C T

This is great! Liked very much the main clip on the homepage - the one with Ole Nydahl. Will check the others out later. Thanks so much for the link.

Just one question to this poster Simplicity Rules - do you truly understand the basic precept of taking the samaya vows? Fair enough if its someone else, but such behavior coming from you, one who claims lineage affiliation, is totally out of line. To prevent further damage, Its good if you will acknowledge your vow breakage immediately with your sangha and your yidam, assuming you do have one? Its obvious you are currently experiencing some sort of blockage-related aversion because you have taken an on-line discussion, which is fundamentally devoid of permanence, made it into your bardo of becoming, and in the process, imbued it with a reality by breathing life into it. Reminds me of how the Tibetan yogis create tulpas to help them process some their blockages. Pero was absolutely on the ball with his observation of what you have added to this discussion.

A most auspicious dream, Adept! Sure sign that your practice is moving in the right direction. It sounds so... blessed. Well done As for the interpretation, guess i'll leave that to someone who makes it their path to interpret dreams. I never pay too much attention to mine, cos i seem to have recurring themes in dreams all the time.

The only person 'throwing around' Chogyal's name in a openly covert and disrespectful manner is not Vaj. You are kindly requested to reassess your friendly threat with an extra dose of skillful mental evaluation as to who is for who, and who is determined to undermine what. From what you have written, I can understand your aversions, since its quite a common practice to regard oneself as the true 'son' and others with the same teacher as less than deserving of the teacher's affection. Its a trap, and you have fallen for it, but i know you probably mean well, which makes it even more prone to things being blown out of proportion. Skillful means does not refer to others having to say or do what's right by your moral standards, o Buddhist. It means to discern one's own thinking, speaking and acting in such a way where karmic repercussions are least likely to leave a lasting trace, or better yet, no trace at all. It is a reminder to self, not a yardstick to measure another's lack from your window. Who are you to judge? Just because what's been said are being rejected by one or more parties in no way represents a lack of adeptness of one's understanding of Dharma. The sensitive issue here is that some posters are not debating ethically and with related substance, choosing instead to dwell on too many 'what ifs....', hence causing the perimeters to blur in the process. This is why, i am guessing, that there is such a thing as 'hidden termas', revealed only when people are ready. Sometimes this may take years, even lifetimes, but do not be discouraged, as you could always humbly request a swifter revelation from the 'closed circle'.

So it is!

What's with the sniggers, Gold? I am telling it like it is, but it appears you are adamant to twist the argument (where there is none) to suit your personal defensive stance. That's fine, but not for you, i think, as you are reluctant, in this instance, to take on board what has been said. If the teachings have been watered down, then its the fault of the disseminators. If the current crop of eager beavers decide to chop and churn a traditional set of teachings by imposing demands that it be re-tailored to suit their own needs and psychological inadequacies, and when these needs are not met following the revamp, then the fault lies in the eagerness of the beavers.

Maybe the real problem is that there are two problems. One, there is a huge amount of misunderstanding around Dzogchen - curious dabblers think its such a mystical path, with siddhis and other dazzling stuff (or magic shimmer, as you nicely said) thrown in to the mix when in fact these are only secondary considerations, hence the disappointments and subsequent rejection of the path... Its no good to venture into this practice if one is gullible and gets all wide-eyed in the presence of a Dzogchen master. Two, because of the anticipated results, projections and expectations fly in all directions, and due to a lack of maturity/stability, the realizations do not find completeness, or they do not take root, so one is left with a kind of mutated practice, and this is generally what happens to a lot of so-called eager practitioners. From here, all kinds of accusations arise, and those who think they are the guardians usually end up having to compensate for and on behalf of the community of Dzogchen practitioners. This should not be the case at all. Not too long ago, Dzogchen was a practice reserved for students who have undertaken years of foundational training and assessment before being given the empowerments to begin, but nowadays its been cheapened and tossed about so much that the possibility of it being completely neutered seems very real. Its a pity because it is essentially a very useful and quick path, but because its very useful and quick, a lot of things get missed by those who have not been grounded well in the preliminary practices. The path was exclusive not because the lineage holders wanted to force some kind of embargo on the teachings - in fact, its not really exclusive in this sense, but that the practices are graded in such a way that only those who have been recognized as having the right mental capacity are given the blessings to move ahead with the subsequent stages of the training. Its like any other sound practices, really. Anyone can partake in the preliminaries, but many are not interested to put in the effort, thinking, "Bah! this stuff is for novices, a waste of time... me, i am an advanced adept, so put me in with the big boys with the big practices, i'll show you what i am capable of...", and this is where the potential of missing the crux of the teachings arise from. If students can learn to apply patience and master the basic outer practices (the Maha and Anu), which, btw, is as much Dzogchen as the inner ones of Ati. There really is a just a matter of keeping to the essence of Dzogchen, which is the primordial inseparability of all things, from the micro- (the mandala of the practitioner and the practices) to the macro- (the mandala of the cosmic Dzogchen deities, exemplified in the Kalachakra mandala, for example).

This observation is totally out of character, Gold. It does not appear to have come from a level-headed platform, and i have almost always regarded you as one of the most level-headed member here. (what's another better term for level-headed btw?) I just hope you are not being spiteful. I do not believe Dzogchen teachers criticize everything that is not dzogchen. This does not make much sense, because it counters the very meaning of the term, which is, 'everything is already perfected from the beginning', or to be more accurate, Dzog means 'the perfected state' and Chen means 'total'. Its probably silly of me to even bring this up because i am almost certain this is old knowledge for you, which explains the slight astonishment.

Perhaps!

Honest self-evaluation of the precise source of this unease might be very helpful. This eradicates unnecessary trial-and-error experimentations. If the real cause is not identified, then a lot of potentially useful practices, generously recommended by others here, might well go to waste. Upon identification, maybe just a little tweak thereafter will resolve the conflict, thereby saving a lot of time and energy expansion in the process. My practice have been very simple over the years, so i do not know enough to offer any splendid cure for his condition. As i am only familiar with meditation based on the the ways taught by the Buddha, i can recommend that your friend make some effort to reflect on the words of realized Buddhist teachers who have gone before us, and have experienced similar discomforts. Here is one i found that might be of help - http://www.vipassanadhura.com/WayfaringGuideMeditators.html He or she may well be disinterested in Buddhist meditation and the associated means prescribed to strengthen one's meditative efforts, and if so, then kindly disregard this post. Nevertheless, i do wish your friend a smooth transition in finding a way forward.

I think i will buy this book. Thanks for the recommendation, Michael. It was given the thumbs up by another professor in one of her blogs on her travels in SE Asia. http://mmtriplog.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/book-review-the-gods-drink-whiskey/

Its the willingness to be more open, more inclusive, clearly demonstrated here by this gentleman, that makes coming to TTBs worthwhile. its also some quality that is clearly seen in the more mature adepts of other traditions as well, of which we are so fortunate to find here in this forum. I can name a few off hand, but there is really no necessity to indulge in such an obvious undertaking. The idea that Vajrayana practitioners are above reproach, or that the practice is somehow more superior, is a wrong one, and if that was implied in what was written, then its me who should be offering apologies.

I think you have misunderstood the gist of what has been conveyed. But thanks for the critique all the same.

You are most kind, Vajraridaya _/\_ Thank you... i appreciate deeply all that you share here too

D.P. (again... Its happening quite a lot lately, not sure why)

I think in the higher teachings it talks about One Ground/Two Paths. To know this experientially, the student contemplates on the sutras, train with visualizations on objects such as iconic images of the different Buddhas, the Dharma Protectors, Dakinis and so on, practice the different physical yogas, chanting of mantras, perform mudras, etc. This is called meditation with objects. It is often highly ritualistic and abides strongly with conventions, with the aim of creating structure and discipline within the student, leading to familiarization with and realization of the Form aspect of phenomena, which has an equal role in the ultimate union of Mahamudra. The other half of this union is the realization of the Formless, where the student trains to disengage with structures, models, dogmas, in fact, to drop each and every single notion that comes to the surface as the contemplative process takes place. This is called objectless meditation, where there is nothing to do - the student simply rests the mind, usually by maintaining a low, pervasive awareness of sunyata, or Emptiness. This is why in some traditions the practice usually starts by softly or loosely focussing on the sky, or simply staring out into the vast horizon of the ocean. So both rituals and the dropping of them have a crucial part to play to developing a well-grounded student. Of course, the ultimate aim is to reach a non-fabricated stateless state of complete and utter non-distraction, where Rigpa becomes so pervasive that the small and restricted Self becomes diffused into the vast expanse, but this is easier said than done. This is why the serious practitioner, at least for the first five serious years of conceptualizing the path, is always encouraged not to deviate from the ritualistic demands of whichever tradition he or she finds comfort in. Once stability is reached, then all the practice is internalized, there is no longer any need for outward displays of subservience, because the separation of seeing oneself as different from a buddha has already dropped away. Then whatever actions of respect and affection one displays, or seeing such things as coming from others, its exactly as respecting and being affectionate to oneself, and this, if understood correctly, gives rise to a lot of humility and compassion, but for some who has yet to grasp the teachings and practices fully, then such realizations could lead to a lot of pride and arrogance. Tantrayana is a very responsible undertaking. In hindsight, i am actually glad that those who speak against this path have chosen to do so with such fervor. Its good they have not remained under refuge because really its not a path for everyone.

Well observed, Serene Blue. So it is, as you have deduced - no effort is ever wasted, for every single act of purpose is deemed recorded, as seeds, in the mindstream. This mindstream is non-local - meaning not yours, not mine, not another's. When the right conditions arise, the seeds will sprout, and when conditions change, the seed and the results/effects changes accordingly. In this there is no suffering - as the personal self is removed from the equation, there remains just the coming and going of conditions. Accordingly, it is the discernment of self as separate and distinct from this process, and the attempts to direct it based on ignorance or disregard of the 3 marks is that which binds one to the cycle of wrong views which perpetuates eternal death and rebirth as a continuum. This continuum, however, is an illusion. It only has basis insofar as the veil of ignorance is not removed. Once this veil is lifted, the continuum evaporates like steam rising into space. This is like removing a blindfold, and can often happen instantaneously. However, without Right Effort (as opposed to above-mentioned Right Livelihood), it becomes a struggle to adjust to this set of 'new eyes that sees clearly'. It is said in the Teachings that mental energy is the force behind Right Effort. It can occur as either wholesome or unwholesome potential . The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, hatred and violence can, on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, kindness and benevolence. Right Effort is detailed in four types of endeavors that rank in order of perfection: 1 - To prevent the arising of yet unarisen unwholesome states, 2- To abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3 - To arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4 - To nurture and perfect wholesome states already arisen. Following on from Right Effort, the seeds of Right Mindfulness is sown, and as they sprout, results in the growth of Right Concentration, which then matures (with practice), bears fruit, ripens and in turn sow the seeds of enlightenment. Right Effort is like the fulcrum that supports leverage in all the other 7 perfections.

D.P>

Conventions are not good or bad in their fundamental uses. It becomes bad or potentially fatal only when people fixate on them, leading to diminished or narrowed perspectives. Abiding by conventions, it is hoped that due diligence could be cultivated as a new habit that replaces the old ones of carelessness, laziness and disregard. Pilots, for example, are highly ritualistic, and for this reason, most people feel safe to put their lives in their hands, trusting that they will follow every convention deemed necessary to ensure that the flight gets from A to B without any glitches. Without due diligence, guided by ritual and conventionality, the risk of pilot error becomes greater, as exemplified in the air crash in Miami, Florida in December of '72. Perhaps we could apply a similar attitude to spiritual conventions and rituals? There is a pop phrase which says that the right tools in the wrong hands are useless, and similarly, the trained hand, without tools, while appearing free, may have no direction in which to follow. Just some thoughts.

Not sure where this is coming from. Its not easy to relate to probable scenarios of which i have no personal experience of. At best one could only speculate the result, which could potentially lead to further imagination-aided confusion and unnecessary conflated-like views. Possible causes for disagreement and arguments could arise, and this is not at all beneficial. A spiritual life does not depend on how enlightened one is, or how long or under what circumstances can enlightenment be maintained, and what happens when it loses its supposedly wonderful effects. It is not very helpful to equate enlightenment, with, say, pleasurable states of excitement and anticipation. As the Buddha had said, "It is not on the view that the world is eternal, or that it is finite, that body and soul are distinct, or that the Buddha exists after death that the religious life depends. Whether these views or their opposites are held, there is still rebirth, there is old age, there is death, and grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow and despair... I have not spoken to these views because they do not conduce to an absence of passion, to tranquility, and to Nirvana. And what have I explained? Suffering have I explained, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, and the Path that leads to the end of suffering have I explained. For this is useful to the wise."

(slapping hand on lap) OH right!! You are hereby absolved of not stating this right off at the beginning but instead chose to go about it in the roundabout way by taking a poke at the tradition first... jeez, sometimes the rationales behind your justifications almost smack of an astuteness bordering on the scale of a genius!

Yeah.. if i see 'me', and then this 'me' engages itself to see 'my thoughts', it would appear that there are two (maybe more?) separate entities. We do agree, i hope, that its an 'if', yes? I have always suspected that appearances could be deceptive, and by acknowledging this potential within all appearances, it would appear that they simply come and go with or without any attempt on my part to interfere. Through habitual forces and tendencies, if i allow myself to chase after these appearances, then the question arise - would they (whatever appears) become even more warped in the process? So, am i 'me', or are my thoughts 'me', or does 'me' also exist within the potential of where these thoughts could lead? If i then choose to identify with the ever-evolving potentialities of thought as belonging to 'me' as much as all the other aspects of mind do, then i would hope that this will make 'me' better equipped so as not to unconsciously and inadvertently find, when its too late, that i am being ridden by my thoughts. This is the plan anyways.

(nice to see you Mark, its been a while...) from the place of all you neither left, nor returned a pair of cufflinks...

Am i riding my thoughts? Perhaps. Are my thoughts riding me? Perhaps. Keen observation, by the way.