Introduction to Dzogchen Retreat with B Alan Wallace

[C T]

The following quote is again from CNN... (pg. 36)

 

The mind influences the condition of both the body and the energy, and at the same time depends on them. Sometimes the mind is totally enslaved by the energy and there is no way to balance it without clearing up the disorders of the energy first.

 

This statement is very clear, and in my experience, the statement is very true. Even though CNN says it, would you consider it somehow "un-Dzogchen"?

 

Thanks again.

 

 

There's nothing 'un-dzogchen' in what CNN asserted.

 

The problem with Alwayson is that he refuses to acknowledge that it was CNN who said that.

[RongzomFan]

The problem with Alwayson is that he refuses to acknowledge that it was CNN who said that.

 

Whats the argument now? I'm lost.

Edited December 15, 2012 by alwayson

[C T]

Bullshit, of course they do. They always hold Menngagde higher. I can't believe you just said that.

 

I dont remember discussing the status of each.

[Jeff]

 

There's nothing 'un-dzogchen' in what CNN asserted.

 

The problem with Alwayson is that he refuses to acknowledge that it was CNN who said that.

 

To be fair, given the threads he supplied, there may be more than a few who could feel that way.

 

[C T]

Whats the argument now? I'm lost.

 

No argument. I like you!

[C T]

...even tho you're such an ass at times.

[konchog uma]

@alwayson

 

why do you think shakyamuni advocated jhana if its an obstacle to liberation?

 

does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

shakyamuni said that the jhanas were not the means of liberation in and of themselves, but he never taught that they were an obstacle to my knowledge.

[C T]

does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

shakyamuni said that the jhanas were not the means of liberation in and of themselves, but he never taught that they were an obstacle to my knowledge.

 

Jhanas are the fruits of correct practice.

 

As mentioned, they are neither liberators nor obstacles to one who has overcome clinging and aversion.

 

And, to overcome clinging and aversion, practice correctly.

 

Its not a choice thing, as Alwayson appears to indicate.

 

 

Since the primary impetus of vajrayana is to attain the complete dissolution of fixations, i dont see the logic in saying that anything, jhanas included, would serve as impediments. Should these impediments arise, then it would follow that one has not laid a proper foundation thence are still caught up with fixations aka obscurations. So, we need to ask: are jhanas the issue, or one's own view around them the issue?

 

When the 'inner apprehender' dissolves, what remains?

 

Only when apprehender appears again that obstacles are seen to arise, seemingly, because in reality, they (obstacles) have no basis except as play in the grosser mind.

 

When the mind is at rest, in equanimity, calm and collected, all obstacles become transformed into their wisdom counterparts.

[RongzomFan]

Its not a choice thing, as Alwayson appears to indicate.

 

If you are sitting and meditating to create these contrived and conceptual jhana states, how is that not a choice?

[C T]

If you are sitting and meditating to create these contrived and conceptual jhana states, how is that not a choice?

 

Sitting and meditating?

 

Is that all Vajrayana is to you?

 

Those who attempt to manifest jhanas thru various shallow practices may or may not succeed.

 

Those who diligently practice the Dharma, without being swayed by such manifestations -- the fruits will appear naturally, effortlessly.

 

To deny them is a form of aversion.

 

Aversions are not encouraged in Dharma practice.

[RongzomFan]

Sitting and meditating?

 

Is that all Vajrayana is to you?

 

 

No thats not Vajrayana

 

thats my point

[RongzomFan]

To deny them is a form of aversion.

 

Aversions are not encouraged in Dharma practice.

 

According to your logic, why not do heroin?

 

To deny heroin is a form of aversion

 

Aversions are not encouraged in Dharma practice.

Edited December 15, 2012 by alwayson

[C T]

No thats not Vajrayana

 

thats my point

 

Well, yeah, i see your point, but you have missed mine.

[C T]

According to your logic, why not do heroin?

 

To deny heroin is a form of version

 

Aversions are not encouraged in Dharma practice.

 

Now you are veering into the realm of non-logical assumptions.

 

I dont find this beneficial to further the discussion.

 

Dharma practice is about cultivating wisdom.

 

How could you even bring heroin into this?

[Creation]

does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

shakyamuni said that the jhanas were not the means of liberation in and of themselves, but he never taught that they were an obstacle to my knowledge.

Hi anamatva.

 

It seems to me that when alwayson decides something is "best", suddenly everything else is "bad", but this is not what was in the thread he referenced. I looked at that dharmawheel thread and cannot find the idea that jhanas are a hindrance. What Malcolm was saying is that they are not the type of mindstates utilized in Vajrayana practice, because they have an object and so do not as closely approximate the realization of emptiness, and also because they are a type of bliss that is soley mental, not incorporating the bliss of the body. As for the latter, a Theravadin might reply "Yes, that is why the Buddha taught the jhanas, the Buddha had no use for the bliss of the body". Of course, there are profound differences in method in Vajrayana and Sutrayana.

[Creation]

I wouldn't worry about it. Development of the energy body is a natural component of all paths. The question seems to be if one notices (or cares to notice).

Even so, I would want to approach Dzogchen as a Dzogchenpa, not something else. So even if Dzochen practice develops the energy body as a result, if the practices do not do so intentionally engaging my tendency to do so would be me practicing Dzogchen in a spirit other than the spirit of Dzogchen.

 

To my perception, practice lineages have very deep underlying structures that usually are not communicated through words. So even though Zen, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen all emphasize pointing to direct experience of the natural state, the way that that state comes through the varying levels of consciousness is different and carries a unique signature, a unique "wiring" if you will.

 

So I am sympathetic to Pero et al recommending one approach Dzogchen on it's own terms rather than try to associate it with one's prior perceptions, however Dzogchen-like they seem.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Creation

[RongzomFan]

Well, yeah, i see your point, but you have missed mine.

 

 

I understand your point about taking everything onto the path. This is Vajrayana 101.

 

That doesn't mean you go waste your time on useless practices.

Edited December 15, 2012 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

So even though Zen, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen all emphasize pointing to direct experience of the natural state, the way that that state comes through the varying levels of consciousness is different and carries a unique signature, a unique "wiring" if you will.

 

The nature of the mind is the same in all three.

[konchog uma]

Jhanas are the fruits of correct practice.

 

As mentioned, they are neither liberators nor obstacles to one who has overcome clinging and aversion.

 

And, to overcome clinging and aversion, practice correctly.

 

Its not a choice thing, as Alwayson appears to indicate.

 

 

Since the primary impetus of vajrayana is to attain the complete dissolution of fixations, i dont see the logic in saying that anything, jhanas included, would serve as impediments. Should these impediments arise, then it would follow that one has not laid a proper foundation thence are still caught up with fixations aka obscurations. So, we need to ask: are jhanas the issue, or one's own view around them the issue?

 

When the 'inner apprehender' dissolves, what remains?

 

Only when apprehender appears again that obstacles are seen to arise, seemingly, because in reality, they (obstacles) have no basis except as play in the grosser mind.

 

When the mind is at rest, in equanimity, calm and collected, all obstacles become transformed into their wisdom counterparts.

 

that is in line with my own understanding, both of jhanas and of the vajrayana view

[Tibetan_Ice]

an article for you, Jeff! http://davidpaulboaz..._perfection.pdf

 

Hi C T.

I think that article is horrible. Or at least it doesn't have anything to do with what I've been reading about Dzogchen..

 

For Example:

III. The Path: Development Stage, the way of practice. Letting be, as it is. Meditation on Body, Voice and Mind;

opening heartmind, seeing ignorance/desire of the five skandhas of attachment to conditional existence and

its three marks: impermanence (anitya), no-self (anatman) and suffering. Purification of misdeeds.

Awakening bodhicitita of intention and action. The Two Accumulations: wisdom (prajna) and merit

(means/upaya) as compassion (karuna). “Descend with the View, ascend with the Conduct.”

 

In Dzogchen, you let it be, but my understanding is that you focus on thoughts directly until they dissolve. You focus on the mind until it dissolves into the substrate. You focus on the substrate until it dissolves (or shatter the substrate with other techniques). Then you hit the primordial state. And, you don't really "focus", you simply watch until the thoughts etc dissolve, without grasping or aversion. You observe the arising and passing without being affected. You learn that nothing is permanent and that everything dissolves back into the natural state, if only you just leave it alone. That is all. It is so simple. So why is Boaz saying that you have to do all those other things like "meditation" and "opening heartmind", seeing ignorance/desire of the five skandhas.. etc? Sounds like an obstacle course to me. I don't believe that is Dzogchen. I think he missed the boat.

 

TI

[konchog uma]

Hi anamatva.

 

It seems to me that when alwayson decides something is "best", suddenly everything else is "bad", but this is not what was in the thread he referenced. I looked at that dharmawheel thread and cannot find the idea that jhanas are a hindrance. What Malcolm was saying is that they are not the type of mindstates utilized in Vajrayana practice, because they have an object and so do not as closely approximate the realization of emptiness, and also because they are a type of bliss that is soley mental, not incorporating the bliss of the body. As for the latter, a Theravadin might reply "Yes, that is why the Buddha taught the jhanas, the Buddha had no use for the bliss of the body". Of course, there are profound differences in method in Vajrayana and Sutrayana.

 

right, i can see the point that jhanas are an exercise in conceptual mind, but even as such they are tools on the path to liberation, and the insight generated when one comes out of them is really what one is after, not the bliss state itself anyway. At first i thought to myself that the argument was dodgy because anything you talk about with words is capable of being labeled conceptual and dismissed, its a common daoist copout, which i pointed out to aaron (right before i put him on ignore) but thats got nothing to do with my point. As i read on in that thread, i understood where malcolm was coming from, which is admittedly a place of deep integrity and perfectionism, which i think are good for practice. And even if they are solely mental, (which i am not sure of, having not attained them yet, but i doubt from my studies, and i don't think malcolm knows from experience) i don't think that that discounts them. There are whole schools of buddhism (yogachara) that would say that the bliss of the body is a dream without substance, nothing but nebulous mindstuff if anything at all. So thats not the dzogchen view, which is malcolms, but its a well-accepted interpretation of the buddha-dharma. So i don't know where all the hair-splitting gets anyone.. if someone attains jhana it means they are meditating well, and if someone isn't interested in attaining jhana, thats their business, but in no case is jhana an obstacle to realization, or even emptiness, as it can give one the insight to gain realization of emptiness in the absence of the five hindrances and with the insight generated by jhana. i don't think that the realization generated by the jhana state and its insight is necessarily conceptual, hence shakyamuni teaching it as a means to realization of the true nature of reality and self

 

ho hum bedtime

Edited December 15, 2012 by anamatva

[Tibetan_Ice]

If you are sitting and meditating to create these contrived and conceptual jhana states, how is that not a choice?

 

Hi Alwayson,

It appears that you don't understand the jhanas (too).

 

The jhanas are not contrived nor are they all conceptual. The first four material jhanas are conceptual states, but the last four formless jhanas are not. The jhana of neither perception nor non-perception is not a conceptual state. Nor is the jhana of cessation.

 

Now if you meant to say that sitting down to meditate in order to reach the jhanas, as an end in itself is a hinderance, then you would be right. But that's not what you said. You used the words "contrived" and "conceptual"

 

The object is not to cling to the jhanas, letting them dissolve and getting beyond them. But passing through the jhanas is what eveyone does on the way to Primordial Ground. Some just spend more time in them than others.

 

There is also the view that the jhanas, which dissolve the coarse mind (or occur while the coarse mind is dissolving), take the practitioner to the substrate consciousness. The substrate consciousness is way more powerful than the coarse mind. From the substrate consciousness, one has the power to reveal past lives, know the minds of others... it is a form of superconsciousness. It is from this basis, empowered by the superconsciousness that one can penetrate the substrate consciousness. Neither averting nor grasping while in superconsciousness is also way more powerful and rapid.

 

But the key, as far as my interpretation of the Dzogchen view goes, you will pass through these stages and you should not get hung up on them, for they too will dissolve.

 

TI

[C T]

Hi C T.

I think that article is horrible. Or at least it doesn't have anything to do with what I've been reading about Dzogchen..

 

For Example:

 

 

In Dzogchen, you let it be, but my understanding is that you focus on thoughts directly until they dissolve. You focus on the mind until it dissolves into the substrate. You focus on the substrate until it dissolves (or shatter the substrate with other techniques). Then you hit the primordial state. And, you don't really "focus", you simply watch until the thoughts etc dissolve, without grasping or aversion. You observe the arising and passing without being affected. You learn that nothing is permanent and that everything dissolves back into the natural state, if only you just leave it alone. That is all. It is so simple. So why is Boaz saying that you have to do all those other things like "meditation" and "opening heartmind", seeing ignorance/desire of the five skandhas.. etc? Sounds like an obstacle course to me. I don't believe that is Dzogchen. I think he missed the boat.

 

TI

 

Hi TI,

 

As you are aware (or may be aware), there are 2 stages on the path: generation and completion.

 

You are more attuned to the completion stage, whereas that part which you had quoted are practices within the generation stage.

 

Hence the small misunderstanding.

 

Another point i want to raise with regards to what you wrote is this: In the Great Perfection, thoughts need not have to watched. Those who have attained stability retains the carefree posture where thoughts are self-liberated spontaneously as they arise, into the vast expanse of primordial purity. Any 'doing' (watching is also a 'doing'), regardless of subtlety, is still not Ati yet.

 

You can read more here (from a more mainstream source - Berzin Archives) --- http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/extra_bodily_states.html

 

Hopefully, Boaz did not miss the boat after all.

 

Best to you in your practices!

[RongzomFan]

You used the words "contrived" and "conceptual"

 

The jhana states are contrived and conceptual. The jhana states are just the product of the mind.

 

Vajrayana cuts off the mind itself at the root, by stilling the winds through kumbhaka for example.

[C T]

More info gleaned from the archives (Introduction to Dzogchen) -- http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/dzogchen/basic_points/introduction_dzogchen.html