Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[ralis]

Being that there are many people who I agree with, my objection to certain views has nothing to do with the need for me to be correct and everyone else incorrect.

 

I actually never said I was 'absolutely correct', I also never said he is 'absolutely incorrect', but there are definitely things I disagree with in his view more often than not.

 

For someone who doesn't like unfounded statements replete with inferred assumptions, you sure are making some, but that is alright.

 

I was referring to the term 'tīrthika' which you used to characterize Jackson. You used it, I didn't. To disagree is one thing, but to label someone as a heretic is quite another.

[asunthatneversets]

I was referring to the term 'tīrthika' which you used to characterize Jackson. You used it, I didn't. To disagree is one thing, but to label someone as a heretic is quite another.

 

Yes well we are discussing his view, and I used that term to characterize his view which closely resembles the principles championed by Non-Buddhist systems.

[ralis]

Yes well we are discussing his view, and I used that term to characterize his view which closely resembles the principles championed by Non-Buddhist systems.

 

'Tīrthika' is defined as one who is a heretic. Need I be any clearer? Non-Buddhists are considered heretics. Buddhists claim their world view is universal. That is very much a claim of absolutism.

Edited July 22, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

'Tīrthika' is defined as one who is a heretic. Need I be any clearer? Non-Buddhists are considered heretics.

 

Tīrthika is defined as a non-buddhist, but more specifically an eternalist...

 

"...such as the Cārvāka assertion of annihilation, the assertion of our own Vaibhaśikas that the conditioned and the unconditioned are mutually exclusive, the Sāṃkhya assertion that all things are the same in the original nature as the three gunas, and also the Tīrthikas who advocate permanence..."

- Bodhisattvacaryāvatāravivṛttipañjikā

[ralis]

Tīrthika is defined as a non-buddhist, but more specifically an eternalist...

 

"...such as the Cārvāka assertion of annihilation, the assertion of our own Vaibhaśikas that the conditioned and the unconditioned are mutually exclusive, the Sāṃkhya assertion that all things are the same in the original nature as the three gunas, and also the Tīrthikas who advocate permanence..."

- Bodhisattvacaryāvatāravivṛttipañjikā

Why do you claim your view superior and his is not? This is what you said earlier.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/page-11#entry564920

 

 

Jackson teaches neo-advaita in dzogchen drag... I'd stay far, far away

[Aetherous]

but more specifically an eternalist...

 

The Buddha jewel is uncreated, therefore eternal.

 

[goldisheavy]

Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body compared to the high number of Dzogchen practitioners in the world?

Is the answer that you have to be the member of an old Dzogchen lineage or that you have to be the student of an accomplished Dzogchen teacher?

No, because if that was the reason then every member of an old Dzogchen lineage or every student of an accomplished Dzogchen teacher would attain rainbow body.

But this is not the case.

 

The answer is obvious: Only very few Dzogchen practitioners will attain rainbow body

because only very few Dzogchen practitioners are mentally capable to achieve the Natural State of Mind!

 

The very few Dzogchen practitioners who achieve the Natural State of Mind and stay in it for longer periods of time will attain rainbow body!

All the others who don't, won't!

 

 

ZOOM

 

I agree with this 95%. But I would make a slight distinction here. Everyone has the capacity to achieve what you call "Natural" state of mind. However, most people are unwilling instead of incapable. Why are most people unwilling? Because most people are invested in ways they don't want to forgo. At this point I could launch into a discussion of what these are, but I won't.

 

Basically people maintain certain commitments voluntarily, even if often tacitly and therefore below the level of conscious awareness. But this still doesn't change the voluntary nature of all commitments, because once the person gets tired of the effects of what's called "ordinary" living, they will be naturally inclined to becoming explicitly aware of what was previously tacit. As they become aware they have a choice to relax conscious commitments either partially or completely, at will.

 

Sometimes this relaxation process happens partially subconsciously too. In this case the person is tired of a commitment and starts relaxing it, all without being conscious that this is happening. So how the mind expresses itself can be very complex and hard to understand because there are many ways of expression and almost all the "rules" have exceptions to them.

[asunthatneversets]

The Buddha jewel is uncreated, therefore eternal.

 

 

Yes but the eternalist views that are being referenced by the term tīrthika are those views which posit an unconditioned, independent and (therefore) eternal existent... this is an extreme view in the eyes of the buddhadharma.

 

The way the Buddhist treatment of one's nature is presented is quite different. That nature is free from extremes, it is the lack of inherency in what delusion mistakes to be truly existent. Sort of like mistaking a reflection to be something truly real which has been created, endures in time and is subject to destruction... the fact that the reflection is actually just a reflection (and has only ever been a reflection) is never corrupted by the ignorance which sees it otherwise. Even if one ignorantly asserts that the reflection is actually an object with true existence, the fact that it is truly a reflection is still always the case, because it is only delusion which asserts the existence of an object or entity. In that way we can say the actual 'nature' of that mistaken object is always 'there', or is permanent, because the alleged object is simply a figment of ignorance.

 

So the nature that the buddhadharma is pointing to is epistemic, whereas the nature that eternalist doctrines are pointing to is ontological. The difference is very important.

[asunthatneversets]

Why do you claim your view superior and his is not? This is what you said earlier.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/page-11#entry564920

 

I merely said there are notable aspects of his view which are inaccurate and misleading when presented as "Dzogchen". These other conclusions you are drawing are taking my statements in an unnecessary direction.

[ralis]

I merely said there are notable aspects of his view which are inaccurate and misleading when presented as "Dzogchen". These other conclusions you are drawing are taking my statements in an unnecessary direction.

 

I was in my first retreat with Norbu in 1989 and he specifically stated that all practices and belief systems have value in helping one to realize the 'natural state'. He was making a non-sectarian statement. Are you going to criticize his son for being raised Catholic/Buddhist and is now teaching Dzogchen? http://myreincarnationfilm.com/film/yeshi-namkhai/

[asunthatneversets]

Buddhists claim their world view is universal. That is very much a claim of absolutism.

 

This is taking such statements out of context as claims of absolute truth which pertain to an objective reality (as an accurate interpretation or account of said reality). Obviously this is not what Buddhism upholds.

 

Again, the aspects of conventional and ultimate views would be important to properly understand the type of statements you are referring to. In the context of the conventional model, as a working system or method, yes the Buddhist view is one view, and divergent views are antonymous. Ultimately however, the conventional model Buddhism employs "harms itself" as it is said, which means it deconstructs itself and therefore cannot be called a claim of absolute truth.

[Aetherous]

Yes but the eternalist views that are being referenced by the term tīrthika are those views which posit an unconditioned, independent and (therefore) eternal existent... this is an extreme view in the eyes of the buddhadharma.

 

The way the Buddhist treatment of one's nature is presented is quite different. That nature is free from extremes, it is the lack of inherency in what delusion mistakes to be truly existent. Sort of like mistaking a reflection to be something truly real which has been created, endures in time and is subject to destruction... the fact that the reflection is actually just a reflection (and has only ever been a reflection) is never corrupted by the ignorance which sees it otherwise. Even if one ignorantly asserts that the reflection is actually an object with true existence, the fact that it is truly a reflection is still always the case, because it is only delusion which asserts the existence of an object or entity. In that way we can say the actual 'nature' of that mistaken object is always 'there', or is permanent, because the alleged object is simply a figment of ignorance.

 

So the nature that the buddhadharma is pointing to is epistemic, whereas the nature that eternalist doctrines are pointing to is ontological. The difference is very important.

 

All I know is that I took the first part of the DharmaSun online program...and they actually presented the Buddha jewel as being "eternal" (which made quite a bit of sense, as only conditioned things have a beginning and ending), based on the supreme continuity of Maitreya. I realize that the philosophy is a distinguishing factor in Buddhism, but this line of thinking doesn't resonate with me. Maybe one day it will, though...it was basically over my head.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Aetherous

[asunthatneversets]

I was in my first retreat with Norbu in 1989 and he specifically stated that all practices and belief systems have value in helping one to realize the 'natural state'. He was making a non-sectarian statement. Are you going to criticize his son for being raised Catholic/Buddhist and is now teaching Dzogchen? http://myreincarnationfilm.com/film/yeshi-namkhai/

 

From the standpoint of the actual, definitive nature Dzogchen is pointing to, yes really anything can be used to support one's familiarization and integration with that knowledge, for that nature is not a view or an intellectual understanding but is a direct experiential recognition (and is therefore 'non-sectarian' in that sense, like the taste of sugar is). However the freedom to implement any and everything as a support first depends on a direct and experiential knowledge of that wisdom.

[ralis]

From the standpoint of the actual, definitive nature Dzogchen is pointing to, yes really anything can be used to support one's familiarization and integration with that knowledge, for that nature is not a view or an intellectual understanding but is a direct experiential recognition (and is therefore 'non-sectarian' in that sense, like the taste of sugar is). However the freedom to implement any and everything as a support first depends on a direct and experiential knowledge of that wisdom.

 

Given the above statement, you should back off your judgment of Jackson.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

Given the above statement, you should back off your judgment of Jackson.

No reason to. There is a difference between the unenumerated view and the enumerated view. You're sort of missing that point.

 

The Dzogchen tantras themselves are packed with polemical rhetoric in order to set themselves apart from non-Buddhist views.

[ralis]

No reason to. There is a difference between the unenumerated view and the enumerated view. You're sort of missing that point.

 

The Dzogchen tantras themselves are packed with polemical rhetoric in order to set themselves apart from non-Buddhist views.

 

 

I don't miss anything. Did you even watch Jackson's videos?

Edited July 22, 2014 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

I have the feeling that some participants in this thread are rather intellectuals without any real experience but believe otherwise.

I also think that they are visualizating stuff (as in guided meditation) and delude themselves into the belief that they have visions and a real experience.

I don't think so.

And possibly their lama even supports their delusions.

 

If you can't go to sleep although you closed your eyes, switched off the lights and are in darkness

because you in fact SEE bright light with your eyes as if you were watching into a bright bulb,

then on the other side the chances are good that you are really experiencing or manifesting the Clear Light

or activating your kati channel

and that you are training successfully in Dzogchen,

even if you can't recite every sentence in diverse Dzogchen books!

 

 

All these "signs" are 100% unreliable. Also, visualization is not "fake" and "real" experiences are not "real" either.

Edited July 22, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I don't miss anything. Did you even watch Jackson's videos?

 

Sorry I am late to the thread, and I don't feel like digging throug all of it, but who is this "Jackson" you keep talking about? Which videos? Can I have a link please?

[asunthatneversets]

I don't miss anything. Did you even watch Jackson's videos?

I've been interacting with Jackson on and off in forums for some years now, I'm familiar with his view.

 

And you are definitely missing the point I'm referring to if you think the fact that the unenumerated view is free of the mind's concepts and projections, means it is okay to throw a correct enumerated view into the wind and adopt any relative view one wants to. That is an incorrect and problematic position.

Edited July 22, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[goldisheavy]

Separating experiences into real and fake is nothing more than engaging some arbitrary conceptual validation framework. If you're aware that's what you're doing when you are engaging a validation framework, that's fine. Otherwise you are merely an ordinary samsaric being, no matter how many lights you see at night.

[ralis]

Sorry I am late to the thread, and I don't feel like digging throug all of it, but who is this "Jackson" you keep talking about? Which videos? Can I have a link please?

 

Here it is. Thanks for joining in!

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jackson+peterson+dzogchen

[asunthatneversets]

 

Here it is. Thanks for joining in!

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jackson+peterson+dzogchen

Which is simply grasping at the relative clarity of mind as ultimate. One of the three main errors Dzogchen warns against.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

Excuse me, I should add that this experience (which lasted several days) was the result of an intense meditation practice without any external objects. I was simply sitting down in a normal room in normal dimmed daylight under completely normal circumstances, sometimes with closed and sometimes with open eyes.

If you watch all day long into the sun or a flame or whatever, you can certainly get an experience like I had because of a physical reaction caused by exposing your eyes to unnatually strong stimuli. I forgot that some people have surely such a strong desire to have experiences and to be "advanced" that they were able to delude themselves in the belief to experience real training progress as in reality they just hurt their eyes...

This is just grasping at nyams (meditational experiences). If you had a teacher they would warn you against identifying with these experiences as well.

 

There is a famous story of Padmasambhava relating his experiences in practice to his teacher Śri Singha. Padmasambhava goes to see Śri Singha numerous times, each time relaying a few experiences (some very profound) to his teacher, and each time Śri Singha essentially says "how unfortunate" and sends him away to continue in his practice. Eventually Padmasambhava is of course liberated, but he too had many deviations along the way which involved identifying with meditation experiences.

 

Hence these teachings say experiences are like a patch which eventually wears off. Not to be identified with as anything definitive.

Edited July 22, 2014 by asunthatneversets