RongzomFan

Why do you lecture Buddhists on Buddhism? Do you lecture Christians on Christianity?

Allan Wallace doesn't teach Dzogchen openly or whatever you are suggesting. Are you even aware that Allan Wallace has restricted books? Why do you think that is?

take up weight training. It will calm all that kundalini.

You may indeed be correct, but I've never really thought of it like that.

soma was ephedra

Viewing the guru as a dharmakaya Buddha, higher than any yidam, is one way of achieving Buddhahood in 1 lifetime. You don't need completion stage etc. This is stated for example by Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang in "A Guide to the Words of My Perfect Teacher."

That's true. Rainbow body has no structure. Being a body of light, it has no material element.

Your natural state is rainbow body. I don't think its correct to say you can realize it at any time.

Tsongkhapa isn't that great. 1. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama's translator, fully admits Tsongkhapa is a deviant who did not honor the existing tradition: "The traditional Geluk understanding of these deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought attributes the development of his distinct reading of Madhyamaka philosophy to a mystical communion he is reported to have had with the bodhisattva Manjusri........It is interesting that the tradition Tsongkhapa is claiming to honour is, in a strict sense, not the existing system in Tibet; rather, it appears to be in the tradition of Manjusri as revealed in a mystic vision!" http://books.google.com/books?id=2LhdnDp118oC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=It+is+interesting+that+the+tradition+Tsongkhapa+is+claiming+to+honour+is,+in+a+strict+sense,+not+the+existing+system+in+Tibet;+rather,+it+appears+to+be+in+the+tradition+of+Manjusri+as+revealed+in+a+mystic+vision&source=bl&ots=S692C899ki&sig=X0qtjc4iajoL-Lm4PL6LtKKCYrs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WqbuUdz2JNGl4AOl8YGwAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20interesting%20that%20the%20tradition%20Tsongkhapa%20is%20claiming%20to%20honour%20is%2C%20in%20a%20strict%20sense%2C%20not%20the%20existing%20system%20in%20Tibet%3B%20rather%2C%20it%20appears%20to%20be%20in%20the%20tradition%20of%20Manjusri%20as%20revealed%20in%20a%20mystic%20vision&f=false 2. Gorampa said Tsongkhapa was seized by demons and spread demonic words. He also did a detailed substantive critique of Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka." "Gorampa, in the Lta ba ngan sel (Eliminating the Erroneous View), accuses Tsongkhapa of being "seized by demons" (bdud kyis zin pa) and in the Lta ba'i shan 'byed (Distinguishing Views) decries him as a "nihilistic Madhyamika" (dbu ma chad lta ba) who is spreading "demonic words" (bdud kyi tshig)." http://books.google.com/books?id=u7ZtE1bhtRYC&pg=PA125&dq=Gorampa,+in+the+Lta+ba+ngan+sel+(Eliminating+the+Erroneous+View),+accuses+Tsongkhapa+of+being+%22seized+by+demons%22+(bdud+kyis+zin+pa)+and+in+the+Lta+ba#v=onepage&q=Gorampa%2C%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba%20ngan%20sel%20(Eliminating%20the%20Erroneous%20View)%2C%20accuses%20Tsongkhapa%20of%20being%20%22seized%20by%20demons%22%20(bdud%20kyis%20zin%20pa)%20and%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba&f=false "Even as serious a scholar as Go rams pa cannot resist suggesting, for example, that Tsong kha pa's supposed conversations with Manjusri may have been a dialogue with a demon instead." http://books.google.com/books?id=gbT01AXrmisC&pg=PA17&dq=Even+as+serious+a+scholar+as+Go+rams+pa+cannot+resist+suggesting,+for+example,+that+Tsong+kha+pa's+supposed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yAfyUfHmL5jb4AOq5IDQDw&ved=0CD0QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Even%20as%20serious%20a%20scholar%20as%20Go%20rams%20pa%20cannot%20resist%20suggesting%2C%20for%20example%2C%20that%20Tsong%20kha%20pa's%20supposed&f=false 3. Karl Brunnholzl's Center of the Sunlit Sky indicates that Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka is not consistent with any Indian text or the other Tibetan schools. Furthermore it has contaminated western scholarship. "First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools." "All critics of Tsongkhapa, including the Eighth Karmapa, agree that many features of his Centrism are novelties that are not found in any Indian sources and see this as a major flaw." 4. Tsongkhapa and Gelugpas are weirdo radicals, according to Sam van Schaik's basic history book, Tibet, A History: "......Tsongkhapa was coming to realize that he wanted to create something new, not necessarily a school, but at least a new formulation of the Buddhist Path." "........with Tsongkhapa's own personal interpretation of the philosophy of the Madhyamaka." "As Khedrup and later followers of Tsongkhapa hit back at accusations like these, they defined their own philosophical tradition, and this went a long way to drawing a line in the sand between the Gandenpas and the broader Sakya tradition."

me

Yet Dudjom Rinpoche says "Don't toss away a gem to search for a trinket."

I think another problem is that westerners shamefully raid Indian and Tibetan culture, yet will talk shit on those very same cultures. Rajiv Malhotra calls it the U-turn theory.

I think rex and myself were mainly pointing out what the book itself says. The book says its for those who have transmission in the Dudjom lineage.

Is this Tsongkhapa? He didn't even teach Dzogchen.

I have no problem with people discussing recognizing unfabricated presence as this is a common element with many teachings.

You can certainly recognize unfabricated presence like Zen people, but that doesn't make you a Dzogchenpa let alone qualified to speak about Dzogchen. That's like saying Zen people are qualified to speak about Dzogchen.

I'm pretty sure I have said I have transmission.

Tibetan Ice just makes up his own facts. Like guru yoga being spirit channeling. Hes not even Buddhist.

That's complete shit. Even in the youtube video, Allan Wallace says he has his teacher's permission to teach only samatha and vipassana openly.

You can recognize unfabricated presence, but that doesn't make you a Dzogchenpa. That just makes you a neoAdvaita/Zen person.

Exactly. Its not my definition.

Ok I get it. You are a neo-Advaita type. What you consider enlightenment, is only day 1 for us. We start with recognizing unfabricated presence, or whatever you want to call it, at the very beginning.

Manitou, Enlightenment means rainbow body i.e. seeing the proper display of the basis (gzhi) I don't know what you mean by enlightenment.

This is the most authentic kundalini information out there: http://www.amazon.com/The-Khecarividya-Adinatha-Annotated-Translation/dp/0415586135 Free articles from the same Oxford scholar: http://www.khecari.com/styled/index.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Roots-of-Yoga/262301770546060 Written by two Oxford/Cambridge scholars