Garab Dorje pointing out instructions

[Tibetan_Ice]

http://lightofberotsana.squarespace.com/storage/Paltrul%20R_3%20Statements_4-13.pdf

 

From

 

http://www.berotsana.org/download/

Edited August 16, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[idiot_stimpy]

Thanks TI

[goldisheavy]

I liked this part:

 

 

In order to show that the person who practices this view, meditation, and conduct is a fortunate one, the root says, “To practice in this way . . .” To expand, if one is able to practice single-pointedly in mountain hermitages or secluded places and give up worldly affairs of this life, there will be liberation within this lifetime in the ground of original purity. So, “One will surely awaken in a single lifetime.” Even if not, having directed the mind towards this view, meditation, and conduct, one will know how to take the difficulties of this life as the path. Without feeling hope and fear concerning the activities of this life, one will traverse from one state of well-being to another in the future. So, “Even if not, there will be no regret—the mind at ease. Ah la la.”

 

If objectivity is so important, why would one seclude oneself and give up all affairs of worldly life? Seclusion brings one closer to subjective intimacy of personal experience.

 

 

However, resting one’s mind without fabrication is itself wisdom’s clear light nature.

 

What do people think "without fabrication" means in this context? (I'm not asking for myself, you don't have to reply to me)

 

 

At the time of being a beginner, even when sustaining the continuity of the innate nature of mind, it is impossible to transcend clinging to the experiences of stillness such as bliss, clarity and no thought. So, “Fully abiding within that relaxed state . . .” In order to directly reveal naked awareness—the totally open, unimpeded state devoid of the cocoon of clinging to experiences—“. . . suddenly shout PHET to shatter the mind . . .” Since it is of great importance to cut through the flow of thoughts and to destroy mind-made meditation, the sound of PHET should be forceful, abrupt, and sharp. So, “. . . forceful, abrupt and sharp—eh ma ho!”

 

If one is to be devoid of the cocoon of clinging to experiences, what do you think will happen to the attitude one has toward objectivity? Is objectivity a personal experience? If you are in doubt, look at the passage about spending a long time in seclusion up above.

 

 

This is the meaning of the first of the three statements that strike the crucial point. If the view is not recognized, there will be nothing to sustain through meditation, so it is essential to first recognize the view. That is to say, one encounters indwelling wisdom that is not discovered elsewhere. This does not arise within the mind stream as that which was nonexistent prior to this. So, “To encounter what already is is the first crucial point.”

 

"Indwelling wisdom that is not discovered elsewhere." Is this talking about objective reality? Or the reality that's even more personal than one's personal experience, the apex of subjectivity?

 

If you think words like "indwelling" and "elsewhere" are confusing, then refer back to the passage up above where seclusion and complete renunciation of worldliness were advised.

 

 

Next follows a detailed explanation of how to practice meditation. When—during all times and circumstances—one is resting within this nature like a flowing river, free from refuting or encouraging [and] abiding or movement, that abiding is the natural face of dharmakaya; and thought-occurrence sustains the natural strength of this wisdom. So, “Whether thoughts are arising or abiding . . .” No matter what takes place as the strength of the mind’s conceptualization—passions of anger and desire belonging to the truth of the origin or feelings of joy and sorrow belonging to the truth of suffering—if one recognizes the nature of these thoughts as the dharmata, they become the movement of dharmakaya. So, “. . . whether upset, attached, happy or sad . . .”

 

Is this practice subjective? Whose desire? Whose joy? Whose sorrow? Why would something that results in objectively demonstrable psychic powers have such a strangely subjective practice for it? Food for thought.

[asunthatneversets]

You couldn't possibly botch these instructions any more brutally than you just did. So ridiculous.

[goldisheavy]

You couldn't possibly botch these instructions any more brutally than you just did. So ridiculous.

 

I pay attention to what a person doesn't say as much as I pay attention to what a person does say.

 

Your post here is a one-liner voicing disapproval of my commentary as if it were a brute fact.

 

You had many other options. One option you should have considered was to post the same five quotations from the practice instructions as I have, and below provide your own (presumably superior) commentary. That way people could compare and contrast the two sets of commentaries, and perhaps learn something useful in the process.

 

The fact that you chose to limit your expression to what amounts to a disapproving grunt speaks a lot about your motivation here.

Edited August 18, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

If objectivity is so important, why would one seclude oneself and give up all affairs of worldly life? Seclusion brings one closer to subjective intimacy of personal experience.

 

Retreat and secluded practice has nothing to do with whether subjectivity or objectivity are important or unimportant. One does retreat to focus on practice and stay away from distraction, however staying away from distraction has nothing to do with subjectivity being more important than objectivity, this whole subjective-objective thing is your own fabrication.

 

What do people think "without fabrication" means in this context? (I'm not asking for myself, you don't have to reply to me)

 

You really should be asking for yourself, and should not be asking rhetorical questions as if you are some authority on this subject, you are not.

 

If one is to be devoid of the cocoon of clinging to experiences, what do you think will happen to the attitude one has toward objectivity? Is objectivity a personal experience? If you are in doubt, look at the passage about spending a long time in seclusion up above.

 

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with renouncing "objectivity" and embracing "subjectivity", these are your own ideas. This really should go without saying since experiences can be both objective and subjective depending on the manner in which they are being related to. If so-called "objective" experiences can be a hinderance then "subjective" ones can be just as binding. There is no place anywhere in these teachings where subjectivity is promoted over objectivity. Also, the fact that you are again asking these questions in a rhetorical manner is ridiculous.

 

 

"Indwelling wisdom that is not discovered elsewhere." Is this talking about objective reality? Or the reality that's even more personal than one's personal experience, the apex of subjectivity?

 

It is not talking about an apex of subjectivity, it is talking about the nature of mind and primordial wisdom free from extremes. Clinging to the extreme of subjectivity is nothing these teachings promote, and is again your own fabrication you are projecting onto anything which remotely resembles a statement that can be misconstrued as matching our predilections.

 

Indwelling wisdom that is not to be discovered elsewhere simply means that one is looking to discover the nature of mind, your own mind is not found elsewhere, ergo its nature will not be found elsewhere. Nothing to do with subjectivity apart from one's mind being allowed a nominal and conventional position as "subjective", however since the mind ultimately does not exist, subjectivity ultimately does not exist. Subjectivity and objectivity are byproducts of afflictive patterns in grasping, they are not real and are certainly not an ultimate status to be promoted as anything to glom onto.

 

If you think words like "indwelling" and "elsewhere" are confusing, then refer back to the passage up above where seclusion and complete renunciation of worldliness were advised.

 

You are unfit to be giving advice.

 

Is this practice subjective? Whose desire? Whose joy? Whose sorrow? Why would something that results in objectively demonstrable psychic powers have such a strangely subjective practice for it? Food for thought.

 

Not food for thought at all, what are you even talking about?!

[asunthatneversets]

One option you should have considered was to post the same five quotations from the practice instructions as I have, and below provide your own (presumably superior) commentary. That way people could compare and contrast the two sets of commentaries, and perhaps learn something useful in the process.

 

The above text IS A COMMENTARY provided by a qualified teacher. Why on earth would I give my own unrequested commentary???!!! The audacity you have is unbelievable. I would never in my life give a commentary on this commentary and I cannot believe you offered a commentary when no one asked for it (nor would anyone ask for one from you). Who are you?! Some dude in a forum.

[ralis]

The above text IS A COMMENTARY provided by a qualified teacher. Why on earth would I give my own unrequested commentary???!!! The audacity you have is unbelievable. I would never in my life give a commentary on this commentary and I cannot believe you offered a commentary when no one asked for it (nor would anyone ask for one from you). Who are you?! Some dude in a forum.

 

It seems that one is expected to be a passive receptacle and accept a commentary/text without question. What is the problem with analytical discourse? What are you afraid of? GIH's analysis was well thought out and made sense.

 

Honestly, this is the problem with rigid fear driven religion and those that never ask questions.

[asunthatneversets]

 

It seems that one is expected to be a passive receptacle and accept a commentary/text without question. What is the problem with analytical discourse? What are you afraid of? GIH's analysis was well thought out and made sense.

Didn't make any sense given that Garab Dorje promoted a freedom from extremes as his main interpretation of the view (as most Dzogchenpas do). Then you have goldisheavy glomming onto some sort of eternalist solipsism trying to bring the commentary into his own limitations... and doing so with a narrative that suggests an air of authority by asking rhetorical questions to some imagined audience... get real.

 

Honestly, this is the problem with rigid fear driven religion and those that never ask questions.

Dear god you can't be serious. Fear based religion? How about an empirical and therefore naturally experience driven epistemology.

 

Of course you turn this into some sort of projected irrational religion vs. ralis' self-proclaimed rational approach, it helps to substantiate your vapid confirmation biases so well in your head.

 

We aren't talking about a religion, far from it. We are talking about an actuality which is solely living and breathing epistemic insight. Religious fundamentalism has zero to do with it and you should stop using that as a crutch in your feeble attempts to substantiate your baseless points.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Let's get this straight. Every time an object appears, there is a subject which goes along with it. The subject consists of you, the perceiver. That perceiver is at first the son light of awareness. The subject is identifying with one of the five sense consciousnesses. Or, the subject is identifying with the perception of thoughts, emotions and conceptual data. When you perceive a thought, that means that there is a subject perceiving that thought. Dzogchen is not about dwelling in the subject, but realizing that which perceives both the subject and the object.

 

One method of doing this is to fuse the subject and object together in stillness.

Another method is to have absolutely no objects. No self, no identity, no nothing.. If there is a 'you' there perceiving something, whether it be a golden egg, a vast space or even nothing, then that is not it.

 

This is the whole point of Dzogchen. First you learn that objects dissolve on their own. Then you realize that when the object dissolves, the subject that was aware of the object also dissolves. You stand your ground and permit the spontaneous and not so spontaneous creation and dissolution of objects until you get to the point where there are no more objects being created. It is the alaya from which the objects spring forth. Every thought, memory, idea, karmic store chest is housed in the alaya. When you succeed in calming or purifying the alaya, you have half a chance of breaking through to mother clear light.

 

Dzogchen is the art of permitting spontaneous appearances to appear without grasping at them.

 

 

But more importantly, even Buddha taught about having no "marks". A mark is an attachment, as in a grasping relationship between subject and object:

 

If vajra breaks up everything, then I wont have anything, and of what use will that be? you may ask. The reason you dont realize Buddhahood is just because you have everything. If you didnt have anything, you could realize Buddhahood. Everything refers to your attachments all those things you cannot put down.

 

What is the source of everything?

 

Things come from recognizing the existence of marks. Whatever has marks has form and appearance and will change and become extinct. That which has no mark is without form and appearance and will neither change nor become extinct. No one can destroy that which has no mark. No mark is no thought, and no thought is the basic substance of the myriad phenomena. If you can reach the realization of no thought, you have returned to the source.

 

Durable vajra breaks through thought, but not through no thought. The vajra of no thought is durable enough to smash all existing marks all conditioned marks subject to outflows. No thought can destroy the spiritual penetrations of heavenly demons and those of external ways, because their spiritual penetrations have marks. If they had reached the state of no thought themselves, then they would not be heavenly demons and those of external ways. But because they have thought, they exist in form, create karma with outflows, and plant causes with outflows. The durability of vajra can break through all such outflowing karma and causes.

 

Vajra is luminous. Its light can break up all darkness. Vajra is able to cut. A sharp knife can sever something with a single slice, while a dull knife saws and saws and still cannot cut through. Vajra functions like a keen blade as it slashes through deviations to reveal the orthodox. Vajra severs all the deviant knowledge and views of heavenly demons and those of external ways, chops through peoples afflictions, and slices through ignorance.

 

From The Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra: A General Explanation by Hsuan Hua, Kumarajiva Edited August 18, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[Harmonious Emptiness]

You couldn't possibly botch these instructions any more brutally than you just did. So ridiculous.

 

ASTNS, as a staff member I'm asking that you not make single posts as the one here. We all have a responsibility for the environment of the boards here and derogatory statements, without explanation to respond to, create friction. You have been exhibiting a tendency of posting something such as quoted without explanation, and then explaining yourself after the other poster responds, usually having been offended and not being able to respond to much more than having found your post offensive.

 

If you have more to say, please say it in your first post to ensure a smoother ride for everybody.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

p.s.

 

I'm not making this an official staff message as recent issues are still in discussion, but ask in good faith that you also want to keep thetaobums a fun place for everybody.

 

和

[idiot_stimpy]

Bloody hell, this is a discussion forum.

 

 

Thanks goldisheavy for sharing.

[asunthatneversets]

 

ASTNS, as a staff member I'm asking that you not make single posts as the one here. We all have a responsibility for the environment of the boards here and derogatory statements, without explanation to respond to, create friction. You have been exhibiting a tendency of posting something such as quoted without explanation, and then explaining yourself after the other poster responds, usually having been offended and not being able to respond to much more than having found your post offensive.

 

If you have more to say, please say it in your first post to ensure a smoother ride for everybody.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

p.s.

 

I'm not making this an official staff message as recent issues are still in discussion, but ask in good faith that you also want to keep thetaobums a fun place for everybody.

 

和

Well do not deliberate too much my friend, I think it is getting to be high time I step away from here. This forum had a nice positive vibe for awhile which has unfortunately deteriorated immensely in the past few months due to a few individuals who post here.

 

Even in the beginning when there were debates between CT and I, or Anderson and I for example, we were really only disagreeing on minor points and it was easy to tell that everyone really cared about the dharma and had the integrity of the teaching in mind. I really respect their views and the discussions were productive and constructive.

 

That has changed, for the worse.

 

You have a nice forum here with many sections devoted to many different paths, one of them being Buddhism, yet lately the usual suspects who post in the Buddhist forum aren't interested in Buddhism at all. Rather they are dead set on deprecating the system, projecting their own issues onto the tradition, parading secular or self-concocted notions as accurate portrayals of the system and so on.

 

I don't know what is going on around here but I really hope you moderators get it under control for the sake of those who are interested in learning, refining, nurturing and deepening their relationships with the Buddhadharma. Because right now you have some very negative people who post here and they are successfully turning this forum into a māra rather than a positive place for engendering growth.

[ralis]

Well do not deliberate too much my friend, I think it is getting to be high time I step away from here. This forum had a nice positive vibe for awhile which has unfortunately deteriorated immensely in the past few months due to a few individuals who post here.

 

Even in the beginning when there were debates between CT and I, or Anderson and I for example, we were really only disagreeing on minor points and it was easy to tell that everyone really cared about the dharma and had the integrity of the teaching in mind. I really respect their views and the discussions were productive and constructive.

 

That has changed, for the worse.

 

You have a nice forum here with many sections devoted to many different paths, one of them being Buddhism, yet lately the usual suspects who post in the Buddhist forum aren't interested in Buddhism at all. Rather they are dead set on deprecating the system, projecting their own issues onto the tradition, parading secular or self-concocted notions as accurate portrayals of the system and so on.

 

I don't know what is going on around here but I really hope you moderators get it under control for the sake of those who are interested in learning, refining, nurturing and deepening their relationships with the Buddhadharma. Because right now you have some very negative people who post here and they are successfully turning this forum into a māra rather than a positive place for engendering growth.

 

It seems to me that anyone challenging your opinions is not welcome here? I never believed for one moment that Buddhism was a closed private system. BTW, Dzogchen is the point of discussion in several threads. Not Buddhism.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

We'll be working on it, but hopefully you will help the process by taking this first step.

 

Thanks for sharing your views.

 

 

 

H.E.

[asunthatneversets]

 

It seems to me that anyone challenging your opinions is not welcome here? I never believed for one moment that Buddhism was a closed private system. BTW, Dzogchen is the point of discussion in several threads. Not Buddhism.

Dzogchen is prajñāpāramitā, Mahāmudrā, the heart of the Buddhadharma, the nature of every Buddha and sentient being.

[ralis]

Dzogchen is prajñāpāramitā, Mahāmudrā, the heart of the Buddhadharma, the nature of every Buddha and sentient being.

 

I am talking in regards to going beyond labels which has more to do with real awakening. Those labels don't exist as neon signs anywhere. You didn't answer my question in regards to outsiders not being welcome.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

Dzogchen is the art of permitting spontaneous appearances to appear without grasping at them.

 

I agree, mostly. Key word "permitting." That implies willingness. Another quality that should be mentioned is intimacy. The process is intensely intimate. Dzogchenpas use the word "secret" to convey how intimate and private it is. So intimacy and willingness are personal qualities, and this is why I talk about subjectivity being the key.

 

The way I use the word "subjectivity" I imply it as a choice among choices, as a point of view, and as something intimate or even secret. I don't imply it as something that is the converse of objectivity.

[asunthatneversets]

 

I am talking in regards to going beyond labels which has more to do with real awakening. Those labels don't exist as neon signs anywhere. You didn't answer my question in regards to outsiders not being welcome.

So you're talking about the experiential taste of an orange? Well there's no need to dispense with the words which describe the taste, they do not take away from the taste itself and the taste does not diminish the effectiveness of the words in attempting to communicate the direct experience.

 

Going beyond labels is simply tasting, however we are communicating online in a forum, so there is no going beyond labels and any labels used here cannot hinder or diminish the taste if you know how to acquire it.