What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[GrandmasterP]

Hm, to me that would actually mean that

1. Some particular monk would suddenly stop participating because on some occasion I revealed I'm female, and he can't bear writing or talking on one level with a female being;

2. Some Ex-mod would show up and misinterpret every single word I write;

3. Some particular mod will close the thread for "obvious reasons", namely the fact that he has seen my nickname under participants ^^

 

Did I ever mention I like TTB?

 

Btw, I don't feel there are more than half a dozen or so persons on TTBs who argue on DW-level. The problem might be more like number and length of posts

 

You got that right.

TTB is a veritable paragon for mutual tolerance and equitable moderation compared to some fora out there.

[Simple_Jack]

hm, if you should with this try to express that the former is higher stuff than the latter, in my opinion you're just victim to a serious misunderstanding what buddhism is about.

But of course, as I'm not your teacher, that's really not my problem

 

That's not what I implied, but Buddhist discussions on TTB's don't come anywhere near that level of discourse, whereas you're more likely to see that type of discussion on DW, where quotations of the various viewpoints from various Buddhist scholars past and present, are warranted.

 

The means to do this is not confined to using simplified language, but more importantly, authentic language -- this is what i mean by 'speaking from the heart'.

 

Like I said above, there's a time and place for delving into intermediary to advanced discourse depending on the circumstances.

 

You got that right. TTB is a veritable paragon for mutual tolerance...

 

Bullshit, you should have been here 3 or more years ago, disdain was openly shown towards Buddhism by the regular posters, even by some who are still active on these forums. Granted, Buddhist discourse pisses of eternalists/perennialists, and the way in which it was introduced and engaged on these forums was not exactly fostering an environment of mutual admiration. By the time you signed up it had already begun to cool down some and it helped that there was a separate sub-forum for Buddhism; the moderation on these forums are definitely more lenient than DW though.

[doc benway]

C'mon, don't overexaggerate, it's not like the finer points of Svatantrika vs. Prasangika are being delineated; we're talking "Heart Sutra", basic Mahayana stuff, here.

 

If it's so basic, why is it so lacking in so many exchanges?

The words are there but the substance is so often absent...

[C T]

Like I said above, there's a time and place for delving into intermediary to advanced discourse depending on the circumstances.

Discourse -- formal communication of thought by words or writing. This is the everyday meaning.

 

Simple Jack's version of 'discourse' -- quoting Malcolm at every opportunity.

 

Wake up man, learn to express from the heart. Tell us what the teachings have done for you! Gladden us with your personal journey!! Allow us to share your frustrations and your fears, your progress, your elations, your goofiness!!! Buddhadharma is not a piece of drift-wood... its alive, it breathes thru you and me and everyone else, so why are you hesitant in its pulsating, vibrant flow? Please, Show us your rainbow! Lighten up!

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[C T]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ binned ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited June 16, 2014 by C T

[doc benway]

Eat my dick.

 

Looks like somebody skipped Buddhism 101...

 

 

edit - or maybe he's practicing chöd?

Edited June 15, 2014 by steve

[C T]

Looks like somebody skipped Buddhism 101...

 

 

edit - or maybe he's practicing chöd?

If thats the way SJ chooses to express himself, so be it. Its a start anyway. Beats the drone of Malcolm's pasties anytime, thats for sure.

[Simple_Jack]

Beats the drone of Malcolm's pasties anytime, thats for sure.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/

 

Dvayaṃnissito kho'yaṃ kaccaana loko yebhuyyena atthita–ceva natthita–ca

Kaaccana, this world abides in duality, normally abiding in ‘is’ and ‘is not’. ~ Buddha

 

Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

 

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not"....

 

"Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation.

 

Nāgārjuna states:

 

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,

‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.

Because of that, is and is not

are not made into a basis by the wise.

 

There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

 

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

 

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

 

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

 

There is no philosophy of non-dualism in Buddhism. This is wholly the invention of western scholars. For example, Madhyamaka rarely uses the term "non-dual".

 

It does not get used at all in the Nikaya schools.

 

I think westerners are over-invested in this word.

 

But a word that is frequently brought up, over and over again, is anutpāda, non-origination, non-arising. This word is much more important for we Buddhists.

 

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

 

"Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being.

 

In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being.

 

It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

 

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.

 

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because is just an intellectual trip.

 

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

 

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

 

Here, when we say non-conceptual, we do not mean a mind in which there is an absence of thought.

 

When consciousness is freed from signs and characteristics, this is called the realization of emptiness. An non-conceptual mind may still indeed be trapped by signs and characteristics...

 

Phenomena are free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience -- see Kaccaayanagotto Sutta i.e. "Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle".

 

The middle way view is by necessity a non-dual view, avoiding these extremes of dualism. That is also emptiness; emptiness cures the views of existence and non-existence -- that can be correlated in one's personal experience....

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited July 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[GrandmasterP]

Is that a koan?

A request?

Or an instruction?

Edited June 15, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[thelerner]

Mod Comment: Simple Jack: Thank you for editing an earlier comment. Especially here in the Buddhist section- Lets keep it civil. When things get heated, re-read and re-write in a less abrasive way.

[Simple_Jack]

I'd be careful with that, I feel that quite some people in this place here are not half as ignorant as you'd like them to be

 

According to Mahayana, everyone is subject to varying degrees of ignorance, as long as they have not achieved buddhahood; including bodhisattvas on the pure (8-10th) bhumi's.

[Simple_Jack]

I think specific language is for philosophy but for spirituality often simplicity is the essence. I am not discounting the intellectual though ... its important and often useful ... but not really the key. More important is where the heart is.

 

This is practically an ingrained attitude common among TTB's, an attitude to be avoided according to Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo (Snow Lion, pg. 50), which is worth considering irregardless of what sect you follow:

 

There are those who conclude that any classic text should be considered only an explanatory teaching, therefore lacking the key points for practice. They hold that there are separate personal instructions that teach the core meanings that are the heart of practice. They then imagine that there are two separate forms of the excellent teaching - a teaching that is explained to you and a teaching that you practice.. Know that this attitude precludes the development of great respect for the stainless sutras and tantras as well as the flawless treatises that comment on their intent...

[GrandmasterP]

"This is practically an ingrained attitude common among TTB's, an attitude to be avoided..."

On thoughtful re- reading might you not reflect on why and at what point that sentence might not be read by a TTB poster as being co-equally rude, patronizing and arrogant Simple Jack?

Edited July 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Simple_Jack]

"This is practically an ingrained attitude common among TTB's, an attitude to be avoided..."

On thoughtful re- reading might you not reflect on why and at what point that sentence might not be read by a TTB poster as being co-equally rude, patronizing and arrogant Simple Jack?

 

It's also a persistent attitude that I've seen time and time again over the past 4 years on these forums. It's often used as a justification to ignore traditional discourse in favor of one's own superseding views and inclinations.

[Apech]

It's also a persistent attitude that I've seen time and time again over the past 4 years on these forums. It's often used as a justification to ignore traditional discourse in favor of one's own superseding views and inclinations.

 

 

If you read my post which you quoted above, in context you will see I was talking about how to communicate your deepest inner realisations and not how to interpret written text. usually ... in fact always in my experience a textual transmission is accompanied by an oral teaching and the 'lung' authority to study. So something is being communicated beyond the words on the page.

[ralis]

According to Mahayana, everyone is subject to varying degrees of ignorance, as long as they have not achieved buddhahood; including bodhisattvas on the pure (8-10th) bhumi's.

 

To judge others in terms of a mythological belief system is offensive. More religious fundamentalism.

Edited July 4, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Has the OP been given a satisfactory answer?

[Apech]

Has the OP been given a satisfactory answer?

 

 

I recall the OP produced his own answer ... but it didn't really satisfy anyone else.

[doc benway]

This is practically an ingrained attitude common among TTB's, an attitude to be avoided according to Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo (Snow Lion, pg. 50), which is worth considering irregardless of what sect you follow:

 

There are those who conclude that any classic text should be considered only an explanatory teaching, therefore lacking the key points for practice. They hold that there are separate personal instructions that teach the core meanings that are the heart of practice. They then imagine that there are two separate forms of the excellent teaching - a teaching that is explained to you and a teaching that you practice.. Know that this attitude precludes the development of great respect for the stainless sutras and tantras as well as the flawless treatises that comment on their intent...

 

This thread is about wisdom in Dzogchen, not sutra and tantra.

[Simple_Jack]

If you read my post which you quoted above, in context you will see I was talking about how to communicate your deepest inner realisations and not how to interpret written text. usually ... in fact always in my experience a textual transmission is accompanied by an oral teaching and the 'lung' authority to study. So something is being communicated beyond the words on the page.

 

OK, but creating this arbitrary dichotomy between oral instructions and written texts, only serves to undermine the latter, when in fact "deepest inner realizations" of the Buddhist teachings, spring forth from those very teachings that have been passed down to us in written form.

 

To judge others in terms of a mythological belief system is offensive. More religious fundamentalism.

 

Sure, but then this is coming from someone who seems hasn't even engendered the nirvanic indriya of 'faith' in the Mahayana teachings, thereby not even generating bodhicitta which is the prime motivator for these teachings.

 

Has the OP been given a satisfactory answer?

 

The OP has to rely on inference, until the completion of the 3rd togal vision, which is equivalent to the realization of 2-fold emptiness on the path of seeing in sutra.

[Simple_Jack]

OK, but creating this arbitrary dichotomy between oral instructions and written texts, only serves to undermine the latter, when in fact "deepest inner realizations" of the Buddhist teachings, spring forth from those very teachings that have been passed down to us in written form.

 

Basically, what I mean is that the teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, the Mahasiddhas, etc., are the representation of their realization, which are the progenitor of the lineages which continue to this day.

[doc benway]

OK, but creating this arbitrary dichotomy between oral instructions and written texts, only serves to undermine the latter, when in fact "deepest inner realizations" of the Buddhist teachings, spring forth from those very teachings that have been passed down to us in written form.

 

I would argue that recognition of the dichotomy between oral (experiential) transmission and written text serves to enhance and enrich, rather than undermine the latter. The dichotomy is not arbitrary until one is able to rest in the nature of mind without interruption. Until that time, there is differentiation between conceptual and non-conceptual. The teachings must be understood to the fullest extent possible both with and without the conceptual mind. One will never gain familiarity and stability resting in the nature of mind through engagement of the conceptual mind. And without that familiarity and stability, one will not recognize and integrate the fact that both are of one taste, the foundation of making progress in Dzogchen.

 

I had the good fortune to attend a teaching on one of the "innermost secret" teachings from the Zhangzhung Nyengyü, the 21 Little Nails (or Seals). The text is highly esoteric and tends to stimulate engagement of conceptual and discursive thought when studied. One wants desperately to 'figure it out' through definition and comparison. Rinpoche's teachings on it, however, took a completely different approach. He was able to directly connect the core principle of each of the Nails to our lives in our body, speech, and mind, as a result of his own personal experience and understanding of the text. He was able to help us see the text through his life experience and decades of study. He then was able to guide us to that place through direct application in our practice. One would never achieve such an understanding, IMO, through a study of the core text and commentary, no matter how thorough.

 

These teachings were never meant to be communicated solely through the written word and the intellect. They were intended to be communicated through the life and experience of the guru, hence the requirement for experiential transmission. In fact, most of the texts would never be offered to the student without direct transmission because of the high likelihood of misunderstanding and misapplication. This is why such teachings, like the 21 Little Nails, are restricted, not because there is an intention to prevent others from benefiting from the teachings. The misconception is that there is some magical, energetic transmission that is required. While certainly I won't exclude the possibility that this does occur, the magic I have experienced is in having the good fortune to encounter a dedicated and experienced master who is able to lead one to real understanding, the ability to connect one's life and actions directly to the teachings.

 

These teachings were never intended to be understood primarily through the conceptual mind so that we intellectually comprehend the nature of reality. They were intended to enrich our lives, to enhance our experience of life, and to lead us to manifest enlightened qualities in a direct and practical way. If we are not behaving in a more loving and compassionate way in our every day lives; if we are not experiencing deepening devotion, gratitude, and trust in our hearts for the teachings and teacher, then the teachings are absolutely worthless to us.

[Simple_Jack]

I would argue that recognition of the dichotomy between oral (experiential) transmission and written text serves to enhance and enrich, rather than undermine the latter. The dichotomy is not arbitrary until one is able to rest in the nature of mind without interruption. Until that time, there is differentiation between conceptual and non-conceptual...

 

These teachings were never meant to be communicated solely through the written word and the intellect. They were intended to be communicated through the life and experience of the guru, hence the requirement for experiential transmission.

 

I figured I didn't need to explicitly explain this involved receiving lung and explanation from one's guru. I just don't see this need to emphasize a dichotomy, between the traditional discourses and "deepest inner realizations" via pith instructions, since I see them both as equally valid representations of buddha darshana.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[doc benway]

I figured I didn't need to explicitly explain this involved receiving lung and explanation from one's guru. I just don't see this need to emphasize a dichotomy, between the traditional discourses and "deepest inner realizations" via pith instructions, since I see them both as equally valid representations of buddha darshana.

Maybe no need to emphasize but at least acknowledge, given that so many "practitioners" are so wrapped up in the conceptual and are deluded by thought that practice is not equally (more, in my opinion) important.

Edited July 5, 2014 by steve