Two approaches.

[White Lotus]

1. Patrul Rinpoche to Nyoshul Lungtok:
''Theres really nothing to it''
''Do you see the stars in the sky?''
''Do you hear the dogs barking in the Dzogchen monastery?''
''Do you hear what i am saying to you?''
''Well, the nature of Dzogchen is this, simply this.''

the first approach could be summed up... just be. or according to lonchen Rabjam, normal awareness. this approach was held by the Zen master Bankei Zenshi. it is the idea that we are born with a complete buddha mind. this mind is the Inborn or Unborn mind of all buddhas. it is our everyday mind. for example you know you are reading this thread. that knowledge though simple is a function of buddha mind.

2. in this Dzogchen formum there is a rejection of the first approach, in favour of the second approach held by Namkhai Norbu's school and the lineage of Hui Neng, the 6th Patriarch of Zen (''See your nature and become a buddha!''). the second approach insists that one must see the true nature of mind or emptiness or energy. this second approach emphasises non duality. the second approach is also held by Therevada... to see dhamma nature.

so... we have these two approaches and should be aware that they cannot be reconciled. there have been great masters from many lineages who have emphasised one over the other.

the great question will always remain... is it already naturally complete? Or do we have to see it?
being or seeing. this is an argument between natural being and prajna seeing/wisdom. it crops up time and again in buddhism, not just these threads.

hope this is helpful.

best wishes, Tom.

[Malcolm]

so... we have these two approaches and should be aware that they cannot be reconciled. there have been great masters from many lineages who have emphasised one over the other.

Yes, there are two appraoches:

1)True Dzogchen teachings

2) False Dzogchen teachings (which by definition are not actually Dzogchen, but are various strains of recycled Neo-Zen, Crypto-Advaita, New Age fantasy and so on and so forth).

[DarwidHalim]

By the way, What is the difference between 1 (patrul rinpoche) and 2 (Namkai Norbu, zen, etc. )

I don't see the real difference from the description.

[Sönam]

The "normal awareness" of Longchen Rabjam is not so normal for most of us ... like "normal mind" for exemple.

Sönam

[Jinzang]

The nub of the issue is that although buddha mind is ordinary mind (tha mal gyi shes pa), we don't see ordinary mind because of our obscurations. Hence the many expedient means to remove them. In the sense that seeing ordinary mind is quite rare, what is called ordinary is extraordinary.

[trevor]

in this Dzogchen formum there is a rejection of the first approach, in favour of the second approach held by Namkhai Norbu's school and the lineage of Hui Neng, the 6th Patriarch of Zen (''See your nature and become a buddha!''). the second approach insists that one must see the true nature of mind or emptiness or energy. this second approach emphasises non duality. the second approach is also held by Therevada... to see dhamma nature.

Degrade myself? I don't think so. Homie D. Clawn don't play that game. What else, White Boy?

http://youtu.be/_QhuBIkPXn0

[asunthatneversets]

1. Patrul Rinpoche to Nyoshul Lungtok:
''Theres really nothing to it''
''Do you see the stars in the sky?''
''Do you hear the dogs barking in the Dzogchen monastery?''
''Do you hear what i am saying to you?''
''Well, the nature of Dzogchen is this, simply this.''

the first approach could be summed up... just be. or according to lonchen Rabjam, normal awareness....

best wishes, Tom.

I think it's more that those who don't understand misinterpret and misconstrue this type of statement to be advocating that ones normal afflicted nature is "it", but that isn't what he's saying. He's using skillful means to convey the nakedness and simplicity of pure perception. But it certainly isn't describing the delusional dualistic perception dzogchen and the dharma serve to remove. And he isn't saying "just be", his words are meant to aid in discovery, and remove notions of seeking for it "elsewhere". He's just saying "here, it's this right here, now seek to understand how and why it is just this". Method 1 and method 2 are the same, it's just method 2 is a bit more explicit while method 1 has a more implicit nature. And unfortunately it's implicitness has potential to be misunderstood and ran with by those who automatically relate it to traditions like advaita etc..

[trevor]

And unfortunately it's implicitness has potential to be misunderstood and ran with by those who automatically relate it to traditions like advaita etc..

You don't know that, so please admit it. You don't know what "other people" think.

[Paul]

And unfortunately it's implicitness has potential to be misunderstood and ran with by those who automatically relate it to traditions like advaita etc..

You don't know that, so please admit it. You don't know what "other people" think.

Because there is both a right and wrong way to understand such phrases as “ordinary knowing,” “doing nothing in mind” or “beyond expression,” you have to be clear about this crucial point: same words, higher meaning. When you are, you will come to an experiential understanding of the profound Dharma.

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/a-light-in-the-dark/0

[asunthatneversets]

And unfortunately it's implicitness has potential to be misunderstood and ran with by those who automatically relate it to traditions like advaita etc..

You don't know that, so please admit it. You don't know what "other people" think.

There was a series of topics and discussions on here in just the past week which were exemplary of this. In the sense of both misconstruing dzogchen to be advocating utter complacent non-action (as opposed to skillful non-action) and also mistaking clarity as a fundamental ground awareness instead of understanding the clarity to be inseparable from emptiness. It seems to be pretty self-evident this tends to occur.

 My comments aren't directed towards anyone in particular, I'm just noting that it tends to happen. Which is why there was such a calculated and monumental backlash to such notions on this board recently, because those notions misrepresent this teaching. This is the downside to the open and easily accessible state of dzogchen this day in age. It's wonderful that it's accessible but traditionally it was only given to those deemed mature enough to comprehend it's message. So in it's wide distribution to individuals of capacities and backgrounds which span the spectrum there is room for misunderstanding. And if that misunderstanding is allowed to proliferate then the integrity of the teaching can be potentially compromised. So for that reason misunderstanding paraded as genuine insight must be systematically annihilated with extreme prejudice. Conservation of integrity is of utmost importance.

 And you're right, none of us can read "others" thoughts, but we dont have to when theyre openly put on display in the form of misguided insights and erroneous views. 

[Dronma]

The "normal awareness" of Longchen Rabjam is not so normal for most of us ... like "normal mind" for exemple.

Sönam

I agree with Sönam!
The reason that many great teachers are giving often the example of the vast, open, blue (in reality without color) sky is to make us understand the natural and uninterrupted awareness. But common beings - like most of us - get used to look at and be absorbed by the phantasmagorical spectacle of the clouds, which are always moving and changing shapes. So, consequently, we consider clouds as the normal condition of our everyday mind. And Patrul Rinpoche does not say that.

I also agree with DarwidHalim.
I don't see any dichotomy between Patrul Rinpoche words and Chogyal Namkhai Norbu teachings!

[trevor]

It's wonderful that it's accessible but traditionally it was only given to those deemed mature enough to comprehend it's message.

[Malcolm]

The nub of the issue is that although buddha mind is ordinary mind (tha mal gyi shes pa), we don't see ordinary mind because of our obscurations. Hence the many expedient means to remove them. In the sense that seeing ordinary mind is quite rare, what is called ordinary is extraordinary.

tha mal gyi shes pa is just a yogi's word for ye shes i.e. wisdom.

[Dronma]

There was a series of topics and discussions on here in just the past week which were exemplary of this. In the sense of both misconstruing dzogchen to be advocating utter complacent non-action (as opposed to skillful non-action) and also mistaking clarity as a fundamental ground awareness instead of understanding the clarity to be inseparable from emptiness. It seems to be pretty self-evident this tends to occur.

 My comments aren't directed towards anyone in particular, I'm just noting that it tends to happen. Which is why there was such a calculated and monumental backlash to such notions on this board recently, because those notions misrepresent this teaching. This is the downside to the open and easily accessible state of dzogchen this day in age. It's wonderful that it's accessible but traditionally it was only given to those deemed mature enough to comprehend it's message. So in it's wide distribution to individuals of capacities and backgrounds which span the spectrum there is room for misunderstanding. And if that misunderstanding is allowed to proliferate then the integrity of the teaching can be potentially compromised. So for that reason misunderstanding paraded as genuine insight must be systematically annihilated with extreme prejudice. Conservation of integrity is of utmost importance.

 And you're right, none of us can read "others" thoughts, but we dont have to when theyre openly put on display in the form of misguided insights and erroneous views. 

I agree with asunthatneversets.
I am new in Dharma Wheel, so I do not know what was happening before.
But if the numerous topics and discussions which misrepresent Dzogchen is exclusively a latest phenomenon, then - with all the risk to sound paranoiac - I say that it could be a deliberate attack....

[asunthatneversets]

It's wonderful that it's accessible but traditionally it was only given to those deemed mature enough to comprehend it's message.

Orville Redenbacher

[asunthatneversets]

I agree with asunthatneversets.
I am new in Dharma Wheel, so I do not know what was happening before.
But if the numerous topics and discussions which misrepresent Dzogchen is exclusively a latest phenomenon, then - with all the risk to sound paranoiac - I say that it could be a deliberate attack....

It wasn't deliberate I think they meant well and have their heart in the right place.

[Sönam]

many confuse Dzogchen with Yogachara ... they "think" they get it!

Sönam

[Dronma]

It wasn't deliberate I think they meant well and have their heart in the right place.

Of course, they meant well and have their heart in the right place, but that does not prove it was not deliberate...
Anyhow, it was only a thought. It is not important.
I have also met with people who have misinterpreted a lot of things in Dzogchen. It is not rare....

[gad rgyangs]

there are not really two approaches, because it is by realizing the first that the second is fulfilled.

Longchenpa, in chos dbyings mdzod says "although Buddhahood is timeless, there is awakening to Buddhahood anew." Basically this means that you can enjoy the ride without sweating it. The awakening anew part is just for fun, the ground/you just playing hide and seek with itself/yourself.

[heart]

the great question will always remain... is it already naturally complete? Or do we have to see it?

Dear Tom, not a big question at all. It is already and naturally complete but we don't see it at all. That is ignorance. When you see it, it is called wisdom and that seeing is rigpa.

/magnus