Dzogchen: Visible evidence of progress!

[Apech]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

[ralis]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

 

I have posted several times in that regard.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

 

It would be cool if we could add some more quotes into this thread about experiences of Dzogchen practitioners who encountered physical symptoms as described by Lingpa due to their successful practice!

So far, I didn't find more material via google search...

You won't find any, and if you did they sure as hell wouldn't post about it here.

[ralis]

@Zoom

 

The Sikh teacher that I conferred with termed it an awakening/kundalini experience. However one describes it, it is not always pleasant. Although, the sky gazing was much more deconstructing.

[ralis]

You won't find any, and if you did they sure as hell wouldn't post about it here.

 

I am putting all my cards on the table so that others can learn about what I have been through. So what is the deal with all the secrecy? What are you afraid of? A vajra hell realm?

 

Sounds like you are a member of a secret cult as opposed to helping others understand!

Edited August 16, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

@Zoom

 

The Sikh teacher that I conferred with termed it an awakening/kundalini experience. However one describes it, it is not always pleasant. Although, the sky gazing was much more deconstructing.

Ralis, what you are talking about is energy issues which led to adverse physical symptoms.

 

What Dudjom Lingpa is talking about is worlds beyond something like that.

 

Not even in the same ballpark.

[ralis]

Ralis, what you are talking about is energy issues which led to adverse physical symptoms.

 

What Dudjom Lingpa is talking about is worlds beyond something like that.

 

Not even in the same ballpark.

 

I don't appreciate the patronizing and much condescending nonsense from your posts. You think I am an uneducated idiot who is unable to read? You are implying there is a secret/blind meaning in the OP's quote from Dudjom Lingpa and you are the sole interpreter. I don't buy that for one second.

[asunthatneversets]

I don't appreciate the patronizing and much condescending nonsense from your posts. You think I am an uneducated idiot who is unable to read? You are implying there is a secret/blind meaning in the OP's quote from Dudjom Lingpa and you are the sole interpreter. I don't buy that for one second.

I mean, you're clearly uneducated about this topic, but I never referred to you as an idiot.

Edited August 16, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Apech]

Ralis, what you are talking about is energy issues which led to adverse physical symptoms.

 

What Dudjom Lingpa is talking about is worlds beyond something like that.

 

Not even in the same ballpark.

 

 

I'm not sure you can say that. I have just read through the original post again and recognise many of the symptoms identified but not in such an extreme form. Movement of energies such as this when you don't understand properly what is happening can be truly disturbing.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

I will find a quote from Norbu in the first Yantra Yoga book in which he talks about the dangers of spiritual practice. Actually, Norbu is a perfect example of someone who has faced major health problems all his life. When he was diagnosed with Leukemia in the early 90's a lot of his students were absolutely horrified that a high practitioner such as Norbu would come down with cancer. I know there are other health issues. Posted is one link.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=2700

[goldisheavy]

 

I doubt that very much!

 

It's incredibly important that the understanding of a teacher is sufficient to integrate the reality of science into the reality of traditional teachings.

 

Failure so to do allows the whole enterprise to fall into magical thinking (e.g. walking on water, walking through walls, teleportation, misunderstandings about rainbow body and the siddhis, etc., etc.).

 

Science has a way of cutting through this unnecessary dross like a hot knife through yak butter.

 

Oh boy... magical thinking is what Buddhism is all about to begin with.

[ralis]

I mean, you're clearly uneducated about this topic, but I never referred to you as an idiot.

 

There definitely is a meaning behind what Dudjom Lingpa is talking about. What he is describing has to do with the exhaustion of karmic traces, which is not the same as the energy problems you came away with from your practices.

 

The term uneducated implies that I am naive and have not studied this subject matter. I most certainly have and I see no evidence of karmic traces or even the belief in karma being of substantive fact.

[goldisheavy]

I never said you are dirty, but you very well could be for all I know.

 

As for the rest, the Dzogchen adepts of the past and the tantras refute your position, Madhyamaka refutes your position, perfection of wisdom sūtras refute your position.. And that is that.

 

If you want to claim your view is in line with those systems you can, doesn't mean it is. If you want to throw a fit about being labeled you can, doesn't mean I won't label you or continue to point out your inconsistencies. If you want to refer to what I say as ignorance you can, doesn't mean the logic I used to refute your solipsistic eternalism was not proper Madhyamaka, because it was.

 

You are correct when you compare your view to Kashmir Shiavism or really numerous other eternalist doctrines, because that is what it is.

 

Your confidence in your view is ill conceived, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

You've never refuted anything I said. Ever. All you ever do is drop labels and names. Your presence on this forum adds no value at all because you actually do not engage in discussion. Name and label dropping is not engagement.

 

You were initially dropping Vedanta on me as a label, and the only reason I suggested Kashmir Shaivism is to show you how sloppy you are. Of course my view is not Kashmir Shaivism either. I haven't studied Kashmir Shaivism except in passing. But you happily switched to dropping Kashmir Shaivism label on me now. Basically you don't give a fuck. You just want to drop some label, any label that will discount what I say and in your mind separate it from Buddhism.

 

From now on any post whose contents do not go beyond name and label dropping I will report to moderation team. Every single post. So no more easy one-liner name droppings for you, friend.

 

If you want to engage, engage. Otherwise be silent. If you want to argue that Lonchenpa refutes my view, then quote Longchenpa in a way that shows a direct disagreement. I've read some of Longchenpa's texts myself. I've studied tons of Dzogchen and Buddhist texts. I've never been able to discover a tension between my view and theirs. I just use different and in my opinion superior wording to convey my view compared to Buddhists. But the meaning and intent is exactly the same. You'd think if I thought my view was quite distinct from Buddhist, and Dzogchen views, I'd find points of unhappiness, because I really do so easily become unhappy with other people's views.

 

All you ever do is put people down without any effort and without any elucidation or clarification. It's always just "no, no, no" and no other content.

 

It's also patently ridiculous how you never speak for yourself, but always speak for Longchenpa, Dzogchen, Buddhism and so on. Why don't you speak about what your own view is? If you claim your view is a mirror copy of the above, then you are deluded. Everyone has their own understanding. That's why it's crucial to talk in your own words to show what your view is really like, not just to us, but to yourself as well. That way you can actually contemplate.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Did you see the awesome vids where some nuclear physicists explain it (nuclear physics) to HH? Aside from them talking to him like he has a low IQ and is young of age, it was pretty awesome.

 

I saw those. Personally I find those videos to be quite pretentious and not awesome at all. I see how science benefited from interaction with Buddhism because it were Buddhists who encouraged the discovery of brain plasticity. But science only brings garbage thinking into Buddhism. Most scientists are Ucchedavadins. And they carry their Ucchedavada with them everywhere they go, even now.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Several here? Oh you mean the three amigos: you, zoom and goldisheavy?

 

You can see me have s#it tons of reasonable discussion really any and everywhere else I post. But talking to you three is like beating my head against a wall, forgive me if I don't go out of my way to be enthusiastic about it.

 

Can I have some links to shit tons of reasonable discussion please?

[ralis]

@goldisheavy,

 

I understand your position in regards to mind being infinite capacity? Is that correct? How does the concept of energy/movement fit with the capacity of mind?

 

The ideological quest for neutrality/stillness that is sought after is a misunderstanding?

Edited August 16, 2014 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

@goldisheavy,

 

I understand your position in regards to mind being infinite capacity? Is that correct? How does the concept of energy/movement fit with the capacity of mind?

 

The ideological quest for neutrality/stillness that is sought after is a misunderstanding?

 

For a long answer start here, and for a short skip to "short answer here."

 

It's interesting how you called it infinite capacity. I usually call mind a primordial capacity to know, to experience and to will.

 

All three avenues of the mind's capacity are actually one whole, but I provisionally split them into those three aspects for easy understanding. I could as well say that mind is a primordial capacity of cognition, period, but that would be too obscure. Then you have to know what cognition is really like, which most people do not. The three avenues of knowing, experiencing and willing are hopelessly interdependent.

 

Along all three avenues there is a sense of selectivity. So for example, you know X, but you could have known Y or Z or B. You're experiencing X, but you could have been experiencing Y or Z or W. And you're willing X, but could have been willing something else as well.

 

Knowing is mutable but also stable. Knowing in my view has nothing to do with "correct knowing." Any kind of assumptions and information you lean on for support is what I call "knowing" regardless of whether such information is considered good or bad, skillful or not. Experience is highly mutable if you look at it moment by moment, but is also very stable if you look at it from the longer view of bigger patterns which are recognizably repeating in a stable manner.

 

And volition is the most tricky one to understand. Volition is one whole. Volition is basically goal orientation. Goals can be concrete or abstract or even mysterious (impossible to convey in words). Goals do not have to be stable. Goals can change over time, but they can also be stable for a time. Volition has depth and thickness to it, but not substance. Most volition is spent in maintaining prior commitments. "Commitment" is a kind way of describing what less kind people might call "habit" or "attachment." Compare: "I am committed to the Buddhist path." "I am attached to the Buddhist path." "I crave the Buddhist path." It's the same dynamic, but in the first case it is described approvingly, and in the latter two disparagingly, but the essence beyond value judgement is the same. Is one committed to playing a violin or addicted to it? Because we tend to socially approve of violin playing, we'd choose "committed" as the word.

 

Now what I tend to do is reverse some of the value judgements. So for example, I like to speak of a commitment to humanity instead of attachment to humanity. I do this with people who are attached to humanity in order to avoid insulting them, if that's what I want at the time.

 

So the aspect of volition that's dedicated to maintaining a habit is not available for free movement. Example: you decide to play hockey. That's your commitment. Once you start playing hockey, you are limited to skating around and swinging your hockey stick. So you still have freedom of will, but your freedom of will becomes narrowed down by your commitment to play a clean game of hockey (as if there is such a thing). So the restriction of having to always use a hockey stick to play is a voluntary one, but if you played hockey for 3 long aeons, and you forgot that you could be playing other games, you might start thinking that hockey sticks are imposed by rules of the universe itself. This is what we can call "othering" of intent. It means you take what used to be your own intent, and you disown it. Once disowned, you no longer have a ready way to control that disowned aspect of intent.

 

There is some inherent instability in volition. This is what the Buddhists call impermanence. It's possible to stabilize some commitments/attachments/habits, but eventually even the most stable and the most entrenched commitments will become itchy and intolerable, and you'll begin desiring to change them. So for example, you might think who in their right mind would want to stop being human, but such beings exist. Or take that neutrality/stillness as a goal. It can be very blissful and enjoyable, but will it remain blissful and enjoyable forever, eternally? Or will it eventually become dull and boring? I maintain that eventually everything does become boring, and hence, change continues as it always has.

 

That doesn't mean I believe people who chase after neutrality are wasting time though. That's because neutrality can be fun for an arbitrary length of time for some beings. So if it's enjoyable for 3 billion years for some, then why not? After they've had their fill, they'll know what to do next, and so there is no point in worrying about it ahead of time.

 

So if someone thinks stillness/neutrality/quiescence is a good idea, it's fine to pursue it. And if someone thinks psychic powers are a good idea, then it's fine to pursue that as well. Ultimately will cannot be restrained anyway. Other beings in society have only that power over our minds which we give them voluntarily. If society or others become sufficiently annoying, they can be summarily ejected from the mind's present experience and consideration. This is hard or impossible to do for those who are attached to humanity, but those folks are attached for a good reason to begin with, and for them it's worth it to tolerate the pain of disapproval to stay close to humanity.

 

Short answer here:

 

So, there is no objective way of answering it. For some beings quiescence/neutrality is something they need to actualize. For others it's a distraction.

Edited August 16, 2014 by goldisheavy

[gatito]

Oh boy... magical thinking is what Buddhism is all about to begin with.

 

LOL!

 

Yes - but with the rider that magical thinking belongs to the province of religious Buddhism, which seems to be much the same as born-again Christianity.

[gatito]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

 

Now, that's the funniest post in this entire highly entertaining thread!

 

I'm laughing so much that I can barely type.

[gatito]

Can I have some links to shit tons of reasonable discussion please?

 

Can I have some as well please - if you've got any spare ones lying around and it's not too much trouble?

[goldisheavy]

LOL!

 

Yes - but with the rider that magical thinking belongs to the province of religious Buddhism, which seems to be much the same as born-again Christianity.

 

OK, so I got a partial admission that easily? So now you put me in "religious Buddhism" box?

 

What can you tell me about non-religious Buddhism? How is non-religious Buddhism different from Buddhism and why is it still called "Buddhism" at that point?

[Simple_Jack]

 

It's funny how trying to have a sensible discussion with anyone who believes that they don't exist never turns out well..

 

 

 

The Buddha was accused of propounding this position:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html

 

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

 

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

 

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering

[ralis]

 

 

It's funny how trying to have a sensible discussion with anyone who believes that they don't exist never turns out well..

 

 

 

The Buddha was accused of propounding this position:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel048.html

 

37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist[38] is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'[39]

 

"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

 

"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering

 

The same admonition to discuss the subject at hand applies to you. Cut and pasting lengthy quotes are not means of discussion.