White Lotus wrote: 2. in this Dzogchen formum there is a rejection of the first approach, in favour of the second approach held by Namkhai Norbu's school and the lineage of Hui Neng, the 6th Patriarch of Zen (''See your nature and become a buddha!''). the second approach insists that one must see the true nature of mind or emptiness or energy. this second approach emphasises non duality. the second approach is also held by Therevada... to see dhamma nature.
so... we have these two approaches and should be aware that they cannot be reconciled.
the great question will always remain... is it already naturally complete? Or do we have to see it?
being or seeing. this is an argument between natural being and prajna seeing/wisdom.
This is a fake dichotomy!
What does "being" or "seeing" mean?
What does he mean when he talks about "natural being" or "prajna seeing"?
I'd like some clarification from White Lotus.
Sorry, this is all nonsense to me!