Jonesboy

Some words from Malcolm on the need for a guru. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=18326 Some public books with the name Dzogchen in the title are just sutra level teachings on emptiness and mindfulness, but politeness restrains me from naming which ones. Sems sde at minimum requires introduction through the so called empowerment of the potentiality of vidyā (of which there are 18 connected with the dohas of 18 ancient masters), and is part of the completion stage of Mahāyoga and Anuyoga — the bodhicitta texts do not actually give much detail on the method of practice, being mainly concerned with theory and view. So called sems sde is primarily about the basis. Because the basic texts of sems sde provide little information on how it is to be practiced, there are three different systems of Sems sde practice in Tibet, each with its own preliminaries. For example, the Nyan lugs systems of Sems sde requires the regular four uncommon foundations and so on. Longde requires initiation into the system of Ngondzog Gyalpo, and is connected with that yidam. If the teaching on the natural state is no different from the Prajnaparamita sutras - that is, you seem to agree to the unity of Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Madhyamaka in terms of the ultimate view - is it your understanding that Dzogchen is a unique way because of its togal instructions and nothing else? There are a number of things which make Dzogchen distinct, thögal is one, but there are others, the explanation of the generic basis is another, the specific preliminary practices related to thögal such as 'khor 'das ru shan and so on are others, and the general requirement for some kind of introduction either through the fourth empowerment of Mahāyoga, the ati yoga empowerment found in Anuyoga or the empowerment of the potentiality of vidyā. As far as tregchö goes, there is really no difference between tregchö, Kagyu Mahāmudra and the meditation the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana — all three have the same point and all three depend on the experiential view imparted during empowerment. I also want to point out that like the rest of Vajrayāna, Dzogchen practice, path and realization completely depends on the Guru. Guru Yoga is absolutely central to Dzogchen. Without guru yoga and devotion to a realized master, no progress at all is possible in Dzogchen, none whatsoever.

I agree and thank you very much for bringing that up. Beautiful.

Hi Ti, I think you missed what I was saying. Here it is again. Next I said: Rigpa is when the observing/thoughts go away and it is just the flow. The ground the base which it all flows from. From my earlier post: I have also mentioned emptiness of mind and how one moves beyond "noticing mind" All I have been trying to say is that if you are observing ones thoughts, that is mindfulness, not Buddha mind, non-dual awareness aka Rigpa. Yes one can still work with visions, yes one will still think. Yet when one is for a better word residing in Ripga within oneself there is no subject and object of yourself. That is what it means to reside in the flows, not observing ones thoughts and watching them float on by but to be one with the flow, the energy that makes up everything "non-dual awareness".

I like to go here to share presence on Wednesday. This is also where I received the empowerment. http://emahofoundation.org/index.php

With regard to transmissions: From Malcolm... The Dzogchen teachings are not something found outside of Buddhadharma for the simple reason that they are a Dharma that was taught by the Buddhas no amount of intellectual posturing can change this fact. Does this mean that someone has to sign up with a card that says "Registered Buddhist" like it is a political party? No, of course not. These days a sort of intellectual "Dzogchen" is very fashionable — but it generally arises from a misconstrual of the Dzogchen tradition divorced from the matrix in which it emerged, the religious culture of Tibet from the 9th to the 12th century. During this four centuries, Dzogchen teachings were gradually promulgated in the context of Secret Mantra. One thing that ChNN also says is that there is no such a thing as "pure Dzogchen." What he means by this is that there is no practice of Dzogchen divorced from the rest of the Buddhist path (Bonpos are just Buddhists with a differing historical narrartive regarding the origins of their teachings). He also states in very plain language that the result of Sūtra, Tantra and Dzogchen are the same — the same buddhahood. He never makes this claim with regard to Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism and so on. Of course another intellectual fashion of the current day is that imagine that somehow there are teachings equivalent to Dzogchen in schools outside of Buddhadharma. This assertion is laughable. Beyond this, Dzogchen texts themselves take great pains to site their own teachings within the horizon of Buddhadharma, and outside the horizon of the teachings of this and that tīrthika school. The only thing radical about Dzogchen in the end is that a few people might have the capacity recognize their own stated and live in that knowledge 24/7 obviating the need for any further path — but those of us who did not recognize that state and entered into delusion must labor away at our two obscurations, even though, as it is clearly stated in the Prajñāpāramita that when we reach the final result we will realize that there was nothing to accomplish and nothing to remove all along. In the meantime however, we soldier on because while we are under the the power of karma and afflictions there is a basis of purification and a reason for purification. This is recognized also in Dzogchen teachings, thus the reason there are so many purifications practices, purification practices for body, speech, mind and so on. The entire first chapter of the Dimension of Sound (sgra thal 'gyur) tantra consists of nothing but purification practices, including creation stage and completion stage practices, and the entire first volume of Vimalamitra's commentary to this text consists of nothing more than elaborating all these practices in detail. As to the notion that direct introduction is sufficient, this is a gross error of understanding. As the famed Semde master Zhigpo Dudtsi points out, the only chigcharwas (instantaneous realizers) he knew of were Saraha and Lingje Repa (neither of them even Dzogchen practitioners), but that while he had sought out some other examples, he did not know of any while not ruling out the possibility that they existed. But it seems these days everyone is a chigcharwas. Further, if you are not practicing the profound teaching of thögal, one has no way of working with pure vision apart from the two stages. It is for this reason then that Tregchö is always combined with deity yoga in Dzogchen practice. As such, the practice of most so called Dzogchen practice is no different than what the Sakyapas, Gelugpas and Kagyus do, even though Nyingma sadhanas are gussied up with many fancy high sounding words. The plain reality is that most people do not have the capacity or time to practice Dzogchen in a serious way. This being the case, for example, ChNN strongly advises everyone to practice the short thun, which is a anuyoga sadhana combined with ati guruyoga. He explicitly says no one can remain in samadhi (contemplation) all the time, and so therefore, in order to do something useful, we have all these secondary practices which support samadhi, which create a container for it. As to the the importance of tradition. There is no Dzogchen without lineage. A Dzogchen book without a live transmission is like a cellphone without a battery, it won't receive any calls. Dzogchen, as ChNN says again and again, does not live in a book, it lives in the transmission between teacher and student. That transmission is oral, symbolic and experiential. All of the different methods of empowerment, elaborate and so, are all methods of communicating that knowledge orally, symbolically and experientially. That knowledge is no different than what is communicated through the four empowerments of the Sarma schools. While the four Dzogchen empowerments may be more detailed, and in some sense they may be a bit more profound in details, a beginner cannot comprehend this. Without a great deal of understanding of Vajrayāna, the teaching of Dzogchen is completely opaque. The teaching of Dzogchen is not confined to paeans of praise about our natural state. It consists of detailed instructions about the human body, it's channels, functions and so on, all of which require ripening through empowerment. If Dzogchen were only about our natural state, it would not go beyond the Prajñāpāramita sūtras. As one of the Dzogchen tantras puts it — Mahāyoga is the ground, Anuyoga is the sky, and Atiyoga is the sun and moon which illuminates both. Dzogchen is called the pinnacle not because Mahāyoga and Anuyoga are unnecessary, but because, as Rongzom points out, it is needed for making other practices fruitful. This is not different than the Lamdre contention that the experiential view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana that comes from empowerment must be meditated prior to engaging in the two stages. In the end, I am afraid that the Sakya master, Dezhung Ajam ( a disciple of Adzom Drugpa) was right, many people who claim to be Dzogchen practitioners are like people whose bodies are separated from their heads — in other words, their "Dzogchen" is just intellectual theory. Sadly, we see many such discussions in the internet in various forums by various people that are completely ungrounded. These people, sadly, merely block their own realization. What a pity. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=18326

Again, Please show me any teaching that says the Natural State is a state of observing ones thoughts, feelings etc. If you are in a state of observing ones thoughts there is still a subject and an object and you are not in the Natural State. Rigpa is when the observing/thoughts go away and it is just the flow. The ground the base which it all flows from. From my earlier post: Found this description in The Twenty-one Little Nails, the root text from the Zhang-Zhung Nya-Gyud, pointing to the difference between Rigpa and the "nature of mind", rather than "noticing mind"... As for recognizing the Nature of Mind as distinct from mind, (there are four considerations regarding the Nature of Mind:) 1) it is without thoughts, 2) it becomes the basis of everything, 3) it is a neutral state (displaying neither virtue nor vice), and 4) everything possible originates from it and this is unceasing. If you are observing thoughts you are "noticing mind" and not in the Natural State.

If you go all the way back to page 7. http://thedaobums.com/topic/40023-dzogchen-superior-to-tantra-really/page-7 Wells actually was saying the Witness was the same as Rigpa and I said no it is not and you started to jump in arguing the point. One would assume you were agreeing with him since you kept telling me I was wrong. A transmission is something that one can feel. Can you not feel them in books by teachers? When I had a Mahamudra transmission I had dreams of learning for 3 days afterward and experienced some pretty cool states during my sits. When you open yourself up it is pretty amazing what one can experience.

I jumped into the conversation because you were saying mindfulness was Rigpa. From your previous comments you only believe what you want to believe from your teachers. Go to Dhramawheel and start on how transmissions are fake and your idea of what Rigpa is. You would not last long over there I assure you. One does not need a Dzogchen teacher to understand emptiness, oneness or Rigpa. When you know you know and you know when others don't. All the best.

Does one have to be a Buddhist to understand it? The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist after all

I am just sharing my experience . You will notice I don't comment on techniques within Dzogchen. I have no experience with them. All I have ever posted about on this forum is that which I experience. The above post is a perfect example. When I talked about all thoughts arising from the heart. I experienced that first then much later and only because members disagreed with me researched the topic and found that Ramana said the same thing. The same thing with people first saying it was physically impossible for someone to have no thoughts. I know it is possible and shared teaching on it from Dzogchen masters. All the best to you, Tom

You are right Wilfred. I was not being clear with my no thought posts. Rigpa is not getting lost in them, not attaching to them as they flow through as one is thinking. For example one will have a thought during a conversation, Rigpa is not thinking about what to say or getting lost in the daydream of trying to relate to someone's experience. When one is not having a conversation one can just reside without thoughts, in the flow of that which is. Forgive me for no making that clearer in my previous statements.

Other Dzogchen teachings say differently as has been posted in this thread. It is entirely possible that you didn't understand what you were being taught. After all you don't believe in transmissions and the retreat was just one lesson after another like you said. Do you have anything from Norbu that you could quote that agrees with your views?

It proves it is rare. That one can have a lot of gifts but still get caught up in attachments. He is a perfect example.

I said a real guru can speed someone along and not by preaching, talking, teaching some system of practice that one has to do for an hour at a time. With a real guru there is no issue of power or control. A real guru is way beyond that. Interesting how all you got out of it was, my guru has no guru but everyone needs a guru. All the best to you, Tom

She is saying she is being, not thinking. A big difference.

Which goes back to my answer.. Ask him

If you don't believe he is a guru then it is not a real question.

If you don't believe what I am saying I see no reason to continue on with the conversation. I don't see the value in having another thread of back and forth with you. All the best, Tom

Hi Bindi, So are you admitting that Jeff is a guru like the kind I have mentioned?

Hi Bindi, You know where he hangs out, where we all hang out. http://community.livingunbound.net/index.php?/ If you want to ask questions about his experience then ask him in the chat room. Not really my place to speak for him. You know I believe in the guru and the ability to work mind to mind to help others. Just like I know you have your issues with it. All I ever do is throw out the seeds and every once in awhile someone comes along and it is a beautiful experience. Life changing. I also understand that not everyone is ready for such a thing. All the best to you Bindi, Tom

Not a one that you have mentioned is a real guru. A real guru doesn't need books or a system. His presence alone is enough to advance one along. It is truly mind blowing, amazing and one feels very blessed.

The Buddha had a lot of teachers and Jesus in all ways recognized John as his guru.

There have been no great masters that I am aware of without a guru. A real guru is rare but when you find him it is life changing. There really is no comparison. All the best, Tom

If you don't believe in transmissions then this discussion is a waste of time.