C T

@ Arramu.. can you please elaborate on your connection to the OP? It seems unclear as to why you would respond to turtlehermit's question by quoting introductory paragraphs from the OP, and then following that up with an apparent personal endorsement of this so-called Indian enlightened buddha who resides in the secludedness of the Himalayas among other hermits, using Taoist concepts? I don't get it at all.

I think the important adjective to remember when pointing to duality is... 'Seemingly' Duality is a mirage... it only appeals to patterns of thinking that are confined by delusion. Even within the outcomes of delusory habits there are moments when clarity extinguishes set patterns of habit, and in those moments the seer connects with the real nature (which is non-dual by default) of existence, gets a taste or a glimpse of what that is, but due to unfamiliarity and a lack of confidence, remains unsure of what has transpired, but at the same time, gets a sense that the experience was wonderful, good, noble, profound, and therefore worthy of repeat. This lack of surety is what prompts the disconnection to those momentarily profound insights, and this appearance/loss dynamic that occurs as a result, in fact in greater frequency than most realise, is what perpetuates craving and aversion.

Im grateful for the emptiness of space... it allows rainbows to play hide-and-seek

That, and the fact that it can be rather messy too, without the proper tools and experience.. sounds about right? Even if one gets the best tutor, it still comes down to having to learn to do it from the ground up. And then... and then... even the best tutors themselves cannot avoid chipping the subtle edges as the shell is prised from the outside, yes? Its impossible to conventionally open an oyster without causing some kind of stress to it. Matter of degree only with regards to how much or how little damage is done. Personally, I'd prefer to put the oysters in an aquarium, and watch them open from time to time in harmony with the environment they are in. They have a kind of independent intelligence that is rather fragile, and the way I see it, a connection can be made to allow this intelligence to seep out and merge with our own without the slightest effect to its fragility at all.

Its an acquired taste. Takes time to get to know the sublimities of the texture, the smell, the layers of flavours, the after-taste... Much in common with opening chakras. Yes.

Have you tried to pry open oysters before? If not, you might want to give it a go... *tip.. mind your fingers!

Its quite like trying to open oysters, actually.

It was dmattwads who mentioned Oprah and E dG.

Im sorry if it came across as p/a, but really, i didn't feel that when i wrote the reply. I was perhaps wrongly interpreting your words all along. Im not sure what you mean by good practical sources, but in my limited understanding, its going to be a rough path without authentic guidance and lineage affiliation, or to put it in proper parlance, the taking of refuge has to be the entrance into the Dzogchen path, either Buddhist or Bon. Btw, have you come across this excerpt before from the Berzin Archives? "With the ceasing of dumbfoundedness, our alaya for habits becomes effulgent rigpa – that is, rigpa in its aspect of actively giving rise to cognitive appearances (mental holograms) and actively cognizing them, with the former more prominent. But we need to go even deeper than that. Staying focused with the simultaneously arising, abiding, and ceasing of microseconds of the pure appearances of effulgent rigpa, we need to recognize essence rigpa. This is rigpa in its aspect of being the “open space” or “cognitive sphere” that allows for the arising of appearances and the cognizing of them, with the latter more prominent. When we recognize and stay focused with this, we attain break-through, a seeing path of mind (path of seeing), the third of the five pathway minds on the way to enlightenment."

Its pointless giving you sources cos you are one of those who only trust your own research and form rigid views around that. Its clear from your statement about it sounding like a rumour that you are not familiar with the basic approach towards the development of the 5 pathways mind towards the culmination of the Dzogchen View, where one's state becomes more refined from one pathway mind to the next, until enlightening nature is fully established. So, for example, someone on the stage of the third pathway mind will not be able to recognise the qualities that will be revealed in the fourth, and the fifth pathway mind wont appear until the fourth is stabilised. In this regard, its only logical that someone who may only have attained the second pathway mind not have the understanding and sight to see what's at the fifth pathway mind, and then, someone like yourself will cleverly deduce thats its just a made-up rumour and all that nonsense. Thats the point i made in the previous post. If you need to verify my proposal just do your own search on the works of Alex Berzin, but then again, you might not even regard him as a trustworthy source, knowing this general attitude of cynicism that you tend to have.

You might well be right.

rainbows are only seen to appear & vanish, when in actuality they are an insubstantial manifestation that occurs when causes and conditions meet... they are mirages, never existing nor not existing on its own side. Im not sure its an appropriate metaphor to use as a comparison to the rainbow body phenomena, but can understand why it was a metaphorical choice, seeing its common association with the term 'rainbow body'. In Dzogchen the emphasis has been, and always will remain focussed on what is termed the 'View', and the whole process of practice is to first recognise what this View is so that doubts about its actual nature is put to rest, then to stabilise this View thru practice so that it gradually remains in one's consciousness with increasing frequency, and lastly, this View becomes a permanently transformed aspect of one's consciousness, and is then etched into one's being, which is a rare enough occurrence. In Buddhist Dzogchen this final leap-over has to be permanent in order for the rainbow body to manifest at some point, and it is also at this level only that one will develop the vision to recognise those who have secretly attained the seed of final rainbow body transformation. Prior to this level, all talk about what is rainbow body and related discussions can happen only on an intellectual level, and shall remain speculative endeavours at best.

Lots of Buddhist novice monks nowadays spend huge amounts of time on FB, playing football, and watching netflix. Times have changed.

Im guessing, and I apologise in advance for saying this, but I think so will a reality check, my friend. Might want to do this first, before deference is paid to Durga. She might be busy with appointments

Maybe its not due to the incapabilities of anyone here, but simply that the type of attention you need might be better sought elsewhere?

It is important to realize that there is nobody else who can wake us up and save us from samsara. There is no such thing in Buddhism. That may be Buddhism’s biggest drawback, and at the same time its greatest advantage. This view shows us that there is nobody else in control of our lives, our experiences, our freedom or our bondage. Who is responsible? Who is in control? It is us. We are in control. We can bind ourselves further in samsara or we can free ourselves from it right now. It is all up to us. We are the ones who have to keep looking at our thoughts, looking for the nature of our mind. There is no guru, deity, buddha or bodhisattva out there to look for it for us. Although they would happily do this, it would not help us; it would only help them. We have to do it for ourselves. That is the key point. ~ Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche ~

Thats stating the obvious, except that its not different, but diverse approaches to practice, leading to the same fruition, that makes Buddhism quite unique. Fundamentally, the approaches are all the same - there are no authentic Buddhist schools that deny the Four Noble Truths & the Eightfold Path, and the necessity to take refuge in the 3 Jewels if one wants to proceed with the path of practice successfully. Once a practitioner brings the Dharma to life, through which identifying habit patterns that are unhealthy (those that hinders spiritual evolution) takes precedence, that is in effect taking action to stop leaks. In other words, there's no necessity to root out past karma in the process, but to build new habits that either cuts new karmic flows or at least reduce the impact somewhat.

The Yanas support each other. Dont know what you mean mentioning the lighter though.

“The world in our heads is not a precise replica of reality; our expectations about the frequency of events are distorted by the prevalence and emotional intensity of the messages to which we are exposed.” ~ Daniel Kahneman, 'Thinking, Fast & Slow'

I'll politely point out the mistake that Mahayana promotes the notion that suffering needs to be developed. Where did you pick this up? The basis for the whole Buddhist path is predicated on the removal of ignorance, which is the root that leads to all kinds of delusions which in turn leads to suffering. The antidotes provided in the teachings of all the Yanas reverse this cycle, all the way back to the cessation (or blowing out) of these delusional patterns, which is where practice and experiencing the effects of practice plays a primary role. So the objective, one could say, is not to tackle suffering (dukkha) directly, but to remove those delusions (which are all dualistically primed) that separates one from one's real nature, which is primordially free from even the slightest hint of dukkha.

that doesn't mean he suddenly became a happy chappy overnight. He merely initiated the practice of renunciation to replace asceticism, which he thought was too extreme. The Middle Way still encourages ethics, morality and discipline. Its up to the individual to decide how best to fit these guidelines into their life practice, a choice that is not available and therefore not promoted on the path of asceticism.

Not sure if that's an appropriate analogy, mister allinone. I dont see the connection at all, but if you do, kindly instil in your writing a sense of meaning and clarity that makes your point more digestible?

Indeed, this (bolded) is one of the hardest habits to change, but its not a bad thing though.. It can be like 'seed sowing'. Part of the process of spiritual evolution. The thing with habitual mental analysis or a constant need to appeal to logic is either the answers come via intellectual penetration, or recurring confusion becomes so dense, so flexed, that a sudden reversal or instant aha moment appears. Im sure we have all experienced something similar - trying very hard to recall something without success, and then, the very moment we give up the seemingly futile attempt, the recollection pops up!

ooops