Two approaches.

[gad rgyangs]

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

there is no fault in the basis, therefore, neither is there the possibility of fault in that which proceeds from the basis. in fact, the absence of fault in the basis is what guarantees that there is no possibility of fault in the display.

[Malcolm]

there is no fault in the basis, therefore, neither is there the possibility of fault in that which proceeds from the basis. in fact, the absence of fault in the basis is what guarantees that there is no possibility of fault in the display.

No one said there was a fault in the display or in the basis. All that was said was that not recognizing the display for what it is a mistake, a fault, an error.

A tantra called Uprooting Delusion from the dgongs pa zang thal cycle provides the following description:

The way sentient beings arise:
that nameless general ground,
is non-conceptual and not established at all,
invisible and unclear, from which
when the bifurcation occurs,
since vāyu, vidyā, and space separate, [3/b]
the intrinsic sound of the elements produces vibration.
From the inside of the darkness of the clear part of appearances,
as soon as a storm of fire emerges,
scattering everywhere,
Vidyā, like the mind of a lunatic,
is dazed and reeling.
Since vidyā lacks confidence in its own appearances,
it panics at sound, is frightened of rays,
and through awareness not taking its own place,
the ignorance that arises simultaneously with it
is called “the causal ignorance.

Because of a lack of mindful attention,
self and other are grasped as a duality,
and both outer and inner dependent origination occur.
The whole universe arises
through awareness looking externally.
All sentient being arise
through awareness looking internally.
Through looking there, fearful appearances arise,
through looking here, ‘self’ arises.
Many mistakes arise from the single mistake
about the appearances of here and there.
Because of being mistaken about a self, there is a mistake about other,
attachment to self, aversion to other.
From the seed of attachment and aversion,
the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes.
Because one is held as two, [4/a]
that is called the delusion of dualistic grasping.
Since one imputed and mistook outer and inner,
that is called “the imputing ignorance”.
Because of familiarity of subject and object of that,
from the thick buildup of traces,
there was entrance into the state of samsara.
That is how the six migrations occurred.”

[Dronma]

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....

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

................................................................................
..........................................................
................................................

LOL
Maybe this is one of the reasons that Rinpoche transmitted Dorje Drolod lately...

[gad rgyangs]

there isn't a Dzogchen master alive who would say that Longchenpa's writings are anything other than the purest expression of the the Dzogchen view we have. So, I will ignore the snide aspersions being cast upon him here.

he says, in the tshig don mdzod (chapter 2)

These impure phenomena of cyclic existence don't waver even the slightest bit towards something other than being emergent from within rigpa's range, enduring within its range, and remaining as mere playfulness within its range, just as dreams don't waver from sleep's range. Showing them to be empty forms in actuality, mere miraculous displays which clearly manifest while non-existent, reveals the thorough purity of cyclic existence.

from the Garland of Precious Pearl Tantra:

Your speech and actions in their own nature
are the conduct of radiant and empty rigpa;
the flow of your conceptual reifications, whether positive or negative,
are the vast space of contemplation's stream.

Your abberant views and/or valid claims
are the impartial view of natural attunement ("yoga")

All your clinging hopes and fears
Is the fruit of being completely unimpeded.

kun byed gyal po, 7:

There is nothing that is not perfect.
One is perfect, two is perfect, everything is perfect.
All actions are easy because they are already accomplished and perfect.
"One is perfect" signifies perfection in pure and total consciousness.
"Two is perfect" signifies perfection in the manifestations of consciousness.
"Everything is perfect" signifies perfection in completeness.
Thanks to this teaching on the perfection of the one,
you can enter in the state of enlightenment.
Thanks to the meaning of perfection in duality,
you can understand that everything that appears
is the perfect manifestation of consciousness.

[Dronma]

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.

Of course, there is one - gad rgyangs - who is fighting tooth and nail for establishing his Dzogchen POV !!!

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.

Exactly !!!

[Malcolm]

there isn't a Dzogchen master alive who would say that Longchenpa's writings are anything other than the purest expression of the the Dzogchen view we have. So, I will ignore the snide aspersions being cast upon him here.

Actually the aspersion was being cast on those who think that it is sufficient to rely on Longchenpa for a well-rounded view of Dzogchen. For example, Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo opines that dgongs pa zang thal teachings are more profound than other nyinthig teachings for this and that reason.

Now then, you seem to be hard of hearing.

The appearance of the basis does not contain faults. Not recognizing the appearance of the basis is a fault, as the tantra I cited demonstrates.

N

[Dronma]

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

Exactly !!!
That's why practices are called "skillful means".
Through continuous practice the Wisdom emerges to the level of experience!

[Dronma]

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

That message was exactly the purpose of my previous posts.
Not saying that suffering is bad and we should damn it. (Although none likes to suffer!)
Happiness, sorrow and apathy are the 3 faces of Samsara and they appear because of ignorance.
I think that people cannot understand this point when they have serious lack of experience and maturity.

[gad rgyangs]

Now then, you seem to be hard of hearing.

The appearance of the basis does not contain faults. Not recognizing the appearance of the basis is a fault, as the tantra I cited demonstrates.

N

.....and conveniently ignoring the citations I gave.

lets try it this way: "are sentient beings included within appearances of the basis?"

[Malcolm]

Now then, you seem to be hard of hearing.

The appearance of the basis does not contain faults. Not recognizing the appearance of the basis is a fault, as the tantra I cited demonstrates.

N

.....and conveniently ignoring the citations I gave.

The citations you gave do not contradict what I am saying in the least.

lets try it this way: "are sentient beings included within appearances of the basis?"

Yes and no.

No, because there are no sentient beings in the basis and sentient being do not appear when the basis appears. Yes, because the non-recognition of the basis produces sentient beings after the basis appears. Sentient beings, and everything else, is made of the appearance of the five lights of the basis etc. But the five lights of the basis etc are never contaminated by the ignorance that does not recognize the basis for what it is. In this way the proper answer is both yes and no.

[gad rgyangs]

lets try it this way: "are sentient beings included within appearances of the basis?"

Yes and no.

No, because there are no sentient beings in the basis and sentient being do not appear when the basis appears. Yes, because the non-recognition of the basis produces sentient beings after the basis appears. Sentient beings, and everything else, is made of the appearance of the five lights of the basis etc. But the five lights of the basis etc are never contaminated by the ignorance that does not recognize the basis for what it is. In this way the proper answer is both yes and no.

you're right about the "yes" part, but mistaken otherwise.

No, because there are no sentient beings in the basis and sentient being do not appear when the basis appears.

the basis is the real nature of sentient beings. the gzhi snang can (and is in the texts) subdivided into stages, but that doesn't mean you can say that "before this stage its the appearances of the basis, but after that stage, its not anymore." All I can do is refer again to the citations I gave, which are very clear.

[Malcolm]

you're right about the "yes" part, but mistaken otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion.

the basis is the real nature of sentient beings. the gzhi snang can (and is in the texts) subdivided into stages, but that doesn't mean you can say that "before this stage its the appearances of the basis, but after that stage, its not anymore." All I can do is refer again to the citations I gave, which are very clear.

Sentient beings are cognitive errors, that's all. What they are mistaken about is their own nature, which is the basis. When they cease to be mistaken about those appearances, they are buddhas.

N

[gad rgyangs]

you're right about the "yes" part, but mistaken otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion.

the basis is the real nature of sentient beings. the gzhi snang can (and is in the texts) subdivided into stages, but that doesn't mean you can say that "before this stage its the appearances of the basis, but after that stage, its not anymore." All I can do is refer again to the citations I gave, which are very clear.

Sentient beings are cognitive errors, that's all. What they are mistaken about is their own nature, which is the basis. When they cease to be mistaken about those appearances, they are buddhas.

N

exactly, but both the "mistaken" and "not mistaken" are appearances of the basis. if you claim otherwise, you are in effect positing a dual ground, or at least a dual display, one for mistaken sentient beings and one for non-mistaken buddhas.

[Malcolm]

you're right about the "yes" part, but mistaken otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion.

the basis is the real nature of sentient beings. the gzhi snang can (and is in the texts) subdivided into stages, but that doesn't mean you can say that "before this stage its the appearances of the basis, but after that stage, its not anymore." All I can do is refer again to the citations I gave, which are very clear.

Sentient beings are cognitive errors, that's all. What they are mistaken about is their own nature, which is the basis. When they cease to be mistaken about those appearances, they are buddhas.

N

exactly, but both the "mistaken" and "not mistaken" are appearances of the basis. if you claim otherwise, you are in effect positing a dual ground, or at least a dual display, one for mistaken sentient beings and one for non-mistaken buddhas.

No. We already had this conversation before. There is one basis, two paths and two results. Because sentient beings are deluded they perceive the basis in terms of subject and object, etc. Since buddhas are not deluded about the basis they do not have this dualistic conceptual delusion. The basis only presents one way, but it is perceived differently by buddhas and sentient beings. As long as sentient beings are mistaken about the appearances of the basis, for that long they will continue to cycle in samsara.

N

[gad rgyangs]

exactly, but both the "mistaken" and "not mistaken" are appearances of the basis. if you claim otherwise, you are in effect positing a dual ground, or at least a dual display, one for mistaken sentient beings and one for non-mistaken buddhas.

No. We already had this conversation before. There is one basis, two paths and two results. Because sentient beings are deluded they perceive the basis in terms of subject and object, etc. Since buddhas are not deluded about the basis they do not have this dualistic conceptual delusion. The basis only presents one way, but it is perceived differently by buddhas and sentient beings. As long as sentient beings are mistaken about the appearances of the basis, for that long they will continue to cycle in samsara.

N

this kind of dualism vision always has implicit within it the assumption that things should be different from what they are, that somewhere along the way, "something went wrong". Its really no different from the concept of the fall in Judaeo-Christianity. The assumption "something went wrong" leads naturally to the assumption "something needs to be done, to be corrected". I'm sure even you will agree this is not at all the Dzoghchen view. So, if we reject the idea that "something went wrong" and "something needs to be done", then the idea that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are the display of the basis, including marigpa, makes perfect sense. texts have been cited in the other thread that demonstrate this, no need to haul them out again, but perhaps you should re-read that thread.

[Malcolm]

exactly, but both the "mistaken" and "not mistaken" are appearances of the basis. if you claim otherwise, you are in effect positing a dual ground, or at least a dual display, one for mistaken sentient beings and one for non-mistaken buddhas.

No. We already had this conversation before. There is one basis, two paths and two results. Because sentient beings are deluded they perceive the basis in terms of subject and object, etc. Since buddhas are not deluded about the basis they do not have this dualistic conceptual delusion. The basis only presents one way, but it is perceived differently by buddhas and sentient beings. As long as sentient beings are mistaken about the appearances of the basis, for that long they will continue to cycle in samsara.

N

this kind of dualism vision always has implicit within it the assumption that things should be different from what they are, that somewhere along the way, "something went wrong". Its really no different from the concept of the fall in Judaeo-Christianity. The assumption "something went wrong" leads naturally to the assumption "something needs to be done, to be corrected". I'm sure even you will agree this is not at all the Dzoghchen view. So, if we reject the idea that "something went wrong" and "something needs to be done", then the idea that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are the display of the basis, including marigpa, makes perfect sense. texts have been cited in the other thread that demonstrate this, no need to haul them out again, but perhaps you should re-read that thread.

"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek,

One of my Dzogchen Masters said: I am Dzogchenpa but not Dzogchen.


Mutsog Marro
KY

[gad rgyangs]

"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N

just because there is rigpa and marigpa doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. one (presumably) leads to cessation of suffering and efficacy in aiding beings, and the other leads to a movie full of all kinds of emotions and experiences. but both come from the same basis, and therefore are just as ka dag as that basis. that is why it is our real nature even while we are marigpa-pas. if it wasn't, introduction wouldn't be possible. think about it, buddhas and sentient beings have the same nature, so how could one be the result of "something going wrong?"

[Malcolm]

"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N

just because there is rigpa and marigpa doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong.

Yes, actually it means that one is right and the other is wrong. By definition marigpa is always wrong.

N

[Malcolm]

"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N

just because there is rigpa and marigpa doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. one (presumably) leads to cessation of suffering and efficacy in aiding beings, and the other leads to a movie full of all kinds of emotions and experiences. but both come from the same basis, and therefore are just as ka dag as that basis. that is why it is our real nature even while we are marigpa-pas. if it wasn't, introduction wouldn't be possible. think about it, buddhas and sentient beings have the same nature, so how could one be the result of "something going wrong?"

If something had not gone wrong, no introduction would be necessary, and we could all bliss out in the fake Dzoghen proposition that started this thread.

The point is not about whether everything is ka dag and lhun grub. The point is whether that is recognized and the consequences that occur when it isn't.

so how could one be the result of "something going wrong?

Sentient beings are clearly the result of something gone wrong since they result from ignorance.