asunthatneversets

They're not, so... I wouldn't waste my time reading anything he has to say on the subject. Don't be seduced by the Jaxchen, it's a dark, dark alley with a wall at the end of it.

Regarding the OP: the principle of ka dag (found in Atiyoga) completely forbids the possibility of anything like Brahman.

Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike whatsoever. The Dzogchen tantras went to great lengths to separate themselves from eternalistic views like those found in Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, etc., even mentioning Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name when refuting the view of Advaita yoga. Dzogchen explicitly rejects the views of Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, and other Hindu yogas. These differences are not simply nominal, they are fundamental and vast. Hindu doctrines are ontological in nature, Dzogchen, which has its view rooted in the buddhadharma is completely and totally epistemic in nature. Not understanding the fundamental differences between these views will become a monumental issue, especially for anyone who is looking to reconcile them. Conflating Dzogpachenpo with Hindu views means one does not understand Dzogchen at all. Both paths are wonderful, complete, time-tested and will lead to their respective definitions of liberation, both will also decrease or eliminate suffering in their own way... but they do not define the causes of suffering to be the same, and they do not define the elimination of suffering in the same way. They are completely different paths leading to different results.

So you're talking about the experiential taste of an orange? Well there's no need to dispense with the words which describe the taste, they do not take away from the taste itself and the taste does not diminish the effectiveness of the words in attempting to communicate the direct experience. Going beyond labels is simply tasting, however we are communicating online in a forum, so there is no going beyond labels and any labels used here cannot hinder or diminish the taste if you know how to acquire it.

Dzogchen is prajñāpāramitā, Mahāmudrā, the heart of the Buddhadharma, the nature of every Buddha and sentient being.

Well do not deliberate too much my friend, I think it is getting to be high time I step away from here. This forum had a nice positive vibe for awhile which has unfortunately deteriorated immensely in the past few months due to a few individuals who post here. Even in the beginning when there were debates between CT and I, or Anderson and I for example, we were really only disagreeing on minor points and it was easy to tell that everyone really cared about the dharma and had the integrity of the teaching in mind. I really respect their views and the discussions were productive and constructive. That has changed, for the worse. You have a nice forum here with many sections devoted to many different paths, one of them being Buddhism, yet lately the usual suspects who post in the Buddhist forum aren't interested in Buddhism at all. Rather they are dead set on deprecating the system, projecting their own issues onto the tradition, parading secular or self-concocted notions as accurate portrayals of the system and so on. I don't know what is going on around here but I really hope you moderators get it under control for the sake of those who are interested in learning, refining, nurturing and deepening their relationships with the Buddhadharma. Because right now you have some very negative people who post here and they are successfully turning this forum into a māra rather than a positive place for engendering growth.

Didn't make any sense given that Garab Dorje promoted a freedom from extremes as his main interpretation of the view (as most Dzogchenpas do). Then you have goldisheavy glomming onto some sort of eternalist solipsism trying to bring the commentary into his own limitations... and doing so with a narrative that suggests an air of authority by asking rhetorical questions to some imagined audience... get real. Dear god you can't be serious. Fear based religion? How about an empirical and therefore naturally experience driven epistemology. Of course you turn this into some sort of projected irrational religion vs. ralis' self-proclaimed rational approach, it helps to substantiate your vapid confirmation biases so well in your head. We aren't talking about a religion, far from it. We are talking about an actuality which is solely living and breathing epistemic insight. Religious fundamentalism has zero to do with it and you should stop using that as a crutch in your feeble attempts to substantiate your baseless points.

I surely will but do not say "us" as if you're speaking for anyone other than yourself, you are not, no matter who agrees with you. You are no authority and do not speak for this forum anymore than I do. As for personal opinions, that is all you offer as well so pulling that card is weak.

The above text IS A COMMENTARY provided by a qualified teacher. Why on earth would I give my own unrequested commentary???!!! The audacity you have is unbelievable. I would never in my life give a commentary on this commentary and I cannot believe you offered a commentary when no one asked for it (nor would anyone ask for one from you). Who are you?! Some dude in a forum.

Retreat and secluded practice has nothing to do with whether subjectivity or objectivity are important or unimportant. One does retreat to focus on practice and stay away from distraction, however staying away from distraction has nothing to do with subjectivity being more important than objectivity, this whole subjective-objective thing is your own fabrication. You really should be asking for yourself, and should not be asking rhetorical questions as if you are some authority on this subject, you are not. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with renouncing "objectivity" and embracing "subjectivity", these are your own ideas. This really should go without saying since experiences can be both objective and subjective depending on the manner in which they are being related to. If so-called "objective" experiences can be a hinderance then "subjective" ones can be just as binding. There is no place anywhere in these teachings where subjectivity is promoted over objectivity. Also, the fact that you are again asking these questions in a rhetorical manner is ridiculous. It is not talking about an apex of subjectivity, it is talking about the nature of mind and primordial wisdom free from extremes. Clinging to the extreme of subjectivity is nothing these teachings promote, and is again your own fabrication you are projecting onto anything which remotely resembles a statement that can be misconstrued as matching our predilections. Indwelling wisdom that is not to be discovered elsewhere simply means that one is looking to discover the nature of mind, your own mind is not found elsewhere, ergo its nature will not be found elsewhere. Nothing to do with subjectivity apart from one's mind being allowed a nominal and conventional position as "subjective", however since the mind ultimately does not exist, subjectivity ultimately does not exist. Subjectivity and objectivity are byproducts of afflictive patterns in grasping, they are not real and are certainly not an ultimate status to be promoted as anything to glom onto. You are unfit to be giving advice. Not food for thought at all, what are you even talking about?!

You couldn't possibly botch these instructions any more brutally than you just did. So ridiculous.

You've advocated for eternalism and solipsism yourself, ciring those labels by name in reference to your own view. So I'm not sure why you're trying to say these are my notions.

Yes, assist people in grasping at mundane siddhis, a wonderful thing indeed.

Wow. Firstly; goldisheavy wins Godwin's law medal for the day. Secondly; it is simply asinine to compare my pointing out of your eternalist biases to calling someone a nazi or communist. The buddhadharma already refutes what you say, the entire reason the Buddha turned the wheel of the dharma was to reform and critique the eternalist views of his time. Yet you present your eternalism as in line with Buddhism. It's really a waste of time given your confirmation biases and solipsistic and eternalist leanings. It's quite easy to establish that I can speak for myself in my own words. My current mode of conduct with the curtailed answers and omitted citations is intentional. Due to the venomous attitudes found here this forum is unfortunately unable to facilitate productive discussion, not the forum's fault but has to do with the proclivity for certain types of people to convene here. 'One-liner' is an inaccurate portrayal of my posts, but that is irrelevant and either way my posts aren't meant to be informative. All they are meant to do is voice disapproval. Well, they're accurate labels... it isn't like I called you a muskrat or an astronomer. You advocate for solipsism and eternalism and your views are basically your own fabrications presented as representative of certain systems which adamately reject the principles you uphold. It's sad really, and unfortunate that you choose to lead people astray like that. But hey, what can you do? For every person with a genuine view there are numerous individuals with illegitimate views, so you're just playing your part in the spectrum of possibilities. Which is how I interpret most things you write.

The Ramana Maharshi quote has no place as the epigraph of that book, and the author said he put it in there without approving it with anyone and wishes he had not. He said it most likely will not be in the newer editions when the book is reprinted.

It is not a problem but rather an intentional solution.

Goldisheavy isn't talking about Buddhism or anything even related to Buddhism so I'm not sure if this passes as a "Buddhist Dicussion", Marblehead. Buddhism does not champion solipsistic, essentialist, psychic power hungry principles.

I mean, you're clearly uneducated about this topic, but I never referred to you as an idiot.

Ralis, what you are talking about is energy issues which led to adverse physical symptoms. What Dudjom Lingpa is talking about is worlds beyond something like that. Not even in the same ballpark.

You won't find any, and if you did they sure as hell wouldn't post about it here.

Three amigos as in Lucky Day, Dusty Bottoms and Ned Nederlander.

You're a funny guy ralis.

Several here? Oh you mean the three amigos: you, zoom and goldisheavy? You can see me have s#it tons of reasonable discussion really any and everywhere else I post. But talking to you three is like beating my head against a wall, forgive me if I don't go out of my way to be enthusiastic about it.

Wait, I don't believe I exist? Or you mean someone else?