Vajra Hell

[deepbluehum]

By definition samsara is a delusion. Everyone is already diagnostically qualified insane. Realizing your primordial nature is primordial sanity. The consequences of realizing this can seem crazy from the standpoint of the delusional. There's nothing particular you want to accomplish, nothing particular on your schedule. You can give up being a busy go getting capitalistic hungry ghost. You really study the nectar of laziness.

It sounds provocatively poetic.
And I like the structure:
"There's nothing particular you want to accomplish, nothing particular on your schedule.
You can give up being a busy go getting capitalistic hungry ghost."
But you spoil it with the last word "laziness".
Since language is a tool of relative dualistic perception, you must be a real maestro for transforming it to a thunder...
Although English is not my language, I would say:
"You really study the nectar of non-action."

Here is someone with an eye for aesthetics. That's excellent. But you stepped in my trap. You see? You want the flow to fit into a pleasing pattern. The reality is unpatterned. Think of it. Study laziness. Study laziness. Weird, no? If non-action is just a synonym and doesn't masquerade as a pretty artistic dharma term. How do you feel as a yogi if we couldn't make this word nice? What if our language used characters and the characters for dharma practice were ass, sit. And emptiness was represented as nothing, no. What difference would it make? Observe how subtly the contraptions of samsara steer us away from the holy state of who cares.

[pemachophel]

Namdrol,

Agreed. That's not what I meant. Sorry if I didn't express myself well. I meant that one will not recognize their natural state.

However, I'm not making a universal statement here. In my experience, there at least two factors which affect recognition (and therefore the ability to liberate suffering) in such a situation -- the severity and type of breach of samaya and one's level of realization. One's faith in one's Guru is a third.

[Dronma]

By definition samsara is a delusion. Everyone is already diagnostically qualified insane. Realizing your primordial nature is primordial sanity. The consequences of realizing this can seem crazy from the standpoint of the delusional. There's nothing particular you want to accomplish, nothing particular on your schedule. You can give up being a busy go getting capitalistic hungry ghost. You really study the nectar of laziness.

It sounds provocatively poetic.
And I like the structure:
"There's nothing particular you want to accomplish, nothing particular on your schedule.
You can give up being a busy go getting capitalistic hungry ghost."
But you spoil it with the last word "laziness".
Since language is a tool of relative dualistic perception, you must be a real maestro for transforming it to a thunder...
Although English is not my language, I would say:
"You really study the nectar of non-action."

Here is someone with an eye for aesthetics. That's excellent. But you stepped in my trap. You see? You want the flow to fit into a pleasing pattern. The reality is unpatterned. Think of it. Study laziness. Study laziness. Weird, no? If non-action is just a synonym and doesn't masquerade as a pretty artistic dharma term. How do you feel as a yogi if we couldn't make this word nice? What if our language used characters and the characters for dharma practice were ass, sit. And emptiness was represented as nothing, no. What difference would it make? Observe how subtly the contraptions of samsara steer us away from the holy state of who cares.

First of all, I am yogini.
Then, I already said that English in not my language, and I am not expert at all.
I understand your intention to provoke others, but you have to realize that through this intention is also in your ego-pattern itself which is manifesting here. You are not above everybody else!
About the matter of taste, whatever suits to your aesthetics.... but laziness is good only for creating a little shock, since it remains strictly in the dualistic spectrum of positive-negative that you want to avoid.
Better find something else more neutral....

[deepbluehum]

First of all, I am yogini.

Easy tiger.

Then, I already said that English in not my language, and I am not expert at all.
I understand your intention to provoke others, but you have to realize that through this intention is also in your ego-pattern itself which is manifesting here. You are not above everybody else!

I never said I was above everybody. Everybody is irrelevant. But I say it's the ego pattern manifesting as everybody reinforcing each other's groupthink. I say, getting beyond that is getting beyond the mandala of mara.

About the matter of taste, whatever suits to your aesthetics.... but laziness is good only for creating a little shock, since it remains strictly in the dualistic spectrum of positive-negative that you want to avoid.
Better find something else more neutral....
[/color]

Laziness is the path if you want to be quite frank. That's my $0.02.

[Jax]

I agree with Namdrol regarding the "samaya" one has with one self to " not be distracted" as Norbu says. The karmic retribution is often immediate. Like driving when distractedly drunk and getting in an accident. But a deeper discussion regarding samaya and Vajra Hell is warranted. Who or what cycles in samsara? Who or what suffers? It is taught that samsara is simply our thoughts and thinking, nothing more. But what is the entity that suffers? Is it not the contracted state of the five skandhas? The functioning five skandhas give rise to the illusion of their being an independently existing entity that has "experiences" like samsara and suffering. But since the Nature of Mind or Rigpa is always beyond being any thing, including the five skandhas, and since your only actual identity is the Nature of Mind, as the changeless Dharmakaya, who is affected by breaking samaya or samsara? To discover the emptiness of samsara one simply has to notice the inherent emptiness of just one thought. This is accomplished at the level of shamatha and vipassana. We then go further and notice our "sense of self" is likewise just another empty thought, as is discovered in early Mahamudra training. At this discovery the five skandhas collapse, and the Nature of Mind stands alone nakedly. At this point the Nature of Mind recognizes Itself, that is rigpa. As Rigpa has no karma, self liberation from samsara is obvious because it is discovered that the notion of karma was an hallucination within the dreamy "consciousness" of the five skandhas. We must ask: if we aren't the five skandhas, then what is it that experiences their functioning yet is never tainted by their delusions? We discover through the Khor-De rushen as sem and rigpa are clearly differentiated. We discover
experientially that no one has ever cycled in samsara, but that they only thought they had through the play of the five skandhas. This non-liberation is the result of realizing one has never been in bondage. But finally the question remains: who or what is this non-personal Rigpa or Knowingness that has been at the center of all experience, as all experience from the beginning who has never at any time stepped away from Itself or has been other than the already existing presence that is reading these words?

[Dharmaswede]

By definition samsara is a delusion. Everyone is already diagnostically qualified insane. Realizing your primordial nature is primordial sanity. The consequences of realizing this can seem crazy from the standpoint of the delusional.

I know that. I tried to make it clear that I in my definition excluded the enlightened perspective ("there"), and I assume that pretty much no one here has the capacity to "simply" recognize the primordial nature of mind. Claiming very high spiritual abilities which one does not have is delusional. Much more so than "ordinary" samsaric delusion.

Best Regards,

Jens

[heart]

But as Jax says, in general samaya as commonly discussed in Tibetan Buddhism circles is just a social construct, a contract between you and a guru.

But what Jax did not say, and what he left out, was that real samaya is the comittment to discovering your own primordial state, and when discovered, maintaining knowledge (rigpa) of that state.

But in Dzogchen there are no specific rules or vows. It is all about being present, aware and working with circumstances.

N

Really? I don't agree with that. If you disparage your Guru for example it is impossible to be present and aware at the same time.
/magnus

[Jax]

Magnus, again I support Namdrol's position. It may be a perfect expression of "clarity" to disparage one's Guru. Many have known gurus and had gurus that deserve public disparagement. Many lamas have violated accepted ethics, most often in sexual aggression towards female students and other unacceptable matters. I know of at least four separate cases myself. Our gurus are no better than ourselves and should be accorded respect the same as we accord all beings. I have never heard of one case personally of inappropriate criticism of one's guru. Indeed the teachings tell us to interview potential gurus with a critical eye before accepting them. That relationship can and should be terminated if our moral compass indicates such. Again as Norbu has said: there are no rules or samaya that a Dzogchenpa is obliged to follow n the vehicle of Dzogchen. Samaya etc. pertain to tantric and other lower yanas. Dzogchen is beyond all mind constructed concepts.

[muni]

Goal oriented self importance in the boxring. Take off of the safe binding habits.

[muni]

[
How do you mean "move on without regret"?
By killing, stealing, denigrating our teachers, causing suffering through our sexual misconduct, using alcohol, drugs etc? [/color]

Kalimera. When beloved Guru 's mind mingle with ours, I think, there can only be impartial love, all and all is compassion/love. No way to put the master out on a special throne and a thief on another side if not there is no all embracing impartial genuine love.
Then apprehended morality cannot improve the already pure naturally goodness (a goodness which can be a stamp under my deluded as).
Guru Rinpoche: "all appaerances (others...) is not our mind but not other than".

Milarepa songs about no regret shows his understanding, but i cannot find an example right now, it is on internet.

[Sönam]

Magnus, again I support Namdrol's position. It may be a perfect expression of "clarity" to disparage one's Guru. Many have known gurus and had gurus that deserve public disparagement. Many lamas have violated accepted ethics, most often in sexual aggression towards female students and other unacceptable matters. I know of at least four separate cases myself. Our gurus are no better than ourselves and should be accorded respect the same as we accord all beings. I have never heard of one case personally of inappropriate criticism of one's guru. Indeed the teachings tell us to interview potential gurus with a critical eye before accepting them. That relationship can and should be terminated if our moral compass indicates such. Again as Norbu has said: there are no rules or samaya that a Dzogchenpa is obliged to follow n the vehicle of Dzogchen. Samaya etc. pertain to tantric and other lower yanas. Dzogchen is beyond all mind constructed concepts.

The question is not that gurus may deserve public disagrement or not, but that you establish, and be within, a mandala where you considere it is so ... you have a relation with a guru or you quit, how could you even juge what is intended in guru's behavior. As you said, dzogchen is beyond all mind constructed concepts.

Sönam

[mindyourmind]

Ahhhh ....internet Dzogchen ..... time to take a nice long break from these pearls of wisdom.

[muni]

Ahhhh ....internet Dzogchen ..... time to take a nice long break from these pearls of wisdom.

The construction of the deconstruction of conceptualised veils...

[Kilaya.]

Ahhhh ....internet Dzogchen ..... time to take a nice long break from these pearls of wisdom.

An anonymous internet forum is the perfect place for posing as a highly advanced Dzogchenpa. It only takes reading some texts (online, of course) and memorizing a few slogans like "it's only in your mind". Nobody knows who you are, what your behavior is like, etc. All you need is a nickname and some stupidity to think that others would not laugh their derrieres off at you and that anyone would take you seriously.

[muni]

Ahhhh ....internet Dzogchen ..... time to take a nice long break from these pearls of wisdom.

An anonymous internet forum is the perfect place for posing as a highly advanced Dzogchenpa. It only takes reading some texts (online, of course) and memorizing a few slogans like "it's only in your mind". Nobody knows who you are, what your behavior is like, etc. All you need is a nickname and some stupidity to think that others would not laugh their derrieres off at you and that anyone would take you seriously.

I don't say there isn't something pointing in your words, Dzogchen is very attractive club indeed.
Still it is 'own mind' what must recognise its' nature. Please don't generalise. There is boundless goodness on internet.
We can only cheat own being.

[Dechen Norbu]

But as Jax says, in general samaya as commonly discussed in Tibetan Buddhism circles is just a social construct, a contract between you and a guru.

But what Jax did not say, and what he left out, was that real samaya is the comittment to discovering your own primordial state, and when discovered, maintaining knowledge (rigpa) of that state.

But in Dzogchen there are no specific rules or vows. It is all about being present, aware and working with circumstances.

N

Really? I don't agree with that. If you disparage your Guru for example it is impossible to be present and aware at the same time.
/magnus

Being present, aware and working with circumstances has that scenario covered, Magnus. What are you disagreeing with?

[Malcolm]

But as Jax says, in general samaya as commonly discussed in Tibetan Buddhism circles is just a social construct, a contract between you and a guru.

But what Jax did not say, and what he left out, was that real samaya is the comittment to discovering your own primordial state, and when discovered, maintaining knowledge (rigpa) of that state.

But in Dzogchen there are no specific rules or vows. It is all about being present, aware and working with circumstances.

N

Really? I don't agree with that. If you disparage your Guru for example it is impossible to be present and aware at the same time.
/magnus

That depends on whether someone who has acted as your guru is acting in accordance with the Dharma or not. If they are no, there is not fault in severing one's relationship with them. And if you criticize them with a view to protecting others from their mistaken and harmful actions, there is also no fault. Look it up, you will find I am correct.

"Guru" is a role, not a person. The role as certain obligations, just as the role "student" has certain obligations. The sooner people sort this out, the better.

N

[Malcolm]

Samaya etc. pertain to tantric and other lower yanas. Dzogchen is beyond all mind constructed concepts.

This is not strictly true, Jax. In terms of samaya, the Rigpa Rangshar's interlinear notes clarifies the samaya of the view to realized i.e. non-conceptual prajñā.

It lists general samaya as the famous four samayas of Dzogchen -- non-existence, singleness, ubuiquity, and natural formation.

Beyond that however, it also clarifies items constituting the body, speech and mind samayas of a Dzogchen practitioner:

The samaya of the body is abandoning taking life.
The samaya of speech is abandoning lying, calumny and harsh words.
The samaya of mind is not troubling concentration or disturbing the guru’s mind.

However, the Rangshar also makes it very clear that the Guru is obliged to follow these samayas listed here, and others as well.

It makes it very clear that that the worst samaya to break is the samaya of the body i.e. not to take life. In other words, like all other Buddhist systems, Dzogchen establishes ahimsa as the most basic standard of conduct for a Dzoghen practitioner.

But the system of samaya in Dzogchen is not the system of samaya of maha and anu. On the other hand, it does not mean we completley ignore these samayas too.

N

[Kilaya.]

And if you criticize them with a view to protecting others from their mistaken and harmful actions, there is also no fault.

N

How do we decide whether a story about a specific Lama is correct or not, especially when we read it on the internet? I mean, there is no teacher you can't find any critical remarks about somewhere on the internet (including our own teacher).

[alpha]

It lists general samaya as the famous four samayas of Dzogchen -- non-existence, singleness, ubuiquity, and natural formation.

N

Are these four samayas upheld only when resting in rigpa?
If so, are we not breaking these samaya's constantly when not in rigpa?