Creation

Hi DreamBliss. Perhaps you will find these ideas stimulating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAoEd7la7m8

I had heard of Chen Yingning as a member of the first wave of internal cultivation masters who attempted to remove the superstition and secrecy from their arts and teach them to the masses, along with others such as Liu Guizhen, Hu Yaozhen, Zhou Qianchuan and Jiang Weiqiao. I had not heard that he did so much to contribute to Daoist culture in particular. It's interesting to know this.

OK. This made me smile. Apparently making distinctions is reification and hence un-Buddhist? No one told Vasubandhu I guess. Not to mention Shakyamuni. But if mind is vayu, it follows that vayu is non-localized and therefore cannot be entirely physical because the physical is localized. Now, if you want to argue that the physical is not actually localized (say, due to quantum entanglement), then that redefines physical to mean something other than our mundane experience of physical matter, but this would indeed allow one to dispense with postulating non-local subtle physical dimension. This is only semantically different than my POV.

Yes indeed. The stuff in those links is very much related to his view that nadis, cakras, prana are purely physical. Here is a very learned and intelligent person whose mind is trying to fit together all these things like sutra, tantra, dzogchen, and aryurveda. And I am sympathetic to his train of thought, e.g. throwing out mind-body dualism. It's simply a matter of accounting for what my qigong teacher calls "higher level energy experiences" that leads me to disagree with a purely physiological basis for subtle energy. Yet while I disagree with him on this, I acknowledge that his qualifications are impeccable.

Frantzis: Dragon and Tiger Lomax: Gift of the Tao Dunn: Flying Phoenix Lamb: Qigong for Self Healing ^^Very very good stuff

Actually, he is an ordained Acharya in the Sakya lineage, and has done separate three year retreats for Sakya and Nyingma practices [EDIT: it seems that he has only done one three year retreat]. He is one of the most qualified representatives of both Sarma Vajrayana and Dzogchen who posts on internet. Not that his word should be taken as absolute authority or anything like that of course. And the more relevant issue is, is alwayson qualified to understand him?

The Third Turning explanation of emptiness emphasizes the relative nature of emptiness: that something is empty of something else. This is intuitive, no? The cup is empty of water, etc. This also makes short work of nihilistic interpretations of emptiness. Though many a Madhyamakin held that the Third Turning fell into the opposite extreme of eternalism.

It is very hard, from the viewpoint of historical scholarship, to tease out the various strands of religions and understand who got what from whom. Even within Buddhism, it is a huge question where all the Mahayana and Vajrayana stuff came from. From pure visions of Buddhas? Perhaps from mixing of Buddhism with "Hinduism" in India? Perhaps from Buddhism mixing with Central Asian mysticism? Perhaps all of these? Taoism has a way of action and a way of non-action. The way of action is the way of alchemy (transformation). The way of non-action emphasizes relaxation and naturalness above all. Sound familiar? Like Tantra and Dzogchen in Buddhsim perhaps? Now, Lao Tzu was presumably was influenced by the Chinese shamanic tradition, which in turn may have come from a larger Asian root shamanism, also including Tibetan, Mongolian, and Siberian shamanism. And Taoist teachings are said to come from the Kunlun mountains in the West, Lao Tzu was said to dissapear into the West, etc. Now, Bonpos hold that they have a transmission of Dzogchen separate from Nyingma, that came from Zhang Zhung in northwest Tibet, which in turn came from even further West. Nyinmapas hold Dzogchen to come from Oddiyana, in Pakistan or Afganistan, but historical evidence strongly points to a Tibetan origin for most of Dzogchen. Also, the early transmission of Buddhism in Tibet mixed with Chan. Some of the original Dzogchen masters were also said to be Chan masters. Some more tidbits: The language of the Vedic Aryans and the Persians have a common root, and Persian culture was centered in modern Afganistan before the migrated into modern Iran. Zoroaster, for example, was born in Afganistan. An argument can be made for a Chinese influence on Tantra, from textual sources, and in terms of some aspects of energetic anatomy and the use of sexual practices. India also had a tradition of external and internal alchemy, associated with the Siddha tradition. The Kriya yoga of Babaji, which uses the microcosmic orbit, is said to come from this tradition. There are speculations, which are impossible to verify at this point, about a connection with Chinese alchemy. Now, that's a lot of potentially unrelated speculation, but my point is there are a great many pointers to there being a lot more cross pollination between different spiritual paths in India, Central Asia, and China than most people know about. At any rate, I remember Santiago Dobles mentioning that his Bon lama told him that Taoism came from ancient Bon, which came from ancient Persians. Also, Bruce Frantzis (who, as it turns out, is a Dzogchenpa) is of the opinion that the Lao Tzu's tradition of Taoism and Dzogchen come from the same source.

Hi Jeff. I am not sure to what extent your list is meant to reflect a linearly ordered development, but for my part I am convinced that the process of spiritual development proceeds on several different axes at once. Even speaking of purely "mental" enlightenment, I have read so many accounts of experiences and progressions that I can only account for by postulating two separate axis of development: realizing luminosity and realizing emptiness. Different experiences an progressions are then different zig-zags in a plane of realization, rather than one-dimensional progression on a line. Then there are other aspects of development emphasized by other paths. Things like awakening to one's energy body, one's multi-dimensional nature, contacting and integrating all the various levels of one's being all the way up to one's personal spiritual essence. (This is not the same thing as Atman or Buddha-mind, because it is particular to you, as a multidimensional manifestation). This is the type of development that is what Taoism is primarily concerned with, as well as other shamanically rooted paths. I think this fundamental difference in orientation was a big cause of misunderstanding between Taoists and Buddhists in China. One can be very advanced in "mental enlightenment" and be relatively un-developed in "shamanic enlightenment" (other possible names for this: energy enlightenment, ecological enlightenment), and also vice-versa. Some who emphasize mental enlightenment would strongly object to assigning importance to shamanic enlightenment (e.g. Zen, Neo-Advaita), and might label this type of thing as "New Age" (like the guys you talked to on dharmawheel, for instance). For me, I think that it is absolutely crucial for our development as a species and as a planet, crucial to our being responsible citizens in this universe.

Do you know if he uses "alaya" as an abbreviation of alayavijnana, or does he distinguish between these two? In "Stilling the Mind" he emphasized distinguishing alayavijnana and dharamakaya, so maybe he just is using shorter terms for the same concepts? I get the impression that this is nuanced enough for trekcho, but there are further distinctions as you go deeper into Dzogchen. I only mention it because it caused me a lot of confusion to read posts of Malcolm's that distinguished between kun gzhi and gzhi, when every other presentation of Dzogchen I had seen stopped at kun gzhi. I have seen others on the web wonder about this distinction as well. Malcolm mentioned that it was relevant for togel. No, I don't know the first thing about rigpa.

Hi anamatva. This is one of those instances in which different lineages say different things. In classical yogacara, alayavijnana is the basis of the unenlightened mind, and it ceases upon enlightenment. But the original yogacara doctrines did not include (explicit) discussion of "buddha nature". Thus many syntheses of yogacara and tathagatagarbha thought developed over time. One of the earliest was the Lankavatara sutra, which promoted alayavijnana (8th consciousness) to equality with Buddha nature, which is to say, the primordially pure aspect of mind, and redefined the basis the unenlightened mind to be the manas (7th consciousness). This is how things are understood in Zen, whose primary scriptural basis is the Lankavatara. Another synthesis postulated a level beyond the eight consciousness, the alaya (all base, as distinct from alaya-vijnana), as the primordially pure mind, retaining alayavijnana as the basis of ignorance. This is as far as I understand, the view of the Kagyu and Sakya schools, and is more in line with classical yogacara thought. Here vijnana is taken to imply unenlightened cognition, in contradistinction to jnana, enlightened perception. (N.B. think twice before you call the alayavijnana the alaya). Many Western expositions of Dzogchen use this 9 level system (Alan Wallace speaks of distinguishing alayavijnana and dhramkaya, yes? So he would be equating alaya=dharmakaya.) But apparently, fully fledged Dzogchen philosophy a la Lonchenpa et al makes an even finer distinction. I may be getting the details wrong here, but beyond alayavijnana (kun-gzhi rnam-shes) there are two: alaya (kun-gzhi), which is the basis of Samsara prior to alayavijnana, and gzhi (base, no direct Sanskrit equivalent here) which basis for Nirvana. This is very specific to the Dzogchen worldview/cosmology and is not shared with Anuttarayoga Tantra, Mahamudra, or Lamdre. So it is certainly understandable that introductions and nonsectarian-oriented works would use the simpler model. But apparently the more Dzogchen-specific model is relevant to togel practice. By the way, you also asked about vidya. Yes, vidya is a generic Sanskrit word for knowledge, but in the context of Dzogchen it takes on a very specific technical meaning, as you know.

Hello. According to my research, the common term for this concept in the original sutras is tathagatagarbha, womb of the thus-come-one. The term buddha-dhatu is also used, which more directly translates to buddha nature, or buddha element, and this became the preferred term in China and hence Zen and hence the West. Sugatagarbha is apparently equivalent to tathagatagarbha, but more common in Tantra. Now as far as equivalences, off the top of my head there are several related terms of soteriolgical import in sutra: Dharmakaya Dharmata Tathata Dharmadhatu Buddha-dhatu Tathagatagarbha Buddha-jnana Alaya-vijnana To which tantra variously adds: Sugatagarbha Mahamudra Prabhasvara/Osel Alaya/kungzhi Rigpa Gzhi Exactly how all these terms are related to one another seems to vary from one lineage to the next, and even within one lineage different teachers might have slightly different explanations.

Even so, I would want to approach Dzogchen as a Dzogchenpa, not something else. So even if Dzochen practice develops the energy body as a result, if the practices do not do so intentionally engaging my tendency to do so would be me practicing Dzogchen in a spirit other than the spirit of Dzogchen. To my perception, practice lineages have very deep underlying structures that usually are not communicated through words. So even though Zen, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen all emphasize pointing to direct experience of the natural state, the way that that state comes through the varying levels of consciousness is different and carries a unique signature, a unique "wiring" if you will. So I am sympathetic to Pero et al recommending one approach Dzogchen on it's own terms rather than try to associate it with one's prior perceptions, however Dzogchen-like they seem.

Hi anamatva. It seems to me that when alwayson decides something is "best", suddenly everything else is "bad", but this is not what was in the thread he referenced. I looked at that dharmawheel thread and cannot find the idea that jhanas are a hindrance. What Malcolm was saying is that they are not the type of mindstates utilized in Vajrayana practice, because they have an object and so do not as closely approximate the realization of emptiness, and also because they are a type of bliss that is soley mental, not incorporating the bliss of the body. As for the latter, a Theravadin might reply "Yes, that is why the Buddha taught the jhanas, the Buddha had no use for the bliss of the body". Of course, there are profound differences in method in Vajrayana and Sutrayana.

You know, I just remembered seeing some old footage of Norbu Rinpoche, perhaps a clip from "My Reincarnation", where he poked fun at Westerners thinking they were going to feel some kind of "vibration" from him. So there is a precedent going all the way back to Rinpoche for not emphasizing "energy". Now, this will require some cup-emptying on my part, because a major part of what my path has consisted of working towards developing the energy body. Not that I will stop developing my energy body, of course.

Hi Simple Jack. I would love to find out I am wrong about Malcolm's understanding of subtle energy, but what you quoted is more support for my view of his view Now don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for Malcolm's enormous erudition, which is why I am even bothering to discuss his opinion here. But when Jeff talks about certain things, it is clear that they do not fit in to Malcom's worldview, which causes communication breakdown between them. EDIT: There is one other thread where I recall Malcolm giving purely physical explanations for energetic phenomena: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4967

I have been looking forward to this book for a long time. Energy arts just sent out an email giving the table of contents and introduction in a pdf. Just reading the table of contents is getting me really excited. The completeness and thoroughness of the topics discussed, not to mention the qualifications of the author, are light years beyond other books in the "Eastern Sexuality" genre. I hope this book becomes the new gold standard in the field.

I don't know. Perhaps it is common with internet going Dzogchen practitioners, given the influence Malcolm has. I suppose the question is, what in Dzogchen practice would give a person reason to think otherwise? Because otherwise it is a matter of faith: "My lama said this", "Some new age book I read said this", "Malcolm said this", "Some scholar said some ancient text said this" etc.

Yes it does! I am indeed in North America. Thanks for the reference, and glad to see you diving into Dzogchen! Great fortune to you in your practice. May all beings benefit.

I added a couple more quotes in an edit to show that Malcolm's understanding of prana is very different than that of a practicing energy worker. I can see why Jeff said what he said. Exegesis of ancient texts is not the point here, but how much experience one has in working with energy.

Thanks for the link, that is the very threat that gave me the impression I had, but couldn't find the link.

Who do you recommend contacting to get hooked up to this event? http://www.shangshun...explanation.pdf http://www.shangshun...je_practice.pdf http://www.shangshun...AdzomDrugpa.pdf http://www.shangshun...dmasambhava.pdf

I remember several disparate statements that gave me this impression, but maybe my mind filled in the pieces in an inaccurate way. Jeff, do you know what I am talking about?

Wow, it's good you could communicate with those beings! Can you imagine all the wannabes that download restricted books and don't have the sensitivity to know the problems they are causing themselves? I remember I was about to click on a download of a restricted Dzogchen book out of curiosity, perhaps it was one Norbu Rinpoche's, got a really bad feeling, and decided against it. About WWT, there are pdfs guruyoga_garabdorje_explanation and guruyoga_garabdorje_practice on their site. Are these insufficient explanations of the process?

I may be wrong but I got the impression that Malcolm believes that prana is just air, nadis and chakras are purely symbolic, and light seen in Togel practice is a purely biological/optical phenomenon, and that anyone who believes otherwise has bought into new age bull****. Which, honestly, was quite shocking to me given his credentials.