Former AYPer with questions about Samatha vs. Kundalini

[Samadhology]

Hello, everyone. Apparently I must start in the Lobby. So here I am.

 

Ive been following some of the discussions here for a while, particularly the AYP-related posts by Tibetan_Ice and Seeker of Tao.

 

I opened an account in order to direct some questions to Tibetan_Ice and Seeker of Tao in particular and to the community in general. Of course, everyone is welcome to respond!

 

I had a longer pst planned, but I pulled my back a couple of days ago, so Im in pain here - but not excruciatingly so. At any rate, Ill keep this short because sitting in this chair is rather uncomfortable.

 

Ive been doing AYP for a little over two years now, but some of the discussions about it here have given me cause to re-evaluate the practice. Ive arrived at the understanding that Samatha meditation seems more structured and offers a clearer path toward a fuller experiencing and enjoyment of the fruits of meditative practice. Accordingly, Wallaces The Attention Revolution is my practice manual. At any rate, folks here seem to agree that its a valuable resource, and I have to agree. Its a gem.

 

So this is characteristically Buddhist practice. One first does Samatha and then Vipassana. Im not sure whether concurrently or consecutively, but at this time Im content with directing my energies to Samatha practice.

 

The concern, though, is what of Kundalini meditation and prana work? I must admit that Kundalini meditation - among the laity at least - has achieved mythic status. Its like a drug, and those of us who engaged in these practices for any length of time probably have the image of that coiled serpent energy rushing up our spine and bursting through the crown chakra fixed firmly in our mind. It seems to be the Gold Medal of Kundalini meditation. So Im concerned that I might be missing out on this, while at the same time I can freely admit that maybe Ive developed some fantasies about it. At any rate, it would appear that Samatha mediation is probably necessary for *any* kind of chakra work later on. It seems to be a foundational practice, and these serpent energies will come of their own accord anyway.

 

Additionally, theres prana. What of that? In Samatha meditation we dont force or control the breath; we simply allow ourselves to breath naturally as part of the practice. But what of the benefits of prana work - pranayama/spinal breathing, breath of fire, etc. ?

 

So Im a little confused at this point. However, Wallaces work is quite inspirational, and Ive decided to press forward with Samatha meditation regardless. I dont think Kundalini energies would function very well in the presence of an unquiet mind.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Christian.

[C T]

 

However, Wallaces work is quite inspirational, and Ive decided to press forward with Samatha meditation regardless. I dont think Kundalini energies would function very well in the presence of an unquiet mind.

 

 

Hi Christian, welcome to TTB!

 

Alan Wallace's works are super. You are on the ball here. Confuse no more!

 

Im sure TI and Seeker of Tao will be along soon to clarify further your concerns. As for me, i have no interest at all in the Kundalini gloss. Its a complex process. The Buddhist approach of understanding/taming the mind works better for me, and its what i have been practicing confidently all my life.

 

Best wishes. May your time here yield much progress on your journey.

[rex]

When some sort of stability is achieved with shamatha it is said that the channels and chakras go into a balanced state while calm abiding is maintained. Energy work and calm abiding should ideally reinforce each other and need not be mutually exclusive.

 

One image of the relationship between energy work and calm abiding is that of the ordinary mind preoccupied with daily concerns is like a glass of muddy water. Calm abiding allows a temporary state of clarity as the dirt settles to the bottom of the glass when the water is left undisturbed. However calm abiding will not remove the dirt but energy work will. Some forms of vipassana will also remove the dirt but this is getting into Mahamuda and Ati Yoga on which I'm not quallified to speak.

 

Energy work done before a meditation session may make it easier to get into the calm abiding state, while the calm state will help with riding the waves when strong energy is experienced.

 

All the best.

Edited March 6, 2014 by rex

[C T]

Patience, Rex! Patience....

[rex]

Patience, Rex! Patience....

Sorry wrote the first post on an i-phone and inadvertently posted a load of emails into the reply. I'll re-edit now

Edited March 6, 2014 by rex

[C T]

Sorry wrote the first post on an i-phone and inadvertently posted a load of emails into the reply. I'll re-edit now

yup, was scratching my head there for a second...

[Paul]

Kundalini yoga is a different view, practice and result. By Buddhist standards it's not wrong. It is a foundation. Buddhism works with a stable mind to evaluate the 12-links of dependent origination, and the four noble truths. This is advanced nonduality methodology. In Kundalini yoga one performs a rudimentary form of nonduality research when the kundalini opens the crown. Whichever system is working it's the crown opening when nonduality is being researched.

 

Each methodology has its signs. Kundalini yoga is tantric, so tantric Buddhism is more analogous. In kundalini when the serpent rises through chakras, it feels like a crocodile swimming, or a deer leaping etc. In tantric Buddhism there are other signs, likes amts crawling, seeing smoke, moonlight, etc. These are just signs, not the result.

 

In Kundalini yoga there is a specific consciousness state one lands on, and it is taken to be ultimate reality. In Buddhism, no reality is cognized and joy arises from complete non attachment. Radiance is a metaphor for this joy.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hello, everyone. Apparently I must start in the Lobby. So here I am.

 

Ive been following some of the discussions here for a while, particularly the AYP-related posts by Tibetan_Ice and Seeker of Tao.

 

I opened an account in order to direct some questions to Tibetan_Ice and Seeker of Tao in particular and to the community in general. Of course, everyone is welcome to respond!

 

I had a longer pst planned, but I pulled my back a couple of days ago, so Im in pain here - but not excruciatingly so. At any rate, Ill keep this short because sitting in this chair is rather uncomfortable.

 

Ive been doing AYP for a little over two years now, but some of the discussions about it here have given me cause to re-evaluate the practice. Ive arrived at the understanding that Samatha meditation seems more structured and offers a clearer path toward a fuller experiencing and enjoyment of the fruits of meditative practice. Accordingly, Wallaces The Attention Revolution is my practice manual. At any rate, folks here seem to agree that its a valuable resource, and I have to agree. Its a gem.

 

So this is characteristically Buddhist practice. One first does Samatha and then Vipassana. Im not sure whether concurrently or consecutively, but at this time Im content with directing my energies to Samatha practice.

 

The concern, though, is what of Kundalini meditation and prana work? I must admit that Kundalini meditation - among the laity at least - has achieved mythic status. Its like a drug, and those of us who engaged in these practices for any length of time probably have the image of that coiled serpent energy rushing up our spine and bursting through the crown chakra fixed firmly in our mind. It seems to be the Gold Medal of Kundalini meditation. So Im concerned that I might be missing out on this, while at the same time I can freely admit that maybe Ive developed some fantasies about it. At any rate, it would appear that Samatha mediation is probably necessary for *any* kind of chakra work later on. It seems to be a foundational practice, and these serpent energies will come of their own accord anyway.

 

Additionally, theres prana. What of that? In Samatha meditation we dont force or control the breath; we simply allow ourselves to breath naturally as part of the practice. But what of the benefits of prana work - pranayama/spinal breathing, breath of fire, etc. ?

 

So Im a little confused at this point. However, Wallaces work is quite inspirational, and Ive decided to press forward with Samatha meditation regardless. I dont think Kundalini energies would function very well in the presence of an unquiet mind.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Christian.

 

Hi Christian,

My main concerns about AYP are these:

1) AYP has no lineage.

2) Yogani made most of it up, took classic kundalini practices and customized/bastardized them.

3) AYP's definition of samyama and the practice is not the classic Patanjali's definition nor understanding. AYP misses the "continuous sustained attention" aspect of the last three limbs of the yoga sutras

4) Yogani is trying to marry customized kundalini practices with Transcendental Meditation. AYP's deep meditation does not follow the breath, yet, many kundalini teachings say to follow the breath during meditation (Sri Anandi Ma, Mark Griffin, SwamiJi, etc)

5) Nobody has ever met Yogani. He does not go to retreats nor does he perform transmissions or shaktipat as is a generally accepted pricinple in Kundalini yoga

6) Because there is no personal touch by the 'head guru' (Yogani is anti-guru), AYP adopts a standard canned type of response to any concerns or experiences that you may have, which is "It's all just scenery". In serious Buddhist meditation techniques, it is important to notice certain experiences, such as the emergence of nimittas because it denotes a time when you change your meditation practice to focus on the nimittas (nimittas are bright lights/specific images that may resemble a moon, a sun, a very bright light etc).

7) Buddhists have a practice of tummo, which brings the 'winds' into the central channel, but their tecniques of vase breathing release the root lock before bringing up the mixture. In AYP, you keep the root lock on. I've read in places that not releasing mulabandha before bringing up the prana into the central channel (sushumna) can damage yourself and cause much pain.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Are there still many complaints about overload at AYP?

 

Reminds me of CarsonZi. Once he posted an experience where he would end up in a state where he had realized a vast empty space and at that point he didn't want to repeat the mantra any more. Yogani told him he had to keep repeating the mantra. In Dzogchen, as long as you have clarity, the goal is to remain in that space. So, in a way, because of Yogani's reluctance or inability to understand the mechanics of realization, or his insitence that his methods are the only way, he may be hindering practitioners' progress along the path.

 

The proof is in the pudding. Were Yogani an accomplished adept, he could taylor his responses to suit and meet the needs of every member. Instead, he resorts to 'lowest common denominator' type of advice and suggestions, those which appeal to the general masses. I think he is more interested in mass-marketing and his "science experiments" than truly helping people become realized.

 

Big exhale.

 

As far as kundalini versus shamtha.. here goes..

If you could sit and do absolutely nothing, your mind would calm down and stop. At that point, the winds naturally dissolve into the central channel all by themselves. You don't have to force anything. But sitting and doing absolutely nothing is not easy.

 

If you start watching the mind, you realize that at first, you have no control over the mind, the thoughts that appear, where the attention wanders.. it is amazing that we have so little control over what occurs in the mind. Further, even the slightest intention, aspiration or hope during "trying to calm and stabilize the mind" results in the motion of subtle winds. Where there is motion, however so slight, the motion is a veil which conceals your true nature.

 

Yes, kundalini. According to Yogani's definition of enlightenment, enlightenment is the joining of ecstatic conductivity and "inner silence" - whatever that means.

 

In Bon Dzogchen, realization entails uncovering emptiness which is inextricably bound to clarity (luminous awareness).

 

I have done the kundalini practices until I spent hours and hours in states of "ecstatic conductivity". Sometimes it was like slowly orgasming for hours on end. Sometimes I went crazy hoping it would just stop. Many nights I layed in bed while my perineum ached. I also had very interesting experiences, mind blowing experiences (like seeing the world and other planes superimposed over each other) from kundalini. I learned allot and I am very greatful now that kundalini for the most part leaves me alone. For the longest time I could not even practice stilling the mind because kundalini would flare up. But through it all, I didn't get enlightened.

I didn't get enlightened.

 

Tonight, I did breath meditation, repeating "IN" on the in breath, and "OUT" on the out-breath, while maintaining a space-like presence by focusing my gaze and remaining in my presence, enjoying the clarity, presence and luminosity. Towards the end of the session, 2 minutes before, the non-conceptual mind notified me that my "Insight Timer" was going to go off. Then, 10 seconds before the bell was going to chime, I realized that I knew exactly when this would occur. I counted down... 5,,4,,3,,,2,,1 THEN THE BELL WENT OFF. How is that?

 

I do a blend of breath meditations and stillness (doing absolutely nothing type of Dzogchen meditation - non-meditation).

Some recent mundane events that have happened to me are:

- I know exactly when the bell will go off.

- I know exactly what time it is with my eyes closed. Then I open my eyes and look at the clock and I am right on.

- Now and then, especially after a long hot relaxing bath, I can see the surrounding environment in great clarity with much detail with my eyes closed.

- I am starting to have 'satori moments in my dreams' !! What a delight that is!

- Sometimes my dreams are so realistic that I have to turn my attention back towards my heart to get out of them and realize that I was dreaming.

 

Mundane, stuff.. you know..

 

It is up to you if you want to pursue kundalini, or perhaps take up tummo or try to realize that you may progress further by not doing anything, by stabilizing your attention (shamatha) and then inquiring into the formless states.. It is based on your level of attainment, your karmic load and your understanding and skill set. If you long for kundalini, she will come. Keep at it. But you might not like what you find. And, without thorough instruction and support, it could be a real torture test.

 

The Attention Revolution is a great book. Yes!!! And Alan Wallaces Dzogchen retreat podcasts, and his other podcasts. What an intelligent articulate western literate man!

 

The next book I would recommend is

 

Wonders of the Natural Mind

The Essence of Dzogchen in the Native Bon Tradition of Tibet

by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche Foreword by H. H. the Dalai Lama edited by Andrew Lukianowicz Snow Lion Publications Ithaca, NY USA

 

http://www.amazon.com/Wonders-Natural-Mind-Dzogchen-Tradition/dp/1559391421

 

This is an excellent book. I have read hundreds of books on Buddhism, Meditation and Dzogchen and this book is clear, succinct, reveals the main practices and explains the reasons behind them, explains Trecko and Thogal... I'm in love with this book. It is so great. It is written in language I can understand and contains paragraphs that helped me understand things.

 

For example, this is the only book that tells you that if you don't 'get the natural state from the transmission', you can realize the natural state through the practice of Zhine (calm abiding, shamatha)!!!

 

See?

I am the great self-arisen naturally-abiding one Known from the beginning as the origin of all things.

You, strenuously seeking me and yearning for me, Fatigue yourselves; even over many eons you do not find me.

This nature of mine is unique among all things, Not comparable to what is not me or what tries to be me.

 

The Practice of Concentration

 

Concentration practices such as zhine are found in many traditions, for example, Sutric and Tantric Buddhism and the many forms of Hinduism. In all these traditions, it is considered a necessary and fundamental practice. In Dzogchen, zhine is considered a preparation for the essential practice of contemplation. In fact, it is very difficult to get very far in the practice of Dzogchen contemplation without first having practiced zhine. In Dzogchen, concentration practice has three stages. The first stage is "forced" concentration. It involves the application of effort and is sometimes called "the creation of the person." We persist in the practice to improve concentration because we are not accustomed to it. This is the phase of mind-created tranquillity. In the second stage, we develop this forced, effortful concentration until it transforms into a state of natural tranquillity. In the third stage, we relax the concentration until it turns into a state of stable tranquillity.

 

Engaging in concentration practice is very important because it is very difficult to reach understanding of the true state without it, and even if we do gain understanding, it is very difficult to sustain that understanding for any length of time unless we have developed sufficient power of concentration. Actually, the ability to concentrate is very important in all the spiritual paths, not only Dzogchen, and also in ordinary everyday life.

 

In Dzogchen, concentration is one of the fundamental preliminary practices. Through it we calm and gain control over the moving mind and, most importantly, through it we can be introduced by the master to "the natural state of the mind." It is also an important practice that experienced practitioners use to help them stabilize that state. In the Bon tradition, after completing the preliminary practices and receiving the initiation of Zhang Zhung Meri, the practitioner engages in the practice of zhine under the guidance of an experienced master who introduces him to knowledge of the innate natural state of his mind. The zhine practice delineated in this chapter comes from the Ati system of Bonpo Dzogchen.

 

Tenzin Wangyal. Wonders Of The Natural Mind: The Essense Of Dzogchen In The Native Bon Tradition Of Tibet (Kindle Locations 690-704). Kindle Edition.

 

Now, to answer your questions about breathing exercises.. The purpose of breath of fire, or alternate nostril breath or most of the pranayama exercises is to clear up your sinuses so that the breath in your nostrils is balanced and the top of you sinus cavity is clear and open. Normally, one nostril has more air flow in it than the other. That is the prevalent/dominant side. Then, it switches sides, usually every few hours or so. To activate kundalini/third eye, both ida and pingala must be balanced, which means, both nostrils must have an equal balance of air flow. Once you succeed in getting that balance, a magnetic-feeling type of sensation appears between the brows (like a black hole) and that activates kundalini if you persist in focusing on it.

 

Spinal breathing is a good practice for training kundalini. AYP is not the only source of that. SwamiJi has his version and so does Saraswati ("Kundalini Tantra" Swami Satyananda Saraswati ).

 

Typically, though, most variations take the breath up to the crown, not the brow.

 

 

Anyway, all the best, good luck with your practices, make up your mind and stick to it for a few years.

 

TI

Edited March 7, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Simple_Jack]

Accordingly, Wallaces The Attention Revolution is my practice manual....

 

I heard that Alan Wallace's criteria for jhana aligns with the "visuddhimagga jhana" (with visual nimitta, shutting down of external sense contact even in 1st jhana, etc.), in contrast to that of the "sutta jhana", which is generally not as deeply absorbed into the meditation object as the former. This is not a detriment, but this emphasis should be kept in mind.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

I heard that Alan Wallace's criteria for jhana aligns with the "visuddhimagga jhana" (with visual nimitta, shutting down of external sense contact even in 1st jhana, etc.), in contrast to that of the "sutta jhana", which is generally not as deeply absorbed into the meditation object as the former. This is not a detriment, but this emphasis should be kept in mind.

Hey Sample Jock,

Perhaps you can tell us exactly where you got this information from. References?

 

As far as I know, Alan Wallace does not teach jhanas or nimittas. I do not recall him even using that terminology. Wallace talks about dissolving into the substrate consciousness.

 

I did a search in three of his books, The Attention Revolution, Mind in the Balance and Stilling the Mind and I only found jhana and nimitta defined in one of those books. Nor does he mention any Jhanic states in those terms in any of his podcasts.

 

Instead, Wallace talks about shamatha until one reaches stability and then he switches to Dzogchen practices such as cutting through to the other side.

 

So unless you can give references and support your position, I will regard it as again another regurgitation of something that you have no expertise in, cannot understand and could be interpreted as slanderous and misleading.

 

Further, maybe if you practiced shamatha you would realize how ridiculous your statement of the importance of distinguishing between the super fine intellectual flavors of conceptual understanding relates to jhanic practice.

 

Have you ever heard anyone say "I hit the first jhana but it was a sutta jhana so it wasn't the real thing.."???

Or, "I could tell right away that that nimitta was a sutta nimitta, it just didn't feel right, ya know"? Yes sir it is so important to realize, as Frank Zappa would put it..."is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?" ..sarcasm in case you did not get it...

 

Give me a break.

 

[Anderson]

Hey Sample Jock,

Perhaps you can tell us exactly where you got this information from. References?

 

As far as I know, Alan Wallace does not teach jhanas or nimittas. I do not recall him even using that terminology. Wallace talks about dissolving into the substrate consciousness.

 

I did a search in three of his books, The Attention Revolution, Mind in the Balance and Stilling the Mind and I only found jhana and nimitta defined in one of those books. Nor does he mention any Jhanic states in those terms in any of his podcasts.

 

Instead, Wallace talks about shamatha until one reaches stability and then he switches to Dzogchen practices such as cutting through to the other side.

 

So unless you can give references and support your position, I will regard it as again another regurgitation of something that you have no expertise in, cannot understand and could be interpreted as slanderous and misleading.

 

Further, maybe if you practiced shamatha you would realize how ridiculous your statement of the importance of distinguishing between the super fine intellectual flavors of conceptual understanding relates to jhanic practice.

 

Have you ever heard anyone say "I hit the first jhana but it was a sutta jhana so it wasn't the real thing.."???

Or, "I could tell right away that that nimitta was a sutta nimitta, it just didn't feel right, ya know"? Yes sir it is so important to realize, as Frank Zappa would put it..."is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?" ..sarcasm in case you did not get it...

 

Give me a break.

 

 

 

Can Wallace give transmission of dzogchen or direct introduction ?

[Simple_Jack]

Perhaps you can tell us exactly where you got this information from. References?

 

As far as I know, Alan Wallace does not teach jhanas or nimittas. I do not recall him even using that terminology. Wallace talks about dissolving into the substrate consciousness.

 

I did a search in three of his books, The Attention Revolution, Mind in the Balance and Stilling the Mind and I only found jhana and nimitta defined in one of those books. Nor does he mention any Jhanic states in those terms in any of his podcasts.

 

Instead, Wallace talks about shamatha until one reaches stability and then he switches to Dzogchen practices such as cutting through to the other side.

 

Have you ever heard anyone say "I hit the first jhana but it was a sutta jhana so it wasn't the real thing.."???

Or, "I could tell right away that that nimitta was a sutta nimitta, it just didn't feel right, ya know"?

 

I'm going by second hand info because I have not read his books or listened to his retreat podcasts yet. This is where I came across that piece of info:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15735&hilit=Allan+Wallace

 

Pero wrote:

 

Allan Wallace

wrote: I have also heard of many people who say they have achieved shamatha and dhyana, many claiming to have done so within a matter of days, weeks, or just a few months. But despite such reports, few appear to be able to effortlessly maintain flawless samadhi for at least four hours, with their senses fully withdrawn, while abiding in a luminous state of blissful samadhi.

 

Malcolm, is your first dhyana the same as Wallace's first dhyana? I haven't read everything available about Dzogchen or Vajrayana but in what I have I haven't seen such a requirement for practice. Seems a bit odd really....

 

Sherlock wrote: Wallace is following the Visuddhimagga, where that is not even the first dhyana yet.

 

It's a bit hard to read, but you can also read Longchenpa's description of the dhyanas here

...

 

There is a tangible difference between the criteria for "visuddhimagga jhanas" and "sutta jhanas" with a division between this emphasis by those who follow the criteria of the commentarial traditions (which includes Ajahn Brahm even though he claims to strictly follow the suttapitaka) and those who follow the criteria of the suttapitaka. There is some debate about these differences within the Theravada community, but I recommend doing a search on Leigh Brasington since his website covers these differences. In the suttas, 'nimitta', is not strictly defined as being visual [http://measurelessmind.ca/nimitta.html] i.e. different color lights, images, etc., but its not about one or the other "being the real thing"; though according to the Visuddhimagga it is. Some of the controversy, involving the level of absorption into the object of meditation required to enter and abide in jhana, according to those who follow the suttapitaka, is that these levels of absorption aren't needed to give rise to the jhanic factors and are a hindrance to the engagement of vipassana while being absorbed in jhana. This does not invalidate the approach of those traditions which follow the Visuddhimagga nonetheless.

 

Can Wallace give transmission of dzogchen or direct introduction ?

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15624&start=20

 

Tom wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can work out (from friends who attended a couple of his retreats) is that Alan has put together his own system and draws on different teachings in the Pali, Gelug and Nyingma with a particular emphasis on shamatha.

 

I am not sure what lineage this would then qualify as but what smcj says makes sense since he teaches "dzokchen retreats." Does any one know what he teaches in these. I heard Gyaltrul Rinpoche gave him authorization to translate and teach the śamatha section of Vajra Essence. I heard also that he taught Dudjum Rinpoche's Instructions on Mountain Spirituality. However, I'm wondering what else he has been authorized to teach. For example, does he give his students pointing out etc. Or are his students advised to go to Gyaltrul Rinpoche for further instructions?

 

monktastic wrote: Yes, he has a heavy emphasis on shamatha, and most of his retreats are (or were) shamatha-focused. He places an emphasis of attaining the first dhyana (jhana) at the level indicated in the visuddhimagga, and says he finds it odd that modern masters do not place emphasis on this attainment.

 

He does not give pointing out instructions or teach trekcho (AFAIK). His Dzogchen retreat podcasts can be found online:https://archive.org/details/Introductio ... allace2012. I highly recommend them....

 

I attended a shamatha retreat in person, and the Dzogchen one only over webcast, and I want to be clear that I am in no way claiming to represent his actual perspective on the issue, but...

 

He makes it clear that connection with a real master of the lineage is essential, and emphasizes that it's crazy for people attend short retreats and think of themselves as Dzogchenpas. He then goes on to quote much Padmasambhava and Karma Chagme on View, Meditation, and Conduct (again, emphasizing that this can only truly be appreciated when one is familiar with rigpa). Most of the actual practice is of formless shamatha and of shamatha of mental objects. He also teaches a method of guru rinpoche to repeatedly "invert and release" awareness, which supposedly occasionally (if rarely) causes people to "break on through" from alaya-vijnana to rigpa.

 

I know people will take issue with this for more than one reason, but hey, that's what I remember.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Can Wallace give transmission of dzogchen or direct introduction ?

Anderson,

Alan Wallace says himself that he is permitted to teach Dzogchen but that he cannot give direct transmission. He claims that he does not have any Dzogchen realization himself.. (ya, right.. )

 

During his Dzogchen Retreat Podcast, Alan Wallace gives pointing out instructions by reading Padmasambhava's written transmission. Listen to # 17.

 

https://archive.org/details/IntroductionToDzogchenRetreatWithAlanWallace2012

 

Trolling? Perhaps you are implying that Alan Wallace is not a true master because he does not give 'direct transmission'?

This topic has been discussed before here and in other forums. Some comments:

 

1) Almost all initiates whom receive direct introduction and miss it, do not recognize it, and of the few that recognize it, they cannot stay there. They have no foundation in the preliminary practices, cannot control their minds or attention and fall victim to their karma and uncontrollable tendencies.

 

2) If it were as simple as waving a magic wand and 'poof', you realize pure Dzogchen, then there would have been multiple occurences of rainbow body and realization in the past. This clearly is not the case.

 

3) Realization is more so dependant on the qualities of the practitioner rather than the ability of the master to transmit something.

 

4) If it were so simple as to wave the magic wand, then why do most Bon teachings emphasize the preliminary practices of Trecko and Thogal?

 

I can see that Alan Wallace does not want people seeking him out for 'direct transmission'. Alan is a teacher, not a guru. Further, why would anyone who emphasizes shamatha so much undermine his basic foundation by revealing that 'direct transmission' is the end-all-be-all.

 

Even if you look at the Tilopa/Naropa stories, ripeness played a key role. It wasn't just a slap upside the head with a shoe, it was a timely slap upside the head preceeded by much preparation, effort and practice.

 

So I think Alan Wallace is wise in teaching the way he does and not resorting to 'direct transmission'.

 

Besides, in "Wonders of the Mind", it is written that it is better to realize the natural state yourself, and just have someone point out your realization, rather than depend on the 'magic wand'.

 

Introduction to the Natural State

 

When the inner and outer signs start to manifest, the master introduces us to the natural state by explaining to us the nature of the experiences we have already had and of the knowledge we have already acquired by ourselves. In this way the practice becomes more calm and relaxed, less fixation and concentration practice and more like contemplation practice.

 

It is at this stage, when we have gone beneath the surface of the moving mind, that the master asks us about our experience of the natural state of the mind. The questions are about the nature of the mind: whether it has shape or color or a precise location; and then about the origin and nature of thought: whence thought arises, where it abides, where it dissolves, and who observes the thought. He might ask, "Who are you?", or "What is your mind? Has it got a color or a form?" or "Where do your thoughts come from?" but without ever suggesting the answer. Only when we have gained understanding through the practice of insight into the mind and through our own immediate experience does the master show us the nature of the mind by directly pointing out to us our own experiential knowledge, explaining about the kunzhi and rigpa and their inseparability in the primordial state. In this way our understanding will be clear and real since what the master explains and clarifies this knowledge we have gained for ourselves through our own direct experience. The master does not introduce his own concept, something we have not experienced

ourselves, as this would produce merely intellectual understanding. He is introducing what we have already found within ourselves.

 

It is necessary to have this direct experience ourselves, and the surest way to do this is by practicing zhine. Otherwise it is very easy to have intellectual fantasies about the nature of the primordial state, about "emptiness", "clarity", "light", "bliss," and so forth. When the primordial state is introduced through zhine, we understand it thoroughly and are able to enter and remain in the state of contemplation. This is trekcho (see Chapter 15), one of the two main practices in Dzogchen.

 

Tenzin Wangyal. Wonders Of The Natural Mind: The Essense Of Dzogchen In The Native Bon Tradition Of Tibet (Kindle Locations 784-797). Kindle Edition.

 

Let me repeat for emphasis... master Lopon Sangye Tenzin Rinpoche, interpreting the Zhang Zhung Nyan Gyud teachings of Bon Dzogchen is saying that it is possible to realize the primordial state through Zhine. That's quite a statement don't you think?

 

Edited March 8, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15624&start=20

 

Tom wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can work out (from friends who attended a couple of his retreats) is that Alan has put together his own system and draws on different teachings in the Pali, Gelug and Nyingma with a particular emphasis on shamatha.

 

I am not sure what lineage this would then qualify as but what smcj says makes sense since he teaches "dzokchen retreats." Does any one know what he teaches in these. I heard Gyaltrul Rinpoche gave him authorization to translate and teach the śamatha section of Vajra Essence. I heard also that he taught Dudjum Rinpoche's Instructions on Mountain Spirituality. However, I'm wondering what else he has been authorized to teach. For example, does he give his students pointing out etc. Or are his students advised to go to Gyaltrul Rinpoche for further instructions?

 

monktastic wrote: Yes, he has a heavy emphasis on shamatha, and most of his retreats are (or were) shamatha-focused. He places an emphasis of attaining the first dhyana (jhana) at the level indicated in the visuddhimagga, and says he finds it odd that modern masters do not place emphasis on this attainment.

 

He does not give pointing out instructions or teach trekcho (AFAIK). His Dzogchen retreat podcasts can be found online:https://archive.org/details/Introductio ... allace2012. I highly recommend them....

 

I attended a shamatha retreat in person, and the Dzogchen one only over webcast, and I want to be clear that I am in no way claiming to represent his actual perspective on the issue, but...

 

He makes it clear that connection with a real master of the lineage is essential, and emphasizes that it's crazy for people attend short retreats and think of themselves as Dzogchenpas. He then goes on to quote much Padmasambhava and Karma Chagme on View, Meditation, and Conduct (again, emphasizing that this can only truly be appreciated when one is familiar with rigpa). Most of the actual practice is of formless shamatha and of shamatha of mental objects. He also teaches a method of guru rinpoche to repeatedly "invert and release" awareness, which supposedly occasionally (if rarely) causes people to "break on through" from alaya-vijnana to rigpa.

 

I know people will take issue with this for more than one reason, but hey, that's what I remember.

Sample Jock,

You writing is really sloppy. I cannot tell where the quotes or paraphrazing from Tom, Monktastic or you begin and end.

 

Are you saying that you went on a shamatha retreat or is that still part of Monktastic's quote? Also, I did find some statements by Monktastic, but they are quite different from what you've 'quoted'.

 

For example:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/31033-resting-the-mind-in-its-natural-state/?p=475885

he said:

 

I attended a one week shamatha retreat with Alan in 2006. At the time, he was insistent that the attainment of the first dhyana (or at least access to it, at the level described in the visuddhimagga) was essential for all higher practices, Dzogchen included.

 

In the Fall 2012 Dzogchen (I think) retreat he made a point regarding a question I had long been curious about: why do Tsoknyi Rinpoche and other masters not emphasize this attainment? His answer was simply that he doesn't really know why, and thinks it's strange that they would deviate from the teachings of Tsongkhapa (who, though a Gelugpa, was said to have realized Dzogchen), Dudjom Lingpa, etc.

 

He basically said: let time be the test regarding which of these methods works (first attaining full shamatha, versus having a pointing out and/or practicing vipashyana per Mahamudra or trekcho before having attained it).

 

And if it's not clear, the use of the word "shamatha" is quite different in general Mahayana vs Dzogchen (in the latter, it refers to the stability aspect of the natural state -- and again, not the "natural state" which Alan talks about in this method, which is of course prior to the view of Dzogchen).

 

What's up with that?

 

 

[idiot_stimpy]

Tibetan Ice its Simple Jack, not Sample Jock.

[adept]

Tibetan Ice its Simple Jack, not Sample Jock.

He's being humourous, as in alwaysoff, WrongzomFan etc etc.

[Simple_Jack]

You writing is really sloppy. I cannot tell where the quotes or paraphrazing from Tom, Monktastic or you begin and end.

 

Sorry about that, here's the quotes from dharmawheel:

 

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15735&hilit=Allan+Wallace

 

Pero wrote:

 

Malcolm, is your first dhyana the same as Wallace's first dhyana? I haven't read everything available about Dzogchen or Vajrayana but in what I have I haven't seen such a requirement for practice. Seems a bit odd really

....

 

Sherlock wrote: Wallace is following the Visuddhimagga, where that is not even the first dhyana yet.

 

It's a bit hard to read, but you can also read Longchenpa's description of the dhyanas here

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=15624&start=20

 

Tom wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong but from what I can work out (from friends who attended a couple of his retreats) is that Alan has put together his own system and draws on different teachings in the Pali, Gelug and Nyingma with a particular emphasis on shamatha.

 

I am not sure what lineage this would then qualify as but what smcj says makes sense since he teaches "dzokchen retreats." Does any one know what he teaches in these. I heard Gyaltrul Rinpoche gave him authorization to translate and teach the śamatha section of Vajra Essence. I heard also that he taught Dudjum Rinpoche's Instructions on Mountain Spirituality. However, I'm wondering what else he has been authorized to teach. For example, does he give his students pointing out etc. Or are his students advised to go to Gyaltrul Rinpoche for further instructions?

...

 

monktastic wrote: Yes, he has a heavy emphasis on shamatha, and most of his retreats are (or were) shamatha-focused. He places an emphasis of attaining the first dhyana (jhana) at the level indicated in the visuddhimagga, and says he finds it odd that modern masters do not place emphasis on this attainment.

 

He does not give pointing out instructions or teach trekcho (AFAIK). His Dzogchen retreat podcasts can be found online:https://archive.org/details/Introductio ... allace2012. I highly recommend them....

 

I attended a shamatha retreat in person, and the Dzogchen one only over webcast, and I want to be clear that I am in no way claiming to represent his actual perspective on the issue, but...

 

He makes it clear that connection with a real master of the lineage is essential, and emphasizes that it's crazy for people attend short retreats and think of themselves as Dzogchenpas. He then goes on to quote much Padmasambhava and Karma Chagme on View, Meditation, and Conduct (again, emphasizing that this can only truly be appreciated when one is familiar with rigpa). Most of the actual practice is of formless shamatha and of shamatha of mental objects. He also teaches a method of guru rinpoche to repeatedly "invert and release" awareness, which supposedly occasionally (if rarely) causes people to "break on through" from alaya-vijnana to rigpa.

 

I know people will take issue with this for more than one reason, but hey, that's what I remember.

 

This is my response to you:

 

There is a tangible difference between the criteria for "visuddhimagga jhanas" and "sutta jhanas" with a division between this emphasis by those who follow the criteria of the commentarial traditions (which includes Ajahn Brahm even though he claims to strictly follow the suttapitaka) and those who follow the criteria of the suttapitaka. There is some debate about these differences within the Theravada community, but I recommend doing a search on Leigh Brasington since his website covers these differences. In the suttas, 'nimitta', is not strictly defined as being visual [http://measurelessmind.ca/nimitta.html] i.e. different color lights, images, etc., but its not about one or the other "being the real thing"; though according to the Visuddhimagga it is. Some of the controversy, involving the level of absorption into the object of meditation required to enter and abide in jhana, according to those who follow the suttapitaka, is that these levels of absorption aren't needed to give rise to the jhanic factors and are a hindrance to the engagement of vipassana while being absorbed in jhana. This does not invalidate the approach of those traditions which follow the Visuddhimagga nonetheless.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Paul]

Why would there be vitriol among "yogis"?

 

TI, You are working too much from books, and you misinterpret much, IMHO. Please rely on a qualified teacher who knows how to keep samaja. It's very important.

 

For example, did you know Milarepa never used root lock? Would you know why? Would you know which lineages uphold this practice?

 

Anyone attempting tummo without empowerment into Chakrasamvara and Vajrayvarahi, transmission of the six yogas of Naropa, and permission, oral instructions and blessings of one's lama is inviting *disaster*, I tell you. The dharmaphalas are not toying around. They mean business.

 

Love,

 

Nathan

[Paul]

Of course Nyingma have tummo methods galore. If you're lama, like ChNN has given this transmission to you, then of course there are other cycles of teachings where this is practiced...

[Paul]

And obviously there is Hevajra and the gamut of tantric lineages... Key term: root lama...

[Tibetan_Ice]

For example, did you know Milarepa never used root lock? Would you know why? Would you know which lineages uphold this practice?

 

Anyone attempting tummo without empowerment into Chakrasamvara and Vajrayvarahi, transmission of the six yogas of Naropa, and permission, oral instructions and blessings of one's lama is inviting *disaster*, I tell you. The dharmaphalas are not toying around. They mean business.

 

Love,

 

Nathan

Hi Nathan,

How would you know that Milarepa never used root lock? Do you have references or reliable good translations that indicate what Milarepa's exact practices were?

 

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...The concern, though, is what of Kundalini meditation and prana work? I must admit that Kundalini meditation - among the laity at least - has achieved mythic status. Its like a drug, and those of us who engaged in these practices for any length of time probably have the image of that coiled serpent energy rushing up our spine and bursting through the crown chakra fixed firmly in our mind. It seems to be the Gold Medal of Kundalini meditation. So Im concerned that I might be missing out on this, while at the same time I can freely admit that maybe Ive developed some fantasies about it. At any rate, it would appear that Samatha mediation is probably necessary for *any* kind of chakra work later on. It seems to be a foundational practice, and these serpent energies will come of their own accord anyway.

 

Additionally, theres prana. What of that? In Samatha meditation we dont force or control the breath; we simply allow ourselves to breath naturally as part of the practice. But what of the benefits of prana work - pranayama/spinal breathing, breath of fire, etc. ?

...

Hi.

 

Kundalini experiences can sound exciting, but the big picture is that they aren't access concentration/jhana or realisation. Kundalini helps with those, and will happen naturally at some point, but isn't a central factor. Someone with raised kundalini isn't necessarily enlightened, but an enlightened person will have raised kundalini. So best not to worry about it unless it starts happening.

 

In my practice, I treat pranayama as a little seasoning for shamatha. It doesn't have to be one or the other. But if you only have time for one, then choose the beef, not the gravy. And don't try to do both simultaneously.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Seeker of Tao

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Someone with raised kundalini isn't necessarily enlightened, but an enlightened person will have raised kundalini.

 

That chimes with my experience.

...