Dzogchen: Visible evidence of progress!

[goldisheavy]

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~

 

Gatito has been suspended for a few days due to this language.

 

But I should note that this thread has many reports which seems mostly that posters are getting on each other's nerves.

 

This is one of a few threads which have raised the same issue over and over.

 

The staff is discussing what we can do about the Buddhist sub-forum as there is too much time, resources, and energy spent on this sub-forum alone.

 

Maybe someone will post a thread and discuss how to improve the buddhist sub-forum... if not, then the staff will simply decide.

 

~~~~ ADMIN OUT ~~~

 

Dear Admin,

 

Please consider changing your policy. Currently someone gets suspended for a petty decorum violation like saying "Twat" once. At the same time, a poster wastes everyone's time with entirely content-free one-liners which merely drop names and labels, but because he don't say the word "twat", it's OK for him to stay?

 

This is absolute nonsense.

 

Basically a genuine detraction is allowed, but a superficial impropriety is severely punished.

 

I hope this situation is rectified, or I am going to stop posting here very soon. This insane preference toward decorum over quality content is intolerable to me. Let people curse, just so long as they post something sensible in addition to an occasional curse. And get rid of trolls who do nothing but posture behind other people's views using oneliner content-free name droppings.

Edited August 17, 2014 by goldisheavy

[dawei]

Dear Admin,

 

Please consider changing your policy. Currently someone gets suspended for a petty decorum violation like saying "Twat" once. At the same time, a poster wastes everyone's time with entirely content-free one-liners which dropping names and labels, but because they don't have the word "twat", it's OK for him to stay?

 

I already said we are evaluating the ENTIRE Buddhist sub-forum... yes, due to posters wasting everyone's time... I mentioned the staff time wasted. Was that message lost?

 

One liners are not against the rules. Wasting time can be trolling.. but we're going to look at a members time and posting.

 

Labels? This is a manifest world of labels... What do you expect?

 

Nobody is saying whether he stays or not stays... This language is the culmination of a thread which thinks it can trash talk anyone.

 

This will likely be the least outcome. But deciding on a more permanent outcome takes more time.

 

Ergo, I asked this sub-forum posters to consider to start a thread on the issue of how to keep this forum.

[Flolfolil]

...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Flolfolil

[BaguaKicksAss]

Dear Admin,

 

Please consider changing your policy. Currently someone gets suspended for a petty decorum violation like saying "Twat" once. At the same time, a poster wastes everyone's time with entirely content-free one-liners which merely drop names and labels, but because he don't say the word "twat", it's OK for him to stay?

 

This is absolute nonsense.

 

Basically a genuine detraction is allowed, but a superficial impropriety is severely punished.

 

I hope this situation is rectified, or I am going to stop posting here very soon. This insane preference toward decorum over quality content is intolerable to me. Let people curse, just so long as they post something sensible in addition to an occasional curse. And get rid of trolls who do nothing but posture behind other people's views using oneliner content-free name droppings.

 

If everyone ignores the posts and posters which one feels are trolly, then the convos could run much more smoothly.

[Simple_Jack]

Haha... this is so silly. I had no idea Namdrol was now preaching Vedantic fatalism as Buddha Dharma.

 

Lord Buddha has definitely denied what Namdrol is saying here, which is that the past solely determines the present. Source:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html

 

BTW, correct understanding is present+past determine present+future. In other words, there is a role for free will to play.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.033.than.html

 

Just as when seeds are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & heat, capable of sprouting, well-buried, planted in well-prepared soil, and the rain-god would offer good streams of rain. Those seeds would thus come to growth, increase, & abundance. In the same way, any action performed with greed ... performed with aversion ... performed with delusion — born of delusion, caused by delusion, originating from delusion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.

...

 

...No conditioned series has an origin. Such is the logic of the Buddha.

 

Consciousness is an aggregate, and conventionally speaking, is momentary. There is no such a thing as a permanent consciousness. Ergo, there is a stream of moments of mind appropriated by the delusion of self-identity, but there is no consciousness, no entity at all that transmigrates per se. The continuum of rebirth is maintained solely by a delusion that appropriates the five aggregates, matter, sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness as a self.

 

The Buddha established that the five aggregates were not a self, that none of the five aggregates individually are a self, and importantly, that there is no self apart from the five aggregates.

 

Thus, all phenomena, including nirvana, are not self.

 

There is no entity "dependent arising", there are only phenomena that arise in dependence. Space, the two cessations and emptiness do not arise at all, so they are by definition phenomena that do not arise in dependence. Of course, this does not mean that they are not relative, for both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative. Since both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative, their relationship is strictly a matter of definition.

 

As for dependently origination phenomena being unconditioned, the Prajñāpāramita states "Whatever arises in dependence, that in truth does not arise". The argument can be made that even so called dependently originated phenomena are unconditioned in reality, since their production cannot be ascertained at all when subjected to ultimate analysis. Again in this respect there is no contradiction between a conventionally conditioned entity having a conventionally unconditioned nature since in reality both are merely conventions. While the former bears the latter as its nature, in reality neither the former nor the latter can stand up to ultimate analysis. In other words there are no phenomena at all that can stand up to ultimate analysis.

 

Āryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikāsārottamā:

 

• All phenomena do not arise,

  that is the non-existence of the inherent existence of all phenomena,

  therefore, that absence of arising is like the horns of a rabbit.

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited August 17, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~

 

Gatito has been suspended for a few days due to this language.

 

But I should note that this thread has many reports which seems mostly that posters are getting on each other's nerves.

 

This is one of a few threads which have raised the same issue over and over.

 

The staff is discussing what we can do about the Buddhist sub-forum as there is too much time, resources, and energy spent on this sub-forum alone.

 

Maybe someone will post a thread and discuss how to improve the buddhist sub-forum... if not, then the staff will simply decide.

 

~~~~ ADMIN OUT ~~~

Perhaps you could ban Malcolm for using the term "Hindu la la land". It is not ethical to use other traditions as a means of insult.

 

But wait, you can't ban Malcolm because he isn't a member, nor has he ever been one (I think).

 

Oh well, perhaps you could ban SJ for posting insults from third party absentees? Personally I'm sick of Malcolm's arrogance and lack of respect. Why do we have to be subject to the gospel according to Malcolm continually and abusively?

[goldisheavy]

Thing is, like it or hate it, but Namrolla has put a lot of energy into his path, and he's been vocal and present for what feels like an eternity since before Internet began or something. I happen to agree with 95% or even 98% of everything Namdrolla says, but he does tend to get boneheaded for what seems like no good reason and he's been sectarian in the past. But I hear these days he's less sectarian than he used to be.

 

In any case, I doubt we can shield ourselves from his influence... That's what happens when the person has a strong commitment to something and he's publicly involved at the same time. Short of a pretty serious magic trick I doubt Namdrolla is going away, lol.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, Ramana, whose quote appears in CN Norbu's "the Marvelous Primordial State" was a Hindu. He insulted Ramana, and Nisagardatta too, not to mention Dhyan Yogi, Gurudeva and all his wonderful monks and me in my previous life..

 

Do you know how Malcolm learned about his previous life? He hired a tibetan fortune teller to tell him about it. Sounds quite realized, doesn't it?

Edited August 17, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[LaoZiDao]

Is there visible evidence and objective proof for success and progress in Dzogchen practice?

Oh yeah, there is!

If you are able to enter Rigpa and to stabilize it, then at one point, Clear Light will begin to flood your body and "strike" your karmic winds.

These karmic winds are:

1. The 'life-supporting wind' (Tib. sok dzin lung; Wyl. srog 'dzin rlung). Located in the brain, this lung regulates functions such as swallowing, inhalation, and concentration.
   
2. The 'upward-moving wind' (Tib.gyengyu lung; Wyl. gyen rgyu rlung). Located in the chest and thorax, this lung regulates, among other things, speech, the body's energy and vitality, memory, mental endeavour and diligence.
   
3. The 'all-pervading wind' (Tib. khyap ché lung; Wyl. khyab byed rlung). Residing in the heart, this lung controls all the motor activities of the body.
   
4. The 'fire-accompanying wind' (Tib. me nyam né lung; Wyl. me mnyam gnas rlung). Found in the stomach and abdomen area, the fire-accompanying wind regulates digestion and metabolism.
   
5. The 'downward-clearing wind' (Tib. thursel lung; Wyl. thur sel rlung). Located in the rectum, bowels and perineal region, this lung's function is to expel faeces, urine, semen, and menstrual blood. It also regulates uterine contractions during labour (to allow the foetus to be 'expelled'
   

This process leads to severe symptoms of wind disorders, as described here by Dudjom Lingpa:

 

 

 

I know a woman who basically practices all day long for decades what she describes as "awareness meditation" while gazing motionless into the space of her book store and which she developed by herself as some kind of buddhist practice.

At some point, she encountered severe symptoms of many sorts which she interpreted as "kundalini awakening" including feeling like she would burn up and getting burn marks and blisters all over her body!

 

Well, from a Dzogchen point of view, obviously something much more significant than a "kundalini awakening" happened to her due to her self-made practice.

Obviously she is a practitioner of "highest capacity".

And concerning rainbow body...the last time I saw her she had lost almost half of her weight while being completely healthy and without having changed anything in her way of life...

 

So obviously there is successful Dzogchen practice without having a guru,

there are objective signs of progress visible to everyone who knows to interpret them...

...and I'd really like to know how many of our guru-students who got their "direct introduction" developed visible signs which can not be explained conventionally like getting burn marks and blisters all over their body which prove that Clear Light is flooding their body and transforming their karmic winds (and their body) into Clear Light!

 

 

Sounds incredibly damaging and wrong practice, this is what the Daoist Masters warn against.

[goldisheavy]

Well, Ramana, whose quote appears in CN Norbu's "the Marvelous Primordial State" was a Hindu. He insulted Ramana, and Nisagardatta too, not to mention Dhyan Yogi, Gurudeva and all his wonderful monks and me in my previous life..

 

This is a shame, I think. I hope he's not too committed to such a sectarian position.

 

Do you know how Malcolm learned about his previous life? He hired a tibetan fortune teller to tell him about it. Sounds quite realized, doesn't it?

 

Maybe so. At least he got over his fear of fortune tellers, right? Something tells me this must have been a big breaking point for him because I imagine he comes from a pretty conservative mindset that would seriously frown on such activity (like going to a fortune teller).

 

Anyway, if we go by flaws, then certainly I have plenty of flaws, so I should be nobody and nothing. I don't think so. I'm going to guess Namdrol practices deity yoga, and with that there is a fake it till you make it stage. You have to display confidence and conviction of a deity and in the beginning that mostly reflects in how you speak and behave, while eventually it changes inner qualities of one's experience as well, because as you lose respect for convention, you also regain inner freedom to the same proportion. This is because all fetters are self-inflicted, so the inner policeman which spanks us if we don't follow convention is our own doing. However, getting rid of this inner policeman is a very messy business, as you can imagine.

 

Anyway, I don't idolize Namdrol. However, I do think Namdrol has shared so much thought-provoking stuff with the public that on the balance, he probably helped a lot more than hurt. Or speaking for myself, although I have no desire to talk to Namdrol now, I am grateful that I've talked to him in the past. He's certainly influenced my thinking by strengthening my conviction (regardless of what he intended to do, that was the effect it had on me). So I am grateful.

[C T]

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~

 

Gatito has been suspended for a few days due to this language.

Gee, thats harsh.

[Simple_Jack]

We have the early sutras and suttas. Some Sanskrit texts are claimed to be as old as Pali, and we also have the Pali Canon of course. This is as authentic as a Buddha can be in the world of convention.

 

The primacy of the Pali canon, as well as its representative status as "authentic Buddhism", is overblown when considering the Chinese agamas consists of translations from the older Ghandaran texts; Buddha's message is consistent between canons despite the geographical/chronological divide between them. See this thread for more info:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=4767

 

Please consider changing your policy. Currently someone gets suspended for a petty decorum violation like saying "Twat" once. At the same time, a poster wastes everyone's time with entirely content-free one-liners which merely drop names and labels, but because he don't say the word "twat", it's OK for him to stay?...And get rid of trolls who do nothing but posture behind other people's views using oneliner content-free name droppings.

 

IMO, labeling a person's philosophical position, is useful in indicating where someone's view starts to diverge from the buddhadharma.

 

Personally I'm sick of Malcolm's arrogance and lack of respect. Why do we have to be subject to the gospel according to Malcolm continually and abusively?

 

Because, no one responding in the Buddhist sub-forum are familiar enough with Buddhist tenet systems to share an informed presentation, opinion or critique, of its tenets. Plus, he's a reliable source for buddhadharma, having received his title of Loppon (Skt. Acharya) from his years spent with the Sakyapa's. He can also proficiently read/translate Sanskrit and Tibetan texts. Everyone benefits by reading his posts.

 

This is a shame, I think. I hope he's not too committed to such a sectarian position.

 

He merely felt it wasn't appropriate to include a quote of Ramana's in the translation of the Mejung Tantra. Although, I can see how this can be construed as an insult or an attack on Ramana's teachings from certain parties. It doesn't come close to any remarks regarding Buddhism stated by you, ralis, gatito, GrandmasterP, TI, etc., on TTB's. If you care to, you can read this thread started by TI, with a link to Loppon-la's aforementioned comments:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/31912-ramana-quote-does-not-belong-in-cn-norbus-latest-book/

Edited August 17, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[asunthatneversets]

The Ramana Maharshi quote has no place as the epigraph of that book, and the author said he put it in there without approving it with anyone and wishes he had not. He said it most likely will not be in the newer editions when the book is reprinted.

[goldisheavy]

IMO, labeling a person's philosophical position, is useful in indicating where someone's view starts to diverge from the buddhadharma.

 

I'm not talking about labeling, but mere labeling or arbitrary labeling. For example, let's say I call you a Nazi right now. Is that cool? This is like when someone says that profit should not be the highest value and gets called a communist. It's the same tactic, don't you see?

 

Instead of labeling there is a better approach. Engage and refute the spirit of what I am saying. So instead of saying Longchenpa refuted something, you engage and repeat Longchenpa's argument to me in your own words, with a reference link down below. That way we can see that you can speak for yourself in your own words, and that you provide a relevant citation as well, so everything is square.

 

Making a one-liner post with a label in it is not informative. You can and do put any label that pleases you in there. It's arbitrary, ad-hoc labeling. I demonstrated this fact when I suggested that asunthatneversets can switch his label from Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism and he instantly obliged. This means he doesn't care what the label is. He switched without resistance. That's because the only function of his label is to express a derogatory sentiment with zero effort. That was a perfect example of how labeling often has nothing to do with clarity or accuracy, but is just a psychological tactic.

 

Because, no one responding in the Buddhist sub-forum are familiar enough with Buddhist tenet systems to share an informed presentation, opinion or critique, of its tenets.

 

This is just great. So because you think no one knows any better you can just say whatever you like and get away with it?

Edited August 17, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

I'm not talking about labeling, but mere labeling or arbitrary labeling. For example, let's say I call you a Nazi right now. Is that cool? This is like when someone says that profit should not be the highest value and gets called a communist. It's the same tactic, don't you see?

Wow. Firstly; goldisheavy wins Godwin's law medal for the day. Secondly; it is simply asinine to compare my pointing out of your eternalist biases to calling someone a nazi or communist.

 

Instead of labeling there is a better approach. Engage and refute the spirit of what I am saying.

The buddhadharma already refutes what you say, the entire reason the Buddha turned the wheel of the dharma was to reform and critique the eternalist views of his time. Yet you present your eternalism as in line with Buddhism.

 

So instead of saying Longchenpa refuted something, you engage and repeat Longchenpa's argument to me in your own words, with a reference link down below.

It's really a waste of time given your confirmation biases and solipsistic and eternalist leanings.

 

That way we can see that you can speak for yourself in your own words, and that you provide a relevant citation as well, so everything is square.

It's quite easy to establish that I can speak for myself in my own words. My current mode of conduct with the curtailed answers and omitted citations is intentional. Due to the venomous attitudes found here this forum is unfortunately unable to facilitate productive discussion, not the forum's fault but has to do with the proclivity for certain types of people to convene here.

 

Making a one-liner post with a label in it is not informative.

'One-liner' is an inaccurate portrayal of my posts, but that is irrelevant and either way my posts aren't meant to be informative. All they are meant to do is voice disapproval.

 

You can and do put any label that pleases you in there. It's arbitrary, ad-hoc labeling.

Well, they're accurate labels... it isn't like I called you a muskrat or an astronomer. You advocate for solipsism and eternalism and your views are basically your own fabrications presented as representative of certain systems which adamately reject the principles you uphold. It's sad really, and unfortunate that you choose to lead people astray like that. But hey, what can you do? For every person with a genuine view there are numerous individuals with illegitimate views, so you're just playing your part in the spectrum of possibilities.

 

This is just great. So because you think no one knows any better you can just say whatever you like and get away with it?

Which is how I interpret most things you write.

[goldisheavy]

Well, they're accurate labels...

 

Only in your own mind.

[Simple_Jack]

GIH, obviously, I don't have a problem with labeling peoples philosophical inclinations. Buddhadharma, has an even simpler way of partitioning the variety of views into "one-liners": eternalist, nihilist, and realist (Buddhist definition). If you have a problem with that take it up with the Buddha. As far as I can see, everyone who engages in discussion within the Buddhist sub-forum already has a sense of free rein in stating whatever they want without care; what distinguishes my posts the majority of the time, is that I prefer to present information from reliable sources (e.g. Loppon Namdrol), concerning Buddhist tenet systems and praxis. This cuts down on unnecessary proliferation.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[goldisheavy]

GIH, obviously, I don't have a problem with labeling peoples philosophical inclinations. Buddhadharma, has an even simpler way of partitioning the variety of views into "one-liners": eternalist, nihilist, and realist (Buddhist definition). If you have a problem with that take it up with the Buddha. As far as I can see, everyone who engages in discussion within the Buddhist sub-forum already has a sense of free reign in stating whatever they want without care; what distinguishes my posts the majority of the time, is that I prefer to present information from reliable sources (e.g. Loppon Namdrol), concerning Buddhist tenet systems and praxis. This cuts down on unnecessary proliferation.

 

So all this time you refuse to acknowledge the essence of my complaint. Instead you take a lawyerly approach of a politician, where you respond to a select few words, but not to what those words were intended to mean in context.

 

Shame.

 

If you think my view is one of the refuted views in the Bahmajala Sutta, the honorable, honest, and forthright approach is to cite the Sutta, quote the line number of the view, and explain in your own words why you think my view is identical to the view that you quote.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Only in your own mind.

You've advocated for eternalism and solipsism yourself, ciring those labels by name in reference to your own view. So I'm not sure why you're trying to say these are my notions.

[ralis]

You've advocated for eternalism and solipsism yourself, ciring those labels by name in reference to your own view. So I'm not sure why you're trying to say these are my notions.

 

Once again, in what way has GIH advocated eternalism and solipsism? Please cite quotes. Eternalism has several meanings.

[goldisheavy]

You've advocated for eternalism and solipsism yourself, ciring those labels by name in reference to your own view. So I'm not sure why you're trying to say these are my notions.

 

That's not a fact. That's just your personal opinion.

 

If you think I cited those labels by name in reference to my own view, you need to give us a link of a post where I did so. Substantiate your claims please.

[asunthatneversets]

That's not a fact. That's just your personal opinion.

 

If you think I cited those labels by name in reference to my own view, you need to give us a link of a post where I did so. Substantiate your claims please.

 

I surely will but do not say "us" as if you're speaking for anyone other than yourself, you are not, no matter who agrees with you. You are no authority and do not speak for this forum anymore than I do.

 

As for personal opinions, that is all you offer as well so pulling that card is weak.

[Simple_Jack]

Guys, it's much simpler than that, GIH is a realist (Buddhist definition) because he advocates the primacy of "subjectivity" or "Mind". A realist (Buddhist definition) is: "Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc." -- Loppon Namdrol. Eternalism and nihilism, being two sides of the same coin (i.e. positing an existent entity), are subsumed under realism.

[ralis]

Guys, it's much simpler than that, GIH is a realist (Buddhist definition) because he advocates the primacy of "subjectivity" or "Mind". A realist (Buddhist definition) is: "Someone who thinks there are real substances, atoms, time, minds, etc." -- Loppon Namdrol. Eternalism and nihilism, being two sides of the same coin (i.e. positing an existent entity), are subsumed under realism.

 

You may believe a certain way such as denying 'real substances' and so forth, but that belief does not make it so. The Greek philosophers discussed this and today discussion is still taking place.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

To truly understand the above, in the context of buddhadharma, would require studying Vasubhandu's abhidharmakoshabhasyam (available in PDF format on the net), in order to contextualize the refutations of realism (Buddhist definition) in Madhyamaka. All Buddhist and non-Buddhist tenet systems, below Madhyamaka, are realist (Buddhist definition). See this link here for a summary: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_extremes

Edited August 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack