Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
MiphamFan
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by MiphamFan » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:03 am

Konchog1 wrote:
Malcolm wrote:That false imputation exists
As a mere appearance
Is there anything that exists not as a mere appearance?

User avatar
Konchog1
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Konchog1 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:49 am

MiphamFan wrote:
Konchog1 wrote:
Malcolm wrote:That false imputation exists
As a mere appearance
Is there anything that exists not as a mere appearance?
I don't believe so
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:44 am

Anonymous X wrote:I don't really disagree with your statements. As it's hard to describe what happens when the nature of mind is 'seen', the ensuing 'change of state' also 'sees' the 'not twoness' (nondual) nature of the ordinary mind and its activity. That ordinary mind does not become 'enlightened mind' as some may like to think. It is simply allowed to rise and fall and be what it is without obscuring the original purity of the nature of mind and its not twoness view. Conceptual mind is just seen as empty of a self and this is what is the same as the nature of mind. There is nothing added to what is already the case. In a sense, this is a seachange from the old view of separation and division within the mind.
Are you saying that "conventional mind" has a different nature than "the nature of mind"???
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
florin
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by florin » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:31 am

Grigoris wrote:

a)It is enlightened mind that experiences enlightenment, whereupon I would ask the silly question: "What use does the enlightened mind have of enlightenment since it is already frackin' enlightened?"
b)We are already enlightened exactly in this moment and exactly as we are, in which case one would ask the moronic question: "What is the purpose of Dharma if I am already enlightened?"

I guess that is why (recently)I am being drawn more-and-more towards the view of one truth.
For me personally these questions are central to understanding what i would call the bigest case of misdirection in the history of the universe.
As Jim Valby once said : " The search for enlightenment is a waste of a precious human life".

And what do we do with the dharma(dzogchen) then ?
Well what we do is use its methods to develop capacity to recognise and rest in what has been here all along.
The nature of diverse phenomena is non-dual. This means that both pure vision and impure vision are a manifestation of the energy of the primordial state. Even though in reality there is no duality, everything manifests separately. KG

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Anonymous X » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:40 am

Grigoris wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:I don't really disagree with your statements. As it's hard to describe what happens when the nature of mind is 'seen', the ensuing 'change of state' also 'sees' the 'not twoness' (nondual) nature of the ordinary mind and its activity. That ordinary mind does not become 'enlightened mind' as some may like to think. It is simply allowed to rise and fall and be what it is without obscuring the original purity of the nature of mind and its not twoness view. Conceptual mind is just seen as empty of a self and this is what is the same as the nature of mind. There is nothing added to what is already the case. In a sense, this is a seachange from the old view of separation and division within the mind.
Are you saying that "conventional mind" has a different nature than "the nature of mind"???
From my post: 'Conceptual mind is just seen as empty of a self and this is what is the same as the nature of mind.' You can say that the nature is the same, but the function is different.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:37 am

conebeckham wrote:I don't think the contents of conventional mental activity are the same as Nature of Mind, but I do think the Nature of Mind is primordially inseparable from the nature of conventional mental activity.
Jello is not gelatine but you cannot have jello without gelatine?
I also don't think there is "an enlightened mind" per se. There is wisdom, and a "Change of State."
So what changes? Conventional mind cannot become enlightened, so that does not change. The Nature of Mind is enlightened, so that does not change. What is left?

Image
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Marc
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:40 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Marc » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:43 am

Grigoris wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:I don't really disagree with your statements. As it's hard to describe what happens when the nature of mind is 'seen', the ensuing 'change of state' also 'sees' the 'not twoness' (nondual) nature of the ordinary mind and its activity. That ordinary mind does not become 'enlightened mind' as some may like to think. It is simply allowed to rise and fall and be what it is without obscuring the original purity of the nature of mind and its not twoness view. Conceptual mind is just seen as empty of a self and this is what is the same as the nature of mind. There is nothing added to what is already the case. In a sense, this is a seachange from the old view of separation and division within the mind.
Are you saying that "conventional mind" has a different nature than "the nature of mind"???
Hi Grigoris
Are you somehow suggesting that the distinction between sems and sems nyid isn't a crucial key point in Dzogchen ?
 

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:50 am

Marc wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:I don't really disagree with your statements. As it's hard to describe what happens when the nature of mind is 'seen', the ensuing 'change of state' also 'sees' the 'not twoness' (nondual) nature of the ordinary mind and its activity. That ordinary mind does not become 'enlightened mind' as some may like to think. It is simply allowed to rise and fall and be what it is without obscuring the original purity of the nature of mind and its not twoness view. Conceptual mind is just seen as empty of a self and this is what is the same as the nature of mind. There is nothing added to what is already the case. In a sense, this is a seachange from the old view of separation and division within the mind.
Are you saying that "conventional mind" has a different nature than "the nature of mind"???
Hi Grigoris
Are you somehow suggesting that the distinction between sems and sems nyid isn't a crucial key point in Dzogchen ?
 
It is a question, not a suggestion. That is why there are question marks in the statement. There seems to be a distinction between ... and ... but the question is whether they have the same nature or not.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Anonymous X » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:18 pm

Grigoris wrote:
conebeckham wrote:I don't think the contents of conventional mental activity are the same as Nature of Mind, but I do think the Nature of Mind is primordially inseparable from the nature of conventional mental activity.
Jello is not gelatine but you cannot have jello without gelatine?
I also don't think there is "an enlightened mind" per se. There is wisdom, and a "Change of State."
So what changes? Conventional mind cannot become enlightened, so that does not change. The Nature of Mind is enlightened, so that does not change. What is left?

Image
One of the key things to subtract from the description of the nature of mind is that it is 'enlightened'. This is a dualistic interpretation that falls away when rigpa is 'seen'. Mind is neither enlightened or not enlightened. Original purity is already the case, so nothing is added. This is why subtraction is sometimes used to describe this change of state, but there really is no change of state. These are figures of speech. Language has its limitations in this area. This also means that appearances can continue to appear, but nothing affects that original purity from the point of view of rigpa. After all, you need to distinguish ouzo from retsina, no? :rolling:

User avatar
davyji
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:30 pm
Location: Intermountain West USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by davyji » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:50 pm

I'll tackle that question,
the nature of a conceptual mind is conceptualizing, always on the move
the nature of an open mind is openness, clear & luminous

dave
Working with the raw elements (air earth fire water space)is a process of connecting with the external elements and internalizing their qualities.
Ultimately we can merge with the element. We connect the external quality with the internal quality and then dissolve the distinctions.
Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche

The essence of the elements is light
ChNN

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28288
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Malcolm » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:02 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Marc wrote:
Grigoris wrote:Are you saying that "conventional mind" has a different nature than "the nature of mind"???
Hi Grigoris
Are you somehow suggesting that the distinction between sems and sems nyid isn't a crucial key point in Dzogchen ?
 
It is a question, not a suggestion. That is why there are question marks in the statement. There seems to be a distinction between ... and ... but the question is whether they have the same nature or not.
The mind essence (sems nyid, cittatā) is the essence or nature of the mind by definition. What does it mean to say mind essence? It means that the mind's essence is inseparable clarity and emptiness. There is no nature of the mind beyond this. It is also not meaningful to speak of a further nature of the mind essence.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by PuerAzaelis » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:13 pm

M-la - the definition of "clarity" in the context of dzogchen and the definition in the context of completion - are they different?
Generally, enjoyment of speech is the gateway to poor [results]. So it becomes the foundation for generating all negative emotional states. Jampel Pawo, The Certainty of the Diamond Mind

For posts from this user, see Karma Dondrup Tashi account.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4907
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:55 pm

Grigoris wrote:
conebeckham wrote:I don't think the contents of conventional mental activity are the same as Nature of Mind, but I do think the Nature of Mind is primordially inseparable from the nature of conventional mental activity.
Jello is not gelatine but you cannot have jello without gelatine?
I also don't think there is "an enlightened mind" per se. There is wisdom, and a "Change of State."
So what changes? Conventional mind cannot become enlightened, so that does not change. The Nature of Mind is enlightened, so that does not change. What is left?
It all comes down to awareness of Nature of Mind, and of how all experience is a reflection of that--not the best words, but this is an impossible task to put this into words anyway--everybody says so!---in a sense, it's just seeing what has always been there in a new way, an illuminated way. Where is one's awareness? It's a question of perspective?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4907
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:58 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Marc wrote:
Hi Grigoris
Are you somehow suggesting that the distinction between sems and sems nyid isn't a crucial key point in Dzogchen ?
 
It is a question, not a suggestion. That is why there are question marks in the statement. There seems to be a distinction between ... and ... but the question is whether they have the same nature or not.
The mind essence (sems nyid, cittatā) is the essence or nature of the mind by definition. What does it mean to say mind essence? It means that the mind's essence is inseparable clarity and emptiness. There is no nature of the mind beyond this. It is also not meaningful to speak of a further nature of the mind essence.
Would you say the crucial point is whether one "sees" this clarity/emptiness, or not? And for how long? At some point, with training, one "always sees" this clarity/emptiness?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Anonymous X » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:12 pm

conebeckham wrote: Would you say the crucial point is whether one "sees" this clarity/emptiness, or not? And for how long? At some point, with training, one "always sees" this clarity/emptiness?
I'm not sure these questions can be answered definitively. Can there really be a timeline for the dissolution of the skandhas? And, with their dissolution, is there anything 'to see' anymore? Better to not venture into this kind of imagining, I think.

User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6113
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by kirtu » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:21 pm

conebeckham wrote: Would you say the crucial point is whether one "sees" this clarity/emptiness, or not? And for how long? At some point, with training, one "always sees" this clarity/emptiness?
Everyone always experiences it but don't recognize it. Some people recognize that the recognize it during empowerment or even just during uncontrived meditation beforehand. But few seem to be transformed directly and immediately and thus need to train , esp. training in cutting through their thick obscurations.

Does every Buddhist meditator eventually recognize (or as I put it, recognize that they recognize)?

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:29 pm

conebeckham wrote:It all comes down to awareness of Nature of Mind, and of how all experience is a reflection of that--not the best words, but this is an impossible task to put this into words anyway--everybody says so!---in a sense, it's just seeing what has always been there in a new way, an illuminated way. Where is one's awareness? It's a question of perspective?
This awareness, or the process of being aware (ie experiencing) is done by the conventional mind though, isn't it?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28288
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Malcolm » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:52 pm

conebeckham wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Grigoris wrote:It is a question, not a suggestion. That is why there are question marks in the statement. There seems to be a distinction between ... and ... but the question is whether they have the same nature or not.
The mind essence (sems nyid, cittatā) is the essence or nature of the mind by definition. What does it mean to say mind essence? It means that the mind's essence is inseparable clarity and emptiness. There is no nature of the mind beyond this. It is also not meaningful to speak of a further nature of the mind essence.
Would you say the crucial point is whether one "sees" this clarity/emptiness, or not? And for how long? At some point, with training, one "always sees" this clarity/emptiness?
The nature of the mind is seen in a moment of unfabricated consciousness. This moment of seeing is called vidyā. The difference between buddhas and sentient being solely depends on how fragmented this vidyā is. In buddhas vidyā is unbroken and continuous; in sentient beings it is fragmented and discontinuous.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Losal Samten » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:04 pm

Grigoris wrote:
conebeckham wrote:It all comes down to awareness of Nature of Mind, and of how all experience is a reflection of that--not the best words, but this is an impossible task to put this into words anyway--everybody says so!---in a sense, it's just seeing what has always been there in a new way, an illuminated way. Where is one's awareness? It's a question of perspective?
This awareness, or the process of being aware (ie experiencing) is done by the conventional mind though, isn't it?
  • [...] it is stated that there is no difference between knowledge and the object of knowledge.
- Rongzompa
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4907
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:48 pm

Solidifying either a "conventional mind" or a "nature of Mind" are just conceptual traps, and, as Malcolm said, not helpful. This is a real crucial point, I think. That's why too much talk is not useful, esp. here on the Internet.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aspiring.Monk, conebeckham, heart and 91 guests