asunthatneversets

Yes one would need to examine what it means to say that an experience is subjective... it necessarily implies various problematic issues which are no better than stating an experience is objective. The ultimate validity of objectivity can be refuted and should, but that does not mean everything is 'subjective'. The Dzogchen view is never, ever presented as being subjective. This does not make sense in the context of Dzogchen. What is conventionally titled "the view" of Dzogchen is resting in direct knowledge of the nature of mind and has nothing to do with worldviews. It isn't points of view which influence one's experience, but ignorance, meaning; ignorance of one's nature. The only way to truly go 'beyond' conventions or one's relative condition in general is to familiarize and integrate with one's nature. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it in any way. Psychic powers are irrelevant in understanding anything. What is relevant, and what is promoted as definitive and liberating insight in these systems is wisdom i.e. knowledge of one's nature. Psychic powers have nothing to do with it. I don't even know what you are insinuating. I don't agree for the reasons I've provided, there is no other secret 'real' reason why I wouldn't want to talk about psychic powers. The issue here is that you seem to be fully enamored and taken in by the prospect of psychic powers, which are wholly irrelevant to these paths and are nothing more than secondary side-effects of one's practice if and when they may manifest. They mean nothing and forming an infatuation with them or considering them to be profound or key facets of Dzogchen or any other system in the buddhadharma is an incorrect view which should be avoided. Not a contradiction in any way. Dzogchen does not. That sounds like samatha practice more than anything which would constitute the path in a system like Dzogchen. I take it you mean 'attention'... concentration is something different. However this is deviating from the dichotomy we were discussing which was concentration vs. wisdom. In that context, concentration (since it involves mind) is provisional, whereas wisdom is definitive.

One wouldn't promote subjectivity, but rather practice which will ultimately reveal the lack of substantiality in appearances, whether said appearance is conventionally considered to be subjective or objective. I'm not sure what "neither this nor that" has to do with anything, or if that is meant to reference the neti-neti method employed in Vedanta? Either way it is irrelevant. You can believe whatever you'd like. Ultimately siddhis are a distraction and nothing to be purposely cultivated or grasped at so there is really no point in discussing them. That is true, though I don't agree that focusing on "psychic powers" has any use, it is a distraction. If siddhis manifest as a result of one's practice then they do, if they don't they don't, they are irrelevant either way and should not be grasped at. In fact grasping at them will cause them to diminish and disappear altogether. Well, there are. I'm not sure what tradition or system you are talking about, but Vajrayāna and Dzogchen use the human body as a basis for one's practice, and the various constituent aspects of the body - one of which are the winds - are considered to be important. Again, I'm not sure what tradition or system you are speaking for, ultimately Vajrayāna does hold that appearances are mental fabrications, however Dzogchen does not. So again these subtle nuances in view are contingent upon the nature of one's path. I did not state that psychic powers are the result of manipulating winds, by 'powers' I meant those abilities which appear to control and manipulate what would be interpreted as so-called external phenomena. This really depends on how rapid one actualizes 'release'. Those who awaken swiftly will not have siddhis to the same degree as someone who has spent a lot of time cultivating meditative stability etc., so again this comes back to length of time spent cultivating concentration and other aspects of meditation in general. Concentration etc., is merely a provisional method so that one can actualize wisdom insights, which are definitive. Being that I stated liberation is the supreme siddhi - liberation being the total exhaustion of factors which obscure wisdom - I obviously made it a point to cite the importance of wisdom over any other species of insight. Again, depends on the individual and circumstances.

Objective and subjective realities are ultimately misnomers. Beings who cultivate siddhis and are able to control phenomena are doing so as a result of certain practices. Transmuting the elements back into their essential expression does not necessarily entail that one can exhibit miraculous powers. For the most part those powers can be acquired through manipulating and mastering control over specific winds [rlung]. Or as I mentioned in one of the posts which was removed, even simple practices such as śamatha which cultivate equanimity, evenness [samādhi] and familiarity with the dhyānic strata can produce siddhis. Siddhis are a sign of meditative discipline and prolonged practice, and are not signs of realization. Which is why all of these siddhis (which involve 'powers') are referred to as 'mundane siddhis', while liberation is referred to as the 'supreme siddhi', the only important siddhi is liberation itself.

Manipulating phenomena is a siddhi. Siddhis are signs of prolonged meditation but are not signs of realization. It is not acceptable criteria for judging whether one is realized.

Now you're critiquing Chögyal Namkhai Norbu? I sincerely hope people know better than to give your fantasies the time of day. I've been polite and stayed quiet for quite some time now, but in the wake of our most recent discussion it's become blatantly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about. The various critiques and insights you offer above are horrid and wildly inaccurate fabrications.

Well, either way, I apologize for whatever I've said that is causing you to lash out like this.

This of course depends on the person and the circumstances that the teachings are being addressed or presented in. Actually, you can't. Again, depends on the circumstances. According to you. Usually yes. There are charlatans and idiots who talk about direct experience as well. So no, not always a yogi. Context is everything. Depends on the circumstances and individual. Okay. Good you clarified. Can't pull one over on goldisheavy and his noble sangha. There's really only one way to move 'beyond' quotations and doctrines... and it doesn't involve rejecting them as you pompously suggest. Which community is that? Because I'd rather go in the opposite direction.

Apparently none according to you. This (i) presupposes that I approach yogic doctrine from the point of view of a scholar, and (ii) that approaching yogic doctrines from the point of view of being a pandit is a total waste of time. Both are false assumptions. Perhaps some do. Sort of like you and your biases, hopes and fears which are being vomiting all over this forum disguised as critiques of my own proclivities. That is actually both true and false, simultaneously. This is also true. Again, both true and false depending on context. That is a ridiculous assertion.

Yes, though far from desperate. The HTML was not working, glad the technical malfunction brought you some joy.

.

Much of my life revolves around creativity, art, music, etc... whether or not citing quotes is creative is a question I wouldn't even begin to consider or worry about.

An inaccurate generalization, no doubt. Again, a few inaccurate generalizations here... and though there is much I could discuss, I usually like to discuss Buddhism when in a Buddhist forum (wild, I know) so that is what i usually discuss.

I'm so afraid, terrified even.

What you and I consider to be 'creative' may differ drastically, and being that you and I tend to disagree on things (more often than not) I can't say whatever criteria I'd have to meet to be considered 'creative' in your eyes would even be reasonable in my opinion.

Appreciation for what? 'The screwdrivers'? Or just 'screwdrivers'? Or do you mean the racist ass white power band Skrewdriver? Because honestly I'm not obsessed with any of them or doctrines in general.

If you say so. You'd have to elaborate on this assertion and its context, because again this may be an aspersion which is being cast from within certain presuppositions you hold pertaining to objectivity, the nature of conventional praxis, and really 'meaning' in general. This would depend on how the individual in question is relating to doctrines and the information associated with discerning said doctrines from one another. This is good advice but I don't see how it is warranted or relevant... which is to say you seem to be assuming that understanding myself and my own limitations is something I lack.

So does Madhyamaka, apart from its conventional praxis. Ultimately both Dzogchen and Madhyamaka demonstrate the absence of any "truths" as such.

Solipsism aside, I did not agree with your summation of what differentiates Yogācāra from other views as it is and feel you misrepresented Madhyamaka. I'm not even sure what mindset you are inferring. I see.

Right, you were advocating for solipsism.

You're entitled to that opinion, and that sentiment is mutual in reading your posts as well, to each their own. Okay. Those statements are merely saying that paths which uphold renunciation, etc. may potentially take longer because the mind is involved with accepting and rejecting phenomena outside the context of the method. Paths which use transformation are going to be a bit swifter because rather than maintaining that there are negative things to reject, those things are taken into the path and are seen as wisdom either directly or inferentially. Paths which implement self-liberation are then swifter than transformation because everything is treated as self-perfected (whether that perfection is seen directly or is a correct inference). So that is what the differences (in how gradual or direct a certain path is) are meant to convey.

I don't think that is the issue here. I'm sure people do. Some people may hold such a view but I surely do not, nor have I even alluded to such a view. So does Madhymaka, so does the prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Again, this contention is not what makes Yogācāra, 'Yogācāra'. Which is Madhyamaka 101, however Madhyamaka applies that same scrutiny to the mind itself as well. Again, no different from Madhyamaka. That actually is Madhyamaka. Not in the least. It is ironic that in comparing Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, Madhyamaka is the view which actually dispenses with the rigidity you are referencing. Solipsism is really a completely inaccurate view, even for Yogācāra. This is completely misunderstanding how provisional praxis applies to a yogi's view. Again this seems to be indicative of your own ideas more than anything else. Solipsism is actually an inferior view to most every Buddhist system for the very reason that it reifies a solely subjective experience and states that only one's own experience ultimately exists. Compared to a solipsistic view, Madhyamaka is actually far more 'vicious' and direct. You have to be joking... Anything else besides solipsism? What are you taking about? This makes zero sense.

The issue may actually be that you are holding some inaccurate presuppositions.

Right, and why is it an absence of views? Because it leads to the pacification of mind and the pacification of conditioned objects which can accord with the four extremes (existence, non-existence, etc.) which are required to have a "view". Neither does Dzogchen, which is also a non-affirming negation. I don't see how but you're welcome to your opinion. This doesn't really make sense. Madhyamaka does not really dispense with narratives but instead seeks to reveal how narratives are merely conventional inferences. Which, as I just said directly above (coincidentally) is what these different paths allow for, Madyamaka included. It's actually precisely what Madhyamaka teaches. I'm not following on this one either but again you're welcome to that opinion. Well, obviously. The point of stating how long certain paths may take is a literary device to convey the nature of said path.

Pointing the mind back to itself is not a sole proviso of Yogācāra, rather it is really the point if the buddhadharma in general. What differentiates Yogācāra from other systems is much more subtle than this.

Dzogchen rejects the analytical praxis championed by Madhyamaka and does not agree that the two-truths is an accurate title since the relative cannot be considered 'true' in any sense. However ultimately Madhyamaka agrees and fully admits that there are not really two truths. Ergo both agree that the only 'truth' is the unenumerated ultimate, and both accept conventions because otherwise their views could not be communicated, so the only difference is in praxis. Obviously that is false being that yogins have achieved realization through Madhyamaka analytics which are executed in a proper combination with meditation etc. Really the only issues with Madhyamaka from the standpoint of tantra is that its path takes longer due to relying on the intellect and it does not work with energy.