Two approaches.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:56 am

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.... :tongue:


ro chig


And this is your actual experience all the time? Maybe some of the time?
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:58 am

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.... :tongue:


ro chig


And this is your actual experience all the time? Maybe some of the time?


this is not the "personal experience forum" it is the "dzogchen forum". we are discussing the dzogchen view.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby DarwidHalim » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:07 am

I really try to follow to this thread, but I still cannot find the main issue that can separate the things into two approaches. :shrug:

However, this question is important.
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.


If we see everything, positive, negative, and neutral emotions, feeling, etc., all of them MUST have this 3 nature:
1. All of them are empty - Dharmakaya.
2. All of them are clear, knowable, noticeable, "can be enjoyed" - Shambogakaya.
3. All of them can manifest freely without any obstruction - Nirmanakaya.

(There are slight difference between the definition of trikaya, here and there, but it is not important)

From trikaya perspective, everything has the same nature, no exception at all.

Whether it is anger, jealousy, or ignorance thought, all of them are having exactly the same nature with generosity, patience, concentration, etc.

When people see anger, and jealousy, they don't see the nature, which is trikaya. They see the story. Because they see the story, they misinterpret it as something bad, something poison, something that need to be completely eliminated.

Same thing, with positive thing.

When people see generosity, patience, etc, they don't see the nature, which is trikaya. They see the story. Again, because they see the story, they again misinterpret it as something good, something holly, something desirable, something need to be built to the maximum level.

It is very very difficult to see the nature. Because we react to fast to the story, when all of them pop-up, it is a dream for us to see their nature. We really do not have the gap between seeing the nature, and seeing the story.

Because we never see the gap, it is forever we will not understand their nature.

In tantra, to overcome this serious shortcoming, anger is representated by a buddha, jealousy is also representated by another buddha, pride is representated by another Buddha, etc.

There is a question here: All of them are poison, All of them are evil, All of them need to be get rid of. What are the reasons, they are representated by the Buddha.

Some people think oh by representating that anger, pride, jealosy, etc with certain Buddha, such as Amitabha, Ratnashambava, etc., that anger, pride, jealosy, etc. can be purified so, tomorrow, or next month, anger, pride, can never ever ever pop-up in my mind again.

That is a serious misunderstanding.

The purpose of representing all of those poisons with the Buddha is actually for us to think twice, not only twice, but thousand times, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL NATURE OF THAT POISON?

Buddha has a nature of clean, free of stain, empty, without any existence, without any defect, complete by nature, nothing can be add, nothing can be removed, appear yet empty, empty yet appear.

By representating all that poisons as Buddha, soon or later, if we practice properly, the gap between story and the nature, which previously we don't have, will now starting to open wider and wider. When the gap is getting wider and wider, we can pause, and now see, OH, the true nature of all of those poisons are actually EXACTLY SAME with Buddha nture.

My poisons are without self, complete by nature, perfect by nature, it doesn't need anything to be add, it doesn't need anything to be removed. THe BEHAVIOUR is EXACTLY same with the NATURE of BUDDHA.

Because everything has the nature of buddha, whether it is poison, neutral, or negative, ALL OF THEM are actually PRIMODIAL WISDOMS.

Because they are all primodial wisdoms, the label of poisons, negative, neutral, positive, holly, are actually extremely ridiculous. THEY ARE THE LABEL OF IGNORANT PEOPLE, who cannot see the nature of all of them.

Anyone, who can see the nature of the things, will never ever be affected by the story. Anyone who can see the nature of mirage, will never ever be affected by the story that the mirage is water.
Anyone who can see the nature of rainbow, will never ever be affected by the story that the rainbow is solid.

Never.

From the atiyoga point of view, not all people can jump straight away to the atiyoga, they need mahayoga or anuyoga, to bring them to the atiyoga view, where everything is complete.

Mahayoga, anuyoga, all of them have a modification. We visualize the deity, the mandala, and seeing all thoughts are actually mandala, etc. All of them are manipulation.
Because we ALWAYS see the story, instead of directly seeing the nature, the manipulation is then unavoidable, just to help and bring the attention of the practitioner from the story to the nature, which is trikaya.

Dzochgen (atiyoga), and Mahamudra (the 4th of yoga: Non-meditation) is the peak and ultimate of the view, just because our understanding have been so solid and so ripe, that we can see everything is primordial wisdom, that finally can let us do nothing, that can let us let things as what it is, without any need to modify, without any need to add, without any need to reduce, without any need to improve, without any possible effort you can think about.

You modify the things, they are trikaya.
You don't modify, they are also trikaya.

You remove your poisons, they are still trikaya.
You increase your holly thought, they are also trikaya.

Whatever you do, they are always trikaya. Perfect by nature. Always perfect by nature.
COmplete by nature, always complete by nature.

Doing nothing for someone, who haven't see the nature, is foolish.
Doing something for someone, who have see the nature, is like a person who know this glass is already perfectly clean, but he still clean it again and again. It is also foolish.

FOr the person who can see the nature of thing, for outsider he is doing something, but for himself, he do nothing.

For outsider, he is giving money to the beggar, but for him, he is not giving money to the beggar.

If you can see the nature (trikaya), everything is always complete, whether you understand it or not, it is always complete.
Whether you see the sun or not, whether you ever heard about the sun or not, the sun is always shining.

But if we only see the story, the opinion, thousand questions will haunt you.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:27 am

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.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:45 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
this is not the "personal experience forum" it is the "dzogchen forum". we are discussing the dzogchen view.


Obviously continuous samsara and all its suffering persist unless one's actual experience becomes "ro chig," so I don't see the point of bringing it up in purely intellectual terms.

I don't see anyone here saying anything about changing anything with their practice and certainly I see no one fighting tooth and nail with the Dzogchen view. I see some people here placing emphasis on the fact that the so-called Dzoghen view must be brought to the level of actual experience. Simply enumerating it at the level of philosophy and conceptualizing that is pretty worthless.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Two approaches.

Postby DarwidHalim » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:08 am

Some people think they need to do something mega. They need to do something extra ordinary. When they do it, they feel good. During this state, they will condemn others, such as oh my practice is high, very complicated, I imagine this buddha, that buddha, hold this breath, that breath. But if they continue far, they will see that oh actually my practice is actually bring me back to the point where I just start my journey. I actually to back to the square, to this ordinary mind.

The difference is if before I always see the story, now I can see the nature.

Seeing the nature doesn't mean the story never appear. It will still pop-up again and again. But because your realization is so ripe, when that story pop-up, you straight away experience its primordial state, which is simple, ordinary, and complete.

When people go to the dessert, all people will see mirage as water.

Image

But, the one who know the true nature of mirage, will never ever affected by the appearance, no matter how thirsty he is.

The one who don't know the true nature of mirage, will go to there to collect water, even he is not thirsy.

Same thing, no matter how many anger thoughts appear, no matter how powerful it appear, no matter how many pride it appears, no matter how powerful it appear, there is no need to do anything to it.

Before you modify them, they are trikaya. After you modfiy them, they are also trikaya.
Before you reject them, they are trikaya. After you reject them, they are also trikaya.

So, you are fixing something which is already perfect by nature. Seeing this, you can see how foolish it is.

Because, people cannot see the nature, do nothing for people who still see the story is very dangerous. In daily life, post-meditation, they have to do something, because they are not ready.

But in meditation, in confine space, if you get angry, you modify it or not, no one will get harm. You are alone. You have pride or not, no need to do anything, you are also alone.

So, during that period, you should make use your time, to let thing as what it is, do nothing, train yourself in do nothing, just because you are preparing to see the nature more and more.

People think oh zen meditation for example ask me to do nothing. It is not powerful, so simple. I want something grand, like can visualize this drink-blood buddha, etc. They miss the whole point.

They don't know that what they are doing in post-meditation, such as modifying, etc. is actually not good.

Milarepa said:
If you modify or alter your meditation, you are in great dangerous.
Why?
Because you are losing your chance to see the true nature of things.
You are losing your chance to see the trikaya, to realize it.

If we know, the purpose of do nothing, you will fully appreciate the power of it.

All tantric practice, such as visualization, etc. in the view of Atiyoga and Mahamudra is just the beginning. No matter how complicated it is, no matter how grand it is, it is nothing, rather than just beginning. Because at the end, that visualization is actually a stupid act.

But, because we are so stupid, we still need to do that stupid act (such as visualization, etc.), just to be free from our stupidity.

For sure, It is useful, but if we don't know that is actually stupid act, we will have stupid pride, and stupid ego, thinking this the best practice, and the best meditation on earth.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:44 am

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?


Because misunderstanding does not arise from the basis, just like your misunderstanding of this subject can't be blamed on the basis. We are not some products of a cosmic egg, we are products of our own misunderstanding, Samsara is a product of misunderstanding. Despite this liberation is still possible.
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:59 am

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
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Sönam » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:16 am

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.... :juggling: [/color]


Would it be possible than Dronma were right ... it's an attack

:alien:..............................:alien:...................:alien:................:alien:...............:alien:
................:alien:...........:alien:...............:alien:................:alien:
:alien:................:alien:................:alien:................:alien:
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:57 am

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?


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.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:04 pm

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.



Of course practices don't change anything real whoever said they did? -- we all know the path is completely illusory from beginning to end, even buddhahood is completely illusory. But this is not a Dzogchen perspective -- this is a perspective from perfection of wisdom sutras.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:46 pm

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



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.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:04 pm

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.


Yes, possibly, in particular they are not very interested in the practical application of Dzogchen or actually testing their understanding with a true Dzogchen Guru. So the float around the internet trying to convince others of their realization. If they are enough charismatic and good looking they might even gather some students. My guess is that this is only the beginning of that trend. Very soon we will not be able to discuss real Dzogchen in open forums any more.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Fa Dao » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:34 pm

hmmm...maybe there is something wrong with me but I have just never been able to get into the writings of Longchenpa...just never clicked for me.
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Fa Dao
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:35 pm

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? they were on a lunch break when the instructions about recognizing were given? this makes no sense at all.

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.


no one said that suffering is pleasant, that would be a simple contradiction of terms. since most people prefer happiness and want to avoid suffering, buddhism teaches the understanding of where suffering comes from and how to reduce it. that does not mean that anything in the display of the basis is a "mistake" or a "fault". it just means that part of the display includes illusory sentient beings who have attachments and aversions and try to manipulate the illusory display on the basis of these.

or do you suppose that, after a bunch of us display-puppets missed the recognition, the basis said "oh shit, those idiots! how could they be so retarded? next time, im gonna get it right and just manifest samantabhadras, goddammit!"
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:55 pm

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?



The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is. That is where samsara comes from. And, as long as you have samsaric vision, karmic vision, you can be sure that you are not seeing the appearances of the basis as they are, but are viewing them through traces of affliction and action. In other words, the gnas lugs, how things are, and snang lugs, how things appear are dissonant because of ignorance., etc.

This is why many fake Dzogchenpas resort to the opposite of Garab Dorje's three words i.e. they introduce as many people as they can to to their own delusion, convince them that delusion is perfectly ok, and they all continue in samsara for ever.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:28 pm

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.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:59 pm

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.



There is no fault in the basis. But not recognizing the basis is a fault.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12323
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:16 pm

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?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Sönam » Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:38 pm

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?


the same place than that-which-is-recognizing? ... one base, and so on. And that is exactely why 1) there is no fault in the basis 2) not-recognizing is a fault

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

>