asunthatneversets

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you as a fool, just using that as an example.

Buddhism is a pedagogical method which is predicated on non-affirming negations. It negates its own praxis and conventional models. Those who are unfortunate enough to cling to the method and turn it into a belief system are simply prone to doing so, they do not understand. The fact that they do not understand does not mean the self-deconstructing pedagogical method is a system of belief in and of itself... it simply means they have a fundamental poverty in relation to the praxis which causes them to see it as such. The fact that someone is a fool and doesn't understand how to use a tool, doesn't mean the tool itself is flawed.

My case in point.

Scientific investigation applies to the limited view of conventional reality. The buddhadharma has nothing to do with mythology, and has everything to do with a genuine, living, accurate, knowledge of one's experience. Any so-called 'mythologies' that are associated with the conventional systems which are implemented in order to bring about an actualization of that wisdom, are rafts to be abandoned, and so the buddhadharma does not hold its own conventional models to be 'absolute' either. In fact absolutes, universals, and so on are only allowed a certain degree of conventional validity in the eyes of Buddhism, and there are no absolutes to be found otherwise (certainly not in the context of modern physicalist science). The Pali Canon and the exact words of the Buddha are not relevant, you seem to treat Buddhism as a system of belief and mistake your principles of science to be otherwise. The buddhadharma has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Pali Canon. The dharma is a living teaching, and you either actualize it within yourself or you don't. Belief (apart from the initial interest it takes to begin one's path) has nothing to do with it in any way. It is starting to become quite clear that you do not understand Buddhism at all.

There are no absolutes in scientific thought but there can certainly be an air of absolutism in how one relates to scientific theory. Either way you are missing the point. The dharma, which is a self-deconstructing, soteriological and solely epistemic methodology, is not going to (and does not need to) conform or relate to the ontological theories of science. How do you propose the buddhadharma is going to bow to materialist science, when it does not even hold its own conventional models to be inherently true? It surely isn't.

How does your belief in materialist physicalism ala the absolutism of the modern paradigm of scientific thought which cannot even explain how factors such as consciousness etc. formed in the first place, apply?

The dharma doesn't go with the model of origin or evolution as laid out by the modern physicalist/materialist scientific paradigm, so the line of reasoning you are attempting to introduce unfortunately does not apply. And on top of that, notions such as origin, evolution, etc., in general are only held to possess conventional application and credibility in the eyes of the buddhadharma.

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is certainly part of an unbroken lineage. His teacher Changchub Dorje's main teachers were Adzom Drugpa (1842-1924), Nyala Pema Dündul (1816–1872), and Bön luminary Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen (1859-1934). Even focusing on just one of those teachers; Adzom Drugpa for example, his teachers clearly show how connected Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is to various lineages, per Rangjung Yeshe wiki: Adzom Drugpa was the disciple of both Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo and Paltrul Rinpoche, and teacher to the 2nd Jamyang Khyentse, Chokyi Lodro. Trusted dharma-friend and contemporary to Jamgön Mipham, he received teaching and transmission from such master as; Kathog Situ, Shechen Thutob Namgyal, Kongtrul Lodro Thaye and Kathok Moktsa Rinpoche. Also received visions of Rigdzin Jigme Lingpa, whereby he was taught directly, and Khandro Yeshe Tsogyal. Śākyamuni Buddha did not need a teacher, he was a nirmaṇakāya. An emanation of Vajradhāra who is in turn an emanation of the dharmakāya buddha Samantabhadra.

Ah, well the Kusum Rangshar is Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen's teachings and is one of the main cycles used by the Bon for Dzogpachenpo, and the Zhang Zhung Nyan Gyud is what the Bon teachings are based upon. I only recommended the Bonpo route because they are a bit more liberal with man ngag sde teachings than the Nyingma and Kagyu are. So if you are looking to get underway with an endeavor of this nature quickly then that would probably be the most expeditious course of action. But perhaps see if you can contact those who are working closely with some of the main Bonpo teachers: Kyabje Lungtok Tenpai Nyima (the 33rd Menri Trizin), Yongdzin Tenzin Namdak, Menri Lopon Trinley Nyima Rinpoche, Khenpo Tenpa Yungdrung Rinpoche etc. Otherwise you can go the Nyingma route. Or look to the Drikung Yangzab: I'm not sure where you are located but Ven. Traga Rinpoche is located in Chino Valley, AZ at the Garchen Institute and he is an authority on these teachings as well.

Is the source being Padmasambhava supposed to imply it is the authors own terma?

The kali yuga, in full effect.

Definitely something you should ask your teacher. It is a retreat practice, and apart from of course needing transmission from a qualified teacher, it is advised you have a relationship with a teacher who can regularly check in with you and give you guidance or instructions (as needed) during such a retreat. If you are interested in expediting such a process and really going for a long retreat, then perhaps seek out one of the Zhang Zhung Nyan Gyud programs and the series of preliminary retreats associated with the Kusum Rangshar (which should be undertaken prior to a long retreat of that nature). That way you can go through the necessary preliminaries and build a relationship with a teacher who can guide you. Otherwise there are of course Nyingma teachers, and or Kagyu teachers who teach this practice as well. So depends on your preference.

Obviously, coming from Buddha Śākyamuni this is not an eternalist statement, but is merely pointing to one's nature as profound emptiness.

Buddhism of any stripe, including the 'higher' yānas, does not uphold the view of ontological existents (non-existents, both or neither) and in fact refute them with extreme prejudice. The buddhadharma is solely epistemic in nature.

To affirm an existent entity whether personal or transpersonal, in whatever form. For example; Judeo-Christian theology which posits an independent, eternal soul... that is an essentialist view. Or, Advaita and Samkhya yogas which posit the purusha [brahman] as is an unconditioned, independently existent, transpersonal field of consciousness... that is an essentialist view.

Views which reify a substantial ontological nature are considered to be eternalist (or essentialist) in the eyes of the buddhadharma.

The two truths in Madhyamaka are also eventually abandoned, they are merely a pedagogical methodology; Here, Nāgārjuna can be interpreted as negating either (i) the validity of relative truth, or (ii) the enumerated two truths as a whole: "Since the jīnas have proclaimed nirvāna alone is true, what wise person would not understand the rest is false?" And here, the validity of (the enumerated) ultimate truth: "When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found." The way Candrakīrti defines the two truths; as the respective objects of deluded (relative) or undeluded (ultimate) cognitions, is also not too far off the mark when compared to the way Dzogpachenpo defines its model. Madhyamaka even goes as far as to differentiate a nominal ultimate truth as delineated in its teachings from the direct and unenumerated ultimate. The enumerated ultimate is treated as a conventional relative truth, and the unenumerated is the direct nonconceptual and experiential realization itself (which is said to be inexpressible). So the two systems aren't all that different in principle... it is just their paths which differ.

Yes, but still not in the sense you are misinterpreting it to be. Not that you'll listen anyway.

Well, I stand by my statements and you are entitled to your opinions.

They do, fortunately. Knowledge and ignorance are integral and fundamental aspects of the buddhadharma and dzogchen in general. Well, everything is merely a suggestive appearance without any substance to it, including the antithesis of ignorance. Yet that lack of substantiality does not render ignorance and knowledge arbitrary. Yes, although awakened wisdom is not a 'state' of mind per se... or at least not in the sense you appear to be suggesting it is. Wisdom becomes obscured by far more than clumsy commitments. Yes, this is why wisdom can be recognized. Perhaps the latter, but it has nothing to do with the subconscious. In a sense. Delusion is conditioning, it is not a choice. That is sort of taking the 'remembering' metaphor a bit too literally. The notion of 'remembering' is pointing to the fact that recognizing your nature (in a definitive sense), is recognizing something which was there from the very beginning (yet was seemingly obscured). In addition, that epiphany is unmistakeable when it occurs and carries an air of certainty which would not require second hand confirmation, much like remembering something one had already known. Another way it is akin to recalling something you already knew (yet had forgotten) is that the species of recognition Dzogpachenpo is concerned with is very simple (when it occurs) and it isn't something which is being newly created. In dzogchen your nature isn't something which is constructed anew, it is not being built or fabricated... rather it is inborn and naturally perfected, only requiring recognition and familiarization.

Though that underlying nature is emptiness, a lack of inherency, freedom from extremes etc. 'Wholeness' would not apply in that context, 'complete' perhaps but it isn't 'complete perfection'... Dzogpa Chenpo means Great Perfection. Which is alluding to the fact that so-called conditioned phenomena have actually been in an unconditioned state from the very beginning (though this is unrecognized). That 'unconditioned' state means that allegedly conditioned dharmas (meaning phenomena which can accord with extremes) are primordially unreal and non-arisen, hence; empty appearance is perfected by nature. 'Perfected' because the misconception of conditioned existents, which are subject to non-existence and so on have in truth never occurred. When this is directly realized it is known intimately that empty appearance is originally pure and naturally perfected. Single taste (or one taste, same taste etc.) refers to the principle of equality when it comes to the emptiness of phenomena, they are equal in their emptiness. For instance, the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states: "The dharmadhātu, the element of sentient beings the element of space and the element of all phenomena, those are the same. If it is asked why they are the same, because they are the same as emptiness, they are the same." That 'nature' is shared, like two candle flames share the nature of heat, or two drops of water share the nature of wetness. The heat of fire is universal in that sense, the wetness of water is universal in that sense, the dharmatā of dharmins is universal in that sense... but it is not a 'universal' nature which encompasses everything like a single field. It simply means that conditioned relative phenomena are abstractions and so they are never separate from the fact that they are ultimately unreal, never separate from their nature. Understanding these principles properly avoids the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. If there were nihilistic comments earlier in the thread I did not see them, certainly none came from myself. Non-arising is not nihilism. Nihilism is negating phenomena, holding to its non-existence (the mind grasping at a position in relation to what it perceives as an object which is capable of lacking existence). Emptiness instead recognizes that alleged phenomena which could exist (or not-exist) have been mere figments of confusion from the very beginning. Like the rope-snake metaphor; once the snake is realized to actually be a rope, the principles of existence, non-existence, both or neither no longer have any snake to apply to, and are thus liberated on the spot. There simply never was a snake. In the same way, when you realize the nature of phenomena, you realize that they simply never were in the first place.

The thigle nyag gcig is the nature of mind... so no in the ultimate sense it's not all a part of the nature of mind. Going back to the snake-rope metaphor; the snake ends up being unfindable and non-arisen, meaning the snake was never actually a part of anything other than one's delusion. In the same way, the various things that conventionality suggests are also mere abstraction and fabrication, and so are not all a part of one's nature in the ultimate sense. The thigle nyag gcig isn't 'one thing' which encompasses all things like brahman... the thigle nyag gcig is 'one' in the sense that there is one nature, all things are empty, but that 'emptiness' is not a single 'thing' or substance. It also means there are not multiple liberations, but truly only 'one' mode; you are either liberated or you aren't, but the thigle nyag gcig is nothing which would suggest "it's all a part of the thig le nyag gcig".

And your assessment is misguided.

You certainly haven't poked any holes... and don't seem to understand these principles in general if you think you have.

Which is to say that I have not advocated for prior existence, or any existence for that matter apart from the nominal relative abstraction that a sentient being ultimately is. And there is no contradiction.