Namdrol's Apology and some insight on rising above Sectarianism

[dwai]

It is exactly this independent, absolute, unchanging, ultimate "self/Self" that the lower yanas of Buddhism, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen say is devoid of self-nature and is dependently originated. Shakyamuni Buddha calls this "the conceit of I AM," throughout the Theravada and Mahayana suttas/sutras.

 

Modern recognized masters of dzogchen (both living and recently deceased) such as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche, Garchen Rinpoche; going down the line of lineage masters such as Ju Mipham, Longchenpa, to Padmasambhava: All of them refuted and rejected an independent, absolute, unchanging "self/Self" (or an "Awareness" as Ultimate Subject) of Hinduism.

 

Blehhhh, I've gotta run to go watch the new Spider Man movie; So all I'm gonna say is.....Those who are serious who study and apply the teachings of Longchenpa, Mipham, and the Dzogchen tantras, etc. Anyone that is sincere about fully lifting away the veils that obscure the nature of mind and who has a connection to the lineage of the dzogchen teachings: Will (eventually) fully recognize their own nature (no matter how long it takes them.) Luckily for those of lower capacity there is the Semde (Clarity/Mind,) and Longde (Emptiness/Space,) series of teachings. So, in a sense: I agree with Malcolm, that it is a system unto itself; so if the individual chooses to eschew the lower yanas, I think they wouldn't have to worry and in the end will be alright.

 

Take care of yourself Dwai!! I Love You Longtime!!

 

And it this exact self/Self that cannot be shown as being dependently originated without taking massive flights of fanciful imagination.

[Marblehead]

And it this exact self/Self that cannot be shown as being dependently originated without taking massive flights of fanciful imagination.

It is my very biased opinion that there really in no such thing as self/Self. The word "self" is only a word to identify the group of various selected things. There is no self, as such, independant of all else.

[gatito]

It is my very biased opinion that there really in no such thing as self/Self. The word "self" is only a word to identify the group of various selected things. There is no self, as such, independant of all else.

 

Firstly, I agree with your third sentence.

 

However, the Self is that which is reading these words.

 

It is Knowing/Being.

 

That is Self-evident.

 

It is the Subject of all apparent objects (and on deeper investigation It is seen to be the substance of all apparent objects).

[JustARandomPanda]

Cool. Where's Vajrahridaya?

 

I suspect Vajrahidaya would be quite surprised at this turn-about by one of his guiding light teachers. It sounds as though Malcolm/Namdrol has sided with Dwai now.

 

 

 

speaking only for myself:

 

I've been pondering lately if the emphasis on whether this-or-that teaching is Right or Wrong view is maybe the wrong way to go about things.

 

The thing that makes the most sense to me is what does this or that particular individual actually KNOW directly. As in...not a belief...not bought into some story or explanation - whether spiritual OR scientific.

 

Side Note: the latter -without investigation into how beliefs are formed within one's self - leads to unconscious belief in the "Truthness" of Materialism aka Physicalism aka Scientific Atheism but no matter how you spin it - it's still a belief...nobody to my knowledge has ever "directly experienced" a proton, electron, quark...etc.

 

 

It doesn't really matter what you believe...the training should always focus on exactly what does this-or-that-individual Directly KNOW. If I don't Know the Tao for myself then what good has it done me to say I'm a Taoist of any kind?! Ditto Buddhism? Dzogchen? Muslim? Christian? Etc?

 

Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter? I can only think of one reason where it would. If either actually got in the way of me KNOWING. Even someone else telling me "you're wrong" doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Why? Cause I don't KNOW HOW I was "wrong" in the first place. So them telling me - even if I buy into it is - A belief! The very thing VMarco keeps stridently arguing on these boards is the enemy of one actually KNOWING (er....or as he would say: GNOWING).

[deci belle]

[Fū Yue]

Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter?

 

Yes. Both are misleading. Ultimately, Realization cannot be named in any way. It is more obvious than the subtleties of word and more subtle than Nothing. It doesn't make any sense, but it's illuminating insight is the inspiration of sensation - So when things start making sense, you're way off . You can understand it's billion functions because you are them, but you cannot make sense of it because it is beyond 'you' - thus, you must leave 'your' precious things at the doorstep to glimpse the crystal palace. At the same time, if you find you've gone into Nothing then you are by the coat rack and not in the living room.

 

Even though you may be able to realize it's truth through instruction, word or sight, ultimately the instruction was not the truth, nor the word, nor the sight... that was all you. Through speech we venerate it, whether we know it or not. Every sort of appearance is in honor of this profound Suchness, but in recognition (appreciation) of the primordial, the conventions lose their (self-ish, 'illusory') power and use. The words, the smells, sights, sounds feelings, all become extensions of That, but they are just extensions. Hands and feet sing, but the Root is silent. It does not matter if you can dance like a pro if there is no undisturbed, untouched, untainted appreciation of the Doing because, ultimately, That is the whole point.

[konchog uma]

Yes. Both are misleading.

 

mmm thanks for that post, +1

 

and now a haiku

 

self or non-self is

attachment and aversion

abandon concepts

[dwai]

It is my very biased opinion that there really in no such thing as self/Self. The word "self" is only a word to identify the group of various selected things. There is no self, as such, independant of all else.

Gee MH, I never pegged you for one of those "non-selfers"!

[dwai]

Yes. Both are misleading. Ultimately, Realization cannot be named in any way. It is more obvious than the subtleties of word and more subtle than Nothing. It doesn't make any sense, but it's illuminating insight is the inspiration of sensation - So when things start making sense, you're way off . You can understand it's billion functions because you are them, but you cannot make sense of it because it is beyond 'you' - thus, you must leave 'your' precious things at the doorstep to glimpse the crystal palace. At the same time, if you find you've gone into Nothing then you are by the coat rack and not in the living room.

 

Even though you may be able to realize it's truth through instruction, word or sight, ultimately the instruction was not the truth, nor the word, nor the sight... that was all you. Through speech we venerate it, whether we know it or not. Every sort of appearance is in honor of this profound Suchness, but in recognition (appreciation) of the primordial, the conventions lose their (self-ish, 'illusory') power and use. The words, the smells, sights, sounds feelings, all become extensions of That, but they are just extensions. Hands and feet sing, but the Root is silent. It does not matter if you can dance like a pro if there is no undisturbed, untouched, untainted appreciation of the Doing because, ultimately, That is the whole point.

 

Sometimes it just makes sense without knowing how. It is called "Knowing" (directly). Sometimes we just know...without any intellectual mechanism actually firing.

 

 

 

[Lucky7Strikes]

I suspect Vajrahidaya would be quite surprised at this turn-about by one of his guiding light teachers. It sounds as though Malcolm/Namdrol has sided with Dwai now.

 

 

 

speaking only for myself:

 

I've been pondering lately if the emphasis on whether this-or-that teaching is Right or Wrong view is maybe the wrong way to go about things.

 

The thing that makes the most sense to me is what does this or that particular individual actually KNOW directly. As in...not a belief...not bought into some story or explanation - whether spiritual OR scientific.

 

Side Note: the latter -without investigation into how beliefs are formed within one's self - leads to unconscious belief in the "Truthness" of Materialism aka Physicalism aka Scientific Atheism but no matter how you spin it - it's still a belief...nobody to my knowledge has ever "directly experienced" a proton, electron, quark...etc.

 

 

It doesn't really matter what you believe...the training should always focus on exactly what does this-or-that-individual Directly KNOW. If I don't Know the Tao for myself then what good has it done me to say I'm a Taoist of any kind?! Ditto Buddhism? Dzogchen? Muslim? Christian? Etc?

 

Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter? I can only think of one reason where it would. If either actually got in the way of me KNOWING. Even someone else telling me "you're wrong" doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Why? Cause I don't KNOW HOW I was "wrong" in the first place. So them telling me - even if I buy into it is - A belief! The very thing VMarco keeps stridently arguing on these boards is the enemy of one actually KNOWING (er....or as he would say: GNOWING).

Very true. But for me it's been a good way to become initiated into ideas, no matter how crazy they may be, into how the world could be. D.O, Self, the mindstreams from eon to eon, life being a dream, everything being energy etc.

 

I mean, since preschool we are educated to believe that there is certainty to the world, a routine to it, until we begin to slowly see more and more that not many people really know what the hell is going on or what they're doing and suddenly you want to hold on to new grounds, building another phantom structure. It's comforting to have a new ground, a new teacher, a new religion. But at a point you get tired of bullshitting since what you know is so completely abstract and limited, and you have nothing to show for it. Just abstractions, feelings, and beliefs (that may result in psychological shifts, but not necessary what's true).

 

So until then I guess we just have to keep exploring through meditation and experimenting with our awareness and the world while being very honest with what we know and what we are capable of.

 

Btw, I've been watching a lot of Sadhguru's stuff lately and find his teachings very refreshing. I hope you check him out someday.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Sometimes it just makes sense without knowing how. It is called "Knowing" (directly). Sometimes we just know...without any intellectual mechanism actually firing.

There's another part to this. Intuitive knowing can be a delusional. Your direct knowing and another person's direct knowing can be very different.

 

What is important is, what are you capable of? What are you able to do with what you know? For instance if you tell me that you are this awareness beyond the body, show me or tell me of your life outside of the body. Or if you say that the world is an illusion, show me how so you have shown yourself that, instead of just saying, "I directly know it is." Because that may just be self-hypnosis.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[JustARandomPanda]

Very true. But for me it's been a good way to become initiated into ideas, no matter how crazy they may be, into how the world could be. D.O, Self, the mindstreams from eon to eon, life being a dream, everything being energy etc.

 

I mean, since preschool we are educated to believe that there is certainty to the world, a routine to it, until we begin to slowly see more and more that not many people really know what the hell is going on or what they're doing and suddenly you want to hold on to new grounds, building another phantom structure. It's comforting to have a new ground, a new teacher, a new religion. But at a point you get tired of bullshitting since what you know is so completely abstract and limited, and you have nothing to show for it. Just abstractions, feelings, and beliefs (that may result in psychological shifts, but not necessary what's true).

 

So until then I guess we just have to keep exploring through meditation and experimenting with our awareness and the world while being very honest with what we know and what we are capable of.

 

I agree. I may poke at Scientific Materialists but I do think they have somewhat more of a stand than just outright woo-woo typical religious people. It's when things get more subtle...when you want them to start exploring their unspoken assumption - that matter is the ONLY thing there is and all the rest is superstition that I get frustrated with them.

 

I watched an Indian produced debate on YouTube and Sadhguru was part of it. No one really noticed one of the things he kept mentioning. That what Materialists call Consciousness is not the only way of Knowing. Think about that. No Materialist would agree to that as it removes the rug (belief) that is part of their foundation.

 

 

Btw, I've been watching a lot of Sadhguru's stuff lately and find his teachings very refreshing. I hope you check him out someday.

 

Funny you should mention him because I've been watching a lot of both him and Gurunath lately. There is a lot of wisdom there and it is foolish to say that "liberation" or "Nirvana" is only for the Right View-ers (read: typically some sort of Buddhist). IMO...Right View comes FROM practice, not solely the reverse...otherwise...you're just believing other people's assertions. Even the Buddha said he could not give people his Realizations...only point possible avenues to explore.

 

The Buddha mentioned the End-Result is the same for everyone in the Lotus Sutra. Capacity to understand is different but "nirvana" is the same for everyone.

 

http://www.youtube.c...n?feature=watch

[Creation]

Thanks for extracting some of the cream from that very long thread AdamantineClearLight. Also, it is quite wonderful to see you around here.

 

My heart leapt with joy when I learned of Namdrol/Malcom's new outlook on his blog. I have not been so glad about something I read on the internet for a long time.

 

I must say, the fist statement in your original post is quite an overstatement. Perhaps "Most people familiar with with Buddhist discussion boards" rather than "Most people familiar with Buddhism". But he is indeed a very influential figure in the internet Buddhist scene. Even though he did not post here, it seemed to me that many of the "Buddha Bums" on this forum were greatly influenced by his views and opinions and way posting/arguing. I personally felt an intense aversion to everything polemical that he wrote. Yet despite this aversion, I sensed a very deep realization in him. To see it blossom in this way is so wonderful.

 

It sounds as though Malcolm/Namdrol has sided with Dwai now.

Please do not think of it in terms of "sides". To do so would be to completely miss the point, which is that Namdrol is not takings sides anymore. Many people posting in this thread are doing nothing but taking sides, which strikes me as being like taking a dump in a flower garden.

[dwai]

There's another part to this. Intuitive knowing can be a delusional. Your direct knowing and another person's direct knowing can be very different.

 

What is important is, what are you capable of? What are you able to do with what you know? For instance if you tell me that you are this awareness beyond the body, show me or tell me of your life outside of the body. Or if you say that the world is an illusion, show me how so you have shown yourself that, instead of just saying, "I directly know it is." Because that may just be self-hypnosis.

 

True,

 

But I don't have to show you anything because I'm not obligated to. I have expressed my opinions based on my experiences. If you have had similar experiences, you will nod your head in agreement and say to yourself "Ah yes I know what he means" or you will say "he's delusional, that's not what I experienced".

 

However, let us be clear on one fact -- "All experience is colored by the interpretation after the fact". Pure experience creates knowledge but we tend to color it over the passage of time and while the kernel of the knowledge might remain intact, the outer structure changes with time.

 

I don't know how else to explain these things besides slightly terse, borderline cryptic statements.

 

Contrary to popularized spiritual fiction, spiritual growth (in my most humble opinion) is not grand explosions of visions and realizations but rather a slow, boringly simple process of gradual discarding of erroneous knowledge and uncovering of the real deal. It's like a sculptor's slow and laborious work of taking a block of granite and chiseling it away till the magnificent sculpture is uncovered.

 

The problem I see with many participants on internet forums is that they seem to have this over-romanticised concept of spiritual advancement and enlightenment (which really, again, imho, happens only at beginner levels). There are probably many on this board who are far more enlightened than most others but they might not have a clue since they too subscribe to the grand theory of enlightenment (thunder rolls, lightning flashes and all).

[gatito]

True,

 

But I don't have to show you anything because I'm not obligated to. I have expressed my opinions based on my experiences. If you have had similar experiences, you will nod your head in agreement and say to yourself "Ah yes I know what he means" or you will say "he's delusional, that's not what I experienced".

 

However, let us be clear on one fact -- "All experience is colored by the interpretation after the fact". Pure experience creates knowledge but we tend to color it over the passage of time and while the kernel of the knowledge might remain intact, the outer structure changes with time.

 

I don't know how else to explain these things besides slightly terse, borderline cryptic statements.

 

Contrary to popularized spiritual fiction, spiritual growth (in my most humble opinion) is not grand explosions of visions and realizations but rather a slow, boringly simple process of gradual discarding of erroneous knowledge and uncovering of the real deal. It's like a sculptor's slow and laborious work of taking a block of granite and chiseling it away till the magnificent sculpture is uncovered.

 

The problem I see with many participants on internet forums is that they seem to have this over-romanticised concept of spiritual advancement and enlightenment (which really, again, imho, happens only at beginner levels). There are probably many on this board who are far more enlightened than most others but they might not have a clue since they too subscribe to the grand theory of enlightenment (thunder rolls, lightning flashes and all).

 

I resonate strongly with what you say here dwai and I recently came across an audio of part of a satsang with Rupert Spira, which I feel could be of great value to many of those here who are looking for a fireworks display etc. because sometimes this does happen and when it does it often gets blown-up out of proportion. The fireworks display can also cause the seeker serious problems afterwards because they misinterpret its significance and go chasing after a repeat performance: -

 

The Separate Self Hiding in the Spiritual Search

 

http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/listen/the-separate-self-hiding-in-the-spiritual-search

 

Although fireworks displays sometimes occur, I've seen that for most people it doesn't happen that way and there also often appears to be a two-stage process, which appears to occur as "enlightenment" (fireworks display) followed by "self-realisation" (which could be seen either as an integration or as a dropping-away of residues).

 

I've also seen people who have had fireworks displays teaching from ignorance, as "neo-advaitans" and, IME, I've found that most people find that absolutist viewpoint unhelpful when they haven't actually seen "It" themselves.

 

Also, it's not for anyone to convince anyone else of the reality of what's seen but for the seeker to investigate their own experience in the present moment thoroughly and thereby to free themselves of all beliefs and uncover the underlying Happiness, Peace and Love that is always present.

 

Usually, the help of a friend is necessary.

 

One final point:-

 

I've heard it said that religions are started by the people who didn't "get it". The one's who "got it" are so busy having fun that they aren't interested in starting religions.

[forestofclarity]

No one, by definition, has had an experience of unending consciousness. Many people have had an experience wherein consciousness ceases (or appears to).

 

 

 

But then there is consciousness that is self-aware and stands in its own lightless light...it has no beginning or end...as time has no meaning for this consciousness...it thefore not devoid of self-nature and not dependently originated.

[gatito]

No one, by definition, has had an experience of unending consciousness. Many people have had an experience wherein consciousness ceases (or appears to).

 

 

There's no evidence that Consciousness is ever absent, or that It ever ceases Being.

 

It's necessary to investigate one's own experience quite carefully in order to see this clearly.

 

You'll find that particular prakriya in Verse 5 of Atma Darshan (Page 11 of the 1983 edition).

[Lucky7Strikes]

True,

 

But I don't have to show you anything because I'm not obligated to. I have expressed my opinions based on my experiences. If you have had similar experiences, you will nod your head in agreement and say to yourself "Ah yes I know what he means" or you will say "he's delusional, that's not what I experienced".

Spirituality isn't an opinion about an experience. That's exactly what I was getting at. It shouldn't be an interpretation. It should be reality. And reality must be easily communicable and practically usable or you fall into endless delusional interpretations. Deepening you spirituality should be as tangible as learning to use a new organ you never knew you had before, not cryptic interpretation of had experiences with abstract language. And that's what's been going on in a lot of these debates.

 

And I can't excuse myself from pushing this type of "practice" in the past either, but thetaobums used to be much more about techniques (I think it's gradually shifting back to that) and ways to extend your being rather than deciphering how reality is and is not.

[Enishi]

[JustARandomPanda]

Please do not think of it in terms of "sides". To do so would be to completely miss the point, which is that Namdrol is not takings sides anymore.

 

Then my read on your statement above to me is you don't understand Dwai as that has always been one of Dwai's points as well. And Namdrol has taken a side. He's dropping the whole sectarianist stance - that IS a "side" in my view - and a good one to have. If Buddhists are permitted to have the Viewless View I don't see why Dwai can't have the Sideless Side.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Here's Sadhguru talking about the "side" or "view" of the Scientistic Materialist (aka Ontological Naturalist/Physicalist). For example: I can't ever imagine Richard Dawkins agreeing with Sadhguru that there are other ways of knowing that have nothing to do with our senses or consciousness. To admit that would pull the rug out under a foundation of modern scientistic materialism.

 

I've thought a lot of what Sadhguru says about views could equally apply to any "view" or stance manifesting as "my View is the True View and anything else is Wrong View", not just Scientistic Materialists.

 

I'm going to guess many Buddhists would argue Sadhguru's Emptiness is not the same thing as a Buddha or Bodhisattva's Emptiness.

 

Edited July 17, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Simple_Jack]

speaking only for myself:

 

I've been pondering lately if the emphasis on whether this-or-that teaching is Right or Wrong view is maybe the wrong way to go about things.

 

The thing that makes the most sense to me is what does this or that particular individual actually KNOW directly. As in...not a belief...not bought into some story or explanation - whether spiritual OR scientific.

 

Side Note: the latter -without investigation into how beliefs are formed within one's self - leads to unconscious belief in the "Truthness" of Materialism aka Physicalism aka Scientific Atheism but no matter how you spin it - it's still a belief...nobody to my knowledge has ever "directly experienced" a proton, electron, quark...etc.

 

 

It doesn't really matter what you believe...the training should always focus on exactly what does this-or-that-individual Directly KNOW. If I don't Know the Tao for myself then what good has it done me to say I'm a Taoist of any kind?! Ditto Buddhism? Dzogchen? Muslim? Christian? Etc?

 

Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter? I can only think of one reason where it would. If either actually got in the way of me KNOWING. Even someone else telling me "you're wrong" doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Why? Cause I don't KNOW HOW I was "wrong" in the first place. So them telling me - even if I buy into it is - A belief! The very thing VMarco keeps stridently arguing on these boards is the enemy of one actually KNOWING (er....or as he would say: GNOWING).

I've been pondering lately if the emphasis on whether this-or-that teaching is Right or Wrong view is maybe the wrong way to go about things.

 

IMHO, it shouldn't matter for you at this point of your spiritual development. What you should be looking for are if the actual practices are making you happier and more open to the possibilities of life; while at the same time noticing a transformation of the torrent of afflictions and disturbing emotions into a mind of natural equilibrium.

 

People who are able to have "realization" by just reading something (as in the case Xabir described of an individual who read a description of Thusness/Passerby's insight into Brahman) or having insight after a pointing out or with little effort into investigation, is very rare. The average person has to gruelingly cultivate (for who knows how long) before they can have "realization." Therefore, I'm a proponent of learning from different traditions and doing whatever works in order to advance spiritually (to whatever degree that may be.) Personally, to those starting out, I recommend self-inquiry Ramana Maharshi style.

 

It doesn't really matter what you believe...the training should always focus on exactly what does this-or-that-individual Directly KNOW. If I don't Know the Tao for myself then what good has it done me to say I'm a Taoist of any kind?! Ditto Buddhism? Dzogchen? Muslim? Christian? Etc?

 

A man who I believe to be on the same "level" of those such as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, said this (yes, I'll openly admit that I'm a fanboy, who is on his nutz; it is very, very rare in today's world to have someone of this caliber, discussing things from his direct experience. Therefore, I respect Thusness magnitudes beyond that of Malcolm.)

 

My link:

 

On Spontaneous Perfection

 

Lastly, when these 2 experiences inter-permeate, what is really needed is simply to experience whatever arises openly and unreservedly. It may sound simple but do not underestimate this simple path; even aeon lives of practices cannot touch the depth of its profundity....I must say that spontaneous presence and experiencing whatever arises openly, unreservedly and fearlessly is not the 'path' of any tradition or religion -- Be it Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Advaita, Taoism or Buddhism. In fact the natural way is the 'path' of Tao but Taoism cannot claim monopoly over the 'path' simply because it has a longer history. My experience is that any sincere practitioner after maturing non-dual experiences will eventually come to this automatically and naturally. It is like in the blood, there is no other way than the natural way. ~ Thusness

 

 

 

Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter? I can only think of one reason where it would. If either actually got in the way of me KNOWING. Even someone else telling me "you're wrong" doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Why? Cause I don't KNOW HOW I was "wrong" in the first place. So them telling me - even if I buy into it is - A belief! The very thing VMarco keeps stridently arguing on these boards is the enemy of one actually KNOWING (er....or as he would say: GNOWING).

 

"Realization" is delusion. It's in itself an expression of ignorance. This goes for all "realizations," described in the wisdom traditions of the world. We all have the same fundamental nature, it's only the veils of obscurations that are distorting our vision of this. IMO, "knowing" is in itself ignorance - something that is predicated on an imagined "knower" as subject. Two fitting quotes, that I've poste before in another thread (yes, I know it's "Buddhist," but please bear with me):

 

Understanding and perceiving rely on knowing, this is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without perception, this is nirvana - Surangama Sutra

 

Understanding and perceiving rely. Knowing: This is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without meaning (are not.) Perception, this is nirvana - Ch'an master Yu-an

 

EDIT: Messed up on the link to Thusness quote

Edited July 17, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I suspect Vajrahidaya would be quite surprised at this turn-about by one of his guiding light teachers. It sounds as though Malcolm/Namdrol has sided with Dwai now.

Actually, not at all. In this thread (My link) I accused Malcolm of having an eternalist view [on page 4 I quoted an excerpt from the Surangama Sutra, dealing with what I accused him of. Xabir sums it up as "...implying some universal, over-arching, eternalistic consciousness that is rejected in Shurangama;] where he responded:

 

Lotus_Bitch (Me): The view you are propounding is common among those of eternalistic views, which is why you'll hear of this in tribal communities as well.

 

Malcolm: Am I? That is news to me. Are you quite sure all tribal people are eternalists? How did you come to universal knowledge of the beleifs of all tribal peoples?

 

[JustARandomPanda]

Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter? I can only think of one reason where it would. If either actually got in the way of me KNOWING. Even someone else telling me "you're wrong" doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Why? Cause I don't KNOW HOW I was "wrong" in the first place. So them telling me - even if I buy into it is - A belief! The very thing VMarco keeps stridently arguing on these boards is the enemy of one actually KNOWING (er....or as he would say: GNOWING).

"Realization" is delusion. It's in itself an expression of ignorance. This goes for all "realizations," described in the wisdom traditions of the world. We all have the same fundamental nature, it's only the veils of obscurations that are distorting our vision of this. IMO, "knowing" is in itself ignorance - something that is predicated on an imagined "knower" as subject. Two fitting quotes, that I've poste before in another thread (yes, I know it's "Buddhist," but please bear with me):

 

Understanding and perceiving rely on knowing, this is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without perception, this is nirvana - Surangama Sutra

 

Understanding and perceiving rely. Knowing: This is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without meaning (are not.) Perception, this is nirvana - Ch'an master Yu-an

 

EDIT: Messed up on the link to Thusness quote

 

 

Huh? Where in the above reply is there disagreement with what I stated earlier? I've noticed it's a lot of Buddhists who are stuck on labels/Ideologies. They're the ones talking about how anyone like Dwai or any Hindu's or Sufi's or Taoist's reference to a True Self or Tao or Brahman, etc isn't Right View and will ultimately deny these 'Holders of Wrong View' the experience of liberation. They're saying that people like Dwai can't 'perceive without perception'. And they Gnow this to be true of that particular person HOW? Oh wait...it's because Dwai keeps using that damn label True Self. At any point do they actually BECOME Dwai as Dwai is busy 'perceiving without perception'? If so I've never seen any references of them doing it.

 

Here's what I do see them do: Posts like

 

"I've experienced directly how saying True Self is subtle clinging.

 

To which I would reply:

 

"Em...OK. That tells me about how YOU directly perceived without perception "True Self" but it tells me nothing about how Dwai actually does. Tell me how Dwai experiences/gnows/perceives without perception this True Self and let's see if it matches up with your own experience."

 

Only Ideologies stay stuck on a groove insisting a label (which by definition is not an experience) denies one of the ability to experience. Unless of course Buddhists are saying that labels do indeed hold this power.

 

One thing I've noticed - (I'll call 'em Right View-er(s)) is assuming that his/her understanding of what the other person is saying is indeed exactly equivalent to what that other person is in fact saying. Most of the time I haven't seen such Right View-ers ask enough questions or try to understand where the other person is coming from. Arhat or no they can jump to conclusions with the best of us un-enlightened Worldlings.

 

 

I still maintain that Right View is a Result of one's cultivation practice and that any other formulation runs the risk of becoming a Belief or Ideology one unconsciously clings to - in fact - it may already be so.

 

BTW - Ever notice how the Buddha himself never had any of his teachers hounding him about how he wasn't grounded in that Right View first? There were no gurus and their students pimping "Right View" before the Noble 8 Fold Path was expounded. Now the world is full of it.

 

By definition how in the world can anyone who is ignorant of 'how things work' get a View Right first?!! Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It is this that I think Malcolm/Namdrol has abandoned.

[deci belle]

[Simple_Jack]

Huh? Where in the above reply is there disagreement with what I stated earlier? I've noticed it's a lot of Buddhists who are stuck on labels/Ideologies. They're the ones talking about how anyone like Dwai or any Hindu's or Sufi's or Taoist's reference to a True Self or Tao or Brahman, etc isn't Right View and will ultimately deny these 'Holders of Wrong View' the experience of liberation. They're saying that people like Dwai can't 'perceive without perception'. And they Gnow this to be true of that particular person HOW? Oh wait...it's because Dwai keeps using that damn label True Self. At any point do they actually BECOME Dwai as Dwai is busy 'perceiving without perception'? If so I've never seen any references of them doing it.

 

Here's what I do see them do: Posts like

 

"I've experienced directly how saying True Self is subtle clinging.

 

To which I would reply:

 

"Em...OK. That tells me about how YOU directly perceived without perception "True Self" but it tells me nothing about how Dwai actually does. Tell me how Dwai experiences/gnows/perceives without perception this True Self and let's see if it matches up with your own experience."

 

Only Ideologies stay stuck on a groove insisting a label (which by definition is not an experience) denies one of the ability to experience. Unless of course Buddhists are saying that labels do indeed hold this power.

 

One thing I've noticed - (I'll call 'em Right View-er(s)) is assuming that his/her understanding of what the other person is saying is indeed exactly equivalent to what that other person is in fact saying. Most of the time I haven't seen such Right View-ers ask enough questions or try to understand where the other person is coming from. Arhat or no they can jump to conclusions with the best of us un-enlightened Worldlings.

 

 

I still maintain that Right View is a Result of one's cultivation practice and that any other formulation runs the risk of becoming a Belief or Ideology one unconsciously clings to - in fact - it may already be so.

 

BTW - Ever notice how the Buddha himself never had any of his teachers hounding him about how he wasn't grounded in that Right View first? There were no gurus and their students pimping "Right View" before the Noble 8 Fold Path was expounded. Now the world is full of it.

 

By definition how in the world can anyone who is ignorant of 'how things work' get a View Right first?!! Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It is this that I think Malcolm/Namdrol has abandoned.

I was going to post an elaborate reply, but decided not to in the end.....Honestly whether I responded with all the reasoning in the world, it wouldn't be of help to you. IMO, you shouldn't worry about this stuff right now. I think you should be focusing on the progress of your meditation, than worrying about "Right View" at this point in time. When you start making some serious progress it would probably be a good idea to know someone who could maybe help you advance further by giving you pointers or whatever.

 

In any case, I'm not going to speculate on what Malcolm thinks nowadays. His practice is dzogchen. For practitioners of dzogchen, all the bullshit between what is "right view" and what is "wrong view;" all the shit being debated between me and dwai, doesn't apply. Why? Because of what Malcolm said to Mr.G:

 

Mr.G: How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis does not accord with dependent origination?

 

Malcolm: Lhun grub

 

Mr.G: How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis has been reified?

 

Malcolm: Ka dag

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Anyone who receives direct introduction (to the nature of mind,) who stabilizes their experience of instant presence (regardless if there is still a sense of an apprehender and apprehended framework on a conscious/subconscious/unconscious level); and who seriously studys and applies the teachings of dzogchen will (eventually) fully come to recognize their own face (as Dzogpa Chenpo.) In the end dzogchenpa's (to use a convenient label) don't have anything to worry about, IMO.