Simple_Jack

You emphasized 'theocracy'.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236372#p236372 ...For one, the vast majority of Tibet, for most of its history, was divvied up into small kingdoms held together by a network of trade, family relations as well as monastic ties. While it is true that the Great Fifth [Dalai Lama] took control of Central Tibet and Tsang, his consolidation fell apart after his death completely in 1704. It was another 50 years before a Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Central Tibet and Tsang. Even here, principalities like Sakya in Western Tsang maintained their independence. During much of the 19th century, Lhasa was controlled through Manchu Ambans. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236627#p236627 ...There were two separate secular regimes over a period of 40 or so years, before the 7th [Dalai Lama] was installed. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236639#p236639 ...Tibet was never "Tibet", Tibet is Ü, Tsang, Ngari Korsum [Formerly known as Zhang Zhung], Guge, Amdo, Chamdo, Kham, Nangchen, Golog, Nyarong, Gyalmo Rong, Lhodrag, Kongpö, Pö, and a plethora of other small kingdoms and regions like Mustang, Lhadak, Dolpo, Jyathang and so on, with huge ethnic diversity — for example, the people in Gyalrong speak a language that is not even Tibetan, though they are Tibetan Buddhists. You are talking about a vast region, historically tied together by religion rather than ethnic identity, much like Medieval Europe. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236642#p236642 ...The government established by the Fifth [Dalai Lama] collapsed when Lozang Khan invaded, and Desid Sangye Gyatso was assassinated by Lozang Khan's wife (a former mistress of his) in 1705 (I said 1704, but oh well). The Desid never allowed the Sixth [Dalai Lama] to rule. Central Tibet remained without any effective government at all, apart from warlords, until Pho lha nas, an aristocrat from Tsang, ruled Tibet from 1727-1748 with Qing backing. The seventh [Dalai Lama] was installed by the Qianglong emperor in 1751. The Kashag itself was a creation of the Qianglong emperor...The Central Tibetans were ruled by the Qing, so they could not be a theocracy either. ~ Loppon Namdrol

AFAIK, the books that are currently available in the market won't provide much in practical instruction, beyond shamatha and tregcho. Stick with books on Sutra Mahamudra if you want to forgo a path reliant on a guru. You'll be provided with a step-by-step progression towards non-meditation, as long as you're not attached to the level of neoadvaitan pointers, in Jax's video linked some pages back. You have yet to reveal any controversies that are not already well known within the Tibetan Buddhist community.

.

.

'Taking refuge', really means having the conviction to tread the path of buddhadharma, and can be looked at from different perspectives; the formal ceremony is just an outward representation of that. An individual is still free, if they so choose, to explore and utilize the teachings of other paths. What's really important, is being honest with oneself when it comes to one's own understanding of the nature of mind, and to not get bogged down or stuck in one's own limitations. Chan master Dongshan Liangjie (w/ commentary by Nan Huaijin) succinctly describes what to avoid here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/17068-the-chan-bums/?p=554269 ...Tung-shan said: "The first is called leakage of views. Your mental workings do not leave the station you have attained, and you fall into a sea of poison." People who do not have a thorough, penetrating view of truth cannot jump out of the limits of what they have attained. They just stay within those limits, and are poisoned -- poisoned with that little bit of seeing truth. ... This saying via Rob Burbea (a teacher affiliated with the Insight Meditation Society) "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view", is worth remembering; especially considering the neoadvaitan pointers in Jax's linked video some pages back, is an intermediate step in Dzogchen (as well as Mahamudra and Zen), meant for novice practitioners. If you're going to read some sutras, and you want an accurate understanding of the meaning within them, then this advice from Greg Goode should be kept in mind: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/?p=527249

That's samsara for you. In an ideal world, people responding in this sub-forum would have studied the abhidharmakosha along with their exposure to Mahayana. Discussions in this sub-forum would be a lot more productive and less prone to flame wars.

In all honesty, I highly doubt those of us responding in this thread would've ever come close to completing the 3rd [togal] vision, relying solely on the merits of our respective capacities. I'm sure as hell I would've never recognized my own limitations if I hadn't come across the teachings and received instruction. It's harsh, but if you found Jax's talk in the linked video some pages back exceptionally profound, then you are not one of those rare people in history. Anyone could potentially have an experience, or a stable recognition, of the mere clarity of mind; I've even talked to people who arrived at that through psychedelics. I've said this on TTB's in the past, but it really is not as rare as people on this forum would think.

It's possible I was a golden retriever in a past life, that would explain why I love brown nosing so much, especially when it involves authority figures. As for the quote, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that karmic conditioning plays a role in the capacity for accepting certain teachings, and the amount of effort that has been put in that direction, possibly over a number of lifetimes (e.g. people who can only accept Hinayana and strive for the bodhi of arhats). Of course, this is just my interpretation so take that with a grain if salt.

Speaking of neoadvaita, this is pretty significant, considering that this is coming from someone involved in that scene: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/?p=527249 When it comes to Buddhist dialectics and inquiries Greg does keep the 'Direct Path' view and rhetoric separate, even to the point of telling someone interested in the Buddhist view to avoid the Direct Path: Q: I am trying to realize no self and am trying to deconstruct things like trying to see everything as the six senses, taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else. anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it. dont know what I am doing wrong. but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice. please help me out. p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. dont know what I am missing. would love to get some guidance. p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice but also recommended that I ask my question here as there are more members here and a lot of people who have already realized anatta. Greg Goode wrote: Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

It depends on 'capacity': Capacity depends on personal interest and diligence -- nothing more. ...it is based solely on your karmic connection with the teachings. If you have that, then you have capacity -- whether it is high, low or medium capacity depends solely on your efforts and interests. ~ Loppon Namdrol

Deluded cognition.

The problem with this statement is in ignoring that Buddhism arose from the shramana movement - ascetic pursuits which gave rise to 'Indian mysticism'. What does 'my study of Buddhism' entail? Universals are abstractions and non-existents in buddhadharma.

There are many similarities, but to emphasize the differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logic Qualifications of what is signified by the lexical signifier 'Logic' in the Dharmic contextLogic [Dharmic traditions] ≠ Logic [Classical logic] ‘Indian Logic’ should not be understood as logic in the sense of ‘Aristotelian syllogism’ (Greek or Classical Logic) or ‘modern predicate calculus’ (modern Western Logic), but as anumāna-theory, a system in its own right.[8] ‘Indian Logic’ was influenced by the study of grammar, whereas Greek or Classical Logic which principally informed modern Western Logic was influenced by the study of mathematics.[9] You can read more in these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Pramana

Capacity depends on personal interest and diligence -- nothing more. ...it is based solely on your karmic connection with the teachings. If you have that, then you have capacity -- whether it is high, low or medium capacity depends solely on your efforts and interests. ~ Loppon Namdrol

Not by the Buddha, but by a buddha: Whatever conceptions of mind have arisen, if they are searched for, they will not be found, since they are the seeker. -- Longchenpa, Shing rta chen po, chapter X.

I think the underlying insight shared between them, without adopting the position of Mahamudra, is contained in this passage: Whatever conceptions of mind have arisen, if they are searched for, they will not be found, since they are the seeker. -- Longchenpa, Shing rta chen po, chapter X.

"Whatever is the suchness of samsara, that is nirvana." ~ Deshin Shekpa, 5th Karmapa

2009 translation of the Shurangama Sutra publicly made available for free download by BTTS: http://www.buddhisttexts.org/surangama.html Description: For over a thousand years, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra — the “Sūtra of the Indestructible”— has been held in great esteem in the Mahāyāna Buddhist countries of East and Southeast Asia. In China the Sūtra has generally been considered as important, and has been as popular as the Lotus Sūtra, the Avataṁsaka Sūtra, the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, the Heart Sūtra, and the Diamond Sūtra. The appeal of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra lies in the broad scope of its teachings and in the depth and clarity of its prescriptions for contemplative practice. Its wealth of theoretical and practical instruction in the spiritual life often made it the first major text to be studied by newly ordained monks, particularly in the Chan School. Many enlightened masters and illustrious monastic scholars have written exegetical commentaries on it. To this day, for both clergy and laity in the Chinese Buddhist tradition, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra continues to be the object of devout study, recitation, and memorization. Much of the Sutra unfolds in the form of a dialogue between Buddha Shakyamuni and his cousin Ananda, whose personal story provides a narrative frame for the discourse. The Buddha shows Ananda how to turn the attention of his sense faculties inward in order to achieve a deeply focused state of meditation known as samadhi. The Buddha gives instruction in moral purity, in correct understanding of the mind, in avoidance of dangers that may be encountered when absorbed in meditation, and in the practice of the Surangama mantra, which lies at the heart of the Sutra.

Recognizing unfabricated presence vs the conceptualizing mind is just day 1 of Dzogchen and one is not officially a Dzogchenpa at this point.

.

You're misconstruing what TI said: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35535-who-is-a-zen-teacher/?p=562859

Loppon Malcolm clarified the role of intellectual learning in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen & Mahamudra on the DW forum: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=100&p=208783#p208783 All Buddhists teachings have three prajñās: the prajñā of hearing, when one listens to the teachings and understands them intellectually; the prajñā of reflection, when one integrates what one has understood; and the prajñā of meditation, where the meaning one has gathered through hearing and reflection is brought to realization. To claim that we are not meant to intellectually understand the path does not correspond with my education and training. The Tantra of the Union of the Sun and Moon states: Prajñā is three-fold: the prajñā of hearing severs external reification; the prajñā of reflection severs internal reification; and the prajñā of meditation severs secret reification. Vimalamitra states: The characteristics of prajñā: The characteristic of the prajñā of hearing is a great quantity listening and understanding words without interpolation. The characteristic of reflection is investigating the words and meanings of the mind, and giving explanations. The characteristic of meditation is distancing oneself from afflictions through meditation. We should pay respect to intellectual learning, not dismiss it.... There are two kinds of prajñā, contaminated, and pure. The former exists in common practitioners, the latter in realized practitioners.

Remember this when you post on internet forums:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/?p=519642 When one has eliminated the traces of affliction and action in one's own five elements, one's body reverts to its original state as five lights, hence "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://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=247092#p247092 There are 21 types of capacties of practitioners. Only the best of the best attain great transference body, i.e., rainbow body in this life. Virtually all others attain it in the bardo, or failing that, in a pure nirmanakāya buddhafield. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=247365#p247365 ...Of the 21 capacities of Dzogchen practitioners listed the Rig pa rang shar tantra it is only the last three or four who need to take rebirth in a pure nirmanakāya realm in order to attain buddhahood. ~ Loppon Namdrol