Dzogchen and Buddhism

[Simon E.]

wow, Hitler and Jihad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law:

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

And:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[9]

And:

Some have called for Godwin's law to be renamed Beck's law because of the numerous allusions to Nazi Germany by talk show host Glenn Beck.[16] The Washington Post tallied 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 uses of "fascism" or "fascist," and another 24 mentions of Joseph Goebbels, all within 18 months. Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.[17]

M

You beat me to it .....

[greentreee]

Some have called for Godwin's law to be renamed Beck's law because of the numerous allusions to Nazi Germany by talk show host Glenn Beck.[16] The Washington Post tallied 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 uses of "fascism" or "fascist," and another 24 mentions of Joseph Goebbels, all within 18 months. Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.[17]

M

glenn beck.

[Bhusuku]

Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.

well, that's nothing new:
Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitler
'New Hitler' Gaddafi rounding up opponents
Saddam Hussein A New Hitler
Turkey PM compares Syria’s Assad to Hitler
Ad Comparing Bush to Hitler
Bishop Compares Obama To Hitler
Bin Laden's Last Days: Like 'Hitler in the Bunker'
Why we are not wrong to compare Milosevic to Hitler
...

[treehuggingoctopus]

Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.

well, that's nothing new:
Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitler
'New Hitler' Gaddafi rounding up opponents
Saddam Hussein A New Hitler
Turkey PM compares Syria’s Assad to Hitler
Ad Comparing Bush to Hitler
Bishop Compares Obama To Hitler
Bin Laden's Last Days: Like 'Hitler in the Bunker'
Why we are not wrong to compare Milosevic to Hitler
...

I wonder if the whole thing will self-destruct one day when someone compares Hitler to Hitler

[username]

Yes but not everyone you learn some facts from as is claimed here in error. You could watch a film clip of Hitler or Mao or George W. Bush and learn a few statistics or facts you might not know but then you can't stick them up there in the tree and take refuge which BTW is Buddhist. So you have to weed out some and not include all as Malcolm claims.

When I first heard this teaching from ChNN in 1992, he said all your teachers, anyone from whom you have learned anything -- he included grade school teachers and so on.

The concept of going for refuge (sharanam) is not strictly Buddhist. Also Hindus go for refuge:

http://youtu.be/4jXAMZtnxn0

1- Well tell the Dalai Lama who had to endure lectures and facts and figures on a few occasions from Mao who killed tens of milllions of Chinese by war and famine that he needs to take refuge in Mao too as part of his refuge tree. As before you misunderstand ChNNR.

2- Irrelevant, my point was that refuge tree is part of Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana founded by Padmasambhava whose inner most essence teaching and intent is Dzogchen.

------------------------------

Thanks Dronma,
I usually read this thread, and split off threads, all of which I have saved whenever I have time. All the points of my penultimate post Malcolm rejected are there in black and white ASCII and can be quoted. Some of them were the need for a move to start cleaning up Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhist as a whole, Tibetan Buddhist institutions and more. Not everyone has Alzheimers. Also ChNNR says if people do not get their real nature and mistake other experiences, which everyone has even if dreams, then they have to do Dzogchen preliminaries' methods of Rushen Semzin etc. as well as training in Bodhicitta. He has a good booklet on that. Excluding relative Bodhicitta from Dzogchen path in the name of sectarianism is yet another lack of realization.
Have a good evening.

[kirtu]

Some have called for Godwin's law to be renamed Beck's law because of the numerous allusions to Nazi Germany by talk show host Glenn Beck.[16] The Washington Post tallied 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 uses of "fascism" or "fascist," and another 24 mentions of Joseph Goebbels, all within 18 months. Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.[17]

M

glenn beck.

McLuhan predicted this decades ago (just not with the detail of the evil man from Braunau am Inn). He and Toffler also warned about what happens when the village idiot has control of the microphone.

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Yes but not everyone you learn some facts from as is claimed here in error. You could watch a film clip of Hitler or Mao or George W. Bush and learn a few statistics or facts you might not know but then you can't stick them up there in the tree and take refuge which BTW is Buddhist. So you have to weed out some and not include all as Malcolm claims.

When I first heard this teaching from ChNN in 1992, he said all your teachers, anyone from whom you have learned anything -- he included grade school teachers and so on.

The concept of going for refuge (sharanam) is not strictly Buddhist. Also Hindus go for refuge:

http://youtu.be/4jXAMZtnxn0

1- Well tell the Dalai Lama who had to endure lectures and facts and figures on a few occasions from Mao who killed tens of milllions of Chinese by war and famine that he needs to take refuge in Mao too as part of his refuge tree. As before you misunderstand ChNNR.

HHDL considers himself a Marxist, and he learned his Marxism from Mao.

NDTV: Do you still think of yourself as a Marxist ?

The Dalai Lama: Yes . As far as social economic theory is concerned I am a Marxist.

http://dalailama.com/messages/transcrip ... rview-ndtv

2- Irrelevant, my point was that refuge tree is part of Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana founded by Padmasambhava whose inner most essence teaching and intent is Dzogchen.

You mean refuge tree visualizations did not exist in India?

Excluding relative Bodhicitta from Dzogchen path in the name of sectarianism is yet another lack of realization.

Who excluded relative bodhicitta from the Dzogchen path -- not me? You said:

The best way to cultivate it is by buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

This is a standard sectarian Buddhist view. Oh well.

I did not exclude anything.

I just pointed out once again your limiting language. Relative bodhicitta, for example, is only "buddhist" according to you. I guess a lot of bodhisattvas who have never heard of Buddhism are screwed since they do not know about your relative bodhicitta, having never heard of it. Frankly, I know many non-buddhists who have much better bodhicitta than a lot of the so called mahāyāna buddhists I know.

[greentreee]

i'm not sure if the below quoted text fits here, but i thought i'd try to fit in regarding the current cycle of the thread, this may fit better in "future of buddhism". It's from an interview with Claus Otto Scharmer (COS) and Master Nan Huai Chin (with translators) that took place 13 years ago or so. here's an excerpt, i have no source of this text anymore since it appears to have been removed, but i do have the .pdf file and i'm not making it up. the title is:

Entering the Seven Meditative Spaces of Leadership
Conversation with Master Nan Huai-Chin Hong Kong, October 25th, 1999
Claus Otto Scharmer

.....

COS: Well, in regard to what he said to the limited impact from the Learning Center, I just want to say that we also talked about that, and we are now working also with quite a number of non-business institutions, like with government or schools. Because we also realized that just working with business would be too narrow, but I don’t want to talk about this now. My question is in order to have an impact that really addresses the core of the whole society, what would it take?

IX. In the future, one just becomes like a machine

Master Nan/Professor Zhao: That would be related to the whole educational institutions of the East and the West, the whole thing. Just to use a metaphor, okay, maybe we have sixty billion people now, right, maybe its better to cut off all their heads. But make sure they have their baby first, their new baby is not being polluted. Meaning that if you cut everyone, only the kids still stay alive, and then you can start fresh. Otherwise it’s actually very, very difficult.

There’s something you probably already know, that women even have more information on this than you, like with the introduction of working at computer, etc. Within three or five years’ time, we’re going to see major changes because they rarely use their brain anymore.

Kids, kindergarten kids, already know how to play with the computers. That means that they can’t really stop thinking. You know, this thing is going to spread very, very quickly. In the future people will no longer listen to all your management thinking, whatever, they’re going to listen to the computer. In the future, one just becomes like a machine. Maybe in the future people will ask the computers questions, like, should I get married now? Ask the computer. Should I get married? Should I have sex? Ask the computer, or you have time now to do it? It sure is scary, yeah.

So if you are talking about the leadership, in today’s time, all those politicians who are supposed to be leading the country or the world, none of them have any real thoughts or are real thinkers. Of course, they do have a thought, which is just making money. That’s the main thought they have, but nothing else, really.
So all of these are problems of the society. You guys have good hearts and you are trying to help the society, but then let me tell you that this is a tough problem. Humans are big problems themselves. But first of all, have peace of mind yourselves first, let’s calm our own mind first.

Teacher, ever since he was a young kid has been worrying about the future of the human race. Now he said, “I’m 80 years old and I’m not going to worry about it.” Or to put it differently, maybe we can say that humans are beyond salvation, meaning there’s no way to save them anymore, in a sense. They’re already in real bad shape.

You guys are still trying hard to do something for society. I want to tell you that if you’re only doing it with the management, only to do it from this angle, is not enough, for sure. There’s still a problem with education. Education and culture.

...

my sincere appologies if this is out of context

[username]

HHDL considers himself a Marxist, and he learned his Marxism from Mao.

NDTV: Do you still think of yourself as a Marxist ?

The Dalai Lama: Yes . As far as social economic theory is concerned I am a Marxist.

http://dalailama.com/messages/transcrip ... rview-ndtv

2- Irrelevant, my point was that refuge tree is part of Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana founded by Padmasambhava whose inner most essence teaching and intent is Dzogchen.

You mean refuge tree visualizations did not exist in India?

Excluding relative Bodhicitta from Dzogchen path in the name of sectarianism is yet another lack of realization.

Who excluded relative bodhicitta from the Dzogchen path -- not me? You said:

The best way to cultivate it is by buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

This is a standard sectarian Buddhist view. Oh well.

I did not exclude anything.

I just pointed out once again your limiting language. Relative bodhicitta, for example, is only "buddhist" according to you. I guess a lot of bodhisattvas who have never heard of Buddhism are screwed since they do not know about your relative bodhicitta, having never heard of it. Frankly, I know many non-buddhists who have much better bodhicitta than a lot of the so called mahāyāna buddhists I know.

1- DL14 heading a group, including heads of Kagyu/Nyingma/Sakya and certain advisers, has been in delicate secret negotiations with Beijing for decades. He knows what he is doing. I beleive he is a social democrat like many intellectuals and correctly so. This does not mean you can go on the web and tell him to take refuge in Mao because he introduced some modern things to him. Mao who many historians consider the biggest killer in human history possibly costing over a hundred million their lives by various means. If you go to Tibet, do not say such things as Tibetans being repressed badly agin these days are pretty mad now. You have completely lost your critical reasoning, rationalism and any sense of balance.

2- Does not affect my point if various tribes of age of Aquarius or black magicians have refuge trees or equivalents as well as Hindus. Or if PeeWee or whoever else has it too. My point was that it is part Buddhist tradition. Just that.

3- You "creatively", putting it mildly, edit out quotes as usual. Like when Mariusz asked if a believer of other traditions denying emptiness can receive the whole of Dzogchen transmissions and go through the four visions while holding on to those contradictory beleifs. You said he can receive all of Dzogchen Transmissions. Actually all sorts of eclectics and wacko crazies turn up in DL's Kalachakra empowerments specially in India next to good practitioners as well as decent newcomers and beginners etc.. But you did not answer his point if they can still go through the four visions denying emptiness in favor of a solid universal god and bearded son. This is your usual sophistry sleight of hand. So here is my full quote:

As I said Buddhist is a label but so is Dzogchenpa which you have to concede. Also you quote me saying Buddhism is an illusory upaya, but nirvana and the bhumis are illusory too and as I said the Dzogchen path is also an illusory upaya which you have to accpet too. Buddhist/Buddhism can be a limitation, or not, so can Dzogchen/Dzoghenpa. Hence your base criteria is completely self contradictory. So samo samo, and better have the realization that peoples' various conditions have to be respected. This is a basic realization necessary before other realizations can manifest. The best way to cultivate it is by Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

You have been debating people in the thread when they talked of bodhicitta methods in their traditions. I said they are necessary specially if someone mistakenly thinks he has realized his nature as well as Rushens Semzins etc. There is a restricted booklet on this by ChNNR that I have from Dzogchen POV. They are necessary after that initial stage too. The rest of your post above again is nothing to do with what I said, like Ganesh on youtube etc.. Finally you are engaging in sophistry again as bodicitta is included in the nine yanas of buddhism as I said "Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods" quote you attack. That Buddhist path for most Dzogchenpas includes Ati yoga. So again my definition is valid and the mistake is yours. QED.

Better luck next time.

[bob]

I have no problem with this except that I personally feel incapable to, among the huge amount of worldly Dharma systems that exist, even guess which are of short term or long term benefit. I certainly can't say if any of them will eventually lead to liberation.

At the risk of sounding totally wishy-washy, imo, it doesn't really matter. There is a tendency in spirituality, certainly among practitioners with the courage and adjacent hubris to strive for anything of an 'ultimate' sort, to assume that the highest of the highest is what we all should strive for.

But really, outside the abstraction of system or attainment, on the ground where people laugh and cry, it is, imo not about that at all. It's just about being as happy as you can be, and if you have some sort of bodhisattva spirit, supporting others in being as happy as they can be. And that's not a formula. Usually, it entails being about as happy as you want to be. That more often than not entails a worldly Dharma and there is nothing wrong with that either. Too often, our ideas of the highest happiness can be come a kind of obstruction to compassion because we become less capable of empathising with lesser, worldly, ideas of happiness and less capable of rejoicing in the happiness found in them.

Personally, I think once people direct themselves into a baseline path of harmlessness, they've attained something truly marvellous. The thought of beings not contributing to the sufferings of others, and being a light of harmlessness for others to follow - It's such a beautiful thing it makes me want to cry. That there are beings taking this much further is even more wondrous. If all y'all reading this can set aside our westerly self-modest ideas of being nothing special for a moment, give yourself a pat on the back for being among the most beautiful and luminous of beings around for having started on such a path and rejoice.

I didn't take Bodhisattva vows just to lead others to liberation alone. I took them to support all beings I can in all good endeavours. My path is just a path of goodness in any shape or form, worldly or otherwise. I practise Buddhism because it strikes me as one the most refined expressions of that and it seems to me that if you cultivate good qualities in sufficient measure it will eventually yield and reveal the heart's innermost desire as being the wish for liberation. But if beings' wish for happiness isn't revealed to them as that, then I support and rejoice for them in any good qualities they cultivate and aspire to. For me, we are all together on the same path of goodness, albeit perhaps with different ideas of what is good and how much we want of it. But these differences are quite trivial to our shared aspiration for goodness.

I don't mind sharing that something that helped broaden my view of all this were bardo memories. Believe it or not, there are bodhisattvas there to help guide a lot of beings whom they care for very deeply. And they support and encourage people seeking liberation just as they support and encourage beings who do not even have a conception of such a thing. All without ulterior ideas about eventually leading them to liberation, etc (though they know that if they keep it up the cultivation of virtue, they will eventually refine the minds to wish for it). There's a real family feel to it. And of course, they don't care if they are seen as bodhisattvas, angels or whatever. All are equally illusory displays for our benefit. The 'Mahayana' project of benefiting all beings is friggin huge. Way larger than any so-called 'Buddhism' in this world.

Then you have beings like Guanyin who actually helps anyone who calls on her for aid, regardless of where they are in life and where they are going. If it can help them, she will. I recall someone telling me whenever he prayed for Guanyin to help relieve his dog and himself from the annoyances of mosquitoes in the summer (the dog in particular was greatly annoyed by this), she would answer and make them go away! That's a compassion that doesn't care a jot about worldly or liberating Dharma paths but simply wishes to aid and support beings in any way possible.

Brother, Thanks so much!

How wonderful to see this blossoming awakening!


Deep Bows!

[Malcolm]

You have completely lost your critical reasoning, rationalism and any sense of balance.

You brought up Mao not me.

My point was that it is part Buddhist tradition. Just that.

What you said was that refuge was a Buddhist tradition. I pointed out that not only Buddhism has a tradition of refuge.

Like when Mariusz asked if a believer of other traditions denying emptiness can receive the whole of Dzogchen transmissions and go through the four visions while holding on to those contradictory beleifs. You said he can receive all of Dzogchen Transmissions.

Right, he can.

You have been debating people in the thread when they talked of bodhicitta methods in their traditions. I said they are necessary specially if someone mistakenly thinks he has realized his nature as well as Rushens Semzins etc. There is a restricted booklet on this by ChNNR that I have from Dzogchen POV. They are necessary after that initial stage too. The rest of your post above again is nothing to do with what I said, like Ganesh on youtube etc.. Finally you are engaging in sophistry again as bodicitta is included in the nine yanas of buddhism as I said "Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods" quote you attack. That Buddhist path for most Dzogchenpas includes Ati yoga. So again my definition is valid and the mistake is yours. QED.

I never said anywhere that bodhicitta was unnecessary.What I did say that gradual cultivation of contrived compassion and so on is unnecessary.

You should really not jump to conclusions.

We all know the three sublime things you have for a perfect practice: refuge, knowledge of our real condition (bodhicitta), and dedication.

Now, I would expect about now you are a little bored with this, cause I sure am. Between your persistant misrepresentations of what I have actually said, and Dronma's persistent accusations that I am leading a Jihad (really???!!!???, what silliness) it is all a bit much.

M

[Sönam]

Yes, of course! It is always the fault of the "others".......

It seems dear Dronma, that you are so shure of your understanding of Dzogchen as taught by ChNN, that you do not even examin the possibility that another lecture could be possible ... even if many, in the DC, have come to the same conclusion ...

Sönam

[Sally Gross]

I have been benefited a lot from Tibetan Buddhism however, and my transition to Dzogchen was very smooth because I had a lot of experience in Vajrayana before. I had benefited from other inner philosophies as well.
Each of us has his/her personal path to walk towards what is called "Total Liberation".
No need for crusades and Jihads!!!
May all beings balance in their golden mean and be liberated by all extremes! [/color]

Dear, dear Dronma, I doubt that anyone on any "side" in these discussions actually disagrees with you in this, least of all Malcolm and Magnus. For what it' worth, I don't see potential crusaders, Jihadists or other supporters of Holy Wars involved in all of it. What I do seem to see is something like a teaspoon partly immersed in water in a glass, which presents the appearance of being broken because of the refraction of light, but which is in fact unbroken. Much of the shrillness in these threads seems to involve people talking past one another due to misperceptions. As for the golden mean, I'm with you, I think. At the risk of confusing threads, I've long preferred Aristotle's virtue-based ethics to Kantian deontological ethics, much though I admire Kant, and think that the mean and the notion of eudaimonia in which this ethical conception is nested is a good thing.

[Karma Dorje]

But you did not answer his point if they can still go through the four visions denying emptiness in favor of a solid universal god and bearded son. This is your usual sophistry sleight of hand.

The answer is clear and never in dispute: You cannot go through the four visions denying emptiness in favor of a solid universal god and bearded son. Of course, you cannot go through the four visions espousing emptiness over a solid universal god and bearded son either. Whatever conceptual propositions you have at the time of post-meditation are irrelevant.

[username]

You have completely lost your critical reasoning, rationalism and any sense of balance.

You brought up Mao not me.

My point was that it is part Buddhist tradition. Just that.

What you said was that refuge was a Buddhist tradition. I pointed out that not only Buddhism has a tradition of refuge.

Like when Mariusz asked if a believer of other traditions denying emptiness can receive the whole of Dzogchen transmissions and go through the four visions while holding on to those contradictory beleifs. You said he can receive all of Dzogchen Transmissions.

Right, he can.

You have been debating people in the thread when they talked of bodhicitta methods in their traditions. I said they are necessary specially if someone mistakenly thinks he has realized his nature as well as Rushens Semzins etc. There is a restricted booklet on this by ChNNR that I have from Dzogchen POV. They are necessary after that initial stage too. The rest of your post above again is nothing to do with what I said, like Ganesh on youtube etc.. Finally you are engaging in sophistry again as bodicitta is included in the nine yanas of buddhism as I said "Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods" quote you attack. That Buddhist path for most Dzogchenpas includes Ati yoga. So again my definition is valid and the mistake is yours. QED.

I never said anywhere that bodhicitta was unnecessary.What I did say that gradual cultivation of contrived compassion and so on is unnecessary.

You should really not jump to conclusions.

We all know the three sublime things you have for a perfect practice: refuge, knowledge of our real condition (bodhicitta), and dedication.

Now, I would expect about now you are a little bored with this, cause I sure am.

M

- Yes I brought up DL14 meeting Mao and being culturally/scientifically educated as newsreels claimed. In academia as well as Buddhist debate, when someone misunderstands something (ChNNR's teaching here)) and claims a new global rule, an exception alone nevermind many more is enough to discredit that silly new global rule.

- I just said Refuge Tree is part of TB. That is all. You claimed to have shown me wrong by saying some irrelevant extra information.

-

Right, he can.

There you go again. Can an emptiness denier in favor of a solid god go through 4 visions. You say yes he can but it is unclear as you intended. Does it mean just getting the transmissions??? Or also going through the 4 visions? The point is secondary. I am questioning your quoting tactics and debating methods by avoiding points put to you.

- Good luck with this:

What I did say that gradual cultivation of contrived compassion and so on is unnecessary.

If you are tired, then stop replying to me specailly with irrelevant info like Ganesh or DL's wise political means like praising China for modernization and Marxism, etc. and misrepresenting what I said.

All the best.

[conebeckham]

Username-
I think that, theoretically at least, if a person has received direct introduction and incorporated that knowledge, and subsequently practiced stabilization in the natural state, such experience, unmediated by conceptual constructs, would eventually cause a person to reformulate his or her beliefs and assumptions.

So I see no problem, theoretically, with a person believing any old thing, really...subscribing to any old "conceptual construct" whatsoever, practicing Dzokchen.

I could see that it might be difficult, theoretically, for certain individuals who are tightly tied to their conceptual constructs to engage in Dzokchen practice in the first place, due to animosity or ambivalence. Difficult, but perhaps not impossible.

Now, if everyone would stop focusing on being "right," and focus more on being "aware," we'd all be happier, and I think this discussion would be of much greater benefit. But hey,that's just me...perhaps I'm wrong!

Here's a question that may be worth pondering... if Dzokchen is primarily a state, and secondarily a method or path of practice, and in a tertiary or subsidiary sense a lot of other things, like a lineage or lineages, texts, etc., then instead of "Dzokchen and Buddhism," perhaps we could consider "Dzokchen and Buddha(nature-or -hood)."

[Anders]

Brother, Thanks so much!

How wonderful to see this blossoming awakening!


Deep Bows!

[Fa Dao]

WOW!! this has been going on now for quite some time. Some people are really getting fired up. Not my place to take a side or say who is right or wrong. But at some point dont we all have to ask ourselves "is all of this bickering really helping anyone?" (and it truly has turned into bickering) Maybe its time to bury the hatchet and just move on to more productive discussions? Just a thought.....

[greentreee]

The following are some quotations from the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism: ps137/15

In the Dharma there is no sudden or gradual, but among people some are keen and others dull. The deluded recommended the gradual method, the enlightened the sudden teachings.

Platform Sutra Continues: ps 141/6

See for yourselves the purity of your own natures, practice and accomplish for yourselves. Your own nature is the Dharmakaya and self practrice is the practice of Buddha; by self accomplishment you may achieve the Buddha Way yourself.

The Sutra Says: ps160/4

Although in the teachings there is no sudden and gradual,
In delusion and awakening there is slowness and speed.
In studying the teaching of the sudden doctrine,
Ignorant persons cannot understand completely.

The Sutra continues: ps 164/17
The master (Hue-neng) said : "The mind-ground, not in error is the precept (sila) of self-nature; the mindground, undisturbed, is the meditation (dhyana) of self-nature; the mind-ground, not ignorant, is the wisdom (prajna) of self-nature."

The Practice of Dzogchen Longchen Rabjam Tulku Thondup ISBN:1559391790

[Malcolm]

misrepresenting what I said.

I have not misrepresented a single thing you have said. The reverse, sadly, is not true.