Dzogchen tantras uncreated and eternal

[anjali]

...In my case, the teacher that I wish to learn directly is either passed away, or is living too far from me, or is someone who has many students which make personal contact difficult. ...

If there is someone living that you respect and have faith in their teachings, don't let distance become an obstacle. Personal contact doesn't necessarily mean fact-to-face contact. Open a dialog with the teacher through mail, email, or phone conversation. If you make a sincere effort at contact, doors will open in some way.

[Jyoti]

This statement indicates that a) you do not understand the teachings of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu b) that you do not understand Dzogchen.

By confusion I don't refer to myself, but I see N.N. need to spend all the time and effort in every seating just to clarity the provisional means showed that such means is more impediment than aid the understanding. I can understand those explanation, but it is not necessary to explain anything if the provisional means is not introduce in the first place. The idea is very simply, if you don't introduce a concealed intent, you don't need to explained what is being concealed. Or if there is no symbol being utilize, there is no need to unveil the meaning of a symbol. If words literally points to the content, it serves communication of the contents directly. This is the virtue of direct approach.

There are a number of Yogacara sutras. Also for example the Saṃdhinirmocana is a gradualist sūtra belonging to the so called vijñaptimatra or cittamatra school -- a foundational text, actually.

This one is definitive, since it contained the elements required for direct and definitive approach. Such a scripture does not advocate the gradual approach even if it cover the details of such approaches, since the lower always support what is above it, never the reverse. Although those of the gradual vehicle can rely on it, it didn't meant the scripture is thereby limited to the gradual vehicle.

Also note that not all mahayana contents are definitive, which is why the four reliances has being stated in the mahayana.

[pueraeternus]

Teacher that one considered good is usually one whose book one has read, and has unanswered questions that he wish to learn more from the teacher. In my case, the teacher that I wish to learn directly is either passed away, or is living too far from me, or is someone who has many students which make personal contact difficult. On the other hand, what I have learnt is understanding can only be attained by oneself through self-analysis, and doubt can only be dispel after one is satisfied with the reasoning and experience in practice. So the most one benefit from the teacher is when one really has a question that one cannot answer for oneself by any means, but I never encounter a time when I'm unable to arrive at the answer myself. Maybe for others who has difficulty in this area, having a teacher is beneficial. In my case, if I went the route of follow teacher, I would have lost the time better spend at practice or try to master more standard terminologies of buddhism through the reading of the mahayana tripitaka, or mastering the technicalities of dharma through reading the commentaries of consciousness-only.

Well, in this case you are still only relying on the word, since you are reading off from texts and trying to reconcile it within yourself. If your 慧根 is strong, then perhaps you can proceed quite far, but in the end, to get the definite meaning, you still need a living teacher. Even Huineng, who gained his initial awakening from a single stanza of the Diamond Sutra, still needs mind to mind transmission from Hongren to complete his understanding.

Unless perhaps you made a resolve to gain Pratyekabodhi in a past life, but even then, only in the last life would a lone dwelling Pratyekabuddha not need any tutelege.

Dzogchen is tantra, hence you can't really do this without transmission and a guru. You don't have to always bug the guru, especially since you think you can resolve most issues yourself.

[Jyoti]

Well, in this case you are still only relying on the word, since you are reading off from texts and trying to reconcile it within yourself. If your 慧根 is strong, then perhaps you can proceed quite far, but in the end, to get the definite meaning, you still need a living teacher. Even Huineng, who gained his initial awakening from a single stanza of the Diamond Sutra, still needs mind to mind transmission from Hongren to complete his understanding.

Relying on the meaning does not mean not reading any texts, but it mean one does not take the word literally, but the meaning that is being communicated, so sometime when they are error in the usage of words, the meaning is still clear. As for the assumption that the definitive meaning required a living teacher, I like to believe it, but being the exception myself, I had to be honest to admit that a living teacher is not necessary, and speaking in term of definitive meaning, the living teacher is not outside, what is outside can never be 'lived', what is living has to be on one's own side.

Unless perhaps you made a resolve to gain Pratyekabodhi in a past life, but even then, only in the last life would a lone dwelling Pratyekabuddha not need any tutelege.
Dzogchen is tantra, hence you can't really do this without transmission and a guru. You don't have to always bug the guru, especially since you think you can resolve most issues yourself.

The stage of Pratyekabodhi impede, not promote the bodhisattva's development.

Indeed if dzogchen is only the skillfull means of tantra, the tradition demand a guru. But I'm not interested in skillful means, as for the definitive meaning of dzogchen, I can find it in ch'an and the consciousness-only school, and they don't required any teacher. One cannot concealed knowledge if the knowledge is true (definitive), as paper cannot be used to cover fire (a chinese saying).

[pueraeternus]

Relying on the meaning does not mean not reading any texts, but it mean one does not take the word literally, but the meaning that is being communicated, so sometime when they are error in the usage of words, the meaning is still clear. As for the assumption that the definitive meaning required a living teacher, I like to believe it, but being the exception myself, I had to be honest to admit that a living teacher is not necessary, and speaking in term of definitive meaning, the living teacher is not outside, what is outside can never be 'lived', what is living has to be on one's own side.

That is not the meaning of the four reliances. Words cannot communicate the full meaning, hence a living teacher is important. If you think you are exceptionally high calibre, then, well, good for you if it is true and I have nothing to say to that.

The stage of Pratyekabodhi impede, not promote the bodhisattva's development.

Which is sort of my point..

Indeed if dzogchen is only the skillfull means of tantra, the tradition demand a guru. But I'm not interested in skillful means, as for the definitive meaning of dzogchen, I can find it in ch'an and the consciousness-only school, and they don't required any teacher. One cannot concealed knowledge if the knowledge is true (definitive), as paper cannot be used to cover fire (a chinese saying).

They do require a teacher at some point. Your notion of chan and yogacara soteriology is unusual to say the least.

[pueraeternus]

as paper cannot be used to cover fire (a chinese saying).

纸包不住火? It's funny how you use that. The usage of the phrase is usually in the context that a scandal cannot be hidden for long.

[Jyoti]

From whom did you receive Dzogchen transmission?

Teacher and Guru -- not the same thing at all.

Dzogchen is not based on questions and answers. It is based on experience.

N.N.

Depend on how you interpret those terms, essentially guru is in sanskrit, the meaning is teacher. You cannot change the meaning of the same word based on differences of language.

Experience is required, questions and answers are what appears when one analyse the words of the teacher or scriptures. You need a question, in order to find answer within experience. If one restrains the questions within, they will come up later, and then one will be unable to cope with them and doubt will arise. Unless one is content with faith, but that is not having the meaning.

[Jyoti]

That is not the meaning of the four reliances. Words cannot communicate the full meaning, hence a living teacher is important. If you think you are exceptionally high calibre, then, well, good for you if it is true and I have nothing to say to that.

The four reliances were stated in definitive scriptures, they were not meant to be interpreted but to be read literally. Words is the means of meaning, viz. meaning has its means of communication, it is definitely possible to communicate the meaning. Thus we have the definitive scriptures which function is just this. What a teacher can do directly is also with words, a speaking words are no different to written words in term of being the means of the meaning. In the era of information, the teachers would be more efficiently communicate through electronics medium, such medium would be the means of the meaning. If one still insist the a teacher must talk to the student face to face, that clearly demonstrate ignorance of the fact the meaning has its means of communication, where direct face to face is only one of the many possible ways.

[Pero]

Jyoti, the so called "definitive scriptures" of Mahayana are irrelavant to Dzogchen. Dzogchen has its own root texts and does not depend on the Mahayana.

[Malcolm]

Experience is required, questions and answers are what appears when one analyse the words of the teacher or scriptures. You need a question, in order to find answer within experience.

Meaning comes from experience.

You don't really need to ask that many questions about it.

[Jyoti]

Jyoti, the so called "definitive scriptures" of Mahayana are irrelavant to Dzogchen. Dzogchen has its own root texts and does not depend on the Mahayana.

The body of buddhism is the same both in mahayana and dzogchen.

[Pero]

Jyoti, the so called "definitive scriptures" of Mahayana are irrelavant to Dzogchen. Dzogchen has its own root texts and does not depend on the Mahayana.

The body of buddhism is the same both in mahayana and dzogchen.

What does body of Buddhism mean?

[Malcolm]

... as for the definitive meaning of dzogchen, I can find it in ch'an and the consciousness-only school...

No, this is a mistake. But it is your mistake so I leave you to it.

Neither Chan nor Cittamatra go beyond mind.

M

[Jyoti]

Meaning comes from experience.

You don't really need to ask that many questions about it.

Unless one can attained certainty, otherwise, it is all based on faith. Meaning can comes from experience, but if your meaning cannot be uphold outside of familiar experience, it has no function. The only benefit of such experience is calm and you have the faith to maintain it. Buddhism is all on the side of function.

[Jyoti]

... as for the definitive meaning of dzogchen, I can find it in ch'an and the consciousness-only school...

No, this is a mistake. But it is your mistake so I leave you to it.

Neither Chan nor Cittamatra go beyond mind.

M

Defined mind, otherwise don't simply go beyond because a tradition said so. Both ch'an and the consciousness-only tradition focused only on consciousnesses and its transformation.

[Andrew108]

Jyoti, what do you think bodhicitta means within Dzogchen. What does it mean and what is it's role if any?

[Jyoti]

Jyoti, the so called "definitive scriptures" of Mahayana are irrelavant to Dzogchen. Dzogchen has its own root texts and does not depend on the Mahayana.

The body of buddhism is the same both in mahayana and dzogchen.

What does body of Buddhism mean?

The dharmakaya, dhamadhatu, nirvana and so forth. Unless the body is different, nothing is irrelevant with both traditions.

[Malcolm]

... as for the definitive meaning of dzogchen, I can find it in ch'an and the consciousness-only school...

No, this is a mistake. But it is your mistake so I leave you to it.

Neither Chan nor Cittamatra go beyond mind.

M

Defined mind, otherwise don't simply go beyond because a tradition said so. Both ch'an and the consciousness-only tradition focused only on consciousnesses and its transformation.

Right, as I said, Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind, vijñāna.

[Pero]

The body of buddhism is the same both in mahayana and dzogchen.

What does body of Buddhism mean?

The dharmakaya, dhamadhatu, nirvana and so forth. Unless the body is different, nothing is irrelevant with both traditions.

Sure it is. You don't have to read even one sutra to practice Dzogchen and even if you do, it will not help your understanding of Dzogchen. You can't understand Dzogchen by trying to look at it from the POV of a lower vehicle.

[pueraeternus]

No, this is a mistake. But it is your mistake so I leave you to it.

Neither Chan nor Cittamatra go beyond mind.

M

Defined mind, otherwise don't simply go beyond because a tradition said so. Both ch'an and the consciousness-only tradition focused only on consciousnesses and its transformation.

Right, as I said, Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind, vijñāna.

Chan does not stop at the vijnana level.