1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Dzongchen

Discussion in 'Vajrayana DIR' started by DreadFish, May 21, 2010.

  1. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    I don't know why EndlessArising brought up anatta and d.o. into this topic suddenly, but actually what he said is very true.

    To have direct realization of rigpa (vidya; knowledge) is also to realize dependent origination and emptiness. Rigpa has three wisdoms, two of which are kadag and lhun grub. Kadag (primordial purity) is the Dzogchen view of emptiness. Lhun grub (natural formation) is the Dzogchen view of dependent origination. Throughout Mahayana, emptiness and dependent origination are two sides of the same coin.

    Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination

    Posted by: An Eternal Now
    The following recent post by Loppon Namdrol reminds me of Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche, who said in his article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta, "However, the Buddhist Ultimate Truth is the absence of any such satta i.e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of Shunyata - absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (Skt. svabhava). And that fact is the Ultimate Truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the Ultimate Truth of the Hindu Brahma. So Shunyata can never be a negative way of describing the Atman - Brahma of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangika emptiness of Chandrakirti i.e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of DzogChen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability."

    (Also see: Rigpa and Aggregates by Daniel Ingram)

    Loppon Namdrol:

    There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination.
    Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."

    Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

    Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.

    Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:

    I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
    the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
    not ceasing, not arising
    not annihilated, not permanent,
    not going, not coming,
    not diverse, not single,
    was taught as peace
    in order to pacify proliferation.
     
    #21 AnEternalNow, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  2. ratikala

    ratikala Istha gosthi

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,534
    Ratings:
    +2,143
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma

    yes everything !!!not just words and concepts .....the true nature ....



    :confused: oh dear I am begining to get a hedache !!!!


    now I deffinately have a head ache :eek:

    all these words take the beauty and vitality out of any realization .....

    talk about the cause of suffering ????
    too many words :eek:

    attatctch to none and save the suffering !!!! it is simple !!!!

    I think I should just go contemplate under a tree somewhere ........
     
  3. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    Actually what Loppon Namdrol said is very precise.

    Do not think the truth is simple.

    As Rob Burbea rightly said:

    Awakening to Reality: Realizing the Nature of Mind

    With that Big Space Awareness, the Vast Awareness, it’s the place where most people would tend to stop their inquiry. It’s the most common place nowadays to stop the inquiry. But there’s a lot of assumptions there. A lot of assumptions. One is that Awareness is something simple and passive. In the sense of it’s just there, and it just receives experience. I think this came up in a question and answers or something. Just here, and I hear the bird twitting, I didn’t …, it just comes. Awareness is simple and passive and has a kind of naturalness to it and a kind of natural openness to it, versus what sometimes we use the word “mind” as a very complicated, enmeshed in thoughts, etc.

    But is there an assumption that simple means true? So we’re very attracted to simplicity, often times because our lives are very complex, and our thinking minds seem very complex. And simplicity has a very “ah, that’s nice, simple.” Feels soothing. Does it mean that it’s true? These are the kinds of things one really needs to watch out for one’s preconceptions, likes, assumptions. I think it’s really important to bring into practice as much as possible the quality of integrity that there’s a real sense of caring about the truth and not stopping short and keeping the heart alive in its penetrating questioning. Not settling too easy. Really caring and really being careful in one’s inquiry. Part of integrity is a heart movement. Another part of integrity is actually intelligence. It’s actually using one’s intelligence as part of the integrity, part of the care in practice. So not almost like leaving the intelligence outside of practice, outside of our meditation practice. To me this is actually really important. And because we often have a very difficult relationship with thought and with discursive thoughts and the thinking mind, often we jettison the whole of our intelligence as well, as we regard it as something we need to get rid off in practice. That may be a huge mistake at times.


    Does there need to be a divorcing of head and heart? So just because my head is getting involved and thinking through stuff, does that mean that my heart has to close down? For a lot of people it does, but that’s just a habit and that doesn’t have to be so. So it might feel better but it’s just a feeling of it feeling better, and as such it doesn’t mean anything about the truth. Again we might have an intuition that the truth is this way, or that Awareness is this way, etc. But in a way, lovely and good and helpful as that can be at times, it’s still just an intuition, needs to be probed, needs to be questioned, needs to be checked out.


    Also,

    1. An Overview of Dependent Origination

    In the following exchange with Venerable Ananda, the Buddha cautions against underestimating the profundity of the principle of Dependent Origination:

    "How amazing! Never before has it occurred to me, Lord. This principle of Dependent Origination, although so profound and hard to see, yet appears to me to be so simple!"

    "Say not so, Ananda, say not so. This principle of Dependent Origination is a profound teaching, hard to see. It is through not knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of threads, caught as in a net, and cannot escape hell, the nether worlds and the wheel of samsara." [S.II.92]


    Those who have studied the life of the Buddha may recall his reflections shortly after the Enlightenment, when he had not yet begun to expound the teaching. At that time, the Buddha was reluctant to teach, as is related in the Scriptures:

    "Monks, the thought arose in me thus: 'This truth which I have realized is profound, difficult to see, abstruse, calming, subtle, not attainable through mere sophisticated logic.

    "'But beings revel in attachment, take pleasure in attachment and delight in attachment. For beings who thus revel, take pleasure and delight in attachment, this is an extremely difficult thing to see: that is, the law of conditionality, the principle of Dependent Origination. Moreover, this also is an extremely difficult thing to see: the calming of all conditioning, the casting off of all clinging, the abandoning of desire, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana. If I were to give this teaching and my words were not understood, that would simply make for weariness and difficulty.'" [Vin.I.4; M.I.167]

    This passage mentions two teachings, the principle of Dependent Origination and Nibbana, stressing both their profundity and also their importance within the Buddha's enlightenment and teaching.
     
  4. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    As Thusness (who wrote the Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment) wrote before to someone:

    Hi Dawnfirstlight,

    I see it otherwise. Dharma is deep and profound.

    Even if we were to search the entire globe, still it is hard to find one that can be completely detached. Try as we may, ‘attachment’ continues to arise. The reason being detachment is not a matter of ‘will’, it is a matter of prajna wisdom and only in Buddhism this is pointed out and for this I am grateful to Buddha.

    Although it is not right to spout high views, it is also important not to over simplify matters. In my view, if our mind is filled with ‘dualistic and inherent thoughts’, even with utmost sincerity and honesty in practice, there is still no true ‘detachment’.



    To seeker,

    As we are so attached to our ‘dualistic and inherent views’, confusions are inevitable and the journey will not be a smooth one. For now, take AEN advice. Be strong! :)
     
    #24 AnEternalNow, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  5. ratikala

    ratikala Istha gosthi

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,534
    Ratings:
    +2,143
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma
    dear an eternal now ,

    you have said it all in one line .....
    .
    all it needs is a ,

    dont think ! , the truth is simple ! :D
     
  6. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    No, the truth is not so simple - non-conceptuality is just the first step. You will not overcome your view of duality and inherency by merely remaining non-conceptual. It needs investigation, challenging your views, and deepning your insight. Non-conceptual presence is only the first step, far from the end. Even that non-conceptual presence gets reified due to our false constructs. Rob Burbea said it well. Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment has described the process of deconstructing our false constructs through a series of deepening insights.
     
  7. ratikala

    ratikala Istha gosthi

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,534
    Ratings:
    +2,143
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma
    dear an eternal now ,

    please excuse my obstanacy , ....but the truth is simple , it is often the case that such simplicity is hard to see due to our habbit of clinging to constructs .

    my freind you assume too much , you assume that I have not investigated duality , and assume that I have not challenged veiws , ..........

    and challenged the apparent lack of veiw..... untill there are no veiws to challenge .



    excuse me again for not knowing rob burbeta ,

    but I will leave you with this simple quote from the Kalama sutra .....
    ......
    So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.


    there are many translations to contemplate ....but none the less

    it is advocated that one goes by direct knowledge , that which is grounded in experience .

    the guru or master is there to challenge the student to present the path to be examined , it is to the student to examine , to contemplate , to de construct !
     
  8. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    Thats good. There are two kinds of constructs that serve as obscurations: the view of subject-duality, and the view of inherency. The view of inherency is twofold: view of subjective self, and view of objects. Overcome duality view is not yet overcoming the view of inherency, and even the view of inherency has different degrees.

    When one realizes non-duality of subject-object, one may subsume everything into the subjective pole, so that everything is experienced as one mind. In Anatta, the subjective pole is completely deconstructed via the realization of anatta - it is realized that there never was a subjective entity or agent (seer, hearer, etc) having some inherent existence - 'awareness' is empty of any substantial reality and merely collates the various self-luminous manifestation of sensations, thoughts, experiences, and the experience of no-mind becomes effortless - even the one mind is relinquished and dissolved into simply scenery, sound, arising thoughts and passing scent. ( more info in my article Awakening to Reality: Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition )
    Yes. I have experienced what Thusness wrote in the 7 stages, my path and his are one, that is why I can speak on this with authenticity - it is my direct experience and knowledge.
    Indeed.
     
    #28 AnEternalNow, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  9. ratikala

    ratikala Istha gosthi

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,534
    Ratings:
    +2,143
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma
    dear an eternal now ,

    :confused: no , no , clinging to constructs subdividing them and labeling them is not good , not good at all ......
    surely the art of realization is to trancend all constructs ?

    Dzogchen ;the great perfection is the realization of ones ultimate or Primordial nature .........:)

    My appologies , ...there is a possibility that I'm not understanding your english here ?

    but this all sounds un nececarily complex ????

    I have tried I find it equaly complex .

    then you are he :confused: ???? or he ....????

    try contemplating the divide between "conventional reality" , the distortions and temporary obscurations which mask the true realisation of the "ulttimate reality" , which is the realization or our primordial nature :)

    then comes the leap of faith , leave all constructs behind !
     
  10. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    No, leaving all constructs behind is not a matter of 'leap of faith'. It is through the arising of prajna wisdom.

    Faith cannot let you relinquish constructs... neither does 'letting go' by sheer will. All forms of letting go are holding in disguise if there is no true insight.

    What is required is right view, right realization. You need direct realization. A realization that can only occur through contemplative investigation... All these are explained in details in that article.

    My suggestion is not to oversimplify spirituality, it is much more subtle than you think.
     
    #30 AnEternalNow, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  11. DreadFish

    DreadFish Cosmic Vagabond

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Ratings:
    +508
    Religion:
    Vihangam Marg
    Actually, many of the greatest Dzogchen masters have stated that the truth is quite simple. I remember a quote, it might have been by Namkai Norbu, saying something along the lines of "give me the scientists, they will understand Dzogchen" because often the simplest answer is the correct one.

    There is no reason why simple can't be deep and profound, and often times the deepest insight is quite simple in nature. No need to over complicate with too many ideas. In fact, the crux of the matter has been said numerous times to simply be belief in a concrete self. As Tilopa, Naropa, Bodhidharma, Ramana, and many others have said, one simply needs to directly see the nature of their own mind, that's it. To inquire into the nature of that various categories is of no consequence because they are all just fabrications that will die naturally once one see's their own nature.

    Cut the main root of a tree, the whole tree dies. Simple, direct, profound, and deadly.
     
  12. EndlessArising

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    84
    Ratings:
    +3
    Separating rigpa from mind comes WAY before recognition of anatta and dependent arising. Vidya is knowledge, yes, but knowledge of what? Anatta and dependent arising. These are characteristics of your true nature. If you have realization of anatta and dependent origination, then that is rigpa.
     
  13. EndlessArising

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    84
    Ratings:
    +3
    Hmm? This is the Vajrayana forum. To be a Vajrayana practitioner, if that's indeed what you are, requires study. No Dzogchen master would ever say that you do not need to study and know right view. Dzogchen is not about being intellectually lazy and pretending that you can get to non-conceptual wisdom without integrating the right conceptual frameworks. This is a misconception some have about Dzogchen. Same with Zen. No Buddhist tradition says you do not need the right conceptual framework for awakening.
     
  14. DreadFish

    DreadFish Cosmic Vagabond

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Ratings:
    +508
    Religion:
    Vihangam Marg
    Actually, the Treasury of Natural Perfection written by Lonchenpa suggests exactly that. One does not need a conceptual framewrork to realize their nature. Also, the tradition of Dzogchen does often identify itself as outside the constructs of Vajrayana, only using the same language and symbolism.


    EDIT: in fact, the Treasury of Natural Perfection is written in a way that is intended to induce direct recognition of the truths stated therin. It is somewhat like a "psychotropic poem."
     
    #34 DreadFish, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  15. DreadFish

    DreadFish Cosmic Vagabond

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Ratings:
    +508
    Religion:
    Vihangam Marg
    Though I should also clarify that it does not mean one can just be lazy and do nothing and anything is ok to do. It's a razor's edge.
     
  16. EndlessArising

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    84
    Ratings:
    +3
    Dzogchen was always for advanced students who had a karmic connection with the teachings, meaning in past lives they already developed considerably. For those rare students, perhaps a conceptual framework isn't necessary. But they also had a teacher there to guide them. Dzogchen was always about the master and student relationship. If the right conceptual framework was necessary, it was given. You do not learn Dzogchen from a book.

    Earlier this month at a retreat in Merigar, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche said that Dzogchen is a Buddhist tradition, does not go beyond Buddhist teachings, and that Garab Dorje is an emanation of Shakyamuni Buddha. Dzogchen is definitely part of Buddhism and grew out of the melding of Vajrayana and perhaps some Prajnamaramita and Chan. It was passed down by masters of the Nyingma school of Vajrayana and taught within the context of the 9 yana system. What some teachers mean when they say Dzogchen is a complete path outside Vajrayana is that Dzogchen has its own preliminary practices and methodologies which are used sometimes instead of the traditional ngondro, generation, and completion stage model. This does not mean that Dzogchen masters would ever tell their students not to study the Buddha's teachings and understand the goal of the practice.
     
    #36 EndlessArising, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  17. ratikala

    ratikala Istha gosthi

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,534
    Ratings:
    +2,143
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma
    dear dread fish

    jai jai , my freind ,jai jai !

    :yes:

    :yes:

    ah ha , thank goodness Im not crazy :clap2:
     
  18. DreadFish

    DreadFish Cosmic Vagabond

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Ratings:
    +508
    Religion:
    Vihangam Marg
    Yes, this is very true.



    Whether it goes beyond or not does not mean it is inherently "Buddhist." Absolutely, there is no such thing as Buddhism or Dzogchen. It's ok if a teaching about reality is the same or different from another tradition, they are just teachings. "A Dzogchen yogi or yogini is such insofar as he or she is free of spiritual identity or belief in any dogma."


    "A sagacious student does not depend on his teacher’s words, but uses his own experience to find the truth. A dull student depends on coming to a gradual understanding through his teacher’s word: a teacher has two kinds of students; one hears the teacher’s words without clinging to the material nor to the immaterial, without attaching to form or to nonform, Without thinking of animate objects or of inanimate objects... This is the Sagacious student; the other, who is avid for understanding, accumulates meanings, and mixes good and bad, is the dull student." - Bodhidharma
     
    #38 DreadFish, Apr 29, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012
  19. AnEternalNow

    AnEternalNow Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    155
    Ratings:
    +4
    Yes, separating rigpa from mind - the recognition of rigpa, does happen way before the *realization* (not recognition) of anatta and emptiness/dependent arising.

    Loppon Namdrol explains that the initial recognition of rigpa is the recognition of the luminous clarity aspect of rigpa, but the realization of emptiness happens in the third vision of Thodgal (if you practice the Dzogchen path).
     
  20. EndlessArising

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    84
    Ratings:
    +3
    Not having a conceptual framework is like getting in a car and not knowing where you're going. You need to have some idea of the goal. Even "non-conceptual" is an idea which has certain meaning, assumptions, etc. So you have to get the right idea of non-conceptual and not reify something. Many people these days have wrong view of Dzogchen and think Rigpa is the same as Self of Advaita. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has said many times that Dzoghen is not same as Advaita. There are certain Dzogchen "teachers" like Surya Das and Jackson Peterson who pretty much teach Dzogchen as Advaita. They themselves had direct transmission from masters, but I guess that wasn't enough. Clearly something was missing. And as evidenced by the people who have progressed further with the right conceptual model, that's the essential variable which is necessary.
     
Loading...