doc benway

A little complicated for me to try and answer my question at the moment, but thanks. I’ll leave it an open question until I have more enthusiasm or an assist.

future fear and hope will no doubt present themselves another beer please

Do they offer a rationale or arguable basis for their assertion?

Yes, you made that gratuitous assertion before but still offer nothing to support it. That’s your prerogative but certainly not a compelling argument. It is not the case according to quantum physics or environmental biology. It is also not the case according to Bön and Buddhist metaphysics or my personal experience. I view it as a misconception fostered by a lifetime of materialistic indoctrination and by virtue of our unique sensory apparatus and ability to ambulate.

there is only now all thens simply illusion in NOW I will trust

Of course, because I am here to perceive. Your comment was: If no one was here to perceive a body, there would still be the object, it doesn’t disappear just because no mind perceives it. I find it to be valuable and instructive to think about what an object is in the absence of a subject. What is color without an eye and the one interpreting the eyes’ information? Where is taste without a tongue and the taster? I think we are a bit misled by our materialistic conditioning and by virtue of our unique sensory apparatus, something that is being revealed in modern physics and biology. Like yin and yang, I propose subject and object define and require one another and cannot exist independently. I am not saying that nothing exists without a subject but I am saying that objects do not exist without a subject. It’s a meaningful distinction for me.

Happy Litha!

How do you know? What form has the “object” that has no subject?

Overruled!

Whether you stay or go is your choice. You pissed me off and I expressed myself. It happens on occasion. I’m over it and appreciate the fact that you apologized.

No, you are just being disrespectful and insensitive towards two people I like and admire.

What the fuck difference does that make and what business is it of yours? Norbu’s native language was not English… nor the Buddha’s. You’ve known CT here for years, when has his communication ever been less than perfectly clear? You would do well to learn some manners.

It means your post sounded to me like a xenophobic bigot. You’ve attacked both CT and Luke so far this morning. Is something going on with you?

There is very little data to suggest vaccination prevents Covid transmission. So what about the people you’ve killed so far by spreading Covid? This was a shitty thing to say @ralis. Do you always enjoy kicking people when they’re feeling vulnerable? You owe Luke an apology, IMO. You’re a better man than me.

One could also read this as: ‘You are doing it wrong, you are being improper.’ ‘I suspect you are dishonest and don’t trust you.’ ‘Hrrumph, you are a foreigner, are you even legal?!’ ‘Are you stupid?’ ‘I am the authority on all things Norbu. This can’t be from one of his books because I don’t recognize it.’ I took your comments as being a bit aggressive, arrogant, and disrespectful. It is easy to offend with digital communication. It takes a little extra effort to insure you truly are being civil. An alternative might be - ‘Thanks for sharing CT, can you tell me which book that’s from?’ I suspect things may have played out differently.

I have known people who experience terrible pain and misfortune and suffer very little. I also know several whose lives seem a continuum of suffering in the context of relatively little hardship. I suggest the difference between pain and suffering may be along the lines of pain describing the direct adverse effects and associated experience of a negative event, whereas as suffering is a secondary layer of adverse experience related to our reaction to the pain. I also think it’s important to recognize that someone with a very deep connection to an inner refuge may be able to transform or liberate enormous pain such that very little suffering occurs. Silent thunder and manitou come to mind for me, not to mention higher profile individuals like Garchen Rinpoche. I don’t expect their are many people, mothers or fathers, that could lose a child without experiencing profound pain and loss. The degree to which they suffer is likely to vary considerably however. I see parallels between this discussion and the topic of forgiveness. I highly recommend a film on the topic called Rubaru Roshni.

I just got a copy of his book - Choosing Reality, which goes into more depth on these issues. Looking forward to reading it.

A beautiful thing often happens when the victim isn’t the one engaging and reacting but we trust the openness and full connection to the present moment (the thought experiment I mentioned many pages ago). Something spontaneous can happen and it often proves to be full of warmth and care and makes the most of a situation in unexpected ways. That’s a sign that the practice is working.

Wonderful to see this quote from TS Elliott’s Four Quartets on their homepage. I know nothing about their services but they’ve got good taste in poets. He sounds like my teacher. I don’t recall this little gem and am glad to be reunited. I need to read the Quartets again. In order to arrive at what you do not know You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance. In order to possess what you do not possess, You must go by the way of dispossession. In order to arrive at what you are not, You must go through the way in which you are not. And what you do not know is the only thing you know And what you own is what you do not own And where you are is where you are not. T.S. Elliot (1963)

Since we’re discussing dual and non-dual approaches I’ll mention that there’s a distinct difference between mindfulness and abiding in the Nature of Mind or, as Norbu Rinpoche would say, contemplation. Although much of what Shakyamuni said seems to imply that everything he does comes form the base, the essence, from my limited readings and understanding. And I acknowledge I’m no Buddhist scholar. His description in this last portion is very much in accordance with what dzogchen teachings refer to as unboundedness in meditation, the union of space and clarity, resting in the essence or nature of mind. One-pointedness can describe the non-distracted aspect of the practitioner’s awareness, open space can refer to the aspect of spaciousness in one’s heart, one’s core, which is pervasive, leading to the sense of unboundedness. Also important to mention this would be considered nothing more than a meditative experience, nyams, nothing to get attached to but a good sign. Although, full disclosure, I got very attached to this for a long time after it happened to me and it became an obstacle. edited to add - and that’s just one possibility, not intending to sound authoritative

Awakened perhaps, I don’t buy enlightenment at least by my standards.

Everything changes, that is one of the fundamental teachings in Buddhism. Non-dual realization, once established, does not depart but that does not violate the teaching of impermanence.

This reminds me of the Six Vajra Verses which summarize the view, path, and fruition of dzogchen.

For me they go hand in hand. I begin nearly every formal practice session with prayer and subtle body work. Informal practice is different, by necessity. Similarly I do my best to engage in prayer and subtle body practices from the natural state. I would say it’s a very rare dzogchenpa who does not take advantage of all tools available at every stage of the path.

I can’t speak to what non-traditional approaches people may take other than to say I do think tradition and lineage are instrumental in preventing deviation and errors when it comes to esoteric paths - non-dual, subtle body, or otherwise. We can blaze our own paths but, as you point out that can be fraught with obstacles and complications, many of which can be avoided or ameliorated with expert guidance. I’ll reiterate, it’s a mistaken assumption to think of non-dual traditions as advocating the pursuit of wholeness. That’s simply not it at all, at least not on the path I’m familiar with, it’s far more subtle and sophisticated than that. My tradition advocates investigating directly and non-conceptually our present condition, what is actually going on for us in this and every moment. It does not teach us to separate things into categories and create conceptual distinctions like this is emotion and that is mental. It does not put a non-dual objective somewhere out there that we work toward. It does not tell us that emotions and thoughts are illusory and to be avoided in any way. We work with and toward our self, through that emotion and thought, through whatever we are experiencing, directly and without conceptual elaboration. One of the deepest teachings says that to see our experiences as deficient (that would include illusory) is an error, it’s just another conceptual elaboration. Ultimately our practice brings us into a deeper and more direct connection with our natural and uncontrived condition, as it is. And yes, non-dual realization is one characteristic of what is discovered but even that is nothing more than an adjective pointing to one facet of a multifaceted diamond. The primary teaching is that nothing is lacking or excluded, not our mundane experience, not our subtle body, everything is spontaneously perfected in that connection.