Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[monktastic]

If you want to be an omniscient Buddha, yes. You need to atleast know the 8 examples of illusion.

 

No citations? You're sure that someone has advised seeking more concepts after the nature of mind has been recognized?

 

From all I have read, allowing nature of mind to rest evenly after its discovery is the key. Lama Gendun Rinpoche -- himself considered a full Buddha -- repeatedly advises in his book Heart Advice that the only flaw thereafter is to seek for a higher or better practice or view to pursue. This is the last stronghold of the conceptual mind.

 

Gyatrul Rinpoche:

 

A mind imbued with conceptual elaboration is a mind of samsara. A mind free from conceptual elaboration is liberated. The very nature of mind-itself is primordially, intrinsically free of elaboration. ... People go awry in their practice because they fail to recognize this point and pursue it. ... In reality, it is enough to leave the mind in its own unstructured state. Why have so many complaints and questions? Why complicate the issue?

Saraha:

Once you have seen your own mind free of conceptual elaboration, contemplation in which you ceaselessly produce elaborations is like searching for a glass trinket after having found a precious gem.

For me, this is enough. Best wishes.

Edited March 31, 2013 by monktastic

[RongzomFan]

No citations? You're sure that someone has advised seeking more concepts after the nature of mind has been recognized?

 

In Vajrayana, recognizing the nature of the mind is only step 1. Of course you need more concepts, because Buddhahood is predicated on specific practices using the body. How would you know how to do those practices without concepts?

 

You can research on your own that Buddhahood is predicated on understanding emptiness.

[Jeff]

 

 

You can research on your own that Buddhahood is predicated on understanding emptiness.

I think you mean the "realization" of emptiness, not the mental understanding.

[RongzomFan]

I think you mean the "realization" of emptiness, not the mental understanding.

 

 

Mental understanding is important

[Jeff]

 

 

Mental understanding is important

Percieved mental understanding can often be an illusion and a "mind trap".

 

Best wishes on your path.

[RongzomFan]

Percieved mental understanding can often be an illusion and a "mind trap".

 

Best wishes on your path.

 

Or it can protect your practice from deviating.

[RongzomFan]

No citations?

 

 

I can cite Loppon Namdrol

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8921&start=20#p111317

[monktastic]

I can cite Loppon Namdrol

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8921&start=20#p111317

And you understand him to mean that one should seek for more views after learning to rest in rigpa? I read the opposite.

 

Try to find a scriptural reference that says that you should seek more concepts after recognizing the natural state.

 

Jim Valby, one of ChNN's senior teachers, sent me an article of his yesterday which begins:

As long as practitioners meditate any buddhist or non-buddhist view, it is impossible for them to realize primordial enlightenment. Practitioners realize primordial enlightenment by totally relaxing in Natural Presence beyond cause and effect.

 

Saraha says:

To realize this, rest in unstructured ease without meditating on anything. When all that needs to be done is to rest in yourself, it is amazing that you are deluded by seeking elsewhere!

You can find dozens of similar quotes in any Mahamudra compilation.

 

I realize such views will not be popular on an internet site whose primary purpose is to proliferate concepts. Having recognized this, I humbly bow out of further conversation for fear of further degrading my practice. I urge anyone else reading to take these quotes to heart and do the same.

 

Be well.

Edited April 2, 2013 by monktastic

[RongzomFan]

And you understand him to mean that one should seek for more views after learning to rest in rigpa? I read the opposite.

 

 

I don't see whats ambiguous about:

 

"As I said elsewhere, for Dzogchen all you really need to understand is the five poisons, the five elements, body, voice and mind, as well as the eight examples of illusion. That is about the extent of "abidharma" and madhyamaka you need to understand. You do not even need to understand the five aggregates, etc."

 

He is saying you don't have be a Abhidharma or Madhyamaka master. But there is a bare minimum you have to know.

 

Do you even have transmission? I feel this conversation is pointless.

[monktastic]

Then perhaps you're interested in what he says later in the thread, to those who misinterpret what he said:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&start=580#p101573 (emphasis mine)

As I said in the first post in this thread, all that I think is necessary for studying Dzogchen is understanding the five elements and three gates and having a good motivation.

Okay, what about for liberation?

All that is necessary for liberation is direct introduction and subsequent diligence applying that introduction. Of course one can study anything and it can be helpful and useful to broadening one's understanding, so if you read my first post, you will see what I said. If you are going to be a teacher, you have to study a little more broadly in order to relate to more diverse capacities.

...

If you are a Dzogchen practitioner, it does not matter much what your intellectual view is.

...

The "view" in Varjayāna in general is not a result of intellectual analysis, it is a result of introduction and the experiential cultivation of introduction.

...

Because "liberation" is solely based on recognizing your real condition. It is not based on belief philosophy, intellectual analysis, conditioned merit, or anything else. It is not based on having a view of emptiness, dependent origination, buddhanature, etc. These views are just as relative as views of self, a creator, and so on.

Edited April 20, 2013 by monktastic

[monktastic]

BTW, the last two sentences quoted are particularly relevant to why I entered the thread. Belief in D.O. is great and all, but it's a relative view, and is ultimately irrelevant to liberation itself, just like belief in karma, god, self, etc. It is certainly not a reason to think that one religion is better than another.

 

Edit: and alwayson, I have no beef with you. You have your path, I have mine. My understanding is that intellectual views are less important, or even an obstacle, after recognition, and I have tried to give supporting evidence. If your understanding is different, it is no business of mine.

Edited April 20, 2013 by monktastic

[RongzomFan]

I said almost the exact same thing previously, so I know where Malcolm is coming from

 

This is what I said previously:

 

"Of course. Naropa had Hindu students etc. There are many christian, jewish Dzogchenpas.

Thats why tantric systems are independent. Its not based on an intellectual view. "

 

The problem is that you view intellectual views as "an obstacle, after recognition". Malcolm never said this, and it is a fantasy on your part.

[monktastic]

Thank you. It was an overreach on my part to call them "an obstacle." It is not my place to say what value certain teachings will have for certain people, even after recognition. All I can safely do is quote masters and my teachers, who say that after recognition, the only essential point is to achieve stability in the nature of mind, free from conceptual elaboration. If more intellectual views help some people accomplish this, that's great. If others find it simpler to just rest, wonderful. I didn't come here to bicker.

Edited April 20, 2013 by monktastic

[RongzomFan]

You confuse view with practice.

 

If stability of unfabricated presence was the end of the path, Dzogchen would be the same as Zen.

 

Kadag is only 1 out of 3 wisdoms of rigpa.

Edited April 20, 2013 by alwayson

[Boy]

...

Edited May 11, 2013 by Boy

[RongzomFan]

Rigpa has 3 wisdoms (aspects)

 

Kadag

lhun grub

thugs rje

 

 

When some people say rigpa, they are actually only referring to kadag / treckho.

Edited April 21, 2013 by alwayson

[Boy]

...

Edited May 11, 2013 by Boy

[stefos]

And you understand him to mean that one should seek for more views after learning to rest in rigpa? I read the opposite.

 

Try to find a scriptural reference that says that you should seek more concepts after recognizing the natural state.

 

Jim Valby, one of ChNN's senior teachers, sent me an article of his yesterday which begins:

 

Saraha says:

You can find dozens of similar quotes in any Mahamudra compilation.

 

I realize such views will not be popular on an internet site whose primary purpose is to proliferate concepts. Having recognized this, I humbly bow out of further conversation for fear of further degrading my practice. I urge anyone else reading to take these quotes to heart and do the same.

 

Be well.

Monktastic....you da' man.

 

By the way, I have received transmission through Guru Namkhai Norbu....He's my root teacher.....OHHH yeah.

 

Bye,

Stefos

[stefos]

Rigpa has 3 wisdoms (aspects)

 

Kadag

lhun grub

thugs rje

 

 

When some people say rigpa, they are actually only referring to kadag / treckho.

Guru Norbu recently said that "Dzogchen is the combination/mix "I forgot exactly" of Kadag & Lhun grub.

 

If people ask, then you explain."

 

Just heard him on a sweet closed retreat.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Try to find a scriptural reference that says that you should seek more concepts after recognizing the natural state.

 

 

There are some pretty unambiguous statements in Wisdom Nectar by Dudjom Rinpoche. If you want me to PM them to you, let me know. Again, you are confusing view with practice.

 

How would you know how to do dream yoga or dark retreat without more concepts? The 5 elements, eight examples of illusion etc. are important for the practice side, not the view side.

Edited May 18, 2013 by alwayson