Dzogchen (and Buddhism) Summarized

[goldisheavy]

Relax and distinguish crystal clear purity from mind. How is that plain english?

 

Purity is just a idea, an opinion. Thus it is part of the mindset. Indeed you should distinguish purity, dirtiness and all other features of the mindset from the mind. I bet you didn't expect that, did you?

[goldisheavy]

GIH, what does this "mindset" mean to you?

 

Mindset is a set of beliefs, especially core beliefs, and values. It is a particular manner of thinking and a manner of relating. It's a particular condition of the mind, like wind or stillness is a condition of the air, with the difference that we consider air to have substance, while the mind is insubstantial and is much harder to define (or impossible, when you really get down to business).

Edited June 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

I've been a Brahma. Not Mahabrahma. There are many Brahmas. In one of my memories, I remember having immense power over a small universe and being completely lost in it and the idea that I had created it, and part of my waking up was to look around the cosmos and see endless Brahmas who were under the same powerful delusion as I.

 

I don't know if I was that same Brahma as I generally only remember bits and pieces with utter clarity.

 

Most likely, many of you within the span of eternal time were one type of god or another, but just don't remember it. It took me very intense practicing to come to the level of memory I do have. It didn't just happen from living a worldly life.

 

Was that "The Tao Bums" universe? I hope you see the humor in that one.

 

 

ralis

[Pero]

Mindset is a set of beliefs, especially core beliefs, and values. It is a particular manner of thinking and a manner of relating. It's a particular condition of the mind, like wind or stillness is a condition of the air, with the difference that we consider air to have substance, while the mind is insubstantial and is much harder to define (or impossible, when you really get down to business).

 

I see. Thanks.

[xabir2005]

Just because someone takes samaya vows seriously does not mean they have no personal experience.

 

Dalai Lama also says he will never admit he is enlightened even if he is.

 

Loppon Namdrol is not a teacher who gives direct introduction you know

I remember if I'm not wrong, reading a post in E-Sangha where a lama or rinpoche requested him to start teaching Dzogchen, but he turned down the request. Many years back. Edited June 27, 2010 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

I think this whole issue of distinguishing Rigpa and mind, and in relation to what Gold is saying, can be easily solved if you understand that the core realization of Dzogchen is that there is no fundamental difference between Rigpa and mind, but that realization only dawns once attachment to mind is let go of, so this distinguishment is really just a method

Edited June 27, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

I think this whole issue of distinguishing Rigpa and mind, and in relation to what Gold is saying, can be easily solved if you understand that the core realization of Dzogchen is that there is no fundamental difference between Rigpa and mind, but that realization only dawns once attachment to mind is let go of, so this distinguishment is really just a method

 

You can reasonably experience non-attachment to beliefs, ideas, opinions, values, attitudes and so on. While these things are conditions of the mind, they are not really the mind per se, but rather, that's how a person might think about the mind initially, before one investigates it.

 

It's the mind that's bound up in its own condition and it's also the mind that's released from that condition, or relaxed into it.

 

The mind is like the screen and the mindset is like a movie. The movie has gripping content. When you watch the movie you become emotionally enmeshed in it. You start to sympathize with some characters and despise the others, you really believe the context of the movie, which is the setting and the plot. When you are asked to bring your attention to the fact that the movie is playing on a screen, it immediately jolts you back to reality. You instantly realize that the movie is a projection on the screen, that you don't have to take it too seriously, and that it's there for enjoyment.

 

But again, the difference is that we consider the screen to be substantial, so it's not a perfectly good analogy for the mind. Nothing is.

 

If you read some Dzogchen texts they'll have instructions like "mix the mind with the world" for example. What does that mean? You can't really mix anything like that. What it means is that if you used to think the mind was one thing and the world another, you no longer maintain that distinction. And subjectively it feels like you're mixing the mind with the world, which subjectively feels like "not-mind". Of course the cognizance of "not-mind" is the function of the mind -- that's what mind does. The mind allows for delineations. The mind allows for distinctions. The mind also allows for non-distinction which is another kind of distinction. A process of non-distinction is distinct from the process of distinction. In other words, it's the same thing as understanding that absolute is relative to relative. We understand something to be absolute when it's not relative. Something is relative when it's not absolute. Absolute and relative define and delineate each other. Thus absolute is relative to relative. So absolute is a special kind of relativity. That's also the manner in which non-distinction is a special kind of distinction.

 

So then when you realize all that, you can really relax. Then you understand that distinction and non-distinction are not so different after all and the dogmatic attitude is unwarranted. That's also when you begin to realize that concepts are not, after all, all that different from that which we consider non-conceptual.

 

If we go back to the movie paradigm, it means you realize that the protagonist of the movie is similar to the villain of the movie in that both are movie personages. When you realize this, you immediately gain some emotional distance from the entire movie, because you now treat all movies personages as just movie personages instead of as things you must take sides with. This gives you a different way to relate to the movie. Then instead of living in the movie you can just watch it. But just watching the movie is inferior to being a movie director. A movie director is a step beyond the movie watcher.

 

A movie watcher is non-attached to the movie in the sense of not getting lost in it. But a movie watcher is still attached to the movie because such one doesn't feel free to conduct the movie, to meddle with it, to be creative with it. A movie watcher while not lost in the movie still has a feeling of wanting to keep the movie whole, to leave it alone as is, to not meddle with it. A movie director is completely unattached to the movie in that the director is neither lost in the movie, nor does one feel the movie must be left alone, and thus feels free to be creative with it -- to add personages, to alter plot lines, to change the camera angles and so on. So creativity is the highest level of non-attachment.

Edited June 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

I've been a Brahma. Not Mahabrahma. There are many Brahmas. In one of my memories, I remember having immense power over a small universe and being completely lost in it and the idea that I had created it, and part of my waking up was to look around the cosmos and see endless Brahmas who were under the same powerful delusion as I.

 

I don't know if I was that same Brahma as I generally only remember bits and pieces with utter clarity.

 

Most likely, many of you within the span of eternal time were one type of god or another, but just don't remember it. It took me very intense practicing to come to the level of memory I do have. It didn't just happen from living a worldly life.

 

 

How did you obtain the divya caksus?

http://www.google.com/search?q=divya+caksus&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks:1&tbo=1

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&q=dibba+cakkhu&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Edited June 27, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

How did you obtain the divya caksus?

http://www.google.com/search?q=divya+caksus&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks:1&tbo=1

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&q=dibba+cakkhu&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

You really should learn to ask more nicely. You have a very arrogant and pestering nature.

[RongzomFan]

Why are you humoring a guy who claims to be a rebirth of a Brahma?

 

If anyone is more arrogant than me, its him.

 

Did you see the arrogance he displayed towards others on this forum, like ralis????

Edited June 27, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

Why are you humoring a guy who claims to be a rebirth of a Brahma?

 

If anyone is more arrogant than me, its him.

 

 

According to Buddhism, our mindstreams have been every type of being, including gods. Are you so surprised that someone actually has experience remembering this? Really don't see what the big deal is. And not sure why you even capitalize brahma, gods are just beings like everyone else, except more powerful and live longer.

Edited June 27, 2010 by mikaelz

[RongzomFan]

Even if he WAS a Brahma, he claims that he did "very intense practicing to come to the level of memory".

 

Which means he attained a level of realization.

 

Contrast that with the Dalai Lama's attitude of purposely not claiming a realization even if he indeed have it.

[goldisheavy]

Why are you humoring a guy who claims to be a rebirth of a Brahma?

 

You're saying it like it's a big deal. Don't you understand that memory is empty? Do you understand the implications? What does it mean in practice when we say that memory is empty?

[RongzomFan]

I know when a guy says he did "very intense practicing to come to the level of memory", he is claiming a realization.

 

Contrast this with Dalai Lama or Namdrol's more noble attitude.

[goldisheavy]

Even if he WAS a Brahma, he claims that he did "very intense practicing to come to the level of memory".

 

Which means he attained a level of realization.

 

Contrast that with the Dalai Lama's attitude of purposely not claiming a realization even if he indeed have it.

 

 

Maybe Dalai Lama doesn't have any realization and a plucky, hobnosed Vajrahridaya from this here forum has the same realization as Vairotsana? Have you considered that? Of course not.

 

Why not?

 

Here's why. You want to worship something and someone, and obviously, since your worship is public, and since it affects your standing in public, you can't really be seen worshiping someone with few or no qualifications, or worse, someone with possibly positive anti-qualifications.

 

Worshiping Dalai Lama is easy, because many people do, so if you also do, you don't look out of place. You also believe that someone realized is worthy of worship, since that's what people like Dalai Lama and his supporters will readily say.

 

So there is a contradiction here. If someone has a realization but does not have a conventionally high social status, like a religious leader, then you feel there is a contradiction. On one hand, you want to worship a realized mind. On the other hand, you don't want to hurt your social status. You don't want to look like an idiot.

 

So the end result is that whether or not someone has realization is unimportant to you. You will only recognize people in power. You will only recognize people with some social status. Why? Because you need to protect your fragile ego. You need to make sure you don't associate with the questionable elements, to protect your own reputation.

 

So if someone with a high social status also happens to have realization, that's just extra gravy on top. But what really matters is the social status and not realization for someone like you.

Edited June 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

It took me very intense practicing to come to the level of memory I do have. It didn't just happen from living a worldly life.

 

 

LOL

[RongzomFan]

According to GIH:

 

GIH>Sakya Loppon

Vajrahridaya>Dalai Lama

 

Got it. Thanks.

 

BTW, you didn't understand anything at all. Dalai Lama specifically states it is better not to claim a realization at all, even if one has one. And he himself says he follows that principle.

[goldisheavy]

I know when a guy says he did "very intense practicing to come to the level of memory", he is claiming a realization.

 

Contrast this with Dalai Lama or Namdrol's more noble attitude.

 

I've listened to both Vajrahridaya and Loppon for quite a bit. I have to say that Loppon, for all his pretentious attempts at humility is very full of himself. Namdrol/Malcolm (if I remember correct) takes himself rather seriously and you'll never see him make a joke or fool around. Vajra here on the other hand, doesn't take himself very seriously and is often found goofing off and horsing around, which is a great thing. So Vajrahridaya can go around claiming he's God's behind, and yet he has real humility. While Loppon assiduously avoids making any claims, while being really full of himself at the same time and arrogant to the extreme, simply because he takes himself so very seriously.

[RongzomFan]

GIH,

 

 

You are starting to veer into dangerous territory BECAUSE I can easily pull out many of Vajrahridaya's OBVIOUSLY arrogant statements.

 

You don't want to go down this road.

[Sunya]

LOL

 

You have some very strange karma, alwayson, I really don't get it. So those that don't claim realization have it, while those that do don't have it? Have you ever thought that maybe not everyone follows those rules? Dalai Lama is highly realized but he doesn't need to claim it, nor would it really benefit him since he is a political leader. Telling people "well guys I'VE seen it" doesn't prove anything these days, since people demand scientific proof for everything. Also, it is a cultural thing for Tibetans to be very very humble and never admit that they are realized. Actually, i'd say it's an Asian thing. Daniel Ingram talks about this and says that those with realization need to be much more public and open about it so that these sort of things don't seem so mythical and out of reach.

 

I've listened to both Vajrahridaya and Loppon for quite a bit. I have to say that Loppon, for all his pretentious attempts at humility is very full of himself. Namdrol/Malcolm (if I remember correct) takes himself rather seriously and you'll never see him make a joke or fool around. Vajra here on the other hand, doesn't take himself very seriously and is often found goofing off and horsing around, which is a great thing. So Vajrahridaya can go around claiming he's God's behind, and yet he has real humility. While Loppon assiduously avoids making any claims, while being really full of himself at the same time and arrogant to the extreme, simply because he takes himself so very seriously.

 

Please don't insult alwayson's main role model and source of identity, GIH, you don't want to go down that road.

Edited June 27, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

GIH,

 

 

You are starting to veer into dangerous territory BECAUSE I can easily pull out many of Vajrahridaya's OBVIOUSLY arrogant statements.

 

You don't want to go down this road.

 

Really? I would rather live with the silly and funny "arrogant" Vajrahridayas than with Loppons who put on a big phony humility show while deep down are as arrogant as sin.

[RongzomFan]

 

Have you seen your spine turn electric blue yet?

 

 

You don't think this is arrogant?

 

He said this to demean ralis

Edited June 27, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Loppons who put on a big phony humility show while deep down are as arrogant as sin.

 

 

You know it is sort of cowards thing to attack someone who isn't here.

 

You are FORCING me to step up.

 

Just because someone sticks to ancient texts, doesn't make one arrogant. Its actually humility to the Masters of the past. You would not understand that. Not at all.

 

Its actually the ONLY way to talk about buddhism without claiming personal realization (which breaks Vajrayana vows). Every buddhist teacher does it, even Norbu.

Edited June 27, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

You know it is sort of cowards thing to attack someone who isn't here.

 

You are FORCING me to step up.

 

Just because someone sticks to ancient texts, doesn't make one arrogant. Its actually humility to the Masters of the past. You would not understand that. Not at all.

 

Its actually the ONLY way to talk about buddhism without claiming personal realization (which breaks Vajrayana vows). Every buddhist teacher does it, even Norbu.

 

What breaks the Vajrayana vows is not so much what you do or say, but what meaning do you believe your words or action carry. If you take yourself seriously, you're breaking the Vajrayana vows even if you are silent. On the other hand, you can go around claiming to be Garab Dorje's reincarnation, and not take yourself very seriously, and still keep all your vows intact. The vows are a spiritual thing. They're not a restraint on conduct. They are a restraint on inner ignorance.

 

Anyway, I still respect Loppon Namdrol. For example, if I wanted some quote or if I wanted to get an opinion of someone who's studied way more texts and in their native language too, I'd ask Loppon a question. At the same time, I think of Loppon as a good dictionary -- useful as a resource and maybe a good friend too, because we accept that our friends can have flaws. It's a big mistake to go from that to reverence though. If you revere Namdrol, your reverence is misplaced, in my not so humble opinion.

 

Anyway, I never brought Namdrol up. I always like to talk straight from the heart with as few references to other materials or people as possible. You're the one who brought Namdrol up as a source of authority. Deal with the consequences. It's just too bad for you, I guess, that you are not the only one who is familiar with Namdrol.

 

I don't think Namdrol is a bad guy or anything like that. Just that if you are going to give Namdrol as an example of humility, you're really barking up the wrong alley here.

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

Please don't insult alwayson's main role model and source of identity, GIH, you don't want to go down that road.

 

 

YOU YOURSELF CITED NAMDROL ON THE FIRST PAGE TO CRITICIZE ME.

 

Wow. Just wow. A little amnesia perhaps?

 

Dependent origination and emptiness are not two sides of the same coin, but rather the same side. They are synonyms. This is a very good related article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/10/dzogchen-rigpa-and-dependent.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/mirror.html

 

 

 

 

GIH, as a communist who got banned from this forum for one week for his arrogance, I would think you would hate the centralized authority a brahma represents.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson