Dzogchen (and Buddhism) Summarized

[Sunya]

michaelz

 

So Zen and Dzogchen are not the same, because Zen lacks tantric anatomy which leads to rainbow body. I said that pages ago. Jesus.

 

Depends whether you take Rainbow Body seriously or not. Doesn't mean Dzogchen is superior, it just has a different goal in the long run. And all your posts about knocking sutra paths were stemming from this difference?

[RongzomFan]

Yeah since tantric anatomy is the distinctive feature of Dzogchen and tantra in general

 

I mention this way back on page 3.

 

And I don't knock sutra paths. Vajrayana does.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

Yeah since tantric anatomy is the distinctive feature of Dzogchen and tantra in general

 

And that makes Tantra superior? Many people get wonderful results from following the simpler shamata/vipashyana path.

 

And I don't knock sutra paths. Vajrayana does.

 

And you follow those that do so blindly. As I stated earlier, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said that the goal of Dzogchen, minus Rainbow Body, is the same as Sutra paths like Zen. Namdrol said the same. The goal is realization of Emptiness/D.O. Those that claim Tantra is superior don't understand the so called 'Sutra' paths.

 

And the methodology of Zen implies a very keen understanding of the subtle channels. Awareness of energy comes naturally once you go deeper in meditation. Do you think Zen masters were oblivious? Basic Zazen is meditating on the hara, which is the naval chakra. This is the same area where the 'red drop' is in gTummo and leads the energy into the central channel. Zen masters weren't dumb. They knew what they were doing.

 

About direct introduction: the very roots of Zen were founded in the story of Buddha transmitting his wisdom to Mahakasyapa, when he held up a flower and Mahakasyapa was instantly enlightened. There are many stories of students experiencing awakening after the master touches them, says something to them, or simply looks at them. Very similar to old Dzogchen/Mahamudra stories.

Edited June 28, 2010 by mikaelz

[goldisheavy]

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche wrote a book on Zen and said that it [and all Sutra paths] reaches the same realization of emptiness as Dzogchen but does not achieve Rainbow Body, but the same can be said for Mahamudra because the practice of 'thogal' is specific to the Dzogchen lineage. If thogal is the only practice that leads to Rainbow Body, then yes Dzogchen is the only path that gets you there. But this is questionable, who knows? You?

 

It's definitely questionable. If you consider how the rainbow body of the great transference manifests, it's very similar to what is said about some of the Taoist immortals, namely that one day they up and take off into the sky, leaving nothing behind. If we don't believe those Taoist stories, why would we believe similar stories from any other tradition?

 

It's also worth noting that 99% of people will be lucky to even have a taste of emptiness during their meditative careers,

 

I tend to agree with most of what you say, but this thing here is crazy. You taste nothing but emptiness day in and day out. What non-empty thing have you ever tasted, in meditation or outside meditation? Do tell.

 

Emptiness is not a specific flavor like strawberry is. It's a realization.

 

much less have a chance at Rainbow Body. It's also questionable whether this is truly the 'highest goal' as is espoused in Dzogchen. When you have full realization of emptiness, you're enlightened. Gaining the rainbow body is really just icing on the cake and not everyone might want that. It's more like a super super power since you have full manifestation. Nothing really to do with enlightenment, as I see it.

 

Rainbow Body is a result of completely deconditioning conventional appearance-body, which is to say, our what we believe to be substantial body. But because of that, it's kind of a dubious attainment, because why focus on just one's own body? Why not decondition all of solidity? From that point of view, rainbow body is just one example of that type of realization, but not the only one, and not the necessary one.

 

The way some Dzogchenpas talk about the Rainbow Body makes it sound almost like a physical process. That's definitely wrong.

[RongzomFan]

And that makes Tantra superior? Many people get wonderful results from following the simpler shamata/vipashyana path.

 

 

 

All I am trying to say is that Dzogchen is not the same as Zen. Not even close.

 

Jesus.

 

Read this thread and stop riding my ass.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

ALL tibetan buddhist schools recognize Dzogchen as authoritative, even Mahamudra crazy Kagyu. Its not being fundamental. Thats just the way it is.

 

 

If you want to be a sutra guy thats fine, but don't misrepresent Dzogchen.

 

Zen has NOTHING to do with Dzogchen.

 

Is there any tantric anatomy (channels etc.) in Zen? Nope.

Direct Introduction in Zen? Nope.

Buddhahood in one lifetime in Zen? Nope.

Buddahood for females? Nope.

Does Zen take mind as the basis of the path? Yes.

Distinguishing rigpa from sems? Nope.

 

 

Zen is based on the Mahayana Sutras (look it up), while Dzogchen is based on the tantras.

 

 

P.S. Dzogchen IS Indian.

 

 

 

This is my post from page 3. This is what makes Dzogchen and Zen different.

 

Am I putting down or insulting Zen in this post?

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[ralis]

Not I. Someone who takes oneself seriously is a lot more careful about what they say, since they have a reputation to guard. Such person can't speak off-the-cuff and can't really mention intimate experiences, which would expose a vulnerability.

 

Writing well so that someone can understand, has little to do with being serious or not. If someone who claims to have a certain knowledge and writes in a crappy incoherent style, that will serve no one. Just adds to confusion.

 

I am attempting to be an advocate here for some who may not understand English well and may not be well educated. It is arrogant to assume that everyone here is from an English speaking country nor has everyone here gone to college.

 

ralis

Edited June 28, 2010 by ralis

[Pero]

Well two things are clear in any case. One is that dzogchen always brings a lot of discussion (on the internet at least) and two is that you're all fools.

[ralis]

Well two things are clear in any case. One is that dzogchen always brings a lot of discussion (on the internet at least) and two is that you're all fools.

 

And you are not?

[RongzomFan]

And you follow those that do so blindly. As I stated earlier, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said that the goal of Dzogchen, minus Rainbow Body, is the same as Sutra paths like Zen. Namdrol said the same.

 

 

I 100% agree with this. I never said otherwise.

 

Like I said on page 3, the distinctive features of Dzogchen include the tantric anatomy. So if you substract that, yeah you are pretty close to Zen.

 

The teachings of Mahayana, sutra and tantra, are similar on emptiness.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

 

Baizhang, Mazu, Hongren, Linji, Caodong, Dogen....

 

 

 

These people are no omniscient Buddhas, merely Zen masters by their own admission.

 

EPIC FAIL

 

 

 

Alright, so can you give me a reputable source stating that Dzogchen was historically practiced in the other schools of Tibetan Buddhism as well?

 

 

I already did. Are you ignorant or something?

 

 

the Gelug school has always favored its own practices and Mahamudra.

 

 

The earliest Dalai Lamas, like the Fifth, were the greatest Dzogchen practitioners in history. Everyone here knows this besides you and can confirm I am telling the truth.

 

EPIC FAIL

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[Pero]

And you are not?

 

Oh I never said I wasn't.

[Sunya]

These people are no omniscient Buddhas, merely Zen masters by their own admission.

 

EPIC FAIL

 

How can you prove that someone is an 'omniscient Buddha' ? Supposedly there are Tibetan/Indian masters that were Buddhas, but how do you know? Because of stories?

[RongzomFan]

Again thanks for riding my ass.

 

But to answer your quesion, these people don't even claim to be Buddhas, and noone considers them buddhas, and there is no reason to consider tham buddhas.

[ralis]

How can you prove that someone is an 'omniscient Buddha' ? Supposedly there are Tibetan/Indian masters that were Buddhas, but how do you know? Because of stories?

 

Very good point. I have never met one who is omniscient. Only read about it.

[RongzomFan]

we've actually come full circle, because in Dzogchen the mind is considered an obscuration to omniscience.

[goldisheavy]

Yeah since tantric anatomy is the distinctive feature of Dzogchen and tantra in general

 

I mention this way back on page 3.

 

And I don't knock sutra paths. Vajrayana does.

 

Vajrayana is too big of a thing to say that. You can be specific instead. It's much better to be specific than to be hand-wavy like you are. Now, if I remember correctly, The All-Creating King Tantra does criticize everything in Buddhism, not just sutra!

 

Maybe someone can post some of it. Screw it. This time I should put my laziness aside and that someone will be me.

 

I am quoting starting from page 144 of the English translation of The Supreme Source:

 

Listen, great being! Just this nature of pure and total consciousness is the ultimate essence of all that exists. Never having been born, it is totally pure and unhindered; as it cannot be achieved by treading a path, it has no deviations; spontaneously perfect from the beginning, it cannot be the outcome of a quest. Yet by conceiving this single pure and total consciousness, the universal essence, in terms of multiplicity, deviations and hindrances arise. Treading a path to reach what cannot be reached by treading causes deviation; seeking to understand conceptually that which cannot become an object [of thought] causes the hindrances that obstruct understanding.

 

Even though in the fundamental condition all is equal, [the Buddhisattvas] deem that practicing the ten paramitas enables one to realize the ten bhumis because they think that by acting on a cause, one can benefit from its fruit in the future. In this way they deviate and remain hindered for three more kalpas.

 

[Practitioners of Kriya] deem the outer world, the inner world, and thoughts to be the three purities and engage in the factors of realization and in the miraculous actions. But even though in this way they keep their vows and commitments perfectly, they deviate and remain hindered for seven more lives.

 

[Practitioners of Ubhaya] whose behavior corresponds to the cause and whose view corresponds to the effect, deem view and behavior as two separate things. In this way they deviate from the non-dual state and remain hindered for three more lives.

 

[Practitioners of yoga,] by adhering to behavior of acceptance and rejection in relation to the single essence, lose sight of oneness and enter into dualistic vision. In this way they deviate and remain hindered until they free themselves of accepting and rejecting.

 

[Practitioners of mahayoga,] by meditating on the single self-arising condition as if it had three characteristics, deviate from the state that transcends effort.

 

[Practitioners of anuyoga,] by not understanding that the natural condition is the ultimate essence of all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate world, conceive the dimension of emptiness and wisdom in terms of cause and effect. As this amounts to affirming a cause that does not exist and, conversely, negating an effect that does exist, they remain hindered until they achieve the certainty that transcends affirming and negating.

 

These, then, [in summary] are the six ways of seeking to obtain a fruit it is believed one does not [already] possess: basing oneself on the two truths; engaging in the three purities; separating view and behavior; engaging in behavior entailing entailing acceptance and rejection; meditating on the three [characteristic] phases; apprehending the dimension of emptiness and wisdom in terms of cause and effect. [...]

 

Pure and total consciousness is like space. In the true condition of the nature of mind, similar to space, there is no view on which to meditate, nor commitment to observe, there is no capacity for spiritual action to obtain, nor wisdom to develop, there are no levels of realization to cultivation nor path to tread, there is no consideration of a subtle substance nor of a duality to be re-integrated as unity, there is no final teaching apart from pure and total consciousness. Being [the true nature] beyond affirmation and negation, there is no secret teaching that can compare with it. This is the view of total perfection, pure and total consciousness.

 

This speaks for itself. Oh yea, my wife narrated this for me as I typed, so I can't take all the credit for myself. You guys and gals can thank my wife for this one.

Edited June 28, 2010 by goldisheavy

[RongzomFan]

Styro, I would like for you to address your epic failures on the last page. The Fifth Dalai Lama is mentioned in about every other Dzogchen book, if you want a source for that.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

It is extremely dubious, with most people supposedly living for hundreds of years. There is no actual contemporaneous history of Dzogchen in India, from any sources. Try to give me a source that pre-dates the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet by Padmasambhava. There are none, because Dzogchen is essentially a Tibetan tradition. There are no records of it before Tibet.

 

How about the Sankrit commentaries of Guhyasamaja, all written in India

 

ANOTHER EPIC FAIL

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[styrofoamdog]

These people are no omniscient Buddhas, merely Zen masters by their own admission.

Exactly when did they ever make this distinction? It is nowhere in history, and you are just making things up as you go along. The Platform Sutra clearly indicates that Hongren was a buddha. Anyone who achieves Bodhi is a buddha, per the basic definition.

 

I already did. Are you ignorant or something?

No, these are not sources that pre-date the Tibetan tradition or that are established outside the Dzogchen lineage. In other words, there is no credible historical evidence whatsoever, except for a short list of names that supposedly covers about 1000 years. In other words, it was not a significant part of Indian Buddhism in any way.

 

The earliest Dalai Lamas, like the Fifth, were the greatest Dzogchen practitioners in history. Everyone here knows this besides you and can confirm I am telling the truth.

Some of the dalai lamas were great practitioners of a practice that is essentially one tradition within Tibetan Buddhism. I have never disagreed with that. What is wrong is for you to claim that Dzogchen has an Indian pedigree, when there is no historical evidence besides a very short list of names that comes from within the Dzogchen tradition.

 

The issue of the Rainbow Body represents cultivation of the Sambhogakaya, or the karmic reward body of a buddha. In Zen, this can be cultivated directly with Anapana, same as with the early Buddhist schools and the arhats who had supernatural powers. It was against the rules of discipline for monks in China to show off supernatural powers, though. There are many stories in Zen history about masters making a final supernatural display immediately before death. Sometimes their body would shrink and shine like the Rainbow Body, transforming the elements of the body. Sometimes it would disappear except for a few bits of fingernails and hair. These are difficult to completely transform because they belong to the element of earth, which is very dense, and because they are constantly growing. So they were left behind as mementos for their disciples. In one case, a master quickly wrote a message to his students, tossed his pen across the room, and died immediately before the pen hit the floor. This was to show that he had completely mastered birth and death.

 

These are all common accounts in Zen. Nan Huaijin is an enlightened Zen master as well, and he was also recognized as such by a khutuktu the Kagyu school 60-70 years ago, and given the title Vajra Master. He has explained the Rainbow Body and Anapana practice, and mentions that the Rainbow Body should not be taken as anything representing ultimate attainment in Vajrayana, just a transformation of the body.

[RongzomFan]

How about the Sankrit commentaries of Guhyasamaja, all written in India

 

ANOTHER EPIC FAIL

 

 

Is there a time delay on the forum or something? Why don't you address this?

 

This is Dzogchen in India.

[styrofoamdog]

How about the Sankrit commentaries of Guhyasamaja, all written in India

 

ANOTHER EPIC FAIL

That is an Indian tantra, not a Dzogchen text of any kind (nor does it present itself as a Dzogchen text). If some people in Dzogchen use this tantra and its methods, it would still not establish a link between the Dzogchen tradition and India. That's like someone saying their Aikido came from Bruce Lee because they read one of his books on Kung Fu.

[RongzomFan]

Exactly when did they ever make this distinction? It is nowhere in history, and you are just making things up as you go along. The Platform Sutra clearly indicates that Hongren was a buddha. Anyone who achieves Bodhi is a buddha, per the basic definition.

 

 

 

 

I am not making up things as I go along. I was counting on you on making this mistake.

 

Thats why I boldly said "Name ONE"

[RongzomFan]

That is an Indian tantra, not a Dzogchen text of any kind (nor does it present itself as a Dzogchen text). If some people in Dzogchen use this tantra and its methods, it would still not establish a link between the Dzogchen tradition and India. That's like someone saying their Aikido came from Bruce Lee because they read one of his books on Kung Fu.

 

 

You are an idiot. The Indian COMMENTARIES of this tantra contain Dzogchen. These commentaries were written in Sanskrit in India.

 

WOW.

Edited June 28, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

These are all common accounts in Zen. Nan Huaijin is an enlightened Zen master as well, and he was also recognized as such by a khutuktu the Kagyu school 60-70 years ago, and given the title Vajra Master. He has explained the Rainbow Body and Anapana practice, and mentions that the Rainbow Body should not be taken as anything representing ultimate attainment in Vajrayana, just a transformation of the body.

 

Ah, thanks Styrofoamdog. That was very interesting. That's just the kind of thing I would also say about the Rainbow Body. Rainbow Body is like any other magical transformation and to make it something special seems crazy to me. It's in the same class as changing one substance into another, or sitting in a tub of boiling water, or flying around in the air, going through walls and so on. It's not something special that it alone and only it alone means enlightenment. It's not like that. But in Dzogchen the Rainbow Body has become an object of blind and dogmatic worship without any kind of understanding or wisdom behind it. People just want to attain the Rainbow Body for themselves, but they have no idea what it means and what it would mean to their day to day life and beliefs. Just parrots dumbly parroting and desperately craving and hankering.

 

Thanks for clearing it up.