Dzogchen (and Buddhism) Summarized

[styrofoamdog]

You are crazy. I wasn't even talking about God or some universal essence. I have no idea why you decided to say that. I quoted that bit to show that at least one Vajrayana tantra criticizes everything and not just sutras. That was the main point. My secondary point was that consciousness is superior to any secret teaching, and I highlighted that part in the quote. I didn't even have God in mind. Not at all. The fact that you're talking about it means you're a lunatic. You've lost track of what's happening. You're barking at the shadows.

I didn't see the quote as criticizing doctrine, but rather the various notions that people cling to based on doctrine.

 

In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha would say that the true appearance is not an appearance, and thus the Tathagata speaks of a true appearance. Another line is that all appearances are empty and false, and if all appearances are not seen as appearances, then this is perceiving the Tathagata. Yet another is that the unified appearance cannot be spoken (cannot be thought, cannot be communicated, cannot be grasped), yet ordinary people try vainly to acquire it. The words in the tantra seem very much in line with this, saying that no explanation or systematic philosophy can imbue someone with the ultimate truth of the true nature of the mind -- that it is unconditioned by anything. These teachings are meant to cut off grasping and teach non-attachment to any mental phenomena. That is, that all words and teachings are conscious fabrications only.

 

Zen also does things to shock people and pry them away from their attachments. In one case, a Zen Buddhist master ordered his disciples to prepare a non-vegetarian feast. This was strictly against the precepts in China, completely taboo and terrible for monks or nuns. Most of the disciples turned away and left him. It was just a test, and the ones who had the real Dharma Eye and stayed were the ones who received his teachings.

[Vajrahridaya]

You are crazy. I wasn't even talking about God or some universal essence. I have no idea why you decided to say that. I quoted that bit to show that at least one Vajrayana tantra criticizes everything and not just sutras. That was the main point. My secondary point was that consciousness is superior to any secret teaching, and I highlighted that part in the quote. I didn't even have God in mind. Not at all. The fact that you're talking about it means you're a lunatic. You've lost track of what's happening. You're barking at the shadows.

 

Consciousness is a conditioned arising as well and not inherent. This is why consciousness is also not a supreme source for everything, unless unified with emptiness which means dependent origination. Then your consciousness is the supreme source for your enlightenment because consciousness of your own realizes it's own empty and inter-dependent nature. Thus you never take any experience as supreme, and you never take any view based upon an experience as proof of an ultimate view. Thus, you never have an excuse for pride, though confidence happens due to direct, non-dual knowing of this truth.

 

The entire Kunjed Gyalpo is to show how the yanas are completed in the experience of Rigpa, and that's it. Rigpa is direct insight into experience, an experience of it's own empty and dependently originated nature. You have to take every part of it in context of the entire cannon, otherwise you only see the side you wish to project.

 

Then again.. maybe I am crazy?

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

mikaelz, on 28 June 2010 - 05:29 PM, said:

All the 9 yanas find completion in Dzogchen.

 

wtf? lol I never said that.

 

 

No, I did. But, I quoted that from my reply to you and it came out as saying you said that for some reason??

[goldisheavy]

I didn't see the quote as criticizing doctrine, but rather the various notions that people cling to based on doctrine.

 

It's definitely criticizing the doctrine because people made all those doctrines under the influence of delusion. Had the people not been deluded, they'd make much simpler doctrines (as opposed to splitting things up into levels and areas and so on, and treating all these splits seriously, as if they were real).

 

Another way to see it is this. Had that practitioners not been swayed by the criticized delusions, they wouldn't have selected those respective doctrines for themselves.

 

It's also true that you can look at any deluded doctrine through the wisdom eye and see nothing but wisdom, but that's not the same thing as the doctrine being OK.

[goldisheavy]

Consciousness is a conditioned arising as well and not inherent.

 

What do you mean by "not inherent"? Consciousness as a whole, not the individual objects of consciousness, is unborn and unconditioned. Of course the various individual perturbations of consciousness are conditioned. You must keep in mind that conditions are visionary rather than completely real. Conditions are themselves empty and are not merely a reason for phenomena being empty. The delineation between cause and effect is illusory, mind-made, it is also empty and unstable. It's impossible to say when cause stops and effect begins.

[styrofoamdog]

It's definitely criticizing the doctrine because people made all those doctrines under the influence of delusion. Had the people not been deluded, they'd make much simpler doctrines (as opposed to splitting things up into levels and areas and so on, and treating all these splits seriously, as if they were real).

 

Another way to see it is this. Had that practitioners not been swayed by the criticized delusions, they wouldn't have selected those respective doctrines for themselves.

 

It's also true that you can look at any deluded doctrine through the wisdom eye and see nothing but wisdom, but that's not the same thing as the doctrine being OK.

No, it's definitely not criticizing the doctrine. The real truth is the Dharmakaya, and it is completely inconceivable by the mind. It cannot be fathomed, spoken in words, or inhered by anything. Even a billion eloquent words could not communicate it completely. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra with its 600 chapters all pointing to the truth cannot give anyone this, and they are ultimately insufficient. This goes for the Dzogchen texts as well. They are all just words. But if you don't accept any words or explanations, you will never understand the theory or how to practice. The tantra is stating that these explanations act to obscure the mind when people cling to them, and it is exactly right. They were not made from delusion, they were taught out of compassion for sentient beings who all require guidance. The Buddhist teachings are very deep and helpful, but they are still words, and theory is never the ultimate truth itself. The teachings should not be neglected, but people should also not become attached to them. The tantra is helping point this out to the reader that attachment to any hermeneutic obscures the truth.

 

A Zen master said, "My words are poison, but if you don't listen, your sickness cannot be cured."

[C T]

No, it's definitely not criticizing the doctrine. The real truth is the Dharmakaya, and it is completely inconceivable by the mind. It cannot be fathomed, spoken in words, or inhered by anything. Even a billion eloquent words could not communicate it completely. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra with its 600 chapters all pointing to the truth cannot give anyone this, and they are ultimately insufficient. This goes for the Dzogchen texts as well. They are all just words. But if you don't accept any words or explanations, you will never understand the theory or how to practice. The tantra is stating that these explanations act to obscure the mind when people cling to them, and it is exactly right. They were not made from delusion, they were taught out of compassion for sentient beings who all require guidance. The Buddhist teachings are very deep and helpful, but they are still words, and theory is never the ultimate truth itself. The teachings should not be neglected, but people should also not become attached to them. The tantra is helping point this out to the reader that attachment to any hermeneutic obscures the truth.

 

A Zen master said, "My words are poison, but if you don't listen, your sickness cannot be cured."

Wonderful saying by the Zen master Styro.

 

My lack of insight tells me the 'real truth' is revealed in all the kayas, manifesting in different forms and wisdoms in varying degrees, which then culminates in perfect awakening in the Dharmakaya. All three kayas (some mention a fourth - Svabhavikakaya, which is the indivisible identity of the 3 kayas - also known as the Essence Body) support each other.

 

I understand the Dharmakaya to represent Space, Sambhogakaya to represent the cognizance of phenomena (which is empty in essence, like space) and Nirmanakaya is the ultimate state of unconfined unity of the other two.

 

Please correct me if this is inaccurate.

[rex]

What really is the significance of the three Yanas?

In terms of practice one way of looking at them is:

 

Hinayana: do not harm

Mahayana: cultivate a wealth of virtue

Vajrayana: train and tame the mind

 

Vajrayana is built on the indispensible foundation of mahayana which in turn is built upon the indispensible foundation of the hinayana.

[Vajrahridaya]

It's definitely criticizing the doctrine because people made all those doctrines under the influence of delusion. Had the people not been deluded, they'd make much simpler doctrines (as opposed to splitting things up into levels and areas and so on, and treating all these splits seriously, as if they were real).

 

No, they are real, they are what reality is, but attachment to this as ultimate does not lead anywhere but more craving for more material.

 

Another way to see it is this. Had that practitioners not been swayed by the criticized delusions, they wouldn't have selected those respective doctrines for themselves.

 

It says in the Kunjed Gyalpo that people just need what they need in order to advance, but all mistakes in understanding are rectified in the experience of Rigpa which transcends, yet encompasses all the different yanas.

 

It's also true that you can look at any deluded doctrine through the wisdom eye and see nothing but wisdom, but that's not the same thing as the doctrine being OK.

 

It never says that doctrine is wrong or evil, just that doctrine is doctrine and realization is realization. Thus no doctrine is OK in the ultimate sense.

[Sunya]

Rex,

 

There's really no such thing as Hinayana anymore. Theravada, the Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, and some other places, is all about training the mind. Their goal is to realize wisdom right now, not eons from now, and also to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). It is a wisdom practice not a 'do not harm and cultivate merit for thousands of eons' practice. The '9 yanas' is a strictly Tibetan invention and is in fact quite useful, but viewing other Buddhist paths as 'lower' because they don't fit into the tight Tibetan model is rather unpractical.

 

There was a book released not too long ago that is a comparison between Theravada and Dzogchen:

Edited June 29, 2010 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

What do you mean by "not inherent"? Consciousness as a whole, not the individual objects of consciousness, is unborn and unconditioned. Of course the various individual perturbations of consciousness are conditioned. You must keep in mind that conditions are visionary rather than completely real. Conditions are themselves empty and are not merely a reason for phenomena being empty. The delineation between cause and effect is illusory, mind-made, it is also empty and unstable. It's impossible to say when cause stops and effect begins.

 

This is where you don't see the insight of the Buddha Dharma. Consciousness is also a conditioned arising and is a phenomena and is empty of inherent existence. Your consciousness realizing the unborn nature of things through insight into emptiness and becomes the supreme source for ones realization or the experience of Rigpa. This is why ChNNR says to understand emptiness through the teachings of Nagarjuna as a primary agent in understanding Rigpa. In Dzogchen Cosmology, even Samantabhadra is considered to have just attained realization upon the beginning of this universal cycle upon arising from the potentiality left from the last cycle without knowledge obscurations. Namdrol could break it down for you as he can translate directly from the Tibetan. But, consciousness even as an experience of the whole is not to be taken as an Atman, or a Brahma either. As in, not a static Self of all and not the creator of everything in the singular sense of the idea. We all co-create. You should read Dzogchen cosmology as your reading of the Kunjed Gyalpo seems to have confused you a bit into thinking the teachings are somehow Upanishadic or a subjective idealization.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

In terms of practice one way of looking at them is:

 

Hinayana: do not harm

Mahayana: cultivate a wealth of virtue

Vajrayana: train and tame the mind

 

Vajrayana is built on the indispensible foundation of mahayana which in turn is built upon the indispensible foundation of the hinayana.

 

There is also the 9 yana system and the 12 yana system. Of course the Kunjed Gyalpo said anything can be broken down endlessly because of infinite regress due to the fact of there being no beginning to the universal cycling.

 

The below is cut and pasted using various sources, mostly Wiki.

 

Nine yānas

 

The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism has nine yanas, a list made by combining the first type of three yanas, and adding the six classes of tantras.

 

Hīnayāna-

 

1. Śrāvakayāna = Śrāvakayāna is the path that meets the goals of a Arhat – an individual who achieves liberation as a result of listening to the teachings (or lineage) of a Bodhisattva Buddha.

 

2. Pratyekayāna = Pratyekabuddhas are said to achieve enlightenment on their own, without the use of teachers or guides, according to some traditions by contemplating the principle of dependent arising. They are said to arise only in ages where there is no Buddha and the Buddhist teachings (Sanskrit: dharma; Pāli: dhamma) are lost. Many may arise at a single time. Unlike Supreme Buddhas (see bodhi), their enlightenment is not foretold.

 

Mahāyāna consisting of:

 

3. Bodhisattvayāna = Bodhisattvayāna (Skt.). The ‘Vehicle of the Bodhisattvas’. An alternative designation for the Mahāyāna or ‘Great Vehicle’, it is the way, means, or method by which Bodhisattvas pursue their religious career. It distinguishes itself from the two methods employed by the Hīnayāna or ‘Small Vehicle’, namely the ‘Vehicle of the Hearers’ (Śrāvakayāna), and the goal of personal enlightenment (bodhi) in seclusion of the Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha-yāna). Both of these earlier ‘vehicles’ are thought to be deficient by virtue of their lesser concern for others. (taken from Encyclopedia.org)

 

(In my opinion this is true as a teaching vehicle, but not necessarily as a result different from the Hinayana, as when one realizes the nature of things as dependently originated, one automatically would take up the Bodhisattva ideal of realizing liberation for the sake of others. Thus the Mahayana is the natural progression of expression from the teachings of Hinayana.)

 

Vajrayāna, consisting of:

Outer Tantras & Inner Tantras

 

4. Kriyatantra = The kriya tantras, or ‘action’ tantras, are so-called because they are concerned mainly with external conduct, the practices of ritual purification and cleanliness and so on.

 

5. Upatantra = (Tibetan spyod rgyud) ‘practice tantra’ and the Ubhayatantra (gnyis ka’i rgyud), ‘dual tantra’, because it practices the view of the next vehicle, Yogatantra, together with the action of the former.

 

6. Yogatantra = "Yoga tantra is so named because it emphasizes the inner yoga meditation of method and wisdom; or alternatively, because based on knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the profound ultimate truth and the vast relative truth, it emphasizes contemplation that inseparably unites these two truths." - Jamgon Kongtrul

 

Inner Tantras

 

7. Mahāyoga = Ray (2002: p. 124) associates the Mahayoga with removing the obscuration of the mula klesha of aggression (or anger), the relative aspect of the two truths is mentioned and an embedded quotation by Tulku Thondup:

Mahayoga-yana is associated with the masculine principle and is for those whose primary defilement is aggression. In Mahayoga, one visualizes oneself as the divinity with consort. "All manifestation, thoughts and appearances are considered to be the sacred aspects of the divinities within relative truth," in the words of Tulku Thondup. By visualizing all phenomena as the deities of the mandala of buddhahood, in the development stage, all appearances are purified.

 

8. Anuyoga = Ray (2002: p. 124-125) mentions visualization, subtle body, chakra, prana, nadis, bindu and pure land:

Anuyoga-yana is associated with the feminine principle and is for those whose principal obstacle is passion. In anuyoga the emphasis shifts away from external visualization toward the completion stage, in which one meditates on the inner or subtle body with its primary energy centres (chakras), and its prana (winds or subtle energies), nadis (the inner pathways along which one's energy travels), and bindu (the consciousness). In anuyoga, all appearances are seen as the three great mandalas, and reality is understood as the deities and their pure lands.

 

The vehicle of Anuyoga , or ‘following yoga’, is so-called because it mainly teaches the path of passionately pursuing (or ‘following’) wisdom, in the realization that all phenomena are the creative expression of the indivisible unity of absolute (all pervasive) space and primordial wisdom (as in the direct realization of dependent origination/emptiness).

 

9. Atiyoga (Utmost Yoga) (also Dzogchen)

 

View

 

The view is definitively established by looking directly into the naturally arising wisdom in which the three kayas are inseparable: the empty essence of naked awareness beyond the ordinary mind is the dharmakaya, its cognizant nature is the sambhogakaya, and its all-pervasive compassionate energy is the nirmanakaya.

 

.......................

Twelve yanas

 

Another schema associated with Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna sources adding these three under Dzogchen or Atiyoga:

 

10. Semde = (Tibetan: སེམས་སྡེ; Wylie: sems sde; Sanskrit: cittavarga) translated as "mind division", "mind class" or "mind series" is the name of one of three scriptural and lineage divisions within Atiyoga, Dzogchen or the Great Perfection which is itself the pinnacle of the ninefold division of practice according to the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Semde emphasizes the clarity (gsal-ba) or the innate awareness (rig-pa) aspect of the Natural State.

 

11. Longde = The name Longde is translated as 'Space Division' or 'Space Series' of Dzogchen and emphasises the emptiness (strong-pa) or spaciousness (klong) aspect of the Natural State.

 

12. Mengagde = Focuses on the practices in which one engages after gaining confidence in knowledge of the state of wisdom (Tib. rigpa), emphasizing the inseparability of space and mind from the very beginning (dbyer-med). It is this inseparability that fundamentally characterizes the Dzogchen view. Menngagde is also variously glossed as "Secret oral instruction division", "Secret oral instruction series," "Secret oral school", or "Quintessential Instructions Series", or "The Category of Direct Transmission".

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Rex,

 

There's really no such thing as Hinayana anymore. Theravada, the Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, and some other places, is all about training the mind. Their goal is to realize wisdom right now, not eons from now, and also to cultivate metta (loving-kindness). It is a wisdom practice not a 'do not harm and cultivate merit for thousands of eons' practice. The '9 yanas' is a strictly Tibetan invention and is in fact quite useful, but there's comparing other Buddhist paths as 'lower' because they don't fit into the tight Tibetan model is rather unpractical.

 

There was a book released not too long ago that is a comparison between Theravada and Dzogchen:

 

I concur.

 

This book sounds awesome! I want to print it out and read it.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Vajraji,

 

It is uncertain to me as to why you continue here. You have an obsession to correct everyone's point of view. In your incessant need to correct everyone ad infinitum, you never once demonstrate the real Buddhist attributes of compassion, loving kindness and generosity. Further, it matters not if you have incredible visions of 31 realms, being some Brahma or even dino the dinosaur. Moreover, if you don't see yourself as an ordinary human like the rest of us, you have gained nothing. As Norbu has often said, "compassion arises from ones own suffering" other wise it is contrived.

 

You can believe whatever you want. However, no belief system answers completely the really tough question of existence.

 

 

ralis

[Sunya]

This is where you don't see the insight of the Buddha Dharma. Consciousness is also a conditioned arising and is a phenomena and is empty of inherent existence. Your consciousness realizing the unborn nature of things through insight into emptiness and becomes the supreme source for ones realization or the experience of Rigpa. This is why ChNNR says to understand emptiness through the teachings of Nagarjuna as a primary agent in understanding Rigpa. In Dzogchen Cosmology, even Samantabhadra is considered to have just attained realization upon the beginning of this universal cycle upon arising from the potentiality left from the last cycle without knowledge obscurations. Namdrol could break it down for you as he can translate directly from the Tibetan. But, consciousness even as an experience of the whole is not to be taken as an Atman, or a Brahma either. As in, not a static Self of all and not the creator of everything in the singular sense of the idea. We all co-create. You should read Dzogchen cosmology as your reading of the Kunjed Gyalpo seems to have confused you a bit into thinking the teachings are somehow Upanishadic or a subjective idealization.

 

Very nice clarification

 

It's kind of scary NOT to have something to hold on to. The Self teachings seem rather easier because the hold onto consciousness and let go into that, then of course they can't let go of consciousness. But the Buddhist alternative of letting go into the potential for seeing is rather difficult for most, including me. I get it but I wish it weren't so I mean I get it conceptually, have't actually 'gotten it' yet.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

Vajraji,

 

It is uncertain to me as to why you continue here. You have an obsession to correct everyone's point of view. In your incessant need to correct everyone ad infinitum, you never once demonstrate the real Buddhist attributes of compassion, loving kindness and generosity. Further, it matters not if you have incredible visions of 31 realms, being some Brahma or even dino the dinosaur. Moreover, if you don't see yourself as an ordinary human like the rest of us, you have gained nothing. As Norbu has often said, "compassion arises from ones own suffering" other wise it is contrived.

 

Ralisji,

 

It is uncertain to me as to why you continue here. You have an obsession to correct everyone's, and especially Vajra's, point of view and behavior. In your incessant need to correct everyone ad infinitum, you never once demonstrate the real Buddhist attributes of compassion, loving kindness and generosity.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Very nice clarification

 

It's kind of scary NOT to have something to hold on to. The Self teachings seem rather easier because the hold onto consciousness and let go into that, then of course they can't let go of consciousness. But the Buddhist alternative of letting go into the potential for seeing is rather difficult for most, including me. I get it but I wish it weren't so I mean I get it conceptually, have't actually 'gotten it' yet.

 

Yes, Buddhism handles realization and the experiences leading to realization with more humility I feel. When one doesn't understand consciousness within the schematic of the Pali tradition, then one gets over-zealous about the experiences and starts getting a kind of a solipsic interpretation of the experiences where one considers everything to be located inside or reduced to consciousness. Also the fact that people don't understand the Pali, can lead to people mis-understanding Dzogchen, or teachings in Vajrayana. This is why Nagarjuna said basically that only understanding dependent origination directly leads to liberation, otherwise, as he said, "other vehicles only lead to the edge of Samsara."

 

This is also why ChNNR teaches some basic Buddhism in his Previous Vase.

 

As the Buddha said Brahma paths (of which are most) only lead to higher rebirth or the formless realms but not Buddhahood.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[RongzomFan]

Maybe Dalai Lama doesn't have any realization and a plucky, hobnosed Vajrahridaya from this here forum has the same realization as Vairotsana?

 

 

Really? I would rather live with the silly and funny "arrogant" Vajrahridayas than with ....

 

 

 

Its funny how former alliances have turned on each other LOL

 

 

(to Vajrahridaya)

 

You are crazy

 

you're a lunatic.

 

EPIC FAIL

Edited June 29, 2010 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

Wonderful saying by the Zen master Styro.

 

My lack of insight tells me the 'real truth' is revealed in all the kayas, manifesting in different forms and wisdoms in varying degrees, which then culminates in perfect awakening in the Dharmakaya. All three kayas (some mention a fourth - Svabhavikakaya, which is the indivisible identity of the 3 kayas - also known as the Essence Body) support each other.

 

I understand the Dharmakaya to represent Space, Sambhogakaya to represent the cognizance of phenomena (which is empty in essence, like space) and Nirmanakaya is the ultimate state of unconfined unity of the other two.

 

Please correct me if this is inaccurate.

 

Nirmanakaya is the expression of the unconfined unity of the other two as the motion or activity of compassion.

 

Dharmakaya is sometimes understood as being mind, but not the ordinary mind, rather the realized mind. Also it is understood as merely the realization of emptiness and is even synonymous with emptiness.

 

But yes, it's also what you said.

[garuda]

.......Eventually one learns simply to recognize arising energetic displays without assigning any preferences to the arisings. When one is able to rest pervasively in this stateless state.....

 

Well said!

[ralis]

Ralisji,

 

It is uncertain to me as to why you continue here. You have an obsession to correct everyone's, and especially Vajra's, point of view and behavior. In your incessant need to correct everyone ad infinitum, you never once demonstrate the real Buddhist attributes of compassion, loving kindness and generosity.

 

I am not a Buddhist and stop mimicking me. Why are you here?

 

ralis

[goldisheavy]

No, it's definitely not criticizing the doctrine. The real truth is the Dharmakaya, and it is completely inconceivable by the mind.

 

Whatever mind conceives of, is not mind. Artifacts of awareness are not awareness.

 

It cannot be fathomed, spoken in words, or inhered by anything. Even a billion eloquent words could not communicate it completely. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra with its 600 chapters all pointing to the truth cannot give anyone this, and they are ultimately insufficient. This goes for the Dzogchen texts as well. They are all just words. But if you don't accept any words or explanations, you will never understand the theory or how to practice. The tantra is stating that these explanations act to obscure the mind when people cling to them, and it is exactly right. They were not made from delusion, they were taught out of compassion for sentient beings who all require guidance. The Buddhist teachings are very deep and helpful, but they are still words, and theory is never the ultimate truth itself. The teachings should not be neglected, but people should also not become attached to them. The tantra is helping point this out to the reader that attachment to any hermeneutic obscures the truth.

 

A Zen master said, "My words are poison, but if you don't listen, your sickness cannot be cured."

 

That's all fine and dandy, and yet, not all teachings are equally skillful. One extreme is to say every teaching is correct, since what they point to is beyond words. Another is to say none are correct. Between those extremes, there are more and less helpful teachings. Just because you cannot easily point out the mind with concepts, doesn't mean all instructions are now on the same plank of worth and effectiveness.

 

I know that I have exactly the same criticisms for all of those practices as the tantra I quoted. I had them before I ever read that tantra. So when I read it, I could only go, "of course, finally someone says what I have been thinking all along."

 

Being deluded is a relative quality. Ultimately speaking, delusions are wisdoms. Delusion is a cognitive context for wisdom and wisdom is a cognitive context for delusion. I use the word cognitive to indicate belonging to the process of raw awareness, cognizance, and not just vocalized thinking as Western psychology.

Edited June 29, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

No, they are real, they are what reality is, but attachment to this as ultimate does not lead anywhere but more craving for more material.

 

Divisions of the sphere of experience are as real as saying "Today is Tuesday" is true, only less so.

 

It says in the Kunjed Gyalpo that people just need what they need in order to advance, but all mistakes in understanding are rectified in the experience of Rigpa which transcends, yet encompasses all the different yanas.

 

And yet, strictly speaking, one cannot experience ma-Rigpa. All condition is natural condition. So when you experience Rigpa, it's really a trick that's designed to give you a new appreciation for an old thing.

[Vajrahridaya]

Divisions of the sphere of experience are as real as saying "Today is Tuesday" is true, only less so.

 

Yes, but this is merely a designation within culture. Beyond culture there is the break down of molecular structures. Abhidharma breaks down the structure of the mind, and also even physical components. These are more real than Tuesday. But, they are as well relative.

 

And yet, strictly speaking, one cannot experience ma-Rigpa. All condition is natural condition. So when you experience Rigpa, it's really a trick that's designed to give you a new appreciation for an old thing.

 

Very true.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Ralisji,

 

It is uncertain to me as to why you continue here. You have an obsession to correct everyone's, and especially Vajra's, point of view and behavior. In your incessant need to correct everyone ad infinitum, you never once demonstrate the real Buddhist attributes of compassion, loving kindness and generosity.

 

 

Ha ha. The ONLY one posting here on Taobums that demonstrates compassion, lovingkindness and generosity consistently is Shaktimama. You certainly don't. Vajrahridaya is very thin-skinned and petty....and on and on...certainly NONE of the "Buddhists" here display such attitudes, but are deeply attached to their computers all day debating emptiness while real Buddhists are socially aware and doing things in the world to ease and address suffering. (And no Vajra, your endless "debates" here are not really doing anything to spread the dharma, despite what you like to think). Shaktimama has poise and grace.

 

Mikaelz, as Vajrahridaya says over and over and over again when someone points something out to him, "look in the mirror!". (smiley or frowny over-used emoticon purposely not added). (And I don't include myself in this as having Buddhist attributes. Now back to my timeout from the bums).

 

 

I'm sick of those emoticons...grumble grumble...especially this one

Edited June 29, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth