Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?

[9th]

3. There is a sense of enormous depth penetration with two phases barely distinguishable during this first stage of insight. The first phase is highly noetic but superconceptual. I had awareness of a kind of thought of such an enormous degree of abstraction and universality that it was barely discernible as being of noetic character. If we were to regard our most abstract concepts as being of the nature of tangible bodies, containing a hidden but substantial meaning, then this transcendent thought would be of the nature of the meaning without the conceptual embodiment. It is the compacted essence of thought, the "sentences" of which would require entire lifetimes for their elaboration in objective form and yet remain unexhausted at the conclusion of such effort. In my relative consciousness I knew that I was thinking such massive thoughts, and I felt the infiltration of value from them. In a curious way I knew that I KNEW in cosmical proportions. However, no brain substance could be so refined as to be capable of attunement to the grand cosmical tread of those Thoughts.

But still beyond the thoughts of cosmic proportions and illimitable abstraction there were further deeps transcending the furthest reaches of noetic and affective value. Yet, in this, the self-identity remained unbroken in a dimly sensed series of deeps reaching on to ever greater profundities of what, in one sense, was an impenetrable Darkness, and yet I knew It was the very essence of Light itself.

4. I knew myself to be beyond space, time, and causality. As the substantial, spatial, and transcendent "I", I knew that I sustained the whole phenomenal universe, and that time, space, and law are simply the Self-imposed forms whereby I am enabled to apprehend in the relative sense. I, thus, am not dependent upon the space-time manifold, but, on the contrary, that manifold is dependent upon the Self with which I am identical.

5. Closely associated with the foregoing realization there is a feeling of complete freedom. I had broken out of the bondage to the space-time manifold and the law-form governing in this manifold. This is largely an affective value, but one which, to me, is of the very highest importance. The quest for me was less a search for bliss than an effort to satisfy a deep yearning for Freedom.

_{The most marked affective quality precipitated within the relative consciousness is that of felicity. Joy is realized as a very definite experience. It is of a quality more intense and satisfying than that afforded by any of the experiences or achievements that I have known within the world-field. It is not easy to describe this state of felicity. It is in no sense orgiastic or violent in its nature; on the contrary it is quite subtle, though highly potent.}

_{In the present sense, the essence of the water and the air lies in their being life-giving and life-sustaining fluids. The chemical and physical properties of these fluids are mere external incidents. In a sense that still remains a mystery to science, these fluids are vitally necessary to life. The joy-giving ‘force’ is Life, but it is life in some general and universal sense of which life-as-living-organism is a temporary modification. Thus, to be consciously identical with this ‘force’ is to be consciously identical with Life as a principle. It gives a feeling of being-alive, beside which the ordinary feeling of life is no more than a mere shadow. And just as the shadow-life is obviously mortal, the higher Life is as clearly deathless. It may be said that time is the child of Life in the transcendent sense, while life-as-living-organism is the creature of time. Right in this distinction lies one resolution of the whole problem of immortality. So long as the problem is stated in terms of life-as-living-organism, immortality remains inconceivable. In fact, in this sense, all life is no more than a ‘birthing-dying’ flux with no real continuity or duration at all. But the higher Life is identical with duration itself. Hence, he who has consciously realized himself as identical with the higher Life has at the same time become consciously identical with duration. Thus, death-as-termination becomes unthinkable, but, equally, birth is no beginning.}

- Franklin Merrell-Wolff

[9th]

Wolff had been through the Vedanta training, through the philosophy of Shankara; he knew the philosophy of Kant and others of the Western world; and he spent twenty-five years working to achieve a state of Nirvana, Enlightenment, Samadhi, and so forth. In 1936 he succeeded in this transformation and with varying success maintained it over the subsequent years. He is an amazingly peaceful man now in his eighties. Meeting him, I felt the influence of his transformation, of his recognitions, of some sort of current flowing through me. I felt a peace which I have not felt in my own searchings; a certain peculiar kind of highly indifferent contentment took place, and yet the state was beyond contentment, beyond the usual human happiness, beyond bliss, beyond pleasure. This is the state that he calls the state of "High Indifference." He experienced this at his third level of recognition, beyond Nirvana, beyond Bliss. His perceptions in this state are recounted in The Philosophy of Consciousness-Without-an-Object.

Krishnamurti's story of the Devil is pertinent here. Laura Huxley furnished me with a copy of it. The Devil was walking down the street with a friend, and they saw a man pick something up, look at it carefully and put it in his pocket. The friend said to the Devil, "What's that?" The Devil said, "He has found a bit of the truth." The friend said, "Isn't that bad for your business?" The Devil said, "No, I am going to arrange to have him organize it."

So it behooves us not to organize either the methods or the states which Wolff describes so well. It is better not to try to devise groups, techniques, churches, places, or other forms of human organization to encourage, foster, or force upon others these states. If these states are going to do anything with humanity, they must "creep by contagion," as it were, from one individual to the next.

God as Consciousness-Without-an-Object, if real, will be apperceived and introcepted by more and more of us as we turn toward the inner realities within each of us. If God as Consciousness-Without-an-Object inhabits each of us, we eventually will see this. We will become universally aware. We will realize consciousness as being everywhere and eternal. We will realize that Consciousness-Without-an-Object in each of us is prejudiced and biased because it has linked up with a human brain.

- John C. Lilly

[3bob]

9th,

Dharma does not devise in the way mentioned above. (along with of the other debatable points) I also like quotes myself but they are not very much me the person sharing them - thus I suggest at least a few sentences of your own to go along with them if or when you share them.

[9th]

Franklin says of Consciousness without-an-Object and without-a-Subject (which, for elegance, he contracts to Consciousness without-an-Object) that it is "Consciousness that is absolutely neutral with respect to the presence or abscence of objects". It transcends the distinction between Samsara (the ‘world field’, where objects are taken as independently existent) and Nirvana (Consciousness-without-an object, but with a subject), which accounts for the dialectical structure of his Aphorisms on Consciousness without-an-Object. For each of the major notions (Space, Time, Law, etc.) that he introduces, Consciousness without-an-object is neither that nor its opposite.

He subsequently found that Consciousness without-an-object corresponds to the state of consciousness that the Tibetans call rigpa. Of course, the state is not exclusive to the Tibetan tradition, but is simply Primordial Awareness, that is Natural Awareness (free of conceptual overlay)—our Buddha nature (our Enlightened essential nature, which is ordinarily obscured).

- Ron Leonard

I am just sharing the detailed views of someone who considered Brahman and Rigpa (as in Dzogchen) to be similar, as in regards to the topic of this thread.

[forestofclarity]

I don't know about Dzogchen, but from little I know about Brahman is that Brahman is said to be beyond name and form (nirguna, or beyond the gunas). So when you make comparisons and contrasts, you are already talking about name and form, and not about Nirguna Brahman.

 

To put it another way, to make mind questions about the ultimate is not unlike forming body questions about the mind, asking about the color and shape of the mind.

[stefos]

I don't know about Dzogchen, but from little I know about Brahman is that Brahman is said to be beyond name and form (nirguna, or beyond the gunas). So when you make comparisons and contrasts, you are already talking about name and form, and not about Nirguna Brahman.

 

To put it another way, to make mind questions about the ultimate is not unlike forming body questions about the mind, asking about the color and shape of the mind.

Hey player,

 

I've received transmission insofar as Dzogchen is concerned.

 

Words are needed to point to something but they ultimately don't mean the thing.

 

Teachers are EXTREMELY important but are provisional......Teaching as well........Merely provisional.

 

Stefos

[stefos]

 

Franklin says of Consciousness without-an-Object and without-a-Subject (which, for elegance, he contracts to Consciousness without-an-Object) that it is "Consciousness that is absolutely neutral with respect to the presence or abscence of objects". It transcends the distinction between Samsara (the ‘world field’, where objects are taken as independently existent) and Nirvana (Consciousness-without-an object, but with a subject), which accounts for the dialectical structure of his Aphorisms on Consciousness without-an-Object. For each of the major notions (Space, Time, Law, etc.) that he introduces, Consciousness without-an-object is neither that nor its opposite.

He subsequently found that Consciousness without-an-object corresponds to the state of consciousness that the Tibetans call rigpa. Of course, the state is not exclusive to the Tibetan tradition, but is simply Primordial Awareness, that is Natural Awareness (free of conceptual overlay)—our Buddha nature (our Enlightened essential nature, which is ordinarily obscured).

- Ron Leonard

I am just sharing the detailed views of someone who considered Brahman and Rigpa (as in Dzogchen) to be similar, as in regards to the topic of this thread.

Dear 9th,

 

You are officially excellent.

 

I thank you for your kindness and not brow beating me nor people in this discussion to death.

 

Yes, I've received transmission in regards to Dzogpa Chenpo through Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and I've been to a number of retreats with him present.

 

Now....Why are people so mean about Brahman and Rigpa?

Hmmmm? Why?

 

I spoke with a Buddhist in Vermont and this person emphatically said "There is NO God" in a very angry manner.

 

It seems to me that many so-called "Buddhists" are very angry people who had a notion about "God" and never questioned what they believed AND never really read the Tanakh or New Testment.........Period.

 

I own the Nikayas in English both from Wisdom publications & from the PTS.....

I also own the Visuddhimagga & Vimuttimagga (a text on which the Vis. was culled from)

 

I have never flipped out nor "lost my cool" and I believe in God because of my experiences in my life not because of a book!

 

Guru Norbu Rinpoche actually even stated that Jesus was a Dzogchen master!

 

Reality IS stranger than fiction.

 

Comments please sir......

With much love

Stefos

 

P.S. I appreciate the Thangkas you have posted......Particularly Samantabhadra...E MA HO!

Edited September 15, 2014 by stefos

[ralis]

I

Guru Norbu Rinpoche actually even stated that Jesus was a Dzogchen master!

 

I have been on a number of retreats with Norbu beginning in 1989. He may have made that comment given that his wife is Catholic.

[stefos]

I have been on a number of retreats with Norbu beginning in 1989. He may have made that comment given that his wife is Catholic.

 

OR sir, He may have made that comment because he knew what he was talking about.....The most obvious answer.

 

I have been on two retreats with Guru Norbu and He's not senile nor delusional.

I saw no trace of either and I was observing him quite well.

 

God bless you!

Stefos

Edited September 17, 2014 by stefos

[9th]

Among tibetans, both dzogchen and mahamudra are recognized as levels of practice which supersede techniques or teachings per se. The expression of such realities is unique to each individual. I can understand why Norbu would make a comment like that, but I doubt most westerners take it in the right way, since most dont have a conception of how tibetans relate to the dzogchen teachings. Its not a "system" in itself, rather it refers to an approach involving natural phenomena.

[stefos]

Among tibetans, both dzogchen and mahamudra are recognized as levels of practice which supersede techniques or teachings per se. The expression of such realities is unique to each individual. I can understand why Norbu would make a comment like that, but I doubt most westerners take it in the right way, since most dont have a conception of how tibetans relate to the dzogchen teachings. Its not a "system" in itself, rather it refers to an approach involving natural phenomena.

Hi 9th,

 

Yes.....Empowerment vs. Transmission! Not the same

 

"Beyond the sickness of effort........"

 

Yes, this describes Dzogpa Chenpo.

 

It's akin to people saying "Jesus started Christianity..."

I think to myself "No, Jesus didn't come to "start" another religion"

OR The Kingdom of Heaven being external misunderstood in the phrase "When I die I'm going to heaven"

God made heaven according to the Bible....Furthermore God is the goal not "going to heaven"

 

Blessings on you sir.......

Stefos

 

P.S. Is that a nice Thangka of a Rainbow body Samantabhadra I see in the middle of your pictures?

 

Thank you

[doc benway]

P.S. Is that a nice Thangka of a Rainbow body Samantabhadra I see in the middle of your pictures?

 

Thank you

 

It would be very nice if we could link to larger images of those wonderful thangkas!

[ralis]

OR sir, He may have made that comment because he knew what he was talking about.....The most obvious answer.

 

I have been on two retreats with Guru Norbu and He's not senile nor delusional.

I saw no trace of either and I was observing him quite well.

 

God bless you!

Stefos

 

The most obvious answer? That statement is not provable in the least. Furthermore, I said "he may have made that comment" which is conjecture on my part. Not a definitive statement. Norbu has been living in a predominately Catholic country since professor Tuchi invited him to teach at the University of Naples.

 

Why do you make an irrelevant statement such as;

 

He's not senile nor delusional.

I saw no trace of either and I was observing him quite well.

[stefos]

The most obvious answer? That statement is not provable in the least. Furthermore, I said "he may have made that comment" which is conjecture on my part. Not a definitive statement. Norbu has been living in a predominately Catholic country since professor Tuchi invited him to teach at the University of Naples.

 

Why do you make an irrelevant statement such as;

 

If you PM Tibetan Ice.....He'll tell you because HE posted it initially, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't make things up.

Nevertheless, it WAS stated on this forum and quoted.

 

Secondly sir, If we exist in beyond the mere body & brain combo and if spiritual realities are just that "real,"

Why would a "Buddhist" teacher, the Buddha didn't come to make "Buddhism", not acknowledge this?

 

Rudolf Steiner in his works for example talks about Buddha, Christ, Zarathustra, etc.

He said they ALL had an understanding of the divine/transcendental and that none of them were wrong.

 

Finally, What wrong thing did Jesus say or do? When you keep what he said or did in context, it's a moot point.

 

God bless you,

Stefos

[3bob]

"Why would a "Buddhist" teacher, the Buddha didn't come to make "Buddhism", not acknowledge this?" by Stefos

 

Just dropping by if you don't mind - could you clear up the sentence above?

[Tibetan_Ice]

If you PM Tibetan Ice.....He'll tell you because HE posted it initially, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't make things up.

Nevertheless, it WAS stated on this forum and quoted.

 

...

 

God bless you,

Stefos

 

Hi Stefos,

You posted this: "Guru Norbu Rinpoche actually even stated that Jesus was a Dzogchen master!".

 

I have never posted that.

 

I do recall saying that Jesus is a Dzogchen Master, and then later that Jesus is beyond being a Dzogchen Master. (because he is)

 

However, I did never say that C N Norbu said that.

 

Did you ever personally hear Guru Norbu say that?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[stefos]

"Why would a "Buddhist" teacher, the Buddha didn't come to make "Buddhism", not acknowledge this?" by Stefos

 

Just dropping by if you don't mind - could you clear up the sentence above?

Hi,

 

I don't own this thread or website but would contribute financially to it. Me "minding" or not sir, is irrelevant...I really mean that, Who am I anyway?

 

If you're the same person that did nothing but argue with me approx. 6mos ago, I'll give you the below to read,.....I am not into polemics..... If you are a different person, please read it anyway!:

 

Guru Norbu Rinpoche is not a "Buddhist" as such. He is teaching "Beyond the sickness of effort"

The Natural State & Self Liberating thought are beyond "effort" i.e. using mind to crush mind, be it via Tantric or Thera ways, even beyond the Ngondro of Mahamudra!

 

Most schools of "Buddhism" are not Buddhist at all.....For example How many different "Buddhist" sects are there?

They are not all right.....impossible. They each promulgate their own methodology of Soteriology.

 

No, The Buddha spoke about that which is "Unborn, Undying, Unconditioned, etc."

 

The Buddha made a difference between the mind and that which "enables" the mind to even exist...It's the substratum and to me it's not different than Brahman.

 

Hi Stefos,

You posted this: "Guru Norbu Rinpoche actually even stated that Jesus was a Dzogchen master!".

 

I have never posted that.

 

I do recall saying that Jesus is a Dzogchen Master, and then later that Jesus is beyond being a Dzogchen Master. (because he is)

 

However, I did never say that C N Norbu said that.

 

Did you ever personally hear Guru Norbu say that?

 

My apologies then! I believed that you did state that......No need for an ultra serious tone please. It was merely a statement.

 

I did not hear him say that personally. I have been on 2 retreats with him.

 

People generally meet together at his residence either on the Tsegyalgar property or in Buckland, Massachusetts during a retreat, which generally falls in the summer. I'm not sure where his residence is honestly.

 

I'd like to ask you how & what let to you to believe Jesus is beyond being a Dzogchen master. I'd like to know if you're willing to share. If you don't want to because you've posted it already, if you kindly point me to where it is, I'll search for it.

 

Thanks.....Again apologies as I thought you posted that particular statement.

Stefos

Edited September 19, 2014 by stefos

[3bob]

Hi,

 

I don't own this thread or website but would contribute financially to it. Me "minding" or not sir, is irrelevant...I really mean that, Who am I anyway?

 

If you're the same person that did nothing but argue with me approx. 6mos ago, I'll give you the below to read,.....I am not into polemics..... If you are a different person, please read it anyway!:

 

Guru Norbu Rinpoche is not a "Buddhist" as such. He is teaching "Beyond the sickness of effort"

The Natural State & Self Liberating thought are beyond "effort" i.e. using mind to crush mind, be it via Tantric or Thera ways, even beyond the Ngondro of Mahamudra!

 

Most schools of "Buddhism" are not Buddhist at all.....For example How many different "Buddhist" sects are there?

They are not all right.....impossible. They each promulgate their own methodology of Soteriology.

 

No, The Buddha spoke about that which is "Unborn, Undying, Unconditioned, etc."

 

The Buddha made a difference between the mind and that which "enables" the mind to even exist...It's the substratum and to me it's not different than Brahman.

 

 

My apologies then! I believed that you did state that......No need for an ultra serious tone please. It was merely a statement.

 

I did not hear him say that personally. I have been on 2 retreats with him.

 

People generally meet together at his residence either on the Tsegyalgar property or in Buckland, Massachusetts during a retreat, which generally falls in the summer. I'm not sure where his residence is honestly.

 

I'd like to ask you how & what let to you to believe Jesus is beyond being a Dzogchen master. I'd like to know if you're willing to share. If you don't want to because you've posted it already, if you kindly point me to where it is, I'll search for it.

 

Thanks.....Again apologies as I thought you posted that particular statement.

Stefos

 

I'm the only 3bob at the site and have never done the name change game. I dropped back into this string without reading several of the previous posts which was why I offered the "I hope you don't mind" such a dropping by... there has been some strange mix-ups about who is who via your projection that six months ago all I did was argue with you? Anyway, have fun.

[stefos]

3bob,

 

Sir, I NEVER accused you of being that particular individual!

 

If you read what I state in my post, you'll see that I said "Me "minding" or not sir, is irrelevant...I really mean that, Who am I anyway? "

 

I also stated "if you are a different person" meaning "If you aren't the same guy."

 

It was categorically NOT an attack upon your person.

 

I apologize but I believe you are being overtly sensitive to something I didn't even say to you.

 

Stefos

Edited September 19, 2014 by stefos

[3bob]

3bob,

 

Sir, I NEVER accused you of being that particular individual!

 

If you read what I state in my post, you'll see that I said "Me "minding" or not sir, is irrelevant...I really mean that, Who am I anyway? "

 

I also stated "if you are a different person" meaning "If you aren't the same guy."

 

It was categorically NOT an attack upon your person.

 

I apologize but I believe you are being overtly sensitive to something I didn't even say to you.

 

Stefos

 

no big biggy, but why you even came up with idea of "if" I don't know?

[stefos]

no big biggy, but why you even came up with idea of "if" I don't know?

 

Hi,

 

Yes, it is a big deal because it affected you in a particular manner actually....I don't understand why you allowed it to affect you in that way & deeply without at least PM'ing me.

 

The answer to "why I even came up with the idea of "if" is that I don't remember the person who attacked me viciously & categorically UN-Buddhist wise.........It's that simple.

 

Take care,

Stefos

[3bob]

never mind guy, your projections are your own.

[stefos]

never mind guy, your projections are your own.

3bob,

 

Sorry....It had nothing to do with you AT ALL......I'm just trying to help you understand your defense mechanism.

 

I told you before that THAT statement had nothing to do with you. I can't be any clearer than that.

 

I don't remember the persons name who attacked my but thought it might have been you....And it wasn't you.

 

Please let's move on and past this junk of misunderstanding.

 

Thank you & God bless you,

Stefos

Edited September 21, 2014 by stefos

[3bob]

never mind guy, your projections are (still) your own.

[stefos]

never mind guy, your projections are (still) your own.

 

Sorry 3bob for any misunderstanding....I mean that.

 

I've apologized to you over and over. If you don't believe my sincerity, please don't post.

 

You've asked me a question publicly and I posted responses back to you publicly.

 

If you had a problem with me about any ssue, it should have been addressed in private first, not here openly.

 

That easy

Stefos