a guru, and that is only if the individual has a recognition of rigpa...

 

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218399#p218399

 

...the Vima Nyinthig has a detailed text on praṇāyama called the rlung gyi phra khrid, which gives sets of practices that are very important for Dzogchen practitioners. Praṇāyama, not important at all in sutrayāna meditation, is extremely important in Dzogchen. Likewise, the notion that the view to be meditated on is conferred through experiences gained during the empowerment. Not only this, but the whole contextualization of practice is completely based on the systems of nāḍīs and cakras in the human body and so on.

 

The supreme empowerment means, according to The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva:

 

There are three kinds of empowerments, outer, inner and secret.The outer empowerment is the mandala of colored powder...The empowerments are conferred sequentially. The location of conferring them is the brahmarandhra. Having complete the outer and inner empowerments as such, one should enter into the secret empowerment. There are three syllables...As such, having completed the three empowerments, one should bestow the instructions to be bestowed. The yoga who has the complete empowerments will definitely become accomplished. The illustration of the meaning of secret mantra is granted through empowerment.

 

In general, the ancient texts and commentaries assume that a person who wants to practice Dzogchen will receive all four empowerments, elaborate, unelaborate and so on. Of course, the system of the direct introduction does exist in the seventeen [Dzogchen upadesha/menngagde] tantras, but it is generally considered to be given only on the basis of the elaborate and so on empowerments, just as so-called "sems sde" was generally only conferred to people who had received at minimum the Guhyagarbha empowerment. "Longde" as we know, can only be practiced on the basis of an anuyoga empowerment.

 

And in point of fact, the Dzogs pa rang 'byung tantra mainly concerns mahayoga and anuyoga methods, various kinds of maha and anu style empowerments, as well as elaborate rites for leading practitioners through the bardo. The commentary on the sgra thal 'gyur has a very elaborate Vajravār̄ahī practice as well as other creation stage practices. These are discussed in the commentary to this passage:

 

Amazing, though there are countless stages

of ultimate secret practice,

by dividing the principle ones,

[the one of] method and [the one of] supremely profound prajñā

are summarized from them.

 

In actuality, Dzogchen is always contextualized as a part of secret mantra in the seventeen [Dzogchen upadesha/menngagde] tantras themselves.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218409#p218409

 

The fact that creation and completion practices like caṇḍalī yoga are brought up in the seventeen [Dzogchen upadesha/menngagde] tantras themselves and their commentarial literature proves that they are important.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited July 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Do you recall these posts distinguishing the basis as personal or transpersonal in Dzogchen:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221

 

Nyibum* states:

 

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

 

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less than this.

 

*the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig...

 

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218256#p218256

 

In order for there to be a reified sentient beings, there has to be a mind which reifies, it is an inescapable reduction. Reification cannot occur without a reifying mind. When a mind ceases to reify, it simply dissolves into its own nature, which is described in Dzogchen texts as the basis. The basis is just one's own unfabricated mind. Any other explanation is complete gibberish...

 

As such, one’s mind present as the nature of all the phenomena of buddhahood is realized as buddha.

-- Nyima Bum

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Buddhahood is characterized as omniscient, but not an omnipresence, in buddhadharma.

 

 

The "Supreme Source" is an overall inaccurate translation of the Kunjed Gyalpo..."all the things that exist in the animate and inanimate universe, are the nature of pure and total consciousness."

This is not an interpretation of Brahman!

 

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

 

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

 

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip.

 

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

 

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Suck it gatito!

 

Your ending remark to Gatito is appropriate from a Dharmic point of view?

[Simple_Jack]

Your ending remark to Gatito is appropriate from a Dharmic point of view?

 

Fuck no, but it is appropriate from the POV that doesn't assume Brahman when reading/commenting on Dzogchen.

[gatito]

That is the most troublesome part of this discussion. The priesthood or as the Lama's call themselves; 'the Dharma KIngs' who sit on their thrones and dispense wisdom. For me to be subservient by bowing and scraping was preposterous. That is why I left.

 

I found the sight of a roomful of supposedly educated people hurling themself on the floor and apparently competeting to achieve the most spectacular concussion truly shocking.

 

I think that you did well to escape.

 

The children of abusive parents usually become even worse abusers themselves.

[Apech]

--- Moderator Message ---

 

Please could we avoid this thread descending into the usual disparaging of other systems, paths, practitioners and practices.

 

It doesn't really reflect well on you personally, on your system or teachers ... or even on this board, when you do this.

 

--- Message Ends ---

[steve]

To get back to the OP -

Wisdom in Dzogchen is practicing rather than spending time on the internet.

[asunthatneversets]

Post did not format correctly.

Edited July 7, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

X

Edited July 7, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[gatito]

To get back to the OP -

Wisdom in Dzogchen is practicing rather than spending time on the internet.

 

Or perhaps just enjoying life to the full?

[asunthatneversets]

Thats all just scholarly bs.

 

A valid opinion.

[GrandmasterP]

Or perhaps just enjoying life to the full?

 

How about...

" Self-satisfaction via Dzogchen"

That seems to work.

 

[gatito]

How about... " Self-satisfaction via Dzogchen" That seems to work.

 

Doesn't work. They believe that they don't really exist, so there's no Self to be satisfied.

[GrandmasterP]

Yeah.

On second thoughts it sounds a bit 'off'.

How about "Smug"?

 

Edited July 7, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Simple_Jack]

To get back to the OP -

Wisdom in Dzogchen is practicing rather than spending time on the internet.

 

...but there wouldn't be any posts undermining the authority of Neo-Advaita on the TTB's.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[GrandmasterP]

'Authority' means a lot to you, doesn't it SJ.

[Simple_Jack]

'Authority' means a lot to you, doesn't it SJ.

 

Yes, just like yours is Tony Parsons.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Simple_Jack