Simple_Jack

So, I just skimmed through part of the thread referenced from the OP.... http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=60 "Anyway, Dzogchen rejects Advaita and Samkhya explicitly, even mentioned Shankaracarya, etc., by name in the rig pa rang shar tantra." I'm telling you, once the people currently in charge of translation committees, along with their translation teams, retire and die off: by the next 50-80 years these translations will be superseded by translations of a markedly improved accuracy. http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=60 "There is no ultimate ground of being in Dzogchen for the simple reason that Dzogchen rejects all four extremes of being, non-being, both and neither. The basis, original purity, has no "being" per se, since if it did, it could not express itself, since it would be nonempty and permanent." P.S. Kun gzhi and gzhi are two distinct terms.

Believe whatever you want, just make sure at some point to receive instruction from a guru.

For a general guideline of what occurs on the path, I'd much rather rely on Nan Huaijin's material and Buddhist sutras and tantras, etc. Blame it on Vajrarhidaya who started this whole mess. Regardless, we have our own designated area of the prison yard, which means we're here to stay, brah! I think some of the regular posters on this forum would shit a brick, if they found out the extent that Daoism plagiarized Buddhist concepts and imagery, in order to adapt to the increasing influence of Buddhism on Chinese society.

Because malikshreds mentioned the Surangama Sutra. The stated result of Dzogchen is samyaksambuddhahood which makes it buddhadharma, albeit an independent vehicle that has its own set of tantras and doesn't rely on the body of teachings attributed to a figure called Gautama Buddha. I have a sincere question to ask of you: why are you relying on wikipedia for your information on Dzogchen?

Every major Eastern religion agrees that the means for this is ending the afflictions which drive the process of transmigration.

I remember posting some posts of yours over from DW (from when Jax was posting on there), on this forum a couple times, making the distinction between namtok and nangwa and quoting ChNN on "released zhine". It's funny how a year or so later this argument is coming full circle considering that it was already covered on here.

The issue we should be asking is why Malcolm said this quote will lead to further confusion about Dzogchen. There are a lot of nuances with Dzogchen view and practice that is not openly available to the public or has simply not been translated into English, yet. So, on the part of the reader who has not received direct introduction and training on Dzogchen practice, there's already the issue of not understanding these nuances. On top of that, we are dealing with the first wave of newly translated material on Dzogchen (and Buddhist texts in general) which is something that's still new to the West. As a consequence of this, we are also dealing with many inaccurate translations and glosses in these texts that are not precisely portraying terms as they are understood in the original language (e.g. rigpa). This is only natural though and as time goes on, people will find better ways to translate Sanskrit and Tibetan terminology. Which means, that in the next 40-60 years, many of the current crop of translations will become obsolete and improved translations will be available to the next generation. The dead give away is when he says "Reality of the Supreme Absolute Being". Buddhism does not posit an ontological absolute. Dzogchen does not posit any reality or the 2 truths model, since these dichotomies are irrelevant to Dzogchen; Dzogchen is also buddhadharma. When it comes to sutrayana, the basic teachings of the Buddha make this clear: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html "The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html "Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend. [Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?" [sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." In Buddhism, the inability to distinguish the difference between views is not a good thing. Lol, that is a very accurate assessment of the internet. Having read "Taoist Yoga", I would have to say that this book is highly impractical to the person seeking a clear set of guidelines towards this endeavor. Due to the lack of any real systematic means for progression and its use of vague and archaic language: I think the set of manuals that have been translated from Hinduism and Buddhism (e.g. Hatha Yoga Pradipika, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Vissudhimagga, etc.) are many times more practical to the individual seeking a means to achieve mind-body transformation. Charles Luk's other book on cultivation techniques is a lot more helpful than "Taoist Yoga". I'm sure there are untranslated works of Daojia that are actually helpful, but after reading this book I have to agree with Nan Huaijin's assessment when he states this in "Tao & Longevity": "It is unfortunate that those who learn Taoism have confused the different traditions. Some students thought that all they had to do was find a good master who would teach them a different a hidden secret, and they could become an immortal instantly. They therefore ignored the study of the principles of the Taoist methods. Taoist methods were not organized into a science of immortality with principles, rules, systematic sequences, and methods. As a consequence , these practices lend to calamity rather than to the achievement of immortality."

I.e. 5 skandha, 18 dhatus,12 ayatanas.

Those terms should be understood in the context of dependently originated phenomena.

Not necessarily the lines themselves, but how those lines can be interpreted. If you were to read any of the English translations at face value, then the metaphysics of "Dao" sounds like a form of monism (e.g. Brahman). Due to the use of overly ambiguous language, it's easy for anyone to interpret the text in any number of ways; though this might not be a bad thing, particularly when factoring in confirmation bias on the part of the individual, haha. It's actually really easy to sum up the Prajnaparamita class of sutras: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&p=185914#p185914 "The prajñāpāramitā solution is that the unconditioned and the conditioned are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the nature of the conditioned is unconditioned, and that is what emptiness basically means."

The training for those that have recognized what the guru has introduced is continuing in the state of rigpa (which is the union of samatha and vipashyana), which shouldn't be conflated with the preliminary practices that Allan Wallace teaches; the latter of which is for those who have not recognized what they have been introduced to by a guru.

Forget it.

Actually, you're right. This wouldn't be such an issue if people understood that Dzogchen really isn't a gradual path in itself. There's SMS.

Which will probably continue to happen on this board because of the inevitable shit fest that will ensue when someone like alwayson will differentiate the doctrinal points of Dzogchen and Mahamudra i.e. that the nature of thoughts are dharmakaya. There's a whole lot of material available to a person when they receive transmission and become a member of the Dzogchen Community. ChNN gives empowerments and lungs for anuyoga, Dzogchen, etc. over webcast.

What happens is, alwayson makes a quip about something Vajrayana related, that results in a shit fest, because the people disagreeing with him aren't Vajrayana practitioners. In threads discussing Allan Wallace or whomever, maybe hes at fault because he's positing a position that is influenced by how ChNN teaches his students of the DC. If you were to study under a Dzogchen teacher other than ChNN: you would be required to start out with ngondro, before being initiated into the higher teachings of Dzogchen. In the case of this thread, we should probably differentiate between Dzogchen and the Dzogchenpa (for those that have received transmission) so as to avoid these trivial back and forth arguments. Bump.

Threads, like this one, is the reason why Dzogchen (and Mahamudra) requires transmission [instruction/clarification] from a guru.

Not in the conventional sense. Seriously, I'm not just making this stuff up. This is from Loppon Namdrol (aka. Malcolm); brackets are mine: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=12835 "In general, Mahamudra entails deity yoga, [tummo, karmamudra],etc. Mahamudra is the state of realizing one's state through a yidam such as Kalacakra or the other way to realize Mahamudra is through Guru Yoga. These are the two paths of Mahamudra... Yes, the four yogas are practiced alongside the two stages/guru yoga by most practitioners. The four yogas technically are part of sutra mahamudra, actually, according to how it is presented by Kongtrul. They are presented as part of Mahamudra in the five fold system of Drikung and Drukpa, but this is integrated with creation stage [i.e. generation stage] and Guru Yoga. According to a personal communication to me from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso, Sutra Mahamudra was contrived by Gampopa for those who were not ready for Tantra. In sutra mahamudra there is no empowerment and no samayas, etc. Essence Mahamudra is based on a specific type of empowerment called the descent of the wisdom vajra (CF Jnanasiddhi by Indrabhuti), and the tantric mahamudra involves the practice of the two stages [generation and completion stages]. The former is more a path of Guru Yoga, the latter, of course, the two stages. Sutra Tantra and Essence Mahamudra is a system of the Karma Kagyu, It does not exist in the other Kagyu schools. In Drukpa and Drikung, the four yogas are included as part of the Sahaja Mahamudra, but this also depends on a kind of introduction. Usually a Cakrasamvara or a Vajrayogini empowerment." The path of Mahamudra is equivalent to tregcho of Dzogchen. The four yogas are basically Gampopa's rendition of Dzogchen semde's four naljors. Instruction from a guru is integral to the path of Varayana. The basis for these arguments on TTB's are a result of non-practitioners and people who are generally unfamiliar with Buddhism trying to correct practitioners of buddhadharma. It's best not to conflate Neo-Advaitan concepts with the path of Buddhism considering that being (contrasted with non-being) strays into the extremes of existence/eternalism (or inherent existence if you prefer Gelug explanations) according to Buddhism.

Mahamudra is based off of generation and completion stage [practices]. "Sutra Mahamudra" doesn't apply across the board to all sects.

It's a possibility that quote is referring to the generation and completion stages....Just my opinion though.

You're not wrong for applying some samatha techniques from Wallace's books, but this shouldn't be conflated as being a representation of Dzogchen methods.

Forget it.

The reason for the conflict with what alwayson states in multiple threads is stemming from people who have little knowledge of Vajrayana as a whole and who haven't received instruction from a guru. A Dzogchenpa isn't excluded from practicing methods from lower yanas, but it's a path based off its own methods. Dzogchen (and Mahamudra) really isn't predicated off of a graduated path of progression per se. As a result of this, people who come across Alan Wallace's publicly available material, think it's a representation of Dzogchen.

It seems the text you quoted is confirming Anderson's post above, not that samatha and vipasyana (in the conventional sense) are integral to Dzogchen.

There aren't really any contradictions between the 2nd and 3rd turnings (along with the schools or people in which each perspective has influenced) once the principles of the former are understood to be the foundation of the latter. A Loppon trained under the Sakya school (i.e. Malcolm) summarizes the actual purpose of meditating on the fourfold refutation of the Prajnaparamita class of sutras and how zhentongpas and rangtongpas actually meditate on the same principles: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9701&start=20 "Malcolm: The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.....The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considere extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise. The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view. As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference. The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness. The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces." Then we have an excerpt from the Lankavatara Sutra (which belongs to the same class of sutras where the concept of tathagatagarbha originated from) revealing the purpose of why buddhas expound a tathagatagarbha to sentient beings: "Similarly, that tathagatagarbha taught in the sutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, ayatanas and elements, becoming impure thorough conceptuality suppressed by passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathagatagarbha not similar with the assertion of a Self of the non-Buddhists? Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion of a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”. The Bhagavan replied: “Mahamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddha, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking of the perishable abodes, demonstrate the experiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha. Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds of containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahamati, similarly, although Tathagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajña and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahamati, the demonstration of Tathagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?" ~ Lankavatara Sutra