Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential - Split

[manitou]

My apologies to everyone to the part I played in upsetting your apple cart.  I don't belong in the Buddhist section, thanks for your indulgence.  Actually, this is the very reason I was opposed to the Bums splitting up into various sections originally.  I think we all have much to learn from each other, and when we're stuck in our various grooves, we are dead wood.  I think we all benefited more when all philosophies were bouncing off each other.

 

Again, my sincere apologies.

Edited July 25, 2016 by manitou

[rex]

My apologies to everyone to the part I played in upsetting your apple cart.  I don't belong in the Buddhist section, thanks for your indulgence.  Actually, this is the very reason I was opposed to the Bums splitting up into various sections originally.  I think we all have much to learn from each other, and when we're stuck in our various grooves, we are dead wood.  I think we all benefited more when all philosophies were bouncing off each other.

 

Again, my sincere apologies.

No apologies are required from anyone manitou, especially from you. After all it's the nature of the forum to have debate. Everyone belongs in the Buddhist section and it's good that others find this thread helpful, it's just that for a good while it was a relatively quite sanctuary from the clanging, clashing and dissonance of daobum dharma debate.  No one officially stated that this thread was to be an oasis, it just grew that way and like all gardens plants growing in the wrong place can be replanted elsewhere.

Edited July 25, 2016 by rex

[manitou]

No apologies are required from anyone manitou, especially from you. After all it's the nature of the forum to have debate. Everyone belongs in the Buddhist section and it's good that others find this thread helpful, it's just that for a good while it was a relatively quite sanctuary from the clanging, clashing and dissonance of daobum dharma debate.  No one officially stated that this thread was to be an oasis, it just grew that way and like all gardens plants growing in the wrong place can be replanted elsewhere.

 

 

 

Thanks - and I think a sanctuary it should remain.  However, I do think the title of the thread should be renamed.  Otherwise, it is one person's idea of the thought process that leads to enlightenment.  And as such, isn't enlightenment at all.

[steve]

I'm quite pleased with how the discussion evolved without losing control.

While I don't want to take up this beautiful thread with too much discussion, perhaps this sanctuary can serve as a model for Buddhist discussion in other areas of the forum...

Thank you CT for maintaining this wonderful thread and thanks everyone for putting up with my occasional bursts of verbosity!

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[already]

Not sure I ever recommended that manitou read Krishnamurti but assuming I did, the answer to your question is no.

 

There are many teachings in the world. Different people need different things at different times in their lives.

Krishnamurti has helped me a great deal. I don't read him much any more but there is great value in his words, IMO.

 

Dzogchen is about openness more than anything, it may be helpful for you to consider that.

No Steve,

Dzogchen is not about openness.

Openness is an experience one can have .Then this experience goes away.

Does the primordial state ever move ?

[steve]

No Steve,

Dzogchen is not about openness.

Openness is an experience one can have .Then this experience goes away.

Does the primordial state ever move ?

 

Until I'm able to rest in the natural state in every sleeping, dreaming, and waking moment, I find it a very valuable tool on the way.

Edited July 27, 2016 by steve

[Bindi]

Everything is open to one's own interpretation based on their own level of understanding at the time, even Shakyamuni evolved.

 

Perhaps a little broader thought as to where Buddhism originated and that there may have been others, even deities supporting Gautama as he sat under that tree. Buddha himself taught that we all possess the heart of a Buddha in the third turning of the dharma wheel.

 

I thought Buddha counselled against belief in God or reliance on deities. That he saw such beliefs as a religious crutch and limitation. Of course I might be wrong about this as I am not Buddhist, but I do recall reading this sort of perspective in Buddhism.

 

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

No Steve,

Dzogchen is not about openness.

Openness is an experience one can have .Then this experience goes away.

Does the primordial state ever move ?

Unskillful rendition, Already.

 

From "Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings - Tenzin Namdak":

 

In its own terms, Dzogchen has no rules; it is open to everything. But does this mean we can do just what we feel like at the moment? On the side of the Natural State, this is true and there are no restrictions or limitations. All appearances are manifestations of mind (sems kyi snang-ba), like reflections seen in a mirror, and there is no inherent negativity or impurity in them. Everything is perfectly all right just as it is, as the energy (rtsal) of the Nature of Mind in manifestation. It is like white and black clouds passing overhead in the sky; they equally obscure the face of the sun. When they depart, there are no traces left behind.

However, that is speaking only on the side of the Natural State, which is like the clear, open sky, unaffected by the presence or absence of these clouds. For the sky, it is all the same. But on the side of the practitioner, it is quite different because we mistakenly believe these clouds are solid, opaque, and quite real and substantial. As practitioners we must first come to an understanding of the insubstantiality and unreality of all these clouds which obscure the sky of our own Nature of Mind (sems-nyid). It is our Tawa {lta-ba), or view, our way of looking at things, which is basic and fundamental, and we must begin here. Then we must practice and attain realization. So on the side of the practitioner, practice and commitment are most certainly required. The Natural State in itself is totally open and clear and spacious like the sky but we, as individuals, are not totally open and unobstructed.

 

 

[Bindi]

T-I, Is your quote above basically saying the same or something similar to the non dual state of advaita and the duality that precedes it?

[Tibetan_Ice]

T-I, Is your quote above basically saying the same or something similar to the non dual state of advaita and the duality that precedes it?

The more I think about it I would say from the top down they look very similar.

Both sides would deny it and grasp their own labels and concepts, but Self looks a lot like rigpa to me.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Tibetan_Ice

[Bindi]

Untouched, undisturbed, This life is perfect just as it is, but still we try to change the world.

 

~ JETSUN KHANDRO RINPOCHE ~

 

I assume a statement like this must be referring to the Natural State, but to me it is unclear, as it seems to be saying that the obstructed state is perfect?

[already]

Unskillful rendition, Already.

 

From "Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings - Tenzin Namdak":

 

 

When one uses words to describe the primordial state they can say that the state is open, clear, empty, pervasive, unobstructed, etc...

But to single out one of these  and say that the real state is about openness or clarity , emptiness ,pervasiveness, is to grasp at imputed qualities and as a consequence one would have a one sided and narrow view about the real nature.

Now , that would be unskillfull !!!

[steve]

When one uses words to describe the primordial state they can say that the state is open, clear, empty, pervasive, unobstructed, etc...

But to single out one of these  and say that the real state is about openness or clarity , emptiness ,pervasiveness, is to grasp at imputed qualities and as a consequence one would have a one sided and narrow view about the real nature.

Now , that would be unskillfull !!!

 

Allow me to clarify - I did not mean to equate the natural state with openness.

I was referring more to the practices we engage in along the way. 

Openness allows us to connect, it facilitates the presence of awareness and warmth, it clears obstacles, and it is the antithesis of grasping and aversion. 

 

A few examples -

The breathing practices for clearing the channels is about creating openness in the channels.

The tsa lung practices for clearing the chakras creates openness in the chakras.

Sitting in contemplation we are open to everything that arises just as it is and in that openness it can liberate.

Integrating into our daily experience we are open to all that we encounter, not resisting or rejecting, not grasping, and in that openness we allow things to be as they are and hopes and fears liberate.

 

Our "work" as imperfect practitioners takes up more time in our lives than does resting in the natural state (at least it does for me still). Living in samsara, perhaps my greatest resource is cultivating, resting in, and trusting in that openness. It is an integral part of the view, meditation, conduct, and fruition. 

 

If your experience is different, that is fine - please share if you are so inclined.

I can only speak from my own and I know that I have a very long way to go. 

[steve]

 

Untouched, undisturbed, This life is perfect just as it is, but still we try to change the world.

 

~ JETSUN KHANDRO RINPOCHE ~

 

I assume a statement like this must be referring to the Natural State, but to me it is unclear, as it seems to be saying that the obstructed state is perfect?

 

 

Not only is it referring to the natural state - it is being made from the perspective of the natural state.

When we actually connect deeply with that place, everything is seen as absolutely perfect.

Everything has its place, all pieces fit together like the most beautiful puzzle - nothing is lacking, nothing is redundant, nothing is out of place. 

 

From the perspective of our samsaric existence, it often makes little sense because of our judgement and identification with this ego, this body, and all the roles that we play.

[Jeff]

Not only is it referring to the natural state - it is being made from the perspective of the natural state.

When we actually connect deeply with that place, everything is seen as absolutely perfect.

Everything has its place, all pieces fit together like the most beautiful puzzle - nothing is lacking, nothing is redundant, nothing is out of place. 

 

From the perspective of our samsaric existence, it often makes little sense because of our judgement and identification with this ego, this body, and all the roles that we play.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. If the quote is being made from the natural state, why does one still wish to change the world?

[steve]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. If the quote is being made from the natural state, why does one still wish to change the world?

 

To the extent we can maintain our connection to that state, there is nothing to change.

In my experience, maintaining that connection is elusive - especially living in the world.

[Bindi]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. If the quote is being made from the natural state, why does one still wish to change the world?

 

Or if everything is already perfect just as it is, then this trying to change the world must also be perfect   

[Jeff]

To the extent we can maintain our connection to that state, there is nothing to change.

In my experience, maintaining that connection is elusive - especially living in the world.

Sorry, but are you now saying that in the end of the above quote that it is not from being based in the natural state, but has slipped out?

 

Or, could the quote relate to maintaining the vow? Holding on to the one desire to help all sentient beings?

[Jeff]

Or if everything is already perfect just as it is, then this trying to change the world must also be perfect

 

Agreed, put if everything is "perfect", then who and why is one still trying to change stuff? Think it could be somehow related to the translated meaning of the word perfect?

[steve]

Sorry, but are you now saying that in the end of the above quote that it is not from being based in the natural state, but has slipped out?

 

Or, could the quote relate to maintaining the vow? Holding on to the one desire to help all sentient beings?

 

 

I don't know the context but there are a few possible interpretations.

 

One is that from the perspective of the natural state, everything is perfect just as it is.

Us mortals who are migrating through cyclic existence don't have that perspective and therefore make the mistake of constantly trying to change things.

Many get a glimpse of the natural state but very few are able to dwell there with consistency so even knowing there is nothing to be changed based on our connection to the base, we stubbornly and foolishly do so when we are in the state of ignorance.

 

I don't participate in any spiritual forums other than this one but it seems like there are people who imagine that there are living practitioners who have completely transcended samsara and dwell in the natural state. If there are any such beings, I would say they are exceedingly rare - more likely non-existent. I've never met an accomplished geshe or lama who wasn't quick to point up their own limitations and need for further work - up to and including the Dalai Lama and the highest living Bönpo, His Holiness Lungtok Tenpai Nyima Rinpoche.

 

There is at least one other interpretation. We have a tendency to look at our problems and challenges as a result of the outside world when, in fact, we are the source of our own problems. From the Dzogchen perspective, all is perfect as it is so there nothing to be changed. When we perceive something to be a problem it is our ignorance, not the outside world.

The Tibetans define three types of practitioner:

The inferior practitioner blames the outside world for their problems.

The middling practitioner shares the blame with others.

The superior practitioner considers all problems to be a result of their own ignorance. 

Seen in this light, the quotation can be seen as an admonition to aspire to be a superior practitioner.

 

I don't know if the quote is pointing directly to the aspiration of relative bodhicitta but that certainly does underlie every Mahayana Buddhist and Bönpo practice and view. 

[Jeff]

I don't know the context but there are a few possible interpretations.

 

One is that from the perspective of the natural state, everything is perfect just as it is.

Us mortals who are migrating through cyclic existence don't have that perspective and therefore make the mistake of constantly trying to change things.

Many get a glimpse of the natural state but very few are able to dwell there with consistency so even knowing there is nothing to be changed based on our connection to the base, we stubbornly and foolishly do so when we are in the state of ignorance.

 

I don't participate in any spiritual forums other than this one but it seems like there are people who imagine that there are living practitioners who have completely transcended samsara and dwell in the natural state. If there are any such beings, I would say they are exceedingly rare - more likely non-existent. I've never met an accomplished geshe or lama who wasn't quick to point up their own limitations and need for further work - up to and including the Dalai Lama and the highest living Bönpo, His Holiness Lungtok Tenpai Nyima Rinpoche.

 

There is at least one other interpretation. We have a tendency to look at our problems and challenges as a result of the outside world when, in fact, we are the source of our own problems. From the Dzogchen perspective, all is perfect as it is so there nothing to be changed. When we perceive something to be a problem it is our ignorance, not the outside world.

The Tibetans define three types of practitioner:

The inferior practitioner blames the outside world for their problems.

The middling practitioner shares the blame with others.

The superior practitioner considers all problems to be a result of their own ignorance. 

Seen in this light, the quotation can be seen as an admonition to aspire to be a superior practitioner.

 

I don't know if the quote is pointing directly to the aspiration of relative bodhicitta but that certainly does underlie every Mahayana Buddhist and Bönpo practice and view. 

 

 

I think that it is actually possible.  While there is nothing that needs to be different or changed, I think the natural radiation is to what to help other realize... And hence that "remaining desire" could translate to changing the world.

 

[rene]

'Either/or' thinking can be difficult to overcome.

 

Everything is perfect just as it is - and - I wash my dirty dishes.

 

Both - in the same moment.

 

Warmest regards (-:

[already]

'Either/or' thinking can be difficult to overcome.

 

Everything is perfect just as it is - and - I wash my dirty dishes.

 

Both - in the same moment.

 

Warmest regards (-:

The idea is not to overcome thinking.

Thinking bad thoughts is equal to thinking good thoughts.

What is important is to descover that thinking, projections, mind in general is a temporary manifestation of natural state being of the same essence with it.

People make all kinds of efforts to stop, improve , purify, get rid off things that appear as impure but this is all a mistake.

Where is the impurity coming from? Isn't coming from the same place as purity ?

And what is purity and impurity ?

Aren't they equally a manifestation of our nature ,  a manifestation of the primordial potetiality that is always ready to produce anything when the right circumstances are present ?

Unfortunatelly very few understand this way of looking at things (which is the accurate way of how dzogchen state IS) and as a consequence they fall onto the side of chasing amazing experiences, getting rid of impurities, and a manifold of uselless sacred activities like pujas, sadhanas, gradual approaches  trough training with conceptual mind methods that keeps them away from the real meaning of dzogchen state.

However, let's be clear, i am not an advocate for "nothing needs to be done"

[steve]

The idea is not to overcome thinking.

Thinking bad thoughts is equal to thinking good thoughts.

What is important is to descover that thinking, projections, mind in general is a temporary manifestation of natural state being of the same essence with it.

People make all kinds of efforts to stop, improve , purify, get rid off things that appear as impure but this is all a mistake.

Where is the impurity coming from? Isn't coming from the same place as purity ?

And what is purity and impurity ?

Aren't they equally a manifestation of our nature ,  a manifestation of the primordial potetiality that is always ready to produce anything when the right circumstances are present ?

Unfortunatelly very few understand this way of looking at things (which is the accurate way of how dzogchen state IS) and as a consequence they fall onto the side of chasing amazing experiences, getting rid of impurities, and a manifold of uselless sacred activities like pujas, sadhanas, gradual approaches  trough training with conceptual mind methods that keeps them away from the real meaning of dzogchen state.

However, let's be clear, i am not an advocate for "nothing needs to be done"

 

Just as pure and impure thoughts are manifestations of the natural state, so are sacred and secular activities.

 

To the extent that activities like pujas, sadhanas, and others are done will resting in the nature of mind, they are anything but useless. They allow the dzogchenpa to exercise the ability to rest in the nature while mentally and physically engaged 

To the extent that they help us connect to the lineage of teachings and generate enlightened qualities like gratitude and devotion, qualities that support our practice, they are a blessing.

 

Not everyone (?no one?) is capable of resting in the nature of mind in every waking, sleeping, and dreaming moment. From the perspective of the natural state, it doesn't matter what we think or do - all is a manifestation of the nature. From our relative perspective, sacred activities are more supportive of deepening our connection to the natural state than are mundane activities that reinforce the 3 poisons. 

 

Just as many people misunderstand the dzogchen view, many people also underestimate the value of sacred practices and rituals in our lives. To the extent that they enhance and support our ability to come closer to the view, meditation, and conduct, they are precious. To the extent that they become a distraction or an attachment, they become an obstacle and that needs to be addressed. 

 

Rene can speak for herself, but I think you missed her point entirely.

I interpret her post as making the same point as you, minus the criticism.

[rene]

The idea is not to overcome thinking.

......

 

already, hello

 

The specific 'thinking' I was referring to was an ingrained belief that it's not possible to simultaneously experience the seemingly opposite states of dual and non-dual; that one dwells in either this or that, rather than both, at the same time.

 

warmest regards (-: