Jeff

Beautifully said and definitely worth repeating.

Hi Friend, Rather than having a glass (or pond) of our own power or that of another beings, could it also be that we are like different sized and clarity of windows through which the light flows? And with things like shielding, some just keep the shutters closed?

Hi Friend, I am a little confused as to what you mean in your words above. Are you saying one can take empowerment against the will of a master/teacher? That one can also take/steal their power and force? Thanks, Jeff

No problem. I understand (and appreciate) your thought that I am "grasping [at] some kind of answer" and that "rather than shut down the whole conversation", you are only trying to "stop the comparison" and stopping what you believe is "nominalization, and dualistic distinctions...". Like you, I am a huge fan of "just letting go and doing it", but I find it useful when people share perspective. Hopefully, some of the readers of these threads will also come to understand that things like transmissions are "real". Have a great weekend. Thanks for the discussion.

Hi knonchog uma, I agree in general with your comments regarding philosophy and intellectualization. I am sorry that you consider my questions "nonsense", but am not interested (or trying to compare) the philosophy at all. My questions are about the "experiential reality" and the transmission/teaching techniques of the Dzogchen tradition. I have my own direct experience with what I consider to be similar/parallel paths. I was just looking for the qualitative feeling/description of initiates for comparison. Best wishes, Jeff

Fair enough.

I was trying to compare the underlying "transmission" of respective (Dzogchen-like) traditions, but no problem. Thanks for responding, I appreciate the thought behind it. Have a good weekend.

Thanks, your answer was very helpful. I would agree that it is not the same or comparable to nondual advaita traditions. They do not have the similar concept of "transmission of a state of knowledge" or "sharing presence". I was comparing to other primordial (Dzogchen like) traditions. In things like gnostic Christianity it is often called things like the "Thunder path".

Or also as from the Ornament of the State of Samamtabhadra a commentary on the All-Creating King... "Establishing a mind attached to following ancient sages, (followers of vehicles) end up at all times with the suffering of great efforts and struggles. Entering their paths, (they do not realize) omniscience." I agree about religions and their institutions, but with things like the words of Jesus... He was all about surrender, talking about finding God inside and only as a spirit (not an old man on a throne). Remember, he was talking/explaining to a bunch of jewish fishermen. I would argue that Jesus was one of the first Dzogchen masters. Communion in it true original form is the sharing of presence.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. So rather than a "body energy" sort of thing, would you say that it is transmission sort of "showing clarity of mind"?

Hi Anderson, Thank you for your response. I am just trying to compare the transmission to other primordial traditions. Would it be fair to say the transmission shares a state of "true presence" and one either notices it or not at the time?

Yes, but my question was if the prerequisite initiation transferred "keys" or the necessary energies for the ability to do the practices, or, was just permission?

Hi Alwayson, Thanks for your response. So it is permission, rather than some "keys" (or energies) to empower for a practice? Regards, Jeff

How would you consider it different? Also, have you experienced shaktipat? Thanks, Jeff

Hi Vmarco, I am not really a fan of the analogy of schools and a diploma as it implies there is some sort of being "done". But, at a deeper level you raise a very interesting concept... Are you saying that rather than being able to go directly to Vajrayana, one must have previously (maybe in a prior life) already done the preliminaries found in Theravada and Mahayana? That the "short path" is more like being just the short path as compared to the completion stage practices of Buddhism? Thereby also implying that for most it would be ineffective?

Hi Vmarco, Actually, I think this is an interesting and thought provoking thread (until you start commenting about moderators). Your 3 types on energy seem to map directly to what Thetaoiseasy has also said in posts about different type of light/energy. My perspective is that depending on the tradition most focus on either type #1 or type #2. To realize type #3 requires the have previous balanced and integrated types #1 and #2. I would also describe that when one attains the Tao, it is a fourth or new "higher" energy. The energetic concept is similar to what I posted in this thread. http://thetaobums.com/topic/26249-four-main-types-of-energy/ What you call the "box", I tend to describe as "universal mind". Regards, Jeff

I like your concept of things happening in degrees. I think of it a clearing obstructions bit by bit or layer by layer. For me, the key is finding those first singular moments of presence/awareness and then growing it to 24/7. With "clarity", one is never really done, expansion is infinite...

Many traditions say that one should focus inwardly and then at deeper levels go on to say things like "the inner and the outer are the same". This is because all that is and can be perceived is an aspect of "mind". The Lankavatara Sutra describes it well... Then Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva spoke to the Blessed One, saying: You speak of the erroneous views of the philosophers, will you please tell us of them, that we may be on our guard against them? The Blessed One replied, saying: Mahamati, the error in these erroneous teachings that are generally held by the philosophers lies in this: they do not recognize that the objective world rises from the mind itself; they do not understand that the whole mind-system also arises from the mind itself; but depending upon these manifestations of the mind as being real they go on discriminating them, like the simple-minded ones that they are, cherishing the dualism of this and that, of being and non-being, ignorant to the fact that there is but one common Essence. On the contrary, my teaching is based upon recognition that the objective world, like a vision, is a manifestation of the mind itself; it teaches the cessation of ignorance, desire, deed and casualty; it teaches the cessation of suffering that arises from the discriminations of the triple world. The term "mind" is probably better described as universal/shared mind in the above context. For most people, the "conscious" mind focuses only on the perceptions of the local body-mind. Broader aspects of objective reality are components of what is commonly called the "subconscious" parts of the mind. Meditation and practices help one to let go of the issues and fears in our subconscious that act as obstructions to us noticing the deeper components of universal mind. Each person's conscious mind is a subset of the broader universal shared mind. In simple terms, all humans share lower depths of the subconscious mind. Things like "astral travel" are possible because the person has begun to break down the obstructions between the perceived local body-mind and the broader universal mind. Clear out the attachments, fears and obstructions in your mind and you will move beyond philosophical theory; you will realize that the inner and the outer is the same. Best wishes on your path.

From a reference on DW, a little more on the point from Gompopa's "Jewel Ornament of Liberation": "The Hearer (Arhat) and Solitary Realizer (Pratyekabuddha) families are inferior by virtue of the fact that they fully purify their families by dispelling only the obscuration of afflicting emotions. The Mahayana is superior because it fully purifies its family by dispelling two obscurations--afflicting emotions and the subtle obscurations to enlightenment. Therefore, the Mahayana family is superior and unsurpassed." Gompopa goes on to say that the Buddha "encourages" Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas to attain Buddhahood. "...light radiates through the Buddha's wisdom and touches the mental bodies of the Hearers and Solitary Realizers. As soon as the light reaches them, they arise from their unafflicted meditations." He then goes on to tell them that their experience of nirvana is not the final nirvana, and that they should work towards the realization of the Buddha.

If ones experience is consistent with (or believes) Buddist sutra, then it is the former. All of "reality" is perception (or manifestation) of mind. Siddhis are not magical powers, but really the change or adjustment in deep aspects of universal mind. A buddhamind is conscious of it all, where for most it is just obscured aspects of the subconscious. But yes, we are describing the difference between the beginning of self realization and Buddhahood. (edit - replace than with then)

Thank you again for your gracious response. Sharing presence/light is different that energy healing, more like an "overlay" of awareness in oneness. The entity reacted very hostilely to my presence and could be said to have "attacked" on an energetic (mind) level. I did not respond and just sort of "road out the storm". When sharing presence, you can feel/know the "foreign" energy structure to a person. There is no doubt, it stands out pretty blatantly. Thanks again and best wishes, Jeff

I look forward to your story. Best wishes on your path.

Hi SJ, The quoted DW threads in that thread were very helpful (and interesting). Thanks.

This is an excellent post and worth repeating...

Dzogchen is the realization of the ultimate state. Buddhism is a path, so why would "Dzogchen without Buddhism is not possible"? Are you saying that if anyone realizes the primordial state, they are by definition a Buddhist (by default)? Regards, Jeff