Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Soh Wei Yu, modified 2 Years ago at 1/19/22 7:11 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/25/21 11:49 AM

Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 75 Join Date: 2/13/21 Recent Posts
“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.”
-- Dzogchen Text "Unwritten Tantra" (yi ge med pa'i rgyud) Acarya Malcolm Smith's translation

Hey all, just thought of creating a post here because somewhere in 2018 I think I posted in DhO that my cursory reading of Longchenpa gave me an impression that he posited an unchanging ground of being. This of course did not sit with me very well due to the nature of the insights, especially the later stages of insights I went through, which is similar to my mentor’s Thusness Seven Stages http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Also those who went through all the way on the MCTB path would also see through and dissolve all tendencies to reify an unchanging ground of being (aka the golden chains) on the journey from MCTB’s third to fourth path.

Such an unchanging ground of being would also contradict very fundamental Buddhist teachings on Anatman that is common to the Pali canon teachings (and also twofold emptiness as emphasized in Prajnaparamita, Madhyamika, but also mentioned in Kalaka Sutta/Kaccayanagotta Sutta/Phena Sutta/etc), Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism which refutes a stable self/Self existing within or outside of the five aggregates, and would make it indistinguishable from the non-Buddhist doctrines of Atman-Brahman which posits an unchanging metaphysical ground of being, such as those in Advaita and other mystical teachings found in all religions.

However, after attending Dzogchen teachings of Acarya Malcolm Smith online with John Tan and 300+ others last year (made possible due to pandemic which led to many teachers offering online teachings), it became clear that Dzogchen is completely consistent with the fundamental doctrine of Anatman and refutes any unchanging ground of being. The original Dzogchen tantras/texts also refute eternalism and non-Buddhist views very clearly, including the Dzogchen text translated by Malcolm, 'Buddhahood in This Life: The Great Commentary by Vimalamitra'. You can also read the view of 'basis' in Dzogchen here, explained by Malcolm: https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html Also, as I said in DhO earlier, ""Another interesting 'technical' point since this is DhO. There was a point in his retreat where Arcaya Malcolm Smith described how at the mature phase of Dzogchen practice, the 'vidya'/'rigpa' (the knowing/knowledge) is exhausted where the vidya and dhatu (something like knowing and field of experience) totally collapsed in a 1:1 synchrony (and he gestured two circles coming together), whereas before that point [the exhaustion of vidya] there is a sort of out of phase issue between vidya and dhatu. That's said to happen in the fourth vision (in terms of bhumi map, Malcolm mentioned years ago that's 8th to 16th bhumi based on some text). Somehow it really reminded me of one of Daniel's descriptions in MCTB on fourth path. His student Kyle did inform me that it is the same as what I call anatta realization [which I realised almost 10 years ago, it is the same as MCTB's fourth path]. Also, Malcolm mentioned many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena [although this is not annihilation as appearances/pure vision still manifest] (elaboration: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2020/08/acarya-malcolm-on-dzogchen-and-advaita.html )."

Likewise, Kyle Dixon, that Malcolm told me over dinner was the first student of his that totally understood his teaching, also said in 2014, "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle. Kyle recently made me a moderator at the Dzogchen subreddit but unfortunately I'm not really doing my moderating job there very much (if at all).

In instances where the nature of mind is spoken as 'unchanging', it is not spoken in the sense of positing something (like a ground of being) not undergoing change, but in the sense that there never was a 'mind' to begin with - both mind and phenomena, subject and object, are empty and non-arisen, and as such entities have never truly arisen to begin with, can never be found to begin with, the abiding and cessation of said entities cannot be established either. Or as my mentor John Tan said, "If seen is just seen, then there is no movement. In the seen only the seen is also no seer, no seeing and nothing seen.  There is no changing nor unchanging." - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/10/in-seen-only-seen-is-also-no-seer-no.html

Another two Dzogchen teachers that clearly teach from the insight of anatman include Yogi Prabodha Jnana and Yogini Abhaya Devi - www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/04/way-of-bodhi.html

Sure, there are many Dzogchen teachers who seem to hold the view of an unchanging ground of being, but this is a problem in All traditions - Theravada (particularly: Thai Forest), Mahayana and Vajrayana, and does not reflect only specific schools, sects or subsects of Buddhism. I can find people who realised Anatman or the equivalent of MCTB's 4th Path in Theravada, in Mahayana/Zen/Ch'an, in Tibetan Buddhism (each of the four subsects - Gelug, Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma... along with Dzogchen/Mahamudra/etc), and also I can find many (actually, majority) of those with realisations in any of these traditions falling into the extremes of eternalism and nihilism, falling into the 'golden chains of anagami' in Daniel's lingo. Most people do not make it all the way to realising Anatman proper, yet a minority does, in any of the Buddhist traditions. But it is clear that the realisation of Anatman is a key fundamental insight, the most important one, in all Buddhist traditions, be it Theravada/Zen/Ch'an/Dzogchen/Mahamudra/Tantra/etc.

Anyway I wanted to share a recent findings made by my mentor Thusness/John Tan where Longchenpa clearly described Anatman insight. It is now very clear that Longchenpa did not fall into any extremes of eternalism/nihilism or any of the 'golden chains of anagami' that Daniel warned about. This is an important point for Dzogchen because as Malcolm said, "In general, these days Dzogchen is Longchenpa's Dzogchen, at least as far as how Buddhists present it. Longchenpa is the gold standard, as ChNN stated many times."


 Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet:
Investigating the Distinction Between Dualistic Mind (sems) and
Primordial knowing (ye shes)

John Tan: He goes on to point out that self-occuring primordial
knowing lacks most of the qualities associated with the Yogacara svasaf!1vedana - its
alleged reality, internality, reflexivity, self-evidence, and accessibility to introspection - but
then cautions that "should one become attached to these [rDzogs chen gnoseological] terms
as denoting something real, you won 't find any difference from the Cittamatra conception of
svasaf!1vedana, that is, the cognition which is devoid of subject-object duality and which is
simply auto-illumination.,,247 In highlighting the many drawbacks of reifying the mental,
Klong chen pa rules out any basis for confusing the gnoseological and mentalist conceptions
of self-awareness : for the idealist, self-awareness is a real entity having real characteristics,
whereas for the rDzogs chen pa, it is simply a vivid auto-manifestation, a process lacking
any reality whatsoever.

Soh: What book is this?

John Tan: The Philosophical Foundations of
Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet
Investigating the Distinction Between Dualistic Mind
(sems) and Primordial knowing (ye shes)
David Higgins

( Soh: https://app.box.com/s/1xps30kdq31p0ljfmjvdlh5oiutzc6a8 )

 Tan:I like this book.  Clarifies most of the dzogchen terms and clear
lystates that longchenpa rejects self-reflective awareness
distinguishing dzogchen from yogacara.  And in line with anatta
insight.  To longchenpa self-awareness "is simply a vivid
auto-manifestation, a process lacking any reality whatsoever".
Soh: Oh wow
John Tan:Finally found one book that aligns anatta insight and dzogchen clearly.
 yeah i wonder why all (Correction: most of those I've read) the other
books on dzogchen (Except malcolm's) including on longchenpa is always
about mirror and reflection emoticon
[12:05 am, 04/10/2021] John Tan: If I din read this chapter, I too would have mistaken it as another awareness teaching.emoticon
 am, 04/10/2021] John Tan: Yeah.  I also agree with what longchenpa said
 how it is different and y "intellect" is not involved in just vivid

Soh: oic..

John Tan: According to the viewpoint of this system, he says, all phenomena
are self-luminous in the state of great primordial knowing like light in the sky, having
always been the very essence of this self-occuring primorial knowing which remains
naturally free from causes and conditions .263

John Tan:
I believe his "Buddha Nature Reconsidered" will be interesting too.

found buddha nature reconsidered: https://app.box.com/s/gzlz7xv8b1jwifcohgt09wj3hg1fiipr
John Tan: Now all the terms and phrases seem so clear to me when they use it.


Soh Wei Yu
Another passage that John Tan quoted is Longchenpa's blanket rejection of Yogacara.
John Tan: Read it. Longchenpa reject yogacara view in toto and accept prasangika.
From the book:
Klong chen pa' s blanket rejection of the Yogacara
svasaYflvedana . Of course, the main target of his sweeping critique, as he makes clear in his
Yid bzhin mdzod 'grel, is the Y ogacara proclivity to treat consciousness as a real entity with
real characteristics and to presuppose it in justifications of idealism: "It is eminently
reasonable to claim that any objects that appear are unreal, but we refute the claim that mind
is ultimately real.,,240 Klong chen pa is also patently opposed to allowing self-awareness a
conventional existence so that it can then be used to buttress representational epistemologies
that assume we can only know external objects (if indeed such are held to exist) through our
internal representations of them. Interestingly, his thoroughgoing rejection of Y ogacara
epistemology and his wholehearted endorsement of the *PrasaIigika stratagems · for
undermining any and all forms of realism (from substance ontologies to subjective idealism)
make his stance on svasaf!lvedana appear, for all intents and purposes, quite similar to the
dGe lugs pa position that Mi pham was criticizing.
What, then, are we left with when it comes to the rDzogs chen self-awareness? It
must be acknowledged that the rDzogs chen conception of rang rig does concur with some
elements of Santaraksita' s self-awareness, particularily its nondual and luminous character.
 · Reply
 · 2m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu, modified 2 Years ago at 10/28/21 9:53 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/25/21 12:00 PM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 75 Join Date: 2/13/21 Recent Posts
 [8:56 pm, 08/10/2021] John Tan: Read the foundation of dzogchen philosophy
[9:13 pm, 08/10/2021] John Tan: It is in the book

 book "foundation" goes in extensively to define what is zhi and kun
zhi, their histories and development...etc...both r termed as "ground"
which I do not think it as appropriate for a praxis that rest entirely
on abolishing "ground" even when talking abt "zhi".  Malcolm is more
cautious on this aspect.


Malcolm translate it as basis

 this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere
appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real
existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen

For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.
For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.

-- Nāgārjuna.

John Tan:

Although David Higgins used the word "ground", he qualifies it as "insubstantial and unestablished in any sense".
Also see: Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html

 4:35:37 PM] John Tan: I wonder y there is a need for Dzogchen to
emphasize so much on gzhi and kun gzhi.  I do not see any real help in
actual practice.  In fact seeing through self-nature is sufficient. 
Direct and simple and straight forward emoticon.  Although there r some
important points in the praxis of dzogchen.
[9/10/21, 4:39:30 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
 4:48:35 PM] John Tan: Also in early texts of Dzogchen and Nyingma
scholars actually do not differentiate between gzhi and kun gzhi.

[9/10/21, 5:20:19 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I see
[9/10/21, 7:23:42 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Mahamudra also talk about “ground” but dunno what term they use


The ground of purification is the mind itself,
indivisible cognitive clarity and emptiness.
That which purifies is the great vajra yoga of mahamudra.
What is to be purified are the adventitious,
temporary contaminations of confusion,
May the fruit of purification, the stainless dharmakaya, be manifest.
Resolving doubts about the ground brings conviction in the view.
Then keeping one's awareness unwavering in accordance with the view,
is the subtle pith of meditation.
Putting all aspects of meditation into practice is the supreme action.
The view, the meditation, the action--may there be confidence in these.
All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.
Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind
Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,
manifesting as everything whatsoever.
Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.
[9/10/21, 7:23:53 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I suppose dzogchen and mahamudra should be the same view
 7:57:53 PM] John Tan: Dzogchen is the path that starts from taking the
view that anatta is a seal, always and already so.
[9/10/21, 7:59:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. mahamudra is the same?
[9/10/21, 8:09:09 PM] John Tan: I guessed so but I don't want to comment on this.

 9:23:43 PM] John Tan: Original face means to realize that appearances
has always been one's radiance clarity, primordially luminous and
naturallly free.
[9/10/21, 9:23:56 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
 9:31:32 PM] John Tan: Problem is most ppl that engaged in the so called
 highest teachings r having a dualistic and substantialist view.  If we
do not recognize the nature of appearances and kept emphasizing on
primordial knowing, taking the non-progressive is imo a great disservice
 than help.
[9/10/21, 9:33:28 PM] John Tan: Just like when u r at I
M, u already like to talk about spontaneous presence which I caution u
don't talk about that until at least mature non-dual.
[9/10/21, 9:37:43 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. lol yeah
[10/10/21, 10:26:04 AM] John Tan: ‎
"It is possible, Klong chen pa suggests, to simply recognize this
nondual self­occuring primordial knowing in its pristine nakedness (rjen
 pa sang nge ba) - both as it
abides in its naked clarity and as it
continuously manifests as myriad objects - without hypostatizing it.273
For so long as "one thinks of the abiding and manifesting of cognition
as  two different things and talks about [the experience of] 'settling
in the nonconceptual essence' [but also of] 'preserving the expressive
energy as being free in its arising' , one's practice goes in two
directions and one fails to understand the key point."

[10/10/21, 10:36:16 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Oh.. nice
[10/10/21, 10:43:29 AM] John Tan: Reading it second time and still found many phrases that I like.
[10/10/21, 10:43:43 AM] John Tan: Really a treasure
‎[10/10/21, 11:10:56 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎"That is interesting that it distinguishes what would be anatta and no mind
I’m going to have to re-read the text"
- Kyle Dixon
[10/10/21, 11:16:44 AM] John Tan: Also in the very beginning
[10/10/21, 11:18:58 AM] Soh Wei Yu: In the beginning it talked about anatta?
 11:20:14 AM] John Tan: ""In this sense, primordial knowing is both a
vision of things as they are undistorted by reifications and a mode of
being and living that is commensurate with this vision.""

 Knowing is not defined as an entity like an ultimate awareness but
rather a vision of things undistorted by reifications and a lived
experienced of perfection of anatta insight.
[10/10/21, 12:07:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
‎[10/10/21, 1:12:07 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎‎Kyle Dixon:

Is primordial knowing a gloss of ye shes?
I assume so
Dzogchen will even go as far as to say Buddhas do not even have ye shes
Some Mahāyāna texts say this too
Because if they really had jñāna it could be misconstrued as a subjective reference point
[10/10/21, 1:13:22 PM] Soh Wei Yu: This reminds me of bodhidharma

[The questioner] continued asking: "What is 'taishang,' the supreme?
 signifies 'great,' and shang 'lofty.' It is called 'supreme' because it
 is the highest wondrous principle. Tai also signifies the primordial
stage. Though there are longlived ones of Yankang in the heavens of the
three realms, their luck runs out, which is why they end up again
transmigrating in the six spheres of existence. That 'ultimate' (tai) is
 not yet sufficient. And the bodhisattvas of the ten stages, though
having escaped life-and-death, have not yet plumbed the depths of this
wondrous principle. Their ultimate is also not yet [the one I am talking
 about]. Cultivation of mind in the ten stages gets rid of being in
order to enter nonbeing; this is again not yet the ultimate since it
does not get rid of both being and nonbeing and sticks to a middle path.
 But even if one has thoroughly discarded that middle path and the three
 locations [of inside, outside, and in between], and any place is that
of wondrous awakening - and even if a bodhisattva gets rid of these
three locations - one remains unable to free oneself of the wondrous.
This again is not yet the ultimate.
Now if one discards the wondrous,
 then even the very essence of the Buddha Way has no place to abide;
since no though is left, no discriminative thinking takes place. Both
the deluded mind and wisdom have forever expired, and perceptions and
reflections are at an end - calm and without ado. This is called tai; it
 means the ultimate of the principle. And shang means 'without peer.'
Hence it is called taishang, the ultimate. This is simply another
designation for Buddha, the Tathagata."
[End of] Treatise on No-Mind in one fascicle.

 1:24:08 PM] John Tan: The point Dzogchen wants to make is "primordial"
-- has always been the case before beginning, always and already so. In
order words in ATR context, anatta is a seal, always and already so thus
 differentiating it from effortful and progressive stage or even
transformation taking result as the path, familiarizing one's basis
rather than seeing it as the result of cause and effect.
1:34:38 PM] John Tan: What I find lacking in the book is pointing out
the nature of "appearances".  When the notion of "existence" is being
stripped (deconstructed) from phenomena, the nature of what appears.
[10/10/21, 1:57:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
‎[10/10/21, 1:57:18 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Kyle Dixon: Longchenpa:

 the [ultimate] perspective the meditative equipoise of the realised (sa
 thob) and awakened beings (sangs rgyas), there exists neither object of
 knowledge (shes bya) nor knowing cognitive process (shes byed) and so
forth, for there is neither object to apprehend nor the subject that
does the apprehending. Even the exalted cognitive process (yeshes) as a
subject ceases (zhi ba) to operate.
[10/10/21, 1:59:33 PM] John Tan: (thumbs up)


Books and Websites Recommendations,
David Higgins,



Soh Wei Yu, modified 2 Years ago at 10/25/21 12:38 PM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/25/21 12:06 PM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 75 Join Date: 2/13/21 Recent Posts

The Practice Of Dzogchen: Longchen Rabjam's Writings on the Great Perfection

 Book recommendation:

The Practice Of Dzogchen: Longchen Rabjam's Writings on the Great Perfection https://www.amazon.com/Practice-Dzogchen-Perfection-Buddhayana-Foundation/dp/155939434X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1    

John Tan: " https://www.shambhala.com/snowlion_articles/the-practice-of-dzogchen-2/ Exactly what I am searching"

IDENTIFICATION (OF THE BASIS) THROUGH (UNDERSTANDING THE) VIEW The External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness

(i) The appearances are unreal reflections like the eight examples of illusion.

Every aspect of the five objects, such as form, included in the phenomena of the world and beings, are mere appearances with no true existence. All the appearances which have appeared to both the pure perceptions of the Buddhas and the impure perceptions of deluded beings are the percepts of wisdom and the mind. While the appearances are appearing to both perceptions, they are appearing with no inherent existence (Rang-bZhin), like a reflection in a mirror and rainbow rays in the sky. To the pure perception of wisdom the (appearances) transcend the extremes of existing and non-existing as there are no stains of apprehender and apprehended. As there is no creating, ceasing, and changing, all are free from the characteristics of compounded phenomena, the appearances of uncompounded emptiness-form, and are totally free from conceptualizations. To the perception of the deluded mind, (the appearances) merely appear as the object of apprehension of self (bDag-'Dzin), which have fallen into the extreme (concepts) of existing or non-existing, are detached from the characteristics of uncompounded (nature), and have strengthened the habituations of adventitious and circumstantial self-perceptions. So, here, one will understand that the objects, the delusory appearances of the mind, are unreal. Various external appearances, such as white and red, are merely the percepts of rigid habits, like a dream created by the drunkenness of ignorant sleep. There is not the slightest existence (in them) as the object in the (true) meaning. Also, those appearances are not mind from the very point of their arising, because their substantial characteristics, such as color, size, and distinctions, negate the character of the mind. At the same time, they are not other than the mind, because, in addition to their being merely the delusory perceptions (of the mind), no other object has ever been established as such. The appearances to the mind are just types of experience of rigid habits continuing from beginningless time. It is like dreaming last night about a magic show one has seen yesterday. Therefore, one should think that whatever appears are appearances of non existence, and are without foundation, abiding place, natural existence, and recognizable (entity). They are merely a clear appearance of the empty nature like a dream, magical display, mirage, echo, shadowy view (Mig-Yor), water-moon (reflection), miracle, and the city of smell-eaters (a spirit world). Whatever appears, self or others, enemies or friends, countries or towns, places or houses, food or drink or wealth, and whatever one does, eating or sleeping, walking or sitting, one should train in seeing them as unreal. One should devote oneself to this training in all its aspects: the preliminary, actual, and concluding practices. (ii) The objects, if analyzed, are emptiness. If the appearances are examined from gross to subtle down to atoms, they are partless and non-existent. So form is emptiness. (Likewise,) by examining color and recognition of sound, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the form and essence of smell, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the aspects of taste, they (will be found to be) emptiness. Especially, by examining the sources (sense-objects), the emptiness of touch will be reached. Although they are different in appearance, they are the same in their nature in being emptiness, so the emptiness of various objects are not separate categories. Their nature, like pure space, transcends being either separate or the same. So the nature of objective appearances is emptiness in its essence.

The Apprehender Has No Foundation and No Root

(i) The consciousnesses are self-clarity without foundation.

(There are eight consciousnesses.) The five sense-consciousnesses; arise as the five objects such as form, the mind-consciousness cognizes the general impression (of the appearing objects) and designates them as the objects, the defiled mind-consciousness is the sense of negating, accepting, hating and disliking (etc.), the mind-consciousness arises after the six consciousnesses (five senses and universal ground consciousness), ...and the consciousness of universal ground is self-clarity (Rang-gSal) and no thought and is unrelated to the objects: these are the eight or six consciousnesses. At the (very) time of (functioning of any of) those consciousnesses themselves, whatever consciousness it is, it is clear, vivid, and self-clarity with no foundations. Although they appear clear, there is no substantial entity. They are appearing without existence, like clear space and a breeze with no dust. Their clarity is present naturally like the sky without clouds. Their movements are like wind, not in distinguishable substances. From the (very) time of appearing, (the consciousnesses) as the apprehenders are self-clarity and unrecognizable. Watch them when they are arising and when they are abiding. Relax naturally and watch the manner of appearing of the apprehender. Thereby one will realize the apprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of clarity with no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with no foundation. (ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root. By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists) in the external appearances, inner physical body, or intermediate movements, or if the entity of the self-dwelling mind itself (can be) recognized in (its) design, color, birth, cessation, and abiding, one will realize that its nature is non-existence, baseless and free from the extremes of either existence or non-existence. In this training the devotion to the Lama is the only important thing. ............................................

  • Owen Richards
  • Is this another one of those dzogchen books that promises the world only to say yOu neEd tRanSmisSiOn?
  •  · 
  • Reply
  •  · 
  • Reply
  • Alan Smith
  • Owen Richards
  • - If you are looking for transmission: Look up Lama Lena online. You
  • can sign up for transmission, and then when there is a large enough
  • group she will schedule one. Like said above, there is some debate
  • whether this can be done over l…
  • See More
  •  · 
  • Reply
  •  · 
  •  · 16h
  • Owen Richards
  • Alan Smith I'm not looking for transmission. It's religious hocus.
  •  · 
  • Reply
  •  · 
  •  · 15h
  • Soh Wei Yu
  • Author
  • Admin
  • Owen Richards
  • Tinh Phan
  • realized I AM (the initial unripened rigpa) during Malcolm's direct
  • introduction, had a doubtless recognition of rigpa, while attending
  • Malcolm's Dzogchen teachings on my recommendation. Plenty of others have
  • had similar experiences.
  • So
  • transmission, direct introduction, all these things are a crucial and
  • essential part of the Dzogchen teachings and methodology, meant to
  • induce awakening in the student. They are certainly not "religious
  • hocus".
      •  · 
      • Reply
      •  · 7m
      •  · 
      • Edited
  • Soh Wei Yu
  • Author
  • Admin
  • Also
  • when I say Tinh Panh realized the I AM during introduction, this does
  • not mean Malcolm only pointed out I AM in his teachings. He described
  • all the phases including and up to anatta and emptiness as per the seven
  • stages, in AtR lingo. But it is unlikely that someone totally new will
  • get all 7 stages initially.
  • As
  • Kyle Dixon (who Malcolm told me at a dinner 2 years ago in San
  • Francisco was his first student to totally understand his teachings)
  • said,
  • "I’ve
  • never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct
  • introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though.
  • I
  • don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo
  • Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision
  • and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to
  • disagree."
  • - Kyle Dixon https://www.reddit.com/.../how_exactly_does_one_realize.../
  • - http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-degrees-of...
  • reddit.com: page not found
  • reddit.com: page not found
    •  · 
    • Reply
    •  · 
    • Remove Preview
    •  · 3m
Malcolm, 2015:

Acarya Malcolm, 2015:

"If one has received direct introduction, it is possible that you may understand something more clearly with such a text, but since direct introduction works with experiences, there is no way one can substitute this conceptual understanding for working with the transmission by means of working with various experiences until one discovers the basis, aka primordial state, for oneself and has stabilizes that knowledge [rig pa].

The reason? Direct introduction works with experiences to show what the foundation that lies below experiences, thoughts and concepts, i.e. the mind essence. This is extremely subtle and cannot be discovered merely through reading books, no matter how holy or profound. The error, quite frankly, is mistaking the fact that we are aware with that awareness being the mind essence itself. The awareness that we experience moment to moment is quite coarse, and is dominated by our "energy," our rlung or vāyu. The mind essence is much more subtle than any awareness we can experience.

Direct introduction, received from a master who knows what it is he is introducing, is indispensable — it sets up the foundation for our later discovery of our own state even if at the time the experience was too subtle for us to register it clearly. Anytime anyone participates in a direct introduction with a realized master in a whole hearted openly collaborative way [rather than passively expecting something to happen], they will in fact experience that moment of knowledge [rig pa] the master intends to introduce. Even if they do not "grasp" it at the time, they will have that experience to carry with them. In the beginning, our concepts are very strong, and our ability to see the mind essence is very weak. Therefore, our moment of rig pa we experience in the direct introduction is something like a small branch caught up in a torrent of a river of concepts — it is very easily swept away. But if we are patient, and we are diligent, we can again have that experience of the mind essence, upon which all future practice depends. Why? Because it was introduced and we had it once. There is nothing at all mystical about the process, it is straightforward and nonmagical.

The process of reading is too conceptual, the mind involved is too coarse, and therefore, it is impossible that we can experience the mind essence from reading a text. However, if we have experienced the mind essence reading books such as the Chos dbying mdzod and so on can reinforce our confidence which we can bring to our practice.

In order to experience the mind essence we have to cut through coarse concepts with various methods to re-experience the mind essence that we were exposed to during the introduction. This is why we have practices such as rushen and semszin, and supremely, Song of the Vajra."

Labels: Anatta, Books and Websites Recommendations, Dzogchen, Emptiness, Longchenpa
shargrol, modified 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 5:14 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 5:14 AM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 2490 Join Date: 2/8/16 Recent Posts
I'm really enjoying these posts and I look forward to following all the links. Thanks for sharing!
Stefan Stefan, modified 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 6:47 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 6:47 AM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 236 Join Date: 3/28/21 Recent Posts
no self and true self are two sides of the same coin that never lands
Soh Wei Yu, modified 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 8:14 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 8:14 AM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 75 Join Date: 2/13/21 Recent Posts
Stefan Stefan
no self and true self are two sides of the same coin that never lands

It has been my experience that without having thorough insights like http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html , making a landing ground would be inevitable
George S, modified 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 8:42 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 8:42 AM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 2722 Join Date: 2/26/19 Recent Posts
Stefan Stefan
no self and true self are two sides of the same coin that never lands

If I were to say that the true self is no(t) self, would that be like the coin landing on its edge?
Stefan Stefan, modified 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 4:52 PM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/26/21 4:52 PM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 236 Join Date: 3/28/21 Recent Posts
Thank you Soh Wei, your blog has helped me immensely, it is of great benefit to whoever reads it.

​​​​​​​George, you sly so and so ;) I think you know what the answer is 
Noah D, modified 2 Years ago at 10/27/21 1:51 AM
Created 2 Years ago at 10/27/21 1:51 AM

RE: Longchenpa and Dzogchen is Anti Foundationalist

Posts: 1211 Join Date: 9/1/16 Recent Posts
Thank you for sharing . Very clear _/\_