The most direct training practice in Dzogchen

[BaguaKicksAss]

Crap, hit my TTBs saturation point reading this thread first today... lol

[GrandmasterP]

May as well rename this whole sub forum 'Dzogchen Discussion' cos most of the live threads round these parts are about Dzogchen.

 

[steve]

From TI's post.... Please quit calling T Namdak or C NN Norbu "my gurus" They are not my gurus. Further, it is not a competition of whose guru can win the race. It all about capacity of the practitioner and the realizations that he/she can achieve. The first obstacle you have to overcome with Dzogchen is the very bad English translations of the Tibetan texts. The second obstacle is the inability to experience samadhi. The third obstacle is not opening the third eye, divine eye, or wisdom eye. If you can't do that then you are a beginner and should start at the beginning. HTH

Ahhh - thanks,

The first is only a problem if one isn't willing to study with a teacher. The second is an opportunity, not an obstacle. The third is arguably absent in anyone exploring the teachings as they have, by definition, recognized ignorance and are looking for liberation, no?

 

 

May as well rename this whole sub forum 'Dzogchen Discussion' cos most of the live threads round these parts are about Dzogchen.

No they're not...

[Tibetan_Ice]

+1

Every single one of those defined 'obstacles' ... were all made up in some dude's mind.

Delusions fostering delusions.

What we call 'jug and mug instruction' -

- BS poured out of the teacher 'jug' direct into the mind of the student 'mug'.

Common-sense bypassed along the way.

 

What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that the obstacles that I've realized are BS?

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that the obstacles that I've realized are BS?

 

How would you know if they are obstacles unless you were told such by the guru?

[C T]

How would you know if they are obstacles unless you were told such by the guru?

Are you insulting TI?

[ralis]

Are you insulting TI?

 

Rhetorical question.

[C T]

Rhetorical question.

Not really. I was just being polite by phrasing it as a question rather than a statement.

[ralis]

Not really. I was just being polite by phrasing it as a question rather than a statement.

 

The rhetorical question was to TI, not you.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

How would you know if they are obstacles unless you were told such by the guru?

You would know from experience, after realizing specific characteristics about the experience.

You would also know from intuition or clairvoyance, or specifically: realization obtained instantly without imagination or conceptual construct.

 

For example, I spent years doing mantra repetition, but never experienced samadhi from it. The "quasi-guru" kept saying that that was the way to samadhi. Well, after reviewing the process and comparing notes I decided to fixate on the first letter of the mantra instead and hold that steady. As a result, the perceiver fused with the object, both subject and object became very bright and luminous, there was great bliss and I broke through to samadhi. Before having that experience I had no idea what samadhi was. After, I realize what it means to have no subject or object. No guru told me that, I earned it by myself. As a matter of fact, the guru didn't have a clue and didn't even understand Patanjali's eight limbs of yoga!

 

Note: I'm not talking about the classic hindrances or obscurations in the Buddhist sense, although those could be termed as obstacles too.

 

And then of course, on a higher level, obstacles only exist because you believe they exist. If you cannot earn your way to enlightenment through action, as the highest Buddhist Dzogchen teaching states, then any form of action including overcoming obstacles is completely ineffectual.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Jetsun]

What are the difficulties of a fish in the sea trying to find water. You could strive with every ounce of your energy for your entire life to find the natural state trying every spiritual method ever created by man and seemingly not get anywhere , but when you finally collapse out of exhaustion and failure then you will seem to find it because then you stop seeking for that which you never lost. That is one route to go which many must take, but those who are lazy can go to a teacher who can point it out straight away, its right there under your nose all along, the problem isn't that it is too difficult to find or there are barriers you need to overcome the problem is that it is too simple and obvious that we miss it.

[Anderson]

What are the difficulties of a fish in the sea trying to find water. You could strive with every ounce of your energy for your entire life to find the natural state trying every spiritual method ever created by man and seemingly not get anywhere , but when you finally collapse out of exhaustion and failure then you will seem to find it because then you stop seeking for that which you never lost. That is one route to go which many must take, but those who are lazy can go to a teacher who can point it out straight away, its right there under your nose all along, the problem isn't that it is too difficult to find or there are barriers you need to overcome the problem is that it is too simple and obvious that we miss it.

 

It may be simple but is not easy.Not easy to discover.

 

Obvious ?

No, not at all."Obvious" means that is in front of you right now and that fact makes it EASY to see it or discover.

Which of course it isn't, otherwise we wouldn't have thousands of practitioners struggling to get their heads around it and we wouldn't have mountains of secondary commentarial literature on the subject of natural state and how it can be discovered.

[C T]

What are the difficulties of a fish in the sea trying to find water. You could strive with every ounce of your energy for your entire life to find the natural state trying every spiritual method ever created by man and seemingly not get anywhere , but when you finally collapse out of exhaustion and failure then you will seem to find it because then you stop seeking for that which you never lost. That is one route to go which many must take, but those who are lazy can go to a teacher who can point it out straight away, its right there under your nose all along, the problem isn't that it is too difficult to find or there are barriers you need to overcome the problem is that it is too simple and obvious that we miss it.

I think its inaccurate to assume that only lazy people find teachers. Life is precious, and we know not when it can all suddenly end. So finding an authentic guru and receiving the pointing-out cuts out all the guess work, so that one knows exactly what natural state is, and then practice resting in that correct seeing. Otherwise, practitioners may go thru the hardship of wondering 'Is this it?', 'Is that it', 'Am i resting correctly?' -- getting it pointed out removes all the niggling doubts. Then its just a matter of putting in the samaya-like effort to 'secure' the instructions (or not).. its entirely up to the individual. But that first taste, that seeing, can never be lost, so those who have lagged behind and wishes to reinitiate practice whenever they feel more ready, or perhaps more maturity has set in, can do so without much hassle.

 

Also, being introduced to the seeing of mind nature is merely the beginning of the path. There's still plenty of familiarisation work to be done, so again, i would not say that those who take vows with a guru are lazy people. The ones i have met are all pretty industrious, who devote a lot of their time to doing practice and practice doing. Dzogchen requires a lot of effort at the initial stages, but gradually the crystal gets clearer and clearer, and then effort merges with effortlessness. Sort of like wu wei then.

Edited August 4, 2014 by C T

[Anderson]

Then you possibly have a problem with your-self.

 

 

This sentence is an antithesis in itself.

 

We are not talking about myself here.

[Jetsun]

I think its inaccurate to assume that only lazy people find teachers. Life is precious, and we know not when it can all suddenly end. So finding an authentic guru and receiving the pointing-out cuts out all the guess work, so that one knows exactly what natural state is, and then practice resting in that correct seeing. Otherwise, practitioners may go thru the hardship of wondering 'Is this it?', 'Is that it', 'Am i resting correctly?' -- getting it pointed out removes all the niggling doubts. Then its just a matter of putting in the samaya-like effort to 'secure' the instructions (or not).. its entirely up to the individual. But that first taste, that seeing, can never be lost, so those who have lagged behind and wishes to reinitiate practice whenever they feel more ready, or perhaps more maturity has set in, can do so without much hassle.

 

Also, being introduced to the seeing of mind nature is merely the beginning of the path. There's still plenty of familiarisation work to be done, so again, i would not say that those who take vows with a guru are lazy people. The ones i have met are all pretty industrious, who devote a lot of their time to doing practice and practice doing. Dzogchen requires a lot of effort at the initial stages, but gradually the crystal gets clearer and clearer, and then effort merges with effortlessness. Sort of like wu wei then.

Yeah lazy was me having a bit of a joke, if it can be realised directly without much pain and struggle it is the height of wisdom and efficiency. I agree most will need repeated instruction to allay doubts while also what I found personally very instructive was just to be repeatedly in the presence of those who have realised and rested there for significant lengths of time, then you can recognise the truth of what they are pointing out, if you recognise the ease and flow in their being it helps you to gain confidence in the direction which is being taken, because just resting and letting go into what is is counter intuitive to the part of mind which has been conditioned its whole life to strive and work to manipulate life into the way it thinks it should be.

[Jetsun]

 

It may be simple but is not easy.Not easy to discover.

 

Obvious ?

No, not at all."Obvious" means that is in front of you right now and that fact makes it EASY to see it or discover.

Which of course it isn't, otherwise we wouldn't have thousands of practitioners struggling to get their heads around it and we wouldn't have mountains of secondary commentarial literature on the subject of natural state and how it can be discovered.

It is easy in the sense that it doesn't require effort to recognise, rather we continuously put in great effort to obscure the recognition of it. It is obvious in the sense that it is right under your nose, one analogy is of the man who walks the entire planet to try to find the earth, if he looked down then what he was searching for was obvious all along.

[Anderson]

To summarize, if we do not understand that the whole of samsara and nirvana is the Rolpa (energy manifestation) of our vision, even if we declare that we have discovered our Rigpa,know that it does not correspond to the real meaning because Knowledge means understanding and having the certainty that samsara and nirvana in the absolute are the na­ture of primordial purity. And since the view is also nothing other than this be sure to ascertain this profound point!

CNNr

People who have this understanding they can be sure that they know what natural state is.

After all natural state is not a fixed state based on mind, but is a state of knowledge which is dynamic.

[gatito]

 

May as well rename this whole sub forum 'Dzogchen Discussion' cos most of the live threads round these parts are about Dzogchen.

That's probably the most sensible post on the entire thread, although "Dzogchen" Dogma Regurgitation would be a better title.

Edited August 4, 2014 by gatito

[allinone]

beauty of this is that ZOOM himself only understands what he wrote, he can't put years of practice and knowledge into one line. At the same time one line sentence does not tell us how much he really knows his stuff.

 

In the Sutras its said you need to pick one dharma-door and stick with it till you get enlightened.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

2) A more "abstract" approach which would include the backtracking of the flow of consciousness to its source

 

(Try to become aware of the source of your awareness, the perceiver tries to perceive itself).

 

Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche confirming my "abstract" approach as an actual Dzogchen training method in his book "Bonpo Dzogchen teachings":

 

page 33:

 

Your approach isn't a Dzogchen method at all because you literally fabricated it. You made it up.

 

Apart from that, the premise for your so-called "method" is embellished conjecture and cannot be compared to the teachings you are citing. Nor should anyone interpret the excerpt above as a confirmation of anything.

 

The only thing confirmed is that you have the misguided audacity to think your made-up methods are legitimate in the context of Dzogpachenpo in any way whatsoever.

[ralis]

Your approach isn't a Dzogchen method at all because you literally fabricated it. You made it up.

 

Apart from that, the premise for your so-called "method" is embellished conjecture and cannot be compared to the teachings you are citing. Nor should anyone interpret the excerpt above as a confirmation of anything.

 

The only thing confirmed is that you have the misguided audacity to think your made-up methods are legitimate in the context of Dzogpachenpo in any way whatsoever.

 

The above are only accusations with no proof whatsoever. You cite nothing to back up your claims!

[asunthatneversets]

The above are only accusations with no proof whatsoever. You cite nothing to back up your claims!

Not sure what claim you are referring to. The fact that the "methods" offered in the first few posts in this thread are personal fabrications is quite obvious.

[ralis]

Not sure what claim you are referring to. The fact that the "methods" offered in the first few posts in this thread are personal fabrications is quite obvious.

 

You only say they are, but cite no sources to back up your claim.