Tibetan_Ice

Jetsun So I can't use examples from the penultimate Dzogchen teachings? Ok. But you know, sometimes Ramana sounds more like a Buddhist... I mean, here he says that objects have no substantive being.. and his method eradicates misery (suffering). Hmm.. http://bhagavan-ramana.org/selfenquirypractice.html I didn't mind so much when you said that it is effortless, but what bothered me more was when you said that all practices are designed to fail. It makes me think that you have bought into beliefs that you have not verified and are just repeating what you've been told or read somewhere. You seem to refer to Adyashanti quite a bit. I have no use for him. Let us take a look at Ramana's teachings as he does use the term 'effortless', even though later in his process he describes practices which would take effort. (And I do not think his practice was designed to fail). So, even for Ramana, the initial stages require effort. Telling someone just to be is neglecting the preliminary practice. It is like saying "there is the summit, just go to it. It is your innate nature" without showing them the best path up the mountain. I mean, telling someone to "just be" is a good thing as long as they understand the practice of 'just being'.. And, gee, removal of obstacles.. TI

CT. Well thank you for dropping by just to insult me. That is against the forum rules, isn't it? If you don't have anything worth while to contribute to the debate, why don't you stay away? If you don't like how I drive, then stay off of the sidewalk.

Hi Jetsun If all practices were meant to fail, then why would all the great spiritual teachers have taught 'practices'? This sounds like a piece of crap that Adyashanti would say. Actually, I think he did say something like that. Semantics.. Zen Koans designed to exhaust the mind is still a 'practice'. One must still practice and put in effort. It is a rare and overly ripe person whom, with the utterance of such a top down statement, realizes his true nature. You seem to be repeating your same argument, that enlightenment is innate therefore it requires no effort to realize it. Thoeretically this may seem true except, the fact is that we don't realize it because of the veils we have mistaken for true identity. The dissolution of the veils requires effort. This again is a typical neo-advaitant ploy that you have bought into. First you redefine the term 'enlightenment' to be void of any powers or miraculous abilities and strip the definition of any semblance of true divinity. After doing so, it is easy to convince others that you are 'enlighened' and that they too can be 'enlightened'. But there is something terribly with doing that. If you realized your true nature, you could walk through walls, leave footprints in rocks, manifest objects - this is all child's play for God or whatever you'd like to call it. (primordial ground, presence, etc..). No realization? No omniscience, no omnipotence, no omniprescence.. This is the final chapter of 'Buddhahood Without Meditation'. page 169: Sarcasm: gee there is no effort there, is there? And, was Dudjom Lingpa lying? He did use the term 'omniscient', didn't he? Failure, exhaustion or changing where your attention is placed are all acts which require effort. Failure implies having tried. Exhaustion implies having spent vast amounts of energy to the point of depletion. Changing 'where your attention is place' is not an easy thing to do as the conceptual mind keeps calling one back to what has been conditioned. Maintaining a shift in perspective 24 hours a day is a daunting task which for most people, takes years of practice. No it definately isn't about 'thinking'. Effortful practices dissolve the conceptual mind and reveal what is beyond. Here are some more top-down statements for you to add to your bag of tricks: - this conversation is pointless because you really don't exist. - we are all one so I guess I'm arguing with myself. - nothing you 'do' will ever make you enlightened. - a relinquishment of effort and maintaining that 24 hours a day does not require any effort whatsoever. TI

Hi Jetsun, I agree. On a television set, the type of program that is displaying does not define what a television set it, but it does reveal something of the nature of the tv. It is that from which everything arises from, displays for an instant and then dissolves back into. It is not affected by what it displays, passes no judgement for it is non-conceptual, and is infinite, luminous and beyond the bounds of time and space. And yes, it is filled with love and bliss. Love is not a mental construct, it is part of what we really are. Your second statement is just plain disgusting to me. It is the kind of statement that some neo-advaitists will say to confound beginners, establish the upper arm and 'prove' that they know something that you do not. It is a top-down statement that most people who have no practical experience in the matter will regurgitate. It is not helpful. Once you are at the top of the mountain looking down, you can see everything. But when you are climbing up the mountain, you cannot see the cliffs, the slippery slopes, the thickly wooded patches or the best route to take. It is a non-dual statement that makes no sense in a dualistic context. Think about that statement for a while. If it is effortless just to 'be', then why are so many people making efforts to realize their spirituality? Why do so many authentic spiritual teachers teach practices which require effort? If it is effortless, then why can't you walk through walls, heal others, manifest food or fly through the air just like that? You don't need sustained attention attention to 'be what you are', you need sustained attention in order to fend off the obscurations, the hinderances, the thoughts/emotions/feelings that are standing in the way of you simply 'being'. You perform practices to calm the mind. You recieve instructions to learn where to direct your attention. You learn about the distractions, how to resolve them, how to increase clarity and vividness, exactly what to do. Even releasing everything, neither grasping nor averting, is a form of sustained attention. It takes skill and effort. If attaining enlightenment or realizing what you really are required absolutely no effort, then we would all be enlightened in the first place. On a very simple level, with reference to your statement "because you already are it innately", well how about this: Inately, you are a walnut seed, but the flesh cannot be tasted without first cracking and removing the shell. Think about it.. TI Hi Dwai Well thank you for explaining that. Your definition of the 'gap' makes sense to me now. All the best. TI Hmmm. This editor is putting all my posts into one post.. no gap there! Where is the gap? I miss the gap!

Hi Dwai, Yes, I can see from your apathetic response that you have given up on understanding, analysis and true knowledge. That is why you come out with statements like you have: Watching the gap is not the only way, and, as I have indicated, your statement is overly simple and misleading. And,no, that is not "all we have". There are many valid techiques and practices out there.. a few that come to mind are self-inquiry, anapanasati/vipassana, kundalini yoga, dzogchen.. If you are not willing to analyze and examine the content and effects of your statements, and are not willing to defend them, then perhaps you shouldn't post them where others can read them and could potentially be misled. Somehow I expected more from you. Enough time wasted.. TI

Hi Boy, No, samadhi does not liberate. Samadhi comes and goes and the hinderances return. What liberates is self-inquiry, the realization of our true nature. But first you must the capacity for sustained attention, which is samadhi..

Alwaysoff, It is not your place to tell people what I am or what I am not. Do you have a spy that watches me day in and day out to see whether I open another Buddhist book? You are a sorry example of an ambassador for Buddhism. How can you even call yourself a Buddhist since you disregard Shakyamuni's teachings???: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26805-buddha-kept-silent-about-god/?p=399954 and Buddhism was founded on Shakyamuni... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha How can you use the label "Buddhist" when you denounce and do not follow it's founder? Are you in this just for the prestige?

Hi Dwai Watching the gap might be one way of getting started, but at some point, unless you turn the focus of attention around back to the observer you won't progress. Perhaps we should define the 'gap' first. There is this little point of awarness that flits about the space of the mind, which points to a thought, then another, then to a sensation, then a memory, etc. It moves rapidly and bounces around like a pinball in a pinball machine. Whatever it hits is what you are aware of. When a thought arises, the pinball hits that thought and you become aware of it. Since your mind is grasping the thought the pinball then proceeds to bounce around the space of the mind looking for similar thoughts, memories which give the current thought more meaning, more definition or quality (or less too). Typically, when the pinball is moving, so do the eyes (not always but most of the time.. ). Imagine the scenario where one thought pops up, and then a second thought pops up. The distance and time it takes the pinball to travel from the first thought to the second is what I believe you are calling the 'gap'. Is that correct? There is another way, though. When a thought pops up, look directly at the nature of the thought and hold that. Freeze the pinball. Fixate/rest your attention directly on the thought and don't permit the pinball to move around. What happens is that the thought eventually dissolves all by itself. If, at that point, you don't let the pinball move and stay fixated on that region in the space of the mind, another thought will pop up and that will grab your attention. Again, freeze the pinball and remain fixated on the nature of the thought. Eventually that will dissolve too. So you are not focusing on the gap between thoughts, but the thought, the gap, the next thought, etc.. As you keep doing this procedure, the thoughts start to arise and dissolve more quickly. As you go deeper, you are bombarded by hundreds of thoughts all rapidly arising and dissolving. It feels like you are watching a huge tornado of colorful/clear ribbons of thoughts and visions. If you maintain the perspective of the observer and don't get caught into any of the thoughts, there doesn't seem to be an end to it. The tornado just keeps spinning and I have never broken through that. I've spent weeks watching the tornado of thoughts arising and passing.. However, if you turn your attention around, and focus on the observer, that is the next step and where the progress lies. One way to do that is to focus on a thought and then focus on 'knowing the thought' and then start tracing the 'knowing' back to the knower. After you discover the fork the in the mind from the "I thought" you discover the other side of the fork, which is in the heart. It is the heart that knows (or right next to it). But everyone should discover this for themselves. Dwai, I have experienced something five times now, perhaps it could be called "Satchidananda", I don't know. And, it wasn't during meditation. The first few times the experience happened after meditation, during a 'loving' state. Once, it happened when I was trying to be as simple as possible, reading Franklin Merrill-Wolff's advise of "it is so close to you that if you are searching for it you've already missed it.". However, the last time, the experience occured while I was taking a shower. I can't seem to cause it to happen directly through meditation. What happens is all of a sudden, there is a liquid-like vapour which 'comes out of my face'. The surroundings look very clear, crisp and brilliant, like super high-definition TV or better. The monkey mind, the voice that talks in the mind is gone and there is a silence that is so great and still that it is hard to miss. There is also the overwhelming feeling that "I am everything".. I was the park bench, I was the trees, each blade of grass, I was the sky, the clouds, it all felt like 'me'. There was also great love, joy and bliss. It was so wonderful, you just can't imagine. So, perhaps it could be called "Satchidananda" but it comes and goes and is not permanent. But sometimes, when I fix my gaze straight ahead and then turn my attention back through the line of sight into the direction of the medulla near the back of the head, I can see it waiting there to come out again.. I think what I am doing is looking backwards down into the kati channel from the eyes to the heart. TI Hi Steve, Yes, the third party is a luminous, cognizant, spacious vacuity that is filled with love and bliss. Things appear in it and then dissolve back into it. You are right. TI Hi Boy, Thank you for your comments. What exactly is your minor objection to dissolving the observer through samadhi or concentration? Is it the term 'concentration'? It is not a teeth gnashing type of concentration but a resting and letting things be while focusing directly on the observer.. is it not? TI

Hi Dwai Somehow I can't believe you've said that. This mystery is the crux of the matter and what should be examined very closely. In the terminology that is being used here, there is the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, and then that which is aware of the observer and the observed. You say "What then happens to the observer? When the observer springs forth during meditation, after a while the "observed" disappears. Then the observer realizes that the emptiness that is left is nothing but itself (the gap between thoughts is the true nature of the observer)." That observer which you describe is in part the conceptual mind, the "I" thought, for it observes and it 'realizes'. What really happens in what you have described is not quite right. When the observed disappears, there is still the observer observing nothing, or space, or emptiness (emptiness is not a good word because of its underlying meanings which are often misinterpreted). The observer at this point, since, as you've said "realizes" is the conceptual mind, the "I" thought. That too must be dissolved by samadhi, constant attention. According to Nisargadatta, one must go beyond that "I" thought. In Ramana's teachings, his techinque of asking "To whom do these thoughts occur" and "Who am I" are also meant to transcend the "I" thought. In Bon teachings, first you dissolve the observed, then you turn around and dissolve the observer, and the essence lies in what is found beyond. The observer does not exist without an observed. When you go deep enough in self-inquiry, you will find the observed, the observer which conceptualizes, but you will also realize that there is a third party which does not conceptualize, which is blissful, joyful, aware and without bounds that observes the creation and dissolution of both the observed and the observer. That is the key. The gap between thoughts is not the true nature of observer for the observer is just a creation of mind. That which is aware of the observer watching gaps (imaginary gaps at the surface level of consciousness, and I say imaginary because as you get deeper and deeper there are no gaps between thoughts because there are so many thoughts and what is observing is also a thought) is Nisargadatta's 'beyond the I AM", is Ramana's heart, is the essence, the primordial ground, the omniscient, whatever you'd like to call it. In other terms, watching gaps between thoughts is still a dualistic function. Also, fooling yourself to believe that the "I thought" observing what it believes is emptiness is still a dualistic function. TI

Alwaysoff.. This is from Jim Valby, one of ChNN's disciples: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ret/pdf/ret_24_05.pdf Therefore, a realized Dzogchen master realizes Natural Presence and there would be no need to deviate by way of any type of practice. What's with that? Why do you say he practices at night?

Hey Alwaysoff, Why would Namkhai Norbu, one of the greatest living master of Dzogchen, have to practice anything?

There is actually quite a bit published about this topic, if you know where to look for it. The first comes to mind is Dudjom Lingpa.. The second is Tenzin Wangyal, then Trecko writings etc.. For examples: There is much more about the five lights in that book. Here is from Dudjom Lingpa: And this is from "A Spacious Path to Freedom, Karma Chagme, translated by Alan Wallace: (in the practice of ati yoga). I've come across more writings about the five lights that manifest as pure or impure five lights than just those three..

Hey Alwaysoff, Do you recall in this other thread that you said that rigpa was 'knowledge'? This is what you said: http://thetaobums.com/topic/26115-further-discussion/?p=462811 With reference to Dzogchen practice, how do you rest and stabilize in knowledge? Knowledge is a noun. It is like saying you should rest and stabilize in chair. It makes much more sense to say "rest and stabilize in knowing'. And, when it comes to practice, it is highly effective and just might be the key, the best interpretation for people with English as their first language. Knowledge is a noun. Knowing is a verb. Knowledge is a stored belief or conglomerate of beliefs which must be accessed from the conceptual mind. It must be recalled and grasped. Knowing, on the other hand, is what Mipham is telling us we have to stabilize in. This makes perfect sense to me, because, as per Saraha's instruction, one should drop the subject and drop the object. When you abandon the thinker and what is thought of, what remains? Just the Knowing. Then, you stabilize in just the Knowing. So if you criticize one of the foremost Tibetan Scholars for using terminlogy which is far more accurate for practitioners whose primary language is English, I guess that speaks volumes. Hey Alwaysoff, the dharmakaya and the sambhogakaya are basically indivisable. TI To me, this statement indicates that you have no interest in Alan Wallace, have never read any of his books or listened to any of his podcasts and your main interest is just to denigrate other teachers which to you don't seem authentic. Any reader would have understood what Alan himself has written in his books, and any listener would have understood Alan when he said that the main item that drew him into Buddhism was a book on Dzogchen. This is what Alan wrote himself in "The Attention Revolution": Therefore, I do not see how anyone, after reading that book, would conflate what Alan Wallace teaches on Dzogchen practices with 'preliminary practices for those who didn't get what their guru pointed out.' You make is sound like only the flunkies need to pay attention to Alan Wallace.. There are good teachers and there are bad teachers. One who relies on teachers is taking a risk, that they just may have a 'bad' teacher. Until one has achieved the natural state, and manifests the fruits of this, one has no way to tell if the teacher is a good one or a bad one, let alone pass judgement on whether a practice will be effective for any individual. As Alan Wallace says at the end of the Shamatha retreat 2012, unless you have gained psychic abilities, you will not be able to help others in their practices. Oh, I'm kind of getting sick of the ankle biting. If you have something to say, say it. At no time have I ever told anyone in this thread how to practice their practice. If I did, please show me. If not, then you are once again stretching things. What makes you think that someone who has acheived the natural state and manifested the fruits of this (your words) would not insult anyone? You, admirer of Chogyam Trungpa.. author of "Crazy Wisdom".. "Some of his teaching methods and actions were the topic of controversy during his lifetime and afterwards."

Back to topic, regardless of the nasty comments, hypocritical statements and attempts to discredit Alan Wallace as a Dzogchen teacher. I was browsing the book called "Perfect Clarity" and I found these instructions by Mipham Rinpoche. Who is Mipham Rinpoche? I found this section which is very interesting. Not only does it contain pointing out instructions but it specifically defines and uses the term "shamatha" and says: The text is so good that we will keep it within context, just so we don't all get confused as seems to be the case quite often here.. So, one of Tibet's formost scholars has told us that the realization of Dzogchen is the union of the clearly defined and elaborated terms: "Shamatha and Vipashyana." Here I will repeat his statements:

Alwaysoff, I thought you had a degree in proctology? You'll figure it out.

Alwaysoff, No, instead they write books about it and sell them for money. Or they make movies and laugh at westerners because they think that transmission is something that they can 'receive'. Ever watch "My Reincarnation" ? And, no I did not ignore the rest of the paragraph. Shine is not the ultimate practice. I can understand that. I have stated that before, I have even quoted excerpts that state that. That is not what this thread is about. I know you don't read my quotes and have no interest in understanding anything other than your own solidified views and beliefs.

When recounting experiences, especially from an annonymous position behind the keyboard, most people have a tendency to exagerate, fabricate and misrepresent their experiences. What is even worse, is when someone says one thing and then acts totally differently. Deception makes fools of us all and wastes everyone's time. When recounting experiences, it is very important to be as honest, sincere and free from delusion as possible. The slightest hint of deception is a strong odour which I have learned to avoid.

Alwaysoff, So? Since your guru is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, let's examine what CNN says about 'shamatha', 'shine', 'calm state'. So, not only does Dzogchen have it's form of calm abiding "Shine", fixation on an object and without an object (which is also what Alan Wallace's Dzogchen teachings contain), but CNN indicates (like most other teachings) that just Shine is not enough. So, call it like you want and discredit the rest. I prefer to see the common ground in the practices despite the differences in language. As for your insults and rude comments, I am on this forum to learn as much as I can about topics that interest me. CNN is very nice man, open-minded and compassionate. You might try to learn something from his example.

Hey, Alwaysoff, You say that you practice rushen.. Well, which practice do you do? There are three (unless you have some other source which is totally different, as I suspect you will acknowledge but refuse to divulge). Rushen.. So, here we have Tenzin Wangyal saying "all thoughts and experiences, dissolve into the base" and that is exactly what Alan Wallace is teaching in his Shamatha retreats and his Dzogchen retreat. The thoughts/images dissolve into the substrate consciousness, the substrate consciousness dissolves into the substrate and then the break-through occurs. Further, the secret rushen is that same practice the Alan Wallace teaches and guides you through. He calls it "using the space of the mind as the meditation object". Except, Alan Wallace calls it a 'shamatha practice'. Instead of finding old youtubes about Alan Wallace in his earlier days, I would suggest that if you are interested (which I know you are not), you could listen to his Dzogchen retreat and see for yourself. http://archive.org/details/IntroductionToDzogchenRetreatWithAlanWallace2012 So, if you are practising the "secret rushen", and you are dissolving thoughts/images etc, you are actually practising what Alan Wallace calls a shamatha practice. (Also, note that Tenzin is calling that a preliminary practice). TI

Yes, I really liked that quote! Deep resonation there. There is also a part of that song that supports the idea of 'son rigpa', 'mother rigpa', or, 'son clear light' and 'mother clear light' for those of you who think Berzin's simplified use of the term 'rigpa' ( and others' too) encompasses both.. There you have it. Milarepa himself has identified a 'mother and child' luminosity. Thanks for posting that quote, SOT TI

Here is yet another reference to a diminuitive state of rigpa: So, your use of the terminology, "recognizing their rigpa doesnt mean realizing rigpa", is just a play on words. I've not seen that distinction in any teachings. That is fine, although I find it somewhat confusing. I like the reference to 'baby rigpa' better, because who is to say what the difference between "recognizing" and "realizing" is. Where did you get that terminology anyway?

Hi Creation, Well, lets take a look at some other sources, just for further clarification.. Again we see the idea that without shamatha (naturalness) you won't accomplish much. That is my point. That is what not only Alan Wallace is saying but many others as well. We are playing crappy semantic games here. From Alan Wallace's "Stilling the Mind" which is a subset of Dudjom Lingpa's teachings: And Dudjom Lingpa is what exactly? Therevada, Nyingma, Gelug? And Padmasambhava is what? I do not recall Alan Wallace ever teaching anything about Gelug. He does mention the school once, in one of his books, but Alan Wallace does not teach mantra. So, having not heard much about the Gelug in any of Alan Wallace's books or podcasts, if you have some evidence, please share it. Again, it is mentioned, "Yet Düdjom Lingpa has already told us twice now that shamatha is “indispensable” and “critical". Wait, there is more: Still think I have a preconceived notion of what shamatha is from studying Alan Wallace? You claim that "Wallace teaches to use Shamatha and Vipashyana to get you to the point where you can practice Trekchod." Well, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said (quoted in dark green above) "and sustaining freshness comprise the preliminaries for Trekchö." He said the same thing, and he is considered to be one of the greatest Dzogchen masters of our time. Also, Alan Wallace has said a few times that shamatha can take you right to pristine awareness so it is not unheard of, and is not necessarily a stepping stone to Trekchod. I don't even know if your supposition is accurate. So, I stand by my statement. If you don't understand the theory behind shamatha in the different contexts, you don't really understand Dzogchen. The statement was in reference to Alwaysoff's statement: "samatha does not interest me in the slightest."

Hi OldChi, Well I didn't but I do now.. Gotta love Kindle.. It is from the Dalai Lama's book called "How to Practice": Interesting... TI

Gee Alwaysoff, you have managed to desecrate the practice of using a consort and diminish it to the level of just 'sex'. This not only shows a lack of understanding on your part, but you are further deceiving readers by suggesting that Buddhists are having 'sex' when they practice with a consort. Consort practice does not include orgasm nor does it include loss of seminal fluid. It is not conventional sex by any means. Some points: before even attempting practice with a consort, a practitioner must be able to take the inner heat, the yoga of inner heat, up the sushumna in order to melt the kundalini drops in the crown, and they must be able to do this by themselves. If they cannot do this on their own efforts, consort practice is useless and just a fraud or an excuse to have ordinary sex. The final goal of consort practice is to dissolve the winds into the heart, which is supposed to produce tremendous bliss and realization of emptiness. As Lama Yeshe puts it: You are doing nobody any favours here. First of all, using a consort has its pitfalls. Remember Milarepa? Tibet's most famous saint? Well he flunked the consort test. link: http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/articles/article/2291157/159374.htm So, as we can see, the first danger is attachment, and we all know how easy it is to become attached to 'sex' and 'romantic' feelings. Even Milarepa could not control it!! And then you demonstrate your lack of understanding by saying "Maybe sexual yoga died out in Hinduism, but its still a crucial part of Buddhism" http://thetaobums.com/topic/31403-my-3-month-experiment-with-testosterone-blockers/?p=472031 Well, what do you think kundalini yoga is? Kriya Yoga? Maybe you could explain how kundalini yoga, raja yoga or any hindu yoga which involves kundalini, the central channel, the sushumna is not sexual yoga. And then, you mention that a Dzogchenpa is practicing Karmamudra. Why is that? Karmamudra is not pure Dzogchen. Do Dzogchenpas have to resort to kundalini/vajra practices? This last quote clearly diferentiates between the nongradual path and the gradual path. Karmamudra is clearly not Dzogchen. And in the famous words of the Dalai Lama: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Roach Dominicus, here is a bit from Saraswati about conquering the sacral chakra and getting kundalini to rise above it: From "Kundalini Tantra" by Satyananda Saraswati: So we have seen that consort practice is fraught with dangers of attachment, that one should first be accomplished at tummo, inner heat yoga/kundalini (which is no small feat), that vajra practices are a form of energy practice (not Dzogchen), and that Hindus have Raja Yoga/Kundalini Yoga which also brings kundalini into the central channel. We have also seen that practicing with a physical consort is not necessary (an imagined consort can be used) or, as in kundalini yoga, can be totally bypassed and viewed as shakti joining shiva. But in all cases, we are not talking about 'common sex', we are talking about spirituality with regards to energetics.

Alwaysoff, If you are not interested in shamatha, then you have no interest or understanding of Dzogchen. Shamatha plays an integral role in Dzogchen, although it may be used a little differently.. This is from one of your 'Hero' books: