Dzogchen Sadhana Practice

[Malcolm]

Seriously though: I believe you and Crazy Wisdom are selling your previous teachers and practice short by not acknowledging the fact that your past practice paid off by generating the merit necessary for you to meet your precious gurus. Instead of denigrating what were quite possibly the means by which you arrived at your current state/position/realisation, you should be extraordinarily grateful. You should not be trying so hard to dissuade others are you may actually be encouraging them to abandon the only means they currently have at hand, to reach the point that you are currently at.

I am not dissuading anyone from anything. People are free. If they wish to practice the two stages, let them. I am encouraging people who are interested in Dzogchen teachings to understand that Dzogchen is an independent path, which does not depend on the vehicles of cause and result.

It may be the case that in modern Tibetan Buddhism Dzogchen has become mixed with anuyoga teachings, especially at the level of empowerments. For example, the Longchen Nyinthig is mostly deity practices. The Dzogchen section of it is very short, only a few very short texts (Yeshe Lama is not part of the Longchen Nyinthig, though it is included in the supporting text material).

Further, it is a very common practice to include the empowerment of the potential of vidyā (rig pa'i rtsal dbang) within a standard deity yoga empowerment (sometimes called "the fifth empowerment") or to include that in the fourth empowerment. But Dzogchen also has it own independent empowerments which are not based on any kind of deity yoga path.

You are continuing to talk about empowerments like Troma Nagmo and Namchak Putri which are mixed cycles:

I know that, but I am. I am continuing to explain my point.

"Mixed" means that they introduce a yidam as part of the path, they are more gradual cycles. No one disputes that people attain rainbow body from practicing such cycles. Of course they do, they contain the main practices of Dzogchen, trekchöd and thögal.

For example, Vajravārāhī is an important part of the Gongpa Zangthal. There is also a Shitro. It is said there that Vārāhī is present for people of intermediate capacity. The same can be said of the Khandro Nyinthig. The retreats of the deities of these cycles are one week, not months and years.

But this is not what CW and I are talking about. We are talking about Dzogchen as it is presented within the Dzogchen tantras themselves and their related instructions such as the Vima Nyinthig, which have zero deity yoga practices as part of the path.

[Natan]

I'm seeing the denigration from your side. Honestly. I never said anything negative about the two stages. All I'm saying is it's another way. Maybe even a better way.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements.

I did an internet I Ching for you. It says you'll be the best yogi ever.

[Natan]

FullSizeRender.jpg (240.38 KiB) Viewed 4341 times

see?

[Dechen Norbu]

Hogwash. They, like all phenomena, can be obstacles if you do not realise their essential nature, their source.

In all seriousness the nyingthig and Yangti texts talk about remaining silent and motionless, stopping recitations and visualizations, etc., bc they get in the way. Take it or leave it.

They may get in the way before recognition, theoretically though, after recognition, there ain't that much that can really get in the way. Theoretically though, one has received empowerment before starting the visualisations and recitations and (theoretically, once again) one should have realised the nature of the yidam during the empowerment AND before starting... So...

EVERYTHING gets in the way. Integration is all but easy, Greg.

[Anonymous X]

Vasana,

Earlier today, I read a bit on Hongzhi, the Song dynasty Chan master who is known for Silent Illumination. There was an anecdote of him telling someone that the way was simply to 'stop'. This sounds like a very simple thing to do, yet any honest practitioner knows the difficulty in this. It reminded me of one of my own teachers telling me decades ago to 'stop'. What does stop mean? It means to stop manufacturing views that create a separation in one's mind which in turn creates a state of becoming. If you do stop, you get to know what effortlessness is really about. It is a direct knowing of your own nature and in accord/harmony with all appearances without exception. Then one can read that beautiful All Creating King and know what it is talking about. Then one can walk without a shadow.

I don't personally know what the written Dzogchen perspective on Zen is, nor do i practice Zen, but I think it might be premature to equate the two together without a full understanding of the tenets of both systems. I might be wrong regarding their compatibility there so I'm open to someone with more knowledge of both systems chiming in.

In terms of actual practice, until you're realized, 'stopping' is not something permanent but is fragmented due to the accumulated tendencies to engage in activities with the dualistic mind. You might have a 'Eureka' or satori moment where you successfully manage to simply 'stop' for a while, but before you know it you're 'going' again.

This is why the phrase 'Short moments many times' is so often stressed in Dzogchen. I get the feeling neo-Zen types and neo-advaitans often miss the significance and reasoning behind that advice and assume that they are in this effortless state 24/7 and are beyond the accumulation of karma while in the subsequent dualistic state.

I'm afraid you've made many assumptions that are neither true or in context to what I've said. For some strange reason (not to me, though), many here raise Dzogchen to an elitist pov and creating a sense of 'better than thou'. Perhaps this was one of the reasons Dzogchen was not commonly taught to the likes of those who don't know what to do with it. In any case, you cannot practice Zen and you cannot practice Dzogchen.

No one is missing the significance of 'short moments many times'. It is that stopping that is those short moments many times. It is a giving up of our views and effort and of our becoming something. It is a real surrender without wanting anything in return. Someone who practices anything with a goal in mind is deluded. Comparing one thing to another is also deluded. It is more of the same dualistic view. Each moment has never happened before and is unique. All views shrink in this light. Just give it up, every moment. Let your brain clean itself out.

[Anonymous X]

I'm afraid you've made many assumptions that are neither true or in context to what I've said. For some strange reason (not to me, though), many here raise Dzogchen to an elitist pov and creating a sense of 'better than thou'.

No, they do not. This is merely your projection.

Perhaps this was one of the reasons Dzogchen was not commonly taught to the likes of those who don't know what to do with it.

As far as anyone can tell so far, you are not qualified to say anything about Dzogchen.

...you cannot practice Dzogchen.

As above.

Each moment has never happened before and is unique.

There is no "before," there is no "unique," and there are no "moments."

You forgot, there is also no Dzogchen.

[Grigoris]

EVERYTHING gets in the way. Integration is all but easy, Greg.

I don't disagree that integration is difficult. I don't disagree in the slightest. My point is that having seen the true nature and realising that everything derives from this, then everything becomes a means to realisation. The true nature of obstacles is, after all, identical to the true nature of the solution to these obstacles. That is what the Mahamudra teachings on "one taste", for example, are all about.

[Karma_Yeshe]

My point is that having seen the true nature and realising that everything derives from this, then everything becomes a means to realisation. The true nature of obstacles is, after all, identical to the true nature of the solution to these obstacles. That is what the Mahamudra teachings on "one taste", for example, are all about.

Dzogchen practiced as an own path is not really about solutions for obstacles. This sounds to coarse. It is far more subtle, at least accoring to my limited experience.

[Grigoris]

My point is that having seen the true nature and realising that everything derives from this, then everything becomes a means to realisation. The true nature of obstacles is, after all, identical to the true nature of the solution to these obstacles. That is what the Mahamudra teachings on "one taste", for example, are all about.

Dzogchen practiced as an own path is not really about solutions for obstacles. This sounds to coarse. It is far more subtle, at least accoring to my limited experience.

You missed the point. The point is that essentially there is no difference between obstacles and solutions.

[Anonymous X]

EVERYTHING gets in the way. Integration is all but easy, Greg.

I don't disagree that integration is difficult. I don't disagree in the slightest. My point is that having seen the true nature and realising that everything derives from this, then everything becomes a means to realisation. The true nature of obstacles is, after all, identical to the true nature of the solution to these obstacles. That is what the Mahamudra teachings on "one taste", for example, are all about.

I'm afraid you might be confused about this. If this were really the case, that obstacles are identical to the true nature, you would not be here talking about this kind of thing. That is not the case except in some abstract dream that one could concoct from all this 'dharma' talk. Phenomenon, your experience, is unreal, it is empty and void. Mind's nature is Knowing. Please have a read of the following.

Zongmi, Tang Chan master:

All dharmas are like a dream. All the noble ones have said the same thing. Therefore, thought of the unreal from the outset is calmed, and sense objects from the outset are void. The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. This calm Knowing of voidness and calm is precisely the mind of voidness and calm that Bodhidharma formerly transmitted. Whether you are deluded or awakened, mind from the outset is spontaneously Knowing. [Knowing] is not produced by conditions, nor does it arise in dependence on sense objects. Even during delusion the depravities are Knowing, but [Knowing] is not the“depravities". Even during awakening the divine transformations are Knowing, but Knowing is not the divine transformations. Thus, the one word “Knowing” is the ”“source of all excellence. Because of delusion about this Knowing there arises the characteristic of a self. When one calculates self and mine, love and hatred spontaneously arise. According to the mind of love or hatred, one does good or bad, and, as retribution for this good or bad, is reborn in one of the six rebirth paths, life after life, birth after birth, cyclically, without end. If you find a good friend to show you [the path], you will all-at-once awaken to the Knowing of voidness and calm. Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices. With respect to understanding, it is to see that all characteristics are non-characteristics. With respect to practice, it is called the practice of non-practice. When the depravities are exhausted, the rebirth process will cease; once arising “and disappearing has extinguished, calmness and illumination will become manifest, and responsive functions will be without limit. It is called becoming a buddha.
Knowing the two principles with respect to dharma (of the Awakening of Faith), the immutable and the conditioned, allows one to understand the thrust of the sutras and treatises. Knowing the two gates with respect to people, all-at-once awakening and step-by-step practice, allows one to understand the teaching devices of the former masters. These two provide us with a standard by which to evaluate the Chan lineages.

Excerpt From: Jeffrey Lyle Broughton. “Zongmi on Chan.”

From The Avatamsaka Sutra:
Phenomenon;
All are void and essenceless; The deluded mind conceives them to exist. Seen as they truly are, All are without inherent nature. The eye of reality is not conceptual: This seeing is not false. Real or unreal, False or not false, Mundane or transmundane: There's nothing but descriptions.

Of all things seen in the world Only mind is the host; By grasping forms according to interpretation It becomes deluded, not true to reality. All philosophies in the world Are mental fabrications; There has never been a single doctrine By which one could enter the true essence of things. By the power of perceiver and perceived All kinds of things are born; They soon pass away, not staying, Dying out instant to instant.

[treehuggingoctopus]

EVERYTHING gets in the way. Integration is all but easy, Greg.

I don't disagree that integration is difficult. I don't disagree in the slightest. My point is that having seen the true nature and realising that everything derives from this, then everything becomes a means to realisation. The true nature of obstacles is, after all, identical to the true nature of the solution to these obstacles. That is what the Mahamudra teachings on "one taste", for example, are all about.

I'm afraid you might be confused about this. If this were really the case, that obstacles are identical to the true nature, you would not be here talking about this kind of thing. That is not the case except in some abstract dream that one could concoct from all this 'dharma' talk. Phenomenon, your experience, is unreal, it is empty and void. Mind's nature is Knowing.

Quoting Chan masters in Dzogchen-related threads is actually quite helpful, it turns out -- proves that Chan and Dzogchen are indeed quite different beasts.

[Malcolm]

You forgot, there is also no Dzogchen.

Sure there is. However, I do not see anything in your posts reflective of any actual understanding of the subject. You have already disqualified yourself as capable of judging English translations of Dzogchen texts. You do not sound like a person who has ever studied Dzogchen with a Dzogchen master. You sound like an all-oner.

[Malcolm]

[

I'm afraid you might be confused about this. If this were really the case, that obstacles are identical to the true nature, you would not be here talking about this kind of thing. That is not the case except in some abstract dream that one could concoct from all this 'dharma' talk. Phenomenon, your experience, is unreal, it is empty and void. Mind's nature is Knowing.

That is a very trivial nature of the mind. It does not go beyond cittamatra.

[Tongnyid Dorje]

Can someone tell me where sadhana fits into this?

Can you tell where it does not fit? I was under the impression that all existence is nothing other Dzogchen, that there is nothing seperate to Dzogchen.

Yes, but there is a difference between recognizing that and not recognizing that. The point that Dzogchen tantras consistently make is that practicing the two stages of creation and completion are at best an indirect means of coming to that recognition, and at worst a total deviation from the meaning of the Great Perfection. Rongzom points out that one should not discriminate between mantra or sūtra practice when it comes to the indirect approach. Recognition is the important point in Dzogchen, nothing else.

nice, but if you dont have method/practice how to recognize it, you will not recognize anything.

[Malcolm]

Can you tell where it does not fit? I was under the impression that all existence is nothing other Dzogchen, that there is nothing seperate to Dzogchen.

Yes, but there is a difference between recognizing that and not recognizing that. The point that Dzogchen tantras consistently make is that practicing the two stages of creation and completion are at best an indirect means of coming to that recognition, and at worst a total deviation from the meaning of the Great Perfection. Rongzom points out that one should not discriminate between mantra or sūtra practice when it comes to the indirect approach. Recognition is the important point in Dzogchen, nothing else.

nice, but if you dont have method/practice how to recognize it, you will not recognize anything.

The method is direct introduction. As it is said in the Tantra Without Syllables, "The dharmakāya is encountered in the intimate instructions."

[Grigoris]

Phenomenon, your experience, is unreal, it is empty and void. Mind's nature is Knowing.

I think that this is where you are confused.

[Tongnyid Dorje]

of course direct introduction. what i mean is, that we are not all the higest capacity, (chigcharwa? <- if i remember correctly), so after direct introduction, if we even suceed to recognize anything, we need to sustain this recognition by some method, right? if we havent recognized anything, then we need another method.

[dzogchungpa]

The method is direct introduction. As it is said in the Tantra Without Syllables, "The dharmakāya is encountered in the intimate instructions."

Webcasts aren't particularly intimate, are they?

[Anonymous X]

I don't disagree that integration is difficult. I don't disagree in the slightest. My point is that having seen the true nature and realising that everything derives from this, then everything becomes a means to realisation. The true nature of obstacles is, after all, identical to the true nature of the solution to these obstacles. That is what the Mahamudra teachings on "one taste", for example, are all about.

I'm afraid you might be confused about this. If this were really the case, that obstacles are identical to the true nature, you would not be here talking about this kind of thing. That is not the case except in some abstract dream that one could concoct from all this 'dharma' talk. Phenomenon, your experience, is unreal, it is empty and void. Mind's nature is Knowing.

Quoting Chan masters in Dzogchen-related threads is actually quite helpful, it turns out -- proves that Chan and Dzogchen are indeed quite different beasts.

Never said they were the same. I also quoted Avatamsaka Sutra. Do you also think this is not valid?

[Anonymous X]

Phenomenon, your experience, is unreal, it is empty and void. Mind's nature is Knowing.

I think that this is where you are confused.

Do you also think that the Avatamsaka Sutra is confused?