doc benway

Wallace mentioned in the Australian retreat that he did ask for, and receive permission to present an introduction to Dzogchen to students that seemed interested and prepared. He was advised not to get into details, however.

Quoted from alwayson: "Why do you lecture Buddhists on Buddhism? Do you lecture Christians on Christianity?" Does the above post appear to be a lecture on Buddhism? Are you a Buddhist? Or is that just a label you've adopted? You certainly don't come across as a practicing Buddhist in your posts. I simply wanted to respond to the comments you addressed to me, not only the content but also the tone. I try to learn about myself based on how others perceive me. I don't interact with people based on their labels, but rather as individuals. edited to add quote

Alwayson - I put you on ignore last week after reading a number of your ignorant, arrogant, and demeaning posts. You seem knowledgeable and intelligent but your posts are often very bigoted and mean spirited. After taking a long break from the forum, I decided to pay no attention to such posts and try the ignore function. A friend reminded me earlier today of the value of using this as an opportunity for practice and development so I've deleted my ignore list entirely and thought I'd offer some responses now that I've read your posts below. The word knowledge has intellectual connotations in English that I think are limited and misleading in this context. Others have posted responses to this comment that are more scholarly and eloquent than mine would be so I'll leave it at that. None... yet. Please feel free to dismiss my opinions, as Anderson has. This started as a discussion between manitou and I. I make no claims to be an authority or scholar of Dzogchen and I think I mentioned that earlier. For anyone interested, I'll share what brought me to these teachings. I've practiced Daoist methods for about 10 years in a traditional lineage. I've also practiced and studied from other resources along the way (including Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Anthony Demello, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and some others that I found less valuable). No tradition or method can capture reality in their words. It is certainly very useful to spend a lot of time in a single discipline to lay a solid foundation. Exploring alternative perspectives later on in one's training can also be valuable. I was originally taught this in a martial arts context but I think it's also useful in a spiritual context. A good friend and training partner introduced me to Dzogchen teachings a few years back. At first I didn't pursue it as I was still very focused on Daoist methods. Eventually, I began reading the Dzogchen works such as Buddhahood without Meditation, Vivid Awareness, Wonders of the Natural Mind, and Old Man Basking in the Sun (all in English translation, unfortunately), and I found that they perfectly and eloquently captured the insights and experiences I've developed through the Daoist training and other studies. I have not yet had an opportunity to receive any direct transmission (and I've chosen not to do so via internet teachings), but I have approached the materials with respect, humility, and prayer. I've humbly and reverently asked the authors to allow me to share in their wisdom. I've found the teachings to be so clear and perfect that I do have plans to attend a Dzogchen retreat in the near future to hopefully receive direct transmission as I continue to study and practice. I'm sure there is a lot lacking in my understanding but the truth in the words is very clear and I've had direct experience in my practice that validates everything I've read. Not to my knowledge and not intentionally. I do have an occasional bout of incontinence so anything is possible. Please let me know what you are referring to and I will attempt to explain, if you would like. I have the utmost respect for people who manifest Buddhist ethics and morals and for the principles and teachings. On the other hand, calling oneself a Buddhist is meaningless if you don't walk the talk. Unfortunately, that seems to be fairly common on this forum (and others). Do you mean to say that Tibetan monks do not practice Dzogchen? You may have transmission but you sorely lack humility, bodhicitta, and loving speech . Transmission may be permission to study but it can and will be revoked if one treats other people as you do. Perhaps it already has... Furthermore, without bodhicitta there is no vipassana. And without vipassana, one cannot take even the first step in understanding the truth in Dudjom Lingpa's words.

the salty ocean vast reliquary of tears Paternalism

Nice post. Marblehead likes to come at this more from the philosophical point of view. This is the foundation and development we undertake in Daoist alchemy. The creation or discovery and investigation of the inner universe and its progressive development and refinement. Ultimately, it's transformation, liberation, and assimilation with reality. Many elements of a tantric method.

And another aspect of this is that we are always changing. Today's answer may not be valid tomorrow. Answers are limiting, dividing, they represent stasis and an endpoint. Reality is like the question, unanswered, without cause or reason, always changing and growing, full of potential.

In my opinion, you are the one who is mistaken. For some, the natural state manifests itself spontaneously. For many, pointing out is required. And pointing out can come from a wide variety of sources, experiences, and traditions. There is only one natural state, it does not differ based on one's religion, culture, or philosophy. Once it is recognized, the Dzogchen teachings are completely transparent. Recognizing the natural state is not that difficult, although maintaining and stabilizing it is.

My guess is that it is now becoming clear... No accident Nope, not really

paints new nebula a brush stroke of the goddess births millennia

I respect your comments, 3bob, and have no problem with anyone challenging any teacher or system, I think it's prudent and healthy and none are flawless. I ran into the question myself head first several years ago... At the time I was deeply involved in certain practices and had (have) enormous respect for my teacher and lineage. At the same time, I had a clear insight into the folly of rituals and practices just as Krishnamurti discusses. It took some time and contemplation but I eventually found reconciliation. To the OP, if you haven't already, you may want to read about Krishnamurti and the Order of the Star in the East. He was selected by this organization to be a world philosophical leader, virtually a messianic figure. During his inauguration speech he pointed out his views on truth being "a pathless land" and disbanded the entire society. I wonder if some of the genesis of his position behind this came from his interaction with that society and its leadership. My advice, FWIW, is that you not be too concerned with Krishnamurti's position on various practices. Like he says, don't accept authority, even his. If his philosophy speaks to you, by all means follow his ideas and recommendations for your own personal practice. I can tell you he was a profound inspiration to me and continues to be a valuable resource. If you encounter other practices and systems that speak to you, don't hesitate to try them and put them into play. Let your own results be your barometer. If and when you encounter such insights through your own practices regarding the value (or lack of) of rituals and methods, then you will need to work through the dilemma. That in and of itself was a very valuable learning experience for me. One of my favorite quotes about this quandary comes from Peter Fenner who said something like: "if I didn't do what I didn't need to do, I wouldn't know that I didn't need to do it!"

I don't have any... I find the questions more helpful than the answers. _/\_

A question - how does one attain what one already is? And a second question - once you attain that condition, what happens next?

I agree with you regarding Milarepa. In terms of Allan Wallace and Dudjom Lingpa, my view is that rigpa is both the big event and "normal awareness." Just like phenomena are both empty of inherent existence and unceasing, eg not existent and not non-existent. Similarly, "normal awareness" is the miracle of clarity existing in infinite spaciousness. One does not occur without the other, both are inherent characteristics of mind. Spaciousness has the quality of clarity and clarity has the quality of spaciousness. For most of us most of the time, it is so filled with distraction (samsara and nirvana) that the "pristine awareness" is invisible and way too subtle to be noticed, like the ocean to the fish (another weak analogy). The big event is the moment of realization of our true nature. For some the realization can be very gradual and progressive and the big event may seem not so big (Wallace talks about this). For others, the recognition of our true nature is earth shattering and life altering. The echoes can reverberate for the rest of their lives, but without proper practice and proper view it will fade and will not be stable. "Normal" awareness is not so normal. It is rigpa, it is miraculous, it is bliss, it is all the things the sages rant and rave about. Yet it is so familiar and so full of the consequences of karma that it is mundane. If we can achieve enough insight and stability to actually come into contact with it without all of the baggage... well, probably best to not try to use words for that.

Very nice and informative post TI - I appreciate all the time you took to put that together. I guess I'm not quite ready to bow out..... I didn't mean to imply that simply noticing the gap between thoughts is resting in rigpa. I don't think any of the resources I quoted do either. I'm not sure they are mistaken or misleading, rather I think that they are offering this as a starting point, as I was, to begin the practice, not claiming this to be the culmination. It's simply a way to get newcomers to notice the space and clarity that exist when they are not being carried around by thoughts. This space and clarity has a different feel than the thought train. And there is no question that what seems clear and spacious to the beginner compared to the coarse thoughts is filled with fragments of thoughts, fleeting images, subtle feelings, emotions, and so on. Just like the ocean has very obvious large waves, then many more smaller ones, then the swells and surges, then ripples, and so on. And releasing and liberating all of these is like peeling the onion, or allowing the agitated water to settle, and this is what samatha practice is all about. And finding stability is even more challenging - this is where a solid foundation in samatha is so valuable. On the other hand, I do think it is much closer to us than we realize and I think it is not an insurmountable feat to get a glimpse. Especially to those with some meditation experience. The next step is then to achieve stability (a formidable goal) and finally to bring this into our daily lives and deaths... And I do think we're beating this to death... edited to add: PS - Wallace also makes it a point to very clearly state that achieving samatha is not a prerequisite to realizing rigpa. He gives multiple examples of this. On the other hand, having a solid foundation in both tranquility (samatha) and insight into emptiness (vipassana) makes it much more likely and is certainly required for stability. To give a weak analogy - if you give an average person a baseball bat and put them in front of a good pitcher, it is conceivable that they will hit the ball once in a while and may even hit a home run if the circumstances are just right. If that person trains for several years under the guidance of an expert coach, their chances of hitting the ball consistently will improve dramatically.

I'd bet that the two of them had their share of private conversations as well....

I think J Krishnamurti was a very sincere teacher with quite a bit of insight. His tendency was toward the intellectual approach and he had a great deal of understanding. Many spiritual searchers reach the insight that rituals and practices, while perhaps providing significant benefits, also have the effect of reinforcing the existence of the searcher and the search. The truth is already always there, under the surface, waiting to be liberated. The Zen masters teach this, the Dzogchen and Mahamudra masters teach this, the non-dualists teach this... J Krishnamurti spoke to me very directly and significantly through his books and definitely helped me along the way. Every guru tends to have their own unique "flavor", which I think is a reflection of their culture and conditioning, just as every religion and tradition does. I think J Krishnamurti's work is worthy of serious study but it certainly doesn't resonate with everyone and if he's not your cup of tea, there are plenty of options. Good luck!

Perhaps not. I do think it's a useful aid for folks new to the material and that is how I intended that comment. I agree with your intent as I understand it but I wouldn't use the phrase "that nothing truly exists." It has too nihilistic a connotation for my taste. I find it important to remind myself that appearances and perceptions are equally not non-existent. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche has a nice discussion on this in Chapter 10 of "Vivid Awareness" which I'm currently reading. I'm fairly certain Wallace uses this suggestion in the retreat I've been listening to recently. It's very long and I can't tell you exactly when he mentions it. If it comes up again, I'll make note of it. It was recorded in Australia but I'm not sure when. This isn't something I came up with, rather I've seen the concept referenced in multiple sources. I'm pretty sure it is mentioned in "Vivid Awareness" and possibly "Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen" translated by Keith Dowman. It is mentioned in "Freedom in Bondage" by Adeu Rinpoche. A longer excerpt can be found at the Buddhadharma Quarterly web archive: "The great yogi Milarepa said, “In the gap between the past thought and the next thought, thought-free wakefulness continuously dawns.” This is the way it is, whether you recognize it or not. The difference is being able to recognize it; the opportunity to do so is there all the time. This is the training. In the beginning, as a thought vanishes, that is called stillness. As a new thought arises, that is called occurrence. Bringing attention to what is happening is called noticing. These three—stillness, occurrence, and noticing—have to do with becoming increasingly aware of the gap between thoughts. This aware quality grows stronger and stronger only with training. You cannot artificially increase this. Here, the difference between shamatha and vipassana is the difference between recognizing that which is noticing and the actual awake quality." Funny you mention the Berzin archive as it is mentioned there as well in a discussion of the fundamentals of Dzogchen. I couldn't agree with you more! Consequently, I may bow out. _/\_

I think that there is truth to what you are saying. I also think that it is not that unusual for folks to have direct insight into their true nature without all of the preparation. The primary difference is that the preliminary training will be of enormous benefit in stabilizing the manifestation of pristine awareness. The unprepared, untrained mind may have a profound experience of rigpa every bit as credible and genuine as the advanced monk, but it will generally be a transient experience that will fade and may or may not be rekindled and accessible over time. The mind that is prepared through proper training will have a much better chance of maintaining and stabilizing the connection. This is a common thread in all of the Dzogchen literature I've encountered (and has also been my own experience).

Hence our decision to start this thread in the pit... I actually borrowed that phrase from Allan Wallace and Khenchen Thrangu... I wasn't referring to the gap between the thoughts in the untrained mind that is bound in samsara. I believe that Wallace (and my intention) was referring more to the mind that has stabilized somewhat in tranquility; the mind that has already had insight into emptiness - the mind that is spacious, clear, and somewhat stable; following the last thought to have arisen and not yet disturbed by the next. In this place of spaciousness and clarity, there is an opportunity to make contact with our true nature. It is not difficult to connect with rigpa because it is too far or too inaccessible. It is difficult because it is too close, too ubiquitous. And this is just a step in development, a place we can first start looking for the nature of mind in our practice. Once the nature of mind is tasted, it can be accessed not only between thoughts but behind thoughts. Ultimately, all things (concepts, mental formations, appearances) are seen as an empty display of mind. PS - I would also be careful with how you use the words 'ordinary mind' as this can also refer to pristine awareness. I'm assuming that you are using it more to refer to samsaric mind

I respectfully disagree. Most people interested in spiritual cultivation have the knowledge of what they are at an intellectual level and yet they are not liberated. The knowledge is not enough, it is just a concept. The Buddhists refer to the sutra path as requiring countless lifetimes to achieve liberation - this is because it is a conceptual approach to something that is outside of concept and rationality. Direct contact with one's nature is needed, not a concept. Hence the reference to Dzogchen as potentially leading to liberation in a single lifetime - because it is a non-conceptual approach. edited to add - I suspect that we are in agreement in principle and I'm simply challenging your use of the word 'knowledge'

Knowledge doesn't lead to liberation either...

asleep in no wind my arms outstretched, hovering I wake to the call

Naw, never too late for Dubya jokes. He was a game changer as far as I'm concerned. edit - the most powerful person in the world is actually the one with no mind...

Tell that to George Bush...

Which books and how do you like them? From what I've read of his (Wonders of the Natural Mind) and what I've seen of his webcasts, he seems to be an excellent teacher.