Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita

[Jax]

Magnus, since you can't do anything about what you always already are... why try with rituals, practices etc.? You are Being. That's what's reading these words, and that is what is noticing the thoughts about these words. It doesn't change ever... nothing makes it more aware or less aware, not even empowerments or fancy "direct introductions". Why complicate the obvious and turn It into a story?

[Malcolm]

You are Being.

This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.

[Jax]

You are Being.

This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.

Ok... you are not Being? If Dzogchen is a "confirming negation", which it is, then there is affirmative existence regarding Rigpa. This is the difference between Madhyamaka and Dzogchen. Madhyamaka is a "non-confirming negation", leaving us just with emptiness. Hence Madhyamaka is a different result. Vajrasattva means Diamond Being. It is not about neo-advaita or Taoism... its about what we are. We are Aware Emptiness in full integration with our equally empty, yet appearing Luminosity.

[Sönam]

It is or it is not,
when it is it could also not be
but if it is it is not
cause when it is not it may also be
...


It's time (in France) for a little nap ...
Sönam

[xabir]

The following quotations are not from dzogchen teachers, but are still relevant since many Buddhist masters of the old have directly criticized non-Buddhist/eternalist view about consciousness or "nature".

I'll be glad if people can post quotations from Dzogchen masters who have criticized such wrong views before.

.....

From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen

Question Ten:

Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages.

"Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?"

What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs?



Answer 10:

You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma.

According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy.

But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it.

I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma.

Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not?

You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking.

Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature.

In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.

...

Dogen:

"If a person, when he is riding along in a boat, looks around and sees the shore, he mistakenly thinks that the bank is moving. But if he looks directly at the boat, he discovers that it is the boat that is moving along. Likewise, with confused thoughts about body and mind, holding to discrimination of the myriad dharmas, one mistakenly thinks his own mind and nature are permanent. If, intimately engaged in daily activities, one returns to right here, the principle that the myriad dharmas have no self is clear."

...

Hui-neng and Dogen: "Impermanence is Buddha-nature."

...

(Quoted from Ted Biringer)

What seems constant has simply not yet undergone change. ‘Not yet undergone change’ means that, even though we may shift our perspective to our subjective self or shift it to the objective, outer world, in both cases there are no signs of change to be found. In that sense, it is constant. As a consequence, grasses and trees, as well as thickets and forests, are impermanent and, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. It is the same with the human body and mind, both of which are impermanent and, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. The mountains and rivers in the various lands are impermanent, so, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. Supreme, fully perfected enlightenment is Buddha Nature, and hence it is impermanent. The Buddha’s great entry into nirvana was impermanent, and hence it is Buddha Nature.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

Dogen’s explanation of the meaning of “constant” (eternal, unchanging, non-changing) is elucidated by Hee-Jin Kim in his Flowers of Emptiness as follows:

That is, permanence means the steadfast quality of the Buddha-nature which exerts itself totally and drops itself off completely in each and every situation. In this respect, the impermanent is permanent, the permanent is impermanent.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.91

......

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... mness.html

Thusness:

Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)

There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own.

...‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.

......

On practice-enlightenment -

Mayu, Zen master Baoche, was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, “Master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then, do you fan yourself?”
“Although you understand that the nature of the wind is permanent,” Mayu replied, “you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere.”
“What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?” asked the monk again. Mayu just kept fanning himself. The monk bowed deeply.
The actualization of the buddha-dharma, the vital path of its correct transmission, is like this. If you say that you do not need to fan yourself because the nature of wind is permanent and you can have wind without fanning, you will understand neither permanence nor the nature of wind. The nature of wind is permanent. Because of that, the wind of the buddha's house brings forth the gold of the earth and makes fragrant the cream of the long river.

....

Buddha admonishes a monk for holding eternalist views about consciousness:

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

..."Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."

[gregkavarnos]

The answer to your questions can be found right here:

zafu zabuton.jpg (3.79 KiB) Viewed 1200 times

[Jax]

As interesting as these wonderful quotes are, what then is a Dzogchen Tulku who recalls "his" last incarnation?

[Dechen Norbu]

It's someone who acknowledges the mental continuum, not a being changing body as if it was a shirt. A string of beads instead of a bead traversing a string.

[Jax]

Yes, exactly! And that is true for "everyone"... Could you imagine emptiness separate from form?

[gregkavarnos]

Yes, exactly! And that is true for "everyone"... Could you imagine emptiness separate from form?

Yes, the God realms or Purelands for example.

[CapNCrunch]

This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita.

I for one would *really* appreciate it if Namdrol, or someone else with the appropriate "whiskers" would explain in detail the pitfalls of the Neo-Advaitan view vis a vis the Dzogchen view.

Over the years I've heard mention made about Dzogchenpa's becoming confused and adopting a "crypto-Advaitan" view - Namdrol also made a comment awhile back about the fact that a lot of aspiring Dzogchenpas mix up the view of Dzogchen w/ Advaita/Neo-Advaita etc. etc. - But I have yet to find a thread where someone was holding up the Neo-Adviatan view and the flaws/differences vis a vis the Dzogchen view were pointed out.

I think this is important. If this discussion has already taken place, can someone kindly point me in the direction of Sherwood Forest so I can read and learn?

And if it hasn't taken place, can we PLEASE have that discussion now? I know that Namdrol refuses to debate Dzogchen, but there must be a difference between debate and pointing out errors in view.

If it's such a common mistake, (I can find where Namdrol said this, if need be) then it's worth having the discussion, n'est ce que pas?

I kindly challenge someone well versed in the Neo Advaitan view a la Rupert Spira, Tony Parsons, or the other usual suspects from conscious tv to step up and present the Neo Advaitan view, so it's flaws can be dragged into the light of the Dzogchen view - at least the intellectual aspect. And I mean this sincerely. I've been told that it's impossible to have certainty in the view without first making clear intellectual distinctions, and as such, I have devoted many, many hours reading Longchenpa and the writings of my teacher trying to have a clear understanding.

If nobody else steps forward, I can perhaps play the devil's advocate role - if the community thinks that this discussion would be beneficial. I really do. I admit myself to having trouble at times differentiating between the two - there are so many similarities - And if the flaws aren't pointed out, then how can there ever be certainty even at the level of the intellect?

However, if the reaction is "bleh" or negative, then I'm not going to bother. 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]

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.

[Mr. G]

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.

No more lurking for you - step up to the plate and deal with the pain like the rest of us!

[gad rgyangs]

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.

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).

[CapNCrunch]

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.

[gregkavarnos]

Back to the cushion with you too!

[Sönam]

Back to the cushion with you too!

In Dzogchen we don't like so much to stay on the cushion ... we like to move it!

[Mr. G]

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).

Namdrol wrote these in another post:

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

However, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub], it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc.

How would you clarify the difference between Dzogchen/Buddhism and Advaita?

[xabir]

As interesting as these wonderful quotes are, what then is a Dzogchen Tulku who recalls "his" last incarnation?

Like a candle flame lighting up another candle, this lighted candle is neither the same nor different from the previous candle.

Continuity of a causal/karmic process, no passing on of an agent or an unchanging self at all. All happening via dependent origination.

[xabir]

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.

Some links of interest:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... l-non.html

(neo-Advaita often falls into "substantial nondualism")

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... hindu.html


Hope other forummers can fill you in with a more Dzogchen perspective.