Empowerments in different yanas

[PuerAzaelis]

I understand how language is limited to causation. Malcolm, you have just used "result" to try to convey the opposite idea.

But what is the difference between what you have just described as a pointing, and the usual tantric empowerment?

Tantric empowerments only grant one a conceptual idea. They start with the idea that there is are aggregates which in fact need to be transformed into buddha families, for example, like applying an elixir to a base metal to transform it into gold.

Dzogchen starts with the idea that there is nothing to transform, but maybe, one needs to do a little dusting.

I've experienced a few of both now.

If both are non-linguistic, what is the difference?

And does this mean I could pick a stranger off the street and she would "get" the pointing out the same as the sangha old timers?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Tantric empowerments only grant one a conceptual idea. They start with the idea that there is are aggregates which in fact need to be transformed into buddha families, for example, like applying an elixir to a base metal to transform it into gold.

Dzogchen starts with the idea that there is nothing to transform, but maybe, one needs to do a little dusting.

IDK, some sadhanas completion phase seems to express this kind of idea also.

At least the few sadhana i'm familiar with, sometimes it seems like this to me: creation phase is like a pure reflection in the mirror, rather than the impure one that we are used to, completion phase is just the mirror, the reflections are there and quite lively but pure and impure don't apply.

I struggle to separate this from my (admittedly limited) understanding of Dzogchen, though obviously I see how the method of getting there differs greatly.

[Malcolm]

I understand how language is limited to causation. Malcolm, you have just used "result" to try to convey the opposite idea.

But what is the difference between what you have just described as a pointing, and the usual tantric empowerment?

Tantric empowerments only grant one a conceptual idea. They start with the idea that there is are aggregates which in fact need to be transformed into buddha families, for example, like applying an elixir to a base metal to transform it into gold.

Dzogchen starts with the idea that there is nothing to transform, but maybe, one needs to do a little dusting.

I've experienced a few of both now.

If both are non-linguistic, what is the difference?

And does this mean I could pick a stranger off the street and she would "get" the pointing out the same as the sangha old timers?

Who said they are non-linguistic?

In a direct introduction, one either understands what the guru explains, or not. In case of the latter, then there are indirect methods.

[PuerAzaelis]

The DI is not just in the syllable itself?

Which parts are which, awareness expression, expressive power of awareness, initiation of the display of awareness, etc?

[Malcolm]

The DI is not just in the syllable itself?

Which parts are which, awareness expression, expressive power of awareness, initiation of the display of awareness, etc?

Any direct introduction possesses three lineages: the aural lineage, the symbolic lineage and the lineage of the transcendent state.

You must be able to understand the first two in order to grasp the meaning, which is contained in the third.

All of this constitutes empowerment of the potentiality of vidyā (rig pa'i rtsal dbang). This is why the Syllableless Tantra states states:

• [T]he dharmakāya is encountered in the intimate instruction.

The dharmakāya is the lineage of the transcendent state; the intimate instruction is the aural lineage and the symbolic lineage.

[PuerAzaelis]

tyvm, aside from guru is there some resource to consult to get clear on what these three aspects mean? or get into it a little more?

[PuerAzaelis]

tyvm, aside from guru is there some resource to consult to get clear on what these three aspects mean? or get into it a little more?

wait these are the three kayaks duh