Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[asunthatneversets]

According to this latest book that I am reading by Dudjom Rinpoche, Dzogchen meditation is remaining in the state where there is no subject and no object. Now, there are a few ways to get to that state. Samadhi. When subject and object combine, fuse together and then disintegrate. Or, letting go and letting be, but not to the point where letting go is an action.

 

Right, the actual practice is resting in unfabricated dharmatā, free from extremes. Subject and object do not combine, subject and object are misnomers and misconceptions which arise as a result of delusion, when delusion is dispelled you see correctly.

[asunthatneversets]

You know, the argument that you are having reminds me of the idea that the Catholic Church had, that you could only talk to God through a priest and only if you had the sacrements. I could never believe that if there was a god, that there would be conditions that you had to obey before you could talk to him/her. I just couldn't believe that only a chosen few would go to heaven. So, in a way, I guess you are kind of like the Catholic Church, saying no guru, no Dzogchen. However, what I have found is that even without a real living physical guru, when you are ready, the "guru" will manifest on the other planes and come visit you anyway. But really, you are the inner guru so just look within your own heart and you will find him/her.

 

Again, if you want to practice the system of Dzogchen, then you need a guru. Your nature doesn't need a guru, your nature is originally pure and naturally perfected... you as the individual need a guru to practice the system of Dzogpachenpo.

 

(i) Direct introduction from a qualified teacher, (ii) familiarization with that knowledge, (iii) continue in that knowledge. Basis, path, result. That is the system of Dzogchen.

[ralis]

You have yet to reveal any controversies that are not already well known within the Tibetan Buddhist community.

 

Many are unaware of the problems that I have pointed out. There are others on this forum besides you.

[asunthatneversets]

As for your quotes (Tibetan_Ice), they are fully in line with the system and do not say anything which contradicts what I'm saying.

Edited August 1, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

The terms are judgmental in the context in which you framed them and you alone are responsible for using them. So don't blame and hide behind the system, but take responsibility for your own actions.

 

What are you talking about? I have no qualms with being judgmental towards inaccurate views.

[asunthatneversets]

Many are unaware of the problems that I have pointed out. There are others on this forum besides you.

 

Those issues are human issues which arise any and everywhere humans gather, live together in large groups, create power structures etc. it has nothing to do with the buddhadharma.

Edited August 1, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

What are you talking about? I have no qualms with being judgmental towards inaccurate views.

 

Neuroses is a term used in the venue of psychoanalysis and you banter it about while hiding behind your system without taking personal responsibility for your actions. Unless you are a licensed professional, then stop the use of such terms.

 

When you term someone neurotic, you are making a medical diagnosis.

 

Your judgmental terms are meant to demean the opposition.

Edited August 1, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Those issues are human issues which arise any and everywhere humans gather, live together in large groups, create power structures etc. it has nothing to do with the buddhadharma.

 

The public sentiment would not be in agreement with you. It reflects badly on Buddhism and such behavior that I discussed is no excuse! Your statement lacks any compassion for the victims, but is more along the lines of excusing the behavior.

Edited August 1, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

Your judgmental terms are meant to demean the opposition.

 

Obviously.

[asunthatneversets]

The public sentiment would not be in agreement with you. It reflects badly on Buddhism and such behavior that I discussed is no excuse! Your statement lacks any compassion for the victims, but is more along the lines of excusing the behavior.

 

I'm certainly not excusing the behavior. The point I'm making is that saying Buddhism is to blame is like saying seafood in general is to blame for a certain chef at a certain restaurant being incompetent when cooking shellfish and causing people who went to his specific restaurant (and ate said shellfish) to become sick.

[Simple_Jack]

We are not living in a feudalistic culture in which a theocracy is the form of government nor are we living in the 'dark ages'.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236372#p236372

 

...For one, the vast majority of Tibet, for most of its history, was divvied up into small kingdoms held together by a network of trade, family relations as well as monastic ties.

 

While it is true that the Great Fifth [Dalai Lama] took control of Central Tibet and Tsang, his consolidation fell apart after his death completely in 1704. It was another 50 years before a Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Central Tibet and Tsang. Even here, principalities like Sakya in Western Tsang maintained their independence. During much of the 19th century, Lhasa was controlled through Manchu Ambans.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236627#p236627

 

...There were two separate secular regimes over a period of 40 or so years, before the 7th [Dalai Lama] was installed.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236639#p236639

 

...Tibet was never "Tibet", Tibet is Ü, Tsang, Ngari Korsum [Formerly known as Zhang Zhung], Guge, Amdo, Chamdo, Kham, Nangchen, Golog, Nyarong, Gyalmo Rong, Lhodrag, Kongpö, Pö, and a plethora of other small kingdoms and regions like Mustang, Lhadak, Dolpo, Jyathang and so on, with huge ethnic diversity — for example, the people in Gyalrong speak a language that is not even Tibetan, though they are Tibetan Buddhists. You are talking about a vast region, historically tied together by religion rather than ethnic identity, much like Medieval Europe.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236642#p236642

 

...The government established by the Fifth [Dalai Lama] collapsed when Lozang Khan invaded, and Desid Sangye Gyatso was assassinated by Lozang Khan's wife (a former mistress of his) in 1705 (I said 1704, but oh well). The Desid never allowed the Sixth [Dalai Lama] to rule.

 

Central Tibet remained without any effective government at all, apart from warlords, until Pho lha nas, an aristocrat from Tsang, ruled Tibet from 1727-1748 with Qing backing.

 

The seventh [Dalai Lama] was installed by the Qianglong emperor in 1751. The Kashag itself was a creation of the Qianglong emperor...The Central Tibetans were ruled by the Qing, so they could not be a theocracy either.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited August 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Obviously.

 

Are you being facetious? If not, I will take that as a serious statement.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236372#p236372

 

...For one, the vast majority of Tibet, for most of its history, was divvied up into small kingdoms held together by a network of trade, family relations as well as monastic ties.

 

While it is true that the Great Fifth took control of Central Tibet and Tsang, his consolidation fell apart after his death completely in 1704. It was another 50 years before a Dalai Lama was the nominal ruler of Central Tibet and Tsang. Even here, principalities like Sakya in Western Tsang maintained their independence. During much of the 19th century, Lhasa was controlled through Manchu Ambans.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236627#p236627

 

...There were two separate secular regimes over a period of 40 or so years, before the 7th [Dalai Lama] was installed.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236639#p236639

 

...Tibet was never "Tibet", Tibet is Ü, Tsang, Ngari Korsum [Formerly known as Zhang Zhung], Guge, Amdo, Chamdo, Kham, Nangchen, Golog, Nyarong, Gyalmo Rong, Lhodrag, Kongpö, Pö, and a plethora of other small kingdoms and regions like Mustang, Lhadak, Dolpo, Jyathang and so on, with huge ethnic diversity — for example, the people in Gyalrong speak a language that is not even Tibetan, though they are Tibetan Buddhists. You are talking about a vast region, historically tied together by religion rather than ethnic identity, much like Medieval Europe.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=236642#p236642

 

...The government established by the Fifth collapsed when when Lozang Khan invaded, and Desid Sangye Gyatso was assassinated by Lozang Khan's wife (a former mistress of his) in 1705 (I said 1704, but oh well). The Desid never allowed the Sixth to rule.

 

Central Tibet remained without any effective government at all, apart from warlords, until Pho lha nas, an aristocrat from Tsang, ruled Tibet from 1727-1748 with Qing backing.

 

The seventh was installed by the Qianglong emperor in 1751. The Kashag itself was a creation of the Qianglong emperor...The Central Tibetans were ruled by the Qing, so they could not be a theocracy either.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Dharma Wheel can't be relied upon for academic historical references.

Edited August 1, 2014 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

Dharma Wheel can't be relied upon for unbiased historical references.

 

You emphasized 'theocracy'.

[asunthatneversets]

Unbiased historical references? I don't think that is even possible. When it comes to historical references the only thing you can do is choose between biases.

[ralis]

Unbiased historical references? I don't think that is even possible. When it comes to historical references the only thing you can do is choose between biases.

 

Quoting the Dharma Wheel is preposterous. What about real historical texts? I doubt you have read much academic history given that statement. Of course that gives you plenty of latitude in any discussion.

 

Stop insulting my intelligence.

[rex]

When it comes to disputed history this is probably a good a source as any:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Authenticating-Tibet-Answers-Questions-Lilienthal/dp/0520249283/

 

"In Authenticating Tibet, international Tibet scholars provide historically accurate answers to 100 Questions and deal evenhandedly with both China's "truth" about Tibet and that of the Dalai Lama and his followers. Designed for use by a general audience, the book is an accessible reference, free of the polemics that commonly surround the Tibet question."

[BaguaKicksAss]

Have you read any books on Dzogchen or Vajrayāna? Or received any teachings whatsoever? Pick up any book on Dzogchen and you can find any number of statements regarding the importance of receiving direct introduction from a living master, guru yoga etc. If you can't find one you are either blind, incredibly afflicted by your own confirmation biases or are in a fog of denial.

 

I would say instead attend a workshop by a legit teacher of it. One workshop is safe enough, none of that odd cult like stuff ZOOM is worried about, then also there is the compare a. with b. sort of thing, from direct experience..

[Simple_Jack]

AFAIK, the books that are currently available in the market won't provide much in practical instruction beyond shamatha and tregcho. Stick with books on Sutra Mahamudra if you want to forgo a path reliant on a guru. You'll be provided with a step-by-step progression towards non-meditation, as long as you're not attached to the level of neoadvaitan pointers, in Jax's video linked some pages back.

 

Bump.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Simple_Jack]

But I will most likely go for an even more direct training exercise...

 

By "more direct training exercise" do you mean shamatha sans an object of meditation?

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[GrandmasterP]

It is interesting, this audacity. To think that one can simply encounter a tradition which has existed for centuries with unbroken lineages and an effective, methodological system crafted by realized individuals... and sit there critiquing it and boasting that one knows better. The level of arrogance is incredible.

 

These 'realised individuals' buddy.

They are just dudes no different to any other dudes.

The only power anyone has is that vested in them by some saddo who needs somebody else to take charge of their life.

The act and the fact of your Dzogchen 'masters' doing that invalidates the transaction.

Any half decent teacher will promote and encourage autonomy.

Your guys have set themselves up as the 'go to' guys.

That's never right.

Promoting dependency be it in magic or lineage, 'holy' texts or rituals is a form of grooming.

[ralis]

These 'realised individuals' buddy. They are just dudes no different to any other dudes. The only power anyone has is that vested in them by some saddo who needs somebody else to take charge of their life. The act and the fact of your Dzogchen 'masters' doing that invalidates the transaction. Any half decent teacher will promote and encourage autonomy. Your guys have set themselves up as the 'go to' guys. That's never right. Promoting dependency be it in magic or lineage, 'holy' texts or rituals is a form of grooming.

 

Exactly. Persons claiming their teachers are realized use no independent criteria to make such an assessment. The criteria are provided by the power holders.

[Simple_Jack]

These 'realised individuals' buddy. They are just dudes no different to any other dudes. The only power anyone has is that vested in them by some saddo who needs somebody else to take charge of their life. The act and the fact of your Dzogchen 'masters' doing that invalidates the transaction. Any half decent teacher will promote and encourage autonomy. Your guys have set themselves up as the 'go to' guys. That's never right. Promoting dependency be it in magic or lineage, 'holy' texts or rituals is a form of grooming.

Exactly. Persons claiming their teachers are realized use no independent criteria to make such an assessment. The criteria are provided by the power holders.

 

 

You guys are fortunate you have the opportunity to air out your disdain of hierarchical structures, ritual practice, and religious devotion in the Buddhist sub-forum; if you were to do the same in the other sub-forums you'd be reported by now.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

 

You guys are fortunate you have the opportunity to air out your disdain of hierarchical structures, ritual practice, and religious devotion in the Buddhist sub-forum; if you were to do the same in the other sub-forums you'd be reported by now.

 

That is why I am not on the DW forum. I don't think you guys understand the nature of the criticism given your extreme attachment to a parental system.

Edited August 1, 2014 by ralis