Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
White Lotus wrote:directly seeing emptiness of thoughts and objects as one is a great attainment, however it is not intuitively one i would point towards. thoughts need a lot of work before one can see their emptiness, in someways they are more substantial than objects.
White Lotus wrote:it is important to question the teachers and not to accept everything they say as a given, even a teacher as great as Jamgon should be questioned.
White Lotus wrote:to directly see the emptiness of thoughts one must compare the thoughts to ones own nature. it is possible to speculate that thoughts are non abiding, impermanent and therefore empty, however to directly see that thoughts are empty there must be a comparison with the emptiness of own nature within.
conebeckham wrote:White Lotus wrote:to directly see the emptiness of thoughts one must compare the thoughts to ones own nature. it is possible to speculate that thoughts are non abiding, impermanent and therefore empty, however to directly see that thoughts are empty there must be a comparison with the emptiness of own nature within.
Not so, Tom. All of this "comparison" you talk of is conceptual. "Directly seeing" is not.
When Kongtrul talks about this method or technique, he's not talking about any "reference point," whether it be "thoughts," or "own nature." Those "differentiations" are concepts of your own making, elaborations which completely miss the point of Kongtrul's profound instruction.
Jax wrote:Tom... Yes, at least some balance. It seems there is similarity between some positions here as expressed in "The Great Debate" at Samye in Tibet in the 800's (if it actually occurred!). The debate centered between the "sudden" or "all at once school" of the Chan school and the "gradual approach" of Kamalasila.
Jax wrote:Nam, Nubs was wrong. He didn't realize that Chan realization is Mahamudra and trekchod, realizing kadag. Boy, you don't read my posts. I explained that earlier.
Nubs should have stayed within his own knowledge base.
The giant retreat mode is not doing the job, in my opinion... (having attended many).
Jax wrote:Cap'n, ask around to people who had either large retreat "direct introduction" or webcast. Ask them if they experienced the non-dual Rigpa. In Tibet the populace came to Dzogchen masters for a "blessing", they weren't seriously engaged as practitioners (per Norbu). Real practitioners met in private for the Tsal Wang and other forms of "direct introduction". You need almost daily contact with a teacher until the retreat practice is completed as well as afterward. I know many people , for many years... As Tenzin Wangyal said "only about 1% of disciples will recognize actual rigpa". To me that id unacceptable, it's not that difficult when one on one instruction is available easily, lineage or not. Senior students have the same capacity if they have really "recognized".