Jax wrote:You are Being.
Namdrol wrote:Jax wrote:You are Being.
This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.
Yes, the God realms or Purelands for example.Jax wrote:Yes, exactly! And that is true for "everyone"... Could you imagine emptiness separate from form?
This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.
The reason I lurk 99.999% rather than post, is I simply don't have the time or energy to deal w/ the negativity and personal BS that some kind people who have a lot to offer seem to have endless energy to put up with.
Mr. G wrote:Well hopefully Namdrol, Hui Feng, etc. will take the time to answer.
Until then, I offer this quote from Herbert V. Guenther from "The Dawn of Tantra":
The term advaita, as we use it, stems from Shankara's Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term advaya. Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second." The conception of "one without a second" puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of "one" we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the "without a second." By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one." That conclusion does not follow.
In the works of Saraha and other Buddhist teachers, it is said that it is impossible to say "one" without prejudgment of experience. But Shankara and his followers were forced by the scriptural authority of the Vedas to posit this One and so were then forced to add the idea "without a second." What they wanted to say was that only Atman is real. Now the logic of their position should force them to then say that everything else is unreal. But Shankara himself is not clear on this point. He re-introduced the idea of illusion which had previously been rejected by him. Now if only Atman is real, then even illusion apart from it is impossible. But he was forced into accepting the idea of illusion. So he was forced into a philosophical position which, if it were to be expressed in a mathematical formula, would make absolute nonsense. So intellectually, in this way, it could be said that the Vedanta is nonsense. But it had tremendous impact; and, as we know, the intellect is not everything. But as the Madhyamika analysis showed, the Vedanta formula simply does not hold water. And Shankara himself, as I said, was not completely clear on this point.
In translating Buddhist texts, it is necessary to take great care with the word "illusion." Sometimes it appears in what is almost an apodictic or judgmental sense. This happens especially in poetry, where one cannot destroy the pattern of the flow of words to make specific philosophical qualifications. But the basic Buddhist position concerning illusion, as prose works are careful to point out, is not the apodictic statement made by the followers of Shankara that the world is illusion. The Buddhist position is that the world may be like an illusion. There is a huge logical difference between saying the world is an illusion and saying the world may be like an illusion. The Buddhist position suspends judgment.
So while it has been suggested that Shankara was a cryptoBuddhist, because, in fact, he took over almost the entire epistemological and metaphysical conception of the Buddhists, there remains this very crucial difference.
gregkavarnos wrote:Back to the cushion with you too!
gad rgyangs wrote:
thats funny, since Longchenpa, in the gnas lugs mdzod, treats four "themes", the last of which is "gcig pu" which means "singular", "one only", etc. source verses say that rigpa alone (rig pa gcig pu) is the ground (gzhi). the verses continue:
"Although there is the appearance of multiplicity, to say that there is no wavering from "one" (gcig las ma g.yos) is to say that naturally occurring timeless awareness (rang byung ye shes) is the single source (rtsa gcig).
Jax wrote:As interesting as these wonderful quotes are, what then is a Dzogchen Tulku who recalls "his" last incarnation?
CapNCrunch wrote:No, Mr. G - it's just about time and energy - the "pain" is, of course, a lot of fun.
I'm not on a high horse or anything - I like to muck it up as much as the next person - it's just that given my time and energy, there is much more to be gained by reading the terma's of my Teacher, the few writings of Longchenpa available to me in English, the different versions of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, or even writing on boards like this where it's beneficial to sift through the dross to find the occasional nugget from the likes of Loppon Namdrol etc. etc.
That's all. I'm just trying to make the best use of the time left to me. Which is why I'd love to read a thorough discussion re: the views of Neo Adviata vs. Dzogchen. I'm reading the thead on Benthino Massaro, but it's not very helpful b/c there isn't anything concrete in the way of a comparison or refutation for those like me who don't have the learning and background.
Where I have an issue, is understanding *what* it is the like of Tony Parsons are going on about, if it's not some kind of realization.
Elias Capriles in his writings talks about an expansion of consciousness that can happen, that some take to be realization - and how when that expansion(which is time based, an event and thus something that must come to an end) is over it throws the former "enlightened one" (or the deluded one) back into an extreme sense of contraction, it can be hellish etc. etc. - This perhaps could account for the state of "realization" that some of the famous neo-adviatans claim to speak from - but if that's the case, then how can a putz like myself EVER have confidence in the view? i.e. - if there are false states of realization that can last for years, or even until death?
I spent enough years in a fundamentalist religion deluding myself. I very wary of doing it again. Thus I seek clarification and a removal of doubt.
But when I listen to some of the neo-advaitans, as I have done, they have NO knowledge of Dzogchen, or even buddhism. They are describing their state of being. (I'm not talking about Benhito here - to me he just seems like a good lookin' kid with a goofy grin who's blissed out b/c he doesn't yet even know he's mortal yet - no offense to those who dig him, I'm just sayin'...) This description of their state seems in many instances to jive w/ my intellectual understanding of the view of Dzogchen. And w/ my own experience. Why should I necessarily doubt what Tony Parsons says, about his spontaneous "awakening into liberation"? Or, what someone like Ramana Maharshi says about his state?
How do they arrive independently at this, which seems to me to be congruent (who can ever really tell, since we are all singular and only have our own consciousness filtered through our own conditioning to go by) if they're just simply deluded?
I don't feel like I just buy into anyone who makes claims. I feel have *some* degree of discernment - For example, I'm wary just in general, given the years of my conditioning in a fundamental religion that were completely blown away, leaving me with nothing - which was when I found my teacher.
But it's not easy for me. I willingly study - seemingly all my waking free hours at times - and yet I don't read Tibetan - I'm dependent upon translations - only a few which I have complete confidence in - Like Richard Barrons translation of the 7 treasuries, anything done by Adriano or Jim Valby under the guidance of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, Loppon Namdrol's contributions etc. But this is such a small sub-set of the actual traditional writings that it's not easy. I understand that at a certain point, the teacher has to be found within and I have to trust that - but isn't that the pitfall of ever deluded "adept" from time immemorial?
So I feel like I'm doing my best, but I still have doubt, so I'd much rather listen than speak, other than to ask for help in understanding.
Users browsing this forum: Thomas_Pynchon and 28 guests