Showing posts with label View and Path. Show all posts
Showing posts with label View and Path. Show all posts

 Someone wrote:

    Coming from a Soto Zen tradition I would say that all the ‘views’ are piffle. It is only being that counts. The Heart Sutra does not say Avalokitesvara held the view that ‘form is empty, empty Ed’s is form, etc.’ but that he saw it. He did not need to have a view about it. Just as I can look out of my window at the moment and se the sun dappling on the willow in my garden. I don’t need a view, it just is - beyond all my views and interpretations. And it is just the same with me.
    Epicurean Epitaph: Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo


  • Soh Wei Yu
    Author
    Admin
    Soto Zen writer and speaker Ted Biringer says, "Accurate understanding is not authentic realization. At the same time, authentic realization can hardly be expected to occur without accurate understanding. And while an absence of "right understanding" almost excludes the possibility of authentic realization, the presence of "wrong understanding" excludes even the slimmest hope of success. If we aspire to realize what Zen practice-enlightenment truly is, then, as Dogen says, "We should inquire into it, and we should experience it." To follow his guidance here we will need to understand his view of what "it" is that needs to be inquired into, and who the "we" is that is to do the inquiring."


  • Soh Wei Yu
    Author
    Admin
    http://www.thezensite.com/.../Doctrine_and_Concept_of... (the entire article is not bad and worth reading in full)
    Excerpt:
    Truth as Correct Dharma and Right Understanding
    Dōgen initiates a significant change of course in the Zen tradition when, from within that tradition, he opposes the radically anti-doctrinal posture of Zen's paradigmatic figures such as Bodhidharma, Hui-neng, Lin-chi, and Ta-hui. Even today, Dōgen 's writings are unique in the Zen tradition for the extent to which they take seriously such traditional matters as doctrine, language, scripture, and faith. In chapter after chapter of the Shōbōgenzō, an adamant stand is taken: sutras are not just "names and forms" that must be rejected in order to attain authentic practice and enlightenment. On the contrary, to reject the sutras is to reject the Buddha's proclamation of Dharma. For Dōgen, the spoken Dharma is as essential as the "wordless Dharma" and, in fact, is inseparable from it. Similarly, for Dōgen, the practice of zazen is not, as some of the great Chinese Ch'an masters had been teaching, a ritualized behavior that one must leave behind in the quest for enlightened spontaneity. Failure to practice zazen is failure to practice the Buddha Way. Zazen is not an ordinary activity; it is handed down from Buddhas and Patriarchs as the right way to practice enlightenment.
    p 258 The Shōbōgenzō expresses immense respect for the Buddhist sutras, for the historical Buddha who initiated their transmission, and for the transmitted tradition as a whole, and on this basis, takes a strong stand in doctrinal matters. A master of critique, with an uncanny sense and awareness of language, Dōgen works his way through the vast repertoire of Buddhist doctrines and practices, alternately praising, criticizing, and reinterpreting them. In the process, Dōgen makes it perfectly clear: belief or disbelief is not an indifferent matter. On the contrary, correct doctrinal belief is essential to the Buddhist way. Dōgen is persistent in his efforts to expose "false views" and to present the "correct viewpoint." Ability to "discriminate the true from the false" is for Dōgen essential to enlightenment (1977:78/1972:188). [3] "Trainees should learn this: It is imperative that we can discern true from false" (1983a:109;1972:450). "Mistaken belief," "evil belief," "distorted ideas and opinions" are to be rooted out, and replaced by the "correct viewpoint," "truth without error." References to "non-believers" — those doctrinally "outside the Way" — are found throughout the Shōbōgenzō, and Dōgen warns of the dangers of associating with them (1983a:83;1972:75). Various versions of "distorted teaching" stand in clear opposition to the true, which should not be subjected to doubt (1983b:16;1972:345). "When you hear the true teaching believe it without any doubt" (1975:95;1970:294-5). "Do not have any doubt about it" (1977: 164; 1970:332).
    Which particular doctrines and viewpoint are taken to be "correct" is not of concern here. But one example will illustrate how the case is made for right understanding in doctrinal matters. In the ]inshin Inga chapter, where Dōgen defends the principle of "causality," the text reads: "To harbor doubts regarding the law of causality as many monks do, is a clear denial of this law's very existence. Truly it is regrettable that the Way of the Buddhas and Patriarchs has declined in this way.... We should not doubt this [teaching]" (1983a:97;1972:432). Correct belief on this issue distinguishes true Buddhists from the unorthodox, those "outside the Way" (gedo). "A man may take ordination, he may wear a monk's robe, but if he subscribes to this mistaken view, he is not a disciple of the Buddha, for, as already stated, this is the doctrine of non-believers"p 260 (1983a:98-99;1972:450). Dōgen is adamant that unless one believes and understands correctly on this matter, there can be no progress on the Buddhist path. "It is imperative that trainees clarify the principle of causality first, otherwise they will remain susceptible to false views, their practice decline, and finally they will cease from doing good altogether. The principle of causality is straightforward; those who do wrong fall into hell; those who do good attain enlightenment" (1983a:101;1972:437). Quoting a Zen poem that says that "causality is as true and unchangeable as pure refined gold" (1983a:100;1972:436), Dōgen makes this point clearly: the principle of causality is permanent and knowable. When one understands properly and holds the correct viewpoint on this matter, then one's understanding corresponds with the way things truly are, and the consequences of such correct belief are ultimately beneficial. On the other hand, "spreading false doctrine is a most serious crime" (1983a:106;1972:447). "The principle of causality means that those who practice well realize enlightenment — it's as straightforward as that" (1983a:98;1972:433).
    To justify this doctrinal claim to truth, Dōgen appeals to tradition. "It is apparent that the Patriarchs never denied the chain of causality....Do not teach that causality does not exist; this is untrue and conflicts with the Law transmitted by the Buddhas and Patriarchs. Only those ignorant of the true teaching support such views" (1983a:97;1972:432-33). Several times the appeal is made to one particular patriarch, Nagarjuna, who, ironically enough, in his "causality" based claim that all doctrines are empty (sunya), initiated the historical sequence that led to the denial of causality that Dōgen so dreaded. So Dōgen invokes Nagarjuna to set things straight. "As Patriarch Nagarjuna said, "to deny, as non-Buddhists do, the principle of causality, is not only a denial of the existence of the present and future worlds, but also the existence of the three treasures, the Four Noble Truths, and the various stages of arhathood" (1983a:98; 1972:434). The authority of tradition, and of Nagarjuna in particular, is so powerful that Dōgen can simply sum up the matter by saying: "The preceding are the compassionate teachings of the Patriarch Nagarjuna, We should gratefully accept and heed these words" (1983a:98; 1972:434).
    This example shows the Shōbōgenzō's position on the nature and importance of correct doctrinal belief by focusing on a doctrine that is fundamental to most Buddhist thought. The same essential attitude, however, is presented on many matters of correct belief and practice, from the doctrine of karma to the details of monastic practice. There is a right way of belief and practice in all matters that is knowable and verifiable as true and efficacious. How can one correctly distinguish p 261 the true from the false? [4] The Shōbōgenzō's answer to this question in the above example is a pattern that appears throughout the text. Tradition, "the Buddhas and Patriarchs," supplies the standard by which to judge the truth of doctrine. "Anyone who wishes to determine if a teaching is correct or not should use the standards of the Buddhas and Patriarchs. They are the true masters of the wheel of the Law whom we should consult" (1977:23;1970:392). A doctrine can be verified as correct if it can be found to be the teaching of Buddhas and Patriarchs.
    thezensite: Doctrine and the Concept of Truth in Dōgen's Shobogenzo
    THEZENSITE.COM
    thezensite: Doctrine and the Concept of Truth in Dōgen's Shobogenzo
    thezensite: Doctrine and the Concept of Truth in Dōgen's Shobogenzo

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Author
    Admin
    Furthermore, the Shōbōgenzō holds that the content of correct belief and practice has been accurately transmitted from the Buddhas through centuries of tradition. [5] "I also learned (from a sutra) that the Patriarchs transmit the Dharma free of error" (1983b:100;1972:400). That the Patriarchs' transmission can be trusted Dōgen claims to have learned from a sutra. The tradition apparently verifies itself. Furthermore, because the transmission of doctrine is unbroken, the Buddhist Dharma has been able to escape the vicissitudes of history: " ... it is not difficult to authenticate a doctrine even if removed by centuries from the Buddhas and Patriarchs" (1983b:72). Dōgen is aware of at least some of the histor
    ical and hermeneutical problems that arise when the truth of historically transmitted doctrine is based upon the word or confession of that same transmission. The divergence and plurality of belief is an often mentioned and much lamented fact in the Shōbōgenzō. But Dōgen 's response is simply that the others have received it incorrectly, and that the truth runs like a single unbroken thread down through the centuries. "Shakyamuni's Eye and Treasury of the true Law and supreme enlightenment was only rightly transmitted to Mahakasyapa, and no one else. The right transmission surely passed to Mahakasyapa" (1977:23;1970:392).
    But in spite of the continuity of tradition, there are those who hold "mistaken and distorted views." "Unfortunately many masters have proclaimed the teaching based on their own limited mistaken views... They distorted the teachings to conform to their own misguided interpretation which they contested to be true Buddhism" (1983b: 16; 1972:345). Although these people think they possess the p 262 truth, they are caught in an illusory perspective that can only be exposed by showing them the correct interpretation of the teachings. "Inferior monks remain ignorant and do not know that their teaching is twisted. It is a pity that they are trapped in illusion. Such people have not experienced the Dharma and do not know how to think properly" (1983a:83;1972:76).
    Apparently those who hold a correct viewpoint and those who adhere to incorrect doctrine both believe that their view is true, and both verify that view by reference to the tradition. Yet nothing in the Shōbōgenzō indicates how one might adjudicate the conflict of interpretations. The circularity of an appeal to tradition as a means to verify an interpretation of tradition is not raised to the status of an issue. Therefore, even the pivotal principle itself can be stated in circular terms: "This is the Buddhist teaching of right transmission — only those with right transmission can correctly calculate right transmission" (1983a:68;1972:38). As Dōgen seems to sense, the whole procedure seems to rest on one crucial belief: "belief in right transmission" (1977: 181).
    But even if there is difficulty in grounding correct belief, it nevertheless remains a central theme throughout the Shōbōgenzō that the truth or falsity of one's doctrine and practice is a matter of great significance. In contrast to much of the Zen tradition that precedes it, the Shōbōgenzō is adamant that doctrine does make a difference. To bring the significance of this position into focus, one might contrast Dōgen’s relentless critique of false views with Nagarjuna's famous "critique of all views." For Dōgen, not all views obstruct realization, only those "outside the way" (gedo). Others, sanctioned by Buddhas and Patriarchs, are to be cultivated. It is significant that the Shōbōgenzō commonly refers to the Lotus Siitra as the highest standard for truth, because this text can clearly be seen to support Dōgen's emphasis on correctness and truth of belief. But this same sutra also expresses a concern for universality and all-inclusiveness. It probes toward a position that, rather than simply contradicting other positions, attempts to take them all in, including them in one universal Dharma. This is also Dōgen 's concern, a concern which derives from a second approach to the question of truth.


  • Soh Wei Yu
    Author
    Admin

    Back to Soh:
    There are many places in Shobogenzo where Dogen emphasized the importance of right view. For example he criticised such Vedantic sort of eternalist views: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../non-duality-of...
    There are many instances where Dogen criticised even the contemporary Zen masters for harbouring wrong views.
    For example, Dogen said: “Meditation Master Engo Kokugon once said in a poem commenting on an ancient Ancestor’s kōan* story: When fish swim, they may muddy up the water; When birds fly, they may shed a feather. It is hard indeed to escape the ever-bright Mirror.5The Great Void knows no bounds. Once something has passed, it is far, far gone. The five hundred rebirths were simply dependent on the fox’s Great Practice with cause and effect. A thunderbolt may suddenly smash a mountain and the wind churn up the sea, But the Pure Gold, though refined a hundred times, never changes Its color. Even this verse leans towards denying cause and effect and, at the same time, tends to support the view of eternalism."
    "The monk known as Meditation Master Daie Sōkō once said the following in a congratulatory poem: ‘Not being subject to’ and ‘not being blind to’ Are merely stones and clods of earth. Having met them along the path between the rice fields, I pulverized the silver mountain. Clapping my hands, I give a hearty “Ho, ho!” wherever I am, For here in Kōshū, this foolish Laughing Buddha is to be found.7Present-day people in Sung dynasty China consider monks like Daie to be Masters skillful in leading trainees, but Daie’s opinions and understanding never reached the level of skillful means in instructing others in the Buddha Dharma. If anything, he leaned towards naturalism.8"
    You can read more about Dogen criticisizing false views of various teachers/teachings here: My opinion on Shurangama Sutra http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../my-opinion-on...
    "Dogen is really a difficult person with whom to practice. In a sense, he’s so stubborn and picky. Many Zen texts agree with this theory in these sutras and Zongmi’s. Dogen is a very unusual and unique Zen master. To be his student is a difficult thing." - Shohaku Okumura
    And as John Tan said in 2007 about Dogen, “Dogen is a great Zen master that has penetrated deeply into a very deep level of anatman.”, “Read about Dogen… he is truly a great Zen master… ...[Dogen is] one of the very few Zen Masters that truly knows.”, “Whenever we read the most basic teachings of Buddha, it is most profound. Don't ever say we understand it. Especially when it comes to Dependent Origination, which is the most profound truth in Buddhism*. Never say that we understand it or have experienced it. Even after a few years of experience in non-duality, we can't understand it. The one great Zen master that came closest to it is Dogen, that sees temporality as buddha nature, that see transients as living truth of dharma and the full manifestation of buddha nature.”
    "When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine many things with a confused mind, you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. But when you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that there is nothing that has unchanging self.
    - Dogen"
    Dogen, Shōbōgenzō:
    "Tathagatas [Buddhas] never go beyond clarifying cause and effect"
    Buddha-nature
    For Dōgen, Buddha-nature or Busshō (佛性) is the nature of reality and all Being. In the Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen writes that "whole-being is the Buddha-nature" and that even inanimate objects (rocks, sand, water) are an expression of Buddha-nature. He rejected any view that saw Buddha-nature as a permanent, substantial inner self or ground. Dōgen held that Buddha-nature was "vast emptiness", "the world of becoming" and that "impermanence is in itself Buddha-nature".[45] According to Dōgen:
    Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.[46]


  • Soh Wei Yu
    Author
    Admin
    And likewise, in Buddhism not limited to Zen, Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka was one of the core and most major and influential teacher in Mahayana Buddhism. In fact Zen considers Nagarjuna as one of the patriarchs of Zen in the long list of lineage tracing back to Buddha and then Mahakasyapa.
    Many people hear and talk about Madhyamaka as propounding a "viewless view". But many people have a totally warped and wrong understanding of what that means.
    For example, Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith says Madhyamaka is not a simple minded “I have no view” proposition:
    “gad rgyangs wrote:
    He clearly says in the VV that he has no view to defend. Do you think he was wrong about himself?
    Malcolm wrote:
    He states in the VV that he has no propositions/thesis concerning svabhāva as defined by his opponents. He does not say he has no views at all. For example, he clearly states in the MMK that he prefers the Sammitya view of karma.
    Your claim is similar to the mistaken assertion made by some who claim that Candrakirti never resorts to syllogisms, which in fact he clearly does in the opening lines of the MAV. What Candra disputes is not syllogistic reasoning in its entirety, but rather, syllogistic reasoning applied to emptiness.
    Likewise, he clearly asserts the view in the VV that there is no svabhāva in phenomena. Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition.
    ...
    "Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition."
    ...
    gad rgyangs wrote:
    then why does the MMK end thusly? MMK 27.30:
    I salute Gautama, who, based on compassion,
    taught the true Dharma for the abandonment of all views.
    Malcolm wrote:
    "All views" here is summarized as two in chapter fifteen: i.e. substantial existence and nonexistence.”


  • Soh Wei Yu
    Author
    Admin
    “The purpose of the view is to open the mind up fully without background, duality and inherency. So that experience is fully open, direct, immediate and without boundaries. Chariot and its basis are not a cause and effect relationship, they originate in dependence.” - John Tan, 2019
    “Dry non-conceptualities means PCE [pure consciousness experience] without insight and wisdom. Without insight of how the conceptual mind affect experiences and wisdom of the nature of mind and phenomena.
    There is the experiences, the view and the realization. So practice is not just about experiences, one must realise clearly what the view of anatta and emptiness is pointing to in real-time experiences. Essentially it is about understanding how reification from conceptualities confuse the mind leading to dualistic and inherent thoughts and the freedom from them into spontaneous perfection of natural condition.” – John Tan, 2020
    “4/12/2012 3:00 PM: John: Imo it is not possible to remove the sense of self by the path of practice alone, the view and realization is important. Tilopa’s advice is only advisable after a practitioner realizes certain important aspect of the nature and essence of mind.That is what is meant by being 'natural'. What is the cause of contrived effort. It is easy to say the sense of self creates the 'efforting' but practitioner will need to have deeper insight then just saying that. Otherwise the mind is not willing to let go itself”

  • Reply
  • 7m
  •  
  •  
    • Soh Wei Yu
      Author
      Admin
      "Tradition, "the Buddhas and Patriarchs," supplies the standard by which to judge the truth of doctrine. "Anyone who wishes to determine if a teaching is correct or not should use the standards of the Buddhas and Patriarchs. They are the true masters of the wheel of the Law whom we should consult" (1977:23;1970:392). A doctrine can be verified as correct if it can be found to be the teaching of Buddhas and Patriarchs."
      Just saw this. What Dogen said here is interesting and reminds me of what Buddha taught:
      "In Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.180, the Buddha taught the great authorities. He advised that when any monk says that such and such are the teachings of the Buddha, we should, without scorning or welcoming his words compare those words with the Suttas and Vinaya. If they are not in accordance with the Suttas and Vinaya, we should reject them."
      "To some of you, Ānanda, it may occur thus: 'The words of the Teacher have ended, there is a Teacher no longer'. But it should not, Ānanda, be so considered. Indeed, Ānanda, that which I have taught and made known to you as the Dhamma and the Vinaya will be your Teacher after my passing away."
      -- Mahāparinibbāna Sutta
      Likewise, Dzogchen teacher Malcolm Smith also quoted Sakya Pandita before on this matter:
      "If he does not teach according to the words of the Buddha
      even if he is a guru, one should remain indifferent. "
      -- Sakya Pandita


      Also as the Buddha stated in http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.16-Ahita-Thera-S-a5.88-piya.pdf -- even famous teachers may have wrong views.

    • Reply
    • 1m
    • Edited
     
  •  



    • Soh Wei Yu
      Author
      Admin
      Also, this point is not entirely correct:
      "the radically anti-doctrinal posture of Zen's paradigmatic figures such as Bodhidharma, Hui-neng, Lin-chi, and Ta-hui"
      Bodhidharma brought Lankavatara Sutra from India to China and advised his students to study it, and his teachings was centered on the Lankavatara Sutra.
      The Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng attained great awakening through Diamond Sutra and the explanation from the 5th patriarch on the Diamond Sutra, and he too commented on and advised his students to study that sutra.

    • Reply
    • 1m
    • Edited
     

André A. Pais

Admin
 9h 
Though most practitioners definitely need relative and gradual teachings, these are good pointers to contemplate. Taken from a thread in Dharma Wheel.
1. There is no view on which one has to meditate.
2. There is no commitment, or samaya, one has to keep.
3. There is no capacity for spiritual action one has to seek.
4. There is no mandala one has to create.
5. There is no initiation one has to receive.
6. There is no path one has to tread.
7. There are no levels of realization (bhumis) one has to achieve through purification.
8. There is no conduct one has to adopt, or abandon.
9. From the beginning, self-arising wisdom has been free of obstacles.
10. Self-perfection is beyond hope and fear.
These ten points are repeated and explained from various angles in different parts of the book and constitute the fundamental feature that distinguishes Dzogchen from the other paths of realization, which are all, to a greater or lesser degree, bound to the notion of cause and effect.

10 Comments

Kyoshu Okan Özaydin
I dare you to post this on Reddit, so I can grab my popcorn and watch you get lynched to oblivion 😃
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
It was posted in dharma connection before.
Kyle’s comments are also good:
Ground, Path, Fruition
DHARMACONNECTIONGROUP.BLOGSPOT.COM
Ground, Path, Fruition
Ground, Path, Fruition
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Joel Agee wrote:
"Is it necessarily a misrepresentation of Dzogchen teachings to say "no path, practices, stages, etc. are necessary"? Here is a quote from the Kunjed Gyalpo, one of the oldest Dzogchen texts, that seems to say precisely that:
The Ten Absences
1. There is no view on which one has to meditate.
2. There is no commitment, or samaya, one has to keep.
3. There is no capacity for spiritual action one has to seek.
4. There is no mandala one has to create.
5. There is no initiation one has to receive.
6. There is no path one has to tread.
7. There are no levels of realization (bhumis) one has to achieve through purification
8. There is no conduct one has to adopt, or abandon
9. From the beginning, self-arising wisdom has been free of obstacles
10. Self-perfection is beyond hope or fear.
(“The Supreme Source,” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, pp. 67-68.)"
I replied:
"The ultimate or the way things are is said in dzogchen to be the unity of primordial purity and spontaneous presence. Primordial purity means afflictions are not existent, the delusional constructs like existence and nonexistence, subject and object are fundamentally nonexistent. But the conventional is the way things appear. Deluded constructs appear very real to sentient beings. This needs to be released through practice and wisdom. On the ultimate level nothing needs to be done, that cannot be said for the conventional due to strong karmic propensities."
Kyle Dixon replied:
"Though the kun byed rgyal po is an exposition given from the perspective of one's nature. As it is a sems sde teaching that focuses on "byang chub sems" [skt. bodhicitta] which is the sems sde name for the basis i.e., the nature of mind.
So from the point of view of the nature of mind there is nothing to accept or reject, nothing to improve, no basis, no path, no result. But a Dzogchen practitioner is not the nature of mind. A Dzogchenpa only works with his/her knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind. And aspirants initially have no knowledge of that nature to speak of. And then adepts on the path have an incomplete knowledge that is refined through familiarization and practice. Finally at the time of the result that knowledge is complete. But the practitioner has much to do, extensive meditation, extensive practice. Our nature is perfect, but we as practitioners are not.
Not understanding these contexts properly creates big issues for people."
More posts by Kyle Dixon:
Larry writes:
"To claim a superiority of understanding by espousing a view still locked in the duality of correct/incorrect is laughable."
You're welcome to believe that, however these systems are no stranger to identifying corrrect/incorrect or higher/lower views. Even your beloved Longchenpa engages in such valuations, stating:
"Some say: 'Cause and effect, compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'
These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."
.....
1
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Larry, writes:
"The thing is Kyle the water's fine, always has been and always will be."
I'm not even sure what this means, but if you are stating that the suffering of samsara is "fine" and acceptable (and always has been), then you have unfortunately made a wrong turn somewhere.
.....
And to clarify, I only harp on this issue like I do because I used to carry the same view: that everything is already perfect... there's nothing to realize... there's no one here to do anything... there's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect"... or that concepts were the enemy, and so on, and so on, and so on. All the same narratives you see being spun by most neo-nondual teachers and systems. I remember I used to argue with a friend/mentor all the time about how he doesn't get it, and he's just fooling himself with practice and so on. And I used to cite the same quotations from Longchenpa and others that were speaking from the point of view of the ultimate, and I (in my delusion) provided them as proof that I was correct etc.
Then one day that changed, and I experientially tasted what all of these masters are pointing to. And I was shown directly that I had been wrong, and that was very humbling.
That made these teachings real for me. And surprisingly, instead of continuing to reject practice, and all of these other aspects of these systems that I had previously thought to be extraneous and a waste of time... I saw their value and their place for the first time. It became clear how and why they are applied, where they fit into the scheme of things... and I saw the sheer wisdom behind the structures that I had once mistakenly rejected.
So I only speak out against those who attempt to propagate the same mistakes because I've been there. I was so certain that I was right, and that I "got it", and that others didn't understand. And I was so wrong... unbelievably wrong.
I'm no teacher or messiah, I don't have a superiority complex or have some strange need to be "right", it's nothing like that. I simply speak out because when I see others who appear to be passionate about these teachings, making the same mistakes I made, I see myself, I can't help but to want to say "hey, it really isn't that way." And if all I accomplish is at least planting some shred of a seed of a possibility that X person may think twice and consider being open to the fact that they don't have it completely figured out, then that is good enough for me. If not, that is alright too, but at least I can say I tried......
Larry writes:
"As Longchenpa says, we are free as we are, as free as we will ever be, in this moment. No deferral required."
Seems to be a massive case of confirmation bias going on here in terms of what Longchenpa texts you are reading, and what passages from said texts you are choosing to cherry pick in order to support your view. Because he does not say you are free as you are, quite the opposite in fact:
"Though primordially pure wisdom exists within us, by not recognizing it, we wander here in samsara. This karma of ignorance produces ego-grasping. By that in turn are produced passion, aggression, ignorance, pride, and envy. It is because of these five poisons or kleshas that we are whirling around here in samsara. Why so? As various habitual patterns are superimposed on alaya, we enter into unhappiness.... [after going over the beings who inhabit the six lokas, he states] Each of these (beings) has their own realm of
existence, with its happiness, sorrow, and the states between them. They have their own sorts of good and evil behavior. So it is that we wander helplessly in this plain of the beginningless and endless sufferings of samsara, so difficult to cross.... Thinking about that, and seeing the weariness of sentient beings, exhausted by the burden of their long wandering here in samsara, I wanted to compose a treatise giving the instructions of how we can ease this weariness."
This is clearly not the exposition of a man who believes you are "free as you are", which means you are taking that statement far out of context.
.....
Right, "everything is primordially liberated" is only true from the standpoint of having recognized that, and when resting directly in that knowledge [rig pa].
Those who haven't recognized their nature, which is a vast majority, cannot say everything is primordially liberated, because it isn't for them.
And then for those who have recognized their nature: in the practice of a Dzogchen yogin traversing the path, they fluctuate between mind [sems] and wisdom [ye shes]. So while resting in wisdom, sure every thing appears primordially liberated, because one is directly and experientially cognizing emptiness. However once one becomes distracted and falls back into mind they again perceive phenomena dualistically and again cannot make blanketed statements like everything is primordially liberated. Because while in post-equipoise they perceive conditioned phenomena. The "path" of Dzogchen is the process of gaining stability in that view, which is no walk in the park.
Only those who have realized the result can say everything is primordially liberated at all times. And those beings are rarer than stars in the daytime, as it is said. Even my teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu says he is not in a direct knowledge of his nature at all times. So to hear people claim in this thread that they don't need to do anything and that all is perfect just means they're living in a fantasy. Which is fine, but should be pointed out as the misconception it is.Which takes years, decades, lifetimes, and is why serious Dzogchenpas spend their entire lives practicing in solitary retreats.The Nyarong Tertön Rinpoche (i.e., Tertön Sogyal) said:
“At this, the time for discovering Buddha directly, you must remain alone, without companions, in an isolated mountain retreat—with a staff to the right, a container of grain to the left, a copper pot in front, and a cave behind. From now until the attainment of enlightenment, you must look upwards, entrusting ourselves to the teacher and Three Jewels, and downwards, into the naked unity of awareness and emptiness. At all times and in all situations, you must guard the fortress of the view, just as you would cherish a diamond. And you must continue meditating until, your eyes turned lifeless and blue, you breathe your very last breath.”
Again, these are not examples of advice given by individuals who think there's nothing to do and everything is already perfect.
1
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Also (this is not from the link above):
“Mr. JK said: What you're describing is the duality found in Christianity. saying we are impure and must better ourselves.
Kyle Dixon replied: Not at all, this is literally the teaching of Dzogchen, Śrī Siṃha one of the original Dzogchen masters, who was Padmasambhava’s guru, states:
This is acceptable since a so called “primordial buddhahood” is not asserted. Full awakening is not possible without being free of the five afflictions... It is not possible for wisdom to increase without giving up afflictions. Wisdom will not arise without purifying afflictions. (Bolded and emphasized by Soh)
Likewise, Khenpo Ngachung, one of the greatest luminaries of recent times states:
In any system of sutra or tantra, without gathering the accumulations and purifying obscurations, Buddhahood can never be attained. Though the system of gathering accumulations and purifying obscurations is different, in this respect [dzogchen] is the same.
Longchenpa states:
All phenomena of samsara depend on the mind, so when the essence (ngo bo) of mind is purified, samsara is purified... The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is pristine consciousness (ye shes) to be attained... That being so, it is very important to differentiate mind and pristine consciousness because all meditation is just that: all methods of purifying vāyu and vidyā are that; and in the end at the time of liberation, vidyā is purified of all obscurations because it is purified of the mind.
Even Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche’s father, states:
Purification happens through training on the path. We have strayed from the basis and become sentient beings. To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears... the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear.
Thus there is still much for you to understand about how Dzogchen actually works. You are only speaking of the side of the nature, the state of Dzogchen, but the side of appearances, the side of the practitioner, is not pure and perfect just yet. The two sides meet when the practitioner recognizes that nature, which is not presently known, and trains in the method and view.
5” – Kyle Dixon, 2021, krodha (u/krodha) - Reddit
“Mipham:
"All of the faults of samsara arise from the deluded mind which apprehends a personal self or a self of phenomena. Since this deluded mind also is adventitious like clouds in the sky, from the beginning neither mixing nor polluting the luminous clarity of the primordial basic nature, these faults are separate from the basic element and suitable to be removed. Therefore, the essence of the basic element is empty of these faults; it is untainted. Without depending on the polluting delusion, the basic element is luminous and clear by its own nature; self-existing wisdom permeates the thusness197 of all phenomena. It is not empty of that which it is inseparable from, the basic element of consummate qualities, because in its essence, this is the basic nature from which it is inseparable—like the sun and its rays of light.
In this way, the naturally abiding heritage is established as the unconditioned essence of the Truth Body, which is primordially endowed with qualities. Due to the potential to be a buddha, the Wisdom Truth Body, without decrease or increase, necessarily resides in the mind-streams of all sentient beings, because in training on the path, the potential to be a buddha is established by the power of fact. Also, since the Truth Body at the time of being a buddha is unconditioned—it is not possible for it to be a conditioned phenomenon that is newly formed by causes and conditions—it is established that “it presently resides as the essence of the buddha.”
Regarding this, some people think, “If it presently resides as the essence of the buddha, why does that omniscient wisdom not dispel the obscurations of these sentient beings?” Or fixating upon the range of meanings of the common vehicle, they think, “Since the buddha is the effect and sentient beings are the cause, the effect being present in the cause is invalidated by reason, using such reasoning as the eating of food would [absurdly entail] the eating of excrement.”
For you who have been guided by merely a limited understanding of the common scriptures and have not trained in the meaning of the extremely profound, definitive meaning sutras, it is no wonder that such qualms have arisen! These [objections of yours], however, are not the case. Why? Although the suchness that is luminous and clear wisdom is present in everything without distinction, when adventitious delusion arises in one’s mind, the basis of designation of samsara is only this deluded mind together with its object; due to this delusion, one’s suchness is not known as it is. For example, when sleeping, due to the power of mental consciousness alone, unrestricted appearances arise such as the body, objects, and eye-consciousness, and so forth. At that time, although the subject and object are observed and apprehended separately, the mental consciousness itself is not able to know its own mode of being, in which the perceived [object] and the perceiving [subject] are not established as different; even though it is not known, there is nothing other than this mode of being. Likewise, all phenomena abide as emptiness; even so, merely being like this does not entail that everyone realizes this, because there is the possibility of delusion—appearances that do not accord with reality.
Therefore, since mind and the wisdom of the essential nature are [respectively] phenomenon and suchness, sentient beings and the Buddha are taught in terms of the mode of appearance and the mode of reality. Thus, using the reason that the effect is present in the cause to invalidate this position is simply not understanding it. In this way, this reasoning is that the evidence of a clear manifestation of the Truth Body at the time of the fruition establishes that the heritage, primordially endowed with qualities, is present at the time of the cause because there is no temporal causality in the mode of reality; nevertheless, in dependence upon the mode of appearance, it is necessarily posited as cause and effect. —LION’S ROAR: EXPOSITION ON BUDDHA-NATURE, 575–79
Duckworth, Douglas; Mipam, Jamgon. Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings (pp. 164-165). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.”
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
from atr guide:
Arcaya Malcolm, teacher of Dzogchen (see: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../dzogchen...) recently said in his group that maps of awakening in Buddhism are governed by the elimination of the twin obscurations of affliction and knowledge, and that Dzogchen (Soh: which, along with Mahamudra, are considered the highest teachings of Tibetan Buddhism) is the same in this respect.
Also in dharmawheel he related the Thodgal stages to the bhumi scheme:
" According to Khenpo Ngachung, the paths and stages don't really map to Dzogchen, but you can explain things that way:
Visions 1 & 2, below the path of seeing.
Vision 3; path of seeing and path of cultivation (bhumis 1-7)
vision 4; end of path of cultivation and path of no more learning (stages 8 to 16)."
“There are three traditional methods of dealing with emotions: abandoning them, transforming them, and recognizing their nature. All three levels of Buddhist teaching, all three yanas, describe how to deal with disturbing emotions. It is never taught, on any level, that one can be an enlightened buddha while remaining involved in disturbing emotions - never. Each level deals with emotions differently.
Just like darkness cannot remain when the sun rises, none of the disturbing emotions can endure within the recognition of mind nature. That is the moment of realizing original wakefulness, and it is the same for each of the five poisons.
In any of the five disturbing emotions, we do not have to transmute the emotion into empty cognizance. The nature of the emotion already is this indivisible empty cognizance.” - Vajra Speech, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
“Why would you accept afflictive emotions? They are afflictive and are the root cause of suffering.
Either you renounce them, transform them or self-liberate them. But you certainly don't accept them. That way just leads to further rebirth in samsara.
M” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith
“We do bad things, non-virtuous things, because we are afflicted. Afflictions are never a part of oneself but they do define us as sentient beings. If you want to stop being a sentient being and start being an awakening being you have to deal with your afflictions via one of three paths I mentioned.
Why am I a sentient being and not a Buddha? Because I am subject to afflictions. How do I become a Buddha? By overcoming afflictions and attaining omniscience. How do I begin? By setting out on one of the three paths, depending on my capacity.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith
Dzogchen Retreat with Arcaya Malcolm
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Dzogchen Retreat with Arcaya Malcolm
Dzogchen Retreat with Arcaya Malcolm
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
"Elsewhere, Malcolm also said with regards to hongaku ("original enlightenment"), "Definitely a wrong view, even in Dzogchen.", "Chinese Buddhism departs from Indian Buddhism in many respects. Still, the idea of "inherent awakening" is patently absurd and cannot be taken literally or seriously by any means."
Malcolm: ""Another interesting thing they do is try to show is that Dogen had a change of heart and rejected hongaku and BNI late in his life.
Noriaki cites this example, from the Shōbōgenzō shizen bhikkhu, as presented in Pruning the Bodhi Tree, pg. 123:
Some people say that, because the enlightenment of the Buddhas and Tathagatas encompass the whole world, even a speck of dust manifests that enlightenment. Because that enlightenment encompasses both subject and the object, mountains, rivers, earth, sun, moon, stars, and the four illusions and three poisons express it as well. To see mountains and rivers is to see the Tathagathas, and the four illusions and three poisons are the Buddha-dharma. To see a speck of dust is to see the dharma-dhatu and each spontaneous act is a manifestation of supreme enlightenment. They say this is the great understanding and call it a Patriarchal transmission. In latter-day Sung China, those who subscribe to this view are as numerous as rice plants, hemp. bamboo, and reeds. Their [religious] lineage is unknown, but it is clear they do not understand Buddhism.
All and all an interesting book, quite relevant to the present discussion.
...""
"John Tan
When Dogen was still a monk in Tendai School, he was puzzled and couldn't understand the teaching of "original enlightenment". If we were originally enlightened, how can we be lost? Unsatisfied he traveled to China in search for answers and when he returned back to Japan, he began promoting "practice-enlightenment". What did Dogen realize from this koan of "original enlightenment" into "practice-enlightenment"?
....
Indeed this is similar to anatta insight. When no self/Self is seen through, seen is just seen and heard is just heard. When original enlightenment is seen through, sitting is just sitting, walking is just walking, and sleeping is just sleeping -- practice enlightenment!"
1
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Having said all these, the top post is correct from the POV of primordial purity (kadag) also known as -A in John Tan's terminology:
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
“Hey, hey, apparent yet nonexistent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā (rigpa) itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
-- Unwritten Tantra (Acarya Malcolm Smith's translation)
    • Reply
    • 9h
    • Edited