Belief

[Malcolm]

Your real nature, your dharmatā, the jewel you lost eons ago.

This might be another fable.

It isn't. It is something which can be pointed out, but it is not something which can be discovered without a guru. If it were, everyone would discover it all the time. But they clearly don't. Why can we know this is a fact? Because people and other sentient beings continue to act out of affliction and with no natural restraint whatsoever.

[dzogchungpa]

It defies belief that this thread is still running.

[Anonymous X]

It defies belief that this thread is still running.

It's the perennial philosophy!

[MalaBeads]

Having one's awakening confirmed is not an option, it is a necessity.

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

[Malcolm]

Having one's awakening confirmed is not an option, it is a necessity.

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

A ordinary person should not remain in doubt.

[heart]

Having one's awakening confirmed is not an option, it is a necessity.

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

You don't want to advance in your practice?

/magnus

[Norwegian]

Having one's awakening confirmed is not an option, it is a necessity.

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

The stages of the path is the career of the Bodhisattva. Whether they become a teacher or not.

[MalaBeads]

Having one's awakening confirmed is not an option, it is a necessity.

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

A ordinary person should not remain in doubt.

What makes you think I am in doubt about my awakening?

[climb-up]

For example, one can believe one has discovered the nature of the mind, but without a guru to confirm whether or not one has made this discovery, you will just be in a state of belief without knowledge.

Sure it can. Just look at yourself and ask, "Did I discover my own state on my own without resorting to a Guru?" The answer of course will be no.

So can people believe that they have discovered the nature mind without a guru or not?
If you they can, as you say in the first quote above, then asking themselves if they have found it without a guru would not elicit the answer no, as you say in the second quote.

Your real nature, your dharmatā, the jewel you lost eons ago.

This might be another fable.

It isn't. It is something which can be pointed out, but it is not something which can be discovered without a guru. If it were, everyone would discover it all the time. But they clearly don't. Why can we know this is a fact? Because people and other sentient beings continue to act out of affliction and with no natural restraint whatsoever.

We can know for a fact that no one, ever, anywhere can discover their real nature because:
1)It doesn't happen 'all the time' and
2)people continue to act out of affliction.

I am failing to see the logic here?
Why would the possibility of something happening mean that it necessarily would happen all the time?

If the proof that people don't find the nature of mind on their own is that they act out of affliction; firstly, in regards to the above, are you saying that you know the actions of EVERYONE? That would be quite impressive.
Secondly, that would mean that everyone who has discovered the nature of mind does not act out of affliction. That would be similarly impressive. Do YOU not act out affliction in your life? Ever? ...really?

To be clear, I am NOT saying that anyone can or cannot discover the nature of mind without a guru, I am only questioning the logic of the arguments presented.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

What makes you think I am in doubt about my awakening?

Are you saying that you're awakened?

(Hint: It's a trap. Don't answer it.)

[Tolya M]

...in our case regarding the Buddha as a reliable source of knowledge.

(formatting mine)

Having belief and confidence in the Buddha's enlightenment="faith".

Now true, the theory of karma and reincarnation does make sense, so it is not opposed to reason. It is internally consistent, unlike the idea that a merciful and omnipotent God allows horror and injustice like innocent children suffering and dying. Thus it can reasonably be taken as a working hypothesis based on giving the Buddha credibility. But such is still a belief.

I can not now give a reference to the works of the European pandita Ludwig Wittgenstein, but one must use words very carefully. Inaccurate word-use is the cause of many troubles. We do not decide what they mean.

[Malcolm]

For example, one can believe one has discovered the nature of the mind, but without a guru to confirm whether or not one has made this discovery, you will just be in a state of belief without knowledge.

Sure it can. Just look at yourself and ask, "Did I discover my own state on my own without resorting to a Guru?" The answer of course will be no.

So can people believe that they have discovered the nature mind without a guru or not?

They can believe this.

If you they can, as you say in the first quote above, then asking themselves if they have found it without a guru would not elicit the answer no, as you say in the second quote.

The second quote was directed to a person who by their own admission has a teacher, more than one.

We can know for a fact that no one, ever, anywhere can discover their real nature because:
1)It doesn't happen 'all the time' and
2)people continue to act out of affliction.

Yes, in other words, discovering our real nature has a cause.

I am failing to see the logic here?
Why would the possibility of something happening mean that it necessarily would happen all the time?

In this case, there is no cause by which one can discover one's own nature in a concrete sense such that one is without doubt in absence of a guru. The primary difference between the paths of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna is introduction to one's real state.

If the proof that people don't find the nature of mind on their own is that they act out of affliction; firstly, in regards to the above, are you saying that you know the actions of EVERYONE? That would be quite impressive.

The actions of all sentient beings who are not on a path are afflicted. The actions of sentient beings on the path are also afflicted, though they are likely to be more mindful of afflictions as they arise and thus act with more restraint.

Secondly, that would mean that everyone who has discovered the nature of mind does not act out of affliction. That would be similarly impressive.

People who are in true possession of the knowledge of their own state are less likely to act out of affliction.

[MalaBeads]

Having one's awakening confirmed is not an option, it is a necessity.

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

You don't want to advance in your practice?

/magnus

You are truly funny, Magnus.

Is the only way to advance in one's practice to become a teacher?

[MalaBeads]

The stages of the path is the career of the Bodhisattva.

Fair enough.

[heart]

I would think this is true only if one wants to teach or have a 'career' in Buddhism. Whatever happened to 'way-seeking' for the ordinary person? I am quite happy with just this.

You don't want to advance in your practice?

/magnus

You are truly funny, Magnus.

Is the only way to advance in one's practice to become a teacher?

You are truly funny yourself. Your teacher tell you when you have valid experience and when you just got lost in some fancy idea.
It has nothing to do with being a teacher and everything to do with attaining realisation.

/magnus

[climb-up]

I am failing to see the logic here?
Why would the possibility of something happening mean that it necessarily would happen all the time?

In this case, there is no cause by which one can discover one's own nature in a concrete sense such that one is without doubt in absence of a guru. The primary difference between the paths of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna is introduction to one's real state.

That is a reason or why your statement would be true, based on theory and tradition, but I don't see how it is a logical proof.
You said that the proof that something couldn't happen was that it didn't happen all the time, so I asked why that would prove anything. I don't think that was addressed. There are many many things that are completely possible that do not happen regularly, frequently or hardly at all; so the lack a frequency can't really be used as proof.
You only need one black swan and all that.

If the proof that people don't find the nature of mind on their own is that they act out of affliction; firstly, in regards to the above, are you saying that you know the actions of EVERYONE? That would be quite impressive.

The actions of all sentient beings who are not on a path are afflicted. The actions of sentient beings on the path are also afflicted, though they are likely to be more mindful of afflictions as they arise and thus act with more restraint.

Secondly, that would mean that everyone who has discovered the nature of mind does not act out of affliction. That would be similarly impressive.

People who are in true possession of the knowledge of their own state are less likely to act out of affliction.

That seems utterly reasonable to me.
I certainly act out of affliction almost constantly, but I think that I do so less often than if I were not on the path.
Still, I think that makes my point. Since we all (fully enlightened Buddhas excepted of course) act out of affliction, even those who have discovered the nature of their mind, then we can't look from the outside and consider out judgments of others afflicted actions as being proof of their not having discovered anything.

Of course it may be true, and based on the definitions given here, we can have faith that this is true (if its important to differentiate that from belief).Also, once we're omniscient, fully enlightened Buddhas, I guess we'll know for sure. I just don't see any logical proofs that this is the case.

[Malcolm]

In this case, there is no cause by which one can discover one's own nature in a concrete sense such that one is without doubt in absence of a guru. The primary difference between the paths of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna is introduction to one's real state.

That is a reason or why your statement would be true, based on theory and tradition, but I don't see how it is a logical proof.

One cannot see one's own face without a mirror. Likewise, can cannot see the mind essence without a guru.

You said that the proof that something couldn't happen was that it didn't happen all the time, so I asked why that would prove anything.

You are suggesting that people can attain realization without a cause. This is rejected in Dzogchen teachings in general. If people could attain realization of their mind essence without a cause, it would just happen randomly. But it does not. That is the point.

Using the example of a crowd, if I tell you to go find John Doe in a large crowd, whom you have never met nor seen a picture of, it is unlikely you find him. Even if you meet a person claiming to be John Doe, you will still have a find someone who knows the John Doe for whom you are searching to confirm you have met the right John Doe. However, once you have met John Doe, and it is confirmed to be the correct John Doe, you will always been able to recognize him on your own. So it is with the mind essence.

Still, I think that makes my point. Since we all (fully enlightened Buddhas excepted of course) act out of affliction, even those who have discovered the nature of their mind, then we can't look from the outside and consider out judgments of others afflicted actions as being proof of their not having discovered anything.

It is not the case that all apart from Buddhas act out of affliction. Where did you get this idea? It is not true. Even ordinary persons who have achieved patience on the Mahāyāna path of application no longer act out of affliction.

[Anonymous X]

You are suggesting that people can attain realization without a cause. This is rejected in Dzogchen teachings in general. If people could attain realization of their mind essence without a cause, it would just happen randomly. But it does not. That is the point.

It does happen randomly. Not to just any schmuck, but that might be possible, too. I know of 3 non-schmucks who were not Buddhists that I would classify as 'awakened', who had no acknowledged guru. Of course, you could reject this as I couldn't possibly offer you any proof of this, just as you couldn't offer me any proof that you must get a transmission from a teacher as a cause.

I sincerely hope your mind is open enough to allow non-Buddhists, non-Dzogchenistas, to awaken fully to their own nature. My own teacher was such a one and he also rejected the notion that lineage and tradition were 'all-important'. At the same time, he wasn't against someone having a teacher and never prevented or dissuaded anyone from practicing whatever they wanted.

[climb-up]

You are suggesting that people can attain realization without a cause. This is rejected in Dzogchen teachings in general.

I am most certainly not suggesting that.
You either have not read my entire posts, or you have forgotten because this back and forth has gone on over several days, but I have made it very clear in at least two posts that I am NOT saying either way how people can or cannot attain realization.

All I am pointing out is that you made an argument purporting to logically prove that you cannot discover the nature of mind without a guru. I did NOT say that you could, I said that your argument seemed to make several assumptions that are in no way givens and hence it was not a proof of what you said.
That doesn't mean it's not factually true, it only means that it doesn't prove your point.

Right here you presented a dualism again:

If people could attain realization of their mind essence without a cause, it would just happen randomly. But it does not. That is the point.

You may have a logically valid argument that you haven't unpacked (perhaps your assuming that I will fill in some blanks that you feel are obvious), but this isn't it.
Your saying that saying one can realize the nature of mind without a guru is the same as saying you can do it without a cause. Why would those be the same thing? That would be one example (speaking theoretically) of realization without a guru, but just as all pigeons are birds but not all birds are pigeons there are more things that would qualify under the heading of realization without a guru than spontaneous realization with no cause whatsoever.
Also, why would it be random?
But, I do see what you mean that IF the only other option to a guru is random realization occurring with no cause whatsoever then it would indeed be random, so that clarifies the point you make here and earlier.

Using the example of a crowd, if I tell you to go find John Doe in a large crowd, whom you have never met nor seen a picture of, it is unlikely you find him. Even if you meet a person claiming to be John Doe, you will still have a find someone who knows the John Doe for whom you are searching to confirm you have met the right John Doe. However, once you have met John Doe, and it is confirmed to be the correct John Doe, you will always been able to recognize him on your own. So it is with the mind essence.

This is an interesting argument. I see the point, although I'm not sure it's the best example.
I personally don't have much experience trying to find strangers in a crowd, it definitely seems unlikely to me (although, you thoughtful qualification of 'unlikely' undermines the 'impossible' of the nature of mind argument I think); but I have at least one acquaintance (one who will admit it to me!) who seems to be an expert at long, snooping Facebook sessions and does seem to be able to very clearly identify, and know a lot about, people whom she has never met!
But, it is a good point.

Still, I think that makes my point. Since we all (fully enlightened Buddhas excepted of course) act out of affliction, even those who have discovered the nature of their mind, then we can't look from the outside and consider out judgments of others afflicted actions as being proof of their not having discovered anything.

It is not the case that all apart from Buddhas act out of affliction. Where did you get this idea? It is not true. Even ordinary persons who have achieved patience on the Mahāyāna path of application no longer act out of affliction.

Oh, I have to go back and clarify my terminology, sorry about that and thank you for pointing it out.
Still, my point is the same and, I think, still valid.
If people who have legitimately experienced the nature of mind can still act our of affliction then you can use acting out of affliction as evidence that someone has not experienced the nature of mind.

[Malcolm]

All I am pointing out is that you made an argument purporting to logically prove that you cannot discover the nature of mind without a guru.

I did not make any such argument. I made a declaration and used an example.

If people could attain realization of their mind essence without a cause, it would just happen randomly. But it does not. That is the point.

Your saying that saying one can realize the nature of mind without a guru is the same as saying you can do it without a cause.

Correct.

Why would those be the same thing? That would be one example (speaking theoretically) of realization without a guru, but just as all pigeons are birds but not all birds are pigeons there are more things that would qualify under the heading of realization without a guru than spontaneous realization with no cause whatsoever.

Sentient beings do not realize the mind essence without a guru, they cannot see it just as they cannot see their own faces without a mirror. To see the mind essence, one needs the mirror of the guru. Even Samantabhadra has a back story as an ordinary sentient being who received teachings from a Buddha, and then attained buddhahood.

Also, why would it be random?

What would some of these other putative causes be?

If people who have legitimately experienced the nature of mind can still act our of affliction then you can use acting out of affliction as evidence that someone has not experienced the nature of mind.

When acting out of affliction, one is distracted. It is possible for people who have recognized the mind-essence to be distracted, especially if they spend little time cultivating that and remain content with just a small taste. When one is distracted, one is not maintaining the essence, so to speak.