Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[goldisheavy]

 

However, books are big business, so no one belles it .

 

When I read a great book, I don't go, "Now I understand the book!" I go, "Now I understand myself."

[GrandmasterP]

SJ, why don't you just invite Malcolm to TTB so that he can speak for himself and defend his own positions?

For example, to me capacity is tied to intelligence. IQ. Horsepower. Why would Malcolm omit that part?

You've deprived us of any chance to grill mr. M..

Further, by continually quoting him like that, you imply that whatever he says is final... End of story. But really the story has just begun. His views change and his understanding changes. Yet you keep digging up his dead bones like they mean something. Maybe you were a golden retriever in your previous life?

Nooooooo.' Malcolm' on DW is a 9th Dan Nob and his disciples over there ( and maybe there's one on on here?) are even nobbier than he is cos they take his shit on board as some sort of 'Gospel'.

Best place for Buddhist fundamentalists is Dharma Wheel and we've quite sufficient of the overspill here on TTB as it is.

The Buddhabums are the most fractious bone headed posters on TTB.

OK for entertainment when there's just the usual suspects but get the likes of Malcolm on here and you'll soon enough lose sensible posters.

Edited July 31, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[BaguaKicksAss]

Nooooooo.' Malcolm' on DW is a 9th Dan Nob and his disciples over there ( and maybe there's one on on here?) are even nobbier than he is cos they take his shit on board as some sort of 'Gospel'.

Best place for Buddhist fundamentalists is Dharma Wheel and we've quite sufficient of the overspill here on TTB as it is.

The Buddhabums are the most fractious bone headed posters on TTB.

OK for entertainment when there's just the usual suspects but get the likes of Malcolm on here and you'll soon enough lose sensible posters.

 

For some odd reason I haven't experienced this since I started asking Buddhist questions? I've found y'all to be extremely patient with my questionings, even the ones where I was probably pushing it, to try to understand better. I'm actually quite surprised at the level of patience around here .

 

However, I remember when I was on staff, and I seem to remember things quite differently in the Buddhist sections then lololol.

 

I think the difference is now I just avoid threads past a few pages in in the Buddhist sections... well most sections actually .

 

Contemplating it for a moment, I realize it is probably the same as me and in person. There are people who I cannot stand to be around in spiritual discussion because they have been ranting on about the same thing for the past 10 years. I have been in discussion groups with them for this long. However, all the new folks, who have only known said person for 3-4 discussions at most, think he's awesome, a little annoying, but awesome.

 

Anyways, the kindness of a few here fortunately outweighs the regular back and forth over debating, for me .

[GrandmasterP]

So you're not on the staff any more BKA?

That's a shame but belated thanks to you for all the hard work you put in to the job and for your outstandingly fair moderation coupled with good humour.

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[BaguaKicksAss]

So you're not on the staff any more BKA?

That's a shame but belated thanks to you for all the hard work you put in to the job and for your outstandingly fair moderation coupled with good humour.

 

 

Thanks. I hit burnout awhile back and quit.

 

TTBs is much much more enjoyable now. You have no idea how nice it is to read posts and not have to check IPs on every suspicious one!

[Simple_Jack]

I surely agree to that in general.

But there is always the exception to the rule and in history there might have been geniusses who figured out everything purely through the power of their own mind.

 

In all honesty, I highly doubt those of us responding in this thread would've ever come close to completing the 3rd [togal] vision, relying solely on the merits of our respective capacities. I'm sure as hell I would've never recognized my own limitations if I hadn't come across the teachings and received instruction. It's harsh, but if you found Jax's talk in the linked video some pages back exceptionally profound, then you are not one of those rare people in history. Anyone could potentially have an experience, or a stable recognition, of the mere clarity of mind; I've even talked to people who arrived at that through psychedelics. I've said this on TTB's in the past, but it really is not as rare as people on this forum would think.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

Contemplating it for a moment, I realize it is probably the same as me and in person. There are people who I cannot stand to be around in spiritual discussion because they have been ranting on about the same thing for the past 10 years. I have been in discussion groups with them for this long.

 

That's samsara for you. In an ideal world, people responding in this sub-forum would have studied the abhidharmakosha along with their exposure to Mahayana. Discussions in this sub-forum would be a lot more productive and less prone to flame wars.

[steve]

Hahaha! In fact I read an interview that Wangyal Tenzin Rinpoche gave in Germany in which he was asked about the secrecy of Dzogchen teachings and how it is possible that he writes books about Dzogchen teachings, and he answered, that there is the danger that the Dzogchen knowledge get lost due to the situation in Tibet and therefore the Lamas spread the knowledge in the West now so it gets preserved. And further he said:

"If I spread Dzogchen teachings and nobody understands them, then they stay secret!"

 

Hahaha! At least he is honest! :lol:

 

Such delicious irony in this post!

Absolutely marvelous...

Thank you for that, Zoom.

 

 

I had the same experiences or what you term realizations when I was very young. The very same experiences when I met Norbu. He just verified it.

 

I would argue that if you had such realization, you would not be so vociferously opposed to Tibetan Buddhist ritual and trappings, even the hierarchy and paternalism. All of this is simply an ornament, an appearance. A realized being would have no objection to those who find such a path supportive and helpful to follow that. They would see the beauty and value for some the negative aspect for others. Both are nothing but ornamentation and of no real consequence...

[forestofemptiness]

It strikes me as two different debates that occur in these whatever-Buddhist arguments. In this case, I will insert the word Dzogchen, but you could inset Zen or other traditions.

 

Question 1: What is Dzogchen?

 

Question 2: What is true?

 

These may be separate questions. If all Dzogchen teachers say you need a guru, well, then you need a guru to do Dzogchen. To say otherwise strikes me as claiming to be married by yourself.

 

However, for me, this is not the important question. The more important question is: what is true?

 

Dzogchen may or may not lead to the truth, and finding the truth may or may not involve Dzogchen. The old Zen parable is to see the moon, rather than stuck on the finger.

[Simple_Jack]

I guess I would have to agree that reading about the practices and information about the path in books is not even close to having it explained in person, or the practices taught in person. Though I like reading the books, they are interesting and lead to some insights; I like the sutras better though, more direct. Still... something definitely quite different about the in person teaching, and I haven't even taken refuge (there is a lot they will share with folks who haven't (I am still deciding whether I wish to or not).

 

'Taking refuge', really means having the conviction to tread the path of buddhadharma, and can be looked at from different perspectives; the formal ceremony is just an outward representation of that. An individual is still free, if they so choose, to explore and utilize the teachings of other paths. What's really important, is being honest with oneself when it comes to one's own understanding of the nature of mind, and to not get bogged down or stuck in one's own limitations. Chan master Dongshan Liangjie (w/ commentary by Nan Huaijin) succinctly describes what to avoid here:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/17068-the-chan-bums/?p=554269

 

...Tung-shan said: "The first is called leakage of views. Your mental workings do not leave the station you have attained, and you fall into a sea of poison." People who do not have a thorough, penetrating view of truth cannot jump out of the limits of what they have attained. They just stay within those limits, and are poisoned -- poisoned with that little bit of seeing truth.

...

 

This saying via Rob Burbea (a teacher affiliated with the Insight Meditation Society) "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view", is worth remembering; especially considering the neoadvaitan pointers in Jax's linked video some pages back, is an intermediate step in Dzogchen (as well as Mahamudra and Zen), meant for novice practitioners. If you're going to read some sutras, and you want an accurate understanding of the meaning within them, then this advice from Greg Goode should be kept in mind: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/?p=527249

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

I would argue that if you had such realization, you would not be so vociferously opposed to Tibetan Buddhist ritual and trappings, even the hierarchy and paternalism. All of this is simply an ornament, an appearance. A realized being would have no objection to those who find such a path supportive and helpful to follow that. They would see the beauty and value for some the negative aspect for others. Both are nothing but ornamentation and of no real consequence...

 

I have heard this argument before and by extension, one could justify any behavior of the authoritarian hierarchy in question. I have known for almost 30 years about the pedophilia in the Tibetan monasteries. Recently, journalists et al., have investigated this problem and found very good evidence to support these allegations. How about the so called enlightened behavior of Trungpa and his successor Osel Rangdrol spreading AIDS to many persons in Boulder in the name of enlightened activity.

 

Realization is not about abject passivity, rejecting mores, switching off critical thinking or accepting replacement parents. And not accepting that it is just 'an appearance'.

Edited July 31, 2014 by ralis

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[GrandmasterP]

+1

It's all a bit cultic wherever you get some professional class of lamas or priests or whatever claiming to have all the right rituals, interpretations, lineages or answers so that the regular punters have to 'go through' the clergy in order to get anywhere.

Most faith paths begin with some dude teaching stuff but once the dude dies at that point you get a self appointed caste of 'Dude Interpreters' kibbitzing on about what the dude really meant.

That always 'means' something along the lines of them getting to wear really silly hats and running the show for a sweet full time living whilst the punters give them 'offerings' so to do.

Edited July 31, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[asunthatneversets]

I don't get it! The whole discussion should have been terminated with this revealing post!

 

Every intelligent person with a clear mind can clearly understand that asunthatneversets is a brainwashed cult-member speaking! The reasoning of the guru is completely absurd and is only aimed at preserving monopoly, control and personal power! But to asunthatneversets, whose mind obviously shuts down when a healthy mind would be alarmed and start to ask questions, the absurd reasoning of the guru sounds completely logical to him!

 

But you could explain it 1.000 times to him and he wouldn't get it! Even more disturbing for me is that other ttb members are not members of the cult BUT AGREE WITH THE ABSURDITY!

 

asunthatneversets himself agreed that there is no "energy transmission" of whatever sort, even called this concept "hocus pocus". So what is the difference between listening to the "direct introduction" of the guru via video on the internet...and reading the exact same text in a book? THERE IS NONE!

 

BRAINWASHED! That's the only word I can associate this with! And CULT-MENTALITY!

 

And how are brain-washed cult-members, whose mental capacity through an artificial blockage is even more restricted than that of the average guy, supposed to rise to higher levels of awareness and insight in Dzogchen? Impossible! Because during the process, they would have to get spontaneaus insight into what game their gurus are playing and therefore condemn their gurus! As this is impossible, they will never be able to advance their insight into the nature of things let alone DEVELOP THE INSIGHT OF A BUDDHA!

 

An intelligent person with a clear mind would be able to clearly understand how upāya works in the context of the buddhadharma, and how conventional methodologies and views are applied to one's experience in order to create a fertile ground for progress.

 

Even in the most basic relative sense one should be able to understand the purpose of such reasoning and how its application serves to maintain the integrity of the teaching and transmission. Whether you choose to disagree with these principles is of course your opinion you are entitled to, however to cast blanket aspersions such as the reasoning your are opposed to being "completely absurd" is no doubt going to a far extreme in the spectrum of possible viewpoints. It is unarguably quite asinine to assert that these measures are put in place solely for the purposes of maintaining a divisive monopoly in a scheme to secure control and personal power. Such conclusions are clearly indicative of your own opinions and feelings rather than anything else.

 

One of the foremost issues with your position on this, as mentioned above, is the fact that you unfortunately appear to have a steep poverty in comprehending how a conventional model or praxis functions. Which means you are falling victim to an inherent view where you cannot separate a loose functional method from your perceptions of rigid inherency. Meaning; rather than seeing the lama for what he or she is, you are overwhelmed by your own projections and in fact see an existent figure which should be either accepted or rejected based on certain characteristics and properties that individual is truly endowed with (rather than seeing such contentions as an arbitrary set of criteria stemming from yourself). Not only that, but you take this expression of incompetency and indiscriminately cast that shadow over the whole of gurus as a collective target, which is again, clearly an exhibition of your own neuroses rather than something inherent to the system or the teachers.

 

Your notion of a "healthy mind" is without a doubt another example of a clearly biased view, as you demonstrate that a healthy mind is one that mirrors your own beliefs, one that doesn't is therefore deemed "unhealthy". A self-serving statement from you which is meant to breed some confidence in yourself rather than to speak accurately of others. This lack of confidence on your part is most likely also why you are choosing to use loaded terms such as "absurd", "disturbing", "brainwashed", "cult-mentality" etc., terms which evoke strong reaction and make it seem as if your position is credible rather than being the bigoted fabrication it is.

 

I have explained why one cannot receive transmission from a book or from a recorded video, if you choose disagree that is perfectly fine, however that does not mean your conclusion destroys the credibility of the information you are disagreeing with. It simply means you disagree.

 

Your scattered vitriolic rhetoric used in the bulk of your response appears to have created some false confidence as you approached your last paragraph, where you proceed to spout your loaded remarks in an excessive display of inordinate frequency. Again, wrought with presuppositions and self-affirming conclusions which present your own biases as a sane and undeluded point of view. Even going as far as to state that those who subscribe to the view you disagree with possess a diminished mental capacity due to restrictive artificial blockages (again paying homage to your own position as a superior and 'unblocked' point of view). Followed by another projective statement of conviction that your own conclusions are proof that a divergent view compromises ones chances of awakening to the point that they are rendered an impossibility. A conclusion based on your own misguided logic (which is touted as accurately substantiated by your anti-paternal leanings) that a rejection of teachers shows some sort of maturity, rather than being the knee-jerk epitome of immaturity it indicates.

 

At any rate, your post is little more than a display of your own irrationalities and a wonderful demonstration of the type of attitude which ushers one to the darkest heart of delusion. May you overcome these shortcomings quickly so that you can benefit others instead of hindering yourself.

Edited July 31, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Jetsun]

The Lama system was pretty successful at what it set out to do, which was to preserve spiritual progress and teachings over many lifetimes and generations. Most Tibetan and the Dzogchen systems grew up in that climate so if you want to enter those systems you pretty much have to commit to them in the way they were preserved: through Lamaism.

 

There are plenty of other systems and non Tibetan Buddhist lineages which don't rely on the Lama approach, so if you can't commit to that way of doing things then just go another route.The Rainbow Body is unique to Dzogchen but the Rainbow Body is just the particular manifestation of a particular set of practises, there are other ways to enlightenment, it isn't a matter of getting a Rainbow Body or nothing like that is the only way, the Dalai Lama says the same thing that there are many ways.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

You stated your belief but no logical reason.

The statement of the guru you posted doesn't include logical reasons either. He just repeats claims without justfying them logically.

 

Maybe you could extract and quote the logical reasons this guru gave in the text you posted to justify his claim why you can't learn from a book, if there are some included in your opinion!

Again, what is "logical" is being defined as that which accords with your own opinion and confirmation biases.

 

You also do not understand what it means to have a conventional methodology and how conventions lack inherency.

 

I'm not sure this is a bridgeable chasm for you either way, given your venomous predelictions.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

It is interesting, this audacity. To think that one can simply encounter a tradition which has existed for centuries with unbroken lineages and an effective, methodological system crafted by realized individuals... and sit there critiquing it and boasting that one knows better. The level of arrogance is incredible.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[C T]

Even studying under a guide presents quite a few challenges, where a good number who begin with much earnestness eventually drop by the wayside from the sheer demands of the whole process.

 

A good cookbook does not a good cook make.

[asunthatneversets]

In other words: You are unable to extract and quote any giving of logical reason included in the text to support the guru's repeated claim that you can't learn successfully from books!

Don't worry: I was unable to do this too...because he included no logical reason at all!

If you want to learn from books then by all means do ZOOM, I have no vested interest in your path.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM