Instant Presence and Physical Pain

[PeterC]

I don't care of other Tibetan sutras which have no use to me anyway, all I care about is that no buddhist authority I have known ever refute the authenticity of the chinese tripitaka, and all controvesial sutras have already being isolated in this system. We have enough definitive sutras in the tripitaka to not to bother with those controvesial sutras.

Am wondering...did you mean to post in the Dzogchen sub-forum of a forum on Tibetan Buddhism, or were you looking for a different section?

[Jyoti]

I don't care of other Tibetan sutras which have no use to me anyway, all I care about is that no buddhist authority I have known ever refute the authenticity of the chinese tripitaka, and all controvesial sutras have already being isolated in this system. We have enough definitive sutras in the tripitaka to not to bother with those controvesial sutras.

Am wondering...did you mean to post in the Dzogchen sub-forum of a forum on Tibetan Buddhism, or were you looking for a different section?

Dzogchen is a definitive teaching or a non-definitive teaching? I am here because I assume it is a definitive teaching, feel free to disagree and I will leave elsewhere.

[PeterC]

I don't care of other Tibetan sutras which have no use to me anyway, all I care about is that no buddhist authority I have known ever refute the authenticity of the chinese tripitaka, and all controvesial sutras have already being isolated in this system. We have enough definitive sutras in the tripitaka to not to bother with those controvesial sutras.

Am wondering...did you mean to post in the Dzogchen sub-forum of a forum on Tibetan Buddhism, or were you looking for a different section?

Dzogchen is a definitive teaching or a non-definitive teaching? I am here because I assume it is a definitive teaching, feel free to disagree and I will leave elsewhere.

I think you miss my point.

[PuerAzaelis]

But the more one reads DW, the more it appears that in order to make heads or tails of the most basic and the most essential things he teaches (and thus properly practice them), you need to spend years reading around, studying Madhyamaka, Abhidharma, Vajrayana tantras, Dzogchen commentaries -- preferably in Sanskrit and Tibetan.

Lol. I don't think the "K.I.S.S." sutra has ever been translated.

[Malcolm]

thus the term 'suffering' does not exist (nor necessary) in the definitive teaching of mahayana.

Making up the Dharma as you go along, huh? Can you find me even one master in any tradition who maintains this point of view you are proffering?

For the spirit of academic/scholastic discussion of buddhism, one should uphold the Buddha's injunction as stated in the four reliances. One of that apply in this, is not to rely on the person (teacher) but the teaching (dharma). Therefore your asking for authority of teacher for anything being discussed, is an open opposition to the buddha's injunction, a sign of weakness in buddhist cultivation.

You are in the wrong forum, then lady. The ultimate authority in Vajrayāna is the guru.

[Malcolm]

Usually it is only related to a certain controversial sutras, we just have to read into the meaning of this sutras, that is all.

No, actually these controversies apply to entire classes of sūtras, and we have not even begun to get into tantras.

The whole idea of "three turnings" is very sketchy to begin with, and a hermeneutic device Indian masters wholly ignored.

Divākara from the Nalanda reported that in India there were two masters at Nalanda the abbot of Nalanda and Xuanzang's teacher Śīlabhadra and Jnanaprabha. The first taught the Three Turnings with the Third Turning as Yogacara and most definite whereas the latter taught the Madhyamka as the definite teaching.

But the Huayan Patriarch Fazang Xianshou notes that the Prajna Sutras cannot be classified as only second turning and in the end places Yogacara on a level lower than Madhyamaka.

This is anecdotal.

When you examine the bstan 'gyur, you will discover that there is almost nothing mentioned about the three turnings. The passage in the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra about three turnings was ignore Asanga in his commentary on the sūtra. The other commentary, by Jn̄̄ānagarbha, also ignores the three turnings. It appears obvious then that this tiny section of the sūtra in question are regarded as being of little importance by Indian masters in India.

The notion of three turnings as a major device for interpreting sūtras was introduced to Tibet in the massive commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra by the Korean master་་Won-ch'uk. However, this is almost entirely ignored in Chinese Buddhism as well which seems to generally follow the Tientai school for dating and evaluating sūtras.

Madhyamikas would never accept this scheme since they regarded the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra a provisional sūtra from the get go, and their criteria for evaluating definitive vs. provisional sūtras comes from the Akṣayamtinirdeśasūtra.

But this is all massively off topic.

[Malcolm]

:

But the more one reads DW, the more it appears that in order to make heads or tails of the most basic and the most essential things he teaches (and thus properly practice them), you need to spend years reading around, studying Madhyamaka, Abhidharma, Vajrayana tantras, Dzogchen commentaries -- preferably in Sanskrit and Tibetan.

Right, just as ChNN did. Knowledge is not an obscuration. Lack of knowledge is.

In fact, the Holy Writ maintains that when one is really making progress in one's practice of Dzogchen, one's body feels very light and pleasant, parasites flee the body (such as lice), one's need for food decreases, and so on. All of these signs are characteristic also of someone who has mastered sutrayāna style śamatha. Rongzom confirms this idea by his insistence that those who are gradual capacity people (all of us, I have never met a cig car ba) need to develop the first dhyāna (with it's characteristic five factors) combined with Dzogchen view, either in connection with mantra practice or just by doing regular śamatha.

For example, ChNN maintains that if we can be in "instant presence" for a very short period of time, a few seconds, our practice is continuing pretty well. I am not sure how useful being in instant presence for a few seconds is for evaluating the effectiveness of being in instant presence for pain management, though I am certain it is useful for understanding any physical sensation as phantasmagorical. On the other hand, I know very clearly the relationship between pain and śamatha, and I know that the Buddha himself (and there is no greater "Dzogchen master" than Śakyamuni Buddha in our epoch) relied on dhyāna to refresh himself and to deal with his own physical pain as he got older and older:

"It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, [19] that his body is more comfortable.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .vaji.html

I also am not someone who just goes by the Holy Word as reported by my fellow coreligionists. While Dzogchen has its own characteristic practices, its assumptions about the mind and body are Buddhist assumptions, and fit within the boundaries of Buddhist discourse, practice and expectations very comfortably, are based upon them, or in dialogue with them.

[Aryjna]

In fact, the Holy Writ maintains that when one is really making progress in one's practice of Dzogchen, one's body feels very light and pleasant, parasites flee the body (such as lice), one's need for food decreases, and so on. All of these signs are characteristic also of someone who has mastered sutrayāna style śamatha. Rongzom confirms this idea by his insistence that those who are gradual capacity people (all of us, I have never met a cig car ba) need to develop the first dhyāna (with it's characteristic five factors) combined with Dzogchen view, either in connection with mantra practice or just by doing regular śamatha.

I think I have read all the books by ChNNR on shine (only three of them that I could find), but none of them talk about how to develop it through mantra practice. One could say it is obvious but it would be useful if there was some more explicit material on this. I also have never seen him mention using the breath as an object, which is very common in other vehicles. Do you know if he has ever taught specifically on these options, and if there is some material available?

[Malcolm]

In fact, the Holy Writ maintains that when one is really making progress in one's practice of Dzogchen, one's body feels very light and pleasant, parasites flee the body (such as lice), one's need for food decreases, and so on. All of these signs are characteristic also of someone who has mastered sutrayāna style śamatha. Rongzom confirms this idea by his insistence that those who are gradual capacity people (all of us, I have never met a cig car ba) need to develop the first dhyāna (with it's characteristic five factors) combined with Dzogchen view, either in connection with mantra practice or just by doing regular śamatha.

I think I have read all the books by ChNNR on shine (only three of them that I could find), but none of them talk about how to develop it through mantra practice. One could say it is obvious but it would be useful if there was some more explicit material on this. I also have never seen him mention using the breath as an object, which is very common in other vehicles. Do you know if he has ever taught specifically on these options, and if there is some material available?

He talks about how mantra practice is mindfulness of breathing and gets very mad at people when they do not pronounce mantras according to proper breathing patterns because they are not paying attention or don't care.

A lot of the reasons he says this or that thing are not obvious until you study more. But in Vajrayāna somehow, people think it is more virtuous to blindly follow their teachers than it is to find out why they say this thing or that thing, or investigate the reasons behind this or that statement.

I personally prefer to figure out why my teachers say this or that so that I can explain it to others.

[Aryjna]

In fact, the Holy Writ maintains that when one is really making progress in one's practice of Dzogchen, one's body feels very light and pleasant, parasites flee the body (such as lice), one's need for food decreases, and so on. All of these signs are characteristic also of someone who has mastered sutrayāna style śamatha. Rongzom confirms this idea by his insistence that those who are gradual capacity people (all of us, I have never met a cig car ba) need to develop the first dhyāna (with it's characteristic five factors) combined with Dzogchen view, either in connection with mantra practice or just by doing regular śamatha.

I think I have read all the books by ChNNR on shine (only three of them that I could find), but none of them talk about how to develop it through mantra practice. One could say it is obvious but it would be useful if there was some more explicit material on this. I also have never seen him mention using the breath as an object, which is very common in other vehicles. Do you know if he has ever taught specifically on these options, and if there is some material available?

He talks about how mantra practice is mindfulness of breathing and gets very mad at people when they do not pronounce mantras according to proper breathing patterns because they are not paying attention or don't care.

A lot of the reasons he says this or that thing are not obvious until you study more. But in Vajrayāna somehow, people think it is more virtuous to blindly follow their teachers than it is to find out why they say this thing or that thing, or investigate the reasons behind this or that statement.

I personally prefer to figure out why my teachers say this or that so that I can explain it to others.

The good thing about DC books is that they often cover partly the same topics, but as the material is taken from different retreats, you usually learn some more new things every time. The downside is that sometimes it is difficult to find material on something specific you may need. For example, I am aware of the right way to breathe etc during specific mantras, but I never saw any specific mention of the relation of this with shine, or some extra instructions. Ideally one would have followed every retreat, but relatively few people have done that.

[treehuggingoctopus]

:

But the more one reads DW, the more it appears that in order to make heads or tails of the most basic and the most essential things he teaches (and thus properly practice them), you need to spend years reading around, studying Madhyamaka, Abhidharma, Vajrayana tantras, Dzogchen commentaries -- preferably in Sanskrit and Tibetan.

Right, just as ChNN did.

Seriously, Malcolm. How many DC practitioners have the possibility to do so? One in a dozen? One in a hundred? What about the rest?

I am an egghead, and gladly divide what little leisure time I have between practicing and studying. Most of us, however, have neither the time nor the inclination to do both. I refuse to believe that ChNN does not mean what he says when he talks about the necessary things.

In fact, the Holy Writ maintains that when one is really making progress in one's practice of Dzogchen, one's body feels very light and pleasant, parasites flee the body (such as lice), one's need for food decreases, and so on. All of these signs are characteristic also of someone who has mastered sutrayāna style śamatha. Rongzom confirms this idea by his insistence that those who are gradual capacity people (all of us, I have never met a cig car ba) need to develop the first dhyāna (with it's characteristic five factors) combined with Dzogchen view, either in connection with mantra practice or just by doing regular śamatha

It may all be true. But I have never heard ChNN say that we all need to develop the first dhyāna, in whatever way. You can spend years in the DC and actually never hear about any connection between the dhyānas and Dzogchen practice. Sure, the dhyānas are talked about a tiny bit in the SMS training, but the SMS training is not mandatory, as Rinpoche says time and again.

It may well be that it is all just a terminology issue. But you are asking people to relate their experience to a totally different interpretative framework, without giving them any advice on how to link it to the system which Rinpoche uses. Do not be surprised that heads are spinning.

[Jyoti]

Making up the Dharma as you go along, huh? Can you find me even one master in any tradition who maintains this point of view you are proffering?

For the spirit of academic/scholastic discussion of buddhism, one should uphold the Buddha's injunction as stated in the four reliances. One of that apply in this, is not to rely on the person (teacher) but the teaching (dharma). Therefore your asking for authority of teacher for anything being discussed, is an open opposition to the buddha's injunction, a sign of weakness in buddhist cultivation.

You are in the wrong forum, then lady. The ultimate authority in Vajrayāna is the guru.

Dzogchen is of definitive teaching, vajrayana teaching is not definitive, that's why the latter need a teacher. This is the reason I never post in vajrayana related forum. Those of definitive teaching does not need a teacher, unless it is about direct introduction. But we are here for the discussion of the definitive dharma, not about direct introduction, which I did not assume my audience need it from me, nor I need it. The view point of definitive teaching does not automatically assume someone is ignorant, unless as proven by his/own words. Thus, there is no need for a teacher, because there was never an assumption that someone need a teacher.

[Norwegian]

For the spirit of academic/scholastic discussion of buddhism, one should uphold the Buddha's injunction as stated in the four reliances. One of that apply in this, is not to rely on the person (teacher) but the teaching (dharma). Therefore your asking for authority of teacher for anything being discussed, is an open opposition to the buddha's injunction, a sign of weakness in buddhist cultivation.

You are in the wrong forum, then lady. The ultimate authority in Vajrayāna is the guru.

Dzogchen is of definitive teaching, vajrayana teaching is not definitive, that's why the latter need a teacher. This is the reason I never post in vajrayana related forum. Those of definitive teaching does not need a teacher, unless it is about direct introduction. But we are here for the discussion of the definitive dharma, not about direct introduction, which I did not assume my audience need it from me, nor I need it. The view point of definitive teaching does not automatically assume someone is ignorant, unless as proven by his/own words. Thus, there is no need for a teacher, because there was never an assumption that someone need a teacher.

It's astounding how wrong and mistaken you are.

[liuzg150181]

For the spirit of academic/scholastic discussion of buddhism, one should uphold the Buddha's injunction as stated in the four reliances. One of that apply in this, is not to rely on the person (teacher) but the teaching (dharma). Therefore your asking for authority of teacher for anything being discussed, is an open opposition to the buddha's injunction, a sign of weakness in buddhist cultivation.

You are in the wrong forum, then lady. The ultimate authority in Vajrayāna is the guru.

Dzogchen is of definitive teaching, vajrayana teaching is not definitive, that's why the latter need a teacher. This is the reason I never post in vajrayana related forum. Those of definitive teaching does not need a teacher, unless it is about direct introduction. But we are here for the discussion of the definitive dharma, not about direct introduction, which I did not assume my audience need it from me, nor I need it. The view point of definitive teaching does not automatically assume someone is ignorant, unless as proven by his/own words. Thus, there is no need for a teacher, because there was never an assumption that someone need a teacher.

You do,even in ChNNR's Dzogchen:
http://melong.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... ror97c.pdf
(p2)
"This morning I have two topics to talk about. The first is related to the learning and receiving of the transmission of the practice of Guru Tragphur. Everybody has more or less learned how to do this prac-tice. We do not have only Guru Tragphur, but also Dakini Simha mukha, in our thun practice. We have them in the thun because when we do refuge and the cultivation of bodhicitta in the Vajrayana system, we say namo guru bhya, namo deva bhya, namo dakini bhya. These are the three roots.
This system of the three roots is very diffused in the Nyingmapa tradition and today it is also diffused in the Kagyüpa tradition. In other traditions they don’t use the name ‘three roots’. It is called three roots because the first and most important is Guruyoga. Guruyoga in Tibetan is chinlab kyi tsawa lama, because tsawa means root, the root of the blessing; that through which we receive the blessing. First of all we receive the blessing of recognizing or discovering our real nature. Secondly we are in that state and succeed to integrate in that state. All are related to transmission. We receive transmission from the teacher
and we always apply Guruyoga. That is why it is the root. "

[Jyoti]

You are in the wrong forum, then lady. The ultimate authority in Vajrayāna is the guru.

Dzogchen is of definitive teaching, vajrayana teaching is not definitive, that's why the latter need a teacher. This is the reason I never post in vajrayana related forum. Those of definitive teaching does not need a teacher, unless it is about direct introduction. But we are here for the discussion of the definitive dharma, not about direct introduction, which I did not assume my audience need it from me, nor I need it. The view point of definitive teaching does not automatically assume someone is ignorant, unless as proven by his/own words. Thus, there is no need for a teacher, because there was never an assumption that someone need a teacher.

It's astounding how wrong and mistaken you are.

When it comes to the definitive teaching, no one, no teacher here is greater than the Buddha (because he is the teacher of teachers) and his injunctions (the four reliances) to Kasyapa. When the teaching of the Buddha is available, there is no excuse to rely on the person (teacher), than the dharma (due to the fact that the scriptures are still available in abundance).

The Mahaparinirvana sutra stated:

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "Well said, well said! What the Tathagata says is true, not false. I shall accept [your] word with the greatest respect, for example, just as if I had received an adamantine treasure. Just as the Buddha says, these bhiksus should stand [base themselves] on four things.

"What are the four? They should be based on Dharma, not the person; on the meaning, not the words; on the intelligence, not on consciousness; on the definitive sutras, not on the non-definitive sutras. They should well know these four things, but not four such persons."

The Buddha said:"We say that we should base ourselves on the definitive sutras [those which dig deep into the true meaning of Buddha-Dharma], and not on the non-definitive sutras. The non-definitive sutras are the sravaka vehicle. Hearing even the depth-plumbing storehouse of the Buddha-Tathagata, doubts raise their heads as regards all things and the person does not realise that this storehouse arises from the sea of great Wisdom, as in the case of a child who cannot distinguish one thing from another. This is the non-grasping of the meaning. '

[Malcolm]

For the spirit of academic/scholastic discussion of buddhism, one should uphold the Buddha's injunction as stated in the four reliances. One of that apply in this, is not to rely on the person (teacher) but the teaching (dharma). Therefore your asking for authority of teacher for anything being discussed, is an open opposition to the buddha's injunction, a sign of weakness in buddhist cultivation.

You are in the wrong forum, then lady. The ultimate authority in Vajrayāna is the guru.

Dzogchen is of definitive teaching, vajrayana teaching is not definitive, that's why the latter need a teacher.

Dzogchen requires a guru. Would you care for a citation avalanche?

[Mantrik]

This is the non-grasping of the meaning. '

You seem to regard Sakyamuni as the only Buddha and only source of reliable teachings.

You did not personally hear him teach, nor did you hear him explain his teachings.
You are totally reliant on teachers who have transmitted the scriptures.
Without those teachers you have nothing.

You misunderstand Vajrayana and Dzogchen to the point where you are trying desperately to assert an understanding of the sky using someone else's description of how Shakyamuni described the rocks. Because you are locked into that limitation, people can't explain anything to you.

[pael]

Knowledge is not an obscuration.

How about knowledge of other religions? I know many stories from Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon. Is it obstacle?

[Malcolm]

Dzogchen is of definitive teaching, vajrayana teaching is not definitive, that's why the latter need a teacher. This is the reason I never post in vajrayana related forum. Those of definitive teaching does not need a teacher, unless it is about direct introduction. But we are here for the discussion of the definitive dharma, not about direct introduction, which I did not assume my audience need it from me, nor I need it. The view point of definitive teaching does not automatically assume someone is ignorant, unless as proven by his/own words. Thus, there is no need for a teacher, because there was never an assumption that someone need a teacher.

It's astounding how wrong and mistaken you are.

When it comes to the definitive teaching, no one, no teacher here is greater than the Buddha (because he is the teacher of teachers) and his injunctions (the four reliances) to Kasyapa. When the teaching of the Buddha is available, there is no excuse to rely on the person (teacher), than the dharma (due to the fact that the scriptures are still available in abundance).

The Mahaparinirvana sutra stated:

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "Well said, well said! What the Tathagata says is true, not false. I shall accept [your] word with the greatest respect, for example, just as if I had received an adamantine treasure. Just as the Buddha says, these bhiksus should stand [base themselves] on four things.

"What are the four? They should be based on Dharma, not the person; on the meaning, not the words; on the intelligence, not on consciousness; on the definitive sutras, not on the non-definitive sutras. They should well know these four things, but not four such persons."

The Buddha said:"We say that we should base ourselves on the definitive sutras [those which dig deep into the true meaning of Buddha-Dharma], and not on the non-definitive sutras. The non-definitive sutras are the sravaka vehicle. Hearing even the depth-plumbing storehouse of the Buddha-Tathagata, doubts raise their heads as regards all things and the person does not realise that this storehouse arises from the sea of great Wisdom, as in the case of a child who cannot distinguish one thing from another. This is the non-grasping of the meaning. '

The four reliances are great with respect to sūtrayāna teachings, which all are based in intellectual analysis.

Dzogchen however is based on intimate instructions one receives from a guru which enable one's direct perception of dharmatā, rendering the four reliances irrelevant.

[Malcolm]

Knowledge is not an obscuration.

How about knowledge of other religions? I know many stories from Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon. Is it obstacle?

One should know everything. Knowledge is never an obstacle.