doc benway

In my experience with non-dual teachings there is never an instruction or even a suggestion to see things as a whole. If there is a desire to do that, it is an error, a distraction. It is always a process of encountering and being with each part as it presents itself, fully and nakedly. Wholeness manifests spontaneously and can never be found with intention.

One example of real illusion is a dogma we latch onto that blocks us from seeing and hearing the voice of Truth because it doesn’t speak in words that meet our expectations. There is a Tibetan saying that when life makes us hard, the Dharma is medicine that can soften us. When Dharma hardens us there is little that can help.

I try but the hair keeps getting stuck in my throat! 🙀

I just read this morning a post about Garchen Rinpoche’s experience in a Chinese prison - torture, hard labor… His ability to take this as his path and not just survive but thrive is mind boggling.

Generally not. If someone is drawn to it or has a karmic connection and is seeking it out, no recommendation is needed and you really couldn’t keep them away if you tried. That was the case with me. If someone is interested and curious and asks my opinion, I highly recommend it. If someone does not feel a connection or is overtly opposed, as is the case with some here, I would not recommend it. They need to follow the path that draws them. I feel strongly that different people are suited to different paths and all paths can be judged only in relation to who is following it, what they need and how it is working for them. One of the things I find lacking in this discussion is the disclaimer that everything we say applies to ourself and our practice and may or may not apply to anyone else… I automatically assume this but by many reactions here I doubt we all feel that way.

This is why the ego is not utilized or sought in dzogchen. We can always simply look to the thought and it cannot maintain itself. There is no need to attack, simply rest and open and trust the process. It takes some practice to do this with precision and consistency but it can be very effective. I do not recommend it, however.

Wonderful post for me - stimulating a lot of reflection. I may have something to offer in response, time will tell.

Everything comes and goes relative to fashion, such is the nature of fashion. That has nothing to do with the value of kundalini, just reflective of the fickle, unsatisfied mind. Most spiritual seekers flirt with many methods, never sticking with something long enough to find their truth. If they do find the right door and manage to pass through, the method no longer matters so much.

I don’t see the relevance to my post but… ok

No I meant am example of a "philosophy/realisation that doesn’t value the physical body, the emotions, the mind and the subtle body." Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

What would be an example of that?

I’ve had a chance to look a little deeper at my own practice and perspective and have some additional clarity. I’m grateful to everyone participating.

That depends on whose hand it is!

That’s all we can ever do, I think. In my view this is a very important point, especially for dzogchenpas. I recognize others may disagree and respect that.

You win For what it’s worth

FWIW, probably not much…. So Hindus might say “it’s eternal, we don’t like the word empty” and Buddhists might say “it’s unborn, undying, and indestructible but we don’t like the word eternal.” What is the difference? Each are choosing words carefully (and not these words btw, these are English approximations of variable accuracy) to help guide the student to discover something very special inside themselves. And they do so in order to help their students avoid specific pitfalls in understanding and practice. I’ll say it again, the masters were far too realized to try and define what it is. In fact, both traditions repeatedly say it cannot be defined or categorized or pinned down in any way. So why get so stuck on two words, empty and eternal? Kind of meaningless if you ask me, unless someone is attached to an idea or an identity rather than actively looking to discover something real and practical.

In my opinion, the wonderful and sophisticated authors of these traditions are not trying to tell us what or how reality is, eg it is this or it is not that, they were too smart and insightful for that. They are offering suggestions and descriptions that may support us to discover how and what reality is for ourselves. Using an adjective like eternal or empty does not define reality but they may help someone discover something new in themselves. At least that’s how I approach wisdom teachings.

I offered my interpretation when you said it was tricky. Did not mean to insult you. 🙏🏼

It means that your ideas and internal stories about what Buddhism is or isn't, what Buddha may have believed, what Buddhists believe or do not believe, are not it. They are distractions and will mislead you. The approach is to practice and discover for yourself and then compare that to what is described by the teachings and teachers.

There is a saying from Linji Yixuan, a 9th century Buddhist monk: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

If one were to compare descriptions of Brahman from Hindu teachings with descriptions of the Nature of Mind from dzogchen and mahamudra teachings, one would find the same adjectives and descriptions - unbounded, unborn, undying, indestructible, unimputable, beyond all categorization, etc... If one has a personal experience of the non-dual nature of being, both labels will be seen to be slightly different fingers pointing to the same moon. One doesn't have to be a "correlation junkie" to see connections between the deepest teachings of the various wisdom traditions. I anticipate you will disagree and that is fine too. Disagreement is what makes things interesting!

"When the student is ready, the master appears." This has been true for me on multiple levels. I think there is a lot that can be found in this simple statement. In a practical sense what does this mean? I don't think it means we should sit in our house waiting for the right teacher to phone or knock on the door. I also don't think it means there is one teacher out there that is right for us that is actively looking for us. Teachers do their dance of teaching, students do their dance of learning. When conditions are optimal, a very special connection can occur. Transmission can occur and relationship can develop. Teaching/learning is a two way street. At another level I think this simple statement can expand our understanding of what a teacher or master can be. If we are open enough and actively interested and listening, anything and everything in our lives can teach us. A toxic relationship, a family pet, a child, a parent, a boss, an employee, a tree, an illness, a drug... all of these can be our teacher. On the other hand, we could meet the Buddha or a Daoist Immortal and if we are closed up and focused elsewhere, we will get nothing out of the meeting. So I think it is important to follow one's heart. What feels right? Am I drawn to this or that? Am I uncomfortable or irritated by something else? We should engage with both equally and discover what it is that either pulls or pushes us. I think we move through life doing our dance and stay open, even to things that may not seem to be what we are expecting, even to things that seem wrong or don't make sense. When circumstances are right there will be a connection and in that connection there is the potential for learning and growth. I think a big part of what this is trying to tell us is to be patient, to learn to wait, to learn to remain open and curious, and to be as free as possible from preconceived notions and expectations.

Probably calls himself a teacher now…

You’re not alone. In this we are one.

How does one move from one moment to the next? Or is it that one moves continuously to the present moment?