Simple_Jack

Yeah, definitely a valid response. Someone linked from dharmawheel to a Zen forum on the use of terms such as 'wu-wei' when translating Ch'an texts My link: Bonsai_Ent wrote:In the Sayings of Layman Pang there is at least one where he uses the term Wu Wei, which is unambiguously a taoist technical term. Huifeng*: No necessarily at all, the term 無為 wuwei is a very straight up translation of the Indic term "asamskrta" (or derivatives), meaning "unconditioned" (or derivatives). A Buddhist technical term from the earliest period of Buddhism. The fact that some modern translators choose to not translate, but use transliterations for terms, eg. wuwei, dao, etc., also obscures the issue. Native readers of Chinese, or those with a high level of fluency, are simply not fooled by this practice. (Cf. recent discussions on another thread about 坐禪 to a Chinese person, versus phoneticized "zazen" to a Western Zen practitioner...) ~~ Huifeng *He currently resides in Taiwan. He can translate Classical Chinese and speaks fluent Manderin (and other Chinese dialects.) From this thread (My link) he seems to be quite learned in the historical development of Daojia also.

'No-agent,' just means that there isn't any inherent (i.e. absolute, eternal, unchanging) agent seperate from the action or chain of events as it unfolds. Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer, no doer, though certainly the deed is found. peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased, the way is walked, but no walker's to be found. - Visuddhimagga* XVI, 90 *English title: Path Of Purification by Bhadantacariya Buddhagosa.

This is just a state of dullness or of being 'unawares'(i.e. lack of mindfulness.) IMO, instead of trying to understand nubulous concepts from Chinese philosophy, it would be more practical for you to develop your shamatha practice by means of developing one-pointed concentration on a meditation object (i.e. focusing on the breath.) Building and tempering 'mindfulness' is a core spritual practice.

I've heard that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's "The Supreme Source: The Fundamental Tantra of the Dzogchen Semde" and "The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen" are good books to start out with.

Notice how he says "Even the non-conceptual pure sense of beingness, consciousness and presence prior to senses or concepts, once reified into a background Self, that too is discovered to be a non-conceptual thought manifestation. This is talking about a (very) subtle reification that happens even on the non-conceptual subconscious level. These are the '[karmic] propensities that bond;' these operate even in deep meditative absorption, which can lead to reification of these experiences (for instance, one of the formless absorptions as absolute.) These links, may or may not be able to help you, understand what "Mind" means in Buddhism. To further clarify the last two, since usually these aren't readily understood: Care must be taken to not think of the alaya in terms of something that is substantial, absolute or unchanging. In the Sakya sect of Tibetan Buddhism, it is described as the indivisibility of luminosity and emptiness. In other words: It is the totality of our sensate experience that is continually transforming due to cause and effect.

That sounds like an oxymoron. How can you 'practice wu wei?' This already entails a perceived 'practitioner' who 'practices', wu-wei. By making it a subject/object duality, this renders it an effortful action. This would not be natural or effortless. EDIT: Also it depends on how you interpret "Tao." Do you interpret in terms of Brahman? Or like how this commentator on the Zuangzi who put it like this: Guo's thought reinterprets the classical pronouncements about the Tao so that it in no way signifies any kind of metaphyisical absolute underlying appearances, but rather meaning "no thing." This absence of anything beyond appearances is the first premise in Guo's development of a theory in which all phenomal things are "self - so," creating and transforming themselves without depending on any justification beyond their own temporary being. My link

IMO, 'free will' only applies (in this sense) when there is a notion of a fixed 'destiny' or as if our lives our dictated by some external controller. With dependent origination, this really is a moot point since there are only causes and conditions. You ever come across this Nagarjuna quote? To whomever emptiness is possible, All things are possible. You've got the gist of it, but I think this premise could be expanded further.

Cool. Thanks for the link!

I don't think he is, due to samaya....Becoming 'really good at (dualistic) mindfulness' can be helpful for when subconscious crap get's stirred up to the conscious level. IMO, the teachings on trekcho won't truly be able to be practiced until the 'path of seeing.' It won't truly be effortless until the 'path of meditation.' Seriously, bro: Good luck to you next time, when similar experiences start to surface due to progress in your cultivation.

Thanks Seth for posting this. I remember reading through someone else's copy at one time. I also remember that it was being sold at amazon.com, at an outrageous price. Which is why I never bought it. Oh, well.

Could you elaborate on these "tools?" It's not the usual trekcho instructions is it? Doesn't "Vivid Awareness" discuss any of this or one of Dudjom Lingpas books? Do you know of any material that describes this (assuming its not just more trekcho instructions?)

I actually agree with what you're getting at with this post. You thought about doing extensive retreat, one day? Cause, you're gonna have to at some point if you want to achieve what you're talking about. You cant really expect to do that what with a full time job, school, and all the mundanities that comes with living in society. At least not anytime soon, I guess. Retreat can really speed things up. Think about if you go on a traditional 3 year retreat: That's enough to make a solid foundation for continual progress, even when you return to civvy life. At least that's what I've heard from various teachers.

Yay! Brownie points!! By the way, if you haven't already seen the new Spider-Man movie: Don't go into it expecting it to be like the one with Tobey Maguire. It has a different direction and is done differently. It's definitely more character driven and doesn't have that "Summer block-buster" feel, per se. Still enjoyable, though.

Not at all relly, haha. I think Vajrahridaya, may have actually had the meditative experience to back up most of what he said. That is if you believe anything he was saying was true and not just make believe. I on the other hand, don't. It's as simple as that.

Oh, ok. I was just using him as an example. Understandable, I can see what you mean.

I don't know why people always jump to ChNN as if he's the only one teaching dzogchen out there (though I think he does give out the teachings more openly than other people.) There's well known and not so well known teachers of dzogchen lineages in the Drikung Kagyu, Bon, Nyingma, and whatever other sect/sub-sect out there that teaches dzogchen; so, I'm just not quite sure, why everyone seems to just mention ChNN. On an unrelated note: I'm becoming more interested in the Bon lineage of dzogchen, as Malcolm says they are generally more open in giving teachings and information on togal and stuff. He even mentioned how he's heard of certain teachers who will openly give teachings on togal to whomever asks them (he didn't mention any names unfortunately, lol.) Also, visiting teachers of the Garchen retreat center in Arizona have given teachings on trekchod and togal in the past, which I think is pretty cool. As for ChNN, what makes you absolutely positive that he doesn't have any deep experiences of this stuff? What if he just doesn't choose to emphasize, talk of or demonstrate this stuff? Though to be honest, other than reading some articles online that was written by ChNN, reading his book The Cycle Of Day And Night and seeing a few webcasts: I don't really know enough about ChNN or how he teaches in order to make a judgement. I'm wondering though: This guy has been meditating for years, is there anything mentioned in his books (or by anyone else) about his accomplishments? Have you come across anything? I really am curious about this. As for Thusness: We really don't know anything about him, since his identity (other than a name and whatever background info that xabir posts) is pretty much kept secret. From what xabir posts: He does seem to have experience of the form and formless jhanas and is able to demonstrate certain siddhis. How do you absolutely know, that in his 20+ years of his meditation practice, he hasn't reached any advanced levels of cultivation (of the subtle energy body or whatever?) What if he has the ability of the deva eye, to see his and others past lives, or other types of siddhis described by the yogis of the world? Keep in mind, that I really don't care or am really interested in defending either of them. I'm just curious, as to why you think this. On an unrelated note: I've heard (from people who have been his students for a while,) of some interesting accounts of Garchen Rinpoche and his ability and level of cultivation. I mean from people who have been his students for years, and who have first hand account of what he can do. A lot of them think he is on the level of a mahasiddha. I can't say much about this other than being in his presence and whatnot, since I've only been around him a few times (other than him showing up in one of my dreams, to get me to wake up when I had overslept; because I was missing a session of the retreat, after it had started.) To each his own, right? For me personally, I wouldn't mind being able to meet Nan Huai Chin (before he dies) some day. From talking to a Chinese guy, from a sangha I've been to: He thinks highly of him (commenting on his learning and experience gleaned from reading his untranslated Chinese books) and says that he is of a very high caliber as a cultivator and scholar. He mentioned how his eyes "glowed," which I've heard is a mark of someone who has gained the ability of the deva eye. If that's true, then who knows what else he has developed, in terms of siddhis and the energy body.

I was going to post an elaborate reply, but decided not to in the end.....Honestly whether I responded with all the reasoning in the world, it wouldn't be of help to you. IMO, you shouldn't worry about this stuff right now. I think you should be focusing on the progress of your meditation, than worrying about "Right View" at this point in time. When you start making some serious progress it would probably be a good idea to know someone who could maybe help you advance further by giving you pointers or whatever. In any case, I'm not going to speculate on what Malcolm thinks nowadays. His practice is dzogchen. For practitioners of dzogchen, all the bullshit between what is "right view" and what is "wrong view;" all the shit being debated between me and dwai, doesn't apply. Why? Because of what Malcolm said to Mr.G: Mr.G: How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis does not accord with dependent origination? Malcolm: Lhun grub Mr.G: How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis has been reified? Malcolm: Ka dag - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Anyone who receives direct introduction (to the nature of mind,) who stabilizes their experience of instant presence (regardless if there is still a sense of an apprehender and apprehended framework on a conscious/subconscious/unconscious level); and who seriously studys and applies the teachings of dzogchen will (eventually) fully come to recognize their own face (as Dzogpa Chenpo.) In the end dzogchenpa's (to use a convenient label) don't have anything to worry about, IMO.

Actually, not at all. In this thread (My link) I accused Malcolm of having an eternalist view [on page 4 I quoted an excerpt from the Surangama Sutra, dealing with what I accused him of. Xabir sums it up as "...implying some universal, over-arching, eternalistic consciousness that is rejected in Shurangama;] where he responded: Lotus_Bitch (Me): The view you are propounding is common among those of eternalistic views, which is why you'll hear of this in tribal communities as well. Malcolm: Am I? That is news to me. Are you quite sure all tribal people are eternalists? How did you come to universal knowledge of the beleifs of all tribal peoples?

IMHO, it shouldn't matter for you at this point of your spiritual development. What you should be looking for are if the actual practices are making you happier and more open to the possibilities of life; while at the same time noticing a transformation of the torrent of afflictions and disturbing emotions into a mind of natural equilibrium. People who are able to have "realization" by just reading something (as in the case Xabir described of an individual who read a description of Thusness/Passerby's insight into Brahman) or having insight after a pointing out or with little effort into investigation, is very rare. The average person has to gruelingly cultivate (for who knows how long) before they can have "realization." Therefore, I'm a proponent of learning from different traditions and doing whatever works in order to advance spiritually (to whatever degree that may be.) Personally, to those starting out, I recommend self-inquiry Ramana Maharshi style. A man who I believe to be on the same "level" of those such as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, said this (yes, I'll openly admit that I'm a fanboy, who is on his nutz; it is very, very rare in today's world to have someone of this caliber, discussing things from his direct experience. Therefore, I respect Thusness magnitudes beyond that of Malcolm.) My link: On Spontaneous Perfection Lastly, when these 2 experiences inter-permeate, what is really needed is simply to experience whatever arises openly and unreservedly. It may sound simple but do not underestimate this simple path; even aeon lives of practices cannot touch the depth of its profundity....I must say that spontaneous presence and experiencing whatever arises openly, unreservedly and fearlessly is not the 'path' of any tradition or religion -- Be it Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Advaita, Taoism or Buddhism. In fact the natural way is the 'path' of Tao but Taoism cannot claim monopoly over the 'path' simply because it has a longer history. My experience is that any sincere practitioner after maturing non-dual experiences will eventually come to this automatically and naturally. It is like in the blood, there is no other way than the natural way. ~ Thusness "Realization" is delusion. It's in itself an expression of ignorance. This goes for all "realizations," described in the wisdom traditions of the world. We all have the same fundamental nature, it's only the veils of obscurations that are distorting our vision of this. IMO, "knowing" is in itself ignorance - something that is predicated on an imagined "knower" as subject. Two fitting quotes, that I've poste before in another thread (yes, I know it's "Buddhist," but please bear with me): Understanding and perceiving rely on knowing, this is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without perception, this is nirvana - Surangama Sutra Understanding and perceiving rely. Knowing: This is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without meaning (are not.) Perception, this is nirvana - Ch'an master Yu-an EDIT: Messed up on the link to Thusness quote

It is exactly this independent, absolute, unchanging, ultimate "self/Self" that the lower yanas of Buddhism, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen say is devoid of self-nature and is dependently originated. Shakyamuni Buddha calls this "the conceit of I AM," throughout the Theravada and Mahayana suttas/sutras. Modern recognized masters of dzogchen (both living and recently deceased) such as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche, Garchen Rinpoche; going down the line of lineage masters such as Ju Mipham, Longchenpa, to Padmasambhava: All of them refuted and rejected an independent, absolute, unchanging "self/Self" (or an "Awareness" as Ultimate Subject) of Hinduism. Blehhhh, I've gotta run to go watch the new Spider Man movie; So all I'm gonna say is.....Those who are serious who study and apply the teachings of Longchenpa, Mipham, and the Dzogchen tantras, etc. Anyone that is sincere about fully lifting away the veils that obscure the nature of mind and who has a connection to the lineage of the dzogchen teachings: Will (eventually) fully recognize their own nature (no matter how long it takes them.) Luckily for those of lower capacity there is the Semde (Clarity/Mind,) and Longde (Emptiness/Space,) series of teachings. So, in a sense: I agree with Malcolm, that it is a system unto itself; so if the individual chooses to eschew the lower yanas, I think they wouldn't have to worry and in the end will be alright. Take care of yourself Dwai!! I Love You Longtime!!

I agree somewhat with the main paragraph. All the different sub-sects with their shastras describing emptiness/D.O is convoluted. Is it necessary to study all those different sutras and shastras? Yes and no. For someone of superior capacity they could very well skip all that, just focusing on dzogchen and they will have no problems. Though for those of us that are of inferior and middling capacities: It really just isn't that easy to realize. That's why I think for those types, it's best to at least study the foundational teachings from Theravada Buddhism and then after a solid grounding to move onto at least the more well known Mahayana sutras and shastras (IMO, also studying the modern works from Advaita Vedanta to experientially understand the insight of the "I AM" phase and Brahman is something I also highly recommend.) Personally, I think the last part of that sentence is quite limiting. In any case, I posted it for the sake of learning. It doesn't hurt to understand the 'basis' (no pun intended, har) of the dzogchen teachings for better understanding of this system. No one has to take it at face value, you know?

Hey: Not to be condescending, but emptiness and D.O in the dzogchen view are ka dag and lhun grub. Malcolm describes on dharmawheel about these two aspects of the basis. My link: "Namdrol wrote: As I have stated elsewhere, Dzogchen cosmology is just a minor variation on the standard abhidharma cosmology. In Abhidharmakośa, at the end of the eon, all sentient beings are reborn in the two upper form realms, where their minds are in a state of dharmatā. After twenty anatarakalpas, intermediate eons, because of traces of latent afflictions, the air mandala forms and so on, resulting in a container universe which is repopulated by sentient beings who take birth in it from top to bottom. In Dzogchen, at the end of the previous mahākalpa, all sentient beings attain "buddhahood" after taking birth in the Kalavinkaloka. Then after twenty thousand eons while samsara and nirvana does not appear (this is called the bardo (antara) of samsara and nirvana in dzogchen texts), because of the lingering traces of affliction and action left over from the last eon, the basis becomes stirred, the five lights shine out and there is a chance for recognition or non-recognition by the neutral awareness(es) that is/are obscured by the innate ignorance of mere non-recognition while the basis is in a latent state. Depending on the fact of recognition or non-recognition, there is Samantabhadra and sentient beings. Thus, we understand that the basis has two phases, active and latent. During the bardo of samsara and nirvana, it is in a latent phase." gad rgyangs wrote: sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava. Malcolm: No, since it is originally pure. gad rgyangs: if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case? Malcolm: No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)] but it is also not conditioned by afflictions. However, since it is naturally formed, it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc. gad rgyangs: how is this reconcilable with the standard Dzogchen trope that Dzogchen follows the view of Pransangika Madhayamaka and the MMK? Malcolm: The basis is original purity. The Unwritten Tantra states: “There is no object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Prajñā does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.” However, Prasaga is an intellectual view. Dzogchen is not and that is the main difference between the two. gad rgyangs: so wisdom (ye shes) is prior to vidya (rig pa), and is actually a synonym for the basis? Malcolm: Yes. gad rgyangs: when ye shes takes an object it becomes rig pa (or rather ye shes stirs and becomes a duality of rigpa and object)? what then is "resting in rig pa", what is the object then? Awarenesses [shes pa rnams] in the basis are neutral, meaning they are not afflicted, but they possess innate ignorance since they not know themselves. When there is a stirring in the basis and the light of wisdom shines out, then these awarenesses either recognize it, in which case their shes pa becomes a shes rab and they know [vidyā] the basis as their own state; or they reify appearance of the five lights as an object through the imputing ignorance and this sets into motion I-making, dependent origination and all the rest of it, and their shes pa becomes rnam shes. BTW, the texts themselves do not speak of the shes pas in the plural. They just use the the term shes pa lung ma bstan. Malcolm: BTW, it is not a creation story. The basis refers to a time between universes. Also, as I have mentioned before, if you are not practicing thögal, this explanation is not relevant to your practice. This explanation is directly tied to tögal teachings and provides the basis for understanding the Nyinthig model of liberation. It is actually not really good that there is so much out there about this "cosmology" since people misunderstand its intent badly. N Malcolm: Things dont rise from the basis. They arise from non-recognition of the basis, i.e. the parikalpita- avidyā. gad rgyangs: what is it that fails to recognize the basis? I have explained this now several ways. So, I'll try again: there are no sentient beings at the time of the latent basis, because all sentient beings, theoretically, acheived some kind of buddhahood in the last eon. The notion of the basis in Dzogchen man ngag sde is very similar to the Hindu idea of Pralaya. [in fact, in the term kun gzhi, ālaya, kun = ā, gzhi = laya. The term kun gzhi is distinguished from the term gzhi in Dzogchen, as you can easily find out, but the fact that gzhi is desceribed as the bardo of samara and nirvana is nothing if not telling. If someone is taking a text critical approach, they will note that there is a movement in Buddhist tantric texts in India in the late 9th through the 10th century in such texts as the Samputa tantra and the Kalacakra to borrow and repurpose some Samkhya concepts. Hence Dzogchen use of the term prakriti, etc.] After the collapse of the previous universe, there are no buddhas and sentient beings -- and this is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana. Present in the latent basis however is a neutral awareness which does not know itself. Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana. This neutral awareness is what happens when someone acheives an incomplete full awakening, for example an arhat or some other form of lesser iberation that can "return to the cause". This is why Dzogchen makes such a big deal about Dzogchen Buddhahood being one that "does not return to the cause". have sentient beings existed since beginningless time alongside the basis, but not arising from it? The Dzogchen answer is no. Sentient beings newly arise at the end of each bardo of samsara and nirvana. How do they arise? They arise when neutral awarenesss in the basis makes the error of not recognizing the display of the a basis as its own display. The imputing ignorance results in self and other, the ālaya forms, the twelve links start up, samsara and nirvana divide. Etc. As I mentioned above, Dzoghchen texts do not distinguish whether this neutral awareness in the basis is multiple or singular. So this question is left for us to solve on our own: either the neutral awareness of basis is multiple, not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons, but this explains how there are individual mind streams from the start; or it is singular (not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons), but gets warped by the presence of trace afflictions into individuated sentient beings; or is it neither singular or multiple (not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons) and gets warped by the presence of trace afflictions into individuated sentient beings. In the last two scenarios, the inability of awakened people to completely eradicate all traces of afflictions leaves traces of affliction left over, where they act as seeds for new sentient beings. There is a passage in the Gongpa Zangthal that describes wisdom as "the accumulator of traces". do the basis and sentient beings have a common origin? No, the basis is self-originated wisdom; sentient beings arise from the condition of ignorance. The cause of their arising is the non-recognition of wisdom. Hence the term "buddhahood that returns to the cause". N What is the meaning of "returning to the cause". Means returning to the state of the basis -- the basis is called the basis because it has not been realized. When it is realized, the basis is called the result. If it is realized imperfectly, then that is called a result that returns to the cause; when it is realized perfectly, then it is called "the result that does not return to the cause". Please bear in mind that these things are theoretical, and they have very little if nothing at all to do with dailhy practice. Mr. G wrote: Hi Namdrol, Am I inferring correctly that dependent origination from a Dzogchen POV is illusory? Dependent origination from the Buddha's point of view is illusory. How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis does not accord with dependent origination? Lhun grub. How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis has been reified? Ka dag Malcolm: The definition of lhun grub is "not made by anyone". Lhun drub is dependent origination free of afflictive patterning, thus it is pure process and transformation. Mr.G: Thanks Namdrol. I found some other posts you made that really brought it together for me: First, one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory, stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part, Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent phenomena at all. Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK. The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone. Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa). N [Also, as Malcolm says the two truths model are irrelevant from the dzogchen POV.] My link Malcolm: But the fact remains is that the two truths and the two stages are not the system of Dzogchen and are irrelevant in Dzogchen. [Also I want to bring this up, because I think this still applies to what dzogchen teaches.] My link: heart wrote: So rigpa is dependent originated awareness? Malcolm: Not from a Dzogchen pov. heart: If Rigpa is not dependently originated then what is emptiness in Dzogchen (since emptiness then can't be equated with DO, right)? Malcolm: Emptiness is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in Dzogchen. Not because Nāgārjuna is wrong. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I think it's safe to say that ka dag in dzogchen encompasses the teachings of twofold selflessness (of persons and phenomena) of the prajnaparamita sutras, Nagarjuna, etc. Lhun grub in dzogchen would be spontaneous presence and the inseparability of these two being the energy/compassion of the basis or as Thusness/Passerby puts it: Spontaneous arising. Which in this case would be an interdependent process of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and thoughts as spontaneous perfection - arising without ignorance, in each passing moment.