Simple_Jack

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218399#p218399 ...the Vima Nyinthig has a detailed text on praṇāyama called the rlung gyi phra khrid, which gives sets of practices that are very important for Dzogchen practitioners. Praṇāyama, not important at all in sutrayāna meditation, is extremely important in Dzogchen. Likewise, the notion that the view to be meditated on is conferred through experiences gained during the empowerment. Not only this, but the whole contextualization of practice is completely based on the systems of nāḍīs and cakras in the human body and so on. The supreme empowerment means, according to The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva: There are three kinds of empowerments, outer, inner and secret.The outer empowerment is the mandala of colored powder...The empowerments are conferred sequentially. The location of conferring them is the brahmarandhra. Having complete the outer and inner empowerments as such, one should enter into the secret empowerment. There are three syllables...As such, having completed the three empowerments, one should bestow the instructions to be bestowed. The yoga who has the complete empowerments will definitely become accomplished. The illustration of the meaning of secret mantra is granted through empowerment. In general, the ancient texts and commentaries assume that a person who wants to practice Dzogchen will receive all four empowerments, elaborate, unelaborate and so on. Of course, the system of the direct introduction does exist in the seventeen [Dzogchen upadesha/menngagde] tantras, but it is generally considered to be given only on the basis of the elaborate and so on empowerments, just as so-called "sems sde" was generally only conferred to people who had received at minimum the Guhyagarbha empowerment. "Longde" as we know, can only be practiced on the basis of an anuyoga empowerment. And in point of fact, the Dzogs pa rang 'byung tantra mainly concerns mahayoga and anuyoga methods, various kinds of maha and anu style empowerments, as well as elaborate rites for leading practitioners through the bardo. The commentary on the sgra thal 'gyur has a very elaborate Vajravār̄ahī practice as well as other creation stage practices. These are discussed in the commentary to this passage: Amazing, though there are countless stages of ultimate secret practice, by dividing the principle ones, [the one of] method and [the one of] supremely profound prajñā are summarized from them. In actuality, Dzogchen is always contextualized as a part of secret mantra in the seventeen [Dzogchen upadesha/menngagde] tantras themselves. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218409#p218409 The fact that creation and completion practices like caṇḍalī yoga are brought up in the seventeen [Dzogchen upadesha/menngagde] tantras themselves and their commentarial literature proves that they are important. ~ Loppon Namdrol

Suck it gatito!

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533222 The basis is not the five lights. The five lights are expressions of wisdom. Those all just exist in one's mind, as Shabkar points out. The basis is not something separate from you the person, and it is not some uniform transpersonal field. It is just your own mind and it's essence. By the way, I never thought the basis was a transpersonal field. But have become aware that many people interpret it as such, and therefore, I'm writing to correct this misapprehension. In other words, Dzogchen teachings about the basis are actually "disappointingly" Buddhist and not so radical after all. ~ Loppon Namdrol

As Malcolm explains in the preceding paragraph: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=519642 The point is that in Dzogchen teachings mind and matter are not treated as different substances as they are in other Buddhist systems. They are equally treated as producers of the five elements.... Which has a correlation with the 'body of light': The theory of the body of light is predicted on the fundamental state of reality being something called wisdom, which has five lights, which are reified as physical matter. Upon completion of the path, one sees this matter in its real nature once again and the elements of the body "revert" to their original nature as wisdom (i.e. through the process of thogal one eradicates all the afflictive obscurations which prevent one from seeing things just as they are (yathabhutaṃ)); Body of light is a realization.... http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221 Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.... Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.... Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.... Dzogchen does not reject the outer universe in the same. Instead it interprets the pre/non-afflictive states of the five elements as "the five lights". But we can understand that the most subtle form of the five elements exist within consciousness. Wisdom is also just a name for a pre/un-obscured consciousness. The basis is not a universal phenomena. though it is discussed in a manner resembling that for convenience. Each person has their own basis. This is why each person experiences delusion and liberation separately and at different times. Because the basis seems to be discussed as it it were some universal "pleroma", to borrow a phrase from the Gnostics, this causes some people to go off the deep end and conclude it is some universal phenomena out of which everything arises rather than be a quality shared by everything that arises.... ...since this ye shes is personal, never transpersonal, and at the time of the basis, is merely describing the mind (shes pa, sems) in a pre-afflictive state. Tibetans translate jñāna as ye shes. That term "ye shes" is frequently translated as "pristine awareness" or "primordial wisdom", etc. I am saying that Dzogchen authors take this term very literally (a literalism criticized by people like Sakya Pandita) because they are taking this mode of shes pa (jñatā, jñānatā, parijñāna, etc.), which they describe as ye shes to mean that the original state (ye nas) of the mind (shes pa) is pre-afflictive, and Dzogchen is the path to recover that primordial state. I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap. Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light. The fault that I suffered from was not seeing the fact that rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā), ye shes (jñāna), shes pa (jñatā) are all talking about one thing, different modalities of a single continuum from sentient being hood to Buddhahood, based on language in man ngag sde texts, reinforced very strongly by Longchenpa, which make a very hard distinction between sems (citta) and yeshe (jñāna) without recognizing the distinction is not in substance, but merely in mode i.e. afflicted/non-afflicted. Really, I am not saying anything that is terribly controversial. I am recognizing that I was mislead by the hard distinction made by Longchenpa and others who, for didactic reasons, make a hard distinction between mind and wisdom when what they are really doing is making a hard distinction between utterly afflicted minds and utterly pure minds, and providing a literary mythology (the universe arises out of the basis) to explain the separation of sentient beings and buddhas. I have similarly come to the conclusion that the account of the basis arising out of the basis and the separation of samsara and nirvana at some imagined start point unimaginable eons ago is just a literary myth, and it does not need to be taken literally.

Do you recall these posts distinguishing the basis as personal or transpersonal in Dzogchen: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=533221 Nyibum* states: As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom. The basis is nothing more nor nothing less than this. *the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig... The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.... http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=218256#p218256 In order for there to be a reified sentient beings, there has to be a mind which reifies, it is an inescapable reduction. Reification cannot occur without a reifying mind. When a mind ceases to reify, it simply dissolves into its own nature, which is described in Dzogchen texts as the basis. The basis is just one's own unfabricated mind. Any other explanation is complete gibberish... As such, one’s mind present as the nature of all the phenomena of buddhahood is realized as buddha. -- Nyima Bum ~ Loppon Namdrol Buddhahood is characterized as omniscient, but not an omnipresence, in buddhadharma. The "Supreme Source" is an overall inaccurate translation of the Kunjed Gyalpo..."all the things that exist in the animate and inanimate universe, are the nature of pure and total consciousness." This is not an interpretation of Brahman! "Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors. Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state.... "Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing. "Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip. The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god. The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut. ~ Loppon Namdrol Suck it gatito!

In regards to shamatha, what changes is the emphasis, and in the case of Zen and Vajrayana, its role in one's practice.

Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought. When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics. ~ Loppon Namdrol The String of Pearls Tantra [<----- Dzogchen Tantra, tr. by Malcolm]: As such, the three realms are the five aggregates, the five sense organs, the five limbs, the five functional organs, the five objects, the five afflictions, the five thoughts, the five minds, the five concepts, the apprehended objects and apprehending subjects established as samsara [… ] Caught in the aggregates, sense gates and the sense elements, the apprehended object and apprehending subject, samara itself persists for a long while. One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter in the castle of the three realms, tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on, oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara, attached to the salty taste of desire, bound by the neck with the noose of confusion, burned with the hot fire of hatred, head covered with pride, setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy, surrounded by the army of enmity... tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b] stuck in the mud of successive traces and handcuffed with the ripening of karma. Having been joined with the ripening of karma, one takes bodies good and bad, one after another like a water wheel, born into each individual class. Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping, one sinks into the ocean of suffering and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms. One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy. The body of a hell being appears as fire or water. Pretas are frightened and intimidated. There is a fog-like appearance for animals. The aggregates, sense gates and sense elements of humans appear as the five elements, and also happiness, suffering and indifference. They appear as armor and weapons to asuras and desirable qualities for devas. Such dualistic appearances, for example, are like a quickly moving wheel spinning continuously for a long while. As such, diverse appearances are like seeing a snake from a rope; that [rope] is not [a snake] but is apprehended as a [snake]; forming as both the outer universe and inhabitants. If that is investigated, it is a rope. The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative. http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/?p=554159 "Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors. Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state.... "Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing. "Non-duality" is trivial in general because it is just an intellectual trip. The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god. The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut. ~ Loppon Namdrol I'm not villainizing shamatha, simply stating how its viewed in buddhadharma, its meaning is the same across each tradition, and it must be joined with vipashyana in order to engender insight.

Views, according to Buddhism, fundamentally pertains to a cognitive error, an apprehension of an entity, spawning views of "is" and "is not", a sheer force of habit which perpetuates one's experience of samsara from beginningless time. This issue goes much deeper than conceptuality or non-conceptuality, and shamatha doesn't cut it according to the Buddha's teachings, otherwise he would have been contempt to stay with either of the two of his teachers who taught him how to enter and abide in the jhanas of nothingness and neither perception nor non-perception, respectively. According to the entirety of buddhadharma, realization proceeds from view (i.e dependent origination), and it is view which separates buddhadharma from say hindudharma.

The 'experience' in this case is direct introduction from a guru, and that is only if the individual has a recognition of rigpa, but this doesn't equate to realization of 2-fold emptiness, which is where familiarization through the path of togal comes in, although togal is not the only means for this. When someone is receiving teachings, explanations, instructions on the view, path, result of Dzogchen, they are relying on inference; otherwise they would be realized beings. Views persist even into deep meditative absorption which is why shamatha alone is not considered sufficient for liberation in buddhadharma. The Indo-Tibetan traditions take this very seriously, going so far as to caution against grasping to various states of non-conceptuality and meditative absorptions, stating these create the seeds for rebirth in a long lived god realm or worse as an animal.

It's hard to generalize about an entire demographic, although that's always a possibility, but inference has its place in the path, otherwise it wouldn't follow that realization proceeds from view, according to buddhadharma.

Steve, if it seems that way on internet forums, especially ones dedicated to Buddhism, it's only because Buddhism is so vast; wouldn't you think they'd be pretty dead otherwise? Internet forums, such as DW, are acceptable means to delve into the intricacies of buddhadharma among like minded individuals.

Zen and Osho quotes...why doesn't this surprise me.

I would say this thread started from the OP's inability to understand non-arising in Mahayana.

We must have been exposed to entirely different facets of the Dharma scene, because the persons I've encountered were far more concerned with practice, over thoroughly learning the Dharma. Relatively few people in comparison are inclined towards learning beyond what they receive during the average retreat.

Dvayaṃnissito kho'yaṃ kaccaana loko yebhuyyena atthita–ceva natthita–ca Kaaccana, this world abides in duality, normally abiding in ‘is’ and ‘is not’. ~ Buddha Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself. But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".... "Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation. Nāgārjuna states: ‘Is’ is holding to permanence, ‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view. Because of that, is and is not are not made into a basis by the wise. - Loppon Namdrol This thread contains a series of posts by Loppon Namdrol differentiating the meaning of advaya and its use in buddhadharma. Loppon Namdrol aka. Malcolm is knowledgeable in the translation of Sanskrit and Tibetan terminology. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=80 There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma. Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination. Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on. The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=60 Emptiness is one of three doors of liberation; non-duality is not. The other two being lack of aspiration and the signless. There is no philosophy of non-dualism in Buddhism. This is wholly the invention of western scholars. For example, Madhyamaka rarely uses the term "non-dual". When it is used in Yogacara, it is meant to describe lack of a real subject and object in perception (vijñaptimatra), and hence the absence of existence and non-existence in those imagined phenomena as well. It does not get used at all in the Nikaya schools. I think westerners are over-invested in this word. But a word that is frequently brought up, over and over again, is anutpāda, non-origination, non-arising. This word is much more important for we Buddhists. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4461&start=40 Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought. When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics. Thus, the Bodhicittavivarana states: Abiding in the mind without objects has the characteristic of space; that meditation of space is held to be the meditation of emptiness. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4898 "Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors. Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state.... "Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being. In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being. Even when we talk about the inseparability of original purity and natural formation, kadag and lhundrup, this inseparability is actually predicated on the non-duality that I mentioned above. When we talk about freedom from the four extremes, the eight extremes and so on, it is all, in the end predicated on the absence of being and non-being. That absence of being and non-being is the essence of what the term "non-dual" means in Buddhist texts. It is not a translation or terminology issue, it is just a basic fact of Buddhist view.... Whatever is asti is satya (true), whatever is nasti as mithya (false), so at base, it really is about freedom from asti (being) and nasti (non-being). http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4898&start=20 In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based. And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=13757&start=120 "Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370 There is a difference between an absence of duality (Madhyamaka, and so on) and so called "non-duality".... The first refers to an absence of extremes. The second is advocating a philosophical position. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=60 One can argue from the point of view of emptiness. One cannot argue from the point of view of non-duality and remain a Buddhist. Advaya-patita means "not broken into two parts", better to say, "...all phenomena are not divided into two, though they are not divided into two, they are not, however single". Better translation of the title would be the dharma discourse on entering the absence of dualism. But the absence of dualism here is the dualism of "exists" and "does not exist". Also the absence of the tā particle in Buddhist renderings of the term advaya is significant, even though usually over looked. "Tā" bears the meaning it "ity" in English, for example, reality. Non-duality means literally, "a state of being in which there is no dualism". Emptiness is nondual, but it is not a nonduality. The amount of trouble this simple word causes is incalculable -- the mistranslation of advaya as non-duality is responsible for huge misunderstandings.... The nice thing about śūnyatā is that you can stated that it is ultimate reality without committing oneself to an ontological position. Hence the tā suffix. Three gates of liberation are a little different: śūnya, alakṣana, apranidhana, empty, without characteristics, without aspiration. They are not states, they are entries. Emptiness is the bhutatā, the actual nature of the things. Also emptiness has no nature, since it is free from extremes. This is the beauty of Madhyamaka. You can assert emptiness as a nature, and no one can fault you. If you assert non-duality as a nature you have already committed an epistemological blunder. As Nagarjuna really said: If I had a position, I would be at fault. Since I alone have no position, I alone am free from fault. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3193&start=80 Phenomena are free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience -- see Kaccaayanagotto Sutta i.e. "Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle". The middle way view is by necessity a non-dual view, avoiding these extremes of dualism. That is also emptiness; emptiness cures the views of existence and non-existence -- that can be correlated in one's personal experience.... It is the same, now attached, now detached; now full, now empty; now exists, now does not exist; these are all dualities. When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism.... ...Non-attachment is remedial. It contains the seeds of its own defeat. If you have attachment, then you need non-attachment. It is better to cut these things at the root, rather than the leaf. The root is wrong views of existence and non-existence. That is dualism as defined by the Buddha. The absence of duality is when one's has no wrong views concerning "it is" and "it is not". Every other dualistic pair stems from these two. Finally, from the Ch'an/Zen side of things, by Ven. Huifeng of Fo Guang University: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=60 Since the position of Zen has been brought into the discussion (albeit in a rather clumsy manner), it is worth pointing out how the phrase "advaya" appears in Chinese. It appears almost always as 不二, which is again just "not two", a very clear translation of "advaya". If one wished to express "advaita" (or similar abstracted sense), then one would probably use 非二性 (Xuanzang style translation). However, while 不二 appears thousands of times throughout the Chinese canon, including the Chan (--> Zen) works, the latter term or variants, only appear once or twice from what can be found scanning the entire canon digitally. So, the Chinese - and I'd warrant the Japanese too - most likely had a clear notion of "advaya" as "not two". Whether or not this is held out in English translations of the Chinese or Japanese works, however, is another matter. But considering that of Chan or Zen practitioners, only a tiny minority use English, one would want to avoid gross over generalizations.

T.R.V. Murti's Central Philosophy of Buddhism: Advaya is knowledge free from the duality of the extremes (antas or dristis) of ‘is’ and ‘is not’, ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ etc. It is knowledge freed of conceptual distinctions. Advaita is knowledge of a differenceless entity: Brahman (Pure Being) or Vijñana (Pure consciousness). ... Advaya is purely an epistemological approach; the advaita is ontological. The sole concern of the Madhyamaka advaya-vada is the purification of the faculty of knowing. The primordial error consists in the intellect being infected by the inveterate tendency to view Reality as identity or difference, permanent or momentary, one or many etc. These views falsify Reality, and the dialectic administers a cathartic corrective. With the purification of the intellect, Intuition (prajña) emerges; the Real is known as it is, as Tathata or bhutakoti. The emphasis is on the correct attitude of our knowing and not on the known..

I figured I didn't need to explicitly explain this involved receiving lung and explanation from one's guru. I just don't see this need to emphasize a dichotomy, between the traditional discourses and "deepest inner realizations" via pith instructions, since I see them both as equally valid representations of buddha darshana.

Previews of Master Zhiyi's meditation manuals "The Essentials of Buddhist Meditation" and "The Six Dharma Gates to the Sublime" - http://www.kalavinka.org/Jewels/jewels_toc.htm

Swanson's draft translation of ch. 7 from the upcoming "Greater Cessation & Contemplation": http://www.culturabuddhista.it/joomla/images/stories/ccb/mohochihkuan.pdf

Basically, what I mean is that the teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, the Mahasiddhas, etc., are the representation of their realization, which are the progenitor of the lineages which continue to this day.

OK, but creating this arbitrary dichotomy between oral instructions and written texts, only serves to undermine the latter, when in fact "deepest inner realizations" of the Buddhist teachings, spring forth from those very teachings that have been passed down to us in written form. Sure, but then this is coming from someone who seems hasn't even engendered the nirvanic indriya of 'faith' in the Mahayana teachings, thereby not even generating bodhicitta which is the prime motivator for these teachings. The OP has to rely on inference, until the completion of the 3rd togal vision, which is equivalent to the realization of 2-fold emptiness on the path of seeing in sutra.

It's also a persistent attitude that I've seen time and time again over the past 4 years on these forums. It's often used as a justification to ignore traditional discourse in favor of one's own superseding views and inclinations.

This is practically an ingrained attitude common among TTB's, an attitude to be avoided according to Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo (Snow Lion, pg. 50), which is worth considering irregardless of what sect you follow: There are those who conclude that any classic text should be considered only an explanatory teaching, therefore lacking the key points for practice. They hold that there are separate personal instructions that teach the core meanings that are the heart of practice. They then imagine that there are two separate forms of the excellent teaching - a teaching that is explained to you and a teaching that you practice.. Know that this attitude precludes the development of great respect for the stainless sutras and tantras as well as the flawless treatises that comment on their intent...

Tentative outline of contents of the upcoming publication of Zhiyi's "The Great Cessation & Contemplation" translated by Paul Swanson: http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/en/files/2014/06/Mo-ho-Chin-kuan-Table-of-Contents-7_2014.pdf

Walking-meditation + vipassana - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/silananda/bl137.html