Jackson Peterson
Kyle, do you still believe what Malcolm was trying to pass off as "authentic" Dzogchen teaching regarding "realization of rigpa"?
Question to Malcolm: "Stian is saying you told him that: ""Malcolm told me that whatever I experience will not be rigpa, as I have not recieved direct introduction." Did you say that Malcolm Smith? Is it true that you feel as Kyle does that no one can experience rigpa without first having received a Dzogchen direct introduction?
Malcolm responds:
"Yes, no one, apart from Samantabhadra, can discover their primordial state without first receiving either the fourth empowerment or direct introduction.(now next he discusses Dzogchen specifically) But in terms of Dzogchen, that direct introduction does not necessarily need to be in a formal ritual. But there must be a master who intends to transmit and a student who intends to receive transmission."
Malcolm said: ""Yes, no one, apart from Samantabhadra, can discover their primordial state without first receiving either the fourth empowerment or direct introduction.".
That means no one can be fully enlightened regarding their own "primordial state" without Dzogchen, as though Dzogchen holds the "entry rights" to total realization!
First off, Malcolm is completely wrong. Anyone can discover their "primordial state" without "Dzogchen". What an arrogant position!
Secondly the individual actually is "Samantabhadra", the primordial Buddha, it is not some "other".
This "Dzogchen only" view is not true in any way. Many great Zen masters like Dogen, Huineng, Bodhidharma etc. etc. achieved total realization of their "primordial state" without Dzogchen. Also all the great Masters of Mahamudra realized the "primordial state" like Saraha, Niguma, Maitripa, Sabari, Naropa etc. Also I am sure Nagarjuna did as well. Also the great Mahasiddhas also realized the "primordial state".
Malcolm also shared: "The teachings of the Agamas/NIkayas (the early teachings of the Buddha that Theravada follows) results solely in the eradication of afflictions, not the attainment of omniscience."
And "Mahayāna (Zen, etc.) also only takes one to the eleventh bhumi, and not total buddhahood (thirteenth bhumi)".
Do the people in this group really believe what Kyle and Malcolm are insisting upon? Dzogchen is the only way to discover our "primordial state" fully?
Comments:
Piotr Ludwiński: Who then introduced Gautama Siddhartha Buddha to "rig pa"?
Jackson Peterson: Well, according Malcolm's theory, Gautama couldn't have reached the highest realization because he never got the Dzogchen "introduction" nor the "4th empowerment". lol....
Jackson Peterson: This statement from Malcolm: "But in terms of Dzogchen, that direct introduction does not necessarily need to be in a formal ritual. But there must be a master who intends to transmit and a student who intends to receive transmission." This means that a student of Dzogchen by books and experienced friends only, could not realize "rigpa" or their primordial state because they did not have a Dzogchen master "intend" to transmit specifically to them. This makes Dzogchen into some system with "magic wands". Trungpa has a marvelous video where he says "Transmission does not come from without, it actually is one's transmission from oneself to oneself"
This is true, because "Samantabhadra" is you, the Buddha within, the only Buddha you will ever meet!
Like · · January 1 at 7:03pm
Joel Agee, Elena Nezhinsky and Stephanie Marie like this.
Nicholas Mason I am Samantabhadra and there is no guru.
January 1 at 7:06pm · Like
Rob Matthews Happy New Year Jackson! Great question. I can find reasons to agree with both positions. I can also see that if people can only see Malcolm's view it is not helpful and may cause further confusion. Thus I appreciate your bringing this up.
January 1 at 7:44pm · Edited · Like · 4
Nicholas Mason Jackson Peterson, what does Samatabadhra have to do with this issue?
January 1 at 8:00pm · Like
Jon Norris In a recent Dzogchen retreat, Keith Dowman told the retreatants, "This transmission is not from me (Keith) to you, but from Kuntuzangpo [Samantabhadra] into the vast spaciousness." In other words, from spaciousness to spaciousness; anyone can awaken here and now if the karma ripens on the spot. However, a Nirmanakaya transmission can certainly serve as a potent catalyst. To have a realized master is a great blessing, but not a necessity. Buddha had many transmissions that got him nowhere. He rejected them all. He found the right ticket under a Bodhi Tree!
January 1 at 9:43pm · Like · 2
Stephanie Marie I believe this myth is encouraged because it keeps people putting money into pockets if gurus and donating to the monastery. Donations to monastery should be done out of compassion and respect, but I understand the fear there, that westerners with thier big money won't donate if they think they can achieve this state without help. I can see where a teacher or friend is instrumental, but even saying that it can't be done, or is necessary is ignorant; thank you Jackson. I wholeheartedly agree.
January 1 at 9:50pm · Like · 1
Greg Goode I can see how a literally-interpreted orthodoxy can lead to these conclusions. But are they perhaps a provisional teaching that gets pacified and sublated later? I don't know since I don't know Dzogchen.
Most Buddhists are not Dzogchenpas, and there are a few non-Buddhists in the world. So look at some of the results if this stuff is taken as literal and final: Gautama didn't get Dzogchen transmission, and neither did Socrates, Pyrrho, Jesus, Ramana, or other non-Buddhists. Not to mention the non-famous folks. Does Malcolm think that (1) those claims are really true? (2) there are no other ways to lasting peace? His way or the highway?
Religious exclusivism is so tasteless in the 21st century. With people fighting and killing all over the world, what is the value and result of such "my view only" positions?
Does Kyle really say these same things?
January 1 at 11:31pm · Like · 4
Greg Goode Most Buddhists are not Dzogchenpas, and there are also a few non-Buddhists in the world. So look at some of the results if this stuff is taken as literal and final: Gautama didn't get Dzogchen transmission, and neither did Socrates, Pyrrho, Jesus, Ra...See More
January 1 at 11:35pm · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith Jax wrote" This means that a student of Dzogchen by books and experienced friends only, could not realize "rigpa" or their primordial state because they did not have a Dzogchen master "intend" to transmit specifically to them. " Hi Jax, a guru is an experienced friend. Even the so called 'sems sde" texts discuss the need for a Guru. Someone who merely reads books about Dzogchen and does not seek out teachings with a qualified "friend" however, is like someone who reads books about delicious food but never eats any. As far as the other positions that you mention: these are not my positions, these are the positions of Mahāyāna sūtra and Vajrayāna tantra. The necessity for empowerment is mentioned in the famous Dzogchen root tantra, the sgra thal rgyur tantra, not to mention the Mahāmudra tilaka tantra as well as the Dasabhumika sütra and Lanka-avatara sūtra, amongst many other tantras and sūtras. If one wishes to follow Buddhadharma there is a precise way for each of the paths taught in Buddhadharma. If one wishes to follow some other path, there is also a precise way to do so in each of those paths. If one wishes to follow one's own fabrications, one may do as one pleases. Happy New Year.
January 1 at 11:57pm · Edited · Like · 1
Nicholas Mason Buddhadharma is your own fabrication.
January 1 at 11:41pm · Like
Jackson Peterson Malcolm Smith, how narrow minded of you to give credence to such self-serving literature! Your comment to Stian is classic: "saying that whatever experience he has it can't be rigpa because he did not receive "direct introduction".
January 1 at 11:42pm · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith Hi Greg Goode: I was reporting what the textual systems contained with Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna maintain. For example, the idea that Gautama Buddha attained awakening by himself in what is now present day Bodhgaya is an Agamic position. If you are a Theravadin, for example, then the Mahāyāna story that Buddha attained full awakening (i.e. samyaksambodhi) many eons ago through receiving an abhisheka of light (as described in the Dasabhumika sūtra) is not going to make any sense. If you are a Mahāyanī, the idea that Buddha actually attained samyaksambuddhahood only in India will not make any sense. As for my personal point of view. I think the notion of liberation expressed by Samkhya for example, or Shankara, or Nāgārjuna are sufficiently different that they do not correlate in any meaningful way. For myself, I am a follower of Buddhadharma. If people can achieve happiness and liberation through other paths outside of Buddhadharma, then I am happy for them.
January 1 at 11:57pm · Edited · Like · 3
Malcolm Smith Greg Goode: also, in these discussions, often what is left unstated as a premise is what "liberation" means. Once that is defined, then we can have a meaningful discussion about the different notions of liberation as presented by various systems both within and without India. Until that point, what we usually have is a muddle of people loudly proclaiming various uncontextualized opinions. For example, lets start with Kaivalya, the result of Saṃkhya. How does this compare with being saved by Jesus?
January 1 at 11:54pm · Edited · Like · 2
Greg Goode Malcolm, yup, that's facebook, "a muddle of people loudly proclaiming various uncontextualized opinions."
January 2 at 12:06am · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson Greg Goode, the opinions are often not less valid when seen in context. As a weak defense someone may claim that something "was taken out of context" as a diversion. It's sometimes impossible to respond with the "correct" context, it won't ever be good enough!
January 2 at 12:15am · Like
Jackson Peterson Just to clarify, I am only having an academic debate with Malcolm Smith I respect Malcolm's integrity and scholarly precision. I consider him a good friend... just saying
January 2 at 12:25am · Like
Greg Goode Jackson, I don't understand what you are saying about context.
January 2 at 12:30am · Like
Jackson Peterson Greg Goode, in response to your "uncontextuslized opinions"comment...
January 2 at 12:45am · Like · 1
Greg Goode Any communication has some context, all the way from a Stop sign to a thousand-year-old monastery. Woudln't you say that Facebook lies on the sparse side?
January 2 at 12:50am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson We'll, the context is usually implicit but often unnoticed by casual thread browsers...
January 2 at 12:56am · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith Greg Goode: "Religious exclusivism is so tasteless in the 21st century. With people fighting and killing all over the world, what is the value and result of such "my view only" positions?" I was not maintaning a "my view" only perspective. I was discussing what the textual systems themselves say about themselves. Even the Buddha claims in the Mahaparinibbanasutta and others that there are no awakened people outside the stream entrants, once-returners, non-returners and arhats of his Dharma and Vinaya. In the NIkayas, he lays out very specifically what he considers an awakened person to be. If someone matches that description, then they are awakened by that criteria.
January 2 at 1:13am · Edited · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson Malcolm Smith, did Buddha also explain that no one can realize "emptiness" until they reach the third vision of thogal? Was the original Buddha wrong or the Lama you cited?
January 2 at 1:25am · Like
Malcolm Smith Hi Jax: you are mixing apples and oranges -- Khenpo Ngachung did not say that one could not realize emptiness prior to the third vision. It is just that if you are an ordinary person, the third vision equals the first bodhisattva stage. However, the realization of the first bhumi does not depend on thogal at all, and he never said it did. You should read more carefully, context, after all, is everything. The reason why I don't participate much on Facebook discussions is that the structure of these boards does not lend itself to careful conversation, unlike forums like Dharmawheel etc. It is not a defect of people, it is a defect of facebook.
January 2 at 1:59am · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith Incidentally, the realization of Mahāyāna emptiness does equal the first bodhisattva stage, and there are detailed and myriad descriptions of what this meant to those folks who wrote the Mahāyāna sūtras that describe this realization.
January 2 at 2:01am · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith It seems to me that there is a sort if "liberation lite (tm)" that has affected much conversation about these topics. There is a lot of "all oneism" that affects these kinds of conversations, a POV that fails to respect the fact that different paths are different for very specific reasons.
January 2 at 2:03am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson Gee, Malcolm several here have mentioned that" One doesn't realize actual emptiness until the third vision of thogal" along with quoting you. You made clear that "trekchod" does not require the realization of emptiness. Kadag is "emptiness" realization, you cannot "relax completely" in trekchod without the realization of two-fold emptiness, its not possible. Thogal is realization of a Buddha's Body of Light, Lhundrub, along with the full actualization of rigpa.
January 2 at 8:43am · Like
Aditya Prasad Greg, IME Dzogchenpas do not agree that Maharshi (or any other non-Buddhist) attained the realization of a Buddha. See, for example, this big stink over at Vajracakra regarding a Maharshi quote being included in the translation of a Dzogchen text: http://vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=20#p11619
Vajracakra • View topic - The Marvelous Primordial State...
vajracakra.com
January 2 at 1:12pm · Like · Remove Preview
Kyle Dixon Jackson, For the record, no one ever said that the realization of emptiness belongs solely to the third vision.
Emptiness can be realized via Madhyamaka, emptiness can be realized via Mahāmudrā (both essence and generation/completion stages), it can be realized via lamdré, via dzogchen klong sde, it can be realized via both of the aforementioned man ngag sde practices, and various other practices.
Buddhas are buddhas because they have realized emptiness, and being that there are numerous paths and ways to accomplish buddhahood, there are equally numerous paths and methods to realize emptiness.
January 2 at 2:38pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Also, the realization of two-fold emptiness (i.e. the realization of ka dag) is the result of tregchö, if ka dag realization was a necessary prerequisite to practicing tregchö, the practice would be impossible.
January 2 at 2:43pm · Like · 1
Kyle, do you still believe what Malcolm was trying to pass off as "authentic" Dzogchen teaching regarding "realization of rigpa"?
Question to Malcolm: "Stian is saying you told him that: ""Malcolm told me that whatever I experience will not be rigpa, as I have not recieved direct introduction." Did you say that Malcolm Smith? Is it true that you feel as Kyle does that no one can experience rigpa without first having received a Dzogchen direct introduction?
Malcolm responds:
"Yes, no one, apart from Samantabhadra, can discover their primordial state without first receiving either the fourth empowerment or direct introduction.(now next he discusses Dzogchen specifically) But in terms of Dzogchen, that direct introduction does not necessarily need to be in a formal ritual. But there must be a master who intends to transmit and a student who intends to receive transmission."
Malcolm said: ""Yes, no one, apart from Samantabhadra, can discover their primordial state without first receiving either the fourth empowerment or direct introduction.".
That means no one can be fully enlightened regarding their own "primordial state" without Dzogchen, as though Dzogchen holds the "entry rights" to total realization!
First off, Malcolm is completely wrong. Anyone can discover their "primordial state" without "Dzogchen". What an arrogant position!
Secondly the individual actually is "Samantabhadra", the primordial Buddha, it is not some "other".
This "Dzogchen only" view is not true in any way. Many great Zen masters like Dogen, Huineng, Bodhidharma etc. etc. achieved total realization of their "primordial state" without Dzogchen. Also all the great Masters of Mahamudra realized the "primordial state" like Saraha, Niguma, Maitripa, Sabari, Naropa etc. Also I am sure Nagarjuna did as well. Also the great Mahasiddhas also realized the "primordial state".
Malcolm also shared: "The teachings of the Agamas/NIkayas (the early teachings of the Buddha that Theravada follows) results solely in the eradication of afflictions, not the attainment of omniscience."
And "Mahayāna (Zen, etc.) also only takes one to the eleventh bhumi, and not total buddhahood (thirteenth bhumi)".
Do the people in this group really believe what Kyle and Malcolm are insisting upon? Dzogchen is the only way to discover our "primordial state" fully?
Comments:
Piotr Ludwiński: Who then introduced Gautama Siddhartha Buddha to "rig pa"?
Jackson Peterson: Well, according Malcolm's theory, Gautama couldn't have reached the highest realization because he never got the Dzogchen "introduction" nor the "4th empowerment". lol....
Jackson Peterson: This statement from Malcolm: "But in terms of Dzogchen, that direct introduction does not necessarily need to be in a formal ritual. But there must be a master who intends to transmit and a student who intends to receive transmission." This means that a student of Dzogchen by books and experienced friends only, could not realize "rigpa" or their primordial state because they did not have a Dzogchen master "intend" to transmit specifically to them. This makes Dzogchen into some system with "magic wands". Trungpa has a marvelous video where he says "Transmission does not come from without, it actually is one's transmission from oneself to oneself"
This is true, because "Samantabhadra" is you, the Buddha within, the only Buddha you will ever meet!
Like · · January 1 at 7:03pm
Joel Agee, Elena Nezhinsky and Stephanie Marie like this.
Nicholas Mason I am Samantabhadra and there is no guru.
January 1 at 7:06pm · Like
Rob Matthews Happy New Year Jackson! Great question. I can find reasons to agree with both positions. I can also see that if people can only see Malcolm's view it is not helpful and may cause further confusion. Thus I appreciate your bringing this up.
January 1 at 7:44pm · Edited · Like · 4
Nicholas Mason Jackson Peterson, what does Samatabadhra have to do with this issue?
January 1 at 8:00pm · Like
Jon Norris In a recent Dzogchen retreat, Keith Dowman told the retreatants, "This transmission is not from me (Keith) to you, but from Kuntuzangpo [Samantabhadra] into the vast spaciousness." In other words, from spaciousness to spaciousness; anyone can awaken here and now if the karma ripens on the spot. However, a Nirmanakaya transmission can certainly serve as a potent catalyst. To have a realized master is a great blessing, but not a necessity. Buddha had many transmissions that got him nowhere. He rejected them all. He found the right ticket under a Bodhi Tree!
January 1 at 9:43pm · Like · 2
Stephanie Marie I believe this myth is encouraged because it keeps people putting money into pockets if gurus and donating to the monastery. Donations to monastery should be done out of compassion and respect, but I understand the fear there, that westerners with thier big money won't donate if they think they can achieve this state without help. I can see where a teacher or friend is instrumental, but even saying that it can't be done, or is necessary is ignorant; thank you Jackson. I wholeheartedly agree.
January 1 at 9:50pm · Like · 1
Greg Goode I can see how a literally-interpreted orthodoxy can lead to these conclusions. But are they perhaps a provisional teaching that gets pacified and sublated later? I don't know since I don't know Dzogchen.
Most Buddhists are not Dzogchenpas, and there are a few non-Buddhists in the world. So look at some of the results if this stuff is taken as literal and final: Gautama didn't get Dzogchen transmission, and neither did Socrates, Pyrrho, Jesus, Ramana, or other non-Buddhists. Not to mention the non-famous folks. Does Malcolm think that (1) those claims are really true? (2) there are no other ways to lasting peace? His way or the highway?
Religious exclusivism is so tasteless in the 21st century. With people fighting and killing all over the world, what is the value and result of such "my view only" positions?
Does Kyle really say these same things?
January 1 at 11:31pm · Like · 4
Greg Goode Most Buddhists are not Dzogchenpas, and there are also a few non-Buddhists in the world. So look at some of the results if this stuff is taken as literal and final: Gautama didn't get Dzogchen transmission, and neither did Socrates, Pyrrho, Jesus, Ra...See More
January 1 at 11:35pm · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith Jax wrote" This means that a student of Dzogchen by books and experienced friends only, could not realize "rigpa" or their primordial state because they did not have a Dzogchen master "intend" to transmit specifically to them. " Hi Jax, a guru is an experienced friend. Even the so called 'sems sde" texts discuss the need for a Guru. Someone who merely reads books about Dzogchen and does not seek out teachings with a qualified "friend" however, is like someone who reads books about delicious food but never eats any. As far as the other positions that you mention: these are not my positions, these are the positions of Mahāyāna sūtra and Vajrayāna tantra. The necessity for empowerment is mentioned in the famous Dzogchen root tantra, the sgra thal rgyur tantra, not to mention the Mahāmudra tilaka tantra as well as the Dasabhumika sütra and Lanka-avatara sūtra, amongst many other tantras and sūtras. If one wishes to follow Buddhadharma there is a precise way for each of the paths taught in Buddhadharma. If one wishes to follow some other path, there is also a precise way to do so in each of those paths. If one wishes to follow one's own fabrications, one may do as one pleases. Happy New Year.
January 1 at 11:57pm · Edited · Like · 1
Nicholas Mason Buddhadharma is your own fabrication.
January 1 at 11:41pm · Like
Jackson Peterson Malcolm Smith, how narrow minded of you to give credence to such self-serving literature! Your comment to Stian is classic: "saying that whatever experience he has it can't be rigpa because he did not receive "direct introduction".
January 1 at 11:42pm · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith Hi Greg Goode: I was reporting what the textual systems contained with Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna maintain. For example, the idea that Gautama Buddha attained awakening by himself in what is now present day Bodhgaya is an Agamic position. If you are a Theravadin, for example, then the Mahāyāna story that Buddha attained full awakening (i.e. samyaksambodhi) many eons ago through receiving an abhisheka of light (as described in the Dasabhumika sūtra) is not going to make any sense. If you are a Mahāyanī, the idea that Buddha actually attained samyaksambuddhahood only in India will not make any sense. As for my personal point of view. I think the notion of liberation expressed by Samkhya for example, or Shankara, or Nāgārjuna are sufficiently different that they do not correlate in any meaningful way. For myself, I am a follower of Buddhadharma. If people can achieve happiness and liberation through other paths outside of Buddhadharma, then I am happy for them.
January 1 at 11:57pm · Edited · Like · 3
Malcolm Smith Greg Goode: also, in these discussions, often what is left unstated as a premise is what "liberation" means. Once that is defined, then we can have a meaningful discussion about the different notions of liberation as presented by various systems both within and without India. Until that point, what we usually have is a muddle of people loudly proclaiming various uncontextualized opinions. For example, lets start with Kaivalya, the result of Saṃkhya. How does this compare with being saved by Jesus?
January 1 at 11:54pm · Edited · Like · 2
Greg Goode Malcolm, yup, that's facebook, "a muddle of people loudly proclaiming various uncontextualized opinions."
January 2 at 12:06am · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson Greg Goode, the opinions are often not less valid when seen in context. As a weak defense someone may claim that something "was taken out of context" as a diversion. It's sometimes impossible to respond with the "correct" context, it won't ever be good enough!
January 2 at 12:15am · Like
Jackson Peterson Just to clarify, I am only having an academic debate with Malcolm Smith I respect Malcolm's integrity and scholarly precision. I consider him a good friend... just saying
January 2 at 12:25am · Like
Greg Goode Jackson, I don't understand what you are saying about context.
January 2 at 12:30am · Like
Jackson Peterson Greg Goode, in response to your "uncontextuslized opinions"comment...
January 2 at 12:45am · Like · 1
Greg Goode Any communication has some context, all the way from a Stop sign to a thousand-year-old monastery. Woudln't you say that Facebook lies on the sparse side?
January 2 at 12:50am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson We'll, the context is usually implicit but often unnoticed by casual thread browsers...
January 2 at 12:56am · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith Greg Goode: "Religious exclusivism is so tasteless in the 21st century. With people fighting and killing all over the world, what is the value and result of such "my view only" positions?" I was not maintaning a "my view" only perspective. I was discussing what the textual systems themselves say about themselves. Even the Buddha claims in the Mahaparinibbanasutta and others that there are no awakened people outside the stream entrants, once-returners, non-returners and arhats of his Dharma and Vinaya. In the NIkayas, he lays out very specifically what he considers an awakened person to be. If someone matches that description, then they are awakened by that criteria.
January 2 at 1:13am · Edited · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson Malcolm Smith, did Buddha also explain that no one can realize "emptiness" until they reach the third vision of thogal? Was the original Buddha wrong or the Lama you cited?
January 2 at 1:25am · Like
Malcolm Smith Hi Jax: you are mixing apples and oranges -- Khenpo Ngachung did not say that one could not realize emptiness prior to the third vision. It is just that if you are an ordinary person, the third vision equals the first bodhisattva stage. However, the realization of the first bhumi does not depend on thogal at all, and he never said it did. You should read more carefully, context, after all, is everything. The reason why I don't participate much on Facebook discussions is that the structure of these boards does not lend itself to careful conversation, unlike forums like Dharmawheel etc. It is not a defect of people, it is a defect of facebook.
January 2 at 1:59am · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith Incidentally, the realization of Mahāyāna emptiness does equal the first bodhisattva stage, and there are detailed and myriad descriptions of what this meant to those folks who wrote the Mahāyāna sūtras that describe this realization.
January 2 at 2:01am · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith It seems to me that there is a sort if "liberation lite (tm)" that has affected much conversation about these topics. There is a lot of "all oneism" that affects these kinds of conversations, a POV that fails to respect the fact that different paths are different for very specific reasons.
January 2 at 2:03am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson Gee, Malcolm several here have mentioned that" One doesn't realize actual emptiness until the third vision of thogal" along with quoting you. You made clear that "trekchod" does not require the realization of emptiness. Kadag is "emptiness" realization, you cannot "relax completely" in trekchod without the realization of two-fold emptiness, its not possible. Thogal is realization of a Buddha's Body of Light, Lhundrub, along with the full actualization of rigpa.
January 2 at 8:43am · Like
Aditya Prasad Greg, IME Dzogchenpas do not agree that Maharshi (or any other non-Buddhist) attained the realization of a Buddha. See, for example, this big stink over at Vajracakra regarding a Maharshi quote being included in the translation of a Dzogchen text: http://vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1086&start=20#p11619
Vajracakra • View topic - The Marvelous Primordial State...
vajracakra.com
January 2 at 1:12pm · Like · Remove Preview
Kyle Dixon Jackson, For the record, no one ever said that the realization of emptiness belongs solely to the third vision.
Emptiness can be realized via Madhyamaka, emptiness can be realized via Mahāmudrā (both essence and generation/completion stages), it can be realized via lamdré, via dzogchen klong sde, it can be realized via both of the aforementioned man ngag sde practices, and various other practices.
Buddhas are buddhas because they have realized emptiness, and being that there are numerous paths and ways to accomplish buddhahood, there are equally numerous paths and methods to realize emptiness.
January 2 at 2:38pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon Also, the realization of two-fold emptiness (i.e. the realization of ka dag) is the result of tregchö, if ka dag realization was a necessary prerequisite to practicing tregchö, the practice would be impossible.
January 2 at 2:43pm · Like · 1
No comments:
Post a Comment