Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
gregkavarnos wrote: The tantra itself does not seem to draw a distinction between mind and the natural state. It shows a seamless continuity, not two seperate entities. To "argue" that there is the mind and there is the natural state, cannot really be justified on the basis of the text.
gregkavarnos wrote: To say that the text merely outlines deluded mind also does not seem to be warranted. The text seems to be outlining the process whereby appearances are generated out of the natural state. By this token it would be like saying that fuel, spark and fire are seperate.
That is like saying an apple tree is not an apple tree because it arose from an apple seed and not an apple tree.asunthatneversets wrote:Likewise dualistic mind and avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.
gregkavarnos wrote:Yes, ChNN also explains what is meant by the terms "nature of mind".Holybla wrote:Are you saying your Dzogchen teacher showed you an intellectual nature of mind? Hehe.To point out the contradictions inherent in your argument.I don't know why you are asking this...What he means is: one should not use Dzogchen to disprove his points, one should not use Dzogchen to point out the flaws in his understanding. That's what Holybla means.asunthatneversets wrote:Holybla wrote:Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points.
Aren't you also using dzogchen to prove a point?
gregkavarnos wrote:Hmmmmm...asunthatneversets wrote: But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).The All-Creating Sovereign, Mind of Perfect Purity, Chapter 6"Oh great bodhisattva, listen! Things are made in a perfect manner. This is so because I am the nature of perfection. I shall show you My own being. Because My own being is non-conceptual and uncreated, I have made [things] as to exist in the realm of Reality (chos dbyings). They do not rest on anything else but the mind of perfect purity. As My own being is immaculate and all-pervasive [the things] do not rest upon anything else but on the self-originated awareness itself in the mansion of awareness, i.e the lurid sky. As I am the central vigor of all things which come into existence, i.e. the five great [elements], the threefold world, the six categories [of sentient beings]: they are nothing else but My form, utterance and spirit. I have established [the things] as My own being. I am revealing to you the Buddhas of the three times and the sentient beings of the threefold world as My own being. Because My actuating essence is unborn, and non-conceptual, it does not exist (mi gnas), but transcends all areas of perception. It even transcends the objects of meditation and does not become apparent in mental absorption. Although My own being is imperceptible, I reveal My actuation to you as the threefold world, [consisting of] the five great [elements], and the six categories [of sentient beings]. From the five [elements] which are the apparent [form of My] own being, i.e. the perfect and pure mind, come the five self-originated and vigorous awarenesses. The five awarenesses bring forth the five sensual objects; after the five desires have come forth the five passions come forth. The five passions bring their individual results which individually appear as the six categories of the sentient beings. I am teaching you the appearance [of the universe] to be like that.
gregkavarnos wrote:That is like saying an apple tree is not an apple tree because it arose from an apple seed and not an apple tree.asunthatneversets wrote:Likewise dualistic mind and avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.
Holybla wrote:You guys like to stroke each other that's all that's happening here.
CrawfordHollow wrote:Here is a nice excerpt from Dudjom Lingpa's Nang- jang regarding the conduct of a dzogchen yogi:...
Do we allow restricted quoting from unrestricted texts?kirtu wrote:However we cannot permit unrestricted quoting from restricted texts.
The text does not say it is equivalent, it says that the source of all reality is primordial wisdom. Like cheese comes from milk, but is not milk.asunthatneversets wrote:If we maintain that dualistic mind is equivalent to primordial wisdom then what is the point of the dharma?
kirtu wrote:CrawfordHollow wrote:Here is a nice excerpt from Dudjom Lingpa's Nang- jang regarding the conduct of a dzogchen yogi:...
Please avoid quoting from restricted texts. I will let this excerpt stand as it can be found in non-restricted teachings as well. However we cannot permit unrestricted quoting from restricted texts.
CrawfordHollow wrote:Buddhahood Without Meditation, also known as the Nang-jang is not a restricted text.
...but the quote was a general teaching about karma and did not reveal any secret teachings.
I try to observe samaya as best I can, but still I am starting to see how discussing these things on forums does no good for my practice.
kirtu wrote:CrawfordHollow wrote:Buddhahood Without Meditation, also known as the Nang-jang is not a restricted text.
Yes it is and it says so in the preface or introduction. And the lama from whom I took teaching on it, Khenchen Tsewang (Palyul) said so as well. That it can be purchased from Amazon or bookstores is immaterial....but the quote was a general teaching about karma and did not reveal any secret teachings.
It's all blah blah blah if you don't know how to relate it to wisdom. Who ever heard of bringing Buddha into a discussion of cause and effect? Buddha never once spoke of causes like billiard balls bouncing together. Actually, Hume did write quite a lot about causality and demonstrated there's no such thing. So the Buddha's main teaching wasn't cause and effect. It was the mechanics of a human action, which is internal to one's mind like urges, feelings, ideas, etc. These are all demonstrated to be nonexistence. To understand dharma it is easier to leave aside scientific questions of causality and look directly at the mind's illusion-manufacturing plant. It is itself beyond cause and effect in the sense that nothing is making these illusions appear. They just do so according to karmic attitudes. It's a nonexistent amorphous attitude that makes them, not a bit of undigested sausage or external factors. Before one has the target in sight, emptiness, discussing all the finer points of archery is a lot of blah blah blah, and it might seem like you are talking about a science or something, but actually all these talks are for nothing, and they are not about anything at all.
gregkavarnos wrote:The text does not say it is equivalent, it says that the source of all reality is primordial wisdom. Like cheese comes from milk, but is not milk.asunthatneversets wrote:If we maintain that dualistic mind is equivalent to primordial wisdom then what is the point of the dharma?