Simple_Jack

"Sutra Mahamudra", is basically a system of Prajnaparamita Sutra teachings, repackaged as Mahamudra. Gampopa originally created this for people he felt weren't ready for actual Mahamudra. It's a great system nonetheless: which is why it was adopted by the other sects/sub-sects and why it's still studied and taught to people.

@yabyum24 You should do a search on the fivefold path of Mahamudra.

Tilopa's "Ganges Mahamudra" are just pith instructions. The 84 Mahasiddhas had a yidam, practiced karmamudra, etc.

As far as I know, "sutra"/"tantra"/"essence" Mahamudra is an emphasis of the Karma Kagyu, although it's not exclusive to this sect, since there are commentaries and teachings given on Mahamudra texts by Gampopa, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, etc. from the other Sarma schools/sub-sects.

@ TI 1. Why don't you like what Buddha teaches? 2. Mahamudra practice coincides with the 2 stages i.e creation & completion stage. 3. You should seriously consider receiving instructions from a guru. 4. Opportunities to receive teachings on Mahamudra are much more common in comparison to Dzogchen. There are cases where sanghas sell DVDs on Mahamudra teachings.

Although, Malcolm, was mentioning this in regards to translations of Dzogchen texts: I think this applies to the majority of Vajrayana texts being translated into English. http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=600 Most of the misconceptions about Dzogchen that people have comes about from making philosophical commitments to translations. You must understand that at this point the translation of seminal texts are in a very embryonic state. At this point it, those of you who do not know Tibetan should reply more on oral instructions than on texts, in my opinion. I am not saying "do not read translations". I am saying that you must understand that translations are very provisional at best at this stage of the game when it comes to Dzogchen. The ground is firmer in terms of sutra and tantra. But what I mostly wanted to address is the idea that merely because one has cited some translations, that one's point is well-backed up. It isn't. If one's citation is not well translated, one's point will be skewed. Relying foremost on the instructions of a guru should be a no-brainer for a Vajrayana practitioner.

The methods of Vajrayana practice are predicated on introduction to the 'view' by the guru. An individual then receives instruction, on how to carry out practice predicated on the 'view', that has been introduced by the guru.

Abhisheka, in Vajrayana, does not mean being introduced to non-dual 'Consciousness/Awareness'.

What view do you think is the most prevalent? People reading kundalini are going to equate direct introduction with shaktipat.

I don't remember being taught to view tummo as 'divine energy'.

This does not mean it's formulated within the framework of Vajrayana in the same way.

Candali is not reified in the same way as shakti.

Bump.

E Ma Ho!

Candali, in Vajrayana, is not personified.

Does it affirm Brahman for you when reading these pithy instructions? Very, very few people become liberated from terse instructions such as these. This has do with the lalana (left), rasana (right), avadhuti (central) channels.

No, it doesn't make him look foolish, think of the simile by Buddha of a person with jaundice of the eye.

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/31.3-Anusaya.-piya.pdf The Abhidhammattha, sangaha says "The latent dispositions (anusaya) are defilements which 'lie along with' (anusenti) the mental process to which they belong, rising to the surface as obsessions whenever they meet with suitable conditions"...The term "latent dispositions" highlights the fact that the defilements are liable to arise so long as they have not been eradicated by the supramundane paths...The seven latent tendencies are (1) the latent tendency of sensual lust; (2) the latent tendency of aversion; (3) the latent tendency of conceit; (4) the latent tendency of views; (5) the latent tendency of doubt; (6) the latent tendency of lust for existence; (7) the latent tendency of ignorance...Then there is a list of three latent tendencies...(1) the latent tendency to lust; (2) the latent tendency to aversion; (3) the latent tendency to ignorance...(M 64) gives a list of five latent tendencies, which are there called the "five lower fetters" ...(1) the latent tendency of self-identity (2) the latent tendency of doubt (3) the latent tendency of attachment to rituals and vows (4) the latent tendency of sense-desire (5) the latent tendency of ill-will.

http://abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/akb-ch-2-web.pdf "...[The 5 anusayas which are wrong view (drsti) are defiled understanding (klista-prajna). PSP: ―Discrimination with respect to that same object, whether it is generated correctly, incorrectly, or otherwise." http://books.google.com/books?id=m2tVr8cmIS0C&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=klistaprajna&source=bl&ots=aVJJqGf385&sig=q41C7fs5rZnXxMfDXmvxhO0UOJI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jXDQUq7rCc7gsASrwYDwCw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=klistaprajna&f=false Klistaprajna/afflicted intelligence/shes rab nyon mongs pa can

Prajna is one of five faculties i.e. indriyas [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part2.html#part2-e], in the 37 factors of awakening common to both Hinayana and Mahayana, which are then repeated as the 5 strengths that are conducive to the path of awakening. They are expressed in their contaminated form by a deluded sentient being on the mundane path; while being expressed in their pure form by an individual established on the supra-mundane path of aryas. The abhidharma-kosha lists 22 indriyas [http://abhidharmakosa.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/akb-ch-2-web.pdf], with 15-22 being the indriyas of nirvana.

You're probably thinking of jnana/yeshe in this case, which is distinguished from prajna/sherab: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Wisdom Jñana/YesheRingu Tulku Rinpoche says: "In the word ཡེ་ཤེས་, yeshe, ཡེ་, yé is short for ཡེ་ནས་, yé né, which means ‘right from the beginning’ or ‘primordially’. Some people translate it as ‘pristine’ or 'pure', meaning that it is untouched and unstained, and has been there all the time. It is the way it always was. So yeshe is discovered with ཤེས་རབ་, sherab. Yeshe is understood by sherab, or approached by sherab."The Difference Between Sherab and YesheRingu Tulku Rinpoche says: "The difference between sherab and yeshe is very subtle and slight. But I think we can say that yeshe is the most natural state of our awareness or consciousness, which is unstained, uncontrived and completely ordinary. It is there all the time, but we don’t recognize it. It is sherab that brings about the recognition, but of course they are not two separate things."

That's awesome, always remember the four frames of reference for satipatthana [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html] and always remember the four frames in the context of how Buddha taught the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta. Otherwise, you're merely practicing dissociation in regards to contact with sense objects, which according to Buddha, is not conducive to stream-entry.

@ yabyum24 Going by what you said in this post here - http://thetaobums.com/topic/33091-immortal-atman/?p=509681: "...This philosophy renders karma and rebirth obsolete. It's entirely body-focused..." I would level a charge of substance dualism on your part. Even though in Buddha's discourses, nama-rupa i.e. mind-body are mutually conditioning factors in the 12 links of dependent arising: in much of sutrayana, they are treated as distinctly different in kind, especially in Hinayana. Of course, in Mahayana (as an umbrella term for all sects), the mind-matter dichotomy is resolved through the statement that since appearances are established as Mind i.e. an individual mind-stream's alayavijnana, there is no difference between mind and matter. As Loppon Malcolm stated, epistemologically speaking, it's only Dzogchen which explicitly overcomes the mind-matter dichotomy: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&start=240 Malcolm wrote: While there are of course Dzogchen texts that describe mind and body as separate, in general, the innermost secret cycle holds that the perception that there is a difference between the animate and inanimate is a mistaken one. In the state of ultimate liberation [i.e. samyaksambuddhahood], the distinction between animate and inanimate disappears because it is not true. Further, like other Vajrayāna traditions, Dzogchen provides a physical account for the process of rebirth for example in the Vajramala Tantra: it is proposed that the alayavijñāna, which is inseparable with the mahāprāṇavāyu, is responsible for transmigration; for the appropriation of a new series of aggregates. But Dzogchen goes a step further and explicitly identifies consciousness as the operation of a vāyu in the body. Vāyus of course are the function of the refined element of air inside the human body.

As we see from that discourse, all experiential and meditative views which condition the process of becoming, are predicated on views of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence or alternatively being, non-being, both and neither. According to the Buddha, extreme views are the determining condition of ignorance, which perpetuates the cycle of becoming. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html "...By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. "Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html ...As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle...

My posts in this thread are not inconsistent with the teachings of anatta nor am I deliberately trying to misrepresent your statements. In SN 44, Buddha states to Ananda, that if he had sided with Vacchagotta's view of "There is a self", that would side with the view of eternalism; if Buddha sided with Vacchagotta's view that "There is no self", that would side with the view of annihilationism. Buddha kept silent for a reason: if Buddha had answered as he had in many other discourses to other ascetics, brahmins, monks, etc., Vacchagotta would've assumed the view of annihilationism; thereby misconstruing the Buddha's teaching on anatta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. "He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "Thus, both this assumption & the understanding, 'I am,' occur to him. And so it is with reference to the understanding 'I am' that there is the appearance of the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, & body (the senses of vision, hearing, smell, taste, & touch). "Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.' "The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."