Dzogchen
-
@Modes said
"but I thought samadhi, nirvana, enlightement is at the one end and Samsara at the other? "
I think in Dzogchen and Mahamudra, it's considered that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the same coin (i.e. two ends of the "swing" in pendulum terms), and they call Rigpa/Nature of Mind the fulcrum. But in older Buddhist terms, Nirvana is the fulcrum, and what's on the ends of the swings is alternation between mystical (Jhana) and mundane states.
I guess you could say that some terms suffer deflation and others inflation over the years. This is probably partly to do, not with the Masters who initiate these things, but with students and pundits who form "schools" and wish to vie with each other as to whose school is "better"!
(But even Masters are not above a little bit of boasting now and then Crowley laughs about this somewhere, where he talks about how you get Nirvana, then Para-nirvana, then Para-para-nirvana)The actual words used aren't so important, I think; the images and metaphors are usually more consistent (and indeed cross-system consistent) than the actual terms used. For example, the metaphor "rope/snake" or "waves/ocean" or "mirror" are used almost completely consistently across all Asian systems, Buddhist and Hindu, whether they call the mirror (for example) Nature of Mind, Rigpa, The Self, or Nirvana.
If you take for example the pendulum metaphor, the "ultimate ultimate" is the fulcrum (whatever you may call it - full-blown Nirvana or Moksha or Enlightenment in the "classical" sense, Rigpa/Nature of Mind in the Indian mediaeval Buddhist and subsequently Tibetan sense), whereas normally we have this alternation between states or experiences of "being enlightened" (in a deflated sense, or having "mystical experiences", or "glimpses"), and "being ordinary". Whether the term "nirvana" is held for the ultimate, the fulcrum, or one of the ends of the swing, is something you just have to watch out for, and compensate for when you're reading any given ancient text.
IOW, it's a bit of a minefield for someone wishing to make their own consistent table of correspondences, because terms change value sometimes. "Nirvana" in one text may not mean quite the same as "nirvana" in another, or the same with "samadhi" and other terms. But as I say, the images and metaphors seem to be more consistent and reliable.
-
@Alrah said
"
At the end perhaps any such distinction between do what you want and do what thou wilt is meaningless? Just a thought."Hehe, yes Alrah. In fact, it's funny how people speculate and ponder what's meant by "will" - what they *should *be speculating and pondering about is what's meant by "thou"
-
Alrah, 93,
"At the end perhaps any such distinction between do what you want and do what thou wilt is meaningless? Just a thought."
Sure, if you've harmonized all the different aspects of yourself. For example, I 'want' lots of money. I observe that the Chiah aspect of my higher nature has willed that I have *enough *money, particularly when I earn it through working. And so it goes.
You keep peddling this 'one leap and it's done' philosophy that ignores the basic facts of human psychology, and refuses to acknowledge the difference between the levels of our own being.
So no, the distinction is not meaningless at all. It's the key to understanding what all this is about.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
Gurugeorge, I have to look into conotation, thanks. But to think about it I like Crowley's terms Hadit and Nuit. Could it be that Hadit, Nirvana, Rigpa, Enlightement, Samadhi, is the centre and Nuit, Samsara the circumference - nowhere to be found i.e. is endless illusion?
Hehe knowing "thou" there would be nothing to speculate about. -
From the Rigpa point of view It's nondual - you can't have Hadit without Nuit and there is no such thing as illusion but Buddhists call it emptyness.
So you can't remove the space between quantum particles because it's a part of their existance.
Gurugeorge, I think I found the extremes - Dispersion, Samsara on the one hand and Concentration, Samadhi on the other, their essence being Emptyness, Nirvana. -
Yes, the aim is the same, from the Dzogchen point of view. However, from some of the other school's points of view, they say, "No you're *not *talking about the same thing as us". There's a fair degree of sectarianism in Tibetan Buddhism (albeit kept mostly within civil bounds).
Mainly there's a big distinction between the schools that say that Buddha Nature is something attained - *created *- as a result of causal work and the schools that say, no, it's something we already are, it's just that we are under the illusion we are something else.
I think it's that the latter is true, but in practice it looks like the former. It looks like the practitioner is doing a bunch of stuff and, over time, to the external observer, the practitioner changes. But the truth is the new habits spring forth naturally from the work of clearing out obscurations, smoothing out the tangles in the folds of the Khu, so the light of the Khabs shines through to illuminate the world around it.
There *is *work done, but it's not causal work that creates something new in the way a carpenter might (linear causality); it's more like gardening, where the conditions are worked on (daily watering, for example), and something naturally occurs (non-linear causality?).
-
In Sutra where vows are given a Buddha is created. In Dzogchen where your practice unfolds Buddha - there is no law but do what thou wilt. For me my practice unfolded no smoking, no alcohol, vegetarian etc. and it was easy to do my will.
In the end, the result of created or unfolded should be Buddha nature. -
@gurugeorge said
"
@Alrah said
"
At the end perhaps any such distinction between do what you want and do what thou wilt is meaningless? Just a thought."Hehe, yes Alrah. In fact, it's funny how people speculate and ponder what's meant by "will" - what they *should *be speculating and pondering about is what's meant by "thou"
" -
@Modes said
"Maybe someone has a clue what is so deeper in Dzogchen than in Zen?"
The student asked the master “When there is no clutching or clinging, what of it?”
The master said “Surely the way is thus”
The student asked “And isn’t that the truth of our original nature?”
“Clutching, clinging” Was the reply.
-
Dzogchen ( Tibetan, translated from the Sanskrit Mahasandhi) has at least 2 meanings:
- The primordial state of every sentient being.
- Teaching. Dzogchen is a teaching that gives paths to discover the primordial state and develop it to achieve realization ( enlightenment). In Tibet Dzogchen is considered an advanced and secret teaching on nonduality, i.e. it is thought to be the absolute/ultimate teaching of pure and total awareness (see also Maha Ati Tantra )
There are two different main lineages of Dzogchen:
- Buddhist: first taught by Guru Garab Dorje
- Bön (Bon)
According to the first historical teacher of Nyingma Dzogchen lineage, Garab Dorje , Dzogchen has three key points:
- Direct introduction to one's own nature (Tib., ngo rang thog-tu sprod-pa)
- Direct discovery of this unique state (Tib., thag gcig thog-tu bcad-pa)
- Remain in this state until liberation (Tib., gdeng grol thog-tu bca'-pa)
In Tibetan Buddhism Dzogchen is practiced mainly by the Nyingma school, although all four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism practice it to some extent.
From: www.economicexpert.com/a/Dzogchen.html
The three key points can be compared to the A.'.A.'. system:
- 1=10 – 4=7
- 5=6
- 6=5 – 9=2
-
Good to see other people here interested in Dzogchen. I am writing here so that I can find this later and think about it more... The Art and Universe of trekcho and thodgal are interesting parallels, but the only thing I notice is that it is more confusing when symbolized. The experience afterward being "Tiphareth?" Well, I don't know about that, but I do know it feels great. Never met my HGA, only the inner guru (who did not speak to me or even remotely come close, as it would be thoroughly pointless).
