James Low & Simply Being

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

James Low & Simply Being

Postby Astus » Tue May 31, 2011 10:22 am

He is one of the less known teachers as he tours only in Europe. I find his style very modern and appropriate for the audience. There are transcripts and videos on the website, there are also books you can buy.

Simply Being

Image"Simply being is the ground, path and fruition of all existence. The teaching of this is known as dzogchen or the natural perfection of all experience.
This is not an abstract idea but is the vital presence which we embody and engage with as the world around us. Dzogchen teaching recalls us to the open nature of all things, the natural state we have never left, yet have somehow forgotten."
"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)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“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; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4236
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby muni » Tue May 31, 2011 11:13 am

Astus, :thumbsup: that dwawing: "Much Ado About Nothing" = a negation of a nonexistence. Unfabricated nature.

That iron gate as symbol for Dzogchen of comparing, competition, entangled in dreamlike fabrication, grasping expressions, labeling, striving, partiality, hoping, fear, no confidence, assertive ideas/opinions..
muni
 
Posts: 2945
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 31, 2011 2:12 pm

Astus wrote:Dzogchen teaching recalls us to the open nature of all things, the natural state we have never left, yet have somehow forgotten."[/i]



This is a stilly statement. We never knew this natural state, had we known it, we would have never entered into samsara.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby alpha » Tue May 31, 2011 2:22 pm

then how can you" recognize" the natural state since you have never know it before..?
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 31, 2011 3:57 pm

alpha wrote:then how can you" recognize" the natural state since you have never know it before..?



You receive an introduction.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:04 am

"... the natural state we have never left, but have somehow never known" would have been good, though.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:19 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:"... the natural state we have never left, but have somehow never known" would have been good, though.



Yes.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Sherab » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:27 am

Namdrol wrote:
Astus wrote:Dzogchen teaching recalls us to the open nature of all things, the natural state we have never left, yet have somehow forgotten."[/i]



This is a stilly statement. We never knew this natural state, had we known it, we would have never entered into samsara.

N

'Known' but not recognized and thus forgotten?
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:01 am

Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Astus wrote:Dzogchen teaching recalls us to the open nature of all things, the natural state we have never left, yet have somehow forgotten."[/i]



This is a stilly statement. We never knew this natural state, had we known it, we would have never entered into samsara.

N

'Known' but not recognized and thus forgotten?



Recognition comes before knowing. I.e., if you don't recognize, you don't know.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby adinatha » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:15 am

Note the prefix: re-cognition. One can only recognize what has already been seen. Perhaps introduction, then knowledge, then practice would be the recognition.

Or, there is a background knowing--The Mother. And then teacher pointing is re-cognizing--The Son. Then ignorance would be knowing, but ignoring. But it can't be ignoring to the point of forgetting with impossibility of remembering, because the buddha-nature has no coming or going. It can't be lost.

Buddha-nature is not like memories. It doesn't accumulate or dissipate. Therefore, recognizing in the sense of re-knowing is right.
CAW!
User avatar
adinatha
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:07 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby padma norbu » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:26 am

I believe it is called "recognition" because once pointed out you can see that it was always there all along, but you never took notice of it. Too busy following thoughts rather than awareness of thought. It's "recognition" in the same way one can "recognize" the error of his ways, eventually, after thinking he was right all along.
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
User avatar
padma norbu
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:33 am

adinatha wrote:Note the prefix: re-cognition. One can only recognize what has already been seen. Perhaps introduction, then knowledge, then practice would be the recognition.

Or, there is a background knowing--The Mother. And then teacher pointing is re-cognizing--The Son. Then ignorance would be knowing, but ignoring. But it can't be ignoring to the point of forgetting with impossibility of remembering, because the buddha-nature has no coming or going. It can't be lost.

Buddha-nature is not like memories. It doesn't accumulate or dissipate. Therefore, recognizing in the sense of re-knowing is right.



Whatever, introduction, etc.

The point is aimed at the idea that we somehow forgot our real condition which we somehow knew before.

My point is that this is impossible.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Yontan » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:48 am

This is just a semantic problem. Maybe an important one.
"Recognition" does imply a re-uniting with a previous understanding/perception, but the Tibetan phrases translated as such don't have any of the causal or even teleological overtones. Much more like "having the import bestowed upon you," i.e., "introduction."
The fact that what has been introduced is not newly arisen does not mean you've ever noticed it before. Using the same poor translation, to introduce would be to make someone recognize.
Yontan
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:57 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby heart » Wed Jun 01, 2011 5:18 am

I agree with Namdrol, my Dzogchen texts says clearly that rigpa or the natural state was neither known nor not known from the beginning.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby alpha » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:53 am

Dear people...i tried to discuss exactly the same problem you discuss here now but on a different thread ...but nobody seemed too interested....

Maybe it wasnt the right time...
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby alpha » Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:08 am

[/quote]Recognition comes before knowing. I.e., if you don't recognize, you don't know.

N[/quote]


Lets say the teacher introduces you ,you cant see it and then you go and practice and then you see it.
That to me is identification of something which was explained to you but not seen at that moment.Once you identify in your experience what the teacher said then the knowing comes.

once you know it then you can recognize it over and over again...
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:10 pm

alpha wrote:
Recognition comes before knowing. I.e., if you don't recognize, you don't know.

N[/quote]


Lets say the teacher introduces you ,you cant see it and then you go and practice and then you see it.
That to me is identification of something which was explained to you but not seen at that moment.Once you identify in your experience what the teacher said then the knowing comes.

once you know it then you can recognize it over and over again...[/quote]


When you are introduced, then you recognize, then you know. Game over.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Sönam » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:41 pm

recognition is not the process to re-discover what was already known. It is the process of having it, dealing with it, without knowing it is that ... then the pointing out of the master makes you recognize it for what it is.
Originally the pointing out instruction is on a one to one basis, making it strongly significant ... thus definitive freedom. On a large scale recognition has not the same impact.

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Astus » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:41 pm

In other words, the primordial state of enlightenment is discovered. Mind-essence was pre-enlightened; our original ground is already enlightened. In the Dzogchen approach, this discovery is called being re-enlightened. Mahamudra does not use these terms re-enlightened and pre-enlightened, but at the fourth stage of nonmeditatation the meaning is basically the same. ... Third is awareness-rigpa reaching fullness, and the fourth stage is called the exhaustion or depletion of all concepts and dualistic phenomena. This stage is equivalent of the stage of nonmeditation in Mahamudra. The ultimate state of enlightenment is being re-enlightened in the pre-enlightened original ground, as mentioned above.
(Adeu Rinpoche: Correlating Mahamudra & Dzogchen in Quintessential Dzogchen, p. 210-211)

The best situation would be if we had never strayed into the deluded way of perceiving to begin with. But somehow it seems that we missed the opportunity to be primordially enlightened, and now we are deep in confusion. ... Even though we missed the chance to be primordially enlightened - "pre-enlightened," if you will - we can still attain stability in the natural freedom of our essence and become "re-enlightened."
(Drubwang Rinpoche: Fearless Simplicity, p. 95)

We possess an enlightened essence, but having temporarily lost that connection we are deluded. Continuously missing the opportunity to awaken, we fall under the power of our ordinary experience, governed by habits so strenuous to maintain such a clinging to a self. ... The loosening of our grasping untangles a knot in our heart; we do not need to stay bound and strangled by it. Likewise, from our confused state, we can be reprogrammed because we are primordially enlightened and we have the potential to return to that state as re-enlightened. Best to leave this for now and conclude by using Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's words: ... The dirt has to be removed to re-establish the purity of the jewel.
(Marcia Dechen Wangmo: Confessions of a Gypsy Yogini, p. 15-16)
"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)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“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; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4236
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: James Low & Simply Being

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:07 pm

Astus wrote:[i]In other words...


There is no term or concept in Dzogchen as being "re-enlightened". Does not exist and does not make sense.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Next

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

>