Dzogchen and Buddhism

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 6:55 am

Nighthawk wrote:Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.


Eckhart Tolle only talks about presence. He hasn't realized non-dual yet.
I don't see how Dzogchen and Zen can be experientially different. As for Advaita, I don't think so because there is no insight into emptiness. I might be wrong about Dzogchen though. From what I'm hearing now, it does seem to have more in common with Advaita than I thought. The language at least sounds pretty substantialist.
User avatar
mzaur
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Lhug-Pa » Tue May 22, 2012 7:06 am

My hunch is that most all authentic Religions were began by Awakened Buddhas, and that the said Religions have an exoteric dimension, a mesoteric dimension, and a Esoteric dimension (analagous to the Three Degrees of Primitive Masonry, if you will). The latter being 'reserved' for those who have the capacity to understand and be open to the truths taught within the Buddha Dharma.


H.P. Blavatsky (parenthesis notes not hers) wrote:"No wonder that the Northern seer, Swedenborg, advises people to search for the (Secret Mantra) LOST WORD (of Masonry) among the hierophants of Tartary, China, and Thibet."
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 22, 2012 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Lhug-Pa » Tue May 22, 2012 7:08 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
William Blake wrote:Image

[...]

Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion.
The pride of the peacock is the glory of God.
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.
Excess of sorrow laughs. Excess of joy weeps.

[...]

Image

Yeshe Tsogyel wrote:Image

You seven thieves with whom I have previous karmic connection,
Know that aggression and malice are Mirror-like Awareness itself -
Radiance and clarity have no other source 
Than a hostile mind filled with anger and enmity. 
Look into your anger 
And there is the strength of Diamond Being,
       Vajrasattva! 
Detached from appearances, you are purified in
       Emptiness. 
    This maiden's fatherland is Overflowing Joy, 
    Serene Fields of Emptiness and Visionary Pleasure; 
    I am no stickler for conventional names and forms 
    So if your favoured lady's fair land appeals to you, 
    I will lead you there.

You seven thieves with whom I have previous karmic
       connection,
Know that pride and vain complacency are Awareness
       of Sameness -
Primal purity in meditative composure cannot be found
Except in an ambitious mind that believes itself supreme.
Look into natural purity
And there is a Fountain of Jewels, Ratnasambhava.
Detached from the state of Emptiness, light-form is pure. 
    This maiden's father is that source of every
       gratification, 
    He is the wish-fulfilling gem itself; 
    I am no glutton for the illusory chattels of wealth 
    So if you think you would like the old man I will part
       with him.

You seven thieves with whom I have previous karmic
       connection,
Know that desire and covetousness are Discriminating
       Awareness -
You will find fine sensory distinction in no other place
Than a mind hungering for beautiful things, wanting the
       whole world.
Look into the intrinsic freshness of your desire
And there is Boundless Light, Amitabha!
Detached from radiance, your pleasure is purified. 
    This maiden's mother is Boundless Light 
    And in her is pure pleasure unlimited; 
    I am no votary of the quality of feeling 
    So if this old lady appeals to you I will give her away.

You seven thieves with whom I have previous karmic
       connection,
Know that envy and alienation are All-Accomplishing
       Awareness -
Efficiency and success have no other source
Than a bigoted mind that is quick to judge and holds a
       grudge.
Look behind jealous thoughts
And there is immediate success, Amoghasiddhi!
Detached from crass envy and subtle resentments, 
Whatever occurs is pure.
    This maiden's Lama is Every Purpose Spontaneously
       Accomplished,
    The Lama whose every action is invariably
       consummated;
    So because I am no slave to the sphere of my work
    If you want this Lama
    I will abandon him to you.

You seven thieves with whom I have previous karmic
       connection,
Know that ignorance and stupidity are Awareness of
       Dynamic Space -
There is no other way to hold fast to the path
Than through ignorance and a dense understanding.
Look into ignorance
And there is Dynamic Visionary Panorama, Vairotsana!
Detached from hypnotic states, whatever arises is pure.
    This maiden's beloved is Visionary Panorama
    And I love that ultimate consort, the Illuminator;
    And since I am no adherent of the duality of vision
       and viewer,
    If you desire my service
    I will show you the way.
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 22, 2012 7:41 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Mariusz » Tue May 22, 2012 7:17 am

:alien:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Lhug-Pa » Tue May 22, 2012 8:07 am

Mariusz wrote: :alien:


:coffee:

As much as I'm fascinated by the writings of Godfrey Higgins, Hargrave Jennings, Eliphas Levi, John Yarker, H.P. Blavatsky, Rudolph Steiner, Dion Fortune, Swami Sivananda, Manly P. Hall, Ra Un Nefer Amen, etc.; regarding books on Spirituality, I don't really care all that much right now to study any books that aren't on Dzogchen or Tibetan Medicine. In fact, as much as I respect Madhyamaka, I agree that the Eight Examples of Illusion are enough. Why? Because time is short (although if anyone knows of some great books on the Nath tradition, Sumerian "Kabbalah", or Dravidian Tantra; I might not be able to resist).

:anjali:
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 22, 2012 8:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue May 22, 2012 8:15 am

mzaur wrote:
Malcolm wrote:There is but one thing indispensible for Dzogchen, and that is an introduction from a master. As Nubchen points out this is the critical difference between sutra and tantra. The critical difference between tantra and Dzogchen is whether one's practice is based on the notion of cause and result or not. And that is based on whether or not one has authentically recognized one's own stage so that one is possession of that famous rigpa.


Can someone please explain how Dzogchen is not based on cause and result? There is introduction from master (cause), and recognition of rigpa (effect). There is the intention to continue resting in rigpa (cause), and the deepening of insight (effect). There is learning of Dzogchen practices which lead to practice, which lead to deepening, etc, etc. How is it not cause and result?


Imagine you walked around thinking your were flat broke and you came to me for money. Now imagine I told you that in fact that there was a diamond buried under your house--that in fact everyone possesses such a diamond whether they know it or not--and I explained how to get your hands on it... Would I have caused you to possess the diamond or just helped you become aware of what was rightfully yours from the beginning? Did either of us create the diamond for you, or did you just naturally possess it? Had you ever truly been separate from it, or did you just think you were?

You could also have the problem of misplacing the diamond frequently after you'd managed to get ahold of it with my help, because you get distracted a lot. So you could practice relaxing and recalling where you'd put it. Again, no cause or effect ultimately involved insofar as you are not ever creating anything, only reconnecting with your knowledge and natural potential for wealth.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Nighthawk » Tue May 22, 2012 8:21 am

mzaur wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.


Eckhart Tolle only talks about presence. He hasn't realized non-dual yet.
I don't see how Dzogchen and Zen can be experientially different. As for Advaita, I don't think so because there is no insight into emptiness. I might be wrong about Dzogchen though. From what I'm hearing now, it does seem to have more in common with Advaita than I thought. The language at least sounds pretty substantialist.

Emptiness is just a meaningless word. Advaita is all about direct experience like Zen and Dzogchen.
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue May 22, 2012 8:38 am

mzaur wrote:
mzaur wrote:
username wrote:What we often forget is that many of our previous lives was as different lifeforms in other worlds. Apart from the thousand Buddhas there are infinite types of manifestations of nirmanakayas in the universe and each Buddha emphasizes different aspects to suit the time and location. Dzogchen is also having separate histories in the thirteen lucky worlds that receive it in a large sector. The final fruit of the fourth vision is an actual dissolution of all phenomena back into the basic pure aspect of ultimate space. This includes the path and deities which should not be solidified by vajrayana practitioners either out of habit. Even if not dismissed in the higher Anuyoga yana the deity is nevertheless an empty clear manifestation that arises and dissolves from and back into that space. Thinking otherwise out of habitual needs is a great fault even in vajrayana.


Sounds like Brahman. You sure that's Dzogchen?


Dzogchen teaches that there is a pure ultimate space which is the source of all phenomena? I don't understand. How is this different than Brahman?


What Username has termed here "pure ultimate space" is just a synonym for emptiness. Of course, in Dzogchen, we are not focusing solely on emptiness but also on the innate potential for manifestation, inseparable from emptiness, which obviously can't be denied. If you remember that despite whatever manifests or doesn't, not even an iota can be established in the slightest, just as madhyamaka says.

And for all I know, maybe Advaita says this too, which could only be a good thing. Not a concern for me one way or the other as Advaita is not my practice and therefore none of my business, but I feel happier just smiling and admitting I have no idea about that.
Last edited by Pema Rigdzin on Tue May 22, 2012 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Mariusz » Tue May 22, 2012 8:39 am

Nighthawk wrote:
mzaur wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.


Eckhart Tolle only talks about presence. He hasn't realized non-dual yet.
I don't see how Dzogchen and Zen can be experientially different. As for Advaita, I don't think so because there is no insight into emptiness. I might be wrong about Dzogchen though. From what I'm hearing now, it does seem to have more in common with Advaita than I thought. The language at least sounds pretty substantialist.

Emptiness is just a meaningless word. Advaita is all about direct experience like Zen and Dzogchen.
It is called a conversion to Hinduism
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Nighthawk » Tue May 22, 2012 9:06 am

Mariusz wrote:
It is called a conversion to Hinduism

Nope still a Pure Lander.

I was just pointing out that in Advaita words/concepts are ultimately meaningless just like in Dzogchen and Zen. Is it blasphemy to say that?
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby bulhaeng » Tue May 22, 2012 12:30 pm

Malcom, you're like the chan master Te-Shan who burned the Diamond Sutra commentaries that he had written. Sounds very sincere and very inspiring. Best wishes on your path.

Piotr
bulhaeng
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:36 am
Location: Torun, Poland

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby username » Tue May 22, 2012 1:06 pm

mzaur wrote:
mzaur wrote:
username wrote:What we often forget is that many of our previous lives was as different lifeforms in other worlds. Apart from the thousand Buddhas there are infinite types of manifestations of nirmanakayas in the universe and each Buddha emphasizes different aspects to suit the time and location. Dzogchen is also having separate histories in the thirteen lucky worlds that receive it in a large sector. The final fruit of the fourth vision is an actual dissolution of all phenomena back into the basic pure aspect of ultimate space. This includes the path and deities which should not be solidified by vajrayana practitioners either out of habit. Even if not dismissed in the higher Anuyoga yana the deity is nevertheless an empty clear manifestation that arises and dissolves from and back into that space. Thinking otherwise out of habitual needs is a great fault even in vajrayana.


Sounds like Brahman. You sure that's Dzogchen?


Dzogchen teaches that there is a pure ultimate space which is the source of all phenomena? I don't understand. How is this different than Brahman?

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
What Username has termed here "pure ultimate space" is just a synonym for emptiness. Of course, in Dzogchen, we are not focusing solely on emptiness but also on the innate potential for manifestation, inseparable from emptiness, which obviously can't be denied. If you remember that despite whatever manifests or doesn't, not even an iota can be established in the slightest, just as madhyamaka says.

And for all I know, maybe Advaita says this too, which could only be a good thing. Not a concern for me one way or the other as Advaita is not my practice and therefore none of my business, but I feel happier just smiling and admitting I have no idea about that.


That is a good question mzaur. First of all let me clarify that pure or ultimate space is not just emptiness, nor my translation. Other words are used by various translators too. For a general theoretical purpose you can call it dharmakaya but even then that is a general term and a single aspect of trikaya and maybe Svabhavikakaya as their union could be better but even then that is not relly close enough as it is beyond words. Emptiness aspect alone, sans clarity, can freeze someone for eons in formless space and is actually a fault.

Back to your question. Basically many religious and spiritual traditions have evoled to come nearer the truth of how things are. Some like the shamans or sadhus or sufis or various tribal practices (not all of them but a minority) actually come closer than the more institutionalized larger religions but even they have slowly come closer though more in theory than practie like the former group. The closest group to Dzogchen has been the development of the the Advaita sub-school of Vedanta over the last 1200 years. The date is interesting as it is roughly when Vajrayana/Dzogchen came to Tibet. Also as some recent research papers indicate the Kashmiri influence of the Advaitins in formulating this subschool could have been influenced by the Dzogchen teachings in the neighboring Swat (Oddyiana) valley. Also Adi Shanakra's guru was the true founder of the subschool and his name was Gaudapada who according to some earlier researchers based his ideas also partly on Buddhist Yogachara philosophy. In any case the Advaitins are a tiny minority of Hindus who as a whole basically accumulate influences easily from other sources to this very day.

Also there are actually differences between what Advaitins have evolved into theoretically and Dzogchen view. They have many different texts and masters and say a lot of things which are contradictory too. So whatever you say they will say we say that too. Plus a lot of what they say we reject too. For me the basic difference is that we have a variegated view as opposed to their universal centralized god like view. Also Dzogchen is mainly a practice based route based on experiences that can be verified by a master, not an evolving heterogenous all absorbing philosophy like theirs with many opposing views and evolving variety of practices within that subschool.

As Mipham said, many of other big religions and specially certain Hindus are now basically saying what we have been saying for ages so it is becoming hard to differentiate but the essence of our meaning and practice is different and unique. As I said Dzogchen is not merely a conceptual view but practice of certain methods and experiences within stages of a path under a qualified lineage guru who knows what he/she is doing for the disciple. For your other question of what Dzogchen means by being beyond cause and effect, the intro and root text and commentary to Manjushrimitra's text is a good start:
http://www.shambhala.com/primordial-experience.html

This short quote addresses your 3 areas of interest too:
http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=9485
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Mariusz » Tue May 22, 2012 1:28 pm

What was happened to teachings of Buddha in India. It was everything ok, completely converted to the "source", just because He was some kind of an Hindu avatar, no more needed. :stirthepot: If was not so, perhaps such teachings as Dzogchen would be there widespread now.
Last edited by Mariusz on Tue May 22, 2012 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Andrew108 » Tue May 22, 2012 1:56 pm

Thanks Username - great video. I understand dependent origination and the importance of ethics - I approach the truth though my own actions and from the side of dependent origination - However long it takes this is the path I'm on - no short cuts for me - perhaps I don't have the karma and I can admit that. Here is my inspiration: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -girl.html And this news makes a big splash in one of the worst newspapers in the U.K.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby xabir » Tue May 22, 2012 2:12 pm

Advaita Vedanta is concerned also about realizing our true nature, it is also concerned about liberation, and so on. In many respects they sound similar. It is only after a period of practice, experiencing, refining one's insights that one comes to see the difference between Buddhadharma and such teachings.

First of all, despite having taken refuge in the triple gems, I do not believe in throwing out non-Buddhist teachings. I believe in making good use of them but also understanding the limitations and going beyond all such limitations, which I shall explain. As I told many people, despite having taken refuge in the triple gems when I was 2 (I can't even remember that occasion) in a formal ceremony... I did not confine my studies to Buddhist teachings. As a matter of fact, between 2006~2010 my primary interest is more on Advaita materials, even though I have been acquinted with Buddhist teachings and teachers as well. From contemporary and popular teachers like Eckhart Tolle, to traditional teachers like Sri Ramana Maharshi, to neo-Advaita teachers like John Wheeler, Tony Parsons, etc etc. Sri Ramana Maharshi is a particularly good teacher at this particular self-inquiry practice I undertook, so in my e-book/e-journal I advise people looking into his materials if one is inclined to that path. Then later as my insights developed, I started to be more inclined to other teachings, like certain neo-Advaita teachers that talk more about the non-dual aspect in late 2010, then some Zen teachers, also a non-Buddhist teaching called "Actual Freedom", and later what really drew my attention was the suttas and sutras. I think they are exceptionally clear and speaks most accurately to my experience at this moment. But in any case, for myself, I am drawn to different teachings because that is what is most relevant to me at the moment (in terms of practice, insight, experience). I do not limit myself, or confine myself, to a particular set of teachings be it Buddhist or non-Buddhist but freely utilize whatever is more relevant and helpful for me, which may change over time. And this is the way I recommend for everyone, in Kenneth Folk (meditation teacher)'s words, "Pragmatic Dharma - whatever works".

In 2008, having had many glimpses of experiencing the Presence yet having no unshakeable realization beyond doubt, someone whom I consider my teacher, "Thusness" asked me to start doing self-inquiry, by asking myself "Before birth, Who am I?" He did not give me much instructions on self-inquiry, just asked me to contemplate on it. I took a serious contemplation on my part, just as Sri Ramana Maharshi and others (including Buddhist teachers like Ch'an Master Hsu Yun and many other zen masters) for the next two years until an unshakeable certainty arose in a moment when all concepts subsided and there is just this still, complete certainty of just this Presence, this beingness, pure sense of existence (which is not a concept, but just the pure luminous mind itself). At this point I am completely beyond doubt.

Naturally it is the case that one tries to abide and remain in this Presence one has discovered throughout the day and night. One may start to think that 24/7 abidance in this purest Presence is equivalent to nirvana. But one is still limited by one's view, that is, the subtle idea that this Presence is behind and underlying all manifest perception, that it is the thoughtless, formless, odorless, colourless substance underlying everything. This Presence is subtly seen to be separate, even though it is also the ultimate ground of everything - everything is seen as being manifestation of this ground. In actual case, this Presence is a true experience, but it only pertains to the luminosity of mind, as a pure thought, so it is only an aspect and not the totality in terms of the eighteen dhatus. One does not experience the one taste of presence in all perceptions, in all of the eighteen dhatus so to speak. Then owing to one's framework and view, one makes a pure identity out of Presence. But it is not that the Pure Presence is a "wrong" or "deluded" experience, it is a pure, "true" and important experience insofar as it relates to the innately luminous essence of mind, but it is the views (of duality, of inherency) and framework that remains intact that is faulty, shaping the way we view ourselves and our experiences. Nonetheless, for the rest of the journey, one is guided by this "I AM", this Presence, and it is just the refining of the view experientially, i.e. "keep the experience, refine the view" as Rob Burbea reiterated. Then one begins to discover that even though right from the start (the first discovery of Presence as the pure sense of I AM) one always talks about "uncontrived awareness", there will always be contrivance until clarity of view arises (view not in terms of concepts but a deep experiential insight which ultimately results in the freedom of all views).

Naturally, when there is any subtlest view of separation, there is naturally a contrivance, something that prevents full effortlessness of Presence in and as every experience. For if we are listening to music, what is Presence at that moment? Is Presence something separate or behind the experience of music, or is Presence always and already the very perception of music itself, never has there been any separation? This is also part of my next inquiry (among a list of inquiries), that is, has there been any separation, is there a border or line between presence/awareness and manifestation? At one time and since then, all sense of a subject and object, any sense of an observer, dissolved into a seamless presence which instead of being behind everything, is simply manifesting "AS" everything... at this moment, one's practice is no longer as contrived as in the previous phase where practice is inclined to trying to abide 24/7 in a purest state of Presence (residing in the pure Self, as the pure source/background behind everything), yet even this is not the end. But one begins to understand the third step of which Sri Ramana Maharshi speaks of: "The world is illusory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the world".

Sri Ramana Maharshi says:

"When once he realises his own Self he will know that there is nothing other than his own Self and he will come to look upon the whole universe as Brahman. There is no universe without the Self. So long as a man does not see the Self which is the origin of all, but looks only at the external world as real and permanent, you have to tell him that all this external universe is an illusion. You cannot help it. Take a paper. We see only the script, and nobody notices the paper on which the script is written. The paper is there whether the script on it is there or not. To those who look upon the script as real, you have to say that it is unreal, an illusion, since it rests upon the paper. The wise man looks upon both the paper and script as one. So also with Brahman and the universe."

Even when this is seen, there is still this view of a Source, of an inherent Awareness that nonetheless is expressing itself as everything. This is where Namdrol says everything is the lila of Shiva, Brahman, God, etc. Everything is the expression of consciousness and is not other than pure consciousnes - rather it is pure consciousness expressing or experiencing itself. The sights and sounds are all the pure display of consciousness, they are the display of You.

But because "pure consciousness" is seen as an inherent substance, source, an ultimate ground manifesting as everything, there will still be this subtle referencing and clinging preventing full uncontrivance, effortlessness, freedom (from all manners of grasping). One tries to re-confirm this Self in everything such that everything is Me, the sound, the sights, the everything IS the Presence. There is still this subtle, often unknowing, contrivance to reconfirm a source, an (inherent) essence. There is still this clinging to a One Awareness, a One Mind. This is itself a hindrance.

This is where Thusness's message to me came clear, there are two views or obscurations - the view of duality, and the view of inherency. Despite countless glimpses of Presence, if one does not have an insight to break through these views, one will never experience total non-contrivance, effortlessness, and liberation. Yet, even if one has a realization that overcomes dualistic view (of subject and object), it is not the same as overcoming the view of inherency. The view of inherency is overcome by the experiential realization of the twofold emptiness (of self and object). An example of overcoming dualistic view but not penetrating into emptiness is like Kashmir Shaivism's realism that sees the universe as the sport of Shiva or Advaita Vedanta's "the universe is Brahman".

And at this point he posted something very relevant to me:

Hi Simpo and AEN,

Yet we cannot get carried away by all these blissful experiences. Blissfulness is the result of luminosity whereas liberation is due to prajna wisdom. :)

To AEN,

For intense luminosity in the foreground, you will not only have vivid experience of ‘brilliant aliveness’, ‘you’ must also completely disappear. It is an experience of being totally ‘transparent’ and without boundaries. These experiences are quite obvious, u will not miss it. However the body-mind will not rest in great content due to an experience of intense luminosity. Contrary it can make a practitioner more attach to a non-dual ultimate luminous state.

For the mind to rest, it must have an experience of ‘great dissolve’ that whatever arises perpetually self liberates. It is not about phenomena dissolving into some great void but it is the empty nature of whatever arises that self-liberates. It is the direct experience of groundlessness and non –abiding due to direct insight of the empty nature of phenomena and that includes the non-dual luminous essence.

Therefore In addition to bringing this ‘taste’ to the foreground, u must also ‘realize’ the difference between wrong and right view. There is also a difference in saying “Different forms of Aliveness” and “There is just breath, sound, scenery...magical display that is utterly unfindable, ungraspable and without essence- empty.”

In the former case, realize how the mind is manifesting a subtle tendency of attempting to ‘pin’ and locate something that inherently exists. The mind feels uneasy and needs to seek for something due to its existing paradigm. It is not simply a matter of expression for communication sake but a habit that runs deep because it lacks a ‘view’ that is able to cater for reality that is dynamic, ungraspable, non-local , center-less and interdependent.

After direct realization of the non-dual essence and empty nature, the mind can then have a direct glimpse of what is meant by being ‘natural’, otherwise there will always be a ‘sense of contrivance’.


My 2 cents and have fun with ur army life. :-)



An insight then arises when I was contemplating on Bahiya Sutta that in seeing there is always just the seen, in hearing just the heard, always just the process, flow of self-luminous experience/experiencing without any Subject, agent, seer, perceiver, etc. But not only that, one then starts to see and understand that "Consciousness", "Presence", "Awareness" is utterly empty - being merely a convention, a label, no different from the word "Weather". The word "Weather" is a label connoting the everchanging clouds, forming and parting, rain falling, wind blowing, all interpenetrating and manifesting freely but nothing whatsoever can be pinned down as an ultimate ground, reality, or essence. Just like the "chariot" analogy.

Similarly, when one sees through the view of Consciousness as an ultimate ground but have a better understanding of imputation, one no longer seeks or grasps at anything, there is no longer any need to re-confirm, nothing about the Source... there is no need to reference to what is mere imputation without reality - i.e. “There is just breath, sound, scenery...magical display that is utterly unfindable, ungraspable and without essence- empty.” And this is where I find Buddha's teachings as exceptionally clear, and in fact, could not be found anywhere else in other (non-Buddhist) teachings. At this point, Cula-sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar on how Buddha's teachings are distinguished from other religions does make sense to me, even though my advise on being free from all limitations still apply.


Lastly there is no hierarchy of things... if a person talks about luminous presence, I will point out the empty nature (for if one does not go through two fold emptiness, how is a dual and inherent view going to lead one to that uncontrived awareness as this moment of suchness?), if one only talks about the empty nature, I will point out the luminous essence, and if one talks about its inseparability, I will inquire on what is the direct and actual experience of it like? Many people study emptiness teachings intellectually, this doesn't really help. The teachings must always relate to one's experience, to Presence, to the nature of mind, to this very moment of experience.
Last edited by xabir on Tue May 22, 2012 2:36 pm, edited 8 times in total.
xabir
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 2:41 pm

Nighthawk wrote:Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.


I am not saying that. I don't know what Advaitans experience. I was simply making the observation that if we reduce Buddhism to the three or four seals, well Advaita can fit that description too.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11738
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby username » Tue May 22, 2012 3:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.


I am not saying that. I don't know what Advaitans experience. I was simply making the observation that if we reduce Buddhism to the three or four seals, well Advaita can fit that description too.


Yes that is what DKR's piece says too:
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&p=101173#p101173
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 3:57 pm

Malcolm wrote: But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka.
[/quote]

It's easy to differentiate the two. This is worth the read

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... hindu.html
User avatar
mzaur
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby bob » Tue May 22, 2012 4:13 pm

Once a pile of steaming dung was gathered up from the pasture, taken to town, and passed from one person to another. Every hand that touched it was soiled. Nevertheless, one person took the dung, formed it into a kind of shrine, and began worshipping it every day. After some time, this person experienced a profound sentiment about the dung, and word quickly spread, until a whole group of people came to worship at the dung shrine. Over time, rules of dung worship were established and codified, priestly masters were created who could teach newcomers about proper dung etiquette, and a lineage of dung transmission was initiated.

Meanwhile, back in town, another person who had originally received the dung went in a somewhat different direction about the whole matter, figuring that the dung was actually best appreciated by drying and burning it, accompanied by certain chants and rituals. After some time with this practice, the person achieved an insight into dung burning that aroused a fervent devotion, and subsequently went around sharing the insight, until another whole group of people formed around the person’s practice, imitating the methods of drying, burning, chanting, and so forth. As with the first group, this group also established rules and so forth, priests and doctrines, and a parallel lineage was created.

Several centuries passed, and then one day a reformer came along, who had spent years contemplating dung, eventually coming to the startling realization that dung was a compounded phenomena, with no inherent self-nature. He then went about preaching the emptiness of dung, as well as its dependent origination and impermanence. He gathered a large community of adherents, but as each community member arrived at the realization that dung, being empty, was nothing special in particular, they eventually returned to ordinary life, and the sect passed into quiescent extinction without remainder.

Nevertheless, both of the original lineages are still active to this day, having been transmitted down through the ages, crossing over into neighboring cultures, and all around the world – spreading their particular Way of Dung. Occasionally, followers of the two groups will clash with each other over the right understanding and appreciation of dung. Though onlookers might marvel that anyone would make such a big deal over what essentially is nothing but excrement, the adherents of the two parallel dung lineages will often persist in their disputes nevertheless.

Historically, there have even been attempts to bring the two groups together, stressing the common factor of holy dung that they both share, but religious zealots can be obstinate, and so treatises are still composed extolling one method over the other, debates rage on dung forums, dung one-upmanship prevails, and all the while, the peculiar fragrance of dung permeates the dung halls, spreading its unmistakable aroma, while fresh dung is piled upon even more dung yet.
bob
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 4:27 pm

Nighthawk wrote:
mzaur wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.


Eckhart Tolle only talks about presence. He hasn't realized non-dual yet.
I don't see how Dzogchen and Zen can be experientially different. As for Advaita, I don't think so because there is no insight into emptiness. I might be wrong about Dzogchen though. From what I'm hearing now, it does seem to have more in common with Advaita than I thought. The language at least sounds pretty substantialist.

Emptiness is just a meaningless word. Advaita is all about direct experience like Zen and Dzogchen.


Then you haven't understood the essence of Dharma. Emptiness is the insight which liberates, not a meaningless concept. Ramana Maharshi would would cling to the Self and sink into a vegetative state for weeks so that his disciples would have to feed him and wipe his butt. Are you saying Maharshi lacked direct experience? He had plenty of it.
User avatar
mzaur
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

>