Malcolm wrote:It is pretty straightforward: you need to have interest, diligence, etc., for direct introduction to be of any real use. If you have interest, diligence, etc., it undoubtedly works. These eight indriyas beginning with sraddha are path dharmas yes? Since this is so, they are necessary for being on a path, even a Dzogchen path. Also this was never disputed.
Oh, these indriyas are path dharmas indeed, and even considering the five powers, all of them have to be present and more or less equally balanced (granted the slight variance depending if one is sraddhnusarin or dharmanusarin). So saying that with devotion direct introduction will always be successful is rather misleading, don't you think? Of all the indriyas, prajna is probably a better candidate if we were to favour any of them.
Malcolm wrote:Direct introduction is what it claims to be: a direct introduction to your own state of liberation. You have always had that state, otherwise, you could not be introduced to it. This is why the state of liberation itself is not produced from causes -- it is innate. If it were not innate, if it were something created from causes and conditions, it would be perishable, and therefore, Buddhahood would be something temporary, part of the six lokas
I do not dispute this. Such an idea is found in the earliest strata teachings on nirvana and (later on) tathagatagarbha (the uncompounded, unconditioned, uncreated, etc), so I don't think its really that groundbreaking.
Malcolm wrote:The path of Dzogchen is exactly what it claims to be: a path upon which there is no progress since the state of liberation is introduced to oneself from the start; the sole stage since all living beings are on it; the result that does not arise from a cause, etc.
The result that does not arise from a cause, except that you do need the eight indriyas? If the result really does not arise from a cause, then even sraddha won't be needed?
Malcolm wrote:If you want to understand Dzogchen concretely, you need to study and practice Dzogchen.
I did (study) and I still do (erm, more or less) .
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.
- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica