Dzogchen (and Buddhism) Summarized

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

 

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.

 

I was reading this and I thought it was someone else. But, oh... it's you GIH. I couldn't agree more.

 

The extreme of all paths are correct doesn't recognize inter-dependent origination, but only recognizes one supreme agent that all things arise from and subside into thus the assumption that where you started, is where you will also end, as if there was an Alpha and an Omega. Rather interdependent origination reveals a more complex cosmos and a more chaotic one as well as a beginningless cosmos.

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[RongzomFan]

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

 

 

 

EPIC FAIL

 

 

Yes, mine went mostly backwards from highest to lowest, then forwards in linear progression. Oddly enough... all before I had a real vision of the 31 planes of existence at once and all related ramifications.

Edited June 29, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Nobody understands that sutrayana, vajrayana, and Dzogchen have similar views of emptiness.

 

It is other elements that make them different.

 

EPIC FAIL

Edited June 29, 2010 by alwayson

[rex]

[Vajrahridaya]

My z master was the most compassionate you will meet. He would sometimes let me taste the sweet whacks of Chao Chao's stick. He once touched me deeply when he shouted at me that 'I was the dirt between the Buddha's toes!' Sometimes it is compassionate to state strong criticism/critiques. Why in zen, even hard whackings with the stick is considered a great act of compassion and honor. I don't know why. It always leaves me with a smashed and silent mind, sitting alone in my hut, staring at the blank wall, with only the moonlight coming in through the window as my company. Oh well, perhaps someday ...

 

Nice story! Thanks for sharing as I enjoyed hearing it. I think you wrote something similar before, speaking of the same.

[Vajrahridaya]

[ralis]

I thought this little description of religious addiction was interesting. Of course one can insert Buddha for God etc. in this description.

 

Back to work for me.

 

http://www.lexpages.com/SGN/paschal/religious_addiction.html

 

 

ralis

Edited June 29, 2010 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

without understanding the teachings experientially

 

 

Only fools talk about their experential understanding when discussing buddhism, especially on internet forums.

 

EPIC FAIL

 

Learn some humility.

Edited June 30, 2010 by alwayson

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Alright already with the EPIC FAIL! Can't you think of anything else to say?

[Vajrahridaya]

Alright already with the EPIC FAIL! Can't you think of anything else to say?

 

I think it's kind of funny. In a silly way.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I think it's kind of funny. In a silly way.

 

EPIC FAIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sunya]

I think it's kind of funny. In a silly way.

 

You mean in a 12 year old way? then I concur.

 

I remember that saying was popular on the internet over a year ago. Seems like alwayson is behind on his memes.

[Sunya]

Learn some humility.

 

I apologize for having such a high IQ. It is a shame you can't raise yours.

 

 

 

 

Sorry.. couldn't help myself.

Edited June 30, 2010 by mikaelz

[RongzomFan]

I believe I said that after someone insulted me, so again

 

 

EPIC FAIL

 

 

You are a cancer on this forum, along with dwai, Styro, goldisheavy, Vaj, 3bob etc.

[RongzomFan]

Wait a minute I forgot.

 

You guys are not a cancer, because cancer is at least successful at what it does.

 

You guys have been proven outright wrong or lieing about everything that comes forth from your fingertips, and have been called out by even other people.

Edited June 30, 2010 by alwayson

[Raymond Wolter]

I believe I said that after someone insulted me, so again

 

 

EPIC FAIL

 

 

You are a cancer on this forum, along with dwai, Styro, goldisheavy, Vaj, 3bob etc.

:lol:

Edited June 30, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[RongzomFan]

I forgot to add you to the list. You are the most clueless of them all.

[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.

They were not made under delusion, they were made well, and they were always good. Of course they were not infinitely effective because they are only words, and need to be interpreted by the mind of the reader. The problem was that people clung to them. It is the same if people cling to a notion of a mindstream, or a notion that one thing is delusion and another is the true mind. Then we would need to add a line in the tantra for Dzogchen people being obscured by attachments to the mindstream and the natural state. No matter how virtuous, wise, simple, and true to reality a doctrine is, there will always be a need to turn people away from clinging to it. There is often even a need to turn people away from the notion of turning away. If there were only perfect teachings of silence, only a few people would understand them. If they were too simple, they would not be comprehensive enough to teach people who still have delusions.

 

For example, the Heart Sutra is very simple and directs the mind toward the natural state and true suchness. If everyone had sufficient prajna, they could just read it, put it into practice, and become buddhas. However, what happens one day when your legs are freezing cold in meditation, and your mind is constantly agitated? How do you deal with those things? Your meditation is supposed to be improving, so why does it seem to be getting worse? What if serious health problems arise, or your meditation goes off course? Can you really just sit in meditation in the natural state then? What if you are practicing, but you don't seem to be getting any results? Every day you meditate, but your mind and body do not go through any transformations? Should you use a different meditation method? And what if you get to a particular state of mind, and you don't know what its significance is?

 

In some esoteric texts, it is all expressed as the Sanskrit syllable short-A, but what help is that to the average person? The Lotus Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, and Diamond Sutra all give teachings of silence, but in those texts even the Buddha's disciples are unable to fully appreciate this. For most people, it seems that the truly simple and short teachings are just not enough. But how much is enough? Is the Diamond Sutra at 15 pages enough? Or the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra at 250 pages? Or the Avatamsaka Sutra at 1500 pages? Or the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra at 15,000 pages? And what about the particular approach? Should it be analytical like Yogacara, lofty like Madhyamaka, or transcendent like Prajnaparamita?

 

There are these different remedies because there are different illnesses. Everyone will gravitate toward different teachings and various interpretations. This entire range is why the Buddhist teachings are extremely broad and deep. In English, an entire translation of the Chinese Buddhist canon would be at least 500 large volumes. Just to translate all the teachings in its tantra section would be at least 16,000 pages.

[JustARandomPanda]

Lets drop the insults please. I don't want to have to put on my Mod hat.

[Guest paul walter]

(And I don't include myself in this as having Buddhist attributes. Now back to my timeout from the bums).

 

 

Then how could you possibly know or understand such a mercurial state? Perhaps you just need a mother. Paul

[JustARandomPanda]

Only fools talk about their experential understanding when discussing buddhism, especially on internet forums.

 

Couldn't disagree with this more. It's the part I find most interesting.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Then how could you possibly know or understand such a mercurial state? Perhaps you just need a mother. Paul

 

 

I have those attributes more, I think than the Buddhist Fast Track to Enlightenment folks here, I can just about promise you. But thank you for your compassion and concern, Brother Paul. (What do you mean "mercurial state"? What is it you are referring to?)

Edited July 1, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[RongzomFan]

Couldn't disagree with this more. It's the part I find most interesting.

 

 

There is a middle ground.

 

Talk about your personal experiences/opinion, but DO NOT PASS IT OFF AS AUTHENTIC BUDDHISM

Edited July 1, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

The extreme of all paths are correct doesn't recognize inter-dependent origination, but only recognizes one supreme agent that all things arise from and subside into thus the assumption that where you started, is where you will also end, as if there was an Alpha and an Omega. Rather interdependent origination reveals a more complex cosmos and a more chaotic one as well as a beginningless cosmos.

 

I believe I understand what you are trying to say in your criticism, but I still don't agree. I think teachings such as those presented in Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu are vague enough that any inference of a supreme agent must be your own doing rather than something that's inherently in the text. I think some doctrines are pretty clear about the supreme agent, others are not so much.

 

It's gotta be painful to admit that perhaps Buddhism has to share some of its distinctions with other paths.