asunthatneversets

Some people get very caught up in those cultural appearances, and some don't. However I personally believe that the need to reject those conventions outright comes from a place which is lacking maturity in some aspects. Like the child who acts out in school against authorities or the teenager running around with a can of spray paint writing "F#ck the cops!" on city walls. In my opinion, there are those who get suckered into the whole show (which appears to be how you interpret those who advocate for these conventions), and then there are those who act out against those conventions, rejecting them and so on. That need to reject those expressions presents itself as a position which is apparently free of the influence of those cultural constructs, but it actually isn't. That type of attitude is still seeing inherency in those conventions, and therefore sees something which must be dismissed or downplayed. It is a point of view which is still giving those structures the power it believes it is taking away from them through the rejection displayed towards them. This is still falling victim to a perception of inherency. In my opinion, the sign of maturity which trumps the attitude of rejection, is the one which can play the game without taking it seriously. Because that is the view which sees through the game, sees through the inherency. From that standpoint one can treat conventions as conventions and can relate to authorities, discipline, structure, bells and whistles, commitments, practice and so on in a way which is free and without rigidity. That type of person can lay their pride down and can take responsibilities, follow rules, uphold precepts, etc., because they don't see a difference between the conventional and the ultimate.

Tibetan culture in general has always been quite patriarchal and that is of course reflected in the way Tibetan Buddhism is structured in certain ways. However the extravagance expressed in the use of thrones, robes and everything else which is allegedly 'unnecessary' is not really an image of authority in the way you seem to be interpreting it as. You really would have to look at Tibetan life and culture as a whole to put that extravagance into perspective. It is of course hard to intuit the reasoning for that apparent display of excess coming from a culture where luxury and so on is commonplace, however that was not the case in Tibet. People lived very simple lives, and their lives were obviously steeped in the culture they lived in, which was founded upon Buddhism and Bön. So while they lived simple lives themselves they demonstrated and depicted their deep reverence and admiration for Buddhism (and Bön) by building incredible temples and monasteries. Clearly when you look at a very simple culture like theirs, and then see these magnificent and massive structures with ornate and exotic decor which is incredibly detailed, it is obvious that they respect that facet of their culture, and it plays a vital role in their lives. In the same way, when you had great yogis who were highly realized, reverence was shown towards them as well. While you are inclined to interpret the 'show of authority' as these individuals enacting positions of power over groveling subjects, the reality of the matter is that the people revered these individuals as teachers who could bring them to liberation and free them from samsara. So adorning those masters with robes and having them sit on a throne etc., is really a way to show respect. Now was everyone who lived in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, India etc., involved in these institutions? Of course not. Some chose to pursue these paths in a solitary environment. Yogis and mahasiddas living in caves and staying away from these societies. However at the same time those yogis would be able to come and give teachings at times, and even play the role of an authority, wearing a crown, sitting on a throne and so on. Did they take that seriously? Surely not, but they were also able to play with that conventionality and see it for what it is. Even though they did not sit around in robes and on thrones in their daily lives, they felt no need to reject those cultural expressions in their conventional contexts. They could relate to them freely because they saw them for what they were.

So we've basically established that ralis just really doesn't like Tibetan Buddhism... or that he's a pessimist... one of the two, or both.

Do I feel mentally liberated? I'm not sure what that means, but in comparing my present mental condition to how it was prior to my involvement with the teachings, yes there is a great difference.

I mean, I agree with TI you do come off as a bit ill informed and reckless with these teachings. And quoting man ngag sde practices in a public forum is a good way to ensure that you corrupt any transmission you might already have or compromise your chances of receiving any. You seem to be enthralled by the idea of the rainbow body, even citing it as an interest next to your avatar image... yet your conduct is the total opposite of anything which would even remotely resemble behavior conducive to the type required for practices associated with liberation of that caliber. You are shooting yourself in the foot and it appears you don't even know it. Which is unfortunate. But hey, you asked why so few yogis attain liberation, let alone 'rainbow body'... hate to say it but you don't need to look past the tip of your nose for that answer.

There is really only one forummer who specifically mentioned the topics you referenced in your post above: "Westerner students who I'm discussing with Dzogchen with on the dharmawheel forum who believe adamantly 100% that they will get Buddhahood either after death in bardo, after death in the pure lands or at least in their next 7 reincarnations" http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=17097&start=20#p247178 http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=17097&start=40#p247328

My point is that the 'westerner' from dharmawheel whose statements you are referencing is in fact a Löpon and is kindly relaying information he has acquired from translating Dzogchen tantras in their original language. While you of course do not have to believe the things he says just because of his title, you could surely take his statements into consideration and give him the benefit of the doubt. Or at least attempt to do some research on the information provided before running over to another forum and scoffing. You seem to be under the impression that some of the individuals you are interacting with don't know what they are talking about, or that they are involved with fabricating whimsical information, but this is not the case. As for your affordable book... now it is my turn to say 'no comment'.

Is your friend a Löpon who reads and translates Dzogchen tantras in Tibetan?

I'm talking about the definitive 'natural state' [gnas lugs].

With all due respect, Grandmaster P really just comes off as a guy with a chip on his shoulder who wants to sling mud at everything. So forgive me if I don't think to pursue a 'reasonable discourse', if such a thing is even possible. And the quote pertains to his first few sentences just fine. Not that it matters, he clearly just doesn't care for the teachings he constantly harps on. Which is fine, but I'd rather just let him do his negative nancy thing and not worry about it.

Though Jean-Luc writes in English very well it isn't his first language, so you're probably right it should be 'innermost' or something to that effect.

Not really... "If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not transgression, but greatly increases merit." - Commentary on The 14 Root Downfalls | rtsa ltung bcu bzhi

The 'natural state' is not a one time thing that you suddenly 'achieve' and then everything manifests spontaneously for you from there on. It is a gradual familiarization which ends with buddhahood (which means a complete knowledge of the natural state that never regresses). The 'natural state' is naturally perfected and requires nothing... but one is not in that state at all times, even after initially recognizing it. The Dzogchen path involves familiarizing with one's knowledge of the natural state. And that experience fluctuates. On the outset one has no knowledge of that nature, and therefore contrived practice, commitments, refuge, relative bodhicitta etc., are all required as preliminaries to aid the practitioner in recognizing that nature (that is; if they fail to recognize it when the teacher points it out). After the practitioner recognizes that nature, they will become distracted and regress back into the relative condition, and so again, contrived practice, commitments, refuge, relative bodhicitta are all required as supports for practice. At the times when the practitioner is resting in the direct knowledge of the natural state, no contrived practice, or commitments, or refuge or bodhicitta etc., are required because the natural state is the definitive refuge and is ultimate bodhicitta and is the uncontrived view/practice. But the practitioner will again become distracted and will have to uphold commitments and practice and during that time he or she is in the relative condition. So it is a gradual path in that sense. One's nature is originally pure and naturally perfected, but the practitioner works with their knowledge of that nature, and that knowledge needs to come from recognition, and then requires refinement through familiarization and integration with the natural state. Only Buddhas are in the natural state at all times, which means only Buddhas are free from a need for practice, commitments, refuge and relative bodhicitta.

?? You are the one stating that practice and commitments are unnecessary. I'm not even sure what you think my view is at this point.

Well, you are misunderstanding it. Those things are only extraneous from the standpoint of the definitive view i.e. the natural state... and therefore are necessary aspects of the path when one is not resting in the view. You are not in that view at all times... if at all depending on your capacity, and so to declare that those things are outright unnecessary is reckless and inaccurate. And since we're quoting Löpon Tenzin Namdak, he agrees: "In the practice of Dzogchen, we do not find it necessary to do visualizations of deities or to do recitations like the Refuge and Bodhichitta. Some would say that these are not necessary to do at all, but this is speaking from the side of the Natural State only. They say in the Natural State, everything is present there already in potential, and so there is nothing lacking and nothing more to do to add or acquire anything. This is fine. But on the side of the practitioner, there is much to do and practices such as Refuge and Bodhichitta are very necessary. In its own terms, Dzogchen has no rules; it is open to everything. But does this mean we can do just what we feel like at the moment? On the side of the Natural State, this is true and there are no restrictions or limitations. All appearances are manifestations of mind (sems kyi snang-ba), like reflections seen in a mirror, and there is no inherent negativity or impurity in them. Everything is perfectly all right just as it is, as the energy (rtsal) of the Nature of Mind in manifestation. It is like white and black clouds passing overhead in the sky; they equally obscure the face of the sun. When they depart, there are no traces left behind. However, that is speaking only on the side of the Natural State, which is like the clear, open sky, unaffected by the presence or absence of these clouds. For the sky, it is all the same. But on the side of the practitioner, it is quite different because we mistakenly believe these clouds are solid, opaque, and quite real and substantial. As practitioners we must first come to an understanding of the insubstantiality and unreality of all these clouds which obscure the sky of our own Nature of Mind (sems-nyid). It is our Tawa (lta-ba), or view, our way of looking at things, which is basic and fundamental, and we must begin here. Then we must practice and attain realization. So on the side of the practitioner, practice and commitment are most certainly required. The Natural State in itself is totally open and clear and spacious like the sky but we, as individuals, are not totally open and unobstructed.

Yes, that is if you are resting in the 'natural state'. When you are not resting in that knowledge, which is the majority of the time unless you are a second stage bodhisattva, then you are in the relative state and relative things like morality, meditation and other practices apply to you.

Which is why Padmasambhava says: Though my view is as vast as the sky, my careful attention to cause and effect [karma] is finer than grains of tsampa.

They definitely do. You are mistaking descriptions of the view i.e. your nature, to be describing the conduct. Dzogchen may not require anything at all, but you are not Dzogchen... Dzogchen is your nature. You, as the practitioner, work with your knowledge of Dzogchen and therefore you must keep perfect conduct.

Well, there is no doubt that their conduct in regards to this practice is/was very out of the ordinary. I think it is perfectly natural and appropriate for people to be skeptical given the circumstances, and given the nature of the sadhana they have chosen to take it upon themselves to propagate.

I thought the discussion was semi-productive and constructive even if it seems to be going nowhere, which you may be right about, but we can call it off for now. 'Til the next time!

Use of terms like 'emptiness' and 'no self' (though I don't use 'no self' often), certainly do not indicate a lack of critical thought processes or a lack of direct experience. Some individuals with a great amount of experience may use those terms, and that does not negate their experience. Surely there are some who lack any experience and evoke those same terms, but saying that everyone who uses those terms falls under the same umbrella of lacking critical thought processes and/or direct experience is no doubt an inaccurate and misrepresentative assessment, not to mention unfair. It is tantamount to saying all dogs are dangerous, because there are some who can be. If anything you, yourself appear to have an issue with these terms, and are projecting that disdain outwards in the form of presenting it to be an objective situation that you are encountering, when you are most likely simply relating to your own contempt.

I believe one person mentioned that she may potentially, theoretically, (in their opinion) have an adverse reaction to the bardo... that species of confusion and fear etc., was termed as 'hell'... but that is hardly condemning someone to hell in the Judeo-Christian sense you would associated a 'condemnation to hell' with.

Depends on the system. In other teachings you may not need a guru or lineage, but in Vajrayāna you do.

For those who apply it correctly the system works, and there are teachings to suit the capacities and interests of any and everyone. I'm just saying; he or she who blames the instructions for the fact that they cannot build a model airplane correctly is probably not being very honest with themselves. He or she who blames the map for the fact that they cannot find a certain landmark is probably not being honest with themselves. He or she who blames the food for the fact they have a food addiction isn't being honest with themselves. And so on and so forth.

Will do. At any rate though, you've heard the various sayings which come from the Buddhist teachings themselves; the finger pointing at the moon, the raft which is abandoned upon reaching the shore, etc. Those who turn Buddhism into a belief system are fixating on pointing fingers and carrying rafts around with them. The system itself isn't flawed, it is just certain individual's understanding and relationship to the system which is flawed, for whatever reason.