doc benway

I'm surprised to see your attitude regarding this publication, Gerard - these teachings are rare and precious and merit more respect and consideration than this. It's also very disrespectful to the owner of this forum who prohibits distributing stolen materials.

I gave my copy away at a retreat before reading it... I'll pick up another copy someday.

I wish I had access to the original - you never know with English translation of Chinese characters... I think you are on the right track in terms of the intention. I think he is pointing to the sense of self aggressively asserting itself into the picture. The rending of the non-dual into duality - the beginning of violence and ignorance.

Chan Master Hongzhi spoke of this in practical terms, referring to sitting practice - But if in illumination silence is lost, then aggressiveness will appear... But if in silence illumination is lost, then you will become turbid and leave behind the dharma. But when silence and illumination both are operating and complete the lotus flower opens and the dreamer awakens Once the balance is established on the cushion, time to bring it out into one's world. The dreamer awakening implies the great bliss born of the inseparability of emptiness and clarity.

I'm thrilled and very appreciative - so generous of you! _/\_

This may interest you - http://himalayanbon.org/kusum-rangshar-november-2014/

More than complementary - they are the same, inseparable, non-dual. Unborn - it is a useful descriptive term, more than poetic, to communicate a direct, shared experience. I don't know how instructive it i, however, in terms of helping someone to understand anything. Separating the two is just a convention to aid in our learning and understanding, there is no separation.

It occurred to me that I would like to circle back to this comment, in light of the fact that you referred to right speech in another thread we visited. Was your choice of the word "lie" here intentional? Do you mean to imply that Buddhism was intentionally designed and actively intends to mislead or deceive its followers? I would hope that, at very least, we could agree that the motivation of the great masters and the expression of Samantabhadra or Sat-chit-ananda through their teachings is altruistic and wholesome. If we cannot agree on that, no reason to discuss anything really. So perhaps a phrase like "not ideal for my own way of understanding" would be preferable to calling Buddhism a lie.

And, "...we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them" with anything other than the intellect. This is the stepping off point for letting go of that particular tool, perhaps. Your point about the 8fold path is an important one. Realizing emptiness is a very valuable step but, in the absence of equal certainty regarding clarity, and the union of the two, it tends to lead to nihilism - I think we see a lot of that right here. The more humanistic aspects of the path seem to help cultivate the warmth and clarity, but without the realization of emptiness, this may lead to the error of eternalism. Such is the beauty of the balance of the path - and this is different for everyone, we all have different needs and aptitudes.

Important point - what does intellect really know? Tough to know - it is certainly good at chopping reality up into discreet pieces and labeling them. Is that knowing? I'm not insisting and emptiness is a very valuable perspective to entertain if one is pursuing an intellectual investigation, IMO.

Quite the opposite - the empty aspect is exactly that which allows for escape, no? To the OP - Brahman and Dzogchen are the same and different. They are both words and concepts born of the human mind in an effort to go beyond itself. And both take subtly different approaches to do so. At some point one must let go of these security blankets. The degree of difference diminishes as one gets closer and closer to seeing through the conceptual and letting go of labels. When simply resting in open, naked awareness in the absence of conceptual distraction, there is no difference. Once the defining intellect enters into the equation, the distinctions and divisions multiply exponentially.

In all the thousands of years that spiritual scholars have been debating, defining, and discussing, words and concepts have yet to manifest or capture truth. Nor have the great masters been able to agree on the most expedient and comprehensive approach to take. That's unlikely to change today anytime soon. Fortunately, the one thing they do agree upon is that everything we need is already right here, inside of us, just waiting to be revealed and integrated into our daily lives. Free for the taking. But words and concepts will only take us so far. The intellect needs to recognize its limitations or we'll just go round and round...

When trying to communicate about these experiences I think it's more about whether the words (symbols) connect us to common experience or not. I wasn't really going for koan, rather for a flexible perspective perhaps.

I appreciate the kind words.No offense taken and none intended, although your interpretation of my ramblings is your problem. My view hasn't changed since yesterday although when I begin to type, I'm never quite sure what'll come out! Don't mind me - I'm on vacation... Haha

88 thanks for the chance!

I'll have to disagree with you regarding your first paragraph. For me, personally, what I am saying, feeling, and working on in my own practice is completely consistent with the fourfold negation and is not eternalism. I don't like to try and use words for this but what other way to communicate online? There is a difference between emptiness and non-existence. And there is a difference between clarity and over-identification. When we approach reality from the intellect, especially on the Buddhist path, it is easy to negate, negate, negate and get so wrapped up in our concept of emptiness that we we close off to the richness and fullness of being. That is the error of nihilism. When we have a direct experience of emptiness and see and feel its relationship to the infinite potential for manifestation, that error is no longer a problem. When we approach reality from the cushion, we may get very wrapped up in the feelings, experiences, "powers," and so on, and there is a tendency to over-identify with this experience of being and this is the error of eternalism. When we have a direct experience of connecting to the fullness and richness of reality and yet there is no over-identification, we are able to maintain certainty in the impermanence of that experience, then eternalism is no longer a problem. And I'm not really that well versed in the theory and texts so I'm sure some better educated folks can debate me around in circles.

nope - Too many words, gets me stumbled up. Being is enough It's OK to head directly into it with total trust. Space and clarity are inseparable In all three times

I am here, I have been here, I will be here... I am being here Be

I've been severely challenged and tested. We all are when we are ready, whether we feel ready or not. It is an opportunity for growth and preparation for the final liberation. Honor and treasure the opportunities when they present themselves. They are life's greatest teachers.

I didn't read the whole thread but would like to add the following - Yin and Yang is a reflection of the process of thought, and it is completely empty. It is labeling, discriminating, comparing, judging. It is the way the nature of things is expressed through our individual and collective awareness and discernment. It is what give rise to the form within (and without) the formless. Like it is useful to use our internet discussion to learn about ourselves, same with our philosophy perhaps. Philosophy, spirituality, and physics isn't about how things are, it is about howho we are. Snoogins'

It's important to put in perspective that we're not discussing the behavior of "Buddhists" and "Daoists" here. We are observing and discussing the behavior of a group of people who are motivated in some way to discuss Buddhism and Daoism in an anonymous online forum. If we are fortunate, we have the aptitude and awareness to observe and discuss ourselves, rather than just our labels and the shit and beauty that we tend to project on each other here. Many are stuck on the latter - and as all can easily observe, it doesn't change. But when we look at our selves, then change is possible. Where we are in our cultivation is pretty obvious through the content and characteristics of our posts. And even that very statement is also a judgement, a separation. So for me, the best answer is to just let go. When the thread is heading somewhere I don't want to be I just need to look clearly and openly at the one who doesn't want to let go. What is being asserted or defended is irrelevant - who is doing it? - which aspect of my identity? the cultivator probably, or the philosopher... or the one who feels a lot of pain or fear and is desperately looking for relief and approval, or the one whose opinion or understanding feels threatened. SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES And the ones we are trying to correct (and who are trying to correct us), it doesn't work that way. It's right there for all of us to see - hitting us over the head. And a few clever words or an exhaustive series of references, or an insult or the most benevolent and loving support may or may not cause the shift, the recognition. I don't know that any of us can ever know why and when wisdom blossoms - all we can do is practice (and pray depending on our nature).... so when it does happen it is a blessing that needs to be honored, treasured, and cultivated - that is cultivation. So good luck to all of us Thanks for listening to my rambling

I'm interested - great idea!

Very glad you broke your rule - nice to see you! I also broke a rule, I practice a series of yoga movements I got from a book. Wonderful series, one of which involves a very similar posture, although with the hands resting on the ground, a bit forward of the shoulders, and the back horizontal, knees flexed, heels off the ground. Quite a challenging posture but lots of reward.

Do you think this only applies to the scientific community?

Some folks seem to linger in the terrible twos here...