Non-duality in dzogchen

User avatar
Dorje Shedrub
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:23 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by Dorje Shedrub » Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:19 pm

Mipham Rinpoche wrote: The Nature of Mind

Mind’s nature is indivisible emptiness and clarity,
Inexpressible and indestructible, like space.
In seeing it, there is no separate one who sees;
There is but a single, all-encompassing sphere.
Even looker and looking are one and the same.
This view of seeing all at once is unsurpassed,
A centreless, limitless, exceptional experience.
In this fruition in which what has to be done has been done,
There's no seeing at all, and any wish to see,
Any deep longing to discover the view,
Is naturally destroyed from its very depths.
To arrive at such contentment and evenness[1]
Is to be touched by brave Mañjuśrī's beneficent light.

Mipham wrote this on the 12th day of the seventh month, in the year of the Fire Rat (1876). Maṅgalam.
http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-mas ... mind/quote]
Homage to the Precious Dzogchen Master
🙏🌺🙏 Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
🙏🌺🙏

User avatar
PSM
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by PSM » Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:14 pm

krodha wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:21 am
One’s nature is individual in a conventional sense, because the individual is likewise conventional.

In the actuality of the way things really are there is not any individuality, because entities cannot be established, but this does not mean there is some other ultimate substance that everything is reduced to, or subsumed into.

The ultimate nature of Dzogchen is non-reductive, because it is the unreality of the entities suggested by our ignorance, i.e., the insubstantiality of mind, and the insubstantiality of phenomena.
I very much like the term "suggested by our ignorance".

I suppose the issue I have is that there simply isn't a correct conceptual view which accurately describes the ultimate nature. It simply will not fit into a box.

Two excellent quotes from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
The major mistake occurs when one intellectually conceives of what Dzogchen is and holds on to that concept tightly. So it is very important to incorporate the teachings into personal experience through the teacher's oral instructions.
When we say "Let go into nonfabrication," isn't that itself also unnatural? Isn't letting go also a fabrication? We use words because we have no other way to proceed, but saying "Let go, rest loosely!", doesn't mean that there is something that is being let go of and somebody who lets go. True letting go is without these two, beyond duality.
When you have finally attained stability in your practice, relying on such words as "Let go, rest loosely!" can be quite damaging. How can words compare to the naked, self-existing awareness itself? Words are just like rice husks.You will gradually cast words away as your view deepens, as it becomes more profound. When the view reaches fullness, you will really know how much damage words cause.The practitioner should then recognize how submerged or entangled in words he has become.
"The only virtue which cannot be faked is courage" - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
"Not practicing dharma is painful" - Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche
"We don't want to feel the weirdness of life." - James Low

oldbob
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by oldbob » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:26 am

PSM wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:14 pm
krodha wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:21 am
One’s nature is individual in a conventional sense, because the individual is likewise conventional.

In the actuality of the way things really are there is not any individuality, because entities cannot be established, but this does not mean there is some other ultimate substance that everything is reduced to, or subsumed into.

The ultimate nature of Dzogchen is non-reductive, because it is the unreality of the entities suggested by our ignorance, i.e., the insubstantiality of mind, and the insubstantiality of phenomena.
I very much like the term "suggested by our ignorance".

I suppose the issue I have is that there simply isn't a correct conceptual view which accurately describes the ultimate nature. It simply will not fit into a box.

Two excellent quotes from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
The major mistake occurs when one intellectually conceives of what Dzogchen is and holds on to that concept tightly. So it is very important to incorporate the teachings into personal experience through the teacher's oral instructions.
When we say "Let go into nonfabrication," isn't that itself also unnatural? Isn't letting go also a fabrication? We use words because we have no other way to proceed, but saying "Let go, rest loosely!", doesn't mean that there is something that is being let go of and somebody who lets go. True letting go is without these two, beyond duality.
When you have finally attained stability in your practice, relying on such words as "Let go, rest loosely!" can be quite damaging. How can words compare to the naked, self-existing awareness itself? Words are just like rice husks.You will gradually cast words away as your view deepens, as it becomes more profound. When the view reaches fullness, you will really know how much damage words cause.The practitioner should then recognize how submerged or entangled in words he has become.
All good posts (words) on a subject that defies language.

:twothumbsup: :good: :twothumbsup:

So we are reading all these precious "secret" Dzogchen books only to go beyond all words.

So we are defending our strongly held partizan Dzogchen views on DW, using many, many words, only to wind up where there are no words, and where nothing needs be said.

So we spend a fortune and exhaust ourselves traveling around the world seeking teachings, and accomplishing many complicated practices, so as to learn to just stay quietly.

So isn't it silly to look outside for the Dzogchen treasure you already own.

So this is why it is called the Ati Great Completion, beyond words - like trying to write on the sun.

:heart:

smcj
Posts: 5858
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by smcj » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:53 am

You will gradually cast words away as your view deepens, as it becomes more profound. When the view reaches fullness, you will really know how much damage words cause.The practitioner should then recognize how submerged or entangled in words he has become.
As a non-Dzogchenpa I’m ok with “just words” for now. As I do my lower-yana practices words and ideas give me an orientation. It’s like having a compass that points to Magnetic North and not True North. Even though it’s off a bit I can still use it to know I’m going in the right direction.

If and when I tackle the actual practice(s) that will have to change of course.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

User avatar
Sennin
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by Sennin » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:57 am

PSM wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:14 pm
I suppose the issue I have is that there simply isn't a correct conceptual view which accurately describes the ultimate nature. It simply will not fit into a box.
The Dzogchen tantras and it's ancillary literature assure us the correct understanding is the triune aspects of wisdom; essence, nature and compassion.
Namo Guru Bhyaḥ

User avatar
SkyDragon3
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:47 am

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by SkyDragon3 » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:01 am

oldbob wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:26 am
All good posts (words) on a subject that defies language.

:twothumbsup: :good: :twothumbsup:

So we are reading all these precious "secret" Dzogchen books only to go beyond all words.

So we are defending our strongly held partizan Dzogchen views on DW, using many, many words, only to wind up where there are no words, and where nothing needs be said.

So we spend a fortune and exhaust ourselves traveling around the world seeking teachings, and accomplishing many complicated practices, so as to learn to just stay quietly.

So isn't it silly to look outside for the Dzogchen treasure you already own.

So this is why it is called the Ati Great Completion, beyond words - like trying to write on the sun.

:heart:
Great post! :good:

In another forum which I access, there was a topic named "We are all one". It called for opinions on what this meant and presented a poll for members.

I offer my response as it seems related to this forum:
I see no point to this forum, whatsoever.

Either an individual experiences the reality that all is one, or they do not.

This is not a belief which they hold and need to defend, nor should they bother to explain it. Any explanation is a lie, as it is an EXPERIENCE.

If an individual holds a belief that they need to inflict on others, this arises from a place of doubt about their own beliefs.

One's deep personal experiences change the individual at a core level, so they can never appear the same, thereafter. If you actually have these type of experiences, they are beyond words. All that can be said is a metaphor or a simile of the experience. A description of an experience is not the experience, and cannot induce it in self or other.

If one's experience is superficial, then often the individual wants to shout it to the world. It inflates the ego, and the ego, as ever, wants gratification, reinforcement from others.

A deeper experience allows the ego to dissolve, quietly. This is a process which is impossible to explain to other egos. They simply do not have the tools to have or comprehend this experience.

krodha
Posts: 2444
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Non-duality in dzogchen

Post by krodha » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:03 am

PSM wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:14 pm
I suppose the issue I have is that there simply isn't a correct conceptual view which accurately describes the ultimate nature. It simply will not fit into a box.

Two excellent quotes from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:
The major mistake occurs when one intellectually conceives of what Dzogchen is and holds on to that concept tightly. So it is very important to incorporate the teachings into personal experience through the teacher's oral instructions.
When we say "Let go into nonfabrication," isn't that itself also unnatural? Isn't letting go also a fabrication? We use words because we have no other way to proceed, but saying "Let go, rest loosely!", doesn't mean that there is something that is being let go of and somebody who lets go. True letting go is without these two, beyond duality.
When you have finally attained stability in your practice, relying on such words as "Let go, rest loosely!" can be quite damaging. How can words compare to the naked, self-existing awareness itself? Words are just like rice husks.You will gradually cast words away as your view deepens, as it becomes more profound. When the view reaches fullness, you will really know how much damage words cause.The practitioner should then recognize how submerged or entangled in words he has become.
oldbob wrote:All good posts (words) on a subject that defies language.

So we are reading all these precious "secret" Dzogchen books only to go beyond all words.
Ineffability is actually true wherever we look, and isn’t a principle that is exclusive to the nature of our mind. Even the tree outside is ineffable, no word actually captures the direct experience of it. That is all “ineffable” and being “beyond words” means.

The ineffability of our nature does not mean we should diminish the importance of words. When these teachers speak of our nature being “beyond words” they are only advising that we don’t conflate the words with the actual experience.

If we had never tasted sugar before but had received teachings on the taste of “sweetness,” we would not want to conflate the idea of “sweet” with the actual taste of sugar.

Nevertheless, the word “sweet” is accurate. Describing the taste of sugar as “salty,” would be inaccurate.

While the actual taste of sugar is ineffable and cannot be captured by the word “sweet” or “salty,” the conventional designation “sweet” is still correct.

Likewise with our nature, there are correct descriptions and incorrect descriptions. The adepts of the past spent a great deal of time ensuring accurate descriptions were upheld, and incorrect notions, like a oneness of the tīrthika persuasion, were rejected.

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], laowhining, Leif, Pema Rigdzin, Tanaduk and 71 guests