The Two Truths

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

You do realize that what you said is wrong was a direct quote from the book don't you?

Just because you don't understand what ground is saying doesn't mean it's wrong, look up 'Effortess Presence Meditation' that might help you... then ' the penny might drop '

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

Just because you don't understand what ground is saying doesn't mean it's wrong, look up 'Effortess Presence Meditation' that might help you... then ' the penny might drop '

Of course sky.

Him saying a quote from the book is wrong is me not understanding.

Also, would you like me to describe what that state of being is like that is being described in the book?

I have shared it many times already on this forum.

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Of course sky.

Him saying a quote from the book is wrong is me not understanding.

Also, would you like me to describe what that state of being is like that is being described in the book?

I have shared it many times already on this forum.

No thanks no need to describe anything, I go by experience myself.
I haven't read the book or had even heard of it before Ground mentioned it but I do understand what he is saying regarding meditation.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

I like that phrase people been posting.... "Rest in awareness."

Seems peaceful. Doing nothing, "at rest" just passively being aware.

That is a very key part of what is going on.

I often say residing but "at rest" is like you are just being. Thoughts, emotions, or silence just is, the mind does not grasp at any of it.

I would agree it is not a Witness too (mindfulness) of ones thoughts. Witnessing ones thoughts is dualistic. It is a being where all of it more just radiates from you, empty in the sense that it is non attaching, clarity arising from that non attachment in a radiant, blissful way. It is like nothing is interfering, attaching, so your true nature, your true state of being is this radiant, silent or not, non attaching being.

That resting, is in reference to the not doing, just being. I often say let go, meaning let go of it all to rest or be, that.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

No thanks no need to describe anything, I go by experience myself.
I haven't read the book or had even heard of it before Ground mentioned it but I do understand what he is saying regarding meditation.

Really because he is saying Dzogchen does not have meditation techniques.

Glad you are understanding what he is saying

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Really because he is saying Dzogchen does not have meditation techniques.

Glad you are understanding what he is saying

You take peoples words, chew them up and spit them out in the wrong direction, your gigantic ego makes it hard to converse with you...
You obviously can't grasp what Ground is trying to explain about meditation ( not the book ), there are many different types, I suggest you read up on the differences instead of trying to prove others wrong with your gobbledygook

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

You take peoples words, chew them up and spit them out in the wrong direction, your gigantic ego makes it hard to converse with you...
You obviously can't grasp what Ground is trying to explain about meditation ( not the book ), there are many different, I suggest you read up on the differences instead of trying to prove others wrong with your gobbledygook

I know there are many different type of meditation but you are not reading what is going on in this thread. Your dislike of me is clouding your judgement.

Ground has been saying for pages that Dzogchen does not teach meditation. That once you are introduced you are done, you have realized your state of being and no more need for mediation or anything like that. Even if it doesn't take and you are not stable or experience it.

I have been saying that yes Dzogchen does teach meditation, starting from Shine with object up to the method of resting in your natural awareness like is being described in this book. The book is more saying once you have realized that resting in meditation stability, life and meditation are one and the same.

My argument has been if you are introduced and it doesn't take what then? Is he saying Dzogchen doesn't teach you anything, you are just left on your own?

Even the methods of resting as described in the book is a progressive system that takes one ever deeper into that state of being, into the ground of being..

Dzogchen is part of just about every Tibetan Buddhist tradition, one builds up to the methods and teachings. It is not a hi i am here for the introduction, receive it and you are done type of thing. If it was that effective wouldn't the world be a different place? Wouldn't everyone just go to the local temple and be introduced to this state of being?

You have to remember Ground is against meditation in any form and doesn't do any practices. So he will argue very much against any type of practice or system of practices that does not fit that belief. Even when you can simply google it and show it from a Dzogchen website.

Remember he is also the one that has said Dzogchen isn't Buddhist, isn't tantric and that realizing oneness or the essence that is all things is craziness.

So of course me pointing this stuff out is about my ego and having to be right... and it can't be that he is just wrong....

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I know there are many different type of meditation but you are not reading what is going on in this thread. Your dislike of me is clouding your judgement.

Ground has been saying for pages that Dzogchen does not teach meditation. That once you are introduced you are done, you have realized your state of being and no more need for mediation or anything like that. Even if it doesn't take and you are not stable or experience it.

I have been saying that yes Dzogchen does teach meditation, starting from Shine with object up to the method of resting in your natural awareness like is being described in this book. The book is more saying once you have realized that resting in meditation stability, life and meditation are one and the same.

My argument has been if you are introduced and it doesn't take what then? Is he saying Dzogchen doesn't teach you anything, you are just left on your own?

Even the methods of resting as described in the book is a progressive system that takes one ever deeper into that state of being, into the ground of being..

Dzogchen is part of just about every Tibetan Buddhist tradition, one builds up to the methods and teachings. It is not a hi i am here for the introduction, receive it and you are done type of thing. If it was that effective wouldn't the world be a different place? Wouldn't everyone just go to the local temple and be introduced to this state of being?

You have to remember Ground is against meditation in any form and doesn't do any practices. So he will argue very much against any type of practice or system of practices that does not fit that belief. Even when you can simply google it and show it from a Dzogchen website.

Remember he is also the one that has said Dzogchen isn't Buddhist, isn't tantric and that realizing oneness or the essence that is all things is craziness.

So of course me pointing this stuff out is about my ego and having to be right... and it can't be that he is just wrong....

Do you ever self reflect and see yourself as the whole?

Meaning all this your seeing. Your arguing over who is right and who is wrong and you cant see that relates to the ego ideal, where your wanting to hold quite noticeably and through so many subtle aspects of your own unconscious, to "this" ideal image of the Buddhist philosophy and other things that others express as their own understanding. In reflection do you think this could pertain to your own pride and accomplishments and what are you are aiming for deeper in yourself in these kind of interactions and your not going there to notice, but rather staying on the surface and trying to match the issue in your own super ego/ideal relationship that hasn't let go yet... Perhaps if you were to look deeper at the image your holding this up against in yourself you might actually see what your trying to maintain and prove. The mind when attached will constantly keep relating on the surface aspects of your own mind containing itself in this way.

Can you actually read this and self reflect on this in yourself and look? When we actually look within instead of outside of ourselves there is "you" in there and sometimes "you" in there is not aware of what it is reaching for, wanting to see in others to make be a certain way.



I don't care what you take from it, I am not trying to prove to you anything, more see that this ongoing fiasco of proving, making things fit up against this idea you have, it could and can relate to something deeper in yourself that is going down to visit itself in this way unaware of itself holding on to something and naturally because you are visiting others in this way, your using them to build on this space in yourself rather than let go in yourself to notice more.

In reflection I am very aware of myself in this seeing, so my awareness is noticing, not my need and issues.. I am not the one who "needs" this as much as you show in your own need ongoing here in Buddhist threads.

The ego ideal feels proud when it accomplishes but what one is trying to accomplish needs to consider itself in there in that feeling and need related. If your going deeper and realized it would be noticed in your ongoing relating. And to me your relating is not changing in this way I am noticing and aware in myself as how it can be. Ideal turns to deeper insight and ideas of itself. The realized accomplishments are that it feels accomplished and proud without need to make the external match anything. It moves itself in this way. That space of itself becomes open and aware/clarity of BEING.

I always notice when someone starts a thread and relates a particular topic not realizing themselves in it either through process or before the post, they will continue to show themselves ongoing in the nature of themselves in all that. I am often surprised people cant see themselves in the way they do this.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I know there are many different type of meditation but you are not reading what is going on in this thread. Your dislike of me is clouding your judgement.

Ground has been saying for pages that Dzogchen does not teach meditation. That once you are introduced you are done, you have realized your state of being and no more need for mediation or anything like that. Even if it doesn't take and you are not stable or experience it.

I have been saying that yes Dzogchen does teach meditation, starting from Shine with object up to the method of resting in your natural awareness like is being described in this book. The book is more saying once you have realized that resting in meditation stability, life and meditation are one and the same.

My argument has been if you are introduced and it doesn't take what then? Is he saying Dzogchen doesn't teach you anything, you are just left on your own?

Even the methods of resting as described in the book is a progressive system that takes one ever deeper into that state of being, into the ground of being..

Dzogchen is part of just about every Tibetan Buddhist tradition, one builds up to the methods and teachings. It is not a hi i am here for the introduction, receive it and you are done type of thing. If it was that effective wouldn't the world be a different place? Wouldn't everyone just go to the local temple and be introduced to this state of being?

You have to remember Ground is against meditation in any form and doesn't do any practices. So he will argue very much against any type of practice or system of practices that does not fit that belief. Even when you can simply google it and show it from a Dzogchen website.

Remember he is also the one that has said Dzogchen isn't Buddhist, isn't tantric and that realizing oneness or the essence that is all things is craziness.

So of course me pointing this stuff out is about my ego and having to be right... and it can't be that he is just wrong....

Jonesboy,

I'm trying to intervene in here. I have read almost every post you people argue about. I'm curious about what Ground has introduced from the beginning when he joined to discuss in Buddhism thread.

He said, Dzogchen doesn't or no need to do meditation(I don't meditate also but I fight directly what's inside me) and better than other religions. As you said, meditation is to stabilize you inner self. I think it does that effect.....

I do differently, I can calm down when I cool down my thoughts completely and rest enough in a very short time . Say, half an hour up to 2,3 hours. This type of rest is very effective for at least with good thought for more than 12 hours with no any difficulty if I wasn't disturbed by bad Gods.

Ground only know Dzogchen that it's a separate teaching from any religion and the teaching is very differently described as when anyone after joining Dzogchen" you're almost enlightened ( I call it be bewitched or cheated) and changed to a sort of being with higher perception or inner self.

Then in this way, isn't Dzogchen is the best religion ever appear or introduce to human on earth? ( I was treated differently by demons of his religion). Does it really has such effect? What I know is everytime I discuss with him, I was highly affected by his way of Dzogchen teachings then I want to see how high is his belief or his religion can offer to human? Actually I found that what he learned is a different type of religion, it isn't Dzogchen from Tibetan Dzogchen .

That's why it's from the place in China with a pagoda nearby. That's the true founder Gods of his "Dzogchen". So Dzogchen isn't his belong religion name or it's another religion name. Surely not the Tibetan type of Dzogchen.But the way of controlling other's thinking is quite similar.

I try to say about karma, it's not because no karma but they're either don't know it or just afraid it will "attach" to them so just to say that it can easily be cleared off by Dzogchen teaching. But up to now everything didn't change.

His temple isn't in Tibet. They're nude founder Gods and demons that control this religion. They're capable of using words to control others. And challenging me by using his Dzogchen scriptures which is almost like spells that fight his enemies. And they're using spells and incantations all the ways to fight me. So what type of religion is it? Is it not the medium that has expanding to be world wide noticing?

This time jonesboy Gods behind him don't disturb me as everytime I discuss with you. I think you're free from their attachment after the Indian Gods has surrendered to me. So your karma can be then be released but it doesn't mean your karma is no more with you. That's it release to a more comfortable way that I can only help you with this much.

I don't introduce to you any karma , but it's only yours. Now you've suffering, you've released it.

[Bohdiyana]

I wonder does a consciousness that has freed itself from all conditioning have a need or desire to practice something like meditation? Or does a desire to meditate require an ego to be present? One meditates to change in some way right? A difference is seen between meditating and not meditating. What if no difference is seen because no ego is there to see it? There would only be now and a passive unconditioned surrender to whatever that is. I say passive surrender because without any conditioning or ego, it is not will or effort or choice. There is no "person" present only awareness that moves according to it's unconditioned nature. A "person" is not there to surrender so the term "passive surrender" is more about the passive nature of unconditioned being. Conscious awareness is there and moving and acting, but it is a natural thing that does not have a source in thought or anything conditioned.