Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Apech]

You stated in regards to defending Buddhist parental authority in an earlier post. That is why I mentioned it. Further, Lamas sitting on thrones wearing their medieval garb has everything to do with it. Otherwise why would they wear such costumes? These dudes come to the West and expect everyone to throw money and gifts at their feet while dressed in their exotic finery. Norbu doesn't dress that way. In fact, he was a professor at the University of Naples. A real world job.

 

Lab coats serve as a means of protection when working around chemicals and other material.

 

BTW, don't you have anything better to do with your time? I am semi retired and am finishing a real world career and considering a second career.

 

Has this post got anything at all to do with the subject matter of this thread?

 

I worry sometimes what people think when they come on here to read about Buddhism in the Buddhism Discussion section and just find garbage.

[ralis]

Has this post got anything at all to do with the subject matter of this thread?

 

I worry sometimes what people think when they come on here to read about Buddhism in the Buddhism Discussion section and just find garbage.

 

Actually it does. The OP asked about objective reality and what ensued was cut/paste and a flurry of authoritarian remarks that never answered the question. Buddhist double speak.

[ralis]

"One cannot help but be in awe when one contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries to comprehend only a little of this mystery every day." -Albert Einstein

[asunthatneversets]

You stated in regards to defending Buddhist parental authority in an earlier post. That is why I mentioned it.

Eh, not really. All I did was point out your obvious issues with authority and then pointed out that the lama is a vital aspect of Vajrayāna.

 

Further, Lamas sitting on thrones wearing their medieval garb has everything to do with it. Otherwise why would they wear such costumes?

On the contrary it is about as irrelevant to the teaching itself as it gets and is quite pointless to fixate on. Who gives a shit what people wear?

 

Ralis does.

 

These dudes come to the West and expect everyone to throw money and gifts at their feet while dressed in their exotic finery.

I'd say that is an inaccurate and biased generalization.

 

Norbu doesn't dress that way. In fact, he was a professor at the University of Naples. A real world job.

This is true. The man is also far from grounded in anything remotely close to what you'd define as a "real world".

 

Lab coats serve as a means of protection when working around chemicals and other material.

This is also true.

 

BTW, don't you have anything better to do with your time? I am semi retired and am finishing a real world career and considering a second career.

This thread is deteriorating fast.

[ralis]

Eh, not really. All I did was point out your obvious issues with authority and then pointed out that the lama is a vital aspect of Vajrayāna.

 

 

I said authoritarianism not authority. There is a difference. I suppose you have unwavering allegiance and do exactly what is commanded of you without question from your teacher.

Edited August 9, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

I said authoritarianism not authority. There is a difference. I suppose you do exactly as you are told without question?

The authoritarian thing is also your own personal fabrication and issue.

 

Why would you suppose something like that?

[ralis]

The authoritarian thing is also your own personal fabrication and issue.

 

Why would you suppose something like that?

 

Authoritarianism doesn't exist? History is replete with persons who thought as you do.

 

I base my conclusion on what I have seen from the early 80's starting with Trungpa. When I took my first teaching/empowerment, I quickly realized that these dudes were not going to give me the real in depth teachings. Norbu verified that in 1989.

 

Let's get one thing straight here. I am questioning the way the teachings are presented, but you come across like an authoritarian when you make statements such as;

 

At least I have the courage to ask tough question regarding the party line here.

 

The authoritarian thing is also your own personal fabrication and issue.

Edited August 9, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

 

Authoritarianism doesn't exist? History is replete with persons who thought as you do.

Dear god... in this context ralis, not in general.

 

I base my conclusion on what I have seen from the early 80's starting with Trungpa. When I took my first teaching/empowerment, I quickly realized that these dudes were not going to give me the real in depth teachings. Norbu verified that in 1989.

Right, well they don't just hand out upadeśa teachings like bus passes.

 

Let's get one thing straight here. I am questioning the way the teachings are presented, but you come across like an authoritarian when you make statements such as;

 

At least I have the courage to ask tough question regarding the party line here.

 

Really I just come across as a guy sharing his opinion. If sharing my opinion means I'm erring into authoritarianism, then all of us are guilty of authoritarianism, including you.

[gatito]

Despite the fact that there are at least three extremely intelligent and knowledgable posters on this thread, none of you have really seen clearly that you cannot formulate a theory of the whole in terms of the parts or, to put it another way, that ultimate reality (nonduality) lies beyond the (finite) intellect.

Y'all are going to continue to go around in circles until you die or you realise that the Truth cannot be understood intellectually and that all these theories are no more than useful approximations that are there to be used by the skilled to dismantle the false belief systems of real seekers and dropped (completely) after they've done their job. Looking at the initial question, it's meaningless from the perspective of someone who's free of the fundamental subject/object duality.

These techniques (stories) that you've adopted as beliefs need to be targeted at the correct point of the inquiry because a too advanced truth (small "t") is worse than nothing at all if it's adopted too early and fixated upon as an absolute truth/belief.

 

It strikes me that I could use the Discount Matrix from Transactional Analysis theory to illustrate this point but I'll leave that as a bit homework for anyone who's interested in digging themselves out of this hole.

 

You could also try looking at the way that philosophical sublation (Aufhebung) works (like the vanishing Cheshire Cat in Alice) if you actually want to get of this treadmill on which you've trapped yourselves. However, it strikes me that y'all want to be right more than you want to be free and you'll probably just stay stuck.

[asunthatneversets]

Despite the fact that there are at least three extremely intelligent and knowledgable posters on this thread, none of you have really seen clearly that you cannot formulate a theory of the whole in terms of the parts or, to put it another way, that ultimate reality (nonduality) lies beyond the (finite) intellect.(

Not to assume that I'm one of the posters you are referring to, but I've actively evaded offering a sound explanation for my position due to the fact that some of the personalities and dispositions here are so venomous that there is really no point in engaging on that level.

[ralis]

Despite the fact that there are at least three extremely intelligent and knowledgable posters on this thread, none of you have really seen clearly that you cannot formulate a theory of the whole in terms of the parts or, to put it another way, that ultimate reality (nonduality) lies beyond the (finite) intellect.

 

Y'all are going to continue to go around in circles until you die or you realise that the Truth cannot be understood intellectually and that all these theories are no more than useful approximations that are there to be used by the skilled to dismantle the false belief systems of real seekers and dropped (completely) after they've done their job. Looking at the initial question, it's meaningless from the perspective of someone who's free of the fundamental subject/object duality.

 

These techniques (stories) that you've adopted as beliefs need to be targeted at the correct point of the inquiry because a too advanced truth (small "t") is worse than nothing at all if it's adopted too early and fixated upon as an absolute truth/belief.

 

It strikes me that I could use the Discount Matrix from Transactional Analysis theory to illustrate this point but I'll leave that as a bit homework for anyone who's interested in digging themselves out of this hole.

 

You could also try looking at the way that philosophical sublation (Aufhebung) works (like the vanishing Cheshire Cat in Alice) if you actually want to get of this treadmill on which you've trapped yourselves. However, it strikes me that y'all want to be right more than you want to be free and you'll probably just stay stuck.

 

I haven't heard TA in ages. Studied it in the early 70's.

[ralis]

 

Right, well they don't just hand out upadeśa teachings like bus passes.

 

 

Really I just come across as a guy sharing his opinion. If sharing my opinion means I'm erring into authoritarianism, then all of us are guilty of authoritarianism, including you.

 

You finally admit that what you write is your opinion. I have been stating that all along.

 

Any teaching should be freely given when requested. I remember Ken McCleod said back in 89 that it is a mistaken idea that the teacher can read a student's mind to determine what a given student needs.

[goldisheavy]

Is there anyone here who thinks they can get fresh results while fully clinging to a stale worldview?

 

Everyone here already knows what sort of results are attainable using physicalism as the worldview.

Edited August 9, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hmmm. Never heard of Ken McLeod before.

Read about one of his retreats. He kind of got bad instructions, didn't he?

 

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/a-way-of-freedom/0

 

 

We have a choice between two very different ways to meet what arises in experience.

 

The first is to rely on explanation. We interpret our experiences in life according to a set of deeply held assumptions. We may or may not be conscious of the assumptions, but they are there. Even when we explore our experience, we are usually looking for evidence that supports or confirms them. These assumptions are never questioned. They are taken as fundamental. A self-reinforcing dynamic develops that results in a closed system in which everything is explained, the mystery of life is dismissed, new ideas, perspectives, or approaches to life cannot enter and certain questions can never be asked. This I call belief.

 

The other way is to open and be willing to receive, not control, whatever arises, that is, not only allow, but embrace every sensation, feeling and thought, everything we experience. In this approach, we allow our experience to challenge our assumptions. Here, there are no fundamental or eternal truths, and some things cannot be explained, they can only be experienced. This willingness to open to whatever arises internally or externally I call faith.

 

This being human is a guest house

Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,

some momentary awareness comes

as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!

~ Rumi

 

Early in the retreat, when difficult experiences arose, I would analyze them, trying to understand what had happened and why. I thought this would help to resolve them and then I wouldnt have to be bothered by them. Sometimes I would be completely swallowed by emotions and sensations and only come to my senses a few minutes, or a few hours, later. Frequently, I just couldnt face what was arising. I shut it down, or went for a walk. In short, if what arose didnt fit my picture of what I wanted or needed, I would start doing something.

 

Gradually, I learned just to stare into space, in any of its dimensions, the sky, the silence, time or the infinite depth in my own body. I recognized that the only way I could do nothing was, well, do nothing. I had to receive whatever arose, experience it, and not do anything with it. I needed faith to experience powerful feelings of loneliness, worthlessness, despair, or shame, because I often felt I would die in the process. I recalled how many times my teacher had said this, albeit in different words, Rest in just recognizing. But no one had said that just recognizing might lead to pain so intense that I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy. And I came to appreciate that all my efforts in previous practice had built the capacity so that I could now rest and just recognize.

 

When I did open to everything, there was no opposition there was no enemy. I didnt have to struggle with experience. At the same time, there was no truth, no state of perfection, no ideal, no final achievement. Again, years later, in a conversation with another teacher about this experience, he said, Dont worry about truth. Just develop devotion so strongly that thinking stops, and rest right there.

 

 

It appears that his teachers told him to focus on the content. There doesn't seem to be any instruction to instead, dissolve the phenomenon. Imagine that! Spend a retreat focusing on he content, feeding in energy, proliferating the conceptual mind. Poor guy, I bet he suffered. Someone should have told him about "not grasping", about letting be. He just missed the boat on that one. No wonder he has an axe to grind with Buddhism!

 

My other comment is that I have read that a prerequisite to being a teacher is to have clairvoyance... From Alan Wallace.. It went something like this: a teacher with clairvoyance can help the student in one year, what the ordinary teacher would take 100 years to do.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[ralis]

Hmmm. Never heard of Ken McLeod before.

Read about one of his retreats. He kind of got bad instructions, didn't he?

 

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/a-way-of-freedom/0

 

It appears that his teachers told him to focus on the content. There doesn't seem to be any instruction to instead, dissolve the phenomenon. Imagine that! Spend a retreat focusing on he content, feeding in energy, proliferating the conceptual mind. Poor guy, I bet he suffered. Someone should have told him about "not grasping", about letting be. He just missed the boat on that one. No wonder he has an axe to grind with Buddhism!

 

My other comment is that I have read that a prerequisite to being a teacher is to have clairvoyance... From Alan Wallace.. It went something like this: a teacher with clairvoyance can help the student in one year, what the ordinary teacher would take 100 years to do.

 

He received instruction from Kalu Rinpoche who supervised the two 3 year retreats he was on. He and several others including Sarah Harding who teaches at Naropa were the first Westerners invited into this retreat.

[asunthatneversets]

You finally admit that what you write is your opinion. I have been stating that all along.

 

Any teaching should be freely given when requested. I remember Ken McCleod said back in 89 that it is a mistaken idea that the teacher can read a student's mind to determine what a given student needs.

Uhh, what? Everything that anyone writes is their opinion. Anything you say is also your opinion... this can't be the first time you're figuring this out.

 

And I'm not sure who in their right mind would expect a teacher to read their mind... for the most part, if you want a certain teaching all you have to do is ask for it.

Edited August 9, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

Uhh, what? Everything that anyone writes is their opinion. Anything you say is also your opinion... this can't be the first time you're figuring this out.

 

 

Actually your writing style does not convince otherwise. Why not view what you write from the point of view of others.

Edited August 9, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

Actually your writing style does not convince otherwise.

Convinve you otherwise about what?

[asunthatneversets]

Oh that I don't mistake my view for other than an opinion. Well luckily I don't have to convince you since the fact that we are all only ever sharing opinions goes without saying.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[goldisheavy]

Like what?

 

Why don't you think about it. I could give you a link or spell it out, but why?

[Apech]

Actually it does. The OP asked about objective reality and what ensued was cut/paste and a flurry of authoritarian remarks that never answered the question. Buddhist double speak.

 

The OP asked if there was an objective reality in Dzogchen theory. So the fact that the answers related to Dzogchen is not actually surprising. Quotes therefore are an attempt to answer the question posed and not authoritarian as you suggest. The question as to whether there is an objective reality at all has now crept in due to posters such as yourself.

[gatito]

Not to assume that I'm one of the posters you are referring to, but I've actively evaded offering a sound explanation for my position due to the fact that some of the personalities and dispositions here are so venomous that there is really no point in engaging on that level.

 

Yes, you're one of the three that I had in mind - and ralis is another.

 

I haven't heard TA in ages. Studied it in the early 70's.

 

The theory's evolved considerably since the 70s to provide some fascinating and useful tools - the Discount Matrix being a case in point.

 

I still love the original Berne though, he was an intuitive genius who worked from primary process and I consider that the example of a jerk-free conversation in the back of Games People Play is required reading.

 

Claude Steiner is another must read. He was one of my most infllential treachers (who, interestingly, pointed me towards an exploration of Vipassana about ten years ago).

 

You can access the majority of his writing here for free: - http://claudesteiner.com/ (://claudesteiner.com).

 

I think that you'd enjoy The Other Side of Power: - http://claudesteiner.com/downld.htm (://claudesteiner.com/downld.htm)

 

Let me know what you think if you decide to read it - I'd value your opinion.

[steve]

Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

 

I personally am 100% convinced that there is an objective reality!

 

But I think that we all can only perceive a little glimpse of it, interpret it halfway wrong and that therefore our view of it is distorted (=our subjective reality).

Like the blind guys who only touch one part of the elephant and get the nature of the elephant wrong.

 

Scientific measuring & estimation are our best tools to come as close as possible to objective reality.

 

"Dzogchen theory" - kind of a contradiction in terms.

 

Dzogchen is about openness to direct experience and to go beyond experience.

To let go of everything - concepts, thoughts, feelings, sensory perception, all of that.

To let go of absolutely everything until there is nothing left to let go of, and develop stability and confidence in what remains.

I once heard someone talk about the difference between belief and faith, it might have been Watts or even Osho.

He said something like, belief is the fervent hope that an idea that cannot be verified is the truth.

Faith is the willingness to let go of all ideas and all hope, and accept that what remains is the truth - that is like Dzogchen.

 

It is not about believe but rather letting go of belief.

It is not about theory but rather letting go of conceptualization.

 

If you have any interest in actually practicing or studying Dzogchen and the views associated with it, it would be best to let go of your convictions rather than pronounce and defend them.

 

If you hold on to your convictions, ideas, concepts, and beliefs, Dzogchen is a waste of time.

Those very convictions and beliefs are what separates you from what Dzogchen is trying to connect you with.

 

If you would like an answer to your question, however, the best approach would be to read a bit about the Madhyamaka and Yogacara views of reality and existence. The best short answer would probably be yes and no, at least that would be my reductionist interpretation.

 

It's quite similar to the scientific view, actually. Science has not really limited itself to a strictly "objective" view of reality since Heisenberg's seminal work in the 1920's, has it? While his work is often misrepresented, and the interpretations have evolved over the decades and lost some of their impact, it is still well established that there is subjectivity in our experience of "objective" reality, the two are inseparable. More current work, such as subatomic physics and that related to string theory, continue to point more and more to an explanation of reality that is not independent of the observer and has no measurable or tangible material aspect.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

He received instruction from Kalu Rinpoche who supervised the two 3 year retreats he was on. He and several others including Sarah Harding who teaches at Naropa were the first Westerners invited into this retreat.

Is this the Kalu Rinpoche you are talking about?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalu_Rinpoche

 

And Sarah Hardiing?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Harding_(lama)

 

It would seem so.

 

Wow, you sure met some controversial figures back then...