Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Thu May 09, 2013 10:18 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:
Holybla wrote:@asun...

Description of base isn't reasoning. Dzogchen is your nature not logic. Recognition depend on transmission. It's that simple indeed. The transmission isn't anything to do with talk about Karma. Ati GY and presence is awareness of ones karmic situation.


I never suggested one's nature was logic, nor did I suggest recognition occurs independent of transmission. I agree the rigpai tsalwang doesn't have anything to do with talk of karma, however there is no harm in understanding karma and how it functions, the cause of delusion, what fuels the fire of delusion and what extinguishes it. We're all here on an internet forum to discuss dzogchen, and we all use concepts, words, ideas, interpretations, translations, language etc., to communicate, there's no harm in doing so. No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen, but we are all free do discuss dzogchen (subject matter appropriate for a public forum of course).


I'm saying nothing you said so far is indispensable to understanding dzogchen. Dzogchen is not a school. But you said what someone needs to know. Distinguishing mind and nature isn't intellectual.
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu May 09, 2013 10:48 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen...
You are saying that there is something that is not the nature of mind?
Holybla wrote:Distinguishing mind and nature isn't intellectual.
Are you saying that your teacher is wasting their time teaching?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Jnana » Thu May 09, 2013 11:00 pm

Holybla wrote:Except I don't agree with your differentiation of cause and condition.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm not suggesting that anyone needs to adopt Sarvāstivāda realism in order to account for the arising of duḥkha. But these conceptual frameworks can also be used for explanatory purposes without realist implications. For example, the four conditions (catvāra pratyayā; which were first developed by the Sarvāstivāda), were still being recycled and reused by Longchenpa and Karmapa Rangjung Dorje in the 14th century, in different contexts from those of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma (after having already been recycled in India by Yogācāra commentators).

Holybla wrote:This then that is hardly a theory of causes or conditions. It stating a relationship of one thing follows another, not that one thing acts upon another. IMO this is a deep topic. Hume says the same thing, there's no causality only laws of regularity.

Yes, it is a deep topic.

Holybla wrote:Modernly, Rupert Sheldrake has theorized about laws of the universe as just habits rather than causal interactions. This is a philosophical doorway into the nonexistence of agents, objects and actions. Nagarjuna's whole spiels are all about This then that... It's cool to go from there into Dzogchen.

It is. And Sheldrake is an interesting fellow.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby asunthatneversets » Thu May 09, 2013 11:16 pm

Holybla wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Holybla wrote:@asun...

Description of base isn't reasoning. Dzogchen is your nature not logic. Recognition depend on transmission. It's that simple indeed. The transmission isn't anything to do with talk about Karma. Ati GY and presence is awareness of ones karmic situation.


I never suggested one's nature was logic, nor did I suggest recognition occurs independent of transmission. I agree the rigpai tsalwang doesn't have anything to do with talk of karma, however there is no harm in understanding karma and how it functions, the cause of delusion, what fuels the fire of delusion and what extinguishes it. We're all here on an internet forum to discuss dzogchen, and we all use concepts, words, ideas, interpretations, translations, language etc., to communicate, there's no harm in doing so. No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen, but we are all free do discuss dzogchen (subject matter appropriate for a public forum of course).


I'm saying nothing you said so far is indispensable to understanding dzogchen.


Likewise.

Holybla wrote:Dzogchen is not a school. But you said what someone needs to know. Distinguishing mind and nature isn't intellectual.


There are no limitations to what can be a support for practice and understanding. Traditionally, studying dzogchen, the tantras etc., is seen as one of the many aspects of vidyā [rig pa], which in the Bön tradition is referred to as bsam rig. (i) Bsam rig is one of the three main modalities of vidyā which are most frequently associated with the dzogchen teachings, flanked on either side by (ii) khyab rig (equivalent to the tathāgatagarbha i.e. buddha nature which is our innate potentiality for buddhahood) and (iii) ye rig, which is precisely the knowledge of the natural state implemented as the foundation for one's practice in dzogchen. Jean-Luc Achard states that bsam rig [knowing discernment] "is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernement is developed)".

So for the skilled individual, the intellect can be a beneficial ally in generating proper discernment when it comes to our nature, it isn't a mandatory requirement, but it's not something to be rejected either. After all, only the intellect rejects the intellect, when authentically resting in one's nature, thoughts arise as wisdoms and there is nothing to accept or reject. As long as a practitioner can effectively discriminate between the primordial wisdom's [ye shes] dynamism [rtsal], and that which arises as an expression (or adulteration) of that dynamism [the intellect i.e. sems, etc.], thoughts are not a hinderance, they simply self-arise and self-liberate timelessly (as non-arisen wisdom display) and 'remain in their own condition' as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche often says.

Per Loppön Malcolm Smith:
"In Ati these days, conceited elephants [claim]
the mass of discursive concepts is awakened mind (bodhicitta);
this confusion is a dimension of complete darkness,
a hindrance to the meaning of the natural great perfection..."


Same quote continued in an alternate translation:
"...If one cannot even differentiate dynamic energy [rtsal] and that which arises from dynamic energy [sems, etc.],
what is the use in talking about the essence of the awakened mind?"


Norbu Rinpoche actually just said it today in his teaching; limitations are self-imposed. Discerning vidyā and sems is a vital aspect of the teaching, however it's important not to fall into a trap where sems is rejecting sems (thought is rejecting thought), all that accomplishes is sustaining distraction (meaning breathing life into the delusion that a point of reference [subject] stands apart from thoughts [objects] which sequence consecutively in a given span of time and can be either accepted and/or rejected).
Last edited by asunthatneversets on Thu May 09, 2013 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Astus » Thu May 09, 2013 11:16 pm

Jnana wrote:
Holybla wrote:Modernly, Rupert Sheldrake has theorized about laws of the universe as just habits rather than causal interactions. This is a philosophical doorway into the nonexistence of agents, objects and actions. Nagarjuna's whole spiels are all about This then that... It's cool to go from there into Dzogchen.

It is. And Sheldrake is an interesting fellow.


Habits instead of causality is Hume's idea, further investigated by Kant (Kant and Hume on Causality), then on influenced Husserl's phenomenology and through Hegel the process philosophy of Whitehead. As for Sheldrake, I'm not familiar with his thoughts, just wanted to add how in Western philosophy the idea of causality can come close to a Buddhist understanding while at the same time it is - being philosophy - a lot more complex.

Sorry for being :offtopic:
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby asunthatneversets » Thu May 09, 2013 11:39 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen...
You are saying that there is something that is not the nature of mind?


Kinda depends on the individual, wouldn't you agree? For the practitioner who is stabilized in the natural state, thoughts, concepts etc., arise as wisdoms. However if one isn't stable in their vidyā, it's important to tentatively discriminate between sems [energy of primordial wisdom adulterated into dualistic conceptual thinking i.e. an intellect] and rtsal [the same phenomena left in it's natural state divested of grasping and clinging]. For someone resting in the natural state, yeah the words are dzogchen. But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Thu May 09, 2013 11:42 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:
Holybla wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:I never suggested one's nature was logic, nor did I suggest recognition occurs independent of transmission. I agree the rigpai tsalwang doesn't have anything to do with talk of karma, however there is no harm in understanding karma and how it functions, the cause of delusion, what fuels the fire of delusion and what extinguishes it. We're all here on an internet forum to discuss dzogchen, and we all use concepts, words, ideas, interpretations, translations, language etc., to communicate, there's no harm in doing so. No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen, but we are all free do discuss dzogchen (subject matter appropriate for a public forum of course).


I'm saying nothing you said so far is indispensable to understanding dzogchen.


Likewise.

Holybla wrote:Dzogchen is not a school. But you said what someone needs to know. Distinguishing mind and nature isn't intellectual.


There are no limitations to what can be a support for practice and understanding. Traditionally, studying dzogchen, the tantras etc., is seen as one of the many aspects of vidyā [rig pa], which in the Bön tradition is referred to as bsam rig. (i) Bsam rig is one of the three main modalities of vidyā which are most frequently associated with the dzogchen teachings, flanked on either side by (ii) khyab rig (equivalent to the tathāgatagarbha i.e. buddha nature which is our innate potentiality for buddhahood) and (iii) ye rig, which is precisely the knowledge of the natural state implemented as the foundation for one's practice in dzogchen. Jean-Luc Achard states that bsam rig [knowing discernment] "is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernement is developed)".

So for the skilled individual, the intellect can be a beneficial ally in generating proper discernment when it comes to our nature, it isn't a mandatory requirement, but it's not something to be rejected either. After all, only the intellect rejects the intellect, when authentically resting in one's nature, thoughts arise as wisdoms and there is nothing to accept or reject. As long as a practitioner can effectively discriminate between the primordial wisdom's [ye shes] dynamism [rtsal], and that which arises as an expression (or adulteration) of that dynamism [the intellect i.e. sems, etc.], thoughts are not a hinderance, they simply self-arise and self-liberate timelessly (as non-arisen wisdom display) and 'remain in their own condition' as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche often says.

Per Loppön Malcolm Smith:
"In Ati these days, conceited elephants [claim]
the mass of discursive concepts is awakened mind (bodhicitta);
this confusion is a dimension of complete darkness,
a hindrance to the meaning of the natural great perfection..."


Same quote continued in an alternate translation:
"...If one cannot even differentiate dynamic energy [rtsal] and that which arises from dynamic energy [sems, etc.],
what is the use in talking about the essence of the awakened mind?"


Norbu Rinpoche actually just said it today in his teaching; limitations are self-imposed. Discerning vidyā and sems is a vital aspect of the teaching, however it's important not to fall into a trap where sems is rejecting sems (thought is rejecting thought), all that accomplishes is sustaining distraction (meaning breathing life into the delusion that a point of reference [subject] stands apart from thoughts [objects] which sequence consecutively in a given span of time and can be either accepted and/or rejected).


Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points. If someone asks, what is the base? You can answer that. But to use points from the transmission to debate is a misuse of Dzogchen teachings. If someone says, I am having trouble sleeping how can Dzogchen help? You can advise how to take Bimala and maybe do Mandarava chulen or something like that. Demonstrating your proficiency with Tibetanisms is not showing Dzogchen at all.

I understand you feel we are conflicting now so you say "likewise." But truthfully, transmission and GY are indeed indispensable to Dzogchen. Nothing else is.

Everything else including intellectual ideas are secondary. Intellectual ideas are low on the totem pole of important methods to help gain the view. Once the view is obtained and stable, secondary practices and especially intellectual ideas are passé. At that point, we use letters, syllables and words only to entice the uninitiated, but never to condition or convince. The main way to make connections and help sentient beings are part of transmission.
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Thu May 09, 2013 11:45 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Holybla wrote:Distinguishing mind and nature isn't intellectual.
Are you saying that your teacher is wasting their time teaching?


Are you saying your Dzogchen teacher showed you an intellectual nature of mind? Hehe.

I don't know why you are asking this...
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Thu May 09, 2013 11:46 pm

IMHO this thread is a bit of devilry...
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri May 10, 2013 12:30 am

Holybla wrote:Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points.


Aren't you also using dzogchen to prove a point?

Holybla wrote:If someone asks, what is the base? You can answer that. But to use points from the transmission to debate is a misuse of Dzogchen teachings.


You're also using points from transmission to 'debate' (although I'd say this is more of a discussion).

Holybla wrote:If someone says, I am having trouble sleeping how can Dzogchen help? You can advise how to take Bimala and maybe do Mandarava chulen or something like that. Demonstrating your proficiency with Tibetanisms is not showing Dzogchen at all.


I never claimed to be showing dzogchen, and trust me knowing a few tibetan (and sanskrit) terms is a far cry from a proficiency.

Holybla wrote:I understand you feel we are conflicting now so you say "likewise."


I'd hardly call this a conflict, you have your opinion, I have one too, and we sit online and throw them around, it's a good time if you ask me! I was saying "likewise" to point out that if you don't hold yourself to your own standards, you're creating a double-standard.

Holybla wrote:But truthfully, transmission and GY are indeed indispensable to Dzogchen. Nothing else is.


True, but when you twist guru yoga and transmission into a weapon, which is then wielded against another point of view, you're rendering guru yoga and transmission equivalent to whatever intellectual vomit I'm sharing. It's the intellect that accepts and rejects, conventionally we do accept and reject on here and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to watch that subtle slip. Guru yoga as a notion, translated by mind is simply another point of view (you're using to argue against another point of view). I'm about to do the same here but I admit it; guru yoga is guru yoga, the experience, free of mind. That's why it's pointless to debate about dzogchen (though I like to!) :tongue:

Holybla wrote:Everything else including intellectual ideas are secondary. Intellectual ideas are low on the totem pole of important methods to help gain the view. Once the view is obtained and stable, secondary practices and especially intellectual ideas are passé. At that point, we use letters, syllables and words only to entice the uninitiated, but never to condition or convince. The main way to make connections and help sentient beings are part of transmission.


Also true, however again the intellect can be a useful tool and should be understood, not rejected. On the outset yes it's beneficial to use the traditional methods which don't involve the intellect, however after that point I'd say it's better to create a more overarching and holistic relationship with one's experience, understand how the intellect becomes an obstacle, and the ways to relate to the intellect that are beneficial. There are no limitations once vidyā is definitively recognized. Dzogchen doesn't give credence to the conventional/ultimate dichotomy, however that doesn't mean that the conventional is thrown out the window... and that being the case, it's important to put these things in perspective.

"By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth;
Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises.
Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect,
is the state of simplicity."
- Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche


Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also said during this present retreat; (paraphrased) through the wisdom of vidyā, seek to understand yourself, and by understanding your condition you will be able to relax, through relaxation you will be able to relate to your experience in a way that makes life easy and enjoyable. So there's no issue implementing the discernment gained in vidyā to know yourself, know your condition, understand yourself, understand others, understand thoughts, how we fall into delusion etc... find what works for you and become a master of your domain. The universe trembles in front of the vidyādhara.

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Fri May 10, 2013 12:51 am

asunthatneversets wrote:
Holybla wrote:Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points.


Aren't you also using dzogchen to prove a point?

Holybla wrote:If someone asks, what is the base? You can answer that. But to use points from the transmission to debate is a misuse of Dzogchen teachings.


You're also using points from transmission to 'debate' (although I'd say this is more of a discussion).

Holybla wrote:If someone says, I am having trouble sleeping how can Dzogchen help? You can advise how to take Bimala and maybe do Mandarava chulen or something like that. Demonstrating your proficiency with Tibetanisms is not showing Dzogchen at all.


I never claimed to be showing dzogchen, and trust me knowing a few tibetan (and sanskrit) terms is a far cry from a proficiency.

Holybla wrote:I understand you feel we are conflicting now so you say "likewise."


I'd hardly call this a conflict, you have your opinion, I have one too, and we sit online and throw them around, it's a good time if you ask me! I was saying "likewise" to point out that if you don't hold yourself to your own standards, you're creating a double-standard.

Holybla wrote:But truthfully, transmission and GY are indeed indispensable to Dzogchen. Nothing else is.


True, but when you twist guru yoga and transmission into a weapon, which is then wielded against another point of view, you're rendering guru yoga and transmission equivalent to whatever intellectual vomit I'm sharing. It's the intellect that accepts and rejects, conventionally we do accept and reject on here and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to watch that subtle slip. Guru yoga as a notion, translated by mind is simply another point of view (you're using to argue against another point of view). I'm about to do the same here but I admit it; guru yoga is guru yoga, the experience, free of mind. That's why it's pointless to debate about dzogchen (though I like to!) :tongue:

Holybla wrote:Everything else including intellectual ideas are secondary. Intellectual ideas are low on the totem pole of important methods to help gain the view. Once the view is obtained and stable, secondary practices and especially intellectual ideas are passé. At that point, we use letters, syllables and words only to entice the uninitiated, but never to condition or convince. The main way to make connections and help sentient beings are part of transmission.


Also true, however again the intellect can be a useful tool and should be understood, not rejected. On the outset yes it's beneficial to use the traditional methods which don't involve the intellect, however after that point I'd say it's better to create a more overarching and holistic relationship with one's experience, understand how the intellect becomes an obstacle, and the ways to relate to the intellect that are beneficial. There are no limitations once vidyā is definitively recognized. Dzogchen doesn't give credence to the conventional/ultimate dichotomy, however that doesn't mean that the conventional is thrown out the window... and that being the case, it's important to put these things in perspective.

"By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth;
Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises.
Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect,
is the state of simplicity."
- Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche


Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also said during this present retreat; (paraphrased) through the wisdom of vidyā, seek to understand yourself, and by understanding your condition you will be able to relax, through relaxation you will be able to relate to your experience in a way that makes life easy and enjoyable. So there's no issue implementing the discernment gained in vidyā to know yourself, know your condition, understand yourself, understand others, understand thoughts, how we fall into delusion etc... find what works for you and become a master of your domain. The universe trembles in front of the vidyādhara.

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu


This reminds me of those multiple choice tests where the right answer is the one with the most words at least one nicely bracketed quotation. My hands hurt then I try to get brief. But I still need to practice that. This is becoming like legal pleadings where we battle each point line by line. I'm not having fun anymore and want off this ride...

Just because I'm an addict i have to say one more thing...

What is understood in Vidya is not intellectual knowledge. It's wisdom. Everything is wisdom at that point. And DKR. He overate. All that sarma stuff is the reason he's every Kagyu's favorite giant Nyingmapa. Okay I'm laughing and being silly. DKR is obviously amazingly great. So now we are on the same team. Birds of a feather. Hugging forever...

but I really have this last point

DKR, he was a Rime. I follow NNR. There's Kadag and Lundrub but the two truths are just bla bla bla...
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri May 10, 2013 1:17 am

Isn't it 'birds of a feather, flock together'?... Maybe hugging together is the saying where you're from I dunno. And ok discussion over, except ka dag and lhun grub aren't really proper equivalents to the two-truths. Vidyā and avidyā is the dzogchen treatment. Vidyā the single truth, everything else falling under avidyā, including conventionality. Although even non-dzogchenpas uphold the same - Nagarjuna states; "Since the Jinas have proclaimed nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not understand the rest is false?"
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby MalaBeads » Fri May 10, 2013 1:40 am

"I'm not having fun anymore and want off this ride..."

Holybla,

Good luck with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&sns=em
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Fri May 10, 2013 1:55 am

asunthatneversets wrote:Isn't it 'birds of a feather, flock together'?... Maybe hugging together is the saying where you're from I dunno. And ok discussion over, except ka dag and lhun grub aren't really proper equivalents to the two-truths. Vidyā and avidyā is the dzogchen treatment. Vidyā the single truth, everything else falling under avidyā, including conventionality. Although even non-dzogchenpas uphold the same - Nagarjuna states; "Since the Jinas have proclaimed nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not understand the rest is false?"

The slight tang of bitterness goes well with my rum. Oh and you're wrong too... Ha! I tell jokes. You make excellent points. So helpful for me...
Last edited by Holybla on Fri May 10, 2013 2:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Holybla » Fri May 10, 2013 1:55 am

MalaBeads wrote:"I'm not having fun anymore and want off this ride..."

Holybla,

Good luck with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&sns=em


Now i'm laughing... :rolling:
Holybla
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:28 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby MalaBeads » Fri May 10, 2013 2:25 am

Holybla wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:"I'm not having fun anymore and want off this ride..."

Holybla,

Good luck with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&sns=em


Now i'm laughing... :rolling:


:smile:

You wanna connect with wisdom, you gotta know how to have fun.

Cheers.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri May 10, 2013 9:13 am

asunthatneversets wrote: But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).
Hmmmmm...
"Oh great bodhisattva, listen! Things are made in a perfect manner. This is so because I am the nature of perfection. I shall show you My own being. Because My own being is non-conceptual and uncreated, I have made [things] as to exist in the realm of Reality (chos dbyings). They do not rest on anything else but the mind of perfect purity. As My own being is immaculate and all-pervasive [the things] do not rest upon anything else but on the self-originated awareness itself in the mansion of awareness, i.e the lurid sky. As I am the central vigor of all things which come into existence, i.e. the five great [elements], the threefold world, the six categories [of sentient beings]: they are nothing else but My form, utterance and spirit. I have established [the things] as My own being. I am revealing to you the Buddhas of the three times and the sentient beings of the threefold world as My own being. Because My actuating essence is unborn, and non-conceptual, it does not exist (mi gnas), but transcends all areas of perception. It even transcends the objects of meditation and does not become apparent in mental absorption. Although My own being is imperceptible, I reveal My actuation to you as the threefold world, [consisting of] the five great [elements], and the six categories [of sentient beings]. From the five [elements] which are the apparent [form of My] own being, i.e. the perfect and pure mind, come the five self-originated and vigorous awarenesses. The five awarenesses bring forth the five sensual objects; after the five desires have come forth the five passions come forth. The five passions bring their individual results which individually appear as the six categories of the sentient beings. I am teaching you the appearance [of the universe] to be like that.
The All-Creating Sovereign, Mind of Perfect Purity, Chapter 6
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri May 10, 2013 9:24 am

Holybla wrote:Are you saying your Dzogchen teacher showed you an intellectual nature of mind? Hehe.
Yes, ChNN also explains what is meant by the terms "nature of mind".
I don't know why you are asking this...
To point out the contradictions inherent in your argument.
asunthatneversets wrote:
Holybla wrote:Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points.

Aren't you also using dzogchen to prove a point?
What he means is: one should not use Dzogchen to disprove his points, one should not use Dzogchen to point out the flaws in his understanding. That's what Holybla means.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri May 10, 2013 2:49 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).
Hmmmmm...
"Oh great bodhisattva, listen! Things are made in a perfect manner. This is so because I am the nature of perfection. I shall show you My own being. Because My own being is non-conceptual and uncreated, I have made [things] as to exist in the realm of Reality (chos dbyings). They do not rest on anything else but the mind of perfect purity. As My own being is immaculate and all-pervasive [the things] do not rest upon anything else but on the self-originated awareness itself in the mansion of awareness, i.e the lurid sky. As I am the central vigor of all things which come into existence, i.e. the five great [elements], the threefold world, the six categories [of sentient beings]: they are nothing else but My form, utterance and spirit. I have established [the things] as My own being. I am revealing to you the Buddhas of the three times and the sentient beings of the threefold world as My own being. Because My actuating essence is unborn, and non-conceptual, it does not exist (mi gnas), but transcends all areas of perception. It even transcends the objects of meditation and does not become apparent in mental absorption. Although My own being is imperceptible, I reveal My actuation to you as the threefold world, [consisting of] the five great [elements], and the six categories [of sentient beings]. From the five [elements] which are the apparent [form of My] own being, i.e. the perfect and pure mind, come the five self-originated and vigorous awarenesses. The five awarenesses bring forth the five sensual objects; after the five desires have come forth the five passions come forth. The five passions bring their individual results which individually appear as the six categories of the sentient beings. I am teaching you the appearance [of the universe] to be like that.
The All-Creating Sovereign, Mind of Perfect Purity, Chapter 6


The kun byed rgyal po is an interesting tantra, and I totally agree that the way it reads comes off as if it's suggesting that everything is perfect across the board from the very beginning, even ignorance, but one interesting point I've come across is that the kun byed rgyal po or 'All-Creating Monarch' is the mind, rather than the natural state.

Here's a question Soh Wei Yu (posts here as Xabir) asked Malcolm awhile ago:

Soh wrote:
"Hi Namdrol,

As you mentioned about Hindu Vedanta... a question came to mind.

I was just reading someone's post half an hour ago in another forum: ( http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress ... eplies=200 ).

He/she ('star') states that according to Dzogchen view, everything is Consciousness, and therefore everything is real.

What is your comment on this?

Also, he/she states 'The Supreme Source' as a reference... in which I also personally have some questions regarding this book: in certain parts of the book, Consciousness is described as an all-creating agent, which sounds like God to me. How does Dependent Origination apply here?"


Malcolm wrote:
"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.

In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins."


---------------------

And Jean-Luc Achard has said the same:

? wrote:
"That quote above still can be interpreted the same way. The Kunjed Gyalpo says that there is nothing to do, try, search etc... Because everything is from the Supreme Source, thus perfect. There is not two sources, but one. Then what can possibly be 'perfected' ?"

Jean-Luc Achard wrote:
"Supreme Source is not a Dzogchen concept. I don’t know (well i suspect) why they choosed this title (way too New Age for me) but the original is 'All Creating' (kun-byed, lit. 'All Doing') refering to the mind. So mind creates everything, that’s the meaning, its not a reference to some cosmic source somewhere as it may sound from the english title. What can be perfected? Well one’s deluded mind can be perfected, certainly not the natural state. Nobody said the natural state has to be perfected, it’s one’s ultimate essence, but our ordinary being is not our essence, it is deluded, full of ignorance, and this is what has to be perfected."
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri May 10, 2013 2:59 pm

It's definitely a topic which is a point of departure for people, I had a recent conversation with Jax where he vehemently opposed the kun byed rgyal po being the dualistic mind, Malcolm didn't write much but also maintained his position that it's the mind which is being referenced:

Jax wrote:
Kyle Dixon, so as you now see both you and Malcolm were wrong as per my quotes... And JL's comments had nothing to do with our conversation. Like I said: Boy, Kyle are you wrong:

From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"

Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."

So admit you were wrong again Kyle along with your wrong concept about "emptiness being the result of the 4th vision of thogal, and your about face regarding Zhantong. You need to get out your books again and try to memorize this stuff... or just practice.


--------------

I wrote:
Jean-Luc's comments had everything to do with what we're discussing, he was addressing the very fact that the 'All-Creating King' is the mind.

As for Malcolm Smith being wrong, I would disagree and it's unfortunate you'd make such a claim.

I have no issue with making mistakes from time to time and admitting it, I don't allow for my confirmation biases to blind me from seeking the truth. When I recognize that I must admit wrong in my life, I do it with pride, because that is the only way I (and others) can grow.

Petty of me to do so but, may I point out that you weren't even aware that the realization of emptiness was associated with any of the visions (and you claim to teach that practice). I really have no position on Zhantong, it appears to be no different than Advaita Vedanta, but great masters such as Dudjom Rinpoche have proclaimed that it has useful application in practice so I remain open to it. I'm fairly unconcerned with that view, that is your own interest.


--------------

Jax wrote:
Of course Malcolm was wrong. Didn't you read the quotes from the KJG Tantra and Norbu? Hello???

--------------

Malcolm wrote:
Wrong about what?

--------------

I wrote:
According to Jax, the following two quotes from Norbu Rinpoche's kun byed rgyal po translation refute your statement that the mind is the all-creating king:

From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"

Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."


--------------

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, well jax just has to read more carefully and thoroughly.

--------------

Jax wrote:
Jax has to read "what" more thoroughly and carefully? The texts I posted were quite clear and carefully read before I posted them. The discussion was "What does the Kunje Gyalpo, "The All Creating Monarch" represent?

Kyle Dixon said "The all creating king indeed does represent ignorance since phenomena only arise from ignorance... The all creating king is the mind... not the gzhi, nor is it the dharmakaya, nor is it samantabhadra since those 3 are never involved in ignorance."

Jax: Now here are the correct facts: From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra:

"Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"

Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."

I rest my case and have no further reason to argue regarding what the Kunje Gyalpo means in Dzogchen. It does not mean as Kyle said it represents "ignorance". Rather it represents our primordial State as Rigpa or perfect Buddha Wisdom Mind.


--------------

Malcolm wrote:
Chnn has said more about this than is what in your citation.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Advaya, bryandavis, Google [Bot], Nosta, Tod and 24 guests

>