gad rgyangs wrote:Dronma wrote:
What a naive paradigm!
Hmm... For you, samsara is like ice cream?
And not a word about the TWO PATHS and TWO RESULTS....![]()
ro chig
And this is your actual experience all the time? Maybe some of the time?
Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
gad rgyangs wrote:Dronma wrote:
What a naive paradigm!
Hmm... For you, samsara is like ice cream?
And not a word about the TWO PATHS and TWO RESULTS....![]()
ro chig
Pema Rigdzin wrote:gad rgyangs wrote:Dronma wrote:
What a naive paradigm!
Hmm... For you, samsara is like ice cream?
And not a word about the TWO PATHS and TWO RESULTS....![]()
ro chig
And this is your actual experience all the time? Maybe some of the time?
White Lotus:
the great question will always remain... is it already naturally complete? Or do we have to see it?
being or seeing. this is an argument between natural being and prajna seeing/wisdom. it crops up time and again in buddhism, not just these threads.
gad rgyangs wrote:
this is not the "personal experience forum" it is the "dzogchen forum". we are discussing the dzogchen view.

gad rgyangs wrote:Namdrol wrote:gad rgyangs wrote:
cycling in samsara is only a fault if your view is dualism.
Please enjoy yourself then...even though it seems you have utterly missed the point that Dzogchen also just an attempt to solve the Buddhist question of how to stop cycling in samsara.
The answer to that question is not "Cycling in samsara? No problem, please continue...."
N
you can stop cycling in samsara if thats your predilection, its just that samsara is not a "fault" or "mistake". how could anything that arises be a mistake, since everything is ultimately traceable back into the ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje of the basis?
gad rgyangs wrote:well said DarwidHalim. The common response to this view is "but if you are still seeing the story, it does no good to say its all dharmakaya/empty/perfect/dzogpachenpo/etc...you have to do the practices...etc".
My contention is that it is precisely by understanding why doing practices actually changes nothing at all, that your practices can actually be beneficial. As long as you think they are actually changing anything real, they will not be so effective. that may seem paradoxical, but there it is. So the people fighting the Dzogchen view tooth and nail (surprisingly many of whom self-identify as students of Dzoghchen) are actually doing themselves a disservice, and walking straight away from that which they so vociferously proclaim is necessary, that is, the reduction/elimination of suffering.
Dronma wrote:But if the numerous topics and discussions which misrepresent Dzogchen is exclusively a latest phenomenon, then - with all the risk to sound paranoiac - I say that it could be a deliberate attack....[/color]
..............................
...................
................
...............
...........
...............
................
................
................
................
gad rgyangs wrote:
you can stop cycling in samsara if thats your predilection, its just that samsara is not a "fault" or "mistake". how could anything that arises be a mistake, since everything is ultimately traceable back into the ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje of the basis?
gad rgyangs wrote:well said DarwidHalim. The common response to this view is "but if you are still seeing the story, it does no good to say its all dharmakaya/empty/perfect/dzogpachenpo/etc...you have to do the practices...etc".
My contention is that it is precisely by understanding why doing practices actually changes nothing at all, that your practices can actually be beneficial. As long as you think they are actually changing anything real, they will not be so effective. that may seem paradoxical, but there it is. So the people fighting the Dzogchen view tooth and nail (surprisingly many of whom self-identify as students of Dzoghchen) are actually doing themselves a disservice, and walking straight away from that which they so vociferously proclaim is necessary, that is, the reduction/elimination of suffering.
heart wrote:gad rgyangs wrote:well said DarwidHalim. The common response to this view is "but if you are still seeing the story, it does no good to say its all dharmakaya/empty/perfect/dzogpachenpo/etc...you have to do the practices...etc".
My contention is that it is precisely by understanding why doing practices actually changes nothing at all, that your practices can actually be beneficial. As long as you think they are actually changing anything real, they will not be so effective. that may seem paradoxical, but there it is. So the people fighting the Dzogchen view tooth and nail (surprisingly many of whom self-identify as students of Dzoghchen) are actually doing themselves a disservice, and walking straight away from that which they so vociferously proclaim is necessary, that is, the reduction/elimination of suffering.
Practices don't change the natural state, nor make it closer in any way. Practices destroy misunderstanding, intellectualized views and confusion. Our minds are very tricky and deceptive ,which is obvious in these threads, and for this reason no matter how many pretty books you read you will never understand the Great Perfection. In all Dzogchen manuals it is written that you should find a qualified teacher and do anything he/she says. I am afraid that is the only way because cleverness will just not make.
/magnus
Namdrol wrote:Sometimes I think the problem is that people only read Longchenpa, who has a very specific take and they do not read the wider tradition of Dzogchen.
Namdrol wrote:Everything can be traced back to non-recognition of the appearance of the basis. That non-recognition is a mistake. Samsara is a fault because it is the result of an error.
But there are some people who like this fake Dzogchen approach where they feel that all of the problems they cause themselves and others are "ok" because it is all "original purity and so on. This is little different than the kind of nihilism that some people who misunderstand the perfection of wisdom sutras engage in. So, the next time you are pissed off, or suffering, just try and explain it all away to yourself as the three wisdoms of the basis and then get back to us on how well that is working out for you.
gad rgyangs wrote:Namdrol wrote:Everything can be traced back to non-recognition of the appearance of the basis. That non-recognition is a mistake. Samsara is a fault because it is the result of an error.
and what: some part of the appearances of the basis are incompetent?
Namdrol wrote:The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is.
gad rgyangs wrote:Namdrol wrote:The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is.
so if you're saying that what should have happened is that "everybody" recognized and abided as samantabhadra, then you're denigrating the basis, saying it can't do anything right, it spits out a display and even that is all messed up with "faults" and mistakes", retarded sems can who don't know any better. what a loser-basis.
Namdrol wrote:There is no fault in the basis. But not recognizing the basis is a fault.
gad rgyangs wrote:Namdrol wrote:There is no fault in the basis. But not recognizing the basis is a fault.
and where did that-which-is-not-recognizing come from?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests