Dzochenpa Census

[Virgo]

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.

Kein

[Blue Garuda]

I don't say "I am a Buddhist" nor do I say "I am not a Buddhist". I am not defined by those things.

Kevin

Yup - got that....the only direct answer.

If you change to a view that such definitions are irrelevant, then if you defined yourself as a Buddhist before encountering Dzogchen, you have changed.

If you didn't define yourself as a Buddhist before encountering Dzogchen, then you haven't.

Which was it?

[conebeckham]

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.

Kein

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.

[Andrew108]

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.

Kein

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.

[Virgo]

Yup - got that....the only direct answer.

If you change to a view that such definitions are irrelevant, then if you defined yourself as a Buddhist before encountering Dzogchen, you have changed.

If you didn't define yourself as a Buddhist before encountering Dzogchen, then you haven't.

Which was it?

We are working with sems again when we reify the past as real (see the problem?).

Conventionally speaking though i guess I could say I used to define myself as something, and then within that misunderstanding I defined myself as a "Buddhist".

But that was the past. Either way, I guess you could conventionally call me a Buddhist, I don't know, but it is kidn of like a nominal measurement as opposed to an actual measurement, and then finding out that what the nominal points to is completely wrong.

Does that make sense? Of course not But hey, I tried.

Kevin

[Andrew108]

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.

Kein

You might want to re-examine this point.

[heart]

I am a Buddhist, never had any other religion or faith in this life than Buddhism nor will I have any other in this life. Without Buddhism I wouldn't get Dzogchen, without Dzogchen I wouldn't know true freedom. It was a very happy day the day I took refuge, like the sun breaking through after a lifetime of dark clouds.

If you guys feel limited I don't get it, but I wish you good luck anyway!

/magnus

[conebeckham]

Hey, Andrew-

Those points are not unique to Dzogchen, really.....though they're certainly best expressed within that tradition, and though the "mainstream or Orthodox Gradualist" Buddhist presentation may seem to contradict those points--You'll find the same contentions and positions in Mahamudra, in some presentations, I believe.

[Virgo]

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.

I see what your saying Cone. And these concepts have value, but to me it's also just reification.

Kevin

[deepbluehum]

In Dzogchen, you have to take refuge in the guru's body, speech and mind which represents the three jewels. The guru introduces you to your real nature, rather your essence, nature and energy, three primordial wisdoms and sounds, lights and rays. These groups of threes all correspond to three jewels. Integration of one's body, speech and mind in guru yoga with one's real nature is considered omniscience in Dzogchen.

The omniscient one is called Buddha. There is no other "religion" that claims you can do this in your own body. "Beyond concepts" is another name for prajnaparamita nonmeditation. Other "religions" talk about beyond concepts, but not in the manner of direct perception here and now without meditating. In Buddhism and Dzogchen, "beyond concepts" refers to direct perception here and now without meditation. In any other "religion" where there is a result called "beyond concepts" you have to engage in strict austerities and arduous concentration meditation. The swift effortless path of relaxation is a peculiar feature of Buddhism which we owe thanks to Buddha.

When Rinpoche says Dzogchen is not a school, I understand him to mean it is exactly the direct perception of our real nature rather than a text of arguments. I never understood him to mean the fruit is anything other than Buddha's wisdom. He mentioned recently his primordial nature is "God." In the Bodhicaryavatara, Shantideva mentions "if you want to call the elements God, then that's no problem." The only objection from the Buddhism side is to refute a creator God standing outside of creation. Other than that, Buddha is "Brahma buddo," become God, which is different than the shivaite and other yogic traditions who join to God by shedding the impure body. The rainbow body is something different than that because there is no being to join. You are manifesting the avatar, and you, yourself are Shiva as you are; only the dross is shed.

It is owing to Buddha and the Triple Gem that these subtleties have been expounded. I forever bow down to the glorious Three Jewels out of thanks and respect without whom "Nirvana" is just a word, but not a real experience (as it is in other "religions").

[muni]

"phenomena" are free without "a ONE" it's decision to adapt something.

In Nature no one is modelating something or 'going beyond'.

me and my nature.

duality.

[gregkavarnos]

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...

So, in a nutshell, the lingering tensions are caused by your conceptualisation of Dzogchen (ie by grasping at a Dzogchenism). What a surprise!

The king is dead

elvis.jpg (10.99 KiB) Viewed 459 times

Long live the king!

bieber.jpg (7.73 KiB) Viewed 460 times

[Clarence]

In Dzogchen, you have to take refuge in the guru's body, speech and mind which represents the three jewels. The guru introduces you to your real nature, rather your essence, nature and energy, three primordial wisdoms and sounds, lights and rays. These groups of threes all correspond to three jewels. Integration of one's body, speech and mind in guru yoga with one's real nature is considered omniscience in Dzogchen.

The omniscient one is called Buddha. There is no other "religion" that claims you can do this in your own body. "Beyond concepts" is another name for prajnaparamita nonmeditation. Other "religions" talk about beyond concepts, but not in the manner of direct perception here and now without meditating. In Buddhism and Dzogchen, "beyond concepts" refers to direct perception here and now without meditation. In any other "religion" where there is a result called "beyond concepts" you have to engage in strict austerities and arduous concentration meditation. The swift effortless path of relaxation is a peculiar feature of Buddhism which we owe thanks to Buddha.

When Rinpoche says Dzogchen is not a school, I understand him to mean it is exactly the direct perception of our real nature rather than a text of arguments. I never understood him to mean the fruit is anything other than Buddha's wisdom. He mentioned recently his primordial nature is "God." In the Bodhicaryavatara, Shantideva mentions "if you want to call the elements God, then that's no problem." The only objection from the Buddhism side is to refute a creator God standing outside of creation. Other than that, Buddha is "Brahma buddo," become God, which is different than the shivaite and other yogic traditions who join to God by shedding the impure body. The rainbow body is something different than that because there is no being to join. You are manifesting the avatar, and you, yourself are Shiva as you are; only the dross is shed.

It is owing to Buddha and the Triple Gem that these subtleties have been expounded. I forever bow down to the glorious Three Jewels out of thanks and respect without whom "Nirvana" is just a word, but not a real experience (as it is in other "religions").

[Andrew108]

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...

So, in a nutshell, the lingering tensions are caused by your conceptualisation of Dzogchen (ie by grasping at a Dzogchenism). What a surprise!

Hi Greg. I understand your point. Of course you are right that it seems like most people on the boards are replacing one ism with another and then subsequently declaring their 'ism' to be the best. But actually I'm not doing that. I'm pointing to the differences that seem to rub people up the wrong way. Right now I see Dzogchen Semde as wheat and Essence Mahamudra as rice. When it comes to the dualism of this forum we might start of liking rice but then come to appreciate wheat and vice versa because we notice the differences or not.
However I have come to understand that Dzogchen Semde is different from Sutra Mahamudra and am happy to talk about those differences. For example within Dzogchen as a discourse there isn't really a focus on 'mind' or realizing it's nature. There isn't a focus on enlightenment as a goal. There isn't a focus on the necessity of understanding emptiness as a path. For me holding on to these three points have been a limitations in my understanding of Mahamudra. If Mahamudra contained a tantra like Kunjed Gyalpo then that would be fantastic but it doesn't as far as I'm aware.
I appreciate your cynicism and most often share it to an extent. But then I wonder how much in your tradition is been withheld from you? I appreciate that in Dzogchen Semde all the cards are on the table.

[muni]

"all the cards are on the table"

Then we need usually four. Me and my dzogchen and my understanding. Okay thats three. You are playing with us? Then that makes four. Thoughts.

Just joking.....dzogchen debates.

[Andrew108]

"all the cards are on the table"

Then we need usually four. Me and my dzogchen and my understanding. Okay thats three. You are playing with us? Then that makes four. Thoughts.

Just joking.....dzogchen debates.

Let's play.

[muni]

"all the cards are on the table"

Then we need usually four. Me and my dzogchen and my understanding. Okay thats three. You are playing with us? Then that makes four. Thoughts.

Just joking.....dzogchen debates.

Let's play.

Lol.
Then awareness "allowes" spontaneously the thoughts playing in themselves; arising-subsiding in themselves. free play.
Just steal useful words from you (have myself only a handfull) to express this. No reaction on your previous post.

[gregkavarnos]

I'm pointing to the differences that seem to rub people up the wrong way.

These differences you are pointing to, you have "seen" them? You have realised Mahamudra and Dzogchen, you have compared the two states and you have come to this conclusion? No? So it's just intellectual posturing and empty words then, this difference that you "see"? Like the majority (if not all) of the argument that has been festering on DW over the past two weeks?

But then I wonder how much in your tradition is been withheld from you?

Enough to guarantee that I won't believe I know everything. Enough so that I won't harm myself and others.

[Sönam]

[Andrew108]

I'm pointing to the differences that seem to rub people up the wrong way.

These differences you are pointing to, you have "seen" them? You have realised Mahamudra and Dzogchen, you have compared the two states and you have come to this conclusion? No? So it's just intellectual posturing and empty words then, this difference that you "see"? Like the majority (if not all) of the argument that has been festering on DW over the past two weeks?

But then I wonder how much in your tradition is been withheld from you?

Enough to guarantee that I won't believe I know everything. Enough so that I won't harm myself and others.

Hi Greg. Point taken. Peace brother.