asunthatneversets

To paraphrase something Malcolm said before; "you can have awareness without knowledge, but you cannot have rigpa without knowledge." 'Awareness' is an unsuitable translation for rigpa. The opposite of rigpa is 'ma rig pa', and marigpa is ignorance, specifically ignorance of your nature. Hence rig pa would be the opposite of ignorance, which is knowledge, specifically; knowledge of your nature. The proper Tibetan term for 'awareness' is actually 'shes pa', which is simply a neutral registering cognizance. Most every sentient being is aware, and so all sentient beings have awareness in one form or another. Very few sentient beings have rigpa though, as very few beings have knowledge of their nature.

The movements and breathing patterns / techniques and timing are very specific and have to be learned from a qualified teacher. Otherwise you can cause energy / wind [rlung] disorders. Better safe than sorry.

That is true, however easier said than done, and that isn't to say that studying any teachings are going to help with discovering and resting in your nature, however again, it cannot hurt. But I agree, ultimately prajñā is the means to loosen those bonds. Though prajñā is only one of the two accumulations considered to be the definitive means. The other is upāya, which includes right view acquired from the qualified guru and learning the teachings and associated philosophical systems. Dudjom Lingpa actually explores this point in his gnas lugs rang byung. Specifically the claim that studying or learning the correct view is a hindrance. He attests that it is not, and uses the analogy of an ear which has water trapped in it (a nuisance we can all relate to), citing that one of the most effective ways of removing that trapped water is actually pouring more water into the ear, which will successfully wash out the water which is initially trapped leaving the ear free of water. He says that in the same way, the use of concepts and learning (within the context of the dharma), serves the same purpose. In Bönpo Dzogchen, the studying of the teachings and the wisdom gained from doing so is held to be one of the many modalities of rig pa [skt. vidyā], called bsam rig. The more refined ones bsam rig is, the clearer ones view becomes. My Drikung Kagyu lama also states that a refined intellectual knowledge of the teachings is very important (though practice is more important). He stated that ones intellectual knowledge of the teachings is directly related to prajñā. The former being a direct expression of the latter, and so while intellectual knowledge should not be treated as a substitute for non-conceptual wisdom, it also should not be rejected either. It is a helpful and effective practice when applied skillfully, and the clearer your knowledge is conceptually, the easier it will be to recognize non-conceptual wisdom. He said this goes for any type of learning, not just dharma.

I also agree, yet at the same time it can't hurt to study the pāramitāyāna and so on, it certainly helped to deepen my understanding of the system of Dzogchen, and deterred any proclivities of possibly deviating into eternalist dogma.

'Vision' in reference to this type of thing is just a suitable English translation of whatever the original Sanskrit and/or Tibetan terms are. Doesn't mean they are truly visions in the sense we might generally think of the term. Still it is a suitable title in my opinion.

Allegedly only second vision. Malcolm wrote: "In fact, the Old's had their experiences confirmed by their teacher, Lama Drimed, up to the second vision. But they mistakenly concluded they were finished with the four visions when they had not actually finished the second vision, or so the story runs. Then there was a disagreement and they left Lama Drimed after having spend nine years in retreat. At this point, apparently, they do not even consider themselves Buddhists, and perhaps never did." Everyone has varying capacity and karmic constitutions so the amount of time it takes also varies. I have heard stories of exceptionally rare beings who completed the practice in less than a year, and then others like Malcolm's teacher Kunzang Dechen Lingpa who took seven years in strict retreat to accomplish third vision. For some it can take decades. I've heard of another young Lama who accomplished the path and was in his early twenties. So it all depends.

Anyway, with that I bow out of this discussion. Not an appropriate topic to be discussing openly, for me at least.

Yes, it is not separate, but nothing truly is external, that is the point of the teachings being referenced here. When said energy in these practices is brought to its culmination, the delusion which is responsible for the experience of being a subjective entity which is relating to an external universe is exhausted.

That is that couple who practiced under Lama Drimed Norbu and were convinced they completed the visions, even though Lama Drimed told them they had not. And then they went and published drawings of their visions in a book. Apparently not even mentioning their teacher or lineage, which is that of the venerable Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche. Ridiculous.

Also, the small moving spheres are the thigles, wasn't sure if I said that specifically. But they manifest in varying sizes, array, color and number, depending on the circumstances. If you google image search 'Dzogchen' you will see that the common iconography (though not limited solely to) predominantly consists of imagery related to this phenomena. But very interesting to hear about the different interpretations of this phenomena from culture to culture. The Aboriginal 'dreamtime' art has always struck me as very similar in appearance. Such imagery is very universal when it comes to entoptic phenomena.

Yes that would be the same, there are myriad ways those visions occur, increase and decrease, so while your experience may not match the brief description in that link, it is the same thing. But again as I am closely involved in these traditions and these practices are very secret, requiring initiation and transmission from a qualified teacher, this isn't something I would discuss beyond the light referencing that has gone on in this discussion thus far.

Thigle in tibetan, bindu in sanskrit.

Again, they are not an odd effect of the eyes. As a side note; the traditions which incorporate this type of phenomena into their practices also warn against grasping at these visions and giving significance to them. Otherwise if you get caught up in these types of displays it can be dangerous, as you have the possibility of becoming fixated on visions and sidetracked indefinitely. But I suppose since you aren't involved in those traditions insight of that nature is somewhat irrelevant.

This type of phenomena, including gazing into the blue sky, are common in Buddhist teachings such as Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen. However it isn't appropriate to discuss these practices here. You are correct about them not being floaters though. They are called thig le (pronounced 'tee-glay') or vajra chains [rdo rje lu gu].

There may be some who claim that they teach Dzogchen as a totally separate thing, but that undoubtably starts to become a slippery slope depending on the presentation. Something to be wary of in my opinion. The moment you dispense with refuge, bodhicitta and dedication of merit, you have deviated from Dzogchen. Dzogchen as our nature is free of dogmas and tradition, but then again so is prajñapāramita. The systems and traditions which are the means to discover that nature are just that, a means to bring about discovery... rafts to be abandoned. So they are useful, and their effectiveness is proven by the unbroken lineages which implement them. Better to simply see Dzogchen in the context of Buddhism as a helpful support. Which only becomes an issue when one gets caught up in the minor details, but that is on them. For myself, one of the best pieces of advice I ever received was not to get caught up in the details, go to the essence, see that all of these traditions in the buddhadharma are pointing to that essence.

I watched a couple episodes from the first season of 'It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia' last night, and one of the episodes closed with 'Forever Young'. A mild case of synchronicity perhaps!

That is the view, from the pāramitāyāna to Vajrayāna to Dzogchen. We are deluded about the nature of appearance, and so afflictive habits of grasping give rise to further afflictive patterning, and samsara becomes a twisted web of deceit. When this ignorance is overturned, then liberation occurs. Same model for every teaching in the buddhadharma, no matter how drawn out or sudden the path may be. The sanātanadharma and other tīrthika traditions may have an entirely different approach, as their result is not the same. So if this schematic doesn't accord with Vedanta and traditions of the like it should not be surprising.

Yes that is the view of the buddhadharma.

You're meaning a void where nothing is arising and the senses have receded into the substratum? Like in deep sleep? That isn't what the heart sūtra is describing. The exposition in the heart sūtra would also be considered 'primordial' as it is a definitive view according to the buddhadharma.

The apparent 'ego' arises from ignorance, and is ignorance itself, it is simply grasping and identification. So while the 'ego' (not a word I personally use) doesn't exist inherently, it apparently arises and will undoubtably dominate one's experience as long as delusion is present.

Here is Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche discussing absorption states such as nirvikalpa samadhi, which Buddhism considers to be akin to the formless god realms: "Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual plea­sures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concen­tration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely men­tal pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limit­less space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is com­pletely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast. Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the bound­ary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain."

Yes that was in response to a specific question regarding Greg's praxis in his book, which I'm not familiar with. It's okay if you don't want to waste your time with me Gatito, no worries. Even though I disagree with you, you're welcome to your opinion.

I don't practice Vedanta but I'm familiar with its view. Nirvikalpa samādhi has nothing to do with anatta. It's actually quite the opposite, instead of penetrating the unreality of the subjective reference point (like anatta does), nirvikalpa samādhi solidifies and fortifies it into an over-arching universal Self.

Nirvikalpa samādhi is an absorption state. Quite different than emptiness. Even Atmananda states that nirvikalpa samādhi is a temporary state, and even goes as far as to say it is something made up. Either way though, emptiness is the non-arising of phenomena and not an absorption state.

Lobsters, also practically immortal. Or it least it seems like they do not die of natural causes as far a scientists can tell. Also, they continue to grow indefinitely, it is theorized that there could be lobsters as big as city buses at the bottom of the ocean.