Further discussion

[RongzomFan]

so I don't see any reason why he feels that anyone would have to prove their spiritual lineage in order to discuss any topic on this forum.

 

I think rex and myself were mainly pointing out what the book itself says.

 

The book says its for those who have transmission in the Dudjom lineage.

Edited August 8, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

I think another problem is that westerners shamefully raid Indian and Tibetan culture, yet will talk shit on those very same cultures.

 

Rajiv Malhotra calls it the U-turn theory.

[manitou]

 

Is this Tsongkhapa?

 

He didn't even teach Dzogchen.

I don't know who that is, but you can clearly see that he is uniting the left brain with the right brain. The 'books' sitting on the lotus on the right are head knowledge, our various studies of different paths. The lotus on the left represents inner clarity - i.e. the clearing out process that all must go through to attain enlightenment. Until this inner clarity is arrived at by our own endeavors, all our learning just remains that - book learnin'.

 

If one is entrenched within a certain path and remains there, they have not reached the place of Oneness. To sit in the place of Oneness is to be able to reach down into anyone's path and understand where they are, because the place of Oneness is the place of enlightenment. Personally, I would have to say that I get the most from Science of Mind, because it works with the illusive character of matter to straighten out the thinking of the one we're doing the healing on. Clarity of thought, unfettered by tangled-up character defects, is to tap into the Pure, the One, the Truth, the Reality. It's all just Thought, as science is finding out the further we look into the nature of matter.

 

My actual path was the path of the prodigal son. I had to wallow in the feces before I found the light. To get myself out of the feces, I had to untangle my internal noodles, which is more a function of the right brain than the left. I had no clue, 31 years ago, that my feet were being placed on a spiritual path. I just wanted to straighten myself out enough to stay sober. What an incredible surprise all this has turned out to be.

 

Enlightenment has no structure. It is total free thinking, and this is transmitted to others perhaps through the enlightened one's words and actions. He walks his talk. His character is as impeccable as he can possibly make it. Character is What We Do When No One Is Looking. Character is also demonstrated from behind our anonymous keyboards when we participate in groups such as this one. If one is continually nasty and putting others down, this is not an enlightened one at all. His heart shows through his words, and it is easy for ones with Eyes to see.

 

We must walk our talk - otherwise we are nothing but a library shelf. There's a lot of that on this forum. But there are also those like CT, Steve, Tibetan Ice and surely more I'm not thinking of at the moment who do walk their talk. It shines through their words - it is a shine of loving one's brother as ones' self and coming from the place of Oneness. Some of us take this deadly seriously.

 

Tibetan Ice, (I think it was you who questioned whether don Juan Mateus referred to enlightenment) - please go back to your collection of Castaneda books and just look at the front covers. There is one in particular in which the person walking on a path is hovering above the path and shining as well. (I've given my collection away one at a time, so I can't tell you which particular book it was). This is the metaphor for enlightenment, and in my view this picture relates the upper edge of what don Juan taught Carlos. Maybe Carlos made it, maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter - what he has given us through his relating the teachings of don Juan is a priceless treasure. As is the Tao Te Ching. Is there anyone here that does not see the Sage as an enlightened one? Look at his three treasures (as translated by Lin Yutang). Love, Never too Much, Never be the First. This tells me that he is capable of loving his brother as himself (not his actual brother, Alwayson), and his ego has been subjugated to the point where his spiritual visual lens is unfettered by selfish ego and the need to place himself above others.

 

If one has received some sort of magical transmission without worrying about their inner selves, I think this person is deluded and dwelling in ego. To be stuck within any particular path is confining and not enlightened one bit.

 

We must walk our talk; otherwise it's just baloney. We must be kind to each other on this forum and not put each other down. We keep coming back to each other to satisfy the question that has been implanted within us: Who am I, really?? When one realizes this answer and starts living with the results (also being capable of seeing who the other person is as well, as despicable as they may intitially appear to us) we become capable of achieving the One. Until then, it's merely structure. All paths, even the paths of darkness, when followed to their ultimate conclusion will lead to Oneness in the form of love and tolerance. And the understanding that, as Shakespeare said, (or Sir Henry Bacon, if you'd rather) 'this world is a stage and each must play their part'. A stage for what? This odd play, this odd evolution that ultimately must end in Oneness and Love, despite the opposite appearance in this day and age. We are all the Creator, after all.

Edited August 8, 2013 by manitou

[RongzomFan]

To be stuck within any particular path is confining and not enlightened one bit.

 

Yet Dudjom Rinpoche says "Don't toss away a gem to search for a trinket."

[RongzomFan]

Is there anyone here that does not see the Sage as an enlightened one?

 

me

[RongzomFan]

I don't know who that is, but you can clearly see that he is uniting the left brain with the right brain. The 'books' sitting on the lotus on the right are head knowledge, our various studies of different paths. The lotus on the left represents inner clarity - i.e. the clearing out process that all must go through to attain enlightenment. Until this inner clarity is arrived at by our own endeavors, all our learning just remains that - book learnin'.

 

 

Tsongkhapa isn't that great.

 

1. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama's translator, fully admits Tsongkhapa is a deviant who did not honor the existing tradition:

 

"The traditional Geluk understanding of these deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought attributes the development of his distinct reading of Madhyamaka philosophy to a mystical communion he is reported to have had with the bodhisattva Manjusri........It is interesting that the tradition Tsongkhapa is claiming to honour is, in a strict sense, not the existing system in Tibet; rather, it appears to be in the tradition of Manjusri as revealed in a mystic vision!"

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=2LhdnDp118oC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=It+is+interesting+that+the+tradition+Tsongkhapa+is+claiming+to+honour+is,+in+a+strict+sense,+not+the+existing+system+in+Tibet;+rather,+it+appears+to+be+in+the+tradition+of+Manjusri+as+revealed+in+a+mystic+vision&source=bl&ots=S692C899ki&sig=X0qtjc4iajoL-Lm4PL6LtKKCYrs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WqbuUdz2JNGl4AOl8YGwAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20interesting%20that%20the%20tradition%20Tsongkhapa%20is%20claiming%20to%20honour%20is%2C%20in%20a%20strict%20sense%2C%20not%20the%20existing%20system%20in%20Tibet%3B%20rather%2C%20it%20appears%20to%20be%20in%20the%20tradition%20of%20Manjusri%20as%20revealed%20in%20a%20mystic%20vision&f=false

 

2. Gorampa said Tsongkhapa was seized by demons and spread demonic words. He also did a detailed substantive critique of Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka."

 

"Gorampa, in the Lta ba ngan sel (Eliminating the Erroneous View), accuses Tsongkhapa of being "seized by demons" (bdud kyis zin pa) and in the Lta ba'i shan 'byed (Distinguishing Views) decries him as a "nihilistic Madhyamika" (dbu ma chad lta ba) who is spreading "demonic words" (bdud kyi tshig)."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=u7ZtE1bhtRYC&pg=PA125&dq=Gorampa,+in+the+Lta+ba+ngan+sel+(Eliminating+the+Erroneous+View),+accuses+Tsongkhapa+of+being+%22seized+by+demons%22+(bdud+kyis+zin+pa)+and+in+the+Lta+ba#v=onepage&q=Gorampa%2C%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba%20ngan%20sel%20(Eliminating%20the%20Erroneous%20View)%2C%20accuses%20Tsongkhapa%20of%20being%20%22seized%20by%20demons%22%20(bdud%20kyis%20zin%20pa)%20and%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba&f=false

 

"Even as serious a scholar as Go rams pa cannot resist suggesting, for example, that Tsong kha pa's supposed conversations with Manjusri may have been a dialogue with a demon instead."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=gbT01AXrmisC&pg=PA17&dq=Even+as+serious+a+scholar+as+Go+rams+pa+cannot+resist+suggesting,+for+example,+that+Tsong+kha+pa's+supposed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yAfyUfHmL5jb4AOq5IDQDw&ved=0CD0QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Even%20as%20serious%20a%20scholar%20as%20Go%20rams%20pa%20cannot%20resist%20suggesting%2C%20for%20example%2C%20that%20Tsong%20kha%20pa's%20supposed&f=false

 

3. Karl Brunnholzl's Center of the Sunlit Sky indicates that Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka is not consistent with any Indian text or the other Tibetan schools. Furthermore it has contaminated western scholarship.

 

"First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools."

 

"All critics of Tsongkhapa, including the Eighth Karmapa, agree that many features of his Centrism are novelties that are not found in any Indian sources and see this as a major flaw."

 

4. Tsongkhapa and Gelugpas are weirdo radicals, according to Sam van Schaik's basic history book, Tibet, A History:

 

"......Tsongkhapa was coming to realize that he wanted to create something new, not necessarily a school, but at least a new formulation of the Buddhist Path."

 

"........with Tsongkhapa's own personal interpretation of the philosophy of the Madhyamaka."

 

"As Khedrup and later followers of Tsongkhapa hit back at accusations like these, they defined their own philosophical tradition, and this went a long way to drawing a line in the sand between the Gandenpas and the broader Sakya tradition."

[RongzomFan]

If its your natural state anyone can realize it at any time, you have no idea if they have realized it beyond the intellectual.

 

Your natural state is rainbow body. I don't think its correct to say you can realize it at any time.

[RongzomFan]

Enlightenment has no structure.

 

That's true.

 

Rainbow body has no structure.

 

Being a body of light, it has no material element.

Edited August 8, 2013 by alwayson

[doc benway]

Alwayson -

I put you on ignore last week after reading a number of your ignorant, arrogant, and demeaning posts.

You seem knowledgeable and intelligent but your posts are often very bigoted and mean spirited.

After taking a long break from the forum, I decided to pay no attention to such posts and try the ignore function.

A friend reminded me earlier today of the value of using this as an opportunity for practice and development so I've deleted my ignore list entirely and thought I'd offer some responses now that I've read your posts below.

 

 

Why would you question his use of the word "knowledge" which is a direct translation for rigpa?

The word knowledge has intellectual connotations in English that I think are limited and misleading in this context.

Others have posted responses to this comment that are more scholarly and eloquent than mine would be so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

What Dzogchen teachings have you received

None... yet.

Please feel free to dismiss my opinions, as Anderson has.

This started as a discussion between manitou and I.

I make no claims to be an authority or scholar of Dzogchen and I think I mentioned that earlier.

 

For anyone interested, I'll share what brought me to these teachings.

 

I've practiced Daoist methods for about 10 years in a traditional lineage.

I've also practiced and studied from other resources along the way (including Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Anthony Demello, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and some others that I found less valuable). No tradition or method can capture reality in their words. It is certainly very useful to spend a lot of time in a single discipline to lay a solid foundation. Exploring alternative perspectives later on in one's training can also be valuable. I was originally taught this in a martial arts context but I think it's also useful in a spiritual context.

 

A good friend and training partner introduced me to Dzogchen teachings a few years back. At first I didn't pursue it as I was still very focused on Daoist methods. Eventually, I began reading the Dzogchen works such as Buddhahood without Meditation, Vivid Awareness, Wonders of the Natural Mind, and Old Man Basking in the Sun (all in English translation, unfortunately), and I found that they perfectly and eloquently captured the insights and experiences I've developed through the Daoist training and other studies.

 

I have not yet had an opportunity to receive any direct transmission (and I've chosen not to do so via internet teachings), but I have approached the materials with respect, humility, and prayer. I've humbly and reverently asked the authors to allow me to share in their wisdom. I've found the teachings to be so clear and perfect that I do have plans to attend a Dzogchen retreat in the near future to hopefully receive direct transmission as I continue to study and practice. I'm sure there is a lot lacking in my understanding but the truth in the words is very clear and I've had direct experience in my practice that validates everything I've read.

 

 

 

Steve, weren't you taking a shit on Buddhists in the other thread?

 

Not to my knowledge and not intentionally. I do have an occasional bout of incontinence so anything is possible. Please let me know what you are referring to and I will attempt to explain, if you would like. I have the utmost respect for people who manifest Buddhist ethics and morals and for the principles and teachings. On the other hand, calling oneself a Buddhist is meaningless if you don't walk the talk. Unfortunately, that seems to be fairly common on this forum (and others).

 

 

 

Dudjom Rinpoche wasn't a monk. Kunzang Dechen Lingpa wasn't a monk.

 

Most high Dzogchenpas aren't monks. Most Dzogchenpas aren't monks.

 

Seriously, what are you talking about?

 

Do you mean to say that Tibetan monks do not practice Dzogchen?

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure I have said I have transmission.

 

You may have transmission but you sorely lack humility, bodhicitta, and loving speech .

Transmission may be permission to study but it can and will be revoked if one treats other people as you do.

 

Perhaps it already has...

 

Furthermore, without bodhicitta there is no vipassana.

And without vipassana, one cannot take even the first step in understanding the truth in Dudjom Lingpa's words.

[Tibetan_Ice]

That's complete shit.

 

Even in the youtube video, Allan Wallace says he has his teacher's permission to teach only samatha and vipassana openly.

Alwaysoff,

Now that is 'complete shit' as you put it. In the first podcast called "01 Dzogchen Retreat Day 1 afternoon part 1", Alan Wallace says himself in the Dzogchen retreat this (at 1:23:00):

 

Alan recounts that Gyatrul Rinpoche said to Alan "Alan, you can teach everything that I am teaching. All the levels of Dzogchen, you can teach it all. Everything I am teaching you can teach..." Alan continues: "I have been teaching it for about 20 year now, with the permission of Gyatrul Rinpoche, my primary Dzogchen teacher, his holiness the Dalai Lama, my primary teacher. ".

 

http://archive.org/details/IntroductionToDzogchenRetreatWithAlanWallace2012

 

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Gyatrul_Rinpoche

Gyatrul Rinpoche (b. 1925) is a senior lama of the Palyul lineage of the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism.

Do you think Alan Wallace is lying, as you have just intimated. ?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

 

Do you think Alan Wallace is lying, as you have just intimated. ?

 

 

Allan Wallace doesn't teach Dzogchen openly or whatever you are suggesting.

 

Are you even aware that Allan Wallace has restricted books? Why do you think that is?

[RongzomFan]

Alwayson -

I put you on ignore last week after reading a number of your ignorant, arrogant, and demeaning posts.

You seem knowledgeable and intelligent but your posts are often very bigoted and mean spirited.

After taking a long break from the forum, I decided to pay no attention to such posts and try the ignore function.

A friend reminded me earlier today of the value of using this as an opportunity for practice and development so I've deleted my ignore list entirely and thought I'd offer some responses now that I've read your posts below.

 

 

The word knowledge has intellectual connotations in English that I think are limited and misleading in this context.

Others have posted responses to this comment that are more scholarly and eloquent than mine would be so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

None... yet.

Please feel free to dismiss my opinions, as Anderson has.

This started as a discussion between manitou and I.

I make no claims to be an authority or scholar of Dzogchen and I think I mentioned that earlier.

 

For anyone interested, I'll share what brought me to these teachings.

 

I've practiced Daoist methods for about 10 years in a traditional lineage.

I've also practiced and studied from other resources along the way (including Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Anthony Demello, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and some others that I found less valuable). No tradition or method can capture reality in their words. It is certainly very useful to spend a lot of time in a single discipline to lay a solid foundation. Exploring alternative perspectives later on in one's training can also be valuable. I was originally taught this in a martial arts context but I think it's also useful in a spiritual context.

 

A good friend and training partner introduced me to Dzogchen teachings a few years back. At first I didn't pursue it as I was still very focused on Daoist methods. Eventually, I began reading the Dzogchen works such as Buddhahood without Meditation, Vivid Awareness, Wonders of the Natural Mind, and Old Man Basking in the Sun (all in English translation, unfortunately), and I found that they perfectly and eloquently captured the insights and experiences I've developed through the Daoist training and other studies.

 

I have not yet had an opportunity to receive any direct transmission (and I've chosen not to do so via internet teachings), but I have approached the materials with respect, humility, and prayer. I've humbly and reverently asked the authors to allow me to share in their wisdom. I've found the teachings to be so clear and perfect that I do have plans to attend a Dzogchen retreat in the near future to hopefully receive direct transmission as I continue to study and practice. I'm sure there is a lot lacking in my understanding but the truth in the words is very clear and I've had direct experience in my practice that validates everything I've read.

 

 

 

 

Not to my knowledge and not intentionally. I do have an occasional bout of incontinence so anything is possible. Please let me know what you are referring to and I will attempt to explain, if you would like. I have the utmost respect for people who manifest Buddhist ethics and morals and for the principles and teachings. On the other hand, calling oneself a Buddhist is meaningless if you don't walk the talk. Unfortunately, that seems to be fairly common on this forum (and others).

 

 

 

 

Do you mean to say that Tibetan monks do not practice Dzogchen?

 

 

 

 

 

You may have transmission but you sorely lack humility, bodhicitta, and loving speech .

Transmission may be permission to study but it can and will be revoked if one treats other people as you do.

 

Perhaps it already has...

 

Furthermore, without bodhicitta there is no vipassana.

And without vipassana, one cannot take even the first step in understanding the truth in Dudjom Lingpa's words.

 

Why do you lecture Buddhists on Buddhism?

 

Do you lecture Christians on Christianity?

[Protector]

Do you lecture Christians on Christianity?

 

Don't know about everybody else, but I do

[Creation]

I think that Wallace's teacher only gave him permission to publically teach shamatha and vipashyana. So he won't be coming out with a book on treckchod and thogal any time soon.

[doc benway]

Quoted from alwayson:

"Why do you lecture Buddhists on Buddhism?

Do you lecture Christians on Christianity?"

 

 

 

Does the above post appear to be a lecture on Buddhism?

Are you a Buddhist? Or is that just a label you've adopted?

You certainly don't come across as a practicing Buddhist in your posts.

 

I simply wanted to respond to the comments you addressed to me, not only the content but also the tone.

I try to learn about myself based on how others perceive me.

I don't interact with people based on their labels, but rather as individuals.

 

edited to add quote

Edited August 8, 2013 by steve

[Tibetan_Ice]

Tibetan Ice just makes up his own facts. Like guru yoga being spirit channeling. Hes not even Buddhist.

Alwaysoff, I never said that. Liar. Either you can't understand what I wrote or you really don't understand the implications of dissolving visualized beings into one's sushumna.

 

This is what I wrote:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/30749-bias-against-new-age/?p=462001

In a word, yes. By visualizing a being/entity in front of you and then dissolving it into your body, either down into the crown or any of the gates, you are opening the door for any kind of entity/deity/being to enter your space. You have invited them/it in.

 

That is not so hard to understand is it?

 

I have seen many demons/entities. Most of them disguise themselves and come and visit you in bed, just before you fall asleep, when you are in transition between the waking and dreaming states. Or, they will try to gain access to your being when you are under tremendous stress, or some kind of traumatic experience.

 

I did not say that Guru Yoga was spirit channeling. First off, in channeling, you do not invite the visualized being into your body, down into your sushumna or otherwise. That would be called 'mediumship'; letting a being/spirit/entity take over your body. In channeling, you act as a go-between between the entity/spirit/being and your own consciousness.

 

What I was concerned about is that I have seen many demons disguised as everyday normal looking people in the astral planes, so there is always a possibility that who you think you've visualized or called up isn't exactly who you think you are getting. I won't even communicate with any spirits/entities/beings unless I can feel it in my heart that they are the real thing. And even then, if I have the slightest doubt, I will ask for some help and protection from my 'higher being', like YOU KNOW WHO. (that entity you keep saying doesn't exist).

 

So, unless you learn about these things and know what you are talking about, you shouldn't go around slandering people just because you think you are right.

 

TI

[RongzomFan]

Does the above post appear to be a lecture on Buddhism?

Yes.

 

Are you a Buddhist? Or is that just a label you've adopted?

You certainly don't come across as a practicing Buddhist in your posts.

 

I simply wanted to respond to the comments you addressed to me, not only the content but also the tone.

I try to learn about myself based on how others perceive me.

I don't interact with people based on their labels, but rather as individuals.

 

More lecturing.

[doc benway]

I think that Wallace's teacher only gave him permission to publically teach shamatha and vipashyana. So he won't be coming out with a book on treckchod and thogal any time soon.

Wallace mentioned in the Australian retreat that he did ask for, and receive permission to present an introduction to Dzogchen to students that seemed interested and prepared. He was advised not to get into details, however.

[doc benway]

Yes.

 

 

More lecturing.

Call it what you will.

I do tend to lecture children who don't know how to treat others with respect...

[RongzomFan]

Call it what you will.

I do tend to lecture children who don't know how to treat others with respect...

 

Pretty patronizing steve.

[doc benway]

You may be right, I've been accused of that before.

I do try hard, however I often fall back into bad patterns.

 

That doesn't negate the tone you take with others on this board.

You really may want to think about how your posts make others feel.

Your choice.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Tsongkhapa isn't that great.

 

1. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, the Dalai Lama's translator, fully admits Tsongkhapa is a deviant who did not honor the existing tradition:

 

"The traditional Geluk understanding of these deviations in Tsongkhapa's thought attributes the development of his distinct reading of Madhyamaka philosophy to a mystical communion he is reported to have had with the bodhisattva Manjusri........It is interesting that the tradition Tsongkhapa is claiming to honour is, in a strict sense, not the existing system in Tibet; rather, it appears to be in the tradition of Manjusri as revealed in a mystic vision!"

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=2LhdnDp118oC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=It+is+interesting+that+the+tradition+Tsongkhapa+is+claiming+to+honour+is,+in+a+strict+sense,+not+the+existing+system+in+Tibet;+rather,+it+appears+to+be+in+the+tradition+of+Manjusri+as+revealed+in+a+mystic+vision&source=bl&ots=S692C899ki&sig=X0qtjc4iajoL-Lm4PL6LtKKCYrs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WqbuUdz2JNGl4AOl8YGwAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20interesting%20that%20the%20tradition%20Tsongkhapa%20is%20claiming%20to%20honour%20is%2C%20in%20a%20strict%20sense%2C%20not%20the%20existing%20system%20in%20Tibet%3B%20rather%2C%20it%20appears%20to%20be%20in%20the%20tradition%20of%20Manjusri%20as%20revealed%20in%20a%20mystic%20vision&f=false

 

2. Gorampa said Tsongkhapa was seized by demons and spread demonic words. He also did a detailed substantive critique of Tsongkhapa's "Madhyamaka."

 

"Gorampa, in the Lta ba ngan sel (Eliminating the Erroneous View), accuses Tsongkhapa of being "seized by demons" (bdud kyis zin pa) and in the Lta ba'i shan 'byed (Distinguishing Views) decries him as a "nihilistic Madhyamika" (dbu ma chad lta ba) who is spreading "demonic words" (bdud kyi tshig)."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=u7ZtE1bhtRYC&pg=PA125&dq=Gorampa,+in+the+Lta+ba+ngan+sel+(Eliminating+the+Erroneous+View),+accuses+Tsongkhapa+of+being+%22seized+by+demons%22+(bdud+kyis+zin+pa)+and+in+the+Lta+ba#v=onepage&q=Gorampa%2C%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba%20ngan%20sel%20(Eliminating%20the%20Erroneous%20View)%2C%20accuses%20Tsongkhapa%20of%20being%20%22seized%20by%20demons%22%20(bdud%20kyis%20zin%20pa)%20and%20in%20the%20Lta%20ba&f=false

 

"Even as serious a scholar as Go rams pa cannot resist suggesting, for example, that Tsong kha pa's supposed conversations with Manjusri may have been a dialogue with a demon instead."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=gbT01AXrmisC&pg=PA17&dq=Even+as+serious+a+scholar+as+Go+rams+pa+cannot+resist+suggesting,+for+example,+that+Tsong+kha+pa's+supposed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yAfyUfHmL5jb4AOq5IDQDw&ved=0CD0QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Even%20as%20serious%20a%20scholar%20as%20Go%20rams%20pa%20cannot%20resist%20suggesting%2C%20for%20example%2C%20that%20Tsong%20kha%20pa's%20supposed&f=false

 

3. Karl Brunnholzl's Center of the Sunlit Sky indicates that Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka is not consistent with any Indian text or the other Tibetan schools. Furthermore it has contaminated western scholarship.

 

"First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools."

 

"All critics of Tsongkhapa, including the Eighth Karmapa, agree that many features of his Centrism are novelties that are not found in any Indian sources and see this as a major flaw."

 

4. Tsongkhapa and Gelugpas are weirdo radicals, according to Sam van Schaik's basic history book, Tibet, A History:

 

"......Tsongkhapa was coming to realize that he wanted to create something new, not necessarily a school, but at least a new formulation of the Buddhist Path."

 

"........with Tsongkhapa's own personal interpretation of the philosophy of the Madhyamaka."

 

"As Khedrup and later followers of Tsongkhapa hit back at accusations like these, they defined their own philosophical tradition, and this went a long way to drawing a line in the sand between the Gandenpas and the broader Sakya tradition."

 

Gee, Alwaysoff, are you saying that Manjursri's writings do not represent true Buddhist teachings? And that is why one must avoid Tsongkhapa? Have you ostracised Manjursri now?

 

Well perhaps you should read "BuddhaHood Without Meditation", because in it, there is a chapter of when Dudjom Lingpa met Manjurshri. What could a whole chapter of something Manjurshri said to Dudjom Lingpa in a 'vision' be doing in a book about The Great Perfection?

 

page 117:

 

ON YET ANOTHER OCCASION, during a meditative experience of utter lucidity, I met Manjushri, the Lion of Speech, and asked the following question: "Ah, teacher, guide of the world, I have come to a decision about the fundmental nature, just as it is --that sensory appearances of the universe are nothing other than awareness's own manifestation (rang-nang)...

 

 

?

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

Tibetan Ice, (I think it was you who questioned whether don Juan Mateus referred to enlightenment) - please go back to your collection of Castaneda books and just look at the front covers. There is one in particular in which the person walking on a path is hovering above the path and shining as well. (I've given my collection away one at a time, so I can't tell you which particular book it was). This is the metaphor for enlightenment, and in my view this picture relates the upper edge of what don Juan taught Carlos. Maybe Carlos made it, maybe he didn't. It doesn't matter - what he has given us through his relating the teachings of don Juan is a priceless treasure.

 

Hi Manitou

I don't think that was me. You know, I have all the Casteneda books, and when I first read them back in 1972, I practiced most of the practices. I did succeed in finding my hands in dreams and had wonderful mind-blowing experiences in those dreams. I also had my own power spot and practised allot of gazing out the sides of my eyes. It was such fun. Using death as an advisor, the gait of power, becoming a hunter, erasing personal history, Tales of Power!, the nagual and tonal, it was all so cool and mind-blowing. I really did get allot out of those practices. Then, later in life I learned that Casteneda was a fraud, that there was no Don Juan. I was heart broken and sad. But then I realized that I did get great benefit from the practices, even if Carlos did steal the essential theory from library books of honest traditions. And now I've come to realize that those practices and philosophies have been around for ages, you just have to find them in books.

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Allan Wallace doesn't teach Dzogchen openly or whatever you are suggesting.

 

Are you even aware that Allan Wallace has restricted books? Why do you think that is?

Alwaysoff,

I think your problem is that you fail to recognize what is actually happening.

 

Alan Wallace gives Dzogchen retreats where he teaches the basics of shamatha, and then gives the oral transmission from Padmasambhava out loud, then leads guided meditations to enforce the teachings including awareness of awareness all the way up to loving kindess meditation.

 

Here is a link to the retreat:

 

http://archive.org/details/IntroductionToDzogchenRetreatWithAlanWallace2012

 

Here is a list of notes that I have put together from that retreat: ( I skipped 1 to 3, have to go back and do those too when time permits)

 

 

4 two guided meditations.

Compares life to a dream.

Mode of existence.

Three mundane jewels: wealth power and fame... Valueless at death. People on retreat

 

5 One guided breath meditation.

General talk about minor benefits of meditation, watching the breath, no breathing during cell phone- checking email, dalai lama and soft cushion on chair.

 

6 Talks about relaxation, stability and vividness

Anti-effort

The 8 concerns -abandon hinderances

 

7 shavasana corpse posture

One silent meditation 25 min.

 

8 two silent sessions are skipped

Talk is about questions and answers.

Dissolving coarse mind during meditation. Personal identity is dissolved. Fear and get over it.

Death and the substrate consciousness.

Length of sitting times

Background of Theravada

Sleepitate

　

9 start of watching thoughts as per Dzogchen

Two good guided meditations

Architecture of dharmadatu rigpa, microcosm, macrocosm

　

10 wonderful visualization meditation eyes partially open

Space of the mind

 

11 two meditations

Talk about shamatha

All practices have limitations

Defines Dzogchen as beyond stages of generation and completion

 

12 silent meditation only 25 min

 

13 2 meditations cut off

Questions and answers

Substrate dissolve into

Prana accumulates in heart, throat xfor dreams, etc

Senses dissolve

Tummo, dissolving into central channel, subtle mind,

Do absolutely nothing then the winds will dissolve into the central channel and go to the heart drop but it is not easy.

Path: shamatha vipassana trecko thodgal rainbow body

How to check out past lives by using the substrate

Remember what u had for lunch a year ago Buddhagosa

　

14 five obscurations whole path

Lots on path (if you had to listen to just one, I would pick this one).

 

15 can't practice Dzogchen from a coarse mind, first gear

One meditation silent session

 

16 history and commonality of rigpa, arahats science luminous bliss unborn unceasing

Vidyadata unborn unceasing resting in rigpa

Prajnamitra the nature of existence is clear light

Franklin Merrell-Wolff

There is no Buddhism in Dzogchen

 

17 pointing out instructions meditation

 

18 getting the view. Dreams clarity emptiness. First insight is often dull.

A spacious path to freedom Karma Chagme.

Stories about reincarnation and mundane psychic powers

 

19 two silent meditations

Spaced out danger: Must be a flow of knowing

Lucid dreaming

Really excellent talk about bliss, shamatha, stability, rigpa, the progression...

 

20 calichakra tantra

Rainbow body

Stories about masters

Industructible drop at the heart

 

21 awareness of awareness on second meditation

Invert and expand awareness

From padmasambhava. Book called Natural Liberation

Develop introspection

Do you need a guru?

Relationship to the guru

 

22 one guided meditation

on being aware of being aware

Center then release and repeat

 

23 No meditations

Question and answers

Stories about rainbow body

and cremation

Talks about continual knowing,

Vividness luminosity, subtle thoughts,

Insomnia-

 

24 two meditations second is guided. Phase 2 of awareness of awareness.

Talks about Richard Geer and reifying gurus

 

25. One silent session

Talking starts at 26 minutes

questions and answers

Cultivating introspection

By stage 8 you don't introspect anymore

question about prayer

 

26 two meditations : second is guided

 

27 one meditation session silent

Q&A location of awareness

 

28 Two meditations are cut

Q&A

Levels of practice

Rumination is grasping

Cat and elephant in a pool of water

 

29 general advice

two meditations, one silent

Second is "shamatha without a sign" guided -starts at 34:50

Meditation: calm mind with breath, focus awareness without an object up, then return, then right, return, left, return then take an elevator down to the heart. Then expand awareness in all directions without an object

Then come back to the center.

Meditation is from padmasambhava "natural liberation"

Talks about death

 

30 loving kindness meditation

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Apech]

@TI - I'm afraid that seems to confirm what Alwayson is saying ... he seems to me to have bolted dzogchen on as an end point whereas the whole point of not just Dzogchen but also Mahamudra and Lamdre teachings is basis, path and fruit.

 

In any case if you want to be clear about Dzogchen its the Dzogchen master you should refer to.

 

I think this whole thread is out of hand and lacking in the basic kindness for which Buddhism is revered. I realise that the way Alwayson expresses himself upsets a lot of people BUT you have to remember that it is his right to express himself how he chooses ... why it causes everyone else to get angry and start to belittle him I don't know ... but it reflects poorly on those who allow this reaction to dominate. There is absolutely no reason why Alwayson should accept what anyone says about what Dzogchen is or isn't apart from those fully qualified to teach it if he doesn't want to. That's got to be the same for all of us surely.