You are a funny guy. You are just wrong.Jyoti wrote:The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used.
Dzogchen's basis is beyond mind.
And I'm not going to say more than that.
You are a funny guy. You are just wrong.Jyoti wrote:The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used.
Would you be kind enough to explain the first statement?Jyoti wrote:Yes.Virgo wrote: Have you studied the three statements of Garab Dorje?
Kevin
Where is lhungrub explained in sutra?Jyoti wrote:The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used. This is a problem created by translator not familar with the standard mahayana terminologies, thereby introduce their own, this is very common with the english translations.SSJ3Gogeta wrote:Dzogchen Upadesha has the most unique basis and cosmology. There really isn't anything like it the rest of Buddhism. Certainly not freaking yogacara. The closest would be Madhyamaka, but even that is not the same at all.
Virgo wrote:Where is lhungrub explained in sutra?Jyoti wrote:The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used. This is a problem created by translator not familar with the standard mahayana terminologies, thereby introduce their own, this is very common with the english translations.SSJ3Gogeta wrote:Dzogchen Upadesha has the most unique basis and cosmology. There really isn't anything like it the rest of Buddhism. Certainly not freaking yogacara. The closest would be Madhyamaka, but even that is not the same at all.
Kevin
1. You are wrong, I'm a girl.SSJ3Gogeta wrote:You are a funny guy. You are just wrong.Jyoti wrote:The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used.
Dzogchen's basis is beyond mind.
And I'm not going to say more than that.
In my own word and style, receiving the introduction of meaning. This can be done with the help of a teacher directly, or through his book, or reading the scriptures of definitive meaning. The third is slower if one has no basis to begin with, but if one has some basis due to hearing or reading, then the scriptures are more helpful.Virgo wrote:Would you be kind enough to explain the first statement?Jyoti wrote:Yes.Virgo wrote: Have you studied the three statements of Garab Dorje?
Kevin
Again you are repeating the same mistake regarding what is ' beyond mind' mean. Then you introduce an 'empty nature of mind', there is no such body, these are conditions of the body, not the body itself.SSJ3Gogeta wrote: Actually gzhi is literally beyond the root consciousness. It really is utterly beyond the mind, and even the empty nature of the mind.
Fair enough, but I think the principle of lhun grub is implicit in the various Mahayana teachings on dharmadhatu, etc. Dzogchen does give a more lucid and clear explanation and exposition, but I won't say that the other vehicles are incapable of approaching gnosis and attainment of anuttarasamyaksambodhi on their own terms.Malcolm wrote:Lacks the explanation of lhun grub.pueraeternus wrote:... The Prajnaparamita...
Oh OK, that's how Garab Dorje presented it? Thanks.Jyoti wrote: In my own word and style, receiving the introduction of meaning. This can be done with the help of a teacher directly, or through his book, or reading the scriptures of definitive meaning. The third is slower if one has no basis to begin with, but if one has some basis due to hearing or reading, then the scriptures are more helpful.
The mahayana covered this within the word 'vidya', lhungrub is one of the sub-category of vidya, it is sufficient for mahayana to use the term vidya alone to cover all the sub-categories. Mahayana did not confused vidya (means) as prajna (body), but distinguished the two, thus one of the reasons it didn't have to use the sub-category definitions.Virgo wrote: Where is lhungrub explained in sutra?
Kevin
In term of meaning yes.Virgo wrote:Oh OK, that's how Garab Dorje presented it? Thanks.Jyoti wrote: In my own word and style, receiving the introduction of meaning. This can be done with the help of a teacher directly, or through his book, or reading the scriptures of definitive meaning. The third is slower if one has no basis to begin with, but if one has some basis due to hearing or reading, then the scriptures are more helpful.
evin
Oh dear. This is sad. What is going on in your situation is that your self has become your guru. Your pride has taken on a form of guruhood. So the more you study and debate, the bigger and more valuable your self as guru becomes. This is a very dangerous place to be. Whenever or if ever you need my help I would be happy to offer it. This also serves as a warning to others on the path.Jyoti wrote: If you note more carefully, the terms I used has no further description, terms such as reason (meaning), it mean I already realized this point, therefore I can bring out as inference, But in order for another to understand what this statement mean, he need to realize this reason (meaning). The statement itself is without flaw but definitive.
If one realized the meaning, that is the same as having passed the stage of transmission or direct introduction in dzogchen. And having realized oneself, the guru is not outside, but this fact does not only happen when one is realized, even when ignorance, the true guru is not outside either. When one depends on oneself using various analysis and arrived at realization of the inner guru, one in fact gained more experience than if one is to rely on another person to point out, the element of hard work is missing there.
As for the assumption that realization cannot be produce through intellectual inference, then one failed to understand that during direct introduction, the teacher is employing intellectual inference too. So what's the problem with intellectual inference, well the same as someone attached to the notion of nonconceptualization, thinking that the ultimate cannot be arrived through conceptual investigation. No one is suggesting the ultimate is constructed of concept, but thinking that one has to be absence of conceptualization in order to realized the ultimate is to mistakenly attempt to unite the means with the body of the ultimate, the failure of recognizing the primordial inseparability and distinction of means and body!
What is this guru worth since it exist even in the ignorant? You seems to worship the external guru, that's why I have stated as such, I'm not interested in the internal one, thus has no interest in the external ones as well. Rely on the teaching, not on the person please.Andrew108 wrote: Oh dear. This is sad. What is going on in your situation is that your self has become your guru. Your pride has taken on a form of guruhood. So the more you study and debate, the bigger and more valuable your self as guru becomes. This is a very dangerous place to be. Whenever or if ever you need my help I would be happy to offer it. This also serves as a warning to others on the path.
You need personal instructions in Dzogchen Jyoti, it is even more important than studying.Jyoti wrote:What is this guru worth since it exist even in the ignorant? You seems to worship the external guru, that's why I have stated as such, I'm not interested in the internal one, thus has no interest in the external ones as well. Rely on the teaching, not on the person please.Andrew108 wrote: Oh dear. This is sad. What is going on in your situation is that your self has become your guru. Your pride has taken on a form of guruhood. So the more you study and debate, the bigger and more valuable your self as guru becomes. This is a very dangerous place to be. Whenever or if ever you need my help I would be happy to offer it. This also serves as a warning to others on the path.
Perhaps, but I find manjusrimitra instruction on the first part of how to approach the path (as you quoted) to be more agreeable, since this is what has benefit me most. As for the upadesa, I have vast collection of them in my early years of self-learning and I don't think I am capable of dealing with mahayana contents if I didn't study the mahayana scriptures also. Even tibetan teachers of dzogchen tradition of the past and present study the mahayana scriptures in their tibetan form, so I just don't understand why western student of dzogchen tend to attached only to dzogchen content to the exclusion of the rest of mahayana, or worse to belittle it. If one read the commentaries of renown dzogchen teachers such as Mipham and Longchenpa, both of them make extensive quote of mahayana scriptures to support their view of dzogchen.heart wrote: You need personal instructions in Dzogchen Jyoti, it is even more important than studying.
"The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika). Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guru-ji."
Bodhicittabhavana by Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra
/magnus
Jyoti wrote:Perhaps, but I find manjusrimitra instruction on the first part of how to approach the path (as you quoted) to be more agreeable, since this is what has benefit me most. As for the upadesa, I have vast collection of them in my early years of self-learning and I don't think I am capable of dealing with mahayana contents if I didn't study the mahayana scriptures also. Even tibetan teachers of dzogchen tradition of the past and present study the mahayana scriptures in their tibetan form, so I just don't understand why western student of dzogchen tend to attached only to dzogchen content to the exclusion of the rest of mahayana, or worse to belittle it. If one read the commentaries of renown dzogchen teachers such as Mipham and Longchenpa, both of them make extensive quote of mahayana scriptures to support their view of dzogchen.heart wrote: You need personal instructions in Dzogchen Jyoti, it is even more important than studying.
"The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika). Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guru-ji."
Bodhicittabhavana by Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra
/magnus