Dharma Wheel

The quote you provided is ambiguous to me.
As I understand it, there is no difference between realization and the master. They are one and the same. A teacher reveals his presence in the mind, without being different then the mind.

Sönam wrote:NO, and that my point ... when one realize his real nature, thru the presence of the teacher, one can not mistake it. Knowledge is within the realization, with no possible mistake (to take it for chocolate pudding for exemple) That's why a master (or a realized practitioner) is a must. Without a master, doubt will always remain.
If one is not sure to have realized his true nature, with a teacher ... he has not.

But what guarantees the content of the realisation? There are numerous mental states one can believe to be supreme enlightenment. There are many versions of chocolate pudding, it can also be completely artificial flavouring, and a child or a foreigner could be cheated about what a chocolate pudding is.

You say a master is required. In what way is that an assurance? Also, how can one be sure of the master? Like, if you say that this or that person is the orthodox representative of Dzogchen and he decides who is correct and who is wrong, that's one way to go about it, like the Roman Catholics do.

If you are interested in Dzogchen Astus, you could try putting your question on a forum where you are likely to get a range of informed opinion in addition to the informed opinion of Sonam.
I am sure such forums exist...

Astus wrote:

Sönam wrote:NO, and that my point ... when one realize his real nature, thru the presence of the teacher, one can not mistake it. Knowledge is within the realization, with no possible mistake (to take it for chocolate pudding for exemple) That's why a master (or a realized practitioner) is a must. Without a master, doubt will always remain.
If one is not sure to have realized his true nature, with a teacher ... he has not.

But what guarantees the content of the realisation? There are numerous mental states one can believe to be supreme enlightenment. There are many versions of chocolate pudding, it can also be completely artificial flavouring, and a child or a foreigner could be cheated about what a chocolate pudding is.

You say a master is required. In what way is that an assurance? Also, how can one be sure of the master? Like, if you say that this or that person is the orthodox representative of Dzogchen and he decides who is correct and who is wrong, that's one way to go about it, like the Roman Catholics do.

One cannot speak of "mental state" in the present case ... therefore it is in any form not a question of chocolate or pudding. No words will give you any chance to understand what is talked about, so I won't argue more. Only confidence can help in this case ... and peoples having recognized there true nature recognize each others, that's the only point.
It is also not a question of being sure of the master, because the one who recognize is You, not the master.
If it is said that this realization is ineffable, it's because it is ... what ever would be the way we try.
Trust me, once, we the energy of the master, you've realized your nature ... doubt is elliminated.

Sönam
(and I agree with Simon)

oushi wrote:The quote you provided is ambiguous to me.
As I understand it, there is no difference between realization and the master. They are one and the same. A teacher reveals his presence in the mind, without being different then the mind.

A teacher does not reveals anything ... you realize your true nature, that's all. But as I answered to Astus, it's really ineffable (also we try again and again).

Sönam

Sönam wrote:Only confidence can help in this case ... and peoples having recognized there true nature recognize each others, that's the only point.
It is also not a question of being sure of the master, because the one who recognize is You, not the master.
If it is said that this realization is ineffable, it's because it is ... what ever would be the way we try.
Trust me, once, we the energy of the master, you've realized your nature ... doubt is elliminated.

That means there is no way to decide who is or who is not an authentic Dzogchen teacher. Either you recognise someone as such or not, but it's completely arbitrary. Consequently there is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being a realised Dzogchen master.

So you have settled the question to your own satisfaction then Astus.

Astus wrote:

Sönam wrote:Only confidence can help in this case ... and peoples having recognized there true nature recognize each others, that's the only point.
It is also not a question of being sure of the master, because the one who recognize is You, not the master.
If it is said that this realization is ineffable, it's because it is ... what ever would be the way we try.
Trust me, once, we the energy of the master, you've realized your nature ... doubt is elliminated.

That means there is no way to decide who is or who is not an authentic Dzogchen teacher. Either you recognise someone as such or not, but it's completely arbitrary. Consequently there is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being a realised Dzogchen master.

There is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being realized at all, including the Buddha's claims about his own realization. One either believes it or one does not.

Astus wrote:That means there is no way to decide who is or who is not an authentic Dzogchen teacher. Either you recognise someone as such or not, but it's completely arbitrary. Consequently there is no basis for debating anyone's claim to being a realised Dzogchen master.

Sure. But there does exist a basis to determine if someone has been entrusted with an institutional role or authority of some kind to teach. This differs from the doctrinal discussion so far in this thread. It's possible, for instance, to document if or when Rinpoche X enthroned (or whatever the appropriate verb might be) Student Y to teach Practice Z.

Astus wrote:Is there a definitive source of Dzogchen teachings? I mean, if I want to check whether a teaching given is authentic, is there a written canon that can confirm or deny the validity of a doctrine or method? Like, can the tantras be used for this, or the writings of certain masters? Or is it only the living lineage holders who can serve as accepted sources?

The definitive source of Dzogchen teachings is a Buddha by the name of Garab Dorje. He taught the tantras of the three series, sems sde, klong sde and man ngag sde. Secondarily, there are the various instructions that attached to these three series, such as the Vima snyin thig and so on. Finally, there are the surviving commentaries on these various texts. Then there are commentaries written by early Tibetan masters such as Vairocana and Nub Sangye Yeshe, etc. Finally there are the commentaries of Longchenpa.

This taken together can be understood as the definitive sources for Dzogchen teachings.

Of course, without a living Guru, one cannot receive transmission into Dzogchen teaching, and without that transmission, all these books are just so much dry tinder.

Maybe it's not a good moment to ask this, but anyway can someone give a commentary on this:
Listen! You state of pure and total presence,
And all sentient beings of the three realms,
Are clearly shown to be the teacher.
Because you have not seen your mind as the teacher,
Even after 100,000 aeons,
When I, the majestic creativity of the universe,
Manifest as the teacher, you own mind,
You should listen to this message: Your own mind is the teacher.

Astus,
I really liked the book "The Golden Letters" Goes into great detail on the three statements of Garab Dorje..found it to be very helpful to my understanding and practice

oushi wrote:Maybe it's not a good moment to ask this, but anyway can someone give a commentary on this:
Listen! You state of pure and total presence,
And all sentient beings of the three realms,
Are clearly shown to be the teacher.
Because you have not seen your mind as the teacher,
Even after 100,000 aeons,
When I, the majestic creativity of the universe,
Manifest as the teacher, you own mind,
You should listen to this message: Your own mind is the teacher.

You can get Valby's books and see how this is commented on there.

This book might be a good place to start for people who don't read Tibetan:
http://www.amazon.com/Treasury-Precious ... 611800455/

oushi wrote:Maybe it's not a good moment to ask this, but anyway can someone give a commentary on this:
Listen! You state of pure and total presence,
And all sentient beings of the three realms,
Are clearly shown to be the teacher.
Because you have not seen your mind as the teacher,
Even after 100,000 aeons,
When I, the majestic creativity of the universe,
Manifest as the teacher, you own mind,
You should listen to this message: Your own mind is the teacher.

I am incapable of commenting on this on a Dharma level, or even an academic level. But I'd like to give a stab at it on a literary or poetic level.

In the 7 point mind training we beseech the buddhas to not pass into nirvana. Why do we need to do that? Because from their perspective the phenomenal universe is teaching the Truth everywhere and all the time, so everything is perfect just as it is. It is only our ignorance of that Truth that is the problem, our suffering is the way the universe gets our attention to the fact that there's a problem. The Ultimate Truth is first seen as the Teacher, then as the Universe, then as Your Own Mind.

Anyway that's kind of how it could read if it were in a Herman Hesse novel.

Astus wrote: In your opinion then only a Dzogchen teacher can confirm if one has the correct experience? But how do you confirm that the teacher is indeed giving you introduction to the nature of mind? Should one simply trust the appearance of authenticity of the teacher?

Dzogchen masters do not confirm anything about the realization of other people.
Dzogchen masters only transmit the innermost, secret knowledge of the different ways through which we can recognize our real nature.
Moreover, they do not substitute the notion of God, and they cannot transmit to us the Enlightenment itself.
After the transmission, everybody has to follow the advice, apply the instructions, and sooner or later he/she will find out by him/herself whether it works or not.
Of course, common sense and basic intelligence are necessary for that.
Atiyoga is intended for internally mature people, who can take full responsibility of themselves. There is not any outer guarantee about anything in this dualistic level of existence.
For most of us, it is a difficult path which needs full awareness and fearless honesty with ourselves.

About the authenticity of a teacher, there is not a specific guideline, however the Dzogchen Tantras and the various authentic texts by famous teachers can give us an idea.
A good example is the book "The Golden Letters", as Fa Dao already mentioned.
Also, I'll dare to mention the book: "Dangerous Friend. The Teacher-Student Relationship in Vajrayana Buddhism" by Rig'dzin Dorje. Although I know that some people might rend their clothes and pull their hair out only by hearing about it.

PS. And yes, there is always the risk for somebody to be trapped in a massive delusion about the Teacher and the Enlightenment, since there is really no definite basis for debating anyone's claim about his/her Dzogchen realization. But the same goes for every religion, doctrine, philosophy etc. Isn't it?

Here is a question: If one thinks they have realized the nature of mind, should they present this to the teacher? It seems that ultimately it is unpresentable being that it is not an object of the mind, there is nothing to actually present. That the mere act of wanting to present it indicates that the student believes there is something to present in the first place. Nevertheless, in order to remove the last traces of doubt, shouldn't an attempt be made to get some kind of confirmation in order that one is not leading oneself astray?

Of course the confidence itself makes it seem impossible to be led astray. It seems that the reasoning behind this logic is an endless loop. What is the traditional approach to this?