Dzogchen Teaching is Free From Limitations

[Jnana]

Try to be patient then and explain yourself instead of being mean.

The point is that there are human beings who are not receptive to dzogchen. Among this group there are people who have either been conditioned by secular humanism or have lost faith in religion for any number of reasons. In these cases mainstream Nikāya Buddhism has an advantage for turning the mind towards the dharma in that these teachings are more accessible via step-by-step investigation and analysis. Lamrim and lojong have similar advantages. There are authoritative teachers teaching within all of these traditions, and students who can attest to the utility and benefits of these practices. This isn't controversial -- there are teachers within dzogchen lineages who acknowledge these points as well.

[Jnana]

Are the first three Noble Truths and the Fourth Truth, the Noble Eightfold Path, distortions of the teaching of the Buddha Sakyamuni and his immediate disciples? I hope that I have got you wrong, because I fear, if I have not misconstrued what you say, that you are chucking out the baby with the bathwater. Dzogchen teachings, being free of limitations, afford ample space for appreciating the best available sources for the overt, exoteric teachings of the historical Buddha.

Indeed. Moreover, the four noble truths are foundational for all Buddhist teachings. Norbu Rinpoche, Dzogchen Teachings:

There is a teaching that is universal to all Buddhists called the Four Noble Truths. This was the first teaching transmitted by Buddha. Even if we have different methods in the teaching, such as Tantra and Dzogchen, they are always based on the Four Noble Truths. Why are they called the Noble Truths? They are noble because they are important for knowledge and understanding.

[deepbluehum]

Oy vey Maria ....

Much depends on what you mean by "Nikaya Buddhism". I assume that the term "Nikaya" refers to the Nikaayas of the Sutta Pitaka, the Pali canon of discourses (the Digha Nikaaya, the Majjhima Nikaaya, the Samyutta Nikaaya, the Anguttara Nikaaya and so on), to their counterparts preserved in Chinese translation from Sanskrit originals in the Aagamas, and to cognate discourses and fragments of discourses preserved in other languages such as Gaandhaarii. Are you claiming that the teaching found in these discourses bears little resemblance, if any at all to what the Buddha actually taught, that the methods expounded in what you might be claiming to be corrupt forgeries of the word of the Buddha are therefore inefficacious, and that the teaching in these discourses reflects a corrupt and degraded version of the Buddha's actual teaching? Should this indeed be your contention, I'd imagine that a good many people -- not excluding some on this sub-forum -- would disagree with you. What, on your account, did the historical Buddha really teach? Are the first three Noble Truths and the Fourth Truth, the Noble Eightfold Path, distortions of the teaching of the Buddha Sakyamuni and his immediate disciples? I hope that I have got you wrong, because I fear, if I have not misconstrued what you say, that you are chucking out the baby with the bathwater. Dzogchen teachings, being free of limitations, afford ample space for appreciating the best available sources for the overt, exoteric teachings of the historical Buddha.

I feel like I shouldn't leave this hanging. I'll try to be reserved. For example, tanha doesn't mean desire. It means urge. Avijja doesn't mean ignorance. It means unawares. When understood correctly, Buddha explained a way to make the twelve fold process of urging to come to a stop. However, the Theravada methods of vipassana and shamatha don't approach it this way. In my opinion, they are in error. Even the word ariya doesn't really mean noble, it means sublime. It refers to a non-ordinary consciousness, to nibbana, rather than something laudable.

You will see how dharma is such a moving target even by listening to ChNN. ChNN explains that Hinayana deals with desire by taking a vow. But this approach is not Theravada. So when ChNN lectures about the relation of Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen, he isn't talking about the Hinayana that most of us know about. Taking a vow to control desire comes from one of the other 18 schools of Hinayana. He will never mention a particular Hinayana meditation practice, because in whichever particular school that was, it left Hinayana meditation styles behind in favor of the Mahayana flavors more prevalent in the North. You mention Gandhara and Chinese Agamas and so these are many different takes on dharma. The fact that there were 18 schools of Hinayana sort of show how many different interpretations of Buddha's words there were even just a short time after his death. Not all of them can be right. Perhaps none are. That's just logic.

Then, if you look at Mahayana and Vajrayana you will see so many variations on practices. Some Vajrayana lineages incorporate Mahayana more than others. Some maintain a monastic tradition, and others let that go. What's the real Vajrayana? It's hard to know. This is where Dzogchen, and particularly, ChNN's approach is particularly incisive, relevant and timely. Introducing you directly to the natural state takes you directly into the "ariya" nature that Buddha taught via 4NT, N8FP and 7FE, etc., with the added bonus that you don't need any particular sitting method, practice sessions, etc. It's really amazing. It really is free of limitations, which is the reason why Mr. Jnana isn't entirely correct about Nikaya Buddhism. Sure explaining the points of dhamma-vinaya is helpful education. But, the methods there are very difficult to implement these days. And when a method of direct introduction cuts directly to the core of it all, why would anyone fiddle with them?

Basically, Dzogchen and Guru Rinpoche's point is that Dzogchen is here at a time when we will have an extremely difficult time sorting out dharma from adharma. That is precisely why he has emanated as these Dzogchen masters who are equipped to point out the fruit from day one. Then, no matter what arguments or history are presented, in whatever manner that tradition provides, it will be impossible to become confused. Once your real nature has been clearly recognized, no explanations can take it away. This is what is mean by beyond explanations. No particular practice can enhance or diminish it. And this is what is meant by free from limitations. These are just some of my wandering thoughts.

[Malcolm]

I feel like I shouldn't leave this hanging. I'll try to be reserved. For example, tanha doesn't mean desire. It means urge. Avijja doesn't mean ignorance. It means unawares.

Tanha [tṛṣna] means thirst. Avijja [avidyā] means not knowing [i.e.ignorance].

[deepbluehum]

I feel like I shouldn't leave this hanging. I'll try to be reserved. For example, tanha doesn't mean desire. It means urge. Avijja doesn't mean ignorance. It means unawares.

Tanha [tṛṣna] means thirst. Avijja [avidyā] means not knowing [i.e.ignorance].

I don't expect to convince you of something. I don't agree Buddha was saying thirst. He was talking about something deeper. He used words in a unique way. In this case, what he was talking about was the emotional urge generally, not thirst or desire. He didn't mean to say knowing some information was overcoming avijja. He was talking about becoming aware of what's happening. So he also was not implying vijja to mean Dzogchen your real nature or nibanna either. Vijja in Buddha's terms would be seeing the twelve fold process going on and seeing it causes nibbana by removing the cause of the process. Thus, knowing you have this process is not enough. You have to learn how to see it going on. Thus the four foundations. All our statements are just ideas, opinions, and beliefs. As ChNN explained, 3 logics. Dzogchen is beyond that. What is meaningful and useful to know is that when we are in our real nature, then it accomplishes the task Buddha taught. It stops the emotional urges. Like the ones that make us keep proving things to one another.

[Malcolm]

I feel like I shouldn't leave this hanging. I'll try to be reserved. For example, tanha doesn't mean desire. It means urge. Avijja doesn't mean ignorance. It means unawares.

Tanha [tṛṣna] means thirst. Avijja [avidyā] means not knowing [i.e.ignorance].

I don't expect to convince you of something. I don't agree Buddha was saying thirst. He was talking about something deeper.

[/quote[]

Yes, he meant thirst, and yes, he was using the term to point to something deeper, the salt water of desire, etc.

He didn't mean to say knowing some information was overcoming avijja. He was talking about becoming aware of what's happening.

He was using it in both senses, knowledge that overcomes ignorance, knowing what is happening.

[Jnana]

...when a method of direct introduction cuts directly to the core of it all, why would anyone fiddle with them?

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

When understood correctly, Buddha explained a way to make the twelve fold process of urging to come to a stop. However, the Theravada methods of vipassana and shamatha don't approach it this way.

Of course they do.

In my opinion, they are in error.

Not that you have shown.

[deepbluehum]

...when a method of direct introduction cuts directly to the core of it all, why would anyone fiddle with them?

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

This is implying there are other equally viable choices.

When understood correctly, Buddha explained a way to make the twelve fold process of urging to come to a stop. However, the Theravada methods of vipassana and shamatha don't approach it this way.

Of course they do.

This is your opinion. Mine's different. Dzogchen moots opinions.

In my opinion, they are in error.

Not that you have shown.

[/quote]

Who has time?

[Malcolm]

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

Correct, as the Dzogchen tantras openly acknowledge.

The job of the teacher is identify such persons and steer them to the appropriate spritual solution.

M

[Jnana]

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

This is implying there are other equally viable choices.

There are choices. Viability is contingent upon the disposition of the individual mind-stream.

[Jnana]

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

Correct, as the Dzogchen tantras openly acknowledge.

The job of the teacher is identify such persons and steer them to the appropriate spritual solution.

Indeed.

[deepbluehum]

Tanha [tṛṣna] means thirst. Avijja [avidyā] means not knowing [i.e.ignorance].

I don't expect to convince you of something. I don't agree Buddha was saying thirst. He was talking about something deeper.

[/quote[]

Yes, he meant thirst, and yes, he was using the term to point to something deeper, the salt water of desire, etc.

He didn't mean to say knowing some information was overcoming avijja. He was talking about becoming aware of what's happening.

He was using it in both senses, knowledge that overcomes ignorance, knowing what is happening.

It is a very rare person who understands this. But this still doesn't tell you how to know what's happening. The way methods are taught in the Theravada world doesn't give you this sense. Poplular teachers like Goenka with dry vipassana, focusing hard on bodily sensations to get minute perceptions of impermanence. "Mindfulness meditation, etc., In my opinion does not reflect suttas. Other Theravada teachers instruct about doing jhanas in a conscious way letting go of one level to consciously go to another. In my opinion, does not reflect the suttas. Many Thai teachers have outright adopted non-Theravada methods of various sorts. The common thread in all the profound dharma I have ever encountered was naturalness and relaxation. In my opinion, the simplicity of Buddha's methodology is reflected in the greater number of arahats that achieved final result prior to the institution of the vinaya than after. Which means it didn't require taking a vow.

[deepbluehum]

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

This is implying there are other equally viable choices.

There are choices. Viability is contingent upon the disposition of the individual mind-stream.

It depends on if the teacher is teaching a working system or a broken one too.

[asunthatneversets]

I feel like I shouldn't leave this hanging. I'll try to be reserved. For example, tanha doesn't mean desire. It means urge. Avijja doesn't mean ignorance. It means unawares.

"The second of the noble truths is about the cause of suffering, and this in sanskrit is called 'tṛṣna'. Tṛṣna is related to our word 'thirst', it's very often translated 'desire', better perhaps is 'craving', 'clinging', 'grasping', or even to use our modern psychological word 'blocking'. When for example, somebody is blocked and dithers and hesitates and doesn't know what to do, he is in the strictest buddhist sense, attached, he's stuck. But a buddha can't be stuck, he cannot be phased, he always flows just as water always flows even if you dam it, the river just keeps on getting higher and higher until it flows over the dam, it's unstoppable. Now buddha said duḥkha comes from tṛṣna, 'you all suffer because you cling to the world, and you don't recognize that the world is anitya and anātman'."
- Alan Watts

[deepbluehum]

You still fail to understand or acknowledge the point: There are people who are not receptive to dzogchen.

Correct, as the Dzogchen tantras openly acknowledge.

The job of the teacher is identify such persons and steer them to the appropriate spritual solution.

M

That's not what ChNN is doing.

[Jnana]

It depends on if the teacher is teaching a working system or a broken one too.

The Śrāvakamārga is a pragmatic therapeutic path oriented towards sequentially eliminating the ten fetters. The meditation practices taught by the Theras -- both ancient and modern -- are working components of viable, living traditions.

[Virgo]

The common thread in all the profound dharma I have ever encountered was naturalness and relaxation. In my opinion, the simplicity of Buddha's methodology is reflected in the greater number of arahats that achieved final result prior to the institution of the vinaya than after. Which means it didn't require taking a vow.

I think the person that achieves quickly is the person with a greater accumulation of wisdom, which basically means they have practiced more in past lives. The key to vipassana is understanding the way things are, not "techniques". You could utilize techniques all day but not understand anything. One is better off asking a teacher questions on Abhidhamma and then reflecting and integrating the answers rather than folding ones legs like a yoga guy.

Kevin

[Jnana]

The key to vipassana is understanding the way things are, not "techniques". You could utilize techniques all day but not understand anything. One is better off asking a teacher questions on Abhidhamma and then reflecting and integrating the answers rather than folding ones legs like a yoga guy.

Vipaśyanā generally requires some degree of śamatha. The latter is most effectively developed through sitting with the back properly aligned. Thus, sitting meditation is conducive for the arising of vipaśyanā, but it isn't essential. Vipaśyanā can arise while engaging in any of the four postures.

[deepbluehum]

Vipassana and shamatha are not separate.

[deepbluehum]

It depends on if the teacher is teaching a working system or a broken one too.

The Śrāvakamārga is a pragmatic therapeutic path oriented towards sequentially eliminating the ten fetters. The meditation practices taught by the Theras -- both ancient and modern -- are working components of viable, living traditions.

I don't think so.