Equivalent to thogal

[Malcolm]

The same deity might have a long sadhana with an invitation of the jnanasattvas and very short sadhanas without.

My point being that with or without invitation, the visualized deity is never dismissed as simply one’s own imagination/samayasattva. If there’s no invitation the presence of jnanasattva is assumed, not dismissed.

The creation stage deity is a conceptual construct, an antidote to other concepts. That's all. From a Dzogchen perspective, it is an deviation.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

The same deity might have a long sadhana with an invitation of the jnanasattvas and very short sadhanas without.

My point being that with or without invitation, the visualized deity is never dismissed as simply one’s own imagination/samayasattva. If there’s no invitation the presence of jnanasattva is assumed, not dismissed.

The creation stage deity is a conceptual construct, an antidote to other concepts. That's all. From a Dzogchen perspective, it is an deviation.

See, I’m right!

[Malcolm]

Malcolm: whether there’s an invitation or not, the jnanasattva is a fiction and not to be taken seriously.

No, in mahayoga sadhanas, it is to be taken seriously as a symbolic method (but still a conceptual fabrication), just like it is in anuyoga.

But this does not apply to Dzogchen at all. The path is different, so the method is different.

[heart]

But yes, strictly intellectually, there is no development and completion in Dzogchen. Unless you like Tulku Urgyen consider Tögal the natural development stage and Trechö the completion stage. So it is not so clean cut.

It is extremely clear cut in the tantras and commentaries, as well as in the teaching of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.YMMV.

Yes, I agree, but I don't want to limit myself like that.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

But yes, strictly intellectually, there is no development and completion in Dzogchen. Unless you like Tulku Urgyen consider Tögal the natural development stage and Trechö the completion stage. So it is not so clean cut.

It is extremely clear cut in the tantras and commentaries, as well as in the teaching of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.YMMV.

Yes, I agree, but I don't want to limit myself like that.

/magnus

Yes, well, there is also the indirect approach to atiyoga through the creation and completion stage. It is not a question of limitation, but rather, definition.

[heart]

It is extremely clear cut in the tantras and commentaries, as well as in the teaching of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.YMMV.

Yes, I agree, but I don't want to limit myself like that.

/magnus

Yes, well, there is also the indirect approach to atiyoga through the creation and completion stage. It is not a question of limitation, but rather, definition.

My point was that it doesn't matter how you define yourself or your practice it have to correspond to your actual capacity.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

My point was that it doesn't matter how you define yourself or your practice it have to correspond to your actual capacity.

Well, if you are interested in sadhanas, then you should practice those. If you are not, then you just practice rushen, etc.

[heart]

My point was that it doesn't matter how you define yourself or your practice it have to correspond to your actual capacity.

Well, if you are interested in sadhanas, then you should practice those. If you are not, then you just practice rushen, etc.

I done many rushan retreats but I don't feel that it is one or the other, it is all good.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

My point was that it doesn't matter how you define yourself or your practice it have to correspond to your actual capacity.

Well, if you are interested in sadhanas, then you should practice those. If you are not, then you just practice rushen, etc.

I done many rushan retreats but I don't feel that it is one or the other, it is all good.

/magnus

It's all whatever one likes to do. But while rushen is indispensable in Dzogchen, deity yogas are not.

[Kris]

[Malcolm]

[amanitamusc]

Bingo!

[Natan]

Nyingthig has deity yoga too.

Nyinthig cycles have anuyoga practices appended to them, it is true. But they are anuyoga practices of the three roots, where atiyoga is taken as the completion stage.

I know. Guhyagarbha has this too

[rai]

My point was that it doesn't matter how you define yourself or your practice it have to correspond to your actual capacity.

Well, if you are interested in sadhanas, then you should practice those. If you are not, then you just practice rushen, etc.

What was CNNR's advise about rushen, something to be done at the beginning of the path - SMS style, or as a daily practice or something to do intensively once a year for the whole life?

[Anders]

Pascal’s wager

...only really works for Catholicism:
1. Entry requirements for heaven satisfied by low-cost ritual observance, irrespective of state of mind
2. No possibility of gaining direct experience of the truth of the teachings

The Buddha actually presents his own version of pascal's wager in the pali Canon in regards to karma and whether one should believe it without having direct experience of it.

The difference is that where pascal proposes that one should believe on the basis of the wager, the Buddha proposes that it doesn't really matter that much if you actually believe in karma, as long as you recognise the prudence in acting as if karma were actually the case. That and the fact that the benefits of the Buddha's wager are weighed against observable benefits in this life rather than hypothetical benefits in the after life.

[PeterC]

Pascal’s wager

...only really works for Catholicism:
1. Entry requirements for heaven satisfied by low-cost ritual observance, irrespective of state of mind
2. No possibility of gaining direct experience of the truth of the teachings

The Buddha actually presents his own version of pascal's wager in the pali Canon in regards to karma and whether one should believe it without having direct experience of it.

The difference is that where pascal proposes that one should believe on the basis of the wager, the Buddha proposes that it doesn't really matter that much if you actually believe in karma, as long as you recognise the prudence in acting as if karma were actually the case. That and the fact that the benefits of the Buddha's wager are weighed against observable benefits in this life rather than hypothetical benefits in the after life.

Are you referring to the four consolations?

[Anders]

...only really works for Catholicism:
1. Entry requirements for heaven satisfied by low-cost ritual observance, irrespective of state of mind
2. No possibility of gaining direct experience of the truth of the teachings

The Buddha actually presents his own version of pascal's wager in the pali Canon in regards to karma and whether one should believe it without having direct experience of it.

The difference is that where pascal proposes that one should believe on the basis of the wager, the Buddha proposes that it doesn't really matter that much if you actually believe in karma, as long as you recognise the prudence in acting as if karma were actually the case. That and the fact that the benefits of the Buddha's wager are weighed against observable benefits in this life rather than hypothetical benefits in the after life.

Are you referring to the four consolations?

No, although I suppose they relate. I refer to the apannaka Sutta, where the Buddha lays out a "safe bet":

Even if we didn't speak of action, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of action.'
If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html (here are also links to other wager type strategems the Buddha employs).

[Natan]

The same deity might have a long sadhana with an invitation of the jnanasattvas and very short sadhanas without.

My point being that with or without invitation, the visualized deity is never dismissed as simply one’s own imagination/samayasattva. If there’s no invitation the presence of jnanasattva is assumed, not dismissed.

The creation stage deity is a conceptual construct, an antidote to other concepts. That's all. From a Dzogchen perspective, it is an deviation.

This is wrong. The deities are Dzogchen. The conceptual construction is a method. The pith instructions offer an alternative. But the tantra makes clear it is one's understanding or way of practicing that makes a deity dzogchen. Dzogchen is not a path. It's nature. Deities are a deviation is you are practicing thogal, etc. Creation stage is a deviation if you are into completion stage. One must focus on the task at hand.

[Natan]

Malcolm: whether there’s an invitation or not, the jnanasattva is a fiction and not to be taken seriously.

No, in mahayoga sadhanas, it is to be taken seriously as a symbolic method (but still a conceptual fabrication), just like it is in anuyoga.

But this does not apply to Dzogchen at all. The path is different, so the method is different.

Dzogchen is not a method. ChNN said that often. This is an important point.

[Natan]

It is extremely clear cut in the tantras and commentaries, as well as in the teaching of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.YMMV.

Yes, I agree, but I don't want to limit myself like that.

/magnus

Yes, well, there is also the indirect approach to atiyoga through the creation and completion stage. It is not a question of limitation, but rather, definition.

State the definition. What are you defining?