The answer lies in the India/Nepal/Tibet Himalaya Regions afterall.. and definitely NOT in china/taiwan..

[Vajrahridaya]

 

It's thanks to the cowardly people like you that the caste system, for example, has persisted to this day in India. "But it's their karma and they have to work it out maaaannn.... Everything is fine... I am so nuanced and so subtle maaaaannnn...."

 

Vajrahridaya, I am holding you personally responsible.

 

Is that what you got from what I said? I hold you personally responsible for that. You don't know me at all.

You can go back to sitting on your high horse there buddy... have a good one.

[goldisheavy]

Imagine a doctor sitting in a doctor's office.

 

Patient A: My arm hurts...

Doctor: It's your karma to work out... we all need to hurt sometimes. That will be $50. Next!

 

Patient B: My leg hurts!

Doctor: Well, I could heal you, but then how would you learn your lesson? There is a reason your leg hurts after all... Everything must take its course. That will be $50. Next!

 

Patient C: Doctor, I can't see out of my left eye. I think there is something in my eye, can you help??

Doctor: I could, but that would just interfere with your karma. I'd make you feel better today only for you to get hurt twice as badly tomorrow. Out of great compassion, I will not be looking at your eye. Oh, that's $50. Thank you. Next!

 

....

....

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

That would be a misuse of the term karma. I've understood that for years, just as the caste system is a misuse of the term karma and have known that since childhood as a young anglo Hindu.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree and your accusations are misinformed. My life is a testament to my stand against injustice. I used to beat up bullies in high school because no one would do anything about it, teachers, principles, no body. So the little 9th graders would come to me and tell me what was going on, and I'd confront the victimizer and tell the kid to stop, if the kid didn't stop bullying or turned on me, he was done. Having been trained with the 2nd rated golden gloves boxer in his division by his father/trainer, with martial arts as well, having grown up on the rough side of town as a lone anglo, it was pretty much a given that I'd win any fight I got into by the time I reached high school. So, I'd take it upon myself to keep bullies from bullying kids as that's just not good karma maaaaaaaan, for either the bully or the kid getting bullied. If the kid did it again, I'd find what class he was in, at the ring of the bell, catch him while leaving class, really fast and quick, get away scott free, and the little 9th grader would never get messed with again. I only had to do this a couple of times before bullying went down in the entire school, as all of a sudden all my boxing buddies were letting bullies know, no more victimizing the smaller and weaker.

 

I really didn't like bullies because I was bullied all through elementary school being the little white boy in an all mexican school. But, I shot up in high school, went through training all through middle school and a bit of high school, started fighting back in middle school and found out quick that even if I lost the fight as a little scrawny 7th grader, I would get respect just for fighting back and I didn't get bullied anymore. Of course I got good in high school and no one picked on me. I enjoyed having the freedom to be me. I didn't like it when I saw insecure assholes taking out their pain on the younger and smaller with glasses and a hi IQ. I found it offensive. Just like I find racism offensive, like the time my black friend was called that "N" word in that very ignorant upper white class "we're better than you" way back when I was in middle school. I didn't think that should go without punishment. I'm not a big fan of the dogma of turn the other cheek, then again it depends upon the situation. But, if bullies are given an inch, they take a mile. Of course this doesn't get to the deep psychological issue of why a bully is a bully, as the bully is probably picked on by a parent or older sibling. The kid needs psychotherapy and maybe a family intervention. But, being bullied is very traumatic, and having been the victim of it as a very young kid in elementary school. There was no way I was going to stand around and watch it happen to other kids with that idea, "ooooh, it's there karma maaaaaaaan."

 

I'm older now and things have changed of course, but if I have a kid, you better believe I'm going to train him or her to stick up for his or herself and not be like my Mom who raised me as a little wimp in Elementary school. She preached that violence only begets violence, and in general principle I agree. But sometimes it's just as violent to not act, than it is to act. It all depends upon the situation. If a person was coming into my house threatening my wife, you better believe I'm going to act in protection and try to get this person subdued and put away for the B and E so that he thinks twice next time he has the idea to do something like that.

 

So, you are barking up the wrong tree my friend. I'm with you, but people need to be gently coerced into higher points of view, not violently. Like you would do back a few years ago when you used to call everybody stupid and say they were full of shit. Do you remember that tactic? That didn't go over very well, did it?

 

You really didn't read my points as I intended them to be read, you read so much crap into them. So, this is why I say it's pointless to talk with you about this.

[Simplicity Rules]

I am a Buddhist too, and self-admittedly dogmatic to a certain extent. That said, I have to whole heatedly agree with Ralis. I have hosted Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, who is also my Root teacher, twice at my home and he, at no pointed prescribed to the "kind" of Buddhism that is being displayed here - arrogant, ignorant and televangelist. I write this here not because I want to add to the drama. But only to tell those that might be currently considering Buddhist studies or to study with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu or other Dzogchen or Mahamudra practices - that one should not take Vajra are representing the Master whose name is being thrown around generously here or his teachings. Don't be put off by this kind of branding here, which is obviously not close to anything that can be considered as a skillful means. Vajra is not Norbu's spokesperson and by his handling of this thread, not even an authority to comment on his teaching. I will make some posts here reachable to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and his close circle as I am interested to see what he has to say about such representation of Dzogchen and Norbu's teachings. I will possibly require two more weeks before I can do this, but I will try. Such presentation creates a bad impression of Dzogchen and especially teachings of Norbu who has pioneered the attempt to make Dzogchen non-sectarian, if interpreted as coming from some official source of Dzogchen community. As for Namdrol, it is no secret that many prominent teachers of Tibetan Buddhism do not want to officially associate with him today, for obvious reasons.

 

And Goldisheavy, some posts of yours on this thread are true gems! I fail to understand how someone can debate those, and that too through mere personal attacks, and repeatedly. Like you said, Dzogchen tantras do criticize everything that is non-Dzogchen, including Mahamudra. While the original tantras are moderate in their criticism, the commentators are quite critical of everything non-dzogchen, often with a good reason. Thanks for making this thread worthy of reading.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Simplicity Rules

[Vajrahridaya]

No, not nothing. Remember that all actions have their effects? Doctrines are bundled beliefs. Many beliefs that are bundled in many popular religious doctrines are extremely harmful. To the extent people take these doctrines seriously, and many do, harm results because no action is free of its effect.

 

So don't be saying that the doctrines are completely ineffectual.

 

I agree to an extent, but they are not the soul cause, I think they are more the excuse. I still think the tendency to act in such ways that are disgusting and imperialistic comes from something deeper. Also, what are we going to do, go around burning every single bible and koran? That would cause more problems than it would solve. People have to just be given new perspectives that slowly enlighten them in the course of a process, which could be fast. Who knows, we may be running out of time?? There are sooo many injustices, and indoctrination is only a small part of that. Corporate and Government crimes are higher on my list of injustice. Look at the anti-religious General Mao? He killed over 30,000,000 during his "cultural revolution", burning all the religious books calling them poison, the opiate of the masses. His anti-dogma was a dogma.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

That would be a misuse of the term karma. I've understood that for years, just as the caste system is a misuse of the term karma and have known that since childhood as a young anglo Hindu.

 

(Long story about being courageous and active in a personal environment followed here.)

 

Vajra, that's great. Now you're a grown man, and now the issue is no longer bullies that you can just confront one on one but dogmas and dogmatic attitudes. It's easier to deal with a bully because you can just punch one, and you're more or less done. OK, dogmatic attitudes and dogmas are trickier. There is nothing specific you can punch here. The weapon of choice here is dialogue that's bound to sometimes get heated and political.

 

So, I believe you know very well the harm that comes from the dogma. Are you going to agree to at least sometimes say something against dogmas and dogmatic attitudes?

 

That's all I am asking. I am not saying you need to punch anyone. But you can't always be quiet about this issue. You gotta speak up at least sometimes. You don't have to holler about it day and night. I don't expect that. I expect you to enjoy yourself at least a good deal of the time.

 

But for Pete's sake, when I start talking about dogmas and their negative effects, don't get rhetorically in my way. Is that a deal? Do we understand each other?

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Such presentation creates a bad impression of Dzogchen and especially teachings of Norbu who has pioneered the attempt to make Dzogchen non-sectarian, if interpreted as coming from some official source of Dzogchen community.

 

So, at first you say the above, then you say the below.

 

Like you said, Dzogchen tantras do criticize everything that is non-Dzogchen, including Mahamudra. While the original tantras are moderate in their criticism, the commentators are quite critical of everything non-dzogchen, often with a good reason.

 

You make no sense. I was the one being forgiving about other spiritual traditions outside of Buddhism. Saying that I'm inspired by the mystics of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Even though I find that they pass more of an Eternalistic view so would not in essence be compatible with Buddhism. I also said that Dzogchen just means primordial awareness, and that if you have rigpa, it doesn't matter what ornamentation you put on it, as it's free from ornamentation.

 

Do you read well? Is English even your language, you seem to write it well enough.

 

Wow, I really don't belong here, I'm surrounded by " ".

 

I'm going back to boards where my posts are actually understood and appreciated.

 

I am the one saying that all the yanas have their purpose, and that different spiritual traditions, though may not lead to Buddhahood, do lead to the evolution of individuals when approached with an open heart and mind.

 

You people don't know how to read. I bet your going to take things I say out of context, put it together and send it to the Dzogchen Community without my permission? How absolutely arrogant and distasteful. How would you expect me to respond to such foolishness?

[goldisheavy]

I agree to an extent, but they are not the soul cause

 

If I thought they were the sole cause, then I'd believe that my intervention would have no effect, and I wouldn't do something I considered a waste of time.

 

, I think they are more the excuse.

 

I disagree. I think you really underestimate the content of the dogmas and the impact of that content.

 

I still think the tendency to act in such ways that are disgusting and imperialistic comes from something deeper.

 

For sure. Just as bullying comes from something deeper, and yet punching a bully can be expedient, as you have found. And here I am not asking you to start punching. We just need to raise our voice from time to time. We can't just sit here and watch as people go crazy over delusions. Well. We can. But I don't want to and I am not going to, at least as long as I have some energy to spend and I still care about the state of the world.

 

Also, what are we going to do, go around burning every single bible and koran?

 

Nonsense!! The general approach is to once in a while get into a discussion about dogmatic attitudes and the impact those have on one's life. Another angle is to even avoid talking about the dogmas directly and instead talk about the truth assertions contained in many of these doctrines. Another approach is to showcase, from time to time, hateful and intolerant quotes from the Bible and the ahadith, as well as from the Quran. This last approach works because many people follow their religions without even knowing what their holy texts say. As soon as they find out many people start having second thoughts.

 

And again, you don't need to be doing this every day. I like for everyone to enjoy life as much as possible. This means there is no need to stick one's neck out on daily basis.

 

But sometimes an opportunity comes up. And you know what I mean here. So when that opportunity comes up, then just say something. It doesn't have to be huge, but just something, anything at all, the tiniest word can help.

 

That would cause more problems than it would solve. People have to just be given new perspectives that slowly enlighten them in the course of a process, which could be fast. Who knows, we may be running out of time?? There are sooo many injustices, and indoctrination is only a small part of that.

 

Maybe you mean religious indoctrination is only a small part? Maybe. I think in general indoctrination is about 90% of all our problems. Indoctrination starts with the parents, then school, then mass media, and so on.

 

However, people generally are more willing to question secular indoctrination than they are willing to question "sacred indoctrination." This is where people need some help sometimes. A little bitter medicine from time to time.

 

Corporate and Government crimes are higher on my list of injustice.

 

Same here.

 

Look at the anti-religious General Mao? He killed over 30,000,000 during his "cultural revolution", burning all the religious books calling them poison, the opiate of the masses. His anti-dogma was a dogma.

 

Right. I don't advocate anything like Mao. We need a much subtler approach. But the subtle approach is not zero, which is what I am sensing from you. It's something. We should be saying something from time to time.

 

The world has roughly 7 billion people. What would happen if 1 out of 1000 people would say something critical of dogma once a year? I think even something as tiny as that would cause a huge change in the entire world.

 

We don't need to slaughter anyone. In fact, the whole point I am discussing this is to prevent slaughter, which may be oncoming if we keep our mouths shut and hide under the rock at all times.

 

Like I said, I don't think the cowboy approach is a good one. We just need to take it slow and easy. When opportunity comes up, we should criticize dogmas and dogmatic attitudes. You don't have to take every opportunity as long as you take some.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Mandrake]

quote: "They criticize everything that's not Dzogchen, actually. "

 

Just as Vajrayana criticizes Mahayana view, and Mahayana criticizes Hinayana view.

 

But when people turn up that criticize vajrayana/dzogchen, it's like "gasp, that's not possible! Our's the highest! Even though we claim that there are several steps on the ladder, we are topmost and everybody of our bunch says there are no other above or at the same level". All criticism is a priori invalid.

 

Clearly, there are dialectic tricks in these systems that people get trapped in. I've witnessed newcomers to Dzogchen become brainwashed - a quality I never ever regard as positive - and if we are to believe that examination is a virtue, it is time traditions started to encourage inquiry.

 

 

Mandrake

[Vajrahridaya]

If I thought they were the sole cause, then I'd believe that my intervention would have no effect, and I wouldn't do something I considered a waste of time.

 

 

 

I disagree. I think you really underestimate the content of the dogmas and the impact of that content.

 

 

 

For sure. Just as bullying comes from something deeper, and yet punching a bully can be expedient, as you have found. And here I am not asking you to start punching. We just need to raise our voice from time to time. We can't just sit here and watch as people go crazy over delusions. Well. We can. But I don't want to and I am not going to, at least as long as I have some energy to spend and I still care about the state of the world.

 

 

 

Nonsense!! The general approach is to once in a while get into a discussion about dogmatic attitudes and the impact those have on one's life. Another angle is to even avoid talking about the dogmas directly and instead talk about the truth assertions contained in many of these doctrines. Another approach is to showcase, from time to time, hateful and intolerant quotes from the Bible and the ahadith, as well as from the Quran. This last approach works because many people follow their religions without even knowing what their holy texts say. As soon as they find out many people start having second thoughts.

 

And again, you don't need to be doing this every day. I like for everyone to enjoy life as much as possible. This means there is no need to stick one's neck out on daily basis.

 

But sometimes an opportunity comes up. And you know what I mean here. So when that opportunity comes up, then just say something. It doesn't have to be huge, but just something, anything at all, the tiniest word can help.

 

 

 

Maybe you mean religious indoctrination is only a small part? Maybe. I think in general indoctrination is about 90% of all our problems. Indoctrination starts with the parents, then school, then mass media, and so on.

 

However, people generally are more willing to question secular indoctrination than they are willing to question "sacred indoctrination." This is where people need some help sometimes. A little bitter medicine from time to time.

 

 

Yes, I meant religious indoctrination. I agree... finally I understand you and you understand me better. Great! Yes, I also agree, sometimes people just need to find out what their religious texts say, and they realize it's not worth following. But, most go the extreme of just becoming Nihilistic due to the atrocities committed by Monotheism's and they then think that every religious tradition is the same. It's like Twinner, who thinks that the Buddha taught shit, or that the only true traditions are Shamanistic traditions, when I would argue that a lot of them are deeply superstitious and under-informed psychologically.

 

Same here.

 

 

 

Right. I don't advocate anything like Mao. We need a much subtler approach. But the subtle approach is not zero, which is what I am sensing from you. It's something. We should be saying something from time to time.

 

The world has roughly 7 billion people. What would happen if 1 out of 1000 people would say something critical of dogma once a year? I think even something as tiny as that would cause a huge change in the entire world.

 

We don't need to slaughter anyone. In fact, the whole point I am discussing this is to prevent slaughter, which may be oncoming if we keep our mouths shut and hide under the rock at all times.

 

Like I said, I don't think the cowboy approach is a good one. We just need to take it slow and easy. When opportunity comes up, we should criticize dogmas and dogmatic attitudes. You don't have to take every opportunity as long as you take some.

 

Yes, I agree. But, I am Buddhist and I am Buddhist because I find it to be the least dogmatic, and the most psychologically sound, even though there are plenty of Buddhists who are bad examples such as abusive Monks and what not. But, on the whole, there are so many wonderful monks and wonderful Buddhist teachers and plenty of them do wear robes, but are deeply realized. So, are we to strip all of Buddhism from it's garb? Do we de-robe all monks saying, "that's dogmatic". I think becoming a monk does help some people come to a better and richer understanding of themselves and life in general, they are not repressing anything, they are expressing their right to renounce secular living. At the same time, I do think forced celibacy is ridiculous. Sex is great, sex is natural, sex is the most spiritual process through the lower aspects of body consciousness available to secular humanity and it's dogmatic repression such as practiced by puritanical belief systems of Christianity, has caused all sorts of problems in the secular life arena. Which is another reason why I like Eastern Tantric practices as they don't repress this deeply creative process, but utilize it, even for monks, as they learn to channel the energy through a deeper understanding. If taught properly of course. I'm saying ideally speaking, as the texts intended.

 

Anyway.. I'm going on a tangental suicide here. It's 6am and I haven't been to bed yet... shoot. I do too much online. See ya later, I'm glad we could finally come to a mutual comprehension of facts here. I agree, indoctrination is %90 percent of the problem, I think the other %10 percent could be misunderstanding of the sex drive and the misunderstanding of sexual energy in general and how the cosmos is a constant orgy anyway, not only on a biological level, but on a molecular level as well. No, that goes with the negative effects of indoctrination too.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Clearly, there are dialectic tricks in these systems that people get trapped in. I've witnessed newcomers to Dzogchen become brainwashed - a quality I never ever regard as positive - and if we are to believe that examination is a virtue, it is time traditions started to encourage inquiry.

 

 

Mandrake

 

Yes, but it's not Dzogchen that is at fault, it's the practitioners who misunderstand, as Dzogchen is in essence always talking about free awareness, and that's all it talks about. As well as how one becomes free from attaching to free awareness while being freely aware.

 

I think we need to encourage self inquiry, instead of externalizing our critical approach all the freakin' time, blaming externals.

 

I personally think every Yana if understood leads to the state of Dzogchen. Which is why I talk within the every yana approach. I don't, as ralis does, throw out all the other yanas calling them stupid and dogmatic, out for enslavement and limiting people. I think that arises from a deep misunderstanding of their teachings.

[Mandrake]

Yes, but it's not Dzogchen that is at fault, it's the practitioners who misunderstand, as Dzogchen is in essence always talking about free awareness, and that's all it talks about. As well as how one becomes free from attaching to free awareness while being freely aware.

 

I think we need to encourage self inquiry, instead of externalizing our critical approach all the freakin' time, blaming externals.

 

I personally think every Yana if understood leads to the state of Dzogchen. Which is why I talk within the every yana approach. I don't, as ralis does, throw out all the other yanas calling them stupid and dogmatic, out for enslavement and limiting people. I think that arises from a deep misunderstanding of their teachings.

 

True. But I believe, from my own experience, that there are other paths that offer the same results, that are not included in the yana-system.

 

It is clear that the yana system is a bit like Cinderellas sisters cutting toes to fit in the shoe. DZ/Vajrayana cuts and squeezes the Mahayana systems, with their interpretation (yes, there are many), to fit nicely into the nine-yana or other pedagogical device. Tadaa, you got a structure: It fits, it works and leads to realizations. But, you can as well create entirely different structures. There are many that don't believe in the Tibetan interpretation and understanding of the Mahayana sutras.

 

The problem with the approach taken, is that it creates a magic shimmer, that sways people. I'd much rather prefer these systems to be upfront, and give pragmatic reasons: "we in this lineage, have throughout history found out that doing X, is much better than Y, in this order... these were the damages that got us to reconsider.... these are our methods, they work, and we can back these up" rather than rely too much on arguments of exclusivist nature.

 

 

Mandrake

[Vajrahridaya]

True. But I believe, from my own experience, that there are other paths that offer the same results, that are not included in the yana-system.

 

The problem with the approach taken, is that it creates a magic shimmer, that sways people. I'd much rather prefer these systems to be upfront, and give pragmatic reasons: "we in this lineage, have throughout history found out that doing X, is much better than Y, in this order... these were the damages that got us to reconsider.... these are our methods, they work, and we can back these up" rather than rely too much on arguments of exclusivist nature.

 

 

Mandrake

 

Well, so be it! I don't see Eternalistic approaches as reaching the same level of freedom from dogma and proliferation. It's not that Buddhist Masters argue exclusivity, they argue that this is what liberation is to a Buddha and if it's not like that, than it's not Buddhahood, but something different, and it maybe a good different, but not complete according to Buddhadharma. Their are plenty of arguments laid out by the teachers including Nagarjuna and the Buddha that explain why Y doesn't work and why X does work, that is, if your goal is Buddhahood, and if it isn't then, this doesn't matter. The Buddha debated, so did Nagarjuna and many other Buddhists. They debated as to how this method X works better with view A over Method X with view B. Buddhas argument was that it takes more than just meditation to attain Buddhahood and he established through argument, why "right view" is so very important. As did Nagarjuna and plenty of others. It's just having the courage to study these systems. Or not. Everyone has their process. But, I do think the goal is freedom from mental dogmas, and Eternalism is considered a mental dogma which leads to future psychological suffering, eventually.

[Vajrahridaya]

True. But I believe, from my own experience, that there are other paths that offer the same results, that are not included in the yana-system.

 

 

Mandrake, my problem with most Dzogchen people, ralis included, is that their view of it is nothing short of Subjective Monistic Idealism, much like Advaita Vedanta. That would just make Dzogchen a path that reifies an ultimate Self of all. This wouldn't lead to Buddhahood. This is just imposing a single dogma over all dogmas making everything one. Buddhism is not concerned with attaining a substratum or a one that is essentially the all. This, all Buddhists understand is the difference between it and other cosmologies.

 

 

Here... the meaning of Monistic Idealism. link to explanation

 

and Subjective Idealism.

link to wiki.

[C T]

True. But I believe, from my own experience, that there are other paths that offer the same results, that are not included in the yana-system.

 

It is clear that the yana system is a bit like Cinderellas sisters cutting toes to fit in the shoe. DZ/Vajrayana cuts and squeezes the Mahayana systems, with their interpretation (yes, there are many), to fit nicely into the nine-yana or other pedagogical device. Tadaa, you got a structure: It fits, it works and leads to realizations. But, you can as well create entirely different structures. There are many that don't believe in the Tibetan interpretation and understanding of the Mahayana sutras.

 

The problem with the approach taken, is that it creates a magic shimmer, that sways people. I'd much rather prefer these systems to be upfront, and give pragmatic reasons: "we in this lineage, have throughout history found out that doing X, is much better than Y, in this order... these were the damages that got us to reconsider.... these are our methods, they work, and we can back these up" rather than rely too much on arguments of exclusivist nature.

 

 

Mandrake

Maybe the real problem is that there are two problems.

 

One, there is a huge amount of misunderstanding around Dzogchen - curious dabblers think its such a mystical path, with siddhis and other dazzling stuff (or magic shimmer, as you nicely said) thrown in to the mix when in fact these are only secondary considerations, hence the disappointments and subsequent rejection of the path... Its no good to venture into this practice if one is gullible and gets all wide-eyed in the presence of a Dzogchen master.

 

Two, because of the anticipated results, projections and expectations fly in all directions, and due to a lack of maturity/stability, the realizations do not find completeness, or they do not take root, so one is left with a kind of mutated practice, and this is generally what happens to a lot of so-called eager practitioners. From here, all kinds of accusations arise, and those who think they are the guardians usually end up having to compensate for and on behalf of the community of Dzogchen practitioners. This should not be the case at all.

 

Not too long ago, Dzogchen was a practice reserved for students who have undertaken years of foundational training and assessment before being given the empowerments to begin, but nowadays its been cheapened and tossed about so much that the possibility of it being completely neutered seems very real. Its a pity because it is essentially a very useful and quick path, but because its very useful and quick, a lot of things get missed by those who have not been grounded well in the preliminary practices.

 

The path was exclusive not because the lineage holders wanted to force some kind of embargo on the teachings - in fact, its not really exclusive in this sense, but that the practices are graded in such a way that only those who have been recognized as having the right mental capacity are given the blessings to move ahead with the subsequent stages of the training. Its like any other sound practices, really. Anyone can partake in the preliminaries, but many are not interested to put in the effort, thinking, "Bah! this stuff is for novices, a waste of time... me, i am an advanced adept, so put me in with the big boys with the big practices, i'll show you what i am capable of...", and this is where the potential of missing the crux of the teachings arise from. If students can learn to apply patience and master the basic outer practices (the Maha and Anu), which, btw, is as much Dzogchen as the inner ones of Ati. There really is a just a matter of keeping to the essence of Dzogchen, which is the primordial inseparability of all things, from the micro- (the mandala of the practitioner and the practices) to the macro- (the mandala of the cosmic Dzogchen deities, exemplified in the Kalachakra mandala, for example).

[doc benway]

 

As I've stated above, not if it's really understood, as the experience of the truth that D.O. is getting at, is the recognition of it's emptiness. Thunderous silence is not an ultimate reality either, and is not what emptiness means in Buddhism. Both conceptual and non-conceptual states of mind are dependently originated and empty of inherent existence. Attachment to concepts leads one to lower and lower realms of form, and attachment to the non-conceptual like in Hinduism where self/Self (atman/Brahman) is equated with silent formlessness, this leads to higher and higher formless states of consciousness which are good, but not liberation, not Buddhahood.

 

I hope this helps your understanding of what emptiness means in Buddhism. Thank you for your time Steve F.

 

I do appreciate the reply and your views but must disagree. Thunderous silence is not a reality because it is not an explanation and takes no position. That is the point exactly. There is no "I" present doing any understanding or explaining. It is a way to say Reality is - there is no understanding because there is no "I" to understand or explain, it just is, leave it at that. DO is a very subtle and elegant explanation but is still constructed by, elucidated by, and is understood by the human mind. Consequently it is a concept to cling to for the mind. I do thoroughly understand your explanation and yet, from my perspective, DO is a tricksey way for the mind to say - aha, I understand but I'm not breaking the rules. But then, who is doing the understanding?

 

As I stated before, I think DO is best looked at as a method, a tool, a prescription to diminish suffering. So we study it a bit and apply the idea in our daily lives and that's fine. Anything else that occurs incident to it is wonderful, or not, but as soon as we point to DO as an explanation for reality we are pointing, we are holding it up as something valuable for the mind to understand - something that "explains" reality, therefore, at some level, we are clinging to it and I think that violates the Buddha's intention. Buddhism is no different in this regard to the other major traditions. There are some wonderful things, many of which are the core values and principles. Then there are lots of places where the ideas are taken too far and are corrupted and exploited and deviate from the original intention.

 

Just the views of someone who is a bit outside of Buddhism, looking in.

FWIW.

Be well.

[Mandrake]

Mandrake, my problem with most Dzogchen people, ralis included, is that their view of it is nothing short of Subjective Monistic Idealism, much like Advaita Vedanta. That would just make Dzogchen a path that reifies an ultimate Self of all. This wouldn't lead to Buddhahood. This is just imposing a single dogma over all dogmas making everything one. Buddhism is not concerned with attaining a substratum or a one that is essentially the all. This, all Buddhists understand is the difference between it and other cosmologies.

 

Here... the meaning of Monistic Idealism. link to explanation

 

and Subjective Idealism.

link to wiki.

 

We agree with each other Vaj, and I'm not of the opinion that all roads lead to rome (gosh, you have to take the plane if you want to cross the ocean). Sometimes the internet medium frustrates me no end, and I wonder if I should stay out. A real life discussion would be so much easier and much more rewarding.

 

You know, in the old days, Yeshe Tsogyal and others allegedly conquered others through siddhi-battles; nowadays, it's just "we are better because we say so". And if other masters actually demonstrate powers to their students, the retort is only a verbal brush-away.

 

I guess my issue, if I have an issue, is with the presentation, not very much with the content, and not with the end result. And I also know there are a lot of people within lineages who are aware of claims, ways of presentation not being conducive in today's milieu.

 

I could say more, but I'm not sure if this discussion is of benefit. In the end we need more people out there doing something to clean out the mess, we need compassionate cultivators who meditate for a purpose larger than them selves, and who show it in real action. It's easier to meditate and debate on ttb, than to get our hands dirty with the needs out there (f*ck, I could have worked overtime instead of posting here, and used that money/time where it actually changes lives). If a certain lineage/method helps one with this - fine. In the end it's not words that count.

 

 

Mandrake

[goldisheavy]

Not too long ago, Dzogchen was a practice reserved for students who have undertaken years of foundational training and assessment before being given the empowerments to begin, but nowadays its been cheapened and tossed about so much that the possibility of it being completely neutered seems very real. Its a pity because it is essentially a very useful and quick path, but because its very useful and quick, a lot of things get missed by those who have not been grounded well in the preliminary practices.

 

The path was exclusive not because the lineage holders wanted to force some kind of embargo on the teachings - in fact, its not really exclusive in this sense, but that the practices are graded in such a way that only those who have been recognized as having the right mental capacity are given the blessings to move ahead with the subsequent stages of the training.

 

The path is not exclusive, except it's very very exclusive. It's open for all. All that are blessed and pass a rigorous selection process. Other than that, it's very open.

 

CowTao wishes the good old times would return and Dzogchen would be secret once again.

 

After all, just look at Mathematics. After maths got opened up it got completely watered down. Current mathematicians are worthless compared to Pythagoras. Everyone just goes around and claims to have a Ph.D. in mathematics these days. It's hard to know whom to trust anymore.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

I do appreciate the reply and your views but must disagree. Thunderous silence is not a reality because it is not an explanation and takes no position. That is the point exactly. There is no "I" present doing any understanding or explaining. It is a way to say Reality is - there is no understanding because there is no "I" to understand or explain, it just is, leave it at that. DO is a very subtle and elegant explanation but is still constructed by, elucidated by, and is understood by the human mind. Consequently it is a concept to cling to for the mind. I do thoroughly understand your explanation and yet, from my perspective, DO is a tricksey way for the mind to say - aha, I understand but I'm not breaking the rules. But then, who is doing the understanding?

 

But you see, how is thunderous silence not taking a position, it is a formless position, a good position, but still a position. How did the experience arise, and who is experiencing it, how do you know it's silent unless you are there to contemplate it? Is it apposed to concepts?

 

I've experienced Thundereous Silence so many times over my years of practice, sometimes many times a day. I know the experience, it's just the mind illuminating the unconscious, the space within pryer to thought, but thoughts have their seeds there in a formless realm. It's a necessary step, but it's not considered complete Buddhahood. According to the Buddha, it's one of the formless jhanas.

 

Are you familiar with the formless Jhanas? Infinite space, Infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, neither perception nor non-perception. All these are formless jhanas. What Buddhism states is that there is no state of mind that is the ultimate truth, neither conceptual, nor non-conceptual.

 

As I stated before, I think DO is best looked at as a method, a tool, a prescription to diminish suffering. So we study it a bit and apply the idea in our daily lives and that's fine. Anything else that occurs incident to it is wonderful, or not, but as soon as we point to DO as an explanation for reality we are pointing, we are holding it up as something valuable for the mind to understand - something that "explains" reality, therefore, at some level, we are clinging to it and I think that violates the Buddha's intention. Buddhism is no different in this regard to the other major traditions. There are some wonderful things, many of which are the core values and principles. Then there are lots of places where the ideas are taken too far and are corrupted and exploited and deviate from the original intention.

 

Just the views of someone who is a bit outside of Buddhism, looking in.

FWIW.

Be well.

 

I think your last statement says it all. How much of the Buddhas teaching in the Pali Cannon have you read? Do you know that he said, "dependent origination is the all, there is nothing outside of dependent origination" he also said that it is the whole of the Dharma, and that to see it, is the see the Buddha. But, see it's kind of a trick, because to see dependent origination, is to see right through it, that there is nothing really there substantially. There is nothing to grasp and nobody to do the grasping really, complete freedom from self. If this is what you mean by Thunderous Silence, then that's the result of seeing D.O. But if you reify your experience of Thunderous Silence as a single source of all existence, that self exists on it's own, that would not be seeing dependent origination.

 

So, maybe there is more that it has to reveal to you? Maybe you didn't thoroughly understand everything that I said in my last post? Then again, maybe you did and I didn't explain it succinctly enough. I don't know. I'm not in your head, so I don't know. What you think of as Thunderous Silence might be the experience of infinite nothingness? I don't know. You'll have to mull that around as it's your description of an experience, not mine, but if you are having this level of open experience, with bliss and insight within the formless level, you might want to read what the Buddha had to say about the formless realms, if you want to step into what the Buddha taught a little deeper that is?

 

The point of D.O. is that there is no "experience" that is the ultimate experience. This is why he had the insight of D.O. after he had all the silent, non-conceptual levels of formless states of mind. That's why he said that this is the "right view" that liberates.

 

Thanks for the good wishes Steve.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Mandrake]

Not too long ago, Dzogchen was a practice reserved for students who have undertaken years of foundational training and assessment before being given the empowerments to begin, but nowadays its been cheapened and tossed about so much that the possibility of it being completely neutered seems very real.

 

[...]

 

The path was exclusive not because the lineage holders wanted to force some kind of embargo on the teachings - in fact, its not really exclusive in this sense, but that the practices are graded in such a way that only those who have been recognized as having the right mental capacity are given the blessings to move ahead with the subsequent stages of the training. Its like any other sound practices, really. Anyone can partake in the preliminaries, but many are not interested to put in the effort, thinking, "Bah! this stuff is for novices, a waste of time... me, i am an advanced adept, so put me in with the big boys with the big practices, i'll show you what i am capable of...", and this is where the potential of missing the crux of the teachings arise from. If students can learn to apply patience and master the basic outer practices (the Maha and Anu), which, btw, is as much Dzogchen as the inner ones of Ati. There really is a just a matter of keeping to the essence of Dzogchen, which is the primordial inseparability of all things, from the micro- (the mandala of the practitioner and the practices) to the macro- (the mandala of the cosmic Dzogchen deities, exemplified in the Kalachakra mandala, for example).

 

CowTao,

Thanks for your response. This is my understanding as well from encounters with very experienced cultivators. Good teachings will come to good practicioners. When you're serious, devoted, and have the right intention, all kinds of beings will help out and teach you when you're ready. But to what do I devote money? Champagne and computers; my time - drinking the champagne and playing games, in this I am serious and devoted haha. How many are even willing to sacrifice one year to attain shamatha? In a way, spiritual practices are similar to martial arts: bullshitting does not work in practice.

 

 

Mandrake

[Vajrahridaya]

After all, just look at Mathematics. After maths got opened up it got completely watered down. Current mathematicians are worthless compared to Pythagoras. Everyone just goes around and claims to have a Ph.D. in mathematics these days. It's hard to know whom to trust anymore.

 

Ah, I have always loved your humor.

[Vajrahridaya]

In the end it's not words that count.

 

 

Mandrake

 

Thanks for that, and you are right, words only count in the beginning, and the middle... really. In the end, it's the state of awareness that really matters, and how the body enacts that awareness, which could be words, but for one like that, the words are being spoken without clinging.

 

Alas, I've only had glimpses, but these glimpses give me a sense of faith that isn't blind.

[Vajrahridaya]

But to what do I devote money? Champagne and computers; my time - drinking the champagne and playing games, in this I am serious and devoted haha. How many are even willing to sacrifice one year to attain shamatha? In a way, spiritual practices are similar to martial arts: bullshitting does not work in practice.

 

 

Mandrake

 

I know what you mean, I spent 5 years absolutely devoted to attaining samadhi or samatha and deepening and integrating. I didn't really socialize, definitely was not on the computer, watching tv or any of that, just studying, practicing and trying to make whatever work I did service, most of those 5 years I lived in an Ashram. Now it's about 11 almost 12 years later, and it's amazing how the world can suck one right back in. I think I need to retreat again. I hope I have the courage to do it again, or maybe just engage more with the world in the right way... I'm somewhat confused about what the way would be though.

 

Yes, BS doesn't work in practice. True that. I just beat Dead Space 2 the other day, took me 3 days, that was awesome! LOL!!

[C T]

The path is not exclusive, except it's very very exclusive. It's open for all. All that are blessed and pass a rigorous selection process. Other than that, it's very open.

 

CowTao wishes the good old times would return and Dzogchen would be secret once again.

 

After all, just look at Mathematics. After maths got opened up it got completely watered down. Current mathematicians are worthless compared to Pythagoras. Everyone just goes around and claims to have a Ph.D. in mathematics these days. It's hard to know whom to trust anymore.

What's with the sniggers, Gold?

 

I am telling it like it is, but it appears you are adamant to twist the argument (where there is none) to suit your personal defensive stance. That's fine, but not for you, i think, as you are reluctant, in this instance, to take on board what has been said.

 

If the teachings have been watered down, then its the fault of the disseminators. If the current crop of eager beavers decide to chop and churn a traditional set of teachings by imposing demands that it be re-tailored to suit their own needs and psychological inadequacies, and when these needs are not met following the revamp, then the fault lies in the eagerness of the beavers.

Edited June 2, 2011 by CowTao

[C T]

CowTao,

Thanks for your response. This is my understanding as well from encounters with very experienced cultivators. Good teachings will come to good practicioners. When you're serious, devoted, and have the right intention, all kinds of beings will help out and teach you when you're ready. But to what do I devote money? Champagne and computers; my time - drinking the champagne and playing games, in this I am serious and devoted haha. How many are even willing to sacrifice one year to attain shamatha? In a way, spiritual practices are similar to martial arts: bullshitting does not work in practice.

 

 

Mandrake

So it is!