Up to your comment on space, the comments are mostly and basically on non-duality. Of course there is 'apparent' duality in marigpa illusory subjective POV of unenlightened beings. That is why I gave so many examples like looking at a cup from different angles etc.. Ultimately, in the true way things are, there is no duality. different levels, subsets and concurrent, sharing the same space non-dual. And the space example was regarding the way non-duality of rigpa/marigpa is all concurrent as well as the way tri-kayas are inseparable too. Not what you talk about as I wasn't talking about those. So to answer your question, both occur, dualism of subjective marigpa in it's reduced dimensions and the non-duality of everything. However everything is inherently non-existent and the marigpa dualistic view is worse, a trick of a magician, completely false. And it gets worse as it causes near infinite suffering. So I was on topic as all those examples were for dualism vs. non-dualism and the 3 (or 4 or 5) kayas as one as it is very clear.
On the list of your practices, I think it is very good for you, in fact perfect. I would say try one method at a time. Check for results and if something seems to happen check with your gurus. If after a while one method is not working then try another for quite some time. I wouldn't move on from that list before you confirm results of their fruits with your gurus.
On the other point, yes when the ultimate knowledge (rigpa) of true reality self arises (rangjung yeshe not other lower forms of yeshes) in case of a practitioner, non-duality dawns like the first rays of the sun in the early morning sky.
You then again say there is marigpa separate self or ego. Of course it is as I said before and in the first paragraph above, in its false dimension and ultimately false. Though it causes suffering for all beings. These are basics and no need to repeat them in case people think you mean they are inherently existing.
As to rigpa encompassing thoughts. When I explained so carefully that dharmakaya encompasses lower two kayas inseparably, like subsets and actually more as they are the same, then no need again to repeat the given elements and axioms on which the deduction was made. ie: when I say everything including the cosmos and all sentient beings, then 'everything' includes thoughts too. And emotions and habitual tendencies. Next: Samye debate (Hashang) was not exactly zen (then northern school or southern school chaan). There is a debate as to excatly what his position/tradition was and there is scholarly progress being made. Next: And thoughts not only do not necessarily obstruct being in the state of rigpa of kadak/lhundrub but actually if used with trekcho methods and grols and other methods help us achive the NS. Again basics that need not stating. I proved that emptiness alone without clarity (or other methods etc.) is misleading and a pitfall that wastes a precious life or sends you into space frozen for eons.
On your last point I did not dismiss the first part. I just elaborated on the second part. As I said in dharmakaya all is included, including deluded beings' POV and subjective karmic dimensions.
Now I like to open a second category on some suggestions to you. I think you ask questions to initiate debate and that is good. But can I ask you not to mention methods and practices which have samaya in either Bon or TB. Also if either tradition forbids disclosure in a method's case then we should respect it. The same regarding the view and any teachings on thogal. You have not done it as far as I can see. Secondly I think it is best if for discussion on a thread the subject remains focused. For another subject you can open another thread. This way you get deep into discussions and get more results in a focused way. Also if people diverge, as OP you can bring it back on-topic.
Now a third category for slight criticism. I think you interconnect too many diverse concepts. For example in Dzogchen one talks of base path and fruit. Or in a subset, of sound light and rays. Or contrasting semde longde and mengagde. Or dbang rolpa and tsal. We should not take one from each list and link them together like making a topping for a pizza unless referencing a valid teacher's teaching. They all have their tradtional way of being taught. Slowly from the ground up and within proven systems. If there is interlinking, then it should be referenced by a teaching of a master. That is how results are achieved. By mixing things up haphazardly, only a chaotic mind results and one has to stop all and go back to shiney. I am not saying this is the case for you, but some people who are not advanced and reading here can be confused. Secondly Dzogchen is not a debate. Like Madhyamika vs. Yogacara etc. I think some of the westerners writing books on Dzogchen do not have realization, others obviously do though we can never be sure in either case. They are scholars but we can not just list topics and worse go on to debate them. Dzogchen is essentially an experiential process within a lineage under a master. And the NS is self discovered by those experiences on the path. Again I am not saying you are doing that but from some responses people do engage you in that way and as OP and responder the responsibilty becomes partly yours. Anyway don't take these criticisms seriously as I am probably wrong, just a couple of thoughts. I also think asking a realized being such as H.H. Lopon Namdak on Lhundrub might be a great opportunity if you ever get the chance as well as clarifying your experiences with him and asking for advice.
All the best.
Last edited by username
on Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes