Even from the ultimate perspective, that ultimate can only exist in relation to the relative, so when dealing in the relative condition and relating to others, all views are ok, just because one sees through the illusion doesn't mean the illusion is to be denied. So relatively all of these things appear, but they're understood to be merely conventions.kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek,
Thanks untill now, for your contribution / replies.
Very interesting and correct seen like in Dzogchen or how Dzogchen can deal with this matter / objects.
That is no doubt about it, it is the best interpretation.
But in case we see the gradual approach here or the emancipation(s), a certain knowledge is maintained like the outer objects are true. I agree fully what is true cannot be true for someone else, what is mediicine for someone else is poison for the other person etc.
So to make the matter understandable different kinds of philosophy is "invented".
True, relatively there are other beings who are functioning on the relative level, and due to their perceptions being deluded they're subject to the conditions their minds create in their experiences.kalden yungdrung wrote:Objects and attachment to them, the result is everywhere seen as NOT so ok.
Objects in Bon Dzogchen or general Dzoghen are not there. Here we have the point which cannot be known to other Traditions. Not to speak about Thogal.........
But if we deal with illsusion it is at the moment very clear that when my mom is too long in the sun she will have a red painfull skin. So i must buy some oil (out of compassion) to get the pain lessened / reduced.
So to tell my mom that it is in fact illusion etc. that is of no use to her at that moment and also other moments.
"...since those who understand the empty nature of their bodies still feel pain when touched by fire or water or when struck by arrows, speaks, clubs, and so forth. The answer to this is the fact that as long as you have not arrived at the state of basic space in which phenomena resolve within their true nature (chho-nyid-zad-pai ying), dualistic appearances do not subside, and as long as they have not subsided, beneficial and harmful appearances occur without interruption. In actuality, though, even the fires of hell do not burn."
- Dudjom Lingpa
I would say the best position is to attempt to point one in the direction of being able to access that ultimate state first hand of course, but then in daily life of course it's best to not firmly hold to one certain position, we must be compassionate for other's views because it's all relative. One's primordial state isn't a view to be held but an actuality to experience, it can be spoken of and discussed. But in discussing it one must be mindful that as soon as one translates that experience into an intellectual understanding and then presents it to others as if it's exclusively true, others, (having no basis to validate your words in experience) merely take it as an idea the same as any other theory. And if they're attached to their own intellectual notions, by insisting your view is absolute, potential for contention and conflict arises. So it's best to respect all views in my opinion, and then through one's own practice seek to benefit others. And if there's an opportunity to speak about the view in an environment that's conducive to it, (where everyone is interested and sharing the same aspirations - like here in this forum for example) then it's ok to speak freely about it (within reason, and respecting others still of course).kalden yungdrung wrote:Maybe it is and it is not like i did suggested in Jnana's post would be here the best position which is for everybody understandable. Here is not meant per se the defending of the ultimate truth contra the relative one.
So i came IMO to the conclusion that a stone and the sun do exist in this collective karma called human being and his/her/ its world. Exceptions cannot be defended by the other party to the nihilsts, they will never or seldom agree to for instance a Dzogchen view not to speak about a Yidam etc.
I suppose if they take it as a confirmation of their view then it's a confirmation. Doesn't mean it truly is though, it's just a relative interpretation based on the reference point they attach to, and that's their own limitation to recognize and work on I suppose.kalden yungdrung wrote:What i do prefer? Like mentioned earlier the Dzogchen View but cannot defend that to others mostly. Can be it among them, that is no problem but cannot argue with them about matter and ego and living after death.
So we do communicate mostly, seen in the mood of Dzogchenpas, in the common karma called human, but not conflicting our NS. So for others is that a confirmation of their view (like nihilistic view) somehow if one does not argue about the essential things in life............
Better stop here because i feel i am repeating or a wheel is turning.