Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[asunthatneversets]

And who qualifies the tantras as worthy? You're just postponing the question instead of answering it.

You can't be serious.

[ralis]

You can't be serious.

 

He is serious and I would also appreciate an answer to this and my unanswered questions.

[goldisheavy]

However the phenomena you are listing here are nothing but nyams and mundane siddhis... none of that is the "extraordinary cognition" that Dzogchen is concerned with. The only extraordinary cognition or knowledge that Dzogchen is concerned with is vidyā.

 

You don't understand why I am listing those "ordinary" powers.

 

Let me put it this way. Individually no extraordinary or ordinary experience of any kind is proof or validation of anything. Supreme knowledge is secret for a reason. It cannot be proven to others or even to oneself. Supreme knowledge (vidya) must be understood, claimed, and confidently assumed, but it's never proven or verified.

 

However, supreme knowledge is not an implication-free knowledge just because it's secret. The very first and the very obvious initial implication of the supreme knowledge is your ability to exercise countless "ordinary" psychic powers. If your vidya doesn't have this implication, then it's not actually vidya because it lacks the required confidence (ding).

 

This is why it's better to guide people toward extraordinary cognition. Extraordinary cognition is a modification of the ordinary. Because it's a modification of the ordinary, it's a path that's both gentle and yet mind-blowing at the same time. Vidya is not a modification of anything ordinary, on the other hand, so what often happens is that people upon hearing of the supreme knowledge, remain right where they are, don't change a thing about their commitments, learn no yogic skills, do not become liberated in their own minds, and call it "done."

Edited July 23, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

He is serious and I would also appreciate an answer to this and my unanswered questions.

Who qualifies the seventeen tantras as worthy? All of you obviously, sitting around in a web forum with the name Dzogchen in your mouths.

 

Really a very odd question coming from someone who appears (or claims) to be interested in Atiyoga.

[Tibetan_Ice]

That is quite different than thought merely dissolving. The chain of thought must be completely uprooted through recognizing its nature, otherwise that method has not worked.

Well, I guess I oversimplified, but then, I thought I explained... First you dissolve the thoughts, then you dissolve the visions, then you dissolve your substrate and you find yourself (or lack of self) in Primordial awareness, the BIG BLISS.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that the chain of thought is completely uprooted by recognizing its nature, as thought is the nature of the dharmakaya and you can't uproot the darmakaya. You can't stop its spontaneous manifestations, can you?

[asunthatneversets]

Well, I guess I oversimplified, but then, I thought I explained... First you dissolve the thoughts, then you dissolve the visions, then you dissolve your substrate and you find yourself (or lack of self) in Primordial awareness, the BIG BLISS.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that the chain of thought is completely uprooted by recognizing its nature, as thought is the nature of the dharmakaya and you can't uproot the darmakaya. You can't stop its spontaneous manifestations, can you?

Dzogchen disagrees that thought is dharmakāya. That is a Mahāmudrā view.

 

And recognizing the definitive nature of thought does not dissolve thought, it reveals that thought has never arisen in the first place. That is the purpose of that exercise.

[ralis]

Who qualifies the seventeen tantras as worthy? All of you obviously, sitting around in a web forum with the name Dzogchen in your mouths.

 

Really a very odd question coming from someone who appears (or claims) to be interested in Atiyoga.

 

I think it is a valid question. Your non-answer doesn't qualify. Actually, you are evasive when it comes to persons challenging your belief systems and answering direct questions.

 

To repeat, I have known about Dzogchen for well over 30 years and have had many teachings, beginning in 1989 with Norbu. I have heard all the explanations and none suffice.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Dzogchen disagrees that thought is dharmakāya. That is a Mahāmudrā view.

 

And recognizing the definitive nature of thought does not dissolve thought, it reveals that thought has never arisen in the first place. That is the purpose of that exercise.

Well now we are getting in hokey pokey fairy land.. Much too scholarly and heavy duty Buddhist philosophical for my simple dialect.. Nonarisen. What a concept..

 

 

 

And what about this...

 

It is not enough merely to look into the space of happiness or sadness; it is important to have pure presence constant in that flow. If the power of meditation is not constant, it is impossible to remain long in the place of nondual perception. Thoughts that arise intermittently will break the continuity, and radiating out from this, like ripples on a pond, the poisonous taste of emotion will arise to obstruct the meditation. As gross thoughts increase, ripples become rough waves that intensify the emotion. Until subtle emotions are left behind, we cannot eradicate suffering, so it is crucially important to sustain the state of meditation. When we gain strong familiarity by staying in that space for a long time, then no matter what thoughts arise, whether gross or subtle, they will not be able to dislodge us: upon recognizing the first thought, whatever thought it may be, in that very moment, we realize it to be the play of the spontaneous creativity of dharmakaya. Like a wave falling back into the ocean, the thought vanishes into the dharmakaya. In that space of naked empty pure presence that is the view, always cherishing thoughts of the five poisonous emotions and all the movements of body, speech, and mind, and the acts of eating, sleeping, moving, and sitting, we are known as the yogins and yoginis who stand guard over the shifting dharmakaya display. This is the supreme method of sustaining the essence of meditation. According to Dzogchen teaching, this is unadulterated by any kind of focus; it is called the great meditation that is nonmeditation.

The Great Secret of Mind: Special Instructions on the Nonduality of Dzogchen, by Tulku Pema Rigtsal

 

 

Edited July 23, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[asunthatneversets]

I think it is a valid question. Your non-answer doesn't qualify. Actually, you are evasive when it comes to persons challenging your belief systems and answering direct questions.

 

To repeat, I have known about Dzogchen for well over 30 years and have had many teachings, beginning in 1989 with Norbu. I have heard all the explanations and none suffice.

Then they never will suffice as your confirmation biases will not allow it.

[ralis]

Well now we are getting in hokey pokey fairy land.. Much too scholarly and heavy duty Buddhist philosophical for my simple dialect.. Nonarisen. What a concept..

 

 

This is the main problem with the armchair Buddhists. Nothing is well explained from their own experience. Very unfortunate.

[asunthatneversets]

Well now we are getting in hokey pokey fairy land.. Much too scholarly and heavy duty Buddhist philosophical for my simple dialect.. Nonarisen. What a concept..

Yes, the definitive view.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Yes, the definitive view.

In case you missed it...

 

It is not enough merely to look into the space of happiness or sadness; it is important to have pure presence constant in that flow. If the power of meditation is not constant, it is impossible to remain long in the place of nondual perception. Thoughts that arise intermittently will break the continuity, and radiating out from this, like ripples on a pond, the poisonous taste of emotion will arise to obstruct the meditation. As gross thoughts increase, ripples become rough waves that intensify the emotion. Until subtle emotions are left behind, we cannot eradicate suffering, so it is crucially important to sustain the state of meditation. When we gain strong familiarity by staying in that space for a long time, then no matter what thoughts arise, whether gross or subtle, they will not be able to dislodge us: upon recognizing the first thought, whatever thought it may be, in that very moment, we realize it to be the play of the spontaneous creativity of dharmakaya. Like a wave falling back into the ocean, the thought vanishes into the dharmakaya. In that space of naked empty pure presence that is the view, always cherishing thoughts of the five poisonous emotions and all the movements of body, speech, and mind, and the acts of eating, sleeping, moving, and sitting, we are known as the yogins and yoginis who stand guard over the shifting dharmakaya display. This is the supreme method of sustaining the essence of meditation. According to Dzogchen teaching, this is unadulterated by any kind of focus; it is called the great meditation that is nonmeditation.

The Great Secret of Mind: Special Instructions on the Nonduality of Dzogchen, by Tulku Pema Rigtsal

 

 

So, are you saying that this excerpt from the nonduality of Dzogchen is secretly talking about Mahamudra?

Edited July 23, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[ralis]

Then they never will suffice as your confirmation biases will not allow it.

 

I don't have a confirmation bias and you are proceeding from an incorrect conclusion as if you know how I will respond, you don't. So stop the accusatory nature of your posts. You refuse to answer valid questions in regards to your own experience, which leads me to believe that you just read books. Is my assumption correct?

 

To be clear, this response is in regards to who or what qualifies the Tantras in previous posts.

Edited July 23, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

This is the main problem with the armchair Buddhists. Nothing is well explained from their own experience. Very unfortunate.

I share from my experience but very rarely talk about my experience... broadcasting one's practices and insights for all to see is bad form.

[asunthatneversets]

I don't have a confirmation bias and you are proceeding from an incorrect conclusion as if you know how I will respond, you don't.

 

You bash tradition, authority, organization, and so on, religiously. How might as well stamp how you feel about the subject on your forehead, for there is no mystery about it.

 

So stop the accusatory nature of your posts.

A blatant double standard.

 

You refuse to answer valid questions in regards to your own experience

And will continue to do so.

 

which leads me to believe that you just read books.

Whatever helps you sleep well at night.

[ralis]

I share from my experience but very rarely talk about my experience... broadcasting one's practices and insights for all to see is bad form.

 

Because your guru said so? As for myself, I don't require or want a parent guru and can think for myself regardless of whatever is written admonishing such behavior.

[asunthatneversets]

In case you missed it...

 

It is not enough merely to look into the space of happiness or sadness; it is important to have pure presence constant in that flow. If the power of meditation is not constant, it is impossible to remain long in the place of nondual perception. Thoughts that arise intermittently will break the continuity, and radiating out from this, like ripples on a pond, the poisonous taste of emotion will arise to obstruct the meditation. As gross thoughts increase, ripples become rough waves that intensify the emotion. Until subtle emotions are left behind, we cannot eradicate suffering, so it is crucially important to sustain the state of meditation. When we gain strong familiarity by staying in that space for a long time, then no matter what thoughts arise, whether gross or subtle, they will not be able to dislodge us: upon recognizing the first thought, whatever thought it may be, in that very moment, we realize it to be the play of the spontaneous creativity of dharmakaya. Like a wave falling back into the ocean, the thought vanishes into the dharmakaya. In that space of naked empty pure presence that is the view, always cherishing thoughts of the five poisonous emotions and all the movements of body, speech, and mind, and the acts of eating, sleeping, moving, and sitting, we are known as the yogins and yoginis who stand guard over the shifting dharmakaya display. This is the supreme method of sustaining the essence of meditation. According to Dzogchen teaching, this is unadulterated by any kind of focus; it is called the great meditation that is nonmeditation.

The Great Secret of Mind: Special Instructions on the Nonduality of Dzogchen, by Tulku Pema Rigtsal

 

 

So, are you saying that this excerpt from the nonduality of Dzogchen is secretly talking about Mahamudra?

I'm sure Tulku Pema Rigtsal's exposition would have to be read in it's complete context... but generally yes Dzogchen differentiates between thought and wisdom.

 

In Ati these days, conceited elephants [claim] the mass of discursive concepts is awakened mind (bodhicitta); this confusion is a dimension of complete darkness, a hindrance to the meaning of the natural great perfection.

- Chos dbyings mdzod

[asunthatneversets]

Because your guru said so? As for myself, I don't require or want a parent guru and can think for myself regardless of whatever is written admonishing such behavior.

Right, because you have an issue with authority.

[goldisheavy]

Dzogchen disagrees that thought is dharmakāya. That is a Mahāmudrā view.

 

 

Read princess Gomadevi's poem then.

[idiot_stimpy]

I don't mind a bit of the one taste LOL

[goldisheavy]

I share from my experience but very rarely talk about my experience... broadcasting one's practices and insights for all to see is bad form.

 

This is nonsense.

 

In fact the Buddha had something to say about this kind of stinginess/secretiveness:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.12.0.than.html

[goldisheavy]

Dzogchen disagrees that thought is dharmakāya.

 

I'm going to cater to people's laziness and lack of search-fu here and provide a link with a quotation to make things easy:

 

It was then that the Rishi Paratsa and his wife, Enchanting Maiden, had a son called Atsantra Aloke, who became a master in the teachings based on cause and effect. He was extremely inspired by the essential truth and requested the essence of the teachings from Princess Gomadevi. She bestowed it in full and summarized the meaning in a song:

 

Hoping for bhumis and liberation postpones enlightenment;

Hoping to attain bliss is great suffering;

Hoping for nonthought is itself a thought:

When you realize this, give up seeking.

 

 

This is from a Dzogchen lineage. Not Mahamudra.

Edited July 23, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

 

I'm going to cater to people's laziness and lack of search-fu here and provide a link with a quotation to make things easy:

 

It was then that the Rishi Paratsa and his wife, Enchanting Maiden, had a son called Atsantra Aloke, who became a master in the teachings based on cause and effect. He was extremely inspired by the essential truth and requested the essence of the teachings from Princess Gomadevi. She bestowed it in full and summarized the meaning in a song:

 

Hoping for bhumis and liberation postpones enlightenment;

Hoping to attain bliss is great suffering;

Hoping for nonthought is itself a thought:

When you realize this, give up seeking.

 

 

This is from a Dzogchen lineage. Not Mahamudra.

 

Still that is not saying thought is dharmakāya. I never said anything about hoping for non-thought or a lack of thought in general.

 

The thought and dharmakāya thing is a bit more technical than it appears on the surface, but it is the position that Atiyoga takes on the matter.

 

"The Dagpo Kagyüpas designate thoughts and emotions as the dharmakāya; we Great Perfection practitioners do not make that designation."

- Namkhai Naljor Lhatsün

Edited July 23, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

This is nonsense

Believe what you'd like.

[asunthatneversets]

 

You don't understand why I am listing those "ordinary" powers.

 

Let me put it this way. Individually no extraordinary or ordinary experience of any kind is proof or validation of anything. Supreme knowledge is secret for a reason. It cannot be proven to others or even to oneself. Supreme knowledge (vidya) must be understood, claimed, and confidently assumed, but it's never proven or verified.

 

However, supreme knowledge is not an implication-free knowledge just because it's secret. The very first and the very obvious initial implication of the supreme knowledge is your ability to exercise countless "ordinary" psychic powers. If your vidya doesn't have this implication, then it's not actually vidya because it lacks the required confidence (ding).

 

This is why it's better to guide people toward extraordinary cognition. Extraordinary cognition is a modification of the ordinary. Because it's a modification of the ordinary, it's a path that's both gentle and yet mind-blowing at the same time. Vidya is not a modification of anything ordinary, on the other hand, so what often happens is that people upon hearing of the supreme knowledge, remain right where they are, don't change a thing about their commitments, learn no yogic skills, do not become liberated in their own minds, and call it "done."

Still, powers and psychic phenomena are simply signs of resting in equanimity like that you would find in śamatha practice. They are merely mundane siddhis and are not a sign of realization.

 

You can have a siddha who practices dhyāna and has a great many siddhis yet has no realization. And then you can have a yogi with great realization and little siddhis... So the siddhis are really irrelevant.

Edited July 23, 2014 by asunthatneversets