Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Apech]

--- Moderator Message ---

 

Split to the Pit the bickering circular nonsense and name calling. Any more like this will be split off also.

 

 

--- Message Ends ---

[goldisheavy]

A "non-ordinary" being can manipulate objective reality, perceptible for all.

In other words: He can create wonders.

 

This is not 100% true.

 

All beings influence their own perceptions. This is true for both ordinary and non-ordinary beings. Non-ordinary beings are more apt to manipulate their own subjective reality consciously, whereas ordinary beings do so unconsciously through cravings and habituations. But what each being ends up experiencing depends on that being as much as it depends on someone else.

 

Many accomplished Dzogchen-practitioners prove that their accomplishment is real and that they mastered their inner Clear Light by manipulating objective reality as for example imprinting their hands and feet into solid rock. The results of these actions are visible for everybody and verifiable by science.

 

There may be a few people interested in this kind of behavior, but this is probably more of an exception than the rule.

 

Can you manipulate objective reality?

 

I can't manipulate that which doesn't exist. I am practicing to manipulate my own reality, however.

[asunthatneversets]

Objective and subjective realities are ultimately misnomers. Beings who cultivate siddhis and are able to control phenomena are doing so as a result of certain practices.

 

Transmuting the elements back into their essential expression does not necessarily entail that one can exhibit miraculous powers. For the most part those powers can be acquired through manipulating and mastering control over specific winds [rlung].

 

Or as I mentioned in one of the posts which was removed, even simple practices such as śamatha which cultivate equanimity, evenness [samādhi] and familiarity with the dhyānic strata can produce siddhis. Siddhis are a sign of meditative discipline and prolonged practice, and are not signs of realization. Which is why all of these siddhis (which involve 'powers') are referred to as 'mundane siddhis', while liberation is referred to as the 'supreme siddhi', the only important siddhi is liberation itself.

[goldisheavy]

Objective and subjective realities are ultimately misnomers. Beings who cultivate siddhis and are able to control phenomena are doing so as a result of certain practices.

 

Your first sentence here is not helpful, even if it's correct in some sense. It's important to stress intimacy of experience for anyone interested in anything that's beyond convention. This means subjectivity must be promoted, otherwise if you do not, the fuzzy line of "neither this nor that" is not enough to uproot outflowing habits of mind (where the mind tries to reach outside itself toward some objective reality).

 

Siddhis are a direct result of softening habituations. They are not generated by "certain practices." They are generated by just about any practice in the context of softening habituations.

 

Of course specifically focusing on one specific psychic power through one specific practice will yield a faster result than the overall softening of habituation, but this approach risks entrenching the psychic power as an ignorant habituation in its own right. Habituations are not a problem if the person understands what they're doing. But if one entrenches one's mind in a habituation without appreciation what habituations are and what their pros and cons are, then that becomes ignorance.

 

Transmuting the elements back into their essential expression does not necessarily entail that one can exhibit miraculous powers. For the most part those powers can be acquired through manipulating and mastering control over specific winds [rlung].

 

This isn't true. There is no such thing as "winds." Instead there are mental fabrications all around us. The computer you're looking at is a mental fabrication. Tibetans like to divide the mental fabrications into gross and subtle. And the subtle mental fabrications are more private-like, closer to the human body (or inside its space) and so on. So they call these subtle mental fabrications "winds." You can learn to control those at will and then you can use this as the basis for some psychic powers, but it's extremely wrong to think that psychic power in general is a result of controlling these "winds." That's an exceptionally deluded view.

 

Or as I mentioned in one of the posts which was removed, even simple practices such as śamatha which cultivate equanimity, evenness [samādhi] and familiarity with the dhyānic strata can produce siddhis. Siddhis are a sign of meditative discipline and prolonged practice, and are not signs of realization.

 

I think a person with siddhis is not necessary released, but a released person has siddhis. And, concentration-release is just one kind of release. There is also wisdom release. It's surprising to hear someone who argued about the merit of being a scholar to forget all about the power of wisdom release. Wisdom release can and does generate psychic powers.

Edited August 12, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

Your first sentence here is not helpful, even if it's correct in some sense. It's important to stress intimacy of experience for anyone interested in anything that's beyond convention. This means subjectivity must be promoted, otherwise if you do not, the fuzzy line of "neither this nor that" is not enough to uproot outflowing habits of mind (where the mind tries to reach outside itself toward some objective reality).

 

One wouldn't promote subjectivity, but rather practice which will ultimately reveal the lack of substantiality in appearances, whether said appearance is conventionally considered to be subjective or objective. I'm not sure what "neither this nor that" has to do with anything, or if that is meant to reference the neti-neti method employed in Vedanta? Either way it is irrelevant.

 

Siddhis are a direct result of softening habituations. They are not generated by "certain practices." They are generated by just about any practice in the context of softening habituations.

 

You can believe whatever you'd like. Ultimately siddhis are a distraction and nothing to be purposely cultivated or grasped at so there is really no point in discussing them.

 

Of course specifically focusing on one specific psychic power through one specific practice will yield a faster result than the overall softening of habituation, but this approach risks entrenching the psychic power as an ignorant habituation in its own right. Habituations are not a problem if the person understands what they're doing. But if one entrenches one's mind in a habituation without appreciation what habituations are and what their pros andcons are, then that becomes ignorance.

 

That is true, though I don't agree that focusing on "psychic powers" has any use, it is a distraction. If siddhis manifest as a result of one's practice then they do, if they don't they don't, they are irrelevant either way and should not be grasped at. In fact grasping at them will cause them to diminish and disappear altogether.

 

This isn't true. There is no such thing as "winds."

 

Well, there are. I'm not sure what tradition or system you are talking about, but Vajrayāna and Dzogchen use the human body as a basis for one's practice, and the various constituent aspects of the body - one of which are the winds - are considered to be important.

 

Instead there are mental fabrications all around us. The computer you're looking at is a mental fabrication.

 

Again, I'm not sure what tradition or system you are speaking for, ultimately Vajrayāna does hold that appearances are mental fabrications, however Dzogchen does not. So again these subtle nuances in view are contingent upon the nature of one's path.

 

Tibetans like to divide the mental fabrications into gross and subtle. And the subtle mental fabrications are more private-like, closer to the human body (or inside its space) and so on. So they call these subtle mental fabrications "winds." You can learn to control those at will and then you can use this as the basis for some psychic powers, but it's extremely wrong to think that psychic power in general is a result of controlling these "winds." That's an exceptionally deluded view.

 

I did not state that psychic powers are the result of manipulating winds, by 'powers' I meant those abilities which appear to control and manipulate what would be interpreted as so-called external phenomena.

 

I think a person with siddhis is not necessary released, but a released person has siddhis.

 

This really depends on how rapid one actualizes 'release'. Those who awaken swiftly will not have siddhis to the same degree as someone who has spent a lot of time cultivating meditative stability etc., so again this comes back to length of time spent cultivating concentration and other aspects of meditation in general.

 

And, concentration-release is just one kind of release. There is also wisdom release.

 

Concentration etc., is merely a provisional method so that one can actualize wisdom insights, which are definitive.

 

It's surprising to hear someone who argued about the merit of being a scholar to forget all about the power of wisdom release.

 

Being that I stated liberation is the supreme siddhi - liberation being the total exhaustion of factors which obscure wisdom - I obviously made it a point to cite the importance of wisdom over any other species of insight.

 

Wisdom release can and does generate psychic powers.

 

Again, depends on the individual and circumstances.

[goldisheavy]

One wouldn't promote subjectivity, but rather practice which will ultimately reveal the lack of substantiality in appearances, whether said appearance is conventionally considered to be subjective or objective. I'm not sure what "neither this nor that" has to do with anything, or if that is meant to reference the neti-neti method employed in Vedanta? Either way it is irrelevant.

 

One must promote subjectivity. Why so? We need to examine what it means to say that an experience is subjective. An experience is subjective when its relevant only from a certain point of view. Upon analysis we realize that this is true of all experiences without any exception whatsoever. All experiences and all modes of experiencing require a point of view. Dzogchen teachings constantly harp about "the view," "the view," "the view" for a reason! A Dzogchen-style experiencing requires a Dzogchen view. This entire endeavor is completely subjective because it's based on voluntarily committing to a specific worldview. What separates competent Dzogchenpas from many other types of beings is that Dzogchenpas realize they could be holding any one of the infinite variety of worldviews. In other words, for them the choice is a conscious and deliberate one.

 

Because one's point of view influences one's own experience so dramatically and so completely, it is essential to stress subjectivity as the key point of all spiritual practice that aims beyond convention.

 

You can believe whatever you'd like. Ultimately siddhis are a distraction and nothing to be purposely cultivated or grasped at so there is really no point in discussing them.

 

You're simply lying to people when you say this.

 

Psychic powers are very helpful in understanding what the capacity of mind to know, to experience and to will is really like in experiential as opposed to theoretical terms.

 

That is true, though I don't agree that focusing on "psychic powers" has any use, it is a distraction. If siddhis manifest as a result of one's practice then they do, if they don't they don't, they are irrelevant either way and should not be grasped at. In fact grasping at them will cause them to diminish and disappear altogether.

 

I know that you don't agree and I know why you don't agree. You're not upfront about the real reasons why you don't like to talk about psychic powers. You have real reasons for why you want to avoid such discussion, but you keep those close to your chest.

 

Well, there are. I'm not sure what tradition or system you are talking about, but Vajrayāna and Dzogchen use the human body as a basis for one's practice, and the various constituent aspects of the body - one of which are the winds - are considered to be important.

 

Here's a direct contradiction: dream yoga.

 

Again, I'm not sure what tradition or system you are speaking for, ultimately Vajrayāna does hold that appearances are mental fabrications, however Dzogchen does not. So again these subtle nuances in view are contingent upon the nature of one's path.

 

Dzogchen does too. Read the Tantras.

 

 

This really depends on how rapid one actualizes 'release'. Those who awaken swiftly will not have siddhis to the same degree as someone who has spent a lot of time cultivating meditative stability etc., so again this comes back to length of time spent cultivating concentration and other aspects of meditation in general.

 

I don't know if speed is a major factor here. I think the real variable is the depth of non-conceptual relaxation. When one relaxes habituations very thoroughly it is simply impossible to experience solidity anymore. The speed with which you accomplished this has little effect.

 

Concentration etc., is merely a provisional method so that one can actualize wisdom insights, which are definitive.

 

The mind is always in a state of concentration. What changes are the objects of concentration. Since concentration is an ineliminable aspect of mind's activity, it is short-sighted to insist that concentration is merely provisional.

Edited August 12, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

One must promote subjectivity. Why so? We need to examine what it means to say that an experience is subjective. An experience is subjective when its relevant only from a certain point of view. Upon analysis we realize that this is true of all experiences without any exception whatsoever.

 

Yes one would need to examine what it means to say that an experience is subjective... it necessarily implies various problematic issues which are no better than stating an experience is objective. The ultimate validity of objectivity can be refuted and should, but that does not mean everything is 'subjective'.

 

All experiences and all modes of experiencing require a point of view. Dzogchen teachings constantly harp about "the view," "the view," "the view" for a reason! A Dzogchen-style experiencing requires a Dzogchen view.

 

The Dzogchen view is never, ever presented as being subjective.

 

This entire endeavor is completely subjective because it's based on voluntarily committing to a specific worldview. What separates competent Dzogchenpas from many other types of beings is that Dzogchenpas realize they could be holding any one of the infinite variety of worldviews. In other words, for them the choice is a conscious and deliberate one.

 

This does not make sense in the context of Dzogchen. What is conventionally titled "the view" of Dzogchen is resting in direct knowledge of the nature of mind and has nothing to do with worldviews.

 

Because one's point of view influences one's own experience so dramatically and so completely, it is essential to stress subjectivity as the key point of all spiritual practice that aims beyond convention.

 

It isn't points of view which influence one's experience, but ignorance, meaning; ignorance of one's nature. The only way to truly go 'beyond' conventions or one's relative condition in general is to familiarize and integrate with one's nature. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it in any way.

 

You're simply lying to people when you say this.

 

Psychic powers are very helpful in understanding what the capacity of mind to know, to experience and to will is really like in experiential as opposed to theoretical terms.

 

Psychic powers are irrelevant in understanding anything. What is relevant, and what is promoted as definitive and liberating insight in these systems is wisdom i.e. knowledge of one's nature. Psychic powers have nothing to do with it.

 

I know that you don't agree and I know why you don't agree. You're not upfront about the real reasons why you don't like to talk about psychic powers. You have real reasons for why you want to avoid such discussion, but you keep those close to your chest.

 

I don't even know what you are insinuating. I don't agree for the reasons I've provided, there is no other secret 'real' reason why I wouldn't want to talk about psychic powers. The issue here is that you seem to be fully enamored and taken in by the prospect of psychic powers, which are wholly irrelevant to these paths and are nothing more than secondary side-effects of one's practice if and when they may manifest. They mean nothing and forming an infatuation with them or considering them to be profound or key facets of Dzogchen or any other system in the buddhadharma is an incorrect view which should be avoided.

 

Here's a direct contradiction: dream yoga.

 

Not a contradiction in any way.

 

Dzogchen does too. Read the Tantras.

 

Dzogchen does not.

 

I don't know if speed is a major factor here. I think the real variable is the depth of non-conceptual relaxation. When one relaxes habituations very thoroughly it is simply impossible to experience solidity anymore. The speed with which you accomplished this has little effect.

 

That sounds like samatha practice more than anything which would constitute the path in a system like Dzogchen.

 

The mind is always in a state of concentration. What changes are the objects of concentration. Since concentration is an ineliminable aspect of mind's activity, it is short-sighted to insist that concentration is merely provisional.

 

I take it you mean 'attention'... concentration is something different. However this is deviating from the dichotomy we were discussing which was concentration vs. wisdom. In that context, concentration (since it involves mind) is provisional, whereas wisdom is definitive.

[goldisheavy]

Yes one would need to examine what it means to say that an experience is subjective... it necessarily implies various problematic issues which are no better than stating an experience is objective.

 

If you really think so, you should mention these issues by name.

 

The Dzogchen view is never, ever presented as being subjective.

 

Not explicitly, but it has subjectivity written all over it if you are intelligent. I gave the reasons why too, in the previous post.

 

This does not make sense in the context of Dzogchen. What is conventionally titled "the view" of Dzogchen is resting in direct knowledge of the nature of mind and has nothing to do with worldviews.

 

This "direct knowledge of the nature of mind" is a worldview. In fact, any type of knowledge pertaining to ultimate concerns is a "worldview."

 

It isn't points of view which influence one's experience, but ignorance, meaning; ignorance of one's nature. The only way to truly go 'beyond' conventions or one's relative condition in general is to familiarize and integrate with one's nature. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it in any way.

 

Ah, but the conventional condition of self-limited beings is not ignorant in any objective sense. It's a choice they make based on how they perceive the pros and cons within the context of their chosen worldview.

 

Psychic powers are irrelevant in understanding anything. What is relevant, and what is promoted as definitive and liberating insight in these systems is wisdom i.e. knowledge of one's nature. Psychic powers have nothing to do with it.

 

Psychic powers are relevant to experiential understanding of one's own condition. Without experiencing one's own psychic functioning first hand from a 1st person POV, one has no confidence in the nature of mind just as it is, and continues to experience solidity and other forms of self-limiting experiencing.

 

Dzogchen does not.

 

It does. In the future, if you say "it does not" please understand me to be in opposition to such a view even while I remain silent. My silence doesn't mean acceptance.

 

I take it you mean 'attention'... concentration is something different. However this is deviating from the dichotomy we were discussing which was concentration vs. wisdom. In that context, concentration (since it involves mind) is provisional, whereas wisdom is definitive.

 

Attention and concentration are not different. Concentration has many synonyms. Here's a cool one that comes to you fresh from my heart: fascination. Concentration is fascination.

[asunthatneversets]

Not explicitly, but it has subjectivity written all over it if you are intelligent. I gave the reasons why too, in the previous post.

 

 

This "direct knowledge of the nature of mind" is a worldview. In fact, any type of knowledge pertaining to ultimate concerns is a "worldview."

 

 

Ah, but the conventional condition of self-limited beings is not ignorant in any objective sense. It's a choice they make based on how they perceive the pros and cons within the context of their chosen worldview.

 

 

Psychic powers are relevant to experiential understanding of one's own condition. Without experiencing one's own psychic functioning first hand from a 1st person POV, one has no confidence in the nature of mind just as it is, and continues to experience solidity and other forms of self-limiting experiencing.

 

Everything you have written here is your own fabricated embellishment and has nothing to do with the system(s) you are attempting to associate it with. These statements are ridiculous to be quite honest, and it is sad you are trying to promote (or even suggest) this as Atiyoga or anything resembling Atiyoga.

[goldisheavy]

Everything you have written here is your own fabricated embellishment and has nothing to do with the system(s) you are attempting to associate it with. These statements are ridiculous to be quite honest, and it is sad you are trying to promote (or even suggest) this as Atiyoga or anything resembling Atiyoga.

 

If I am fabricating, then do you mean to say you are not fabricating by contrast?

[asunthatneversets]

If I am fabricating, then do you mean to say you are not fabricating by contrast?

 

Those statements are fabrications which are not related to Dzogchen. If they are your own opinion that is fine, but parading them as accurate interpretations or representations of Atiyoga is to promote fabrication.

[goldisheavy]

 

If I am fabricating, then do you mean to say you are not fabricating by contrast?

 

Those statements are fabrications which are not related to Dzogchen. If they are your own opinion that is fine, but parading them as accurate interpretations or representations of Atiyoga is to promote fabrication.

 

You didn't answer my question.

[asunthatneversets]

I have no idea what I would or wouldn't be fabricating. If you care to elaborate instead of asking a blanketed question as to whether I'm fabricating I'd be happy to answer.

 

I specfically cited what I am asserting to be fabrication, providing context... as it stands now your question has no context and therefore makes no sense.

[goldisheavy]

I have no idea what I would or wouldn't be fabricating. If you care to elaborate instead of asking a blanketed question as to whether I'm fabricating I'd be happy to answer.

 

I specfically cited what I am asserting to be fabrication, providing context... as it stands now your question has no context and therefore makes no sense.

 

I don't think you want to face my question head on. This has happened once before, at least. I'm not going to press you. Your turning your back on my question is answer enough in and of itself. Those with the eyes to see will understand what just happened.

[asunthatneversets]

I don't think you want to face my question head on. This has happened once before, at least. I'm not going to press you. Your turning your back on my question is answer enough in and of itself. Those with the eyes to see will understand what just happened.

I have no clue what you're talking about. I suspect you're attempting to be clever and evoke an ultimate perspective in hopes of invalidating whatever I'm saying, which is a weak move if that is what you're resorting to.

 

What it comes down to is you have some wild ideas about these systems and think your notions are accurate, so when I have no idea what you're talking about because it is practically nonsense you interpret this as me not getting what you're saying or evading answering questions... because god forbid the deficiency is on your side rather than anyone else's.

 

So we end up with these bizarre impasses where you accuse me of whatever it is you're projecting onto me in order to maintain (and convince yourself of) some pale of validity in relation to your own views.

[goldisheavy]

What it comes down to is you have some wild ideas about these systems

 

Interesting characterization "wild." By contrast, what would you call your ideas about the same? "Tame"? "Domesticated?"

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[goldisheavy]

 

How do you explain then that Dzogchen masters can imprint their hands into solid rock, visible to everyone else and not only to themselves in their own subjective reality, therefore they can warp & control objective reality, therefore objective reality exists...

...but you can't?

 

I've never seen this done. I've heard stories and seen pictures. All this can be faked very easily.

 

But let's suppose we take these accounts at face value as true. Is this evidence of objective reality?

 

When 10 people agree that ice cream is pleasant, does that mean ice cream is objectively tasty? Maybe 10 is not enough. How about 100? Or 1 billion? If one billion subjective opinions coincide, does that imply something objective?

 

When I am dreaming, in my dream world there are people there. Suppose I see a dream table in a dream room with 10 dream people in it. Those dream people point their fingers to the dream table. We all see it together. Does that mean the dream table is objectively real?

 

So explaining hand prints, assuming we accept them as valid phenomena, is easy. One reason I am able to experience such things is because I myself have elevated my own spiritual state to a point where I can now begin to encounter such phenomena in my life. So some credit for witnessing such things goes to me. And some credit, by convention, goes to the beings that appear to perform these things. I could then say the beings who leave handprints in the rock have more fearlessness, fewer attachments, softer habituations, and more familiarity with the extraordinary types of experiencing than I have.

 

I have a lot of experience myself too. Compared to normal people I am like God, basically. But if you compare me to a yogi who's spent 10 lifetimes meditating 30 years in a cave during each one of those 10 lives, as a hermit practitioner, then I will be like a tiny baby by comparison. But this is not a guarantee. I've met some tremendous morons of no skill and no understanding who've meditated their entire long lives (think over 6 decades), and died ignorant and useless idiots while leaving many students who were just as ignorant and confused as their teacher who meditated an assload and understood nothing whatsoever.

 

So what I am saying is, experience matters, but experience is not just automatic with time. You can spend 30 years doing something and gain no experience at all. So clocking time is not what grants experience. In my hypothetical example in the previous paragraph I am assuming 10 lifetimes of 30 years of productive, skillful, helpful, useful practice, and not just time clocking.

 

There is a vast scale of relativity when it comes to spiritual state of beings.

Edited August 13, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[goldisheavy]

What are you claiming? That if you are continuing with your training then your subjective reality will suddenly influence the subjective reality of all others?

 

Correct. Have you ever done eyelid gazing? This is a passive visualization exercise where you close your eyes and watch the darkened space behind your eyelids. At first you see what people call "phosphenes" and maybe some splotches of color. Later you may see some abstract geometric shapes. Eventually you may see some what looks like gears or machines. Then you may see faces. They may appear static. Later they might seem like they're smiling or saying something, more animated. Then you may see bodies in addition to faces. Then you may see something that resembles an open space, and a vague sense of environment. Eventually a full blown dream scene can develop from this.

 

Now consider how these people, with seemingly independent minds and personalities emerge from the space of your own mind, when given half a chance, such as during an eyelid gazing exercise.

 

Subjectivities represent viewpoints, and viewpoints can evolve arbitrarily. Because of the possibility for viewpoints evolving arbitrarily, it's possible to experience what I call subjective convergence and subjective divergence. Subjective convergence happens when your perspective gets closer to some other perspectives. When this happens, it feels like you're sharing an experience. The more convergent the subjectivities, the more sharing seems to happen. And the opposite is true for divergence. So one example of divergence would be you going to sleep while your friend stays in your room to watch. Your friend will then see your body laying motionlessly on the bed. While you will experience a world that is perhaps nothing like this Earth realm, and the friend in your room may no longer be present in your dream world. That's what I call subjective divergence. That's just one example of it.

 

You can choose to involve other people into your visionary process. Depending on how you involve other people, you can grant them powers or you can rob them of powers. This will not improve or hurt anyone because everyone has the same power, and when two subjectivities dream incompatible dreams, they simply diverge each into their own worlds with their own sets of relatively compatible beings.

 

That's the manifestation process.

 

So when you in your subjective reality imprint your hand in a rock (imo: you simply hallucinate willingly!) and someone visits this rock ten years later, then he will see (and feel) your hand imprint in the rock (in his subjective reality, as objective reality doesn't exist iyo) and even can take a photo of your hand imprint in the rock?

 

Yes, this can happen assuming I've involved enough other beings into my vision. If I consider other beings as truly independent observers, I can no longer dictate what their vision will be like.

 

When I wave my hand in front of your face, you are almost forced to see it. Why? And why "almost"? Well, "almost" because you can ignore my waving around to such a profound extent, that you won't see anything at all. This is what's known as a negative hallucination in hypnosis. It's when you can't see something that is "actually" "there." So even if I am waving my hand in front of your face, in truth, I am not able to 100% force you to see anything. You still maintain sovereignty of your experience. But assuming you're an ordinary being, your sovereignty is lost in a drunken stupor, since most of your activity is a result of habituation and craving with virtually no intent left open for something creative and amazing. So as an ordinary being, you can be abused pretty easily, because people can exploit your habits and cravings against you. So if I know you crave contact with your family, I can take your family hostage and demand a ransom. That's what I mean by exploitation. If I know your cravings, I can take advantage of you. But this exploitation can be very very subtle. It doesn't have to be something stupid like a kidnapping. It can be psychological and spiritual manipulation of the most subtle kind that you'd never be able to detect as an ordinary being.

 

And how do you think I'd know what your habituations and cravings were? Well, I'd judge them by my own! Haha.. I mean, I know your weakness by judging my own weakness, and then reasonably assuming that if our subjectivities intersect, we must share a very significant portion of weaknesses. If you were too different from me, I'd not be able to see you at all, because you'd then be in a realm different from my realm.

 

In other words, we tend to witness beings similar to ourselves, plus or minus a few points. Of course there can be some exceptions to this. There are no hard rules. But that's the tendency as I see it.

[Simple_Jack]

The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them.

 

...the view of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Mahāmadhyamaka are not partial at all since they are based on direct [yogic] perception of reality.

 

...the Buddhist view is not actually a verbal construct, and for that matter neither is Buddhist awakening.

 

For example, one needs only to understand the dependent nature of afflictions to become a stream entrant and so on, becoming free of the fetters. This does not require elaborate philosophy. It merely requires confidence in the teaching of dependent origination and the four truths of nobles.

 

Likewise, for the realization of emptiness on the path of seeing, one simply has to reflect on the absence of extremes (for a very long time, albeit), as Shantideva states, "when neither an entity or a non-entity remain before the mind, at the time, the mind is pacified", and this too is an experiential view.

 

In the case of Vajrayāna, the view, such as it is, is based on the experience of the example wisdom at the time of direct introduction or the third and fourth empowerments. Unfettered equipoise in the mind essence, or "ordinary awareness" is the view of Vajrayāna.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

The mind is no-mind. The nature of the mind is luminosity.

~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra

[asunthatneversets]

goldisheavy you're again doing a lot of conjectured speculation on the part of Dzogchen and you have people like zoom who don't know any better but to think you're giving them solid information.

 

Not sure why you do this. I mean it's all good to have your own opinions and theories but why bring Dzogchen into it? Why make up stuff on behalf of the system? You can just say "this is what I think is true, it isn't related to Dzogchen but I enjoy Dzogchen" and there'd be no issue. Instead however you're presenting your half-baked theories as Atiyoga and people actually believe you, this is very reckless.

 

At any rate, the buddhadharma and Dzogchen included have said that one individual cannot influence another individual in the way you are suggesting. Because otherwise realized individuals would have awakened everyone via that method by now and there wild be no point to the teachings.

Edited August 13, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

goldisheavy you're again doing a lot of conjectured speculation on the part of Dzogchen and you have people like zoom who don't know any better but to think you're giving them solid information.

 

Not sure why you do this. I mean it's all good to have your own opinions and theories but why bring Dzogchen into it? Why make up stuff on behalf of the system? You can just say "this is what I think is true, it isn't related to Dzogchen but I enjoy Dzogchen" and there'd be no issue. Instead however you're presenting your half-baked theories as Atiyoga and people actually believe you, this is very reckless.

 

At any rate, the buddhadharma and Dzogchen included have said that one individual cannot influence another individual in the way you are suggesting. Because otherwise realized individuals would have awakened everyone via that method by now and there wild be no point to the teachings.

 

If I remember correctly, you stated that what you post here is your own opinion?

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

If I remember correctly, you stated that what you post here is your own opinion?

 

What everyone posts here is their own opinion, but that does not mean all opinions are accurate. Someone may have the opinion that the safest way to drive a car is to go as fast as you can at all times... even in residential neighborhoods or by schools when children are present... that is their opinion and they are entitled to it, however that does not mean it is a good idea or an accurate assertion.