Posts
A Lamp to Dispel DarknessAn Instruction That Points Directly to the Very Essence of MindIn the Tradition of ‘the Old Realized Ones’by Mipham Jampal DorjeThe HomageHomage to the guru, inseparable from Mañjuśrī, the embodiment of primordial wisdom!Without having to study, contemplate, or train to any great degree,Simply by maintaining recognition of the nature of mind according to the approach of pith instructions,Any ordinary village yogi can, without too much difficulty,Reach the level of a vidyādhara: such is the power of this profound path.The Instruction for Cracking Open the Eggshell of IgnoranceWhen you leave your mind in a state of natural rest, without thinking any particular thought, and at the same time maintaining a flow of mindfulness, you can experience a state of vacant, neutral, apathetic indifference, referred to as indeterminate, in which consciousness is dull and blank. In this, there is none of the clear insight of vipaśyanā, which discerns things precisely, and so the masters call it ignorance. Since you cannot define it and say “This is what it’s like” or “This is it!” such a state is called indeterminate. And since you cannot say what kind of state you are resting in, or what your mind is thinking, it is also called common equanimity. In fact, you are stuck in an ordinary state within the ground-of-all (ālaya).Such a means of resting the mind is necessary, as a stepping stone, in the process of bringing about non-conceptual primordial wisdom. However, as this primordial wisdom has not yet dawned, it cannot count as the main practice of Dzogchen meditation. As The Aspiration Prayer of Samantabhadra says:They are entirely mindless and confused.This itself is unawareness, delusion’s cause.Therefore, when mind experiences such a dull state that lacks any thought or mental activity, allow your attention to turn naturally and gently toward the one who is aware of this state—the one who is not thinking. By doing so, you will discover the pure awareness of rigpa, free from any movement of thought, beyond any notion of outside or inside, unimpeded and open, like the clear sky. Although there is no dualistic separation here between an experience and an experiencer, still the mind is certain about its own true nature, and there is a sense that, “There is nothing whatsoever beyond this.” When this occurs, because you cannot conceptualize it or express it in words, it is acceptable to apply such terms as free from all extremes, beyond description, the fundamental state of clear light and the pure awareness of rigpa.As the wisdom of recognizing your own true nature dawns, it clears away the blinding darkness of confusion, and, just as you can see clearly the inside of your home once the sun has risen, you gain confident certainty in the true nature of your mind.This is the instruction for cracking open the eggshell of ignorance.The Instruction for Cutting Through the Web of Conditioned ExistenceWhen you gain this kind of realization, you understand that the nature of reality has always been so, timelessly. It is not created by any causes or conditions, and it never undergoes any kind of transition or change in the past, present or future. At the same time, you cannot find even the tiniest fraction of something called “mind” that is separate from this nature. You could say that the state of mental blankness referred to earlier is also indescribable, but it lacks decisiveness, since you are completely unable to describe it in any way. Rigpa, on the other hand, is essentially indescribable. Yet at the same time it has a decisive quality, which cuts through any doubt about what is indescribable. There is thus a huge difference between these two kinds of indescribability, as great as the difference between blindness and perfect vision. This is also a crucial point in distinguishing between the ground-of-all and the dharmakāya. Therefore, terms such as ordinary awareness, mental inactivity, inexpressible and so on are used in two different ways, only one of which is authentic. And when you come to know the crucial point of how the same words can have a higher level of meaning, you can gain some experience of the true meaning of the profound Dharma.Some feel that what is to be maintained when resting naturally in the essence of mind is a simple clarity, a simple awareness, and so they settle in a state of ordinary mental consciousness, thinking, “This is clarity.” Others focus their attention on an absorbing sense of emptiness, as though their minds had become empty. But, in both cases, there is some clinging to the dualistic experience of an aspect of ordinary mental consciousness. Whenever you find yourself in either state, look into the very nature of that subtly fixated attention—the clarity and the one perceiving the clarity, the emptiness and the one perceiving the emptiness. By doing so, you will take away the support for the ordinary consciousness that perceives things dualistically. Then, if you can decisively recognize the natural state of your own mind in all its nakedness—clear and open, without any limit or centre—and a state of lucid clarity arises, that is what is called the very essence of rigpa. With this, as rigpa sheds the covering layer of experiences that involve clinging, its pure and pristine wisdom is laid bare.This is the instruction for cutting through the web of conditioned existence.The Instruction for Remaining in Space-Like EqualityThis is how you should recognize the pure awareness of rigpa once it is freed from the various layers of ordinary thinking and experience, like a grain of rice freed from its husk—by settling naturally and making use of rigpa’s own self-knowing (or self-illuminating) quality. It is not enough, however, simply to understand the nature of rigpa; you must be able to remain in that state with some stability through developing familiarity. For this, it is very important that, without becoming distracted, you sustain constant mindfulness, so as to continue resting in an utterly natural state of awareness.When you are sustaining awareness like this, at times you might experience a vague, dull state with no thoughts, while at other times you might experience an unobstructed state with no thoughts that has the clarity of insight. At times, you might experience feelings of bliss on which you fixate, while at other times you might experience blissful feelings free of such fixation. At times, you might have various experiences of clarity involving grasping, while at other times you might experience a vivid clarity that is unsullied and free of grasping. At times, you might undergo unpleasant and unsettling experiences, while at other times you might feel pleasant and soothing sensations. And at times, you might be beset by an extreme turbulence of thought, carrying your mind away and causing you to lose your meditation. At other times, you might experience unclear states of mind because of a failure to distinguish between mental dullness and vivid clarity.These and other experiences come about unpredictably and to an extent you cannot measure, like various waves produced by the winds of karma and habitual thoughts, cultivated throughout beginningless time. It is as though you are on a long journey, during which you visit all sorts of different places—some pleasant, some fraught with danger—but whatever happens, you must not be deterred but continue on your way.When you are not yet familiar with this practice, and you have the experience of movement, as all manner of thoughts stir in your mind like a blazing fire, do not be discouraged. Maintain the flow of your practice without letting it slip away, and find the right balance so that you are neither too tense nor too relaxed. In this way, the more advanced meditative experiences, such as attainment,[1] will occur one after another.At this point, investigate the distinction between the recognition and nonrecognition of rigpa, between the ground-of-all and dharmakāya, and between ordinary consciousness and wisdom. Through the master’s pith instructions, and on the basis of your own personal experience, have confidence in the direct introduction you receive. While you are sustaining the essence of mind, just as water clears by itself if you do not stir it, ordinary consciousness will settle in its own nature. Focus mainly on the instructions describing how the true nature of this awareness develops into naturally arising wisdom. Do not analyze with a view to adopting one state and abandoning another, thinking, “What is this that I am cultivating in meditation? Is it ordinary consciousness or wisdom?” Nor should you entertain speculations based on an understanding derived from books, because doing so will only serve to obstruct both śamatha and vipaśyanā to some degree.At some point, the aspect of familiarity with śamatha (which here means a stable continuity of mindful awareness as you settle naturally) and vipaśyanā (which here means that awareness knows its own nature by itself) will merge together automatically. When your familiarity with this becomes stable, the calm and insight that have always been inseparable, as the primordial stillness of the natural state and the clear light of your own nature, will dawn as the naturally arising wisdom that is the wisdom mind of the Great Perfection.That is the instruction for remaining in space-like equality.Glorious Saraha said:Utterly abandon thoughts and thinking,And remain without thought, like a young child.This is the way to be. He also said:Focus on the guru's words and apply great effort—Then, if you have received the master’s instructions introducing you to your rigpa:There is no doubt that the coemergent nature will arise.As this says, the naturally arising wisdom that is mind’s inherent nature, and which has always accompanied your ordinary mind from time immemorial, will dawn. This is no different from the inherent nature of everything, and so it is also called the actual clear light of the genuine nature.Therefore, this approach of resting in a completely natural state and maintaining the recognition of your own self-knowing rigpa, the very essence of mind, or the dharmatā nature of phenomena, is the pith instruction that brings together a hundred crucial points in one. This is also what you are to maintain continuously.The true measure of familiarity is the ability to maintain the state of clear light even during sleep. The signs that you are on the right track can be known through your own experience: faith, compassion, and wisdom will increase automatically, so that realization will come easily, and you will experience few difficulties. You can be certain as to the profundity and swiftness of this approach if you compare the realization it brings with that gained only through great effort in other approaches.As a result of cultivating your mind’s own natural clear light, the obscurations of ordinary thinking and the habits it creates will be naturally cleared away, and the twin aspects of omniscient wisdom will effortlessly unfold.[2] With this, as you seize the stronghold of your own primordial nature, the three kāyas will be accomplished spontaneously.Profound! Guhya! Samaya!This profound instruction was written by Mipham Jampal Dorje on the twelfth day of the second month in the Fire Horse year (1906), for the benefit of village yogis and others, who, while not able to exert themselves too much in study and contemplation, still wish to take the very essence of mind into experience through practice. It has been set out in language that is easy to understand, as raw, experiential guidance for ordinary old realized ones. Virtue! Maṅgalam!| Translated by Adam Pearcey, 2005. Revised 2022.BibliographyTibetan EditionMi pham. "rtogs ldan rgan po rnams kyi lugs sems ngo mdzub tshugs kyi gdams pa mun sel sgron me." In Mi pham gsung 'bum. 32 vols. Chengdu: Gangs can rig gzhung dpe rnying myur skyobs lhan tshogs, 2007. Vol. 32: 363–368Version: 2.2-20230221This is a reference to five successive experiences that occur during the development of meditation in general and śamatha in particular. They are termed movement (compared to a cascade of water down a rock face), attainment (compared to a torrent in a deep ravine), familiarization (compared to a meandering river), stability (compared to an ocean free of waves), and consummation (a mountain, or lamp that is unmoved by the wind). ↩Here Mipham plays on the literal meaning of the Tibetan term for Buddha or enlightenment (sangs rgyas), which consists of two syllables meaning "cleared away or purified" (sangs) and "unfolded or expanded" (rgyas). ↩
Also see: The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
Nicely explained 👍
Excerpt from https://www.byomakusuma.org/InterviewWithKhenchenRigdzinDorjeOnThe%20NyingmapaView.html
Khenpo: This debate is very old. A few centuries ago, some writers said that but now it’s over. Those who did not understand the exact view of Dzogchen used to say that. But according to Ha Shang, their view is that if you want to meditate, don’t think anything. Just keep your mind free from all thoughts, just keep it quiet. That is the perfect meditation. Then we can understand the perfect nature. But Dzogchen is not like that. It is the same as Madhyamika. (NB: And it has many skillful means ).
Ratnashree: So Dzogchen is not just being aware without thoughts or remaining in thoughtless non conceptual pure awareness but you have to know the nature?
Khenpo: Yes. Yes! It is not just that.
Ratnashre: Even in India, today we have many schools who say just remaining without thoughts, choice-less awareness, just awareness ( chidghana), pure awareness by itself ( chinmatra) etc. as the correct view. Many Western people think this is the same as
Dzogchen. Do you agree?
Khenpo: Unless you have understood the nature of mind, just remaining thoughtless or choice less awareness is not Dzogchen. Remaining in the nature of mind is Dzogchen, not just remaining in thoughtless non conceptual awareness.
(NB: The Hindu Vedantic practice as advocated by perhaps the most respected and accepted Sri Sankaracharya (788 CE - 820 CE) instructs that the only way to enlightenment is to remain in the non dual, non conceptual awareness that is the watcher/witness/ knower ( advaita nirvikalpa drasta) which is one’s true identity ( Atman) and the only reality while everything else is an illusion. ‘ Brahman satyam jagan mithya’, i.e., Brahman the non dual and non conceptual awareness is the real truth while the Samsara is an illusion. This view was not created by Sri Sankaracharya around the 8 th century but already existed clearly in the Brihadaranyak Upanishad which is dated to be anytime from 800BC to 1200BC. In the Brihadaranyak Upanishad it says very clearly ‘Eko drastadvaito bhavati’ meaning ‘it is the one non dual awareness’ (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad IV, 3. 32). Dolpopa’s( 1292 - 1361) Shentongview appears to be ditto with slight modifications of this Vedantic view as his main thesis is that thoughts are not Mahamudra, that Samsara is not Nirvana and that Samsara is an illusion which does not exist and is therefore empty. But the ultimate non dual awareness exists and is therefore not empty and can never be one with Samsara and by implication thoughts can never be Mahamudra as the Karma Kagyupa teaching says.
This view makes the whole of Buddhist Tantra which is the way of transformation impossible since Samsara, and by implication thoughts, the five aggregates, the 12 faculty gates and the sixteen constituents ( skandhadhatvayatanani) can never be transformed into the primordial wisdom or the five Buddhas. This view makes all of Buddhist Tantra irrelevant as Samsara which can never be indivisible with Nirvana because one is empty of real existence ( nisvabhava) and the other is not empty and really exists ( sat); can never be transformed into primordial wisdom and thoughts can never become Mahamudra.
This Hindu Vedantic type of thesis of Dolpopa contradicts the root Tantras like the Hevajra Root Tantra which says, ‘precisely this is known as Samsara, and precisely this is Nirvana itself. After rejecting Samsara, Nirvana will not be realized elsewhere.’ The two part Hevajra Tantra 2.4.38 states ‘ami Dharmas tu nirvanammohat samsararupina,’ meaning all these Dharmas ( Samsara) are Nirvana but because of delusion they appear as Samsara. Dolpopa’s view also contradicts the teachings of the Aryas (enlightened ones) of Jambudvipa like Arya Nagarjuna who says in his Magnum Opus the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, chapter 25, Nirvana Parikshya (examination of nirvana verses 19-20) ‘there is no special distinction of Samsara from Nirvana and there is no special distinction of Nirvana from Samsara. There is not the slightest difference between Nirvana and Samsara.’ Also, ‘you do not accept a Nirvana where Samsara has been rejected.’ In the Dharmadhatu Stava, it is said that ‘total transformation is explained as dharmakaya,’ therefore the question arises, what is totally transformed in the Shentong thesis of Dolpopa. If Samsara which is unreal cannot be transformed into Nirvana that is “really existing”, there is nothing to transform but only to realize the ever separate ultimate wisdom like the Hindu Brahman.
This is exactly the view of Sri Sankaracharya. It must also be clarified that these concepts were not taken by Sri Sankaracharya from the Mahasiddhas as some misinformed Buddhists would like to believe, but already existed in the Chandogya Upanishad and Brihadaryanaka Upanishad, dated from 800BC to 1200 BC by Ranade based on linguistic and ideological development and even earlier by some. These texts mention very clearly that Dwitiyam Nasti meaning there is no second but only this Brahman/Atman. And this is the Non dual Awareness/‘Eko drastadvaito bhavati’. All else is an illusion. Sankaracharya based himself on these Upanishads most of which were older than the Buddha himself and definitely did not learn these view from Buddhist Mahasiddhas, as some Western Shentongpas try to push forth.}
Ratnashree: So remaining only in the awareness, thoughtless, choiceless without knowing the nature of mind is the Ha Shangview?
Khenpo: Yes! That is what Kamalashila refuted about the Ha Shang. Kamalshila said that remaining in such a blank, thoughtless awareness is ignorance ( moha). You have to discriminate or distinguish the nature of mind, nature of phenomena.
(NB: This is exactly what Sakya Pandita meant when he refuted what he called hinese Dzogchen and said that due to cultivating this Moha/Ignorance predominated awareness state , it can become a means to be born either as a Naga or in the Formless Realm/Arupa Dhatu, which is something that every bodhisattva tries to avoid.This is avoided in modern Zen through Koans/Kung ans/ Kong answhich is a unique form of Vipashyana/Lhag thong within the Zen school. Even the Soto school which seems to lean towards remaining quietly in a thoughtless non conceptual mind does have what the founder of Japanese Soto School, Dogen Zenji (1200 - 1253), calls Genjo Koans or everyday Koans)
Ratnashree: So it is not enough to be just thoughtless, non conceptual?
Khenpo: No, being non conceptual, thoughtless is not enough. Even a small child is also concept free; Samadhi (one pointed absorption related to samatha) is also concept less, the unconscious state is also thoughtless, non conceptual, a piece of stone is also concept-less/thoughtless. That’s not the correct Dzogchen view. In Dzogchen teaching, the teacher asks the student where is the mind etc, and you should search, the same as in Madhyamika. There is no difference.
(NB: In Zen too the Master asks “show me your mind “and one has to “show” one’s mind to the Master after intensive searching and one is corrected if one is wrong in a typical Zen style)
Ratnashree: The main difference here is there must be Vipashayana. Without Lhagtong ( Vipashayana) togme (concept-less/non conceptual) is not enough?
Khenpo: Yes, that is not enough.
(NB: according to the Abhidharmic classification there are two types of avikalpa/tog me (non conceptual state), they are the anashrava avikalpa that is the non conceptual state free from the outflows or defilements and sashrava avikalpa, that is the non conceptual state withflows or defilements . Many people are hopelessly confused by the word “non conceptual” assuming that just being “non-conceptual” is enough. The Abhidharmika teachings make it clear that one cannot jump from defiled conceptual knowledge directly to undefiled non conceptual knowledge but rather one has to move from defiled conceptual knowledge to undefiled conceptual knowledge and from there to undefiled non-conceptual knowledge. The metaphor used is that a larva cannot fly directly but must first transform itself into a butterfly before it can fly into the sky of undefiled non conceptual knowledge. Vajragarbha the lord of the tenth bhumi in his commentery on the Hevajra Tantra called the Satasahasrika Hevajratika 1.51 says very clearly that in the beginning we go by using concepts to conceptual emptiness and finally to the non conceptual emptiness of all the Buddhist ‘adau vikalpadheto savikalpam sunyata phalam bhavet.ante cha sarva Bauddhanam akalpata sunyata phalam. ’There are many kinds of non conceptual states and experiences and they are not the same simply because they are non conceptual experiences. We can have a non conceptual experience of a sour lemon’s taste and also of a sugar candy. Simply because they are both direct non conceptual experiences they do not become the same. In the same way the non conceptual experience of the Brahman is definitely not the same as the non conceptual experience of Emptiness nor do they produce the same results.)
André A. Pais wrote:
REFLECTIONS ON SOLIPSISM
Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I exist" or "only this experience exists" or "only this exists." Some of these expressions are subtler than others, but all amount more or less to the same. It is true that nothing in experience directly affirms anything other than experience itself. What is overlooked is that nothing in experience actually denies anything "outside" experience either. Experience is totally mute, totally silent - it says nothing whatsoever about anything (be it internal or external to it). Even concepts are utterly silent, since, in a final sense, they don't point to anything either - they are mere sounds, vibrations, images, etc. In this sense, experience - and even conceptual processes - is totally incapable of refuting or establishing solipsism.
Solipsism is also based on a half-baked intuition of non-duality. The very concepts of "this" or "I" or "mine" depend on their opposites. So, by saying that "only this exists" I'm already establishing its opposite - some "that" that is nonexistent. "Existent-this" vs. "nonexistent-that" is a dualistic stance, making solipsism inherently self-refuting. Experience is devoid of "other" or "thatness," but it too is devoid of "me/mine" or "thisness." There is nothing exclusivistic in experience - there is no exclusion of anything. It's rather the opposite, experience is intrinsically open-ended, expansive and accommodating - even of concepts positing closed, constricted and excluding attitudes.
Also, solipsism seems to be based on notions of limited space and mutual exclusion of experiences. There is a sense of "there is only here" and so a "there" is excluded. Again this is dualistic, as without the notion of "there" there can't be a "here" either. So, in the non-conceptual spaciousness of experience there can be no sense of "here." So solipsism still embraces ideas of spatial extension, distance and separation, which it then paradoxically uses to refute notions of "other separate places," etc. So, we have dualistic principles being used in the defense of some non-dual solipsistic reality.
There is also the sense that experiences are mutually exclusive - if "this" experience is "here," "other" experiences cannot be simultaneously "here." Yet, we can cultivate an openness to the possibility that "everything is already here," that "everything is intrinsically included" right within this very experience. In the same way that we can develop our conventional senses (or other "senses") and experience things previously unnoticed - but that were already present -, we can also conceive of developing perception (or some kind of empirical sensitivity) in a way that allows the accommodation of an infinity of experiences, in opposition to the previously "singular solipsistic experience." That's what omniscience seems to entail - a non-conflicting appreciation of the totality of experiences, a full embrace of the entirety of the space-time display. In cutting through the solidity and seemingly exclusivistic nature of space and time - what is "here" is not "there," what is "now" cannot be "then" -, the "whole field" can become naturally manifest.
The sections of our experiential field that seem more obscure and concealing (like the sense of past and future experiences, and the notions of beyond the horizon and behind/bellow/above "me"), which are all instances of some type of impenetrable not-knowing, can be seen as representatives, clues or empirical "handles" that can serve as portals or doorways into the infinite dimensions of experience that remain unrevealed and unaccommodated. "Other times" and "other places," even in infinitely cosmic scales, can be seen as mere subtler dimensions - and yet unappreciated - of what is already here, of "this very experience."
Another angle of exploration is to consider if "this sole experience" is either one or many. A "many" can only be composed of a plurality of "ones" or units. Yet, no unit or singularity can ever be found - it's a logical and empirical impossibility. So, notions of singularity and plurality fall apart, and thus solipsism falls apart, since it is based on the idea of being the "singularly existing thing." Also, if "this experience" was the only existing thing, where would the seemingly diversity of experience come from? It either comes from something else (refuting solipsism) or it is generated "internally," in which case "this sole experience" is itself already a pluralistic experience.
Also, in the absence of a sense of there being some singular observer, experience is understood as "self-luminous" and "self-knowing"; why then can't the diversity of experience be already a case for so-called multiple perceivers or observers? Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I perceive" - but if all objects (material, mental or emotional) are already "self-knowing" and "naturally luminous," how can there be a sense of "only I perceive"? Experience is not intrinsically one for it arises as diversity; and it is not intrinsically many, since it's embraced by utter intimacy and non-separation. Solipsism, being based on solid notions of singularity and plurality, is incapable of appreciating the transparency and spaciousness of experience; and it is incapable of appreciating the fine balance of appearance-emptiness, a luminous display that is beyond materialistic, solidified and dualistic tendencies - that is, in fact, beyond all notions whatsoever, be they dual, non-dual, both or neither. Solipsism seems to be a classical example of an attempt to interpret an utterly transcendent and unlimited reality by making use of somewhat mystical and yet still conventional and limited notions and perspectives.
Replied someone:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/10064928413548498/
Some people prefer a more vipassana path (over self-enquiry), so that leads more to nondual and anatta. Yin Ling took this path and can elaborate more. You can read https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/05/nice-advice-and-expression-of-anatta-in.html
I am unable to offer mentorship because I have a full time job. IMO it will not be possible for any person to offer mentorship to a large community and still have a separate full time job. That is to say, unless I decide one day to quit my job and dedicate full time to coaching people, this would be impossible for me. If I do that, then I will have to charge people for my survival, and some people did request me to do that but I rejected their requests because I do not want to give up my career for this.
That being said, you can indeed find mentors, who do 1 on 1 coaching but there is a fee involved of course, which you can find out from Yin Ling -- she has a teacher who guided her to anatta.
You can also attend teachings like those by Acarya Malcolm Smith www.zangthal.com . There is a fee to attend the Dzogchen teachings. He will give practice instructions and teachings on Zoom to all his students regularly, you can also e-mail him, although because he also has a community with hundreds of students, and he has to juggle with his job of dharma translation work, he requested his students to limit their questions to only a paragraph per e-mail.
I personally attend Acarya Malcolm Smith's teachings too.
p.s. there are also teachers like Ven Jinmyo Osho Renge (whose articles I like) who offers long distance training program for Zen https://wwzc.org/long-distance-training-program -- I believe there is a fee like Acarya Malcolm Smith's teachings.
-----
https://www.reddit.com/r/AwakeningToReality/comments/16tmwbb/im_looking_for_a_good_nondual_coach_and_guide/
1
Posted by
u/ch3nr3z1g
44 minutes ago
I'm looking for a good nondual coach and guide. Suggestions?
I was browsing the AtR website and came across this link.
...
xabir
·
9 min. ago
Hi, Soh here, co author of AtR.
I don't do coaching but do refer people to teachers like Acarya Malcolm Smith ( www.zangthal.com ) for Dzogchen (although some of his courses can be quite technical for some) and Ven Jinmyo Osho for Zen https://wwzc.org/long-distance-training-program , you can read her articles on that website. If you attend their teachings, you can write to them to get your answers about practice answered.
I notice so called "nondual coaches" charge a lot, the rates go like 100usd per hour? And it's not even clear if they have genuine and deep insights. I can vouch for the two individuals above, they do charge for teachings but they have a community to run, and the charges are like 180usd (depends on teaching) for a couple months of teachings, and I think the Ven Jinmyo it's something like 95 canadian dollars a month? And they have a temple, community, monastics to support so I think it's all quite reasonable.
It's more important that you find a practice and community and teaching you resonate with and can stick to it with earnest interest and discipline so that you can keep consistent practice and interest and engagement. Rather than attend a one time or one hour 1 to 1 session which may not work out. There is no magic pill to enlightenment, it does depend on one's interest and engagement on the path.
1
——
Someone asked for an introduction to Malcolm’s teachings, I said:
For malcolm you can watch this https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html
And read this https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html
…..
Malcolm will be teaching i think near year end again so keep track of zangthal.com announcements. Meanwhile his recommendations for beginners as always is to first read these two books before attending his teachings as some background introductory materials to dzogchen if possible:
https://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Way-Light-Dzogchen-Philosophy/dp/1559391359
And
https://www.amazon.sg/Dzogchen-Self-Perfected-Chogyal-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/1559390573
