doc benway

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.

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.