General introduction to Dzogchen - Video

[BaguaKicksAss]

Hopefully it hasn`t already been posted.

 

[goldisheavy]

37 minutes in.

When Namkhai Norbu says "energy" I think it's better to talk of volition or intent. Because when he says "energy" people think "electricity" and other such expressions suggestive of something objective "out there" that abides by fixed eternal rules, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to talk to Westerners about something mental and call it "energy" because that word immediately invokes physicalistic ideation and expectations.

52 minutes.

At 53 minutes I don't agree with his definition of mind as something dependent on a horse. For me the mind is a primordial capacity to know, to experience and to will, and so doesn't depend on anything. The capacity is always available and it's always engaged in some specific way.

What Namkai calls "energy" at 53-54 minutes is what I'd call "habituation." The difference here is that energy is like some dumb thing that's just "there" (Namkhai's words: a blind horse), whereas habituation is a fixated state of mind, but it's intentional because once the habit becomes unwanted, it can be undone, and habits are not entirely dumb and blind, they interact with the circumstances in ways that can be intelligent and creative. For people in the know this might not seem like a huge distinction, but when you address an audience that's guaranteed to be 90% physicalistic (even at the most optimistic level), you have to be careful not to invoke mechanistic and objectivity-like physicalism when you explain mental subtleties. Habituation is not entirely mechanical the way we typically think of energy. When people talk of "energy" something very mechanistic and dumb tends to become suggested to our minds, exactly like Namkhai's blind horse. But habituations are not exactly like that.

At 55 minutes Namkhai says that "energy" depends on the physical body and therefore sometimes certain positions or movements become necessary to control the energy. I disagree with this a lot more than I agree. To take Namkhai's earlier examples of using white light as a tantric essence of water for slaking visualization (you can choose blue or any other color, as long as you keep it consistent if you want to use colors in this way) and perhaps red as a tantric essence of fire for heat visualization (tummo), these do not really require any kind of specific postures. You don't have to be in lotus or full or half lotus or in any specific position to do these types of tantric transformations. In fact, if you can do a certain transformation better while seated and worse while standing, it means you have a problem. Instead of further habituating yourself by doing the visualization seated just because you succeed better in that way, it may make sense to undo this bad conditioning and purposefully do the visualization while standing, walking and lying down in order to overcome the limitation of sitting down. On the other hand, if you can do something quicker while sitting down, you can get your first taste quicker that way. So if just a taste is all you want, then using the most convenient posture is OK, but if you want a long-term usefulness, you'll probably not want to handicap yourself by habituating visualizations to only work in specific postures. That kind of voluntary self-limitation is not helpful in the long run. There may come a time when you can't sit down and you're cold. You better know how to do tummo standing up in that condition, or you're screwed. So you wouldn't want to get yourself cornered by a limited habituation.

So this whole idea of body postures affecting visualization is not something to be proud of and it's not something to cultivate. It's more of a temporary flaw.

I'm not sure if Namkhai said this about Dzogchen or not, but he does say tantrism requires a higher capacity than sutrayana and other rule-based simple-minded teachings. Similarly, Dzogchen would require an even higher capacity than tantrism. So just think about this for a second. If you cannot change the taste of clean water into honey, which is a simple tantric manipulation, then you don't have the ready capacity for Dzogchen, because Dzogchen requires an even higher mental ready capacity than that.

I'm making a distinction between ultimate capacity and ready capacity. Ultimate capacity is what you can do in general, and eventually, or in principle. Ready capacity is what you can do by tomorrow morning or in 5 minutes of time.

Edited August 12, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

Now you're critiquing Chögyal Namkhai Norbu? I sincerely hope people know better than to give your fantasies the time of day.

 

I've been polite and stayed quiet for quite some time now, but in the wake of our most recent discussion it's become blatantly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The various critiques and insights you offer above are horrid and wildly inaccurate fabrications.

[goldisheavy]

Now you're critiquing Chögyal Namkhai Norbu? I sincerely hope people know better than to give your fantasies the time of day.

 

I've been polite and stayed quiet for quite some time now, but in the wake of our most recent discussion it's become blatantly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

The various critiques and insights you offer above are horrid and wildly inaccurate fabrications.

 

What's wrong?

[Anderson]

37 minutes in.

 

When Namkhai Norbu says "energy" I think it's better to talk of volition or intent. Because when he says "energy" people think "electricity" and other such expressions suggestive of something objective "out there" that abides by fixed eternal rules, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to talk to Westerners about something mental and call it "energy" because that word immediately invokes physicalistic ideation and expectations.

 

52 minutes.

 

At 53 minutes I don't agree with his definition of mind as something dependent on a horse. For me the mind is a primordial capacity to know, to experience and to will, and so doesn't depend on anything. The capacity is always available and it's always engaged in some specific way.

 

What Namkai calls "energy" at 53-54 minutes is what I'd call "habituation." The difference here is that energy is like some dumb thing that's just "there" (Namkhai's words: a blind horse), whereas habituation is a fixated state of mind, but it's intentional because once the habit becomes unwanted, it can be undone, and habits are not entirely dumb and blind, they interact with the circumstances in ways that can be intelligent and creative. For people in the know this might not seem like a huge distinction, but when you address an audience that's guaranteed to be 90% physicalistic (even at the most optimistic level), you have to be careful not to invoke mechanistic and objectivity-like physicalism when you explain mental subtleties. Habituation is not entirely mechanical the way we typically think of energy. When people talk of "energy" something very mechanistic and dumb tends to become suggested to our minds, exactly like Namkhai's blind horse. But habituations are not exactly like that.

 

At 55 minutes Namkhai says that "energy" depends on the physical body and therefore sometimes certain positions or movements become necessary to control the energy. I disagree with this a lot more than I agree. To take Namkhai's earlier examples of using white light as a tantric essence of water for slaking visualization (you can choose blue or any other color, as long as you keep it consistent if you want to use colors in this way) and perhaps red as a tantric essence of fire for heat visualization (tummo), these do not really require any kind of specific postures. You don't have to be in lotus or full or half lotus or in any specific position to do these types of tantric transformations. In fact, if you can do a certain transformation better while seated and worse while standing, it means you have a problem. Instead of further habituating yourself by doing the visualization seated just because you succeed better in that way, it may make sense to undo this bad conditioning and purposefully do the visualization while standing, walking and lying down in order to overcome the limitation of sitting down. On the other hand, if you can do something quicker while sitting down, you can get your first taste quicker that way. So if just a taste is all you want, then using the most convenient posture is OK, but if you want a long-term usefulness, you'll probably not want to handicap yourself by habituating visualizations to only work in specific postures. That kind of voluntary self-limitation is not helpful in the long run. There may come a time when you can't sit down and you're cold. You better know how to do tummo standing up in that condition, or you're screwed. So you wouldn't want to get yourself cornered by a limited habituation.

 

So this whole idea of body postures affecting visualization is not something to be proud of and it's not something to cultivate. It's more of a temporary flaw.

 

I'm not sure if Namkhai said this about Dzogchen or not, but he does say tantrism requires a higher capacity than sutrayana and other rule-based simple-minded teachings. Similarly, Dzogchen would require an even higher capacity than tantrism. So just think about this for a second. If you cannot change the taste of clean water into honey, which is a simple tantric manipulation, then you don't have the ready capacity for Dzogchen, because Dzogchen requires an even higher mental ready capacity than that.

 

I'm making a distinction between ultimate capacity and ready capacity. Ultimate capacity is what you can do in general, and eventually, or in principle. Ready capacity is what you can do by tomorrow morning or in 5 minutes of time.

 

Reading through your posts i came to the conclusion that you are unbelievably ignorant when it comes to dzogchen.

 

And now you have totally discredited yourself by commenting, reinterpreting and reinventing what one of the most well known dzogchen master's of this century and an authority on dzogchen had to say on the subject.

[gatito]

 

Reading through your posts i came to the conclusion that you are unbelievably ignorant when it comes to dzogchen.

 

And now you have totally discredited yourself by commenting, reinterpreting and reinventing what one of the most well known dzogchen master's of this century and an authority on dzogchen had to say on the subject.

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha

[Anderson]

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha

 

 

Siddharta Gautama Buddha did not teach dzogchen therefore in the context of dzogchen praxis this is not valid.

In the context of dzogchen the sole point of reference is one's teacher.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha

http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

[gatito]

Siddharta Gautama Buddha did not teach dzogchen therefore in the context of dzogchen praxis this is not valid.

In the context of dzogchen the sole point of reference is one's teacher.

 

That's an excellent point - thanks!!

 

That means that all that the followers of Dzogchen have is a set of blind, unverified and unverifiable beliefs, as with every other religion.

 

http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

 

Oh well, if Siddhartha didn't actally say this: -

 

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha

 

it must be nonsense

[Brian]

<snip>

That means that all that the followers of Dzogchen have is a set of blind, unverified and unverifiable beliefs, as with every other religion.

,snip>

^^^ Including your own?

 

 

[gatito]

^^^ Including your own?

 

 

 

I've no belief system (religion).

 

I'm agnostic

[Brian]

Uh-huh...