Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[ralis]

Listed here are a number of scholarly resources on the Axial Age.

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=religions%20of%20the%20axial%20age&sprefix=religions+of+the+ax%2Cstripbooks&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Areligions%20of%20the%20axial%20age

[Simple_Jack]

In terms of systems, there are closed and open systems. Buddhism falls into the former. Perhaps you may dispute that, but all the posts made by Buddhists such as yourself rigidly define Buddhism in black and white terms. Is Buddhism any different in logical format than any other philosophy? I seriously doubt you could prove that. Why? All philosophical belief systems and todays world religions all arose from the philosophical thought that arose from the Axial Age, the period from 800 B.C. through 200 B.C. The main driving force was Aristotle.

 

There are many similarities, but to emphasize the differences:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logic

Qualifications of what is signified by the lexical signifier 'Logic' in the Dharmic context

Logic _{[Dharmic traditions]} ≠ Logic _{[Classical logic]}

‘Indian Logic’ should not be understood as logic in the sense of ‘Aristotelian syllogism’ (Greek or Classical Logic) or ‘modern predicate calculus’ (modern Western Logic), but as anumāna-theory, a system in its own right.^[8] ‘Indian Logic’ was influenced by the study of grammar, whereas Greek or Classical Logic which principally informed modern Western Logic was influenced by the study of mathematics.^[9]

 

^{You can read more in these links:}

 

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana}

 

^{http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Pramana}

[ralis]

There are many similarities, but to emphasize the differences:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logic

Qualifications of what is signified by the lexical signifier 'Logic' in the Dharmic context

Logic _{[Dharmic traditions]} ≠ Logic _{[Classical logic]}

‘Indian Logic’ should not be understood as logic in the sense of ‘Aristotelian syllogism’ (Greek or Classical Logic) or ‘modern predicate calculus’ (modern Western Logic), but as anumāna-theory, a system in its own right.^[8] ‘Indian Logic’ was influenced by the study of grammar, whereas Greek or Classical Logic which principally informed modern Western Logic was influenced by the study of mathematics.^[9]

 

^{You can read more in these links:}

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

 

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

 

Grammar can be culturally biased, whereas mathematics are not. I stand by my statement which was based on studying this period. When persons or writers of texts are rigidly defining their philosophical beliefs such as what Buddhism is replete with, then my statement stands.

Edited July 30, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

From my study of Buddhism, there is a pretense of being universal which encompasses all phenomena, imagination and so forth, but in reality the parameters are carefully defined and reductionist. E.g. the monastic system, vows etc. Not very flexible.

Edited July 30, 2014 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

Grammar can be culturally biased, whereas mathematics are not. I stand by my statement which was based on studying this period. When persons or writers of texts are rigidly defining their philosophical beliefs such as what Buddhism is replete with, then my statement stands.

 

The problem with this statement is in ignoring that Buddhism arose from the shramana movement - ascetic pursuits which gave rise to 'Indian mysticism'.

 

From my study of Buddhism, there is a pretense of being universal which encompasses all phenomena, imagination and so forth, but in reality the parameters are carefully defined and reductionist.

 

What does 'my study of Buddhism' entail? Universals are abstractions and non-existents in buddhadharma.

[ralis]

The problem with this statement is in ignoring that Buddhism arose from the shramana movement - ascetic pursuits which gave rise to 'Indian mysticism'.

 

 

What does 'my study of Buddhism' entail? Universals are abstractions and non-existents in buddhadharma.

 

Abstractions of what? What I mean by universal is the totality of all form and energy that is not in form. Indian mysticism did not arise in a vacuum, but was influenced by forces outside of India parts of what is now Eastern Europe. Sanskrit is Indo-European.

[Simple_Jack]

Abstractions of what?

 

Deluded cognition.

[asunthatneversets]

From my study of Buddhism, there is a pretense of being universal which encompasses all phenomena, imagination and so forth, but in reality the parameters are carefully defined and reductionist. E.g. the monastic system, vows etc. Not very flexible.

This discrepancy results from confusing provisional method with definitive view.

[asunthatneversets]

And what SJ mentioned; there really are no universals when it comes down to it.

[ralis]

This discrepancy results from confusing provisional method with definitive view.

 

I am not confused whatsoever! Definitive is stating an absolute truth which I don't agree with. You in no way can prove a definitive view within the bounds of your logic except with circular logic.

Edited July 30, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Deluded cognition.

 

Anyone not buying your philosophy is deluded? Prove it!

[asunthatneversets]

I am not confused whatsoever! Definitive is stating an absolute truth which I don't agree with. You in no way can prove a definitive view within the bounds of your logic except with circular logic.

 

"Definitive" meaning definitive in the context of the system, not an absolute truth... there are no absolute truths in Buddhism. Even the Four Noble Truths is merely a prescriptive methodology which self-deconstructs itself in the end.

[Simple_Jack]

Anyone not buying your philosophy is deluded? Prove it!

 

It depends on 'capacity':

 

Capacity depends on personal interest and diligence -- nothing more.

 

...it is based solely on your karmic connection with the teachings. If you have that, then you have capacity -- whether it is high, low or medium capacity depends solely on your efforts and interests.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

[asunthatneversets]

Sorry, to jump in here, but I have had many discussions with Jackson and participated in one of his FB groups. The difference between the two positions is most easily described in more classical Buddhist terms. What Jackson describes is noticing "consciousness" or the beginning of realizing "emptiness of self". He then declare it "Rigpa" and hence being done. But, the "state" he is describing is one of the local body-mind and has not yet realized emptiness of ultimate reality. The difference is one of thinking you are swimming in the ocean, when you are really only in the local swimming pool.

 

 

This is why primordial traditions (like Dzogchen) are guru based. It is nearly impossible to move to the ocean with out the radiant "light" of a realized master to help one expand beyond the local "bubble".

 

(Edit - iPad format issue)

 

I think in Jax's eyes he believes he is pointing towards the emptiness of self, however his interpretation of what the emptiness of self constitutes (and the way he presents the notion) is quite different from how Dzogchen or the Buddhadharma points it out. Jax merely points to the clarity of mind, the knower which lies prior to thought, and he then says that "you" as an individual are just a thought which passes by the knower... and that one's true identity is that of the knower, which is rigpa etc. That is Advaita Vedanta. It may also be a provisional step in the system of Dzogchen, but it is very, very far from the actuality of the definitive view of Dzogchen. So while his pointer may pass as okay in the eyes of neo-Advaita type views, it is a very basic and provisional pointer according to Dzogchen which hardly even begins to approach the definitive nature of mind or the emptiness of self.

Edited July 30, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Authoritarianism and authority are two different terms. I have used the former in my posts as opposed to the latter.

 

In terms of systems, there are closed and open systems. Buddhism falls into the former. Perhaps you may dispute that, but all the posts made by Buddhists such as yourself rigidly define Buddhism in black and white terms. Is Buddhism any different in logical format than any other philosophy? I seriously doubt you could prove that. Why? All philosophical belief systems and todays world religions all arose from the philosophical thought that arose from the Axial Age, the period from 800 B.C. through 200 B.C. The main driving force was Aristotle.

 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

 

 

Are you discounting thought and teachings that come from beings on other planes?

 

The history of existence is far different from earth history.. Are you a physicalist empiricist?

[asunthatneversets]

Authoritarianism and authority are two different terms. I have used the former in my posts as opposed to the latter.

 

In terms of systems, there are closed and open systems. Buddhism falls into the former. Perhaps you may dispute that, but all the posts made by Buddhists such as yourself rigidly define Buddhism in black and white terms. Is Buddhism any different in logical format than any other philosophy? I seriously doubt you could prove that. Why? All philosophical belief systems and todays world religions all arose from the philosophical thought that arose from the Axial Age, the period from 800 B.C. through 200 B.C. The main driving force was Aristotle.

 

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

 

Buddhist logic does not accord with Aristotelianism... if we are forced to compare Buddhist logic to Greek or Roman philosophy/thought, then the Pyrrhonian skeptic movement associated with the Greek luminary Sextus Empiricus (post-Axial Age: 160 - 210 CE) would be the most fitting equivalent. Pyrrhonism was very critical of the Aristotelian philosophical thought you are referencing.

[Simple_Jack]

I think in Jax's eyes he believes he is pointing towards the emptiness of self, however his interpretation of what the emptiness of self constitutes (and the way he presents the notion) is quite different from how Dzogchen or the Buddhadharma points it out. Jax merely points to the clarity of mind, the knower which lies prior to thought, and he then says that "you" as an individual are just a thought which passes by the knower... and that one's true identity is that of the knower, which is rigpa etc. That is Advaita Vedanta. It may also be a provisional step in the system of Dzogchen, but it is very, very far from the actuality of the definitive view of Dzogchen. So while his pointer may pass as okay in the eyes of neo-Advaita type views, it is a very basic and provisional pointer according to Dzogchen which hardly even begins to approach the definitive nature of mind or the emptiness of self.

 

Speaking of neoadvaita, this is pretty significant, considering that this is coming from someone involved in that scene:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/?p=527249

 

When it comes to Buddhist dialectics and inquiries Greg does keep the 'Direct Path' view and rhetoric separate, even to the point of telling someone interested in the Buddhist view to avoid the Direct Path:

 

Q: I am trying to realize no self and am trying to deconstruct things like trying to see everything as the six senses, taste, touch, sight ,smell,thought and ... forgot what else. anyways, I am also reading the direct path by Greg Goode at the moment and trying to follow it. dont know what I am doing wrong. but I need some help, some kind of instructions as to proper practice. please help me out.

 

p.s. I was trying to do vipassana earlier, but was more attracted to the deconstruction of the self as in bahiya sutta and so tried to do it, but not sure if I am doing it correctly. dont know what I am missing. would love to get some guidance.

 

p.s. Soh wei has given me some guidance as to how to practice but also recommended that I ask my question here as there are more members here and a lot of people who have already realized anatta.

 

Greg Goode wrote:

Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

It depends on 'capacity':

 

Capacity depends on personal interest and diligence -- nothing more.

 

...it is based solely on your karmic connection with the teachings. If you have that, then you have capacity -- whether it is high, low or medium capacity depends solely on your efforts and interests.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

SJ, why don't you just invite Malcolm to TTB so that he can speak for himself and defend his own positions?

For example, to me capacity is tied to intelligence. IQ. Horsepower. Why would Malcolm omit that part?

You've deprived us of any chance to grill mr. M..

 

Further, by continually quoting him like that, you imply that whatever he says is final... End of story. But really the story has just begun. His views change and his understanding changes. Yet you keep digging up his dead bones like they mean something. Maybe you were a golden retriever in your previous life?

 

[BaguaKicksAss]

This thread has been going 10 days now, anyone vanished?

[C T]

This thread has been going 10 days now, anyone vanished?

Actually, the 'you' of 10 days ago is already gone, but thats hardly noticeable, isn't it? So, in a sense, we are all vanishing and reappearing every single moment... just like breathing. And just like the cycle of every breath, between the ins- and the outs- there are short pauses. Its been hinted that true freedom, or complete reality, lies right there in that very space of unimpeded openness, total potential, and absolute vulnerability all pooled into one vast expanse of emptiness united with awareness simultaneously. Thats what people say, i dunno if there's any truth in it though...

[Simple_Jack]

It's possible I was a golden retriever in a past life, that would explain why I love brown nosing so much, especially when it involves authority figures. As for the quote, it makes perfect sense, when you consider that karmic conditioning plays a role in the capacity for accepting certain teachings, and the amount of effort that has been put in that direction, possibly over a number of lifetimes (e.g. people who can only accept Hinayana and strive for the bodhi of arhats). Of course, this is just my interpretation so take that with a grain if salt.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

There are a few different types of 'capacities', or perhaps different facets of one's capacity, per Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. Rinpoche discussed capacity in depth during one of his recent retreats.

 

Diligence is one aspect of capacity, intelligence is another, and there are others. However Rinpoche said the most vital aspect is capacity as interest, if you have that fundamental interest in the teachings that is the most important thing. For instance, someone with zero capacity could have the teachings expounded directly to them and they would have no interest whatsoever.

 

Rinpoche also made it a point to mention that capacity isn't a fixed or set thing. But is malleable and therefore subject to increase for those with keen interest. If you study and practice your capacity can be refined just like anything else.

 

Intelligence helps but isn't everything... interest, diligence, practice, etc., are what make or break a practitioner. Which is why it is said that even simple cow herders with no education whatsoever can apply the intimate instructions and attain realization.

[asunthatneversets]

Btw, psychological maturity and not feeling the desperate need to rely on parental figures

Sounds like immaturity to me.

 

surely enhances the ability for clear judgment what teachings are good or not...and I doubt that you guru-followers fall in that category.

Well, you guru bashers don't fall into any category with Vajrayāna or Dzogpachenpo. In fact you aren't even on the map to begin with. All you're doing is deluding yourself.

 

As mentioned above, capacity in the form of interest is of primary importance, however interest without intimate instructions from a qualified guru is like treading water with a paddle in your hand and no boat to be found anywhere.

 

A sign of maturity is the ability to exercise some humility and rely on intimate instructions from a qualified teacher.. not making boastful and prideful assertions and casting aspersions at teachers, lineage and tradition... that is immaturity of the utmost degree.

 

Hopefully you'll figure that out at some point.