conebeckham wrote: Virgo wrote:
conebeckham wrote:If one defines one's "Real Nature" as Buddha, then, perhaps, one is taking refuge in one's real nature when one is taking refuge in Buddha.
Ones real nature is beyond the mind so it doesn't care about concepts or definitions and so on. In Dzogchen we work with our real nature.
Sure, Kevin. But "Real Nature" is a concept too. On a certain level.
I can say that "I'm Buddhist--I work with my Buddha Nature." That "Buddha Nature," if understood to be the Real Nature, is actually beyond concepts too--but nonetheless, when we communicate, well....there ya go. Buddha Nature, as I understand it, is beyond mind, also, and equivalent to Real Nature.
Yes absolutely 'Real Nature' is another concept. But let me outline why it is that there is some lingering tension between those who are inspired by the Dzogchen view and those who are inspired by the three turnings.
1. First is that in Dzogchen you are part of the realization. You are not separate from realization. In Dzogchen there is no aspiration for enlightenment.
2. The animate and inanimate are not separate things - ALL objects are part of 'pure presence' - nothing can be separated into sentient or non-sentient - only conceptually do we do this in error - rocks and people, heartbeats and trees - part of pure presence..
3. In Dzogchen you take realization as the fact of awareness or presence. There is no hoping or searching. The path has no path and so no need to search for a result. It's not result-based or future oriented. You don't take understanding of 'emptiness' as a cause.
4. There is the notion self-arisen/self-liberated within Dzogchen . The notion 'karma' is an expression only of 'presence'.
5. The two truths just like karma are 'expressions' and so within the Dzogchen view there is a rejection of the fixed 'otherliness' of the 12 links of interdependent origination.
These are all points of contention with buddhists and you can read around these issues by researching what Jim Valby and others have to say about the issue. And there are probably more points of contention too.
The Dzogchen Tantras are different and whoever is inspired by them will see things differently. One might make a distinction between those inspired by the Dzogchen tantras and those Dzogchen practitioners who take on Dzogchen as another form of conditioning. But this has been discussed at length before.
Last edited by Andrew108
on Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Blessed One said:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.