﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
...I have been moving slowly toward the pov of view that for most people studying these lower yānas is a complete waste of time...

gregkavarnos said:
This is coming from a man who spent decades studying the lower yana.

My dear N. as it ever occurred to you that it was as a consequence of decades of causal path practices that you accumulated the merit to be able to fully understand and practice (and even teach) Dzogchen?  Or maybe you don't believe in karma now either? Is that why you are suddenly open to non-Buddhist practices and traditions?  I mean a month ago you  took Jax to pieces for saying something very similar (albeit that Jax also negated the need for a guru) and now you are suddenly sounding all new-age and ecumenical.  It's been a while since you have seen your guru tete-a-tete, hasn't it?


Malcolm wrote:
Hi Greg:

Since Dzogchen tantras reject the body/mind dualism of the lower yānas, it makes it hard for people fed on the lower yānas to appreciate Dzogchen. Since this is so, the need to study in detail the lower yānas is limited. Someone who is planning to be a teacher needs to know these things, but practictioners, not necessarily. I have seen in my own studies how my Buddhist conditioning has made it difficult at times for me to understand certain keys points of Dzogchen teachings.

As far as the ecumenical thing goes -- I have come to the conclusion that Dzogchen is for all who are interested. Not a "Dzogchen without Buddhism" if you will. But I see no good reason why interested Hindus, Christians, Moslems, and so on cannot receive Dzogchen teachings and practice them. Dzogchen may have come from Buddhism, but as we see in Bon, Dzogchen is not just for Buddhists.

Dzogchen is for everyone who is interested to learn about it and then practice it. When someone comes to my teacher to learn Dzogchen, he never says "Now you must nominally become a Buddhist in order to study Dzogchen". He says "In order to study and learn about Dzogchen you must receive direct introduction", that is all.

The Buddha never said anywhere in the sutras "In order to study the Dharma, first you must take refuge". The whole refuge thing has been turned into a game of religious politics. When people took refuge in the Buddha they did so merely out of their gradtitude for teachings they received. You can read about this in many places in the Pali canon.

These days, refuge has been turned into a badge, a tool for conversion. It has been turned into a ritual. But how many people change their name into something nice like Kunga Namdrol, or Padma Tsering, etc., etc., without changing anything in their hearts? Refuge ceremonies have just become an empty baptisms that people think are hugely important but actually change nothing. It is the same with bodhisattva vow ceremonies and also empowerments.

But in Dzogchen there is nothing to convert or change or alter. Buddhahood is an innate attribute of all sentient beings, so what is the point of "becoming a Buddhist?"

People like to say "Did you go for refuge? What is your Dharma name?", "How long have you been a Buddhist?", "Who is your refuge teacher?" , "Did you take bodhisattva vows?", "Did you receive initiation?", etc. None of this is the principle of Dzogchen teachings as I understand it. None of these things taken in and of themselves are bad, BTW,there is nothing wrong with having gone for refuge to the Three Jewels, created bodhicitta, taken initiation and so on. But it is better to penetrate to the essence of these things rather than just leave them as empty forms, which sadly today they mostly have become.

But the principle of entering Dzogchen teachings is none of the above. The principle of entering Dzogchen teachings is solely direct introduction. And my teacher, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, will give that to anyone who is interested in receiving the teachings of Dzogchen regardless of their race, color, creed, gender or gender orientation.

The principle of practicing Dzogchen teachings, according to my teacher, is integrating with your primordial state through Ati Guru Yoga and deepening your knowledge of that state through various kinds of practices. Anyone who is interested can do this without having to consider themselves a "Buddhist".

As far as being open to non-Buddhist practices -- it is the case that people who belong to other religions might become interested in Dzogchen teachings. I see no reason at all why they should give up those practices merely becauase they are interested in Dzogchen teachings. Granted, it is impossible to reconcile sacrificing animals with Dzogchen teachings, but apart from that, I do not see the problem. If some Christian is practicing Ati Guru Yoga, then they are practicing Dzogchen whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


mindyourmind said:
That "skillful means, if such it is, contributes to the demand side of the problem, that "skillful means" creates another cause for an animal to be slaughtered. It remains participation in the process.

Malcolm wrote:
We should work with circumstances. As for myself, I will choose to create positive causes for the liberation of sentient beings by any means possible. You are free to refuse to do so, if that is your choice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: esoteric meaning for the three jewels
Content:
anjali said:
I was wondering about an esoteric meaning for the triple jewels: Buddham saranam gachammi; Dharmam saranam gachammi; Sangham saranam gachammi.

Is it acceptable to view the three refugees in the following way? "Buddham" represents the nature of mind, the cognizant, awake quality. "Dharmam" represents the essence of mind, the empty quality. "Sangham" represents the embodiment of the Dharma, the unconfined capacity of the mind. Thus, taking refuge would be taking refuge in one's own trikaya nature.

If the three jewels are talked about in this way somewhere, any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Malcolm wrote:
Usually buddha = emptiness
dharma = clarity
sangha = union of clarity and emptiness


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Withdrawing from that process, whether it helps the big picture in an infinitesimal degree or whether it actually makes a difference to that big picture, makes a difference to that practitioner, or at least it should.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess I am not communicating well enough -- refusing to eat meat is withdrawing from the process. If you eat meat with the proper method, you can help that creature whose meat you are eating meet the causes for liberation.

If you tie a protection cord on it, or sing the six syllables of Samantabhadra to it while it is alive, there is benefit. We cannot always be there in time to help the living, but we can help the deceased with the method of eating meat with compassion, awareness and presence.

So from my point of view, refusing to eat meat in such a way is withdrawing, because the consequence of not eating meat is that that animal will never make a good connection for their eventual liberation.

So our intention is the same, our method is different, my method includes yours; yours lacks a skillful means for "food" animals that have already been salughtered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 5:22 AM
Title: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Bhusuku said:
And if Dzogchen contradicts the sutra/tantra teachings even on such basic buddhist doctrines, what is actually the use of studying sutra teachings at all for someone who's mainly interested in Dzogchen? I mean, isn't it actually a waste of time studying Abhidharma, if later on you realize that the Dzogchen teachings have a complete different POV on many Abhidharma subjects? The same applies for studying Madhyamaka: why waste many years to gain an in depth understanding of the two truths if later on you realize that there's only one truth in Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
This is a very good question. I have been moving slowly toward the pov of view that for most people studying these lower yānas is a complete waste of time. Oh, it can be useful to study a bit of Abhidharma because it helps contextualize mandala practice, and Madhyamaka does help cut through intellectual proliferation, properly studied and absorbed. Studying a bit of Madhyamaka helps one avoid the pitfal of crypto-advaita.

Also places where Dzogchen differs from sutra and tantra will not be readily understood if one does not have at least some superficial familarity with them.

You don't really need to study all this sutra stuff to understand Dzogchen, and as far as Tantra goes, anuyoga is sufficient.  On the other hand, also a practitioner needs to understands that nothing really limits their practice to so called "Dzogchen practice" -- anything at all whether from Buddhist or non-Buddhist sources like Yoga, etc., can be incoporated into  Dzogchen practitioner's life. One can even participate in a non-Buddhist religion, if for some reason that is necessary.

I personally think one will understand Dzogchen much better if one is grounded in sutra and tantra, but no, it is not completely necessary to learn these things. Understanding the five elements, three gates, emptiness, and bodhicitta are about all one needs at bare minimum. That, and a realized Guru -- and those are in rather short supply.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Guru Yoga necessary?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Devotion is the most critical aspect

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so. Certainty in your knowledge of the primordial state is the most critical aspect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Lasik Surgery and Thogal
Content:
Clarence said:
Thank you!


Malcolm wrote:
I should have added, this is only to be done if you have not begun this practice. If you have started, as someone pointed out to me privately in an email, you ought not.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Meekly accepting that an animal is dead, that the shelf is full of meat so I may as well eat it is hardly a helpful approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing meek about me. I deliberately eat meat, when I eat meat, in order to create a positive cause for that animal's eventual liberation. When all is said and done that is my motive.

I also sponsor freeing of animals, and so on.

There is no way to lessen the suffering of samsara for others, however, by such means as freeing animals and so on. The best you can do is conquer your own samsara. However, through using a method coming from one of the six liberations (sight, sound, smell, taste, hearing, touch etc.) you can benefit other sentient beings so that they too one day may receive teachings and achieve liberation. That is where I am coming from.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Change the world ...one practitioner at a time, one steer at a time

Malcolm wrote:
And the central question really is -- how do you benefit some steer that has already been slaughtered? Praying?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
...

If you don't realize your own true mind, it doesn't matter what goes into your belly or where it came from. You may save a herd of cattle in this lifetime, and that will be a very good thing, but that will be all you save.

mindyourmind said:
What if you can do both - realize your own true mind and save a herd of cattle? Why the false dichotomy?

Malcolm wrote:
If you can do both, great. But when you prevent the slaughter of 10 steers, you hasten the slaughter of ten more. So what to do? And the central question really is -- how do you benefit some steer that has already been slaughtered? Praying?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
I will state that, based on my understanding of Dzogchen teachings, those Buddhist scholastics who argued that plants were not alive, equivalent with rocks and crystals, were wrong in their understanding.

Bhusuku said:
"Buddhist scholastics"? Didn't the Buddha himself taught this?

Malcolm wrote:
No, he did not teach this. Read the Schmithausen monograph.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


mindyourmind said:
And yes, I believe that there is a great, real and rather obvious difference. For starters we can start with the amount of suffering involved. If someone is going to, with a straight face, try to convince me that the "suffering" undergone by a truckful of cabbage is anything approximating that undergone by say a truckload of pigs, well then I have very little else to say, and it would be best for at least the rules of this forum if we leave the debate just there.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it seems that your criteria of suffering is a little limited and only adresses the suffering of suffering.

mindyourmind said:
Raising, killing and eating an animal is just simply involving more suffering than even the worst case scenario of the amount of bugs we kill in producing a non-meat meal.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think the suffering of a mammal is qualitatively or quantitatively greater than the suffering of an insect -- I know that some Buddhists make this (false) disctinction, but the monastic penalty for killing an insect is no less than that of killing a cow -- it merely requires confession. What this says to me is that Buddha valued the life of all creatures equally regardless of phyla. Destroying vegetation, especially seeds, is also included in this class of vows, as is digging in the ground.

mindyourmind said:
Remember also that some of those same bugs are also killed in the process of slaughtering an animal.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.

mindyourmind said:
Part of that precise answer would, in addition to suffering, most definitely deal with the presence or absence of a central nervous system, although if you will that could be a duplication of the suffering argument.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a value judgment you are making that does not have an objective base.

It is a certainly the case that in Early Buddhism the issue was not so clear cut among Buddhists. Coming from a common Vedic Heritage where plants are considered fully qualified animate beings, early Buddhists also held this view. Only later, under the influence of scholastic dogmatism, did Buddhist philosophers begin to argue plants were non-sentient. The Buddhist arguments against plant life being sentient are quite late, motivated it seems mainly to defend Buddhist from criticisms from Jains and Hindus. Lambert Schmithausen wrote a long and interesting article about this and concludes ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/78950014/The-Problem-of-the-Sentience-of-Plants-in-Earliest-Buddhism " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

But as stated above (§ 5.2 and n. 204) a few sources suggest yet another
motivation, viz. that plants should not be injured or destroyed because they are the
abode or habitat of animal s (cp. also the analogous motivation not to
pollute water in § 11.1). This ecological argument is fully valid today also,
indeed more than ever before, and for both monks and lay people.

39.2 However, I for one should find it reasonable to combine this latter
argument with a different view of the nature of plants - one that is perhaps not too
far from what I hope I have been able to show to have been, with some probability,
that of earliest Buddhism: the view that plants themselves, too, are living
beings, in the sense of a border-line case. But contrary to the situation
in earliest Buddhism where the border-line status of plants served to reduce
inhibitions against injuring them, it should now be used to re-establish them.
In this sense, we should rather stress the other aspect of the border-line status: Plants
are, to be sure, not living beings like animals, and not at all living beings like men,
with some secret anthropomorphic features and faculties, and hence perhaps not
sentient beings in the usual sense of the word; but not entirely insentient either, not
altogether insusceptible of being injured; living beings of a peculiar kind,
which we can somehow explore from outside, but which we will probably never be
able to "understand" from within; familiar beings, but at the same time utterly strange,
and precisely for that reason to be treated with respect: because we simply do
not know, and perhaps cannot even imagine, what it means for a plant itself to
be injured. To be sure, unless we are ready to starve, we cannot avoid using plants,
and this often means: injuring or even killing them. But we should do this as
little as possible, carefully and with a sense of regret, not with
the unnecessary brutality and relentlessness which has become habitual, and at the root
of which is mostly not need but greed.

mindyourmind said:
This whole argument equating animal sentience with plant "sentience" is simply a last-ditch, desperate and rather unbecoming argument, designed to defend our choices as meat-eaters.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not equate the two. I merely pointed out that I no longer believe that anything imbued with prāṇa can possibly be non-sentient. Plants possess prāṇa, therefore, they are alive, therefore, after some fashion, I must accept that they too are sentient. Not only to plants possess prāṇa, but they also possess ojas, mdangs, they also possess the seven phase digestive process that we humans and all animals do. They take food, they break it down, is it conducted by fluid within plant membranes where it builds their flesh, their soft tissue, hard tissues and finally in the end they produce sap, flowers, seeds, etc.

I will state that, based on my understanding of Dzogchen teachings, those Buddhist scholastics who argued that plants were not alive, equivalent with rocks and crystals, were wrong in their understanding.

mindyourmind said:
I accept without any reservation that a vegetarian meal involves death and suffering, but not more so, or even equal, than the death and suffering involved in eating meat.

Again, I respect everyone's choice in what they eat and do not eat, and what you eat or not will not liberate you, but let's not make stuff up to make us feel better.

Malcolm wrote:
When growing plants in the large quantities made necessary buy the increasing population of the our planet is made possible only through the use of animal-based fertilizers that come from the death of animals in the billions, such as in organic agriculture, or the petrochemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides that contaminate the environement and poisoin billions of birds and insects, such as in conventional cultivation, there is no solid argument than can be made that a vegetarian diet, even a so called organic veb is less harmful to animals than a non-vegetarian diet. It simple does not add up.

So let us not pretend that being a vegetarian is intrinsically more moral or better than being an omnivore. Vegetarians who argue in that way are simply being false brahmins.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Lasik Surgery and Thogal
Content:
Clarence said:
N-la,

Do you know if Lasik surgery on the eyes make Thogal practice impossible or more difficult or are there no consequences on practice after the surgery?


Many thanks,

Clarence

Malcolm wrote:
Should have no effect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
mindyourmind said:
There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, what is the difference? Visible sense organs? A so called "nervous system"?

It simply won't do to call something an "obsfucation" merely because you disagree with someone's opinion.

You are a lawyer, be precise.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
mindyourmind said:
What I never understood, and have no real hope of ever understanding, is why these enlightened practitioners must actually participate in killing a sentient being to improve its lot. Surely such a practitioner can benefit such a being by simply saying mantras, or another practice - other than participating in killing it.

Malcolm wrote:
Killing, the taking of life, requires the intent to take life, an object, the carrying out of the action and satisfaction in doing so.

mindyourmind said:
In other words, a human that is so advanced that he or she can actually directly choose to benefit another being should be able to do so through other means than participating in the killing of that being.

Malcolm wrote:
Eating meat does not equate with killing unless you killed the meat you are eating, or asked that it be killed for you.

However, whenever we eat anything at all we are participating in the death of something else. This is a simple fact of life. When we harvest grain, we destroy the homes and lifes of many creatures. We participate in their death when we eat oats, wheat, not to mention the death of the plants in question, etc. To live is to participate in the death of other beings, both plant and animal.

Many vegetarians argue the deaths caused by agriculature is unavoidable. And I agree with them. But they never accept responsibility for the deaths of creatures caused by agriculture, and do their best to pretend they have no karmic responsibility for them.

When a peice of meat is available in a resturant, its death is unavoidable. Why? Because it is dead. It has been slaughtered already. It has been packaged and sold. But I did not kill that animal. I no more killed that animal that our vegetarian friends killed all the insects and birds that die in the large scale production of rice harvested by machines in Lundberg Farms. For example, feathermeal is one of the main products Lundberg Farms uses in organic rice production. Feathermeal, in case you were wondering, is described as follows:

Feather meal is a byproduct of processing poultry; it is made from poultry feathers by partially hydrolyzing them under elevated heat and pressure, and then grinding and drying. Although total nitrogen levels are fairly high (up to 12%), the bioavailability of this nitrogen may be low. Feather meal is used in formulated animal feed and in organic fertilizer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather_meal " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, how can vegetarians, who suppose they eat a diet free from animal products, possibly excuse themselves when they eat rice and other kinds of large scale organic produce? Feathermeal is pervasively used in the cultivation of organic crops. Feathermeal is a by-product of the poultry industry. The feathers of those chickens in those truly hellish chicken factories get ground up and used in "organic" fertilizer. Feathermeal is also fed to steers in industrial beef operations.

Another common organic fertilizer is blood meal. Another one is bone meal. What about manure? All of these are used pervasively in growing organic produce. What about Biodynamic farming? This is another form of organic food production that depends heavily on the use of animal products in production of organic foods.

I can refuse to eat that peice of meat or fish, but that organic bread too comes at the cost of life, as does the rice, and the asparagus. All food comes at the cost of life. The cost of life is death. There is no food that does not come at the cost of life.

One need not be "advanced" to benefit some animal whose meat you are consuming. In fact, to benefit those with whom one does not have direct contact in some way is impossible on a merely mental level unless you are an awakened person.  For example, this is the reason ordinary people cannot successfully do Phowa for others. They simply do not have the yogic capacity to eject the consciousness of another being from its body (these days there are many arrogant people who run around and pretend to do phowa for others, deceiving the relatives and accepting money for their deceptions)

When you eat meat with compassion, presence and awareness, and use a mantra like the six spaces of Samantabhadra, you create a positive cause for that animal specifically, and if you are eating a vegetarian meal, a specific positive cause for any animal who was killed during the harvesting of that crop. This works for ordinary people best because one is making a concrete physical connnection with those animals through tsal.

I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction. At least, it is a false distinction from a Dzogchen perspective. From the Dzogchen point of view, everything is made of five elements, all sentient beings, even consciousness, even the buddhas. Plants are every bit alive as animals. As Garab Dorje says "The color of rtsal is green". But because it is convenient and because they are ignorant of the principles of the basis, ideological vegetarians make a false distinction between sentient and non-sentient. There is, according to Dzogchen teachings, no true distinction to be made between the sentient and the non-sentient. Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is. Therefore whenever we eat, and no matter what we eat, we must do so with compasion, pressence and awareness because all food comes at the cost of something's life.

Everytime we consume the flesh of something we are incoporating that being's vital energy into our own, whether it is plant or an animal. When we die, our vital energy, our rtsal, contributes to the growth and health of other creatures. This is the natural cycle of life.

Thus one simply has to be mindful and attentive, present and aware. If one eats without presence and awareness, even eating a tomato becomes a non-virtue. If one eats with presence and awareness, even eating meat becomes a virtue.

mindyourmind said:
...but let's just be very honest about this popular "defense" of eating meat.

Malcolm wrote:
I am being very honest about this extremely unpopular advocacy of meat-eating -- because in the end it is not about meat, it is about compassion, presence and awareness. I know that many people with more conventional Mahāyāna views about meat-eating, not to mention fanatical vegans and so on, will find this principle, if not just counter-intuitive, completely unacceptable.

So people like to mention Chatral Rinpoche, and so on. But they are not speaking from the point of view of Dzogchen. They are speaking from the point of view of common Mahāyāna. As I have said many times, this is fine. But it is not the point of view of Dzogchen teachings.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
...

If you don't realize your own true mind, it doesn't matter what goes into your belly or where it came from. You may save a herd of cattle in this lifetime, and that will be a very good thing, but that will be all you save.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
I have also read that the Dalai Lama supports vegetarianism but feels he cannot be vegetarian due to his health.

namdrol - are you saying that he does or does not understand and practice Dzogchen?

Namdrol said:
I am quite certain HHDL understands and pratices Dzogchen. I am certain it is his primary practice.

N

Blue Garuda said:
In which case why does he not preach like ChNNR that vegetarianism is a miserable form of compassion?

Malcolm wrote:
You will have to ask him. ChNN's point of view is not for everyone. One either agrees or disagrees. But he thinks it important enough to bring it up at nearly every retreat.

Also, HHDL is under a lot of pressure from a lot of people to conform to their view of him.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Meaning of 'brang rgyas (Tibetan)
Content:
Totoro said:
HI

Could someone please tell me the meaning of this term 'brang rgyas used in Tantric sadhanas?  Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
Need more context. But it can mean "full breasted".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Thrasymachus said:
-- Not eating meat is more than just an ego trip. It really contributes to prevent suffering...

Malcolm wrote:
No it doesn't, not even one tiny bit.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: Is Guru Yoga necessary?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
There is a lot of quoting from orthodoxy here. I wonder if it would be possible to talk from experience?

Malcolm wrote:
I was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
I have also read that the Dalai Lama supports vegetarianism but feels he cannot be vegetarian due to his health.

namdrol - are you saying that he does or does not understand and practice Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite certain HHDL understands and pratices Dzogchen. I am certain it is his primary practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Is Guru Yoga necessary?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I know it seems heretical to say this but perhaps after a while one needs to disconnect from the idea of guru and also the idea of union.
Whilst connecting through guru yoga is indeed necessary initially, I wonder if it isn't as important to disconnect at some point.
But I'm talking here of a deeper level to the practice.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru yoga is the essence of practice. As you discover your nature, you just integrate more with your gurus state of realization.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
I don't agree with this perspective. When a practitioner eats meat with presence and awareness, there is a connection made with that sentient being that serves to benefit that animal.

Thrasymachus said:
That is typical win(for the practicer of carnism) and lose(for the dead animal). I don't see it like that at all. Why would a being that died for your food care about how enlightened, present or aware you are or aren't, what religion or doctrine you follow? The only doctrine they would care about is that which benefits them also -- and not just you.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you are not a Dzogchen practitioner presumably, so I guess you perhaps do not understand the function of rtsal. Everything is connected through rtsal, plants, animals, rocks, people and so on. Since there is benefit to practitioners, there is also benefit to the animals. But not of course, if you eat in a state of ignorance and lack of attention.

The same goes for eating a tomato, or a piece of lettuce, one has to be aware of the sentient beings who died bringing that peice of food to your plate-- whether one eats the flesh an animal or the flesh of a tomato one must eat with presence and awareness.

practitioner said:
Clearly HHDL, HH Karmapa, Chatral Rinpoche, etc. are just practicing at a lower level than those who facilitate the killing of sentient beings "out of compassion"...

Malcolm wrote:
Now, as I said, I do not object to people who wish to follow a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle for health, political, environmental, or spiritual reasons. I do not object to people who wish to follow common Mahāyāna. But as I mentioned, one who is going to follow common Mahāyāna must also eschew garlic, onion, alchohol and so on.

And as I mentioned above, His Holiness The Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian -- though in Dharmasala he maintains a vegetarian kitchen. He has also scolded people for bringing him vegetarian dishes while he is on the road, and he eats meat for his health, according to the instructions of his Tibetan doctors.

Niether the Karmapa nor Chatral Rinpoche are gurus of mine. My guru is Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. I follow his teachings on this subject and no one else's. You may not like him, you may not agree with him, but what I have said is basically his point of view on the subject. He considers the compassion argument for vegetarianism a "miserable compassion". He is quite emphatic on this point and brings it up at nearly every retreat.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the Dalai Lama...

Malcolm wrote:
HH Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Thrasymachus said:
But you we are physiologically and ethically capable of extending compassion to animals by not killing many animals by refusing meat.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with this perspective. When a practitioner eats meat with presence and awareness, there is a connection made with that sentient being that serves to benefit that animal.

You do not have to accept this point of view for yourself, but it is my point of view.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Thrasymachus said:
You search for manipulated facts to make meat eating more acceptable. For example earlier you railed on soy, citing this article: http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan-reassesses-soy-a-health-and-environmental-perspective/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But that article itself mentioned most soy, 80%, goes to feed livestock.

Malcolm wrote:
I do not eat industrially produced meat for environmental as well as ethical reasons. I made that clear.

Thrasymachus said:
So counting the forest so essential to this "ideal" meat eating enterprise, you can only feed about 2 people per 10 acres.

Malcolm wrote:
Where do you derive this figure from?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Thrasymachus said:
It seems alot of people here are using a fundamentalist Buddhist approach to justify meat eating.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Not at all. As with everything, there are a number of views about meat-eating in Buddhism. In my case, it has nothing to do with the traditional diet of Tibetans.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Is Guru Yoga necessary?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Which of the two questions are you answering no to?  Coz it makes a HUGE difference!


Malcolm wrote:
Guru yoga is the sole path of all the buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Is Guru Yoga necessary?
Content:
Kelwin said:
Ok, let's invert the question this time. Is Guru Yoga necessary? Can we reach accomplishment without it?


Malcolm wrote:
No, not in Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: recent Jogye controversy
Content:
mindyourmind said:
People having fun.

How dare they


Malcolm wrote:
I know, what is the world coming too, meat eating, and now this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: recent Jogye controversy
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
The leader of South Korea's biggest Buddhist order has apologised after monks were filmed apparently gambling illegally. Six leaders of the Jogye order offered to resign on Thursday after the secretly-filmed footage emerged. Film apparently showing monks playing poker at a luxury hotel, some smoking and drinking, was aired on television....
More here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18030813 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
Ha! Back in the early '90's there was a strip joint (The Naked Eye) where some strippers that were friends of mine used to work in Boston in the Combat Zone. One night a friend and I headed down there for a drink and five Korean monks, in their monastic dress, who were staying at the Cambridge Zen Center walked out of the place as we were walking in. Our friend, who has dancing that evening, told us they had left her the best tip she had had so far that night.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Care to elucidate?


Malcolm wrote:
The five outer course elements are made out of the five lights of the wisdom of rigpa. Everything (all sentient beings including their consciousness as well as everything we consider inanimate) is made out of the five elements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
But when you buy meat at the meat store, whatever "being" once lived in that meat already moved out of that house long ago. There is no karma from buying or eating this meat...


Malcolm wrote:
This is also Bhavaviveka's perspective.

The truth is that Christians, Moslems, Jews, and Secularists will never stop eating meat. They will never stop raising animals for food. If practitioners refuse to eat meat, they are refusing to create a good cause for the animal whose flesh they are eating.

There is no need to suppose we must therefore decide to eat every kind of dead creature and so on. We can work within the convention of what are considered food animals in our culture and society, i.e. poultry, beef, pork, lamb, goat, venison, wild game, fish and shellfish. It is also ok to enjoy the taste and the flavor of these kinds of foods. We have sense organs, we should enjoy what we eat. We should also be aware, we should not be blind to suffering. Also when we eat a salad, or a tomato, we have to be aware of the suffering the production of that tomato or lettuce, or head of broccoli engenders. When we pick a tomato, we are also picking someone else's food, the food of another creature. When we eat a strawberry, we are stealing it from some bird, chipmonk or insect. When we buy mass produced vegetables in a market, how many creatures died to produce that? When we use sesame oil to cook our vegetarian meal, how many millions of small creatures were crushed to death to extract that sesame oil? The idea that being a vegetarian is less harmful to sentient beings than being a meat eater is deluded. You can, for example, in the same cycle of treasure texts find one text that says you must avoid meat, and in another text from the same cycle, instructions that one must eat meat.

If you have a specific reason for being a vegetarian, for example, you are doing chulen (rasāyana) practice -- then you must avoid all foods that give rise to the three humors and focus only on sattvic foods, essence foods, such as ghee, honey, rice, fruits, etc. You cannot eat garlic, onion, radishes, etc., roots in general. This also has to do with how to cleanse the digestive pathways in the formation of the various tissues of the body. Even so, there are tantras that identify meat as rasāyana, chulen. So meat can even be used for chulen practice.

If one is a Dzogchen pracititioner, there are no rules about what one may eat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Everything is made out of rigpa.
Isn't this a case of considering butter to be milk?

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
It's quite clear that most humanoids on this planet are currently devolving.

Adamantine said:
Well, yeah.. I haven't invested a great deal of time studying evolutionary theory but I imagine there are allowances for population explosions and bottlenecks of everything from virulant plants, insects, and rodents to humans.. any lifeforms that get way out of proportion and balance with the environment can end up altering it drastically, and eventually be the cause for their own demise potentially. I would just assume this must be an aspect of "evolutionary" theory, and if not than it is quite deficient.

On another note, Guru RInpoche's prophecies do seem to be right on target, and I don't think he was subjecting his forward gaze to evolutionary models..
There's theory, and then there's omniscience.. I am aiming for the latter.. for now though I may have to dabble in the former.. sigh

Malcolm wrote:
"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
practitioner said:
Butcher ---> Purchaser = bad karma
Butcher ---> Market ---> Purchaser = no problem

Malcolm wrote:
The argument is, and it is the Buddha's argument, recall, that meat that was not slaughtered for you specifically, that you have not seen slaughtered, and did not request slaughtered is pure. In case someone feels this is merely a Hinayāna argument, let me also remind you that the Madhyamaka author Bhavaviveka also follows the same argument. Shantideva of course is well known for arguing against meat eating.

While it is true that the lower tantras instruct us that to be vegetarian -- tantras like Hevajra instruct us in the opposite fashion.

So, again, it all depends on what you personally want to practice.

I am a Dzogchen Community practitioner, therefore I practice according to that tradition. I believe that refusing to eat meat is a refusal to extend one's compassion.

In the end, we are all food. Get used to it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I mean the animal is still be raised to be slaughtered in order to fulfil your atachment to the taste of flesh. Environmentally it may be better but ethically???

Malcolm wrote:
When meat is available I eat it. When it isn't I don't. It is pretty simple.

I already pointed out I do not eat meat if it is impure in any of three ways.

When practitioners consume meat with a method, then there is benefit.

Namdrol said:
Dzogchen theoretically rejects the distinction between sentient and non-sentient.
Really?  So rocks also have Buddha nature according to Dzogchen and are capable of attaining awareness of their true nature?

Malcolm wrote:
Everything is made out of rigpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Nemo said:
Look at the price tag of your organic food next time you are at the store. Are you going to tell me land is more productive specifically in calories per acre using organic practices?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is.

Nemo said:
Then wouldn't everyone do it?

Malcolm wrote:
It's a rigged game, with a long history that goes back to the 18th century. Fundamentally, the land use patterns of Southern planters became dominant in the wheat and corn growing regions of the US, and the Northen practices of restorative husbandry fell by the wayside.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Combining Semde and Bimala
Content:
AlexanderS said:
If used on the same day, should Bimala be taken in the evening if Semde is taken in the morning?

Is it also okay to take 1 pill of agar-35 when taken Bimala?


Malcolm wrote:
No need to take Agar 25 with Vimala -- take either one or the other.

You can take Semde in the morning with either of these.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the concept of progress....
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen is unique because...


Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood is an innate quality:

“Oh Vajradhara you must listen! Since buddhahood is unconditioned, there is no buddhahood through fabricated dharmas. The three kāyas of buddhahood are present as the kāya of prajñā. Since there are no material signs in the the kāya of prajñā, it is unaffected by the consequences of karma. Since this impure deluded appearance arises as buddhahood, there is no need to purify karma and traces.”
-- The Tantra of Buddhahood as an Intrinsic Attribute


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Some may argue that plants aren't sentient beings but there's been discoveries regarding plant behavior which refute that view.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen theoretically rejects the distinction between sentient and non-sentient.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
practitioner said:
So if I have a house infested with termites and I hire an exterminator to spray the whole place, since I didn't do the actual killing myself I have no karmic responsibility? Sure...

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you are, you are contracting it to be done, just as if you contracted a butcher to slaughter a steer for you.

Your objection is moot however since I was not making this argument.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: How to learn from a Teacher of the Dharma <?>
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Second make sure you avoid the many Buddhist cults out there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Nemo said:
The health benefits for either camp are simply not there.



Malcolm wrote:
Nonesense, industrial agriculture contributes significantly to global warming or climate instability, whatever you want to call it. It results in large scale enviromental degradation, it is hugely inefficient, costly, and it returns less and less every year in terms of energy inputs.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Nemo said:
Maybe on planet granola. Pests eat so much you need to plant at least twice as much and the labour involved is often ridiculous.

As well the produce rots much faster and in the "good ol' days" of organic farming it took one in six adults working full time growing food to produce enough to feed everyone.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you don't know very much about organic farming, companion planting etc. But believe whatever you want. People have different definitions of food. Mine excludes anything grown through agrocorporate methods, GMOS, etc.

If organic produce really rots faster (it doesn't), I would take that as a good sign.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Are you actually claiming that if you go to one of those Chinese seafood restaurants where they have the live fish in tanks, and you point to the fish you want them to kill and cook, it is karmically and morally different from going to a restaurant and letting them choose which fish to kill and cook to feed you?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't eat seafood in those kind of Chinese resturants; I don't order lobster in places where they boil them to order. I don't eat meat that I have seen being killed. And I never ask anyone to slaughter animals on my behalf. I won't eat meat that has been slaughtered for me.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
But frankly, being a vegetarian is not a superior moral choice. If you are a vegetarian for reasons of health it is one thing. But vegetarianism as moral campaign is deluded. Millions of animals large and small die to bring vegetables and grains to our plates every day. But over and over again vegetarians justify this claiming that the purpose of such agriculture is not to kill animals, so therefore, they morally excuse themselves from culpability in the death of countless millions of creatures.

Acchantika said:
It seems to me that your argument is against the modern agriculture industry not vegetarianism per se. If vegetarianism could operate without the use of organic or inorganic pesticides in a sustainable way perhaps that would be the superior moral choice. This isn't feasible on a large scale currently, but vegetarianism even in its current state would be a progressive step towards that end while non-vegetarianism cannot be. In the same way that world peace is not achievable currently, and many may technically die because one does not join an army to protect oppressed countries by killing oppressors, this is not a valid reason to join the army.

Malcolm wrote:
When people stop killing animals for food, I will stop eating meat. Until then, I won't. It is pretty simple. I personally don't care what diet people have -- but the saccharine fake compassion holier than thou attitude of some vegetarians is pretty pathetic. So if your conscience won't permit you to eat meat, great, don't eat it. My conscience won't permit me not to. But don't lecture me with some lame ass criticisms and poorly cited arguments from Abhidharma (which incidentally is a Hinayāna system in which meat eating is permitted). If people wish to follow common Mahāyāna and avoid meat, fine. The Hevajra tantra states however "Those who eat meat have compassion."

If you really want to follow the common Mahāyāna POV, not only must you avoid meat, but you must avoid onion, garlic, scallions, wine, and so on. So if you are going to do down that road, be consistent. Don't eat onion, garlic, meat, drink wine and so on.

As I pointed out, if people grass fed their cattle in a proper way, for both dairy and meat, we could reverse 200 years of carbon release in ten-twenty years.

So far no one has answered my observation that whether eats meat or not makes absolutely not one whit of difference concerning whether one will become an awakened person or not. But there are apparently some people think that their choice diet makes them superior buddhists -- well, screw that, what bullshit -- load of religious crapola disconnected with reality.

N

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Nemo said:
I don't know if that is still true. Organic agriculture would only produce enough food for about 3 billion beople right now with current land usage. If that is the "moral" choice,.....

Malcolm wrote:
That is also not true. The only reason we have industrial agriculture is because of oil.

There are much smarter ways to do agriculture. Small organic farms generate a much higher yield per acre than large agrobusiness monocrop "farms".

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
according to the Buddhist view of karma, accidentally stepping on a bug is different from deliberately stepping on a bug. What is the difference? In the first case there is no intention to kill, in the second there is. In eating a carrot, there is no intention to kill; in eating a hamburger, by definition, there is.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, that just not fly. Buying a hamburger in a market does not eqaute intention to kill. I know you desperately want it too, but it does not. Asking someone outright to slaughter a steer so you can have meat on the other hand would involve an intention to kill.

Bhavaviveka dispensed with your argument long ago in his Tarkajvala.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if you purchase meat, either in a store or restaurant, you are, in effect, paying someone to kill the animal for you, so the intent is there just as much as if you killed the animal yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
By the same reasoning, if you eat a tomato, etc.  to which pesticides have been applied, you are as culpablein terms of intent as the farmer in the death of the insects. But of course ideological vegetarians alway try to excuse the harm to beings caused by agriculture. It is one of their largest blind spots.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Chatral Rinpoche is a dzogchen master and is a big advocate of vegetarianism...


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is correct. He is setting a good example for those who do not have the capacity to employ methods.

As for me, I follow Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's advice.

But frankly, being a vegetarian is not a superior moral choice. If you are a vegetarian for reasons of health it is one thing. But vegetarianism as moral campaign is deluded. Millions of animals large and small die to bring vegetables and grains to our plates every day. But over and over again vegetarians justify this claiming that the purpose of such agriculture is not to kill animals, so therefore, they morally excuse themselves from culpability in the death of countless millions of creatures.

We all live in a world where our decisions negatively impact the lives of other creatures all the time. We drive a car for 20 minutes, how many bugs are smashed on our windshields? I see a serious myopia on the part of vegetarians who excuse themselves from the harm they cause insects and mammals through driving, who excuse themselves from the environmental degradation caused by their use of oil, who excuse themselves from their contributions to the effluent stream much of which is simply dumped into the ocean, and who then excortiate in a high handed fashion people who meat.

Frankly, eating grassfed meat is far better for the environment and ecosystems in the world than being a consumer of soy products. Soy is a very environmentally damaging crop ( http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan-reassesses-soy-a-health-and-environmental-perspective " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Grass fed cattle who are moved from fresh pasture to pasture actually sequester carbon and rebuild the local environment becase of the interaction between cattle and pasture. Joel Salatin writes in his recent The Sheer Ecstacy of Being a Lunatic Farmer (2010, Polyface):

There you have it: mob stocking herbivarious solar conversion lignified carbon sequestration fertilization. If every farmer in America practiced this prehistoric system, in fewer than ten years we would sequester all the carbon that has been emitted since the beginning of the industrial age. It's really that simple. One of the most environmentally-enhancing things you can do is to eat grass finished beef. That sequesters more carbon than soybeans, or corn, or any other annual. And yet how many radical environmentalists have turned to soy milk and veganism in order to be earth friendly. (page 28)

Finally, in the end, being an eater of meat does not make one less capable of realizing the meaning of the teachings, and being a vegetarian does not make one more capable of realizing the teachings.

That is the bottom line.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


practitioner said:
My point being, Milarepa was a Buddha, capable of extraordinary feats due to his complete realization of emptiness.  So the fact that Milarepa or Marpa or any other highly realized practitioner ate meat is of no concern to me because they of course realized the true emptiness of that action.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, Milarepa ate meat as a matter of course in his life, both before and after his awakening.


practitioner said:
How many people who eat meat claiming to do it with a Dzogchen/Vajrayana view of eating the meat of sentient beings out of compassion really have the realization to actually do it? How many are just using the terms Dzogchen and Vajrayana to justify their own attachments to eating meat?

Malcolm wrote:
It does not require "realization", it merely requires a method, mindfulness and compassion.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Channeled Message from the Buddha
Content:
Aemilius said:
If we accept tertons and teachings based on pure visions, why  not the channeled teachings ?
http://organiccosmos.ning.com/profiles/blogs/channeled-message-from-buddha-through-elizabeth-trutwin

According to Buddha (in Kalama sutta and elsewhere) we should not depend on authority, but we should depend  on our own reason, our own capability of judgement.
In practice buddhism seems to be only about authority, if lama so and so says something then it has to be accepted by everyone, we must be good boys and girls.


Malcolm wrote:
"You cling to the programming from inside the Matrix."

Seriously?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
The Vajrayāna/Dzogchen perspective is that refusing to eat meat is a refusal to extend one's compassion. So one must decide what level one is going to practice at.

N

practitioner said:
Well there is no ONE Vajrayana perspective either.  For example, I am from the Kagyu tradition and the Karmapa has given up meat and is now vegetarian.  Does he not practice Vajrayana?? Here is a short excerpt from a transcript of a teaching on the subject.

Malcolm wrote:
He is setting a good example for those who prefer a more Mahāyāna approach to this issue. But I don't consider his point of view a Vajrayāna approach. It is a lower tantra/common Mahāyāna perspective.

You will also recall that Milarepa was a meat eater, as was Marpa, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
practitioner said:
However, I think the most important point is that eating meat should be unacceptable from a Buddhist perspective and whatever it takes for anyone to reach that conclusion is fine by me.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many Buddhist perspectives, and often they stand in apparent contradiction to one another.

The common Mahāyāna perspective is that eating meat is unacceptable.

The Vajrayāna/Dzogchen perspective is that refusing to eat meat is a refusal to extend one's compassion. So one must decide what level one is going to practice at.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
I don't deny evolution. However I also do not believe that modern humans evolved from hominids that evolved from apes...

Anyway, if you didn't attend the retreat I mentioned where Rinpoche talked about some of this, the replay should be available as you know.

Malcolm wrote:
Apes also evolved from hominids. We are all cousins. This is just a genetic fact.

I heard what Rinpoche said. He does not beleive in Meru. Ok. Cool. He does not beleive in the evolution of humans from apes. Ok. Cool (anthropologists don't either). He prefers the Treta Yuga etc., model. Ok cool -- but that has nothing to do with the mathematical precision with which we can track DNA, etc., and nothing to do with the fact that our human form evolved from earlier and less sophisticated forms.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
So I agree with Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche that the idea of humans "evolving from apes" is rather silly.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, actually Humans evolved from earlier homonids. Apes evolved along different lines than humans, branching off from the hominidea clade. No one who studies paleo-anthropology would say that humans evolved from apes.

The phyisical form we call "homo sapiens" at present is 100% a product of evolution.

Evolution is not merely a theory, it is a demonstrable fact that can be empirically reproduced in labs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
At issue is not where the IE languages developed, but the timeframe and the mechanism of its diffusion.  The Aryan invasion theory as you are aware posits a light-skinned conquering tribe of nomadic "Aryas" on chariots that conquered a dark-skinned Dravidian city-dwelling culture bringing with them the Vedic culture.  This theory is proto-fascist hogwash based on a fanciful reading of itihasa.

There is no evidence that the Vedic culture originated anywhere other than India.  This is not to say that Vedic culture is the source of the IE language family.  Conquest is much less effective than commerce to spread a language.  English is a perfect example of that.


Malcolm wrote:
George Dumezil shows there is clear continuity between, for example Roman ritual practices conducted by flamens and Indian ritualism conducted by brahmins, and as we all know, br becomes fl by phonetic shift.

No one has suggested by the way that the Rg Veda was composed outside of India since places in NW India can be clearly discerned with it. What has been suggested is that it was composed by peoples who had newly arrived in India, that the language of the text bears evidence of this fact, and that the culture that produced the Rg Veda bear a culture continuity with steppe nomads.

If by Vedic culture you mean the post Harappan civilization that emerged in India, then we can agree. But if you are proposing the Sarasvati culture meme of the Hindutvavadins, well, they have little evidence for this. It is all very speculative.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You should read Bryant's book. His basic pov it is that there is little in the way of solid proof for either side of this debate.

Another book you ought to read:

The Horse, The Wheel and Language by David W. Anthony, Princeton, 2007

In partcular you should read the section from 402-411. This entire book adequately supports the claim that PIE evolved in the steppes of Asia among nomads.

The basic point is that language carries culture, not DNA.

So there is plenty of evidence for the fact that Proto IE languge speakers moved into India from outside of it: dna, linguistics, archaeology, etc. These days these kinds of movements can be plotted mathematically on the basis of both linguistics and dna, just as the spread of human language can be plotted mathematically from South Africa to Polynesia. Both phonemic and genetic diversity is densest in South Africa, and least dense in among Polynesians.

Sure, the first people to move into India probably moved there 75,000 years ago. There have been many successive movements of people into India. Humans beings come from Africa, not India.

Witzel owned Frawley because Witzel's Sanskrit is much better than Frawley's and Witzel is a better scholar.

Karma Dorje said:
Witzel has staked his reputation on defending a theory that there is no objective evidence for.
The same charge may be leveled at Hindutvavada. Read Bryant.
He has politicized the conversation to a large degree...
So have the Hindutvavadins.
The most damning evidence to the theory, aside from the complete lack of an archeological record which substantiates their fanciful interpretation of veda and itihasa is current genetic analysis that demonstrates that the population of India has been indigenous for at least the last 10,000 years.
This does not prevent IE languages coming from some location in central Asia. Languages, as well as pots, are not people. English proves that well enough.
Whilst at McGill in the 90s, I had constant arguments with Katherine Young and others about this theory which they have all now rejected in light of current scientific evidence.  When philology and fact collide, facts usually win.

Malcolm wrote:
It is highly unlikely that the IE languages and cultures evolved in India and spread from there. The Hindutva theory is every bit as racist as the Hindutvavadins claim the Aryan Invasion Theory to be.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
The last thing I want to do is argue about brand marketing with a true believer.

Malcolm wrote:
The only thing I believe in is my own personal experience. Claims of realization are bullshit. Realization is bullshit.

That being said, the idea that the goals of this or that Hindu system and this or that Buddhist system are the same is pretty far fetched, as far as I am concerned.

For example, Jivanmuktis are held to be able to remove the karma of others. This is a preposturous claim from a Buddhist perspective.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I guess you consider yourself a great master. It must be so since you are arguing from experience.
How terribly patronizing.  The experience I argue from is my interaction with masters, particularly my tsawai lama that held lineages from both traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
Who says your mulaguru actually knows shit? Everyone has a a root guru. Very few of them are realized. And even if you claim he/she is realized, who can vouch for your claim? Proclamations of the realization of one's master is pretty much a shell game.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
The question I would ask in light of this, is how do the Mahavidya, Nath, and Kaula traditions relate to the Dravidians?  Who here thinks (or knows) that the '"Indo-Aryan" invasion of Dravidian India' theory (that the Mahabharata is said to describe) holds any weight?
The so-called Aryan invasion theory has been thoroughly debunked in modern academia.

Malcolm wrote:
No it hasn't. Havn't you read Witzel's debunking of the Hindutva nationalist origins theory? Especially Frawley's tepid presentation?

The best and most balanced book on the subject is The Quest for The Origins of Vedic Culture by Edwin Bryant, Oxford, 2001.

Karma Dorje said:
While there are a number of full length works, this article provides a decent synopsis of the main arguments against it:

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
You can read Frawley getting owned by Michael Witzel back in 2002 in a number of exchanges involving the two of them as well as others. In order to access these articles you need to go here:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/op/arcop.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And access them by date.

1/22/02   N.S. Rajaram : Historical divide: archaeology and  literature

1/29/02   M. Witzel   Indus Civilisation and Vedic society

2/5/02     Clarence Maloney : Vedic-Indus debate: save Indian  civilisation today


2/19/02   N.S. Rajaram: Theory and evidence

3/5/02     M. Witzel :  Harappan horse myths and the sciences


3/12/02   R. Nagaswamy: Harappan horse


5/21/02   M. Witzel (assisted by Richard Meadow): Horses, logic, and evidence


6/18/02   David Frawley: Vedic literature and the Gulf of Cambay discovery

6/25./02   M. Witzel :  A maritime Rigveda? — How not to read ancient texts

7/2/02 R. Nagaswamy : From Harappan horse to camel


7/9/02     Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet :   Cosmology in Rigveda — the third premise


7/16/02 D.,Frawley: Witzel's vanishing ocean


8/6/02  M. Witzel Philology vanished: Frawley's Rigveda — I


8/13/02  M. Witzel: Philology vanished: Frawley's Rigveda — II


8/20/02 D.Frawley: Witzel's philology


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I think that there is a larger point that bears greater investigation:  regardless of stated viewpoint, is the actual realization of the great masters of these various teachings different?  My experience of this is that it is not. .

Malcolm wrote:
I guess you consider yourself a great master. It must be so since you are arguing from experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Nighthawk said:
What is Lakshmi seen as?


Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhism, Laxmi is called Vasudevi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Nemo said:
So when a certain mantra is done in the context of Hindu Japa it is mundane, but if I do it Buddhist style it becomes supermundane. Same mantra but different being. Sounds unlikely.

Namdrol said:
Tara mantra is just about the only mantra I know of that is shared between both traditions. But the mahavidyā tradition in Hinduism is quite different in its approach to Tara practice than Tara practice as it exists in Buddhism. Here is a clear example of a popular Buddhist deity being appropriated by Hinduism.

This is the point of the view of the Mahavidyā tradition:

"Tantra is accepted as the authoritative proof then and then only when it contradicts not the Vedas. Whatever goes clearly against the Vedas can in no way be accepted as a proof. In matters concerning Dharma, the Vedas is the Sole Proof."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk11ch01.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buddhists do not accept śruti i.e. Vedic authority.

N

Nemo said:
Tara is a bad example. IMO I think they are different. But there are many more mantras in common.

Malcolm wrote:
well, the mantra of both Taras is the same i.e. om tare tuttare ture svaha.



Nemo said:
Lets take Jambala. A minor Hindu deity and Buddhist Protector. He was a student of the Buddha of the previous age. If memory serves Kashyapa Buddha. He took vows and has been a full time Bodhisattva long before recorded history.

Malcolm wrote:
Jambhala is not a Hindu deity.

Nemo said:
Perhaps parts of Hinduism are remnants of teachings of Buddhas of past ages. To say there was no Dharma prior to the historical Buddha in 500 BC and that only humans have access to Dharma seems doctrinaire.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not say any of this.



Nemo said:
Many of the Gods were taught by the historical Buddha and received prophecies on their eventual Buddhahood. Some were also taught by previous Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Receiving a prediction does not make you awakened.

Nemo said:
Will Jambala not bless Hindu devotees?

Malcolm wrote:
They don't practice Jambhala. They practice Kubera. Same type of deity, to be sure. But not identical.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Well I've heard something along the lines of that the Upanishads were originally composed by Dravidian Tantrikas, and then later on the Vedics tacked them onto the Vedas thereby trying to claim the Upanishads as their own.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, the Upanishads themselves refer to the Vedas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Emanations in Indian Religions
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Isn't it quite possible, even likely, that the Mahavidya/Tantric Mother-Goddess tradition is originally pre-Vedic Dravidian?

Malcolm wrote:
The Mahāvidyā tradition is Puranic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Nemo said:
So when a certain mantra is done in the context of Hindu Japa it is mundane, but if I do it Buddhist style it becomes supermundane. Same mantra but different being. Sounds unlikely.

Malcolm wrote:
Tara mantra is just about the only mantra I know of that is shared between both traditions. But the mahavidyā tradition in Hinduism is quite different in its approach to Tara practice than Tara practice as it exists in Buddhism. Here is a clear example of a popular Buddhist deity being appropriated by Hinduism.

This is the point of the view of the Mahavidyā tradition:

"Tantra is accepted as the authoritative proof then and then only when it contradicts not the Vedas. Whatever goes clearly against the Vedas can in no way be accepted as a proof. In matters concerning Dharma, the Vedas is the Sole Proof."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk11ch01.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buddhists do not accept śruti i.e. Vedic authority.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Namdrol said:
The verity of the claim "Kali is Yogini" is what is underdispute. However, for my part, if the tradition maintains that Kali is the subordinate of Yogini, that they are different person, one indicated by the name "Kali" and the other indicated by the name "Yogini", then I accept that they are different.

Adamantine said:
I thought it was regarding Troma and Kali, not Vajrayogini and Kali.

Malcolm wrote:
Troma is a form of Yogini.




Adamantine said:
You did belittle the tendency to conflate all female divinities into one "mother" in both the Hindu and Buddhist tradition...

Malcolm wrote:
No I didn't.

Adamantine said:
Similarly, this trinity is also referred to as "the three Mothers". So they are seen as distinct. But if you were to conflate them into one, I believe it would be Samantabhadri, not Vajrayogini.

Malcolm wrote:
Besides the point.


Adamantine said:
Maybe, but was their practice or realization any different? One of the most common teaching stories circulated by modern Tibetan Lamas is the good old "dog's tooth".

Malcolm wrote:
A lot of bullshit gets swept under that rug.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
cloudburst said:
threats of banning.

Malcolm wrote:
Not by me. But by all means, continue with your obsession about delusion, picking the right one as it were.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
Has a genuine and impartial evaluation of Trika and Dzogchen been made in the last couple hundred years?  No, because on both side there is more importance given to the brand than an honest discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Trika is realist. Dzogchen is not.


Namdrol said:
Once again, if you read the Karandavyuha, you will find Shiva is converted by Avalokiteshvara. Two different persons, if you will.
And if you read the Abhidharma there is a square central mountain with the continents arrayed around it.  It doesn't take a brilliant polemicist to come up with stories like that and it convinces no one who hasn't already made up their mind.

Malcolm wrote:
The persons who authored the Karandavyuha clearly intended different persons by the name "Shiva" and "Avalokiteshvara".

Namdrol said:
I already accepted intertexuality.
I am not positing intertextuality.  I am positing shared genesis and continued cross-fertilization.

Malcolm wrote:
Same difference.

Namdrol said:
I can't see how you can dismiss the cosmology of the central mountain on the one hand and yet still insist on cosmological fables of the creation of the devatas when there is a clearly symbolic agenda to the use of these deities as seats.
I was arguing from the point of view of the tradition itself. I was not making a truth claim.
The position of the tradition itself is not in dispute.  The verity of its claims is.

Malcolm wrote:
The verity of the claim "Kali is Yogini" is what is underdispute. However, for my part, if the tradition maintains that Kali is the subordinate of Yogini, that they are different person, one indicated by the name "Kali" and the other indicated by the name "Yogini", then I accept that they are different.

For example, Tibetans imagined that Bodhgaya was in Assam for centuries. They went in pilgrimages their, made offerings at Hindu shrines they imagined were Buddhists ones, and so on. But certainly, these gods the Tibetans mistook for Buddhist deities were not.


Namdrol said:
No, the mythos is history. It shows the means of Buddhist appropriations of an older religious culture and a repurposing of it to suit Buddhist purposes. The Buddhist stupa's parts is a reworking of the symbolism of the vedic fire altar. But certainly a Buddhist stupa is not a vedic fire altar.
No one would argue that a stupa is a fire altar, nor a kila a yupa.  However, when one looks impartially at tantric ritual in both Hindu and Buddhist context they see that both draw in exactly the same manner upon the Vedic strata.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, this is the ritual syntax of Pan-Indian culture.

Namdrol said:
Tantrism accomplished the same thing in ostensibly different contexts and traditions that likely developed at the same time.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with you. It is my opinion that different traditions adopted the body based methods of tantrism that grew out of the Upanishadic/Yoga/Ayurvedic traditions and adapted them to their own view and soteriologies. I do not accept as a necessary consquence that these methods offer the same result irrespective of the views of those who practice them.

I prefer Trika to all other versions of Hinduism, but I do not think that Trika and Dzogchen are even remotely the same. I am pretty certain there is no Togal in Trika -- at least, in what I have read in English (a fair amount) I have never run across it. Of course, I do recognize that texts like the Vijñānabhairava have many methods that bear resemblance to certain preliminary Dzogchen practices. Emptiness is not the final view in Trika, however. It is the final view in Dzogchen.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Nemo said:
I don't mix practices of course. But I am not so closed minded as to think that the Rahula that the Hindus worship is different from the one Buddhists do.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two, in fact, the mudane one, and the supermundane one used to control the latter.

This is all getting rather far afield.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
There are two points here:  the first that you seem to be saying that the only way to realization is through practicing Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
I do not believe the ideas about liberation in non-buddhist traditions and Buddhist traditions are commensurate. They are different ideas of liberation which offer different kinds of results.




Karma Dorje said:
The second point is that I am not making an equation between Chakrasamvara and Shiva.  I have not looked at the historical record of these traditions.   The equation between Pashupati and Avalokiteshvara on the one hand and Chinnamasta and Vajrayogini are well documented as two prominent examples of shared provenance.

Malcolm wrote:
Once again, if you read the Karandavyuha, you will find Shiva is converted by Avalokiteshvara. Two different persons, if you will.

Karma Dorje said:
Not to mention the use of pancamakaras in both Kaula and Vajrayana ritual, the identiy of the upacharas used in worship, or shared lineage gurus amongst the 84 mahasiddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
I already accepted intertexuality.

Karma Dorje said:
I can't see how you can dismiss the cosmology of the central mountain on the one hand and yet still insist on cosmological fables of the creation of the devatas when there is a clearly symbolic agenda to the use of these deities as seats.

Malcolm wrote:
I was arguing from the point of view of the tradition itself. I was not making a truth claim.

Karma Dorje said:
Ṡ́ri Devi is almost certainly not of Indian origin. In fact what relationship there is between Śri̛ Devi is a relationship with Nila-sarasvati.
As I am sure you are aware, there is close equation in Hindu tantra between Tara/Nilasarasvati and Kali, particularly at Tarapitha.  It is in fact likely that Tara's cult came to Bengal from Tibet, as indicated by her name "Mahacinnatara".  Tantra cross-pollenated at many points over the last couple millennia.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a tendency on the Hindu side to boil every female manifestation down into a great mother. Likewise, there is tendency on the Buddhist side to boil all female mainfestations down into a great mother. But I don't think one is accurate in portraying Prajñāpāramita as Kali.

Karma Dorje said:
However, reading the mythos as history rather than polemics is nonsensical.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the mythos is history. It shows the means of Buddhist appropriations of an older religious culture and a repurposing of it to suit Buddhist purposes. The Buddhist stupa's parts is a reworking of the symbolism of the vedic fire altar. But certainly a Buddhist stupa is not a vedic fire altar.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
But to say a mundane God...
Isn't this rather like the Christians that insist that only those that believe in Jesus will be saved?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not.

Karma Dorje said:
Who is to say that all beings who aren't nominally Buddhist are samsaric?

Malcolm wrote:
All beings who are not āryas are samsaric.

Karma Dorje said:
While I will agree that if we are to make correspondences between Hindu and Buddhist forms of the goddess the correlation is between Vajrayogini and Chinnamasta, there certainly is little conceptual OR energetic difference between the Hindu Mahakali and any of a constellation of Mahakalis in the Buddhist pantheon.

Malcolm wrote:
Ṡ́ri Devi is almost certainly not of Indian origin. In fact what relationship there is between Śri̛ Devi is a relationship with Nila-sarasvati.

Karma Dorje said:
The use of various devatas as a seat is merely the age-old religious principle of "the god of the old religion becomes the devil of the new" that we see around the world...

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that Yogini is not Kali. Yogini forcefully appropriates the garb of Kali just as Heruka forcefully appropriates the garb of Bhairava and in the process "liberates" them, bestowing a prediction of Bhairava's eventual buddhahood. But this by no means can be taken to mean that Shiva is Cakrasamvara or Kali is Yogini, even given the fact of intertextuality between Indian traditions.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Four mantras
Content:
rai said:
dear whoever seen the book and/or have the knowledge,

so finally i got the book and have one question, there are matras to recite and to write on the scarf or tshirt but what we are suppose to do with the Chakras?  hang it on the wall or wore as an amulets?

thank you!


Malcolm wrote:
Amulet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All of this argument about relative truth is merely trying to choose one delusion over another.

Waste of time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Bhusuku said:
Well, after a while of searching I came across https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=ru&ie=UTF8&langpair=ru%7Cen&rurl=www.google.com&twu=1&u=http://rangjungyeshe.ru/page.php%3Fid%3D472&usg=ALkJrhg57Ztx9vWVOwrDxHC-RQwXRcbIjQ. But now's the question: is this the "right" version, i.e. are there different ways to sing the kun bzang smon lam?


Malcolm wrote:
Mostly it is sung according to the whim of the Umdze of a given monastery.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Chanting
Content:
conebeckham said:
I think it's a combination of a lot of things.....melodies and means of chanting sometimes came to great masters in "visions," etc.

There's a funny song, I think it was from Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo, about the differences between lineages--and he talks about the differences in chanting styles--"Gandenpas chant from deep below, Nyingmas chant through the nose, " or some sort of funny comments like that.  He also pokes fun of every lineage, before really making some terse statements about the great benefit of all....

There are quite elaborate systems of music, melody, chanting, etc., for every lineage--even for sub-lineages.  I'm sure even the various Nyingma lineages have quite a variety of styles, melodies, etc.

A few years back I was very fortunate to have two Bhutanese (Drukpa Kagyu) Loppons stay with me for a while, and we did a shrine consecration--I joined them, and their methods of chanting, melodies, music, etc. was utterly unlike what I'd been taught.   The varieties are truly endless!

Blue Garuda said:
Ah, thanks.

At the moment, when unfamiliar, I just rise and fall with the tide of actions by those who know what they are doing!  LOL

Malcolm wrote:
The most profound Dzogchen chant is Song of the Vajra.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: What are the differences between reincarnation and rebirth?
Content:
Will said:
Incarnation: (esp. of a deity or spirit) embodied in flesh; in human form
says a dictionary.

Something is distinct from the flesh and thus is within the body.  Since the 4 higher skandhas qualify as distinct from the rupa-form, the only question is - are they 'within' the body or not.  If yes, then reincarnation is more accurate; if no, then rebirth is more accurate.

Malcolm wrote:
OED:

rebirth |rēˈbərTH, ˈrēˌbərTH|
noun
the process of being reincarnated or born again: the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.
• the action of reappearing or starting to flourish or increase after a decline; revival: the rebirth of a defeated nation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: What are the differences between reincarnation and rebirth?
Content:


Nighthawk said:
There is no "soul" that transmigrates from one body to the other so how is it possible to say both versions are identical?

Namdrol said:
There is nothing in the word "reincarnation" that suggests a soul; there is nothing in the word "rebirth" that does not.

N

Clarence said:
I once had a professor who was adamant that Buddhists should use rebirth. His argument was that reincarnation comes from the Latin re in carne, meaning again into the flesh. So, he took that to mean there was one entity going into a body again instead of, well, the Buddhist idea. To me, although his argument makes sense, I think it is too pedantic and don't care.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, by his argument reincarnation is better, since what happens rebirth is the reappropriation of a body, hence reincarnation. Also what gets reborn? Why a body, of course.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 1:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Chanting
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
I know next to nothing about Dzogchen and indeed the Nyingma in general.

My background is Gelugpa where the chanting I have encountered has been fairly flat or the deep throat chanting I can almost accomplish at times.

I have recently posted about receiving an empowerment form Dozgchen Rinpoche, in the course of which I received a mantra and also bought a CD of Dzogchen Monastery Chants.

I find the chants completely engrossing as they enter my mind, almost hypnotic, and chanting the one for which I have transmission is a wonderful experience.

The complexity of the Dzogchen chants seems to involve a lot of singing 'around' each syllable rather than simple enunciation, and some variation such as 'OYM' at the start rather than 'OM' or 'AUMN'.

Is this a characteristic?

Is it was intended to disguise the mantra, or because it is rooted in a more ancient form, etc ?

Here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YSlU1_kd-A " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
It is just style.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:


heart said:
Among others that is the Dharmapalas.

/magnus

dakini_boi said:
I thought the remains are offered to sentient beings of the 6 realms after the main offerings to the 3 roots and dharmapalas. - and therefore the dharmapalas are not included among the recipients of the remains.

Malcolm wrote:
They are not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
Namdrol said:
They are offered to those outside the mandala.

dakini_boi said:
but why are they called "guardians?"

Malcolm wrote:
Becuase they also have some function of guarding place.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:


Namdrol said:
Just a remainder offering. Three roots are inside you, as well as protectors

dakini_boi said:
Why is the remainder offered to the "guardians of the remains."  These are really offered to the guests of compassion, having nothing to do with dharmapalas - correct?

Malcolm wrote:
They are offered to those outside the mandala.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: What are the differences between reincarnation and rebirth?
Content:


Nighthawk said:
There is no "soul" that transmigrates from one body to the other so how is it possible to say both versions are identical?

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing in the word "reincarnation" that suggests a soul; there is nothing in the word "rebirth" that does not.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Nemo said:
Agreed.

Malcolm wrote:
Then there is nothing more to discuss.

When you invoke Kali, what you get is death. I have a tatoo of a Kali yantra on my left arm from my pre-Buddhist days. Kali is not Vajrayogini. Kali takes her payment in blood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: What are the differences between reincarnation and rebirth?
Content:
Takoda said:
What is the difference between reincarnation and rebirth?


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing at all. But some Buddhists like to pretend there is a difference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Adamantine said:
This was answered by a high Lama, fyi.

Malcolm wrote:
So called "High" Lamas also assert Meru Cosmology is true. I don't put much value in the assertions of "high" lamas when they contradict common sense.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Nemo said:
I think the only person qualified to answer that would be a high Lama who knows both parties personally. Many of these once mundane Gods have been practitioners  and students of the Buddhas for aeons. If I kept my Samayas for a thousand years and used the powers of a God to accumulate merit progress on the path would be swift. To think of Gods as static and unchanging sounds like eternalism. Even very negative beings become miraculous protectors full of love when they accept guidance of the Aryas.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, this is not the issue. Kali does not become Vajrayogini by mere fiat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Adamantine said:
Unless those traditional accounts had more to do with Buddhist-Hindu competing interpretations at the time of their inception. . .  My understanding is that the actual energies of these two are identical, however, it is a misunderstanding of certain qualities and symbolism that have led Hindu devotees to do terrible things like commit blood human and animal sacrifices in her name, etc. Perhaps the symbolism of these early accounts has more to do with purifying the context of devotion from this degeneration, and is framed as suppression in a colorful way to communicate this. Again, I am just offering an alternative way to interpret what you are putting forth as an absolute truth. I am sure there are more.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a modern interpretation. Some Lama may have adopted it. I still think it is bunk.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Astrological "overlap" with others?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Interesting thread, about which I know very little.

Anyone care to comment on the TsurLuk and Pukluk systems, and their differences?


Malcolm wrote:
The main difference lies in when they start the year.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
Kilaya. said:
I usually add the Naggong to the Short Thun, I hope this little invention is not that bad.

Malcolm wrote:
It's not your invention. DC practices are quite modular.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Adamantine said:
I don't see your logic here, what makes it impossible? You are talking about symbolic representations now, not the actual energies at play anymore.


Namdrol said:
It is simple. Yogini emanated to suppress Kāli, just as Heruka emanated to suppress Bhairava. Hence, there is no way Kali can be Yogini, there is no way this worldly goddess can be one and the same as Buddha Vajrayogini.

Adamantine said:
You believe this to be literally true Namdrol?

Malcolm wrote:
I believe that this is the traditional account of the origin of all forms of Vajrayogini and hence, it is impossble for Yogini to be Kali.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
Jinzang said:
And, you should never be afraid to do guardian practice. They are guardians after all. They will never harm you.
I have been told that although the protectors are enlightened beings and would not harm practitioners, that they have oath bound beings in their retinue who are unenlightened and sometimes not very patient with lazy, careless, and conceited practitioners.

Malcolm wrote:
More fear mongering.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Ah I see, thanks.  So no matter how long or short a Ganapuja we perform (that is at least if Guardians are in any way involved), we should always transform regardless.
.


Malcolm wrote:
When you do with meal, there is no need to transform. In this case mainly you are making an offering to yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 6th, 2012 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
What is the best way to contact the Guardians without transforming...

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot. To contact guardians, one must always be in a transformation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Adamantine said:
I don't see your logic here, what makes it impossible? You are talking about symbolic representations now, not the actual energies at play anymore.


Malcolm wrote:
It is simple. Yogini emanated to suppress Kāli, just as Heruka emanated to suppress Bhairava. Hence, there is no way Kali can be Yogini, there is no way this worldly goddess can be one and the same as Buddha Vajrayogini.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Adamantine said:
That said, Krodakali, aka Troma, as practiced in the Nyingma lineage, is equivalent to Kali.

Namdrol said:
No it isn't. There is no relationship between the two. Krodhakali is a form  of Vajrayogini. Vajrayogini is not Kali.

Adamantine said:
According to you. But not according to lineage masters I have conferred with. I have been told they are the same.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it ain't so.

Krodhakāli originally entered Tibet with Padampa Sangye, hence the long association with Chö. This transmission is from a sadhana Virupa received in Oḍḍiyāna from a dakini there.

Kālarātri aka Kālī along with Bhairāva serve as the seat of Cakrasamvara and Vajrayogini. So it is really quite impossible that Kālī can be Vajrayogini. In reality, Cakrasamvara and Vajrayogini emanated from Akaniṣṭha to counteract Bhairava and Kālī.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
Namdrol said:
If you are turning your meal into a Ganapuja there is no need for a seperate plate, just make sure you leave some remainder.

dakini_boi said:
Is this remainder to be regarded as the 3-roots offering, or the offering of the remainders, or both?

Thank you, as usual, your input is invaluable in demystifying these things.


Malcolm wrote:
Just a remainder offering. Three roots are inside you, as well as protectors


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
dakini_boi said:
Thank you all.

Namdrol, this is what I figured, and you have set my mind at ease.  Is this generally how guardian offerings are regarded in other Dzogchen-heavy Nyingma lineages?

Also, is it even necessary to have a separate plate for the 3 roots when doing (informal) tsog by oneself or in a small group?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are doing a Ganapuja then follow the instructions in the book for doing Ganapujas.

If you are turning your meal into a Ganapuja there is no need for a seperate plate, just make sure you leave some remainder.

Most Nyingma lineages are into daily offerings and this sort of thing. AFAIK, ChNN is unique in his approach to guardians.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
You may be right. It could be illness or perhaps they were doing a practice like nyung nas which limits food and drink intake. If foul play is ruled out- it still leaves the question why were they in the cave in the first place? And why did those who supported them by providing food, water etc. for the three months they were there not have more sense. Why did they feel they could not inform the community? Something was not right. Did the assistants not recognise the danger the couple were in? It's all very murky and unpleasant.


Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps they contracted Hanta virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hantavirus " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
Namdrol said:
But the idea that guardians are jealous gods who might punish you because you don't feed them everyday is a very primitive concept. Therefore, in the DC we do not worry about it so much.

N

Dronma said:
Yes, exactly!    
Nevertheless, it is not good (like Rinpoche says) to correct practitioners from other lineages. Each one has to follow the instructions which he/she got from his/her Guru.

Malcolm wrote:
I wasn't correcting anyone, I was answering his question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Worldly Vehicle
Content:
dakini_boi said:
ChNNR made a passing statement about how Dzogchen includes all paths.  I'm not sure I'm totally clear on what he said, but from what I understood, he said that in Dzogchen, the 1st 3 vehicles are:

1. all worldly vehicles, including non-buddhist spiritual paths
2. hinayana (I'm assuming this means both shrevakayana & pratyekabuddhayana)
3. mahayana

Could someone confirm or correct this?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, according to the sgra thal gyur, the first vehicle is called the vehicle of gods and men.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
dakini_boi said:
I'm wondering about protocols involving protectors in various lineages.  A while ago, a kagyu friend told me that he is required to give a physical offering to the protectors every day - i.e. it's not a good idea to call on protectors without making an offering.  Since then, I have been kind of hesitant to do any practice that calls on protectors, although I know the same rules don't apply in DC.  What I'm wondering is - does this difference characterize general difference in how kagyu vs. nyingma deal with protectors?  Or is it an example of ChNNR's always going for the essence of the teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
You do not need to do protector offerings at all in the DC. Why? It is because the job of the protectors is to protect the transmission and the transmission lives in you. Therefore, they protect you. So you don't have to do anything.

Protectors do not eat tea and biscuits. They do not require fancy tormas.

Of course, sometimes it is useful to contact the guardians, for example, if you do something stupid which causes a problem in the transmission. Then you can purify this with guardian practice. Or if there is an obstacle to your practice, then you can make offerings to the guardians.

But the idea that guardians are jealous gods who might punish you because you don't feed them everyday is a very primitive concept. Therefore, in the DC we do not worry about it so much.

And, you should never be afraid to do guardian practice. They are guardians after all. They will never harm you.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Knotty Veneer said:
In response to Namdrol's point that two explanations are not mutually exclusive, as I am not privy to the decisions of the Dharma Protectors I cannot say. However, I think in this case there are plenty of plain old rational explanations for what led to this sorry situation that any intervention by supernatural forces would be superfluous.

Malcolm wrote:
Gdon attacking retreatants and causing them to behave in bizarre ways is not unheard of. For example, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo was attacked by Gyalpo Pehar, for which he resorted to the meditation of Acala.

Likewise, Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje was assigned by Dudjom Rinpoche to do retreat in a cave where several people had died, presumably becuase there was a malevolent gdon that inhabited the place. His attendent was so freaked out, he left after only a few days.

Having myself done a solitary three year retreat, I can report that one's imagination can run away with itself. I can remember having a fantasy, among other fanatasies, that a chainsaw that my dad gave me to cut wood for myself suddenly started and chased me around the cabin. I had a similar fantasy about an axe.

These fantasies were very vivid. I of course understood they were merely fanatasies, but they were powerful. I can remember brooding about what I would do in case of a nuclear emergency, and wondering which way I would go, west to find my parents, or east to find my best friend, etc.

Further, it is very easy for people in retreat to be subject of provocations of various kinds.

Despite the fact that we all generally are not super impressed with the Diamond Mountain scene (but then I am not super impressed with any of the missionary Buddhist organizations in the US, regardless of lineage or affiliation), the meltdown of Macnally and Thorson's retreat and ensuing tragedy should be met with compassion. Further, it must be very difficult for the other people in the retreat as well.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Pero said:
So uhm, is there Kali in the Gelug tradition? Or in any other?

Knotty Veneer said:
You know I get kinda p*ssed off when people start implying supernatural causes in situations like this. Ooh it must be the dharma protectors taking revenge on samaya breakers. Oooh there must be rgyal po interfering with the retreat. Oooh the gnas gdon are hostile to the dharma and causing obstacles. And so on and so forth. The tragedy at Diamond Mountain was due to very human weaknesses. To suggest otherwise, absolves those involved of the blame due them and denies the victim the justice due him.

Malcolm wrote:
Both are possible without being mutually exclusive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Adamantine said:
That said, Krodakali, aka Troma, as practiced in the Nyingma lineage, is equivalent to Kali.

Malcolm wrote:
No it isn't. There is no relationship between the two. Krodhakali is a form  of Vajrayogini. Vajrayogini is not Kali.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
heart said:
Funny thing, according to the local newspaper there was water and food in the cave. How do you die of dehydration when there is water?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
It sounds like what he actually died of was exposure. Anyway, we will know soon when they release the autopsy report. Poor guy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Namdrol said:
There is a lot of student codependence with dysfunctional gurus in general.

To be a true Guru, one must be more or less fully integrated.

To be a proper Dharma teacher, one must be 80% integrated.

gregkavarnos said:
What do you mean by "integrated"???

Malcolm wrote:
View and meditation integrated into conduct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
.... i mean, who could have forseen this current tragic/farcical development?

Tilopa said:
Anyone who knows anything about Vajrayana Buddhism.

Something weird like this was bound to happen sooner or later.

Knotty Veneer said:
Well, aspiring yogis dying in caves was probably not unknown in Tibet either. While I think the people in and around DIamond Mountain should have taken heed long ago when the Dalai Lama censured Roach, they are probably not all crazies and dharmatose groupies. I imagine many are going thru a lot. Discovering your guru has feet of clay is not a pleasant experience.

But as gad rgyangs suggests it would probably better for them to cut their losses now and go elsewhere. As somebody else pointed out, Garchen Rinpoche - one of the finest yogis alive - lives in Arizona. Why would you waste your time with Roach (even if he were straight up) when Garchen Rinpoche is nearby?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a lot of student codependence with dysfunctional gurus in general.

To be a true Guru, one must be more or less fully integrated.

To be a proper Dharma teacher, one must be 80% integrated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2012 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Ku-nye
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Thanks for the usefull reply.

Another question:

- For what use are the 5 sticks in Tibetan Massage?
- Which places are hit regarding which indication ?

Mutsog marro
KY


Malcolm wrote:
I am not familiar with that terminology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2012 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Ku-nye
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Very simply, "ku" means to apply warm oil. Oil has the oppoiste qualities of lung; lung is sharp, cold, rough, light, motile; while oil is heavy, warm, dull, smooth, and stable.

The symptoms of many mental illnesses include wind symptoms.

The "nye" part means "to rub" -- so by rubbing, one can place the winds back in their proper place in the body.

If the wind becomes out of balance, it automatically disturbs the other humors. Therefore, at all times balancing wind is important.


kalden yungdrung said:
Among them, Massage (Ku-nye) is one of the very practical and effective methods to restore the energy and keep the humors in balance. Especially it is an effective method for rlung/wind disorder or psychological originated disorders.

Tashi delek,

Here a link regarding Ku-nye or Tibetan massage.

http://www.tibetanmedicine-edu.org/index.php/tibetan-massage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few questions:

- Especially it is an effective method for rlung/wind disorder or psychological originated disorders.
How can this be explained, the psychological aspect?

- How can which Tibetan system (energy) be effected by massage.?

- Is this done also with the help of pressure?

- How is the upward and downward energy influenced, in what case?


Thanks at before hand,


Mutsog Marro
KY


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Pretty sad situation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Memorization of Dzogchen Tantras/Upadeshas/Texts
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Namdrol, you wouldnt happen to know of a good translation for that would you?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, it will probably be posted online when Rinpoche does the webcast in a few days times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:


tomamundsen said:
Whoa!

So, will you ever get the chance to teach the Pramanavarttika as planned?

Malcolm wrote:
Not in the near future, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Title: Re: Modern Buddhist Utopias & Alternative Communities
Content:
Namdrol said:
If you put $20,000 into a Thaibank, you can get a permanent resident visa if you are over fifty. You can easily live on your Social Security in Thailand.

kirtu said:
That's good to know but SS is a ways in the future and I now have < 20,000 anyway.  Had I known that after I had to sell my condo then I might have done that.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
I only found this out recently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: Modern Buddhist Utopias & Alternative Communities
Content:
Nemo said:
Mansion sized house is about 35k out in the provinces.

kirtu said:
I have < 35k and it appears that I have been permanently locked out of the job market so what I have in the bank now is probably approximately what I have to survive on for many years.
Cambodia would be even cheaper. You could live like a king. Worth it for the occasional bout of Delhi belly.
The Cambodians killed each other off in my personal memory.  One of my classmates was killed in the killing fields.

I can't go to Nepal or India as a long term solution because you have to leave the country for the year after 5-6 months because of the new visa restrictions.

The ideal thing in North America, if it is doable, is to create a Buddhist yogic community where people can creatively express themselves and create or collaborate So it's not s on their own projects while maintaining a place that they can do intense retreat if they like.  So it's not secular as a focus but people can work as necessary and do retreat when they wish or need to.  So not just secular and not just practice but a balance (although if people wanted to do life retreat then that should be possible too).

So in the immediate range, ideally I need to find a place for myself that I can then open up to others.  I pitched this back on eSangha and I think here as: let's buy land and start a Dharmic civilization.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
If you put $20,000 into a Thaibank, you can get a permanent resident visa if you are over fifty. You can easily live on your Social Security in Thailand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Title: Re: Memorization of Dzogchen Tantras/Upadeshas/Texts
Content:
Namdrol said:
Memorizing a short text like the aspiration of Samantabhadra is only helpful, never harmful.

kirtu said:
Does it plant a seed for future lives?

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Most assuredly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Memorization of Dzogchen Tantras/Upadeshas/Texts
Content:
Fa Dao said:
I can see the benefit in doing this to help develop and clarify ones View/Tawa but I can also see the opposite. Would like to hear others thoughts on this...


Malcolm wrote:
Memorizing a short text like the aspiration of Samantabhadra is only helpful, never harmful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So the recognition is not discriminating? More like knowing the flavor of the base?

Namdrol said:
Recognition is prajñā.

Andrew108 said:
And this prajñā is the prajñā of self-liberation?

Malcolm wrote:
Self-liberation, as is clearly defined by the Dzogchen tantras is freedom from grasping. Whatever one grasps is not self-liberated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So the recognition is not discriminating? More like knowing the flavor of the base?

Malcolm wrote:
Recognition is prajñā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Dry Hump of Buddhist Philosophy
Content:
maybay said:
If I ever manage to integrate Dharma into my ego just do me a favour and shoot me.

Namdrol said:
Consider yourself shot.

maybay said:
I always thought of you as the goal-keeper. What should the fans think when they see him shooting goals with the forwards?

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, sports metaphors are lost on me, among many other things, like for example, what your point is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: value of personal experience
Content:
Namdrol said:
Visting teachers is not Dharma.
Receiving empowerments is not Dharma.

Dharma is understanding your real condition.

Clarence said:
However, when you visit teachers or receive empowerments, it is much easier to get an understanding of your real condition. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Malcolm wrote:
I never said don't receive transmission and teachings. I am saying, turn your dharma teachings and transmissions in Dharma. Use them to understand yourself. Don't leave them as an intellectual pursuit. For the most part, every dharma text I ever studied, am studying, and will study, was for the purpose of understanding something about my path, about myself, my own state. I learned Tibetan to enhance my practice, not to become a skilled translator who is expert in dancing on books (though I am pretty good). I did not learn Dharma to come to places like Dharma wheel and have debates. So I am pointing out that Buddhist Philosophy, the intellectual study of Buddhism divorced from a path, is a waste of time. If you want to study Madhyamaka, first understand how it is relevant to solving the Buddha's existential question:  what is suffering, it's cause, it's cessation and the path. If you keep this in mind, then this study becomes Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: value of personal experience
Content:
Will said:
So when I wrote "vast numbers of sadhanas, initiations or Dharma talks heard" - they still provide "little or no education in Dharma"?  Pretty grim picture - reading books suck, thinking sucks, listening to Dharma sucks, practice & wongs suck etc.

Namdrol said:
Reciting large stacks of sadhana is not Dharma.
Reading large volumes of sutras and shastras is not Dharma.
Visting teachers is not Dharma.
Receiving empowerments is not Dharma.
Taking vows and precepts is not Dharma.
This is all conceptual proliferation.
Dharma is understanding your real condition.

Will said:
My goodness - how simple - no need for conditionality, merit, purification, devotion or the conceptual mind - Dharma is Buddha.

Pithy sayings are the enemy of understanding like the perfect is the enemy of the better.

Malcolm wrote:
I am just echoing the words of Sakya Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen:
Freedom from extremes is beyond knowledge, expressions and objects; 
Madhyamaka, Cittamatra, etc.,
expressions in words are proliferations. 
Thoughts in the mind are concepts, 
the nature is inexpressible and unthinkable. 
For as long as views continue to exist, 
there is no liberation from all suffering.
Conceptuality is great ignorance,
it is said one sinks into the ocean of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
If the basis could not be recognize, liberation would not be possible.
Or is it that liberation is possible because the base cannot be recognized?

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not how it is taught in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: value of personal experience
Content:
Will said:
So when I wrote "vast numbers of sadhanas, initiations or Dharma talks heard" - they still provide "little or no education in Dharma"?  Pretty grim picture - reading books suck, thinking sucks, listening to Dharma sucks, practice & wongs suck etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Reciting large stacks of sadhana is not Dharma.
Reading large volumes of sutras and shastras is not Dharma.
Visting teachers is not Dharma.
Receiving empowerments is not Dharma.
Taking vows and precepts is not Dharma.
This is all conceptual proliferation.
Dharma is understanding your real condition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


Namdrol said:
Any effort in togal at all will gaurantee that one will attain buddhahood in the bardo.

N


alpha said:
isn't it more like if one dies while at the level of first vision one will be reborn in a pure realm where one will live for 500 years practising dzogchen ?

Malcolm wrote:
That will happen only if, for some reason, you were not able to recognise the appearances of the bardo of dharmatā as being your own state.

You ought to read Birth, Life and Death by ChNN.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


Namdrol said:
In a real sense, however there is neither mind no matter. Mind and matter are equally produced through non-recognition of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy.

N

Andrew108 said:
Is this saying that our 'reality' is the non-recognition of the basis? And if the basis is recognized then is this a recognition of another alternative 'reality'? When it comes to recognition of the base does it make sense to talk about it as being a 'reality' that can be known?

Malcolm wrote:
What our impure vision is a result of not recognizing the basis. When we fully recognize and then integrate with the basis, then our impure vision vanishes.

If the basis could not be recognize, liberation would not be possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Title: Re: Dry Hump of Buddhist Philosophy
Content:
maybay said:
If I ever manage to integrate Dharma into my ego just do me a favour and shoot me.

Malcolm wrote:
Consider yourself shot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


deepbluehum said:
BTW, as fascinating and l33t as togal is, it's pretty difficult, as in super difficult. The postures are awkward. I think very few people will make to the final phase. Pranayama methods are a lot easier, and can be a lot more comfortable and easier on the eyes.

Namdrol said:
Any effort in togal at all will gaurantee that one will attain buddhahood in the bardo.

Can't say that about pranayāma.

N

deepbluehum said:
A good argument to do both.

Malcolm wrote:
Pranayāma is important.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


deepbluehum said:
BTW, as fascinating and l33t as togal is, it's pretty difficult, as in super difficult. The postures are awkward. I think very few people will make to the final phase. Pranayama methods are a lot easier, and can be a lot more comfortable and easier on the eyes.

Malcolm wrote:
Any effort in togal at all will gaurantee that one will attain buddhahood in the bardo.

Can't say that about pranayāma.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: value of personal experience
Content:


Will said:
Then why pick on intellectuals or readers...

Malcolm wrote:
Because while it is understandable that those with little or no education in Dharma might not have integrated Dharma into their life, it is inexcusable of those who are well educated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


deepbluehum said:
The relative truth, if you know it's just relative, and knows it's an illusion, then is not avidya anymore isn't it? [Unity of two truths to the rescue!]

Namdrol said:
This is the flaw of tregchö.

deepbluehum said:
Thregcho and togal are inseparable. I feel this notion of a flaw, no two truths and such comes from thinking thregcho is its own path and togal is something different.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, in a real sense there is no tregchö without thogal and vice verse; but nevertheless, Longchenpa devotes many pages to criticizing tregchơ in comparison with thögal.

The "no two truths" thing comes form my master, ChNN. But also in it is stated the same in the Dzogchen tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


deepbluehum said:
The relative truth, if you know it's just relative, and knows it's an illusion, then is not avidya anymore isn't it? [Unity of two truths to the rescue!]

Malcolm wrote:
This is the flaw of tregchö.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Schools for Aspiring Translators
Content:
Namdrol said:
http://rsl-ne.com/abhidharma1.shtml

dakini_boi said:
Hi Namdrol,

Could you provide the new link for this course?  I know I asked you this once before, but I can't seem to find the post.  Thanks again.


Malcolm wrote:
That website no longer exists and I no longer have any relationship with that organization or its teacher due to personal differences.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
deepbluehum said:
I feel the middle way dispenses with dichotomies.


Namdrol said:
Yes, this is why the best thing we can say about the two truths is that they are neither truth nor are they false. Dichtomy resolved.

N

deepbluehum said:
To me this is the two truths as unity of the two truths, aka only one truth, and Dzogchen isn't that special.

Malcolm wrote:
Nah, the sole truth in Dzogchen is not the unity of the two truths, because relative truth is only delusion, avidyā. There are no two truths in Dzogchen.

The sole truth in Dzogchen is vidyā.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


Dechen Norbu said:
But the first paragraph is quite interesting. I was under the impression that matter was a particular type, or case if you prefer, of mind and not the other way around.

Namdrol said:
In Abhidharma yes, matter comes from mind. In Dzogchen, no. Matter comes from the non-recognition of the five lights.

N

Dechen Norbu said:
And mind? The same , no?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind ultimately comes from the ignorance of non-recognition. The ignorance of non-recognition itself is predicated on a dispensible or relative latent awareness that exists at the time of the basis in the basis and is a function of the movement of vāyu or rlung in the basis, the movement that is responsible for the arising of the basis from the basis. When the display of the basis is recognized as being ones own display, that latent awareness becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes avidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
deepbluehum said:
I feel the middle way dispenses with dichotomies.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is why the best thing we can say about the two truths is that they are neither truth nor are they false. Dichtomy resolved.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:


Dechen Norbu said:
But the first paragraph is quite interesting. I was under the impression that matter was a particular type, or case if you prefer, of mind and not the other way around.

Malcolm wrote:
In Abhidharma yes, matter comes from mind. In Dzogchen, no. Matter comes from the non-recognition of the five lights.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Namdrol said:
In a real sense, however there is neither mind no matter. Mind and matter are equally produced through non-recognition of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy.

deepbluehum said:
The essence is emptiness (the middle way). Nature (clarity) and energy (continuous) are also emptiness, let's not forget. There's no unified field of consciousness. So I don't fully agree with "matter is conscious." Nothing is conscious. Consciousness is just an illusion. I think the Dzogchen tantras support my take. Without this key bit, Dzogchen becomes Upanishadic.

Malcolm wrote:
I haven't forgotten.

I did not say there was a unified field of consciousness. Nor is there a unified field of matter.

It is incorret to say nothing is conscious. This is to deny the illusion. The best thing you can say is that consciousness is like a moon in the water, it is neither true nor is it false. But the same goes for matter.

Practically speaking however, ancient Dzogchen tantras and instructions completely dispense with the lower yāna dichotomy between nāma and rūpa. For example, the Rigpa Rangshar names the vāyu or rlung, that generates consciousness in the body.

So little has been published on the important Dzogchen tantras, that most people (apart from those literate in Tibetan who are not wasting their time translating repetitious sadhanas) really have very little idea what the true position of Dzogchen as a system is regarding this or that.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
deepbluehum said:
...but where does the experience beyond words come into play?

Malcolm wrote:
One will not know the definition of vidyā until one has that personal experience or direct perception upon which that knoweledge, vidyā, is predicated. But once one has that knowledge, then the definition will be as obvious to one as the taste of sugar.

The purpose of path of Dzogchen is to discover than knowledge, remove doubts concerning it, and continue in confidence about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes it would be good if Namdrol would clarify this.
But the tantras are different from Dzogchen - this needs to be pointed out.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen tantras are not different from Dzogchen. They define, delineate, explicate and explain Dzogchen since they arise out of the state of realization of Samantabhadra directly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes it would be good if Namdrol would clarify this.
But the tantras are different from Dzogchen - this needs to be pointed out.

deepbluehum said:
He did. Consciousness is a physiological process. You guys have your Philosophy 101 blinders on.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, consciousness arises from the admixture of karmavāyus with the rtsal of rigpa located in the heart.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
To Dechen Norbu:
As Namdrol said: Consciousness is clearly defined in the ancient Dzogchen tantras, as well as seminal instructions such as the Khandro Nyinthig, as a physiological phenomena.

Dechen Norbu said:
I guess it depends on what we consider consciousness, if it has levels and so on and so forth.
If you imply that once the body dies we become unconscious, a la anihilationism, such is not implied by the tantras. But Namdrol can confirm and also refine the terms.

Malcolm wrote:
Matter is conscious. Speficially, the function of consciousness is connected with rlung, the air element. They are actually one and the same.  When this body dies, in the bardo a "mental" body is formed out of the air element. In this our stream of afflictions and karmas continues. There is no contradiction between rebirth, and the notion that mind and matter are not two different things. Instead, we must come to understand that minds are a function of matter, and specifically, teachings like Dzogchen (and Vajrayāna to a lesser extent) show this because our liberation is entirely dependent on understanding our physical embodiment, why it happens, how it happens and what to do about it.

In a real sense, however there is neither mind no matter. Mind and matter are equally produced through non-recognition of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Translators
Content:


heart said:
The question was ... is it a must like JLA consideres it.
I guess it is, if you are following the SMS training.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
If you ever wish to get to level II it is. But SMS is not a requirement, for example, AFAIK, Longsal and SMS are not related. SMS is for people who want to have more detailed explanation of the fine points.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes - so no mind/body dualism.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct. This is an atavism of the nine yanas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: value of Buddhist Philosophy
Content:


Will said:
So you find little or no usefulness in the 3 stage prajñā of Literary, leading to Contemplative leading to Real Mark prajñā?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, your first category is misleading, śruthih means "hearing" and "listening". It does not mean studying books. To whom should we listen? A person qualified to give teachings. The prajñā that results is called "śrutamayī prajñā". Without this vital step, no amount of reading books will awakening the prajñā of the path.

Then we have the prajñā that comes from reflection, cintā-mayī prajñā. In my estimation, reading may constitute a part of this prajñā.

Then finally, you have bhāvanā-mayī prajñā, the prajñā born of practice.

But the exercise by some to become expert in the tenet systems of this or that ancient Abidharma schools, for example, or to become expert in pramāṇa, and so on, completely misses the mark of Dharma practice and realization.

I don't say these things idly. I say these things because I observe many people over the years, westerners as well as so called Geshes, Lamas, Khenpos and so on, who, while being quite expert in myriad ancient opinions about this and that fine point of Buddhist philosophy, nevertheless never succeed in integrating the meaning of the Dharma into their personal life. And so for these people, Dharma remains a religion and a culture, rather than a personal experience.

N


̄


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
People who are blind at birth do not dream with images - they dream with sounds as long as they were not born deaf. Those that have lost their sight later on in life do dream with images but the images are blurred  - not well defined at all.

Malcolm wrote:
And you know this how?



Andrew108 said:
As to Dzogchen - well there is the concept 'Dzogchen' and that is brain-based - what we think we know about Dzogchen. But genuine dharma - genuine dzogchen - it's not a causal vehicle and so we can never 'see' it with the brain - we can never figure it out with the brain - genuine Dzogchen can't be 'drawn' by the brain as a result of analysis (unlike other vehicles). In that sense it escapes us - escapes being brain-based and could be said to be beyond the brain.

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, the differentiation between mind and matter is considered a delusion, as is the differentiation between sentient and non-sentient. Consciousness is clearly defined in the ancient Dzogchen tantras, as well as seminal instructions such as the Khandro Nyinthig, as a physiological phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Translators
Content:


Sönam said:
About retreats ...
1) Ordinary preliminaries
2) Extrordinary preliminaries
3) zhi gnas and lhag mthong ... mental quietness and higher vision.
4) bskyed rim ... developping phase on Yidam. Minimum 100 days.
5) rdzogs rim ... perfection phase with steng sgo and 'og sgo instructions
6) external and internal disjunctions of samsara-nirvana. phyi nang 'khor 'das ru shan dbye ba.
7) 3 doors. sgo gsum sbyang ba.
8) rig pa'i rtsal dbang. khregs chod.
9) more than one retreat on thod rgal.

Sönam


Namdrol said:
This is all covered in SMS training.

dakini_boi said:
In SMS, one actually does the traditional ngondro?

Malcolm wrote:
One to three weeks of each (sans prostrations).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Dry Hump of Buddhist Philosophy
Content:
Will said:
Namdrol,  Be more precise, yet please elaborate.  Which major texts, if any, have value in stimulating growth in prajna by the student.


Malcolm wrote:
All intellectual studies contribute to defiled prajñā, Buddhist and non-buddhist. But they do not necessarily contribute to undefiled prajñā, the realization of which after all is the point of the Dharma.

So the question should be "which texts contribute to the growth of undefiled prajñā", and the answer to that, sadly, is none of them, should one's study not be balanced with qualified practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Dry Hump of Buddhist Philosophy
Content:
maybay said:
According to a global swarm of post-history trolls.

Malcolm wrote:
Wow, in my 18 years of being on the internet and participating in internet Buddhist forums, no one has ever accused me of being a troll. First time for everything I guess.

I guess, having studied in detail tenet systems directly in Tibetan according to the presentations of many masters, and having taught Abhidharma and so on, I just don't share the starry eyed idealism some still maintain for elaborate conceptual infrastuctures.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Translators
Content:
Sönam said:
that it is a secondary practice that one practice depending on circumstances, JLA says that a lot of practices are necessary ... as an exemple, in the introduction of "Principes de la pureté primordiale" (on Khenpo Gangshar) he says about Dzogchen (my translation) : "The practitioner which engages in that Path must follows the following cursus of instruction", then follows a list of 9 retreats, some of them quite long, and six must be realized before to be introduced. In those retreats some concerne vajrayana practices (bskyed rim and rdzogs rim).
Sönam

Clarence said:
Sönam,

Would you mind listing the 9 retreats JLA mentions? Also, where can I find Principes de la pureté primordiale? My French isn't perfect but I can get by.

Many thanks, C

Sönam said:
It has been published by les éditions Khyung-Lung which is not on the normal market. You can ask for the catalog at mailto:khyunglungeditions@yahoo.com... this is very private/secret. But it is a very interesting publisher, with many titles.

About retreats ...
1) Ordinary preliminaries
2) Extrordinary preliminaries
3) zhi gnas and lhag mthong ... mental quietness and higher vision.
4) bskyed rim ... developping phase on Yidam. Minimum 100 days.
5) rdzogs rim ... perfection phase with steng sgo and 'og sgo instructions
6) external and internal disjunctions of samsara-nirvana. phyi nang 'khor 'das ru shan dbye ba.
7) 3 doors. sgo gsum sbyang ba.
8) rig pa'i rtsal dbang. khregs chod.
9) more than one retreat on thod rgal.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
This is all covered in SMS training.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:



Namdrol said:
The idea that calling vidyā "self" will get you to where you want to go.

The purpose of that passage (which is largely cribbed from the cycle connected with the bardo thos grol) is to point out that all these different systems are aimed an discovering the real state. It does not mean that they are all equally successful in their endeavor.

N

deepbluehum said:
I agree. I wasn't saying it was. My take on Shabkar's point is that words cannot be mistaken for the view. Garuda is about Dzogchen obviously. Saying vidya is not going to get you vidya either. Neither will knowing the definition. I'm saying there is wiggle room and you could even use the word "Self" as Saraha did. In that case, he was sort of tongue in cheek, but in context, you get the point of mahamudra. Like that.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you know the actual definition of vidyā, than this means you have that knowledge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
shel said:
Let me see if I've got this straight. In the relative cause & effect sense there is first cause, but in the absolute sense a first cause makes no sense?

Malcolm wrote:
Ignorance also has a cause, hence there is no first cause.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
deepbluehum said:
So here, you can call it awareness, self-awareness, or as Shabkar Rinpoche says, even "Self."

Namdrol said:
This is a very common mistunderstanding of Shabkar.

deepbluehum said:
A mistranslation?


Malcolm wrote:
The idea that calling vidyā "self" will get you to where you want to go.

The purpose of that passage (which is largely cribbed from the cycle connected with the bardo thos grol) is to point out that all these different systems are aimed an discovering the real state. It does not mean that they are all equally successful in their endeavor.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
deepbluehum said:
So here, you can call it awareness, self-awareness, or as Shabkar Rinpoche says, even "Self."

Malcolm wrote:
This is a very common mistunderstanding of Shabkar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
heart said:
There really don't need to be any verbal instruction at all for the direct introduction to take place.
/magnus

Namdrol said:
I do not agree with this in terms of ordinary people.

heart said:
The first time I read that was like 25 years ago in "The crystal and the way of the light" I was a bit chocked, but I have come to accept it fully. Also, sometimes I think that there are no "ordinary" people that are interested in Dzogchen.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
A more clear presentation is presented in song of the vajra book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Dry Hump of Buddhist Philosophy
Content:
kirtu said:
Buddhist philosophy is a description of enlightened view from various perspectives.
Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is the scat of ancient Buddhist intellectuals trying to understand the meaning of the teachings, and in many cases, unsucessfully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
- Would be the books from the Hara Krishna written in Vedic or Sanskrit or a mix of both?

Malcolm wrote:
Mahābharata, Ramayāna, etc., these great epics are written classical Sanskrit.

kalden yungdrung said:
- What is then the difference between Vedic Sanskrit and Sanskrit ?

Malcolm wrote:
Vedic Sanskrit is the language the Vedas are written in. These texts are quite ancient, and the brahmins claim they have no author, they are self-manifested.



kalden yungdrung said:
- What is formal Sanskrit?

Malcolm wrote:
It dates from the great classic of Sanskrit grammar written by Pāṇini, sometimes in the 6th century BCE.

kalden yungdrung said:
So when io understood it well then is there a great difference between Sanskrit and Sanskrit so are the related translations.
Very difficult to get insight into the right translations here due to the many Sanskrit languages.

Malcolm wrote:
The somewhat artificial term "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit" is the language of the sutras and tantras from India. Most of these tantras have legendary origins in Oḍḍiyāna as well.


kalden yungdrung said:
In case of Indian  Dzogchen, understandable that you do prefer Sanskrit instead of Tibetan, because of the exact used Sanskrit terms.

Malcolm wrote:
From an academic point of view, even one beleives the Dzoghen tantras were largely written in Tibet rather than India, etc., they articulated the teachings in terms of a terminology predicated on Sanskrit and for example, the Rigpa Rangshar has a whole chapter devoted to terms which are presented in an Indic form, such as dhātu for dbying and so on. Therefore, since these texts cleary reference Sanskrit, keys terms are better backtranslated.

In terms of bon texts, I beleive it is better to use Kuntuzangpo and rigpa. Also bonku, longku, etc. However, since these terms identical to usage in Buddhism, also there is no fault of the Sanskrit equivalents are used.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
heart said:
There really don't need to be any verbal instruction at all for the direct introduction to take place.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I do not agree with this in terms of ordinary people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
You and the zombification again, Mariusz...
You are being haunted by that idea.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he is big into no reference point, but inexpressibility is not his forté, since he keeps talking on and on using many reference points to talk about no reference points. He'll get over it eventually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Translators
Content:


heart said:
I don't think it is important at all to be scholar when translating Dzogchen texts, but it is very important to receive the Gurus permission and blessing as well as help to resolve difficult issues in the texts. If not it will lack the blessing of the lineage.

The same might be true for Tantric texts.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is very important to be a scholar AND have personal experience (real blessings) in Dzogchen teachings.

Dzogchen tantras are not easy to translate. They require detailed and fairly comprehensive knowledge of all nine yānas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
Namdrol said:
It is not necessary to elevate everything immediately to ultimate truth, unless of course you are trying to shut the conversation down.

Mariusz said:
But it is more not necessary to make  division between ultimate truth and conventional truth, since another reference point.

Malcolm wrote:
Actully, it is not even necessary to mention ultimate truth since it is another reference point.

Checkmate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
steveb1 said:
Please forgive if this issue has been beaten to death around here, but I am looking for a short explanation of the seeming absence of a First Cause in Buddhism.

Namdrol said:
There are no causes that are not also effects.

The Buddhist POV is beginninglessness -- we have not problem with infinite regress, we accept it, in this case.

Dharmakāya is not a cause.

N

Mariusz said:
"beginninglessness"- according to madhyamaka there was never such reference point in the first place. "First Cause" also never was in the first place. The freedom from all these reference points is just called sunyata.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not necessary to elevate everything immediately to ultimate truth, unless of course you are trying to shut the conversation down.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
steveb1 said:
Please forgive if this issue has been beaten to death around here, but I am looking for a short explanation of the seeming absence of a First Cause in Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no causes that are not also effects.

The Buddhist POV is beginninglessness -- we have not problem with infinite regress, we accept it, in this case.

Dharmakāya is not a cause.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
When i understood it well then is seeing with an object and subject not seeing the Natural State.
This because the dualisms are not integrated by the Natural State, whereas the Natural State does encompass everything.

KY[/color]

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not "seeing" with a subject and object that is a problem. It is attachment to the same as a discrete or real subject and object that is the problem.

When you eyes sees, it sees an object. This is not a problem for as long you are do not reify this as a discrete subject and object.

People are really confused about this because of a) a poor understanding of Yogacara (mind only) b) confusing Advaita with Buddhist non-dualism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 7:21 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
- Are these Tantras who are written in Apabrahmsa of Vedic origin?
- Mention please some of those Apabrahmsa Tantras and the author.
KY[/color]

Malcolm wrote:
Large sections of Buddhist sutras and Tantras, such as Hevajra, are in a kind of mixed Sanskrit and Apabhramsa.

No Vedic text is in anything other than Sanskrit. Vedic = Vedic Sanskrit.

Buddhist mahayāna sutras of the classical period also show plenty of evidence of being adapted from local dialects and being rewritten or worked out of Indic dialects into a more formal Sanskrit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Yes if we tae the advice from Lopon Tenzin Namdak serious and take Tibetan language for Tibetan Dzogchen.

KY

Malcolm wrote:
But of course, in practice, also Bonpos use the terms dharmakāya for bon sku, etc. Bon = Chos, Chos = Dharma, Dharma = Bon.

And there is no "Tibetan Dzogchen" per se. All Dzogchen teachings come from lands other than Tibet. Including Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud. Taphihritsa is not a Tibetan name.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
Sönam said:
In the case of Dzogchen terms, they originated from Oddiyana, not India ... Vimalamitra and other pandits went to see Garab Dorje from Nalanda. So is it not better to use Tibetan words?

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Well, no, since in the titles of the seventeen man ngag sde tantras we find that rigpa is the translation for vidyā, just as byang chub sems is the translation for bodhicitta in the titles of sems sde tantras.

Further, Oddiyāna language is not a distant cousin to Sanskrit, quite the opposite, in Oddiyāna as well, Sanskrit was the language of scholars. Oddiyāna language is a kind of dialect of the Indic languge spoken in the that region.

Large numbers of tantras originating in India are not in Sanskrit, properly speaking, but have sections which are in Apabrahmsa, which is a kind of dialect.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
Namdrol said:
That is why I just use vidyā in the same way that we use dharmakāya, etc.

Sönam said:
If you use vidyā, why can't we simply use rigpa then, and forget all that discussion? ... anyway rigpa/vidyā has only an interest for those who know about.

Sönam

Malcolm wrote:
One can, but in my translations, when I must use a dharma term, I prefer the Sanskrit original to the Tibetan if possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,   

Yes the term Rigpa, is a very difficult word to translate, sure when it is related to awareness. 
Also is it clear that Rigpa could also be inteligence, that was also one of my earlier suggestion.

Namdrol said:
In my opinion, translating rigpa as "awareness" is simply wrong. Intelligence is also not good, again IMO. 

In this case, knowledge is best. Why? Because rigpa is opposite to ma rig pa. Knowledge is the opposite of ignorance. 

N

Adamantine said:
Knowledge has a connotation of the conceptual, or merely factual. This is most likely due to it's common usage, but it still sticks. I think because of this it is a bit tainted for use as a translation for Rigpa.

Also, I would propose that the timeless quality of Rigpa would be better served by the term "knowing" than "knowledge", as knowledge also has a connotation of a static quality of an object or subject known by the mind. Maybe a conditional of "non-conceptual knowing" would be better, -- but then, look at the definition of intuition from Merriam Webster : direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. This does seem to fit better, however it has it's own connotations due to common usage that could cause other misunderstandings.

Malcolm wrote:
That is why I just use vidyā in the same way that we use dharmakāya, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 29th, 2012 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


alpha said:
Tsal, rolpa, and gdang refer to what the practitioner is able to experience. Tsal is at the nirnanakāya level, which mean it can be observed by ordinary people.

Malcolm wrote:
i'm sorry but i don't understand how this relates to my question .
what is the relationship between rolpa and sambhogakaya?[/quote]

Rolpa is the energy of the base at the Sambhogakāya level.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 29th, 2012 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:




Namdrol said:
No, not at all. Rolpa is always internal, never external.


alpha said:
Yeah...sorry.I didnt formuate the question in the right way.I didnt mean to say that tsal is becoming rolpa and rolpa remains external .

And would it be accurate  to say that at the moment of rolpa the field of sambogakaya is being actualized ?

Malcolm wrote:
Tsal, rolpa, and gdang refer to what the practitioner is able to experience. Tsal is at the nirnanakāya level, which mean it can be observed by ordinary people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 29th, 2012 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Causes and conditions. That's where we are.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. But we don't have to remain there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 29th, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
what is "dependent arising" if not causality? "When this arises, that arises. When this subsides, that subsides". Either the one arising causes the other, or they are completely unrelated. If caused, what is the mechanism? If unrelated, then whence karma, rebirth, and other core Buddhist doctrines? If oak trees do not arise from maple seeds, then theres still something governing the illusory manifestations, and they are not arbitrary. Since this is the case, again, what is the mechanism, if not causality?

Malcolm wrote:
Relatively speaking, cause and effect are neither the same nor are they different. If they are the same, this is a problem, if they are different, this is a problem -- the sole solution and the one advanced by Candrakirit, et all in commenting on MMK is the one I just mentioned.

Anyway, cause and condition are thoroughy deconstructed in MMK 1.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
alpha said:
But you have to agree that this is how lots of teachers instruct their students by giving them directions of how the knowledge can turn on itself.

Malcolm wrote:
I have never heard my teachers (ChNN, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa) say anything like this ever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:


alpha said:
"Oneself encountering oneself" or "like is likewise  liberated by like" can be seen only if one has familiarity whit the limitless or boundless aspect of mind and its knowing quality.
The knowing then can turn on itself and the display is recognized as oneself.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the whole point that noone gets e.g. knowing does not need to turn in on itself. This is a hangover from the idea of svasaṃvedana (rang rig) used in Buddhist logic. That step of knowing turning in on itself is not needed, in fact, it is a deviation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
who is closest to appearance-only than mind-only when they deny external objects?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that we do not posit some substratum like the ālayavijñāna to account for those appearances. Nor are we denying the appearance of external objects. We are merely stating the obvious i.e. that those appearances are not real, and hence are completely equivalent with illusions. The charge of nihilism is not appropriate because we are not denying appearances. The charge of eternalism is not appropriate because those unreal appearances cannot be found on analysis. We are saying that appearances are not false, because they appear, but they are not true, because they cannot be found, just like the appearance of a moon in the water. We are saying that all phenomena are like that. Similarly illusions too are not false, because the elephants, and so on of the illusion appear, but they are not true, because when examined they cannot be found. This approach to the two truths is called the upadesha transmission of Madhyamaka. It is much superior to the Madhyamaka of analysis which is focused on rejecting wrong views of the lower tenet systems.

In fact, according to Rongzom, the purpose of the affirming negation is reject the views of an opponnent, while affirming your own, in the form of a proof. The purpose of the non-affirming negation is merely to eliminate the point of view of an opponenent.

Madhyamaka only has non-affirming negations, and does not make use of affirming negations at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
alpha said:
This is what is being said in Golden letters  in the commentary on the first statement
"Whatever may arise ,appearing as external phenomena to the individual,is merely  one's own internal state of existence manifesting externally ,that is to say ,it is merely the potentiality or creative energy of awareness becoming visible to the individual".

Is this what you are saying?

Malcolm wrote:
" Oneself encountering oneself (For example, just as one encounters people of the same language in some country of a different language, one is recognized, when anger is recognized, it is liberated) is the self-sufficient power (Therefore, like is likewise liberated by like, there is no other antidote) of whatever appears being oneself (A phenomena that is otherwise cannot be found elsewhere)."

This is my rendering of the same passage, not having examined Reynold's version. It sticks very closely to the Tibetan, and has the added advantage of including the interlinear footnotes.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Understanding of the Natural State
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
To be in the Natural State = to experience or be aware of these creations of Lights, sounds and rays.
Noisiness would mean here the inner sounds as well the outer sounds.

The outer things are reflected on the crystal, without disturbing the crystal.
The inner things are emanating from the potential of the crystal to create.

Mutsog Marro
KY[/color]

alpha said:
How can anything be thought of being internal or external  while in rigpa?
My understanding is that while in rigpa the apperarances cannot be thought of being separate from knowing or clarity.

Malcolm wrote:
Rig pa means knowing appearances as your own state. Ma rig is ignorance of this fact. But rig pa is not a type of solipsism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Again see above i doubt that realy. If above mentioned persons were not academics of such a high degree then i would agree.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, I am very underwhelmed by academic scholars, especially European ones. I find European Academia very rigid and prejudiced. It is very hard in European Acedemia to be taken seriously if you are a practitioner.



kalden yungdrung said:
Bonpos have so their translators and they are many. Most of them have a western title Phd / prof. so it is not only John who does the job.

Malcolm wrote:
"PhD" does not mean very much to me. It is just a title for getting a job. I have meant many PhD's in Buddhist studies from Harvard and so on who are not very learned about Buddhism in general. They are learned in writing papers, much of which is filled with crap.



kalden yungdrung said:
English would be a combination of French and German when i understood that well.
In German one can express oneself also very exact.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, German is a very precise language, and in some respects is better for translating Tibetan texts than English because both languages are agglutinative. Also German can reproduce the subject-object-verb structure of Tibetan quite well, whereas English cannot.

Nevertheless, since English is forged out Anglo-Saxon, French, Latin and Greek, and easily absorbs terms from other languages such as nirvana, samsara, etc. In my opinion, since English is now the international language of advanced scholarship, this proves that English is the best language to translation Dharma texts into, all thanks to the British Empire, Brittania Rule the Waves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Jean-Luc Achard is a native french speaking person and his English is praised by prof. Henk Blezer of university Leiden (NL). It is a pitty that he is not here present aboard.

Malcolm wrote:
I welcome JLA's presence. I respect him a lot. I don't know Hank Blezer, but I am rather unimpressed by a lot of his writing, specifically on Tibetan medicine (something about which I definitely know more since I am a trained sman pa). Also Henk Blezer is not a native English speaker.

kalden yungdrung said:
Indeed the translations in English out of Tibetan from Jean-Luc Achard do belong to the best Tibetan translations.

Malcolm wrote:
JLA has some funny translation equivalents that I think are odd, but in general he understands the meaning of Dzogchen texts.

kalden yungdrung said:
So it is not true that you as a native English speaking person, together of course linked to your education, would be better in English translations than a Frenchman like Jean Luc Achard from the Sorbonne / Paris. You would probably have a better accent then JLA, i guess.

Malcolm wrote:
Anyone tranlslating into their own native language will do better than someone who is not.


kalden yungdrung said:
But nevertheless, i would point out the necessity for a standard, for Dzogchen terms. This because we deal here with exact the same experiences......

Malcolm wrote:
That is not going to happen anytime soon. Dzogchen Community uses its jargon following ChNN and Adriano Clemente; Padma Publishing has their jargon; Rangjung Yeshe has its jargon; Tony Duff has his (awkward) jargon; Dharmacakra Translation committee has its; You Bonpos have yours following John Reynolds primarily as far as I can see, etc.


kalden yungdrung said:
One can never add or substract things related to Dzogchen, that is clear.So i guess it is due to the English language shortcomings, that we explain the same things with different words, or we make a mistake with the right following order of Dzogchen experiences.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no shortcoming in the English language. Actually, English, being the European language with the highest number of synonyms, the most heterogenous language in Europe, is the most ideal for translations, especially translations of a technical nature because it is rigid about word order in way that Romance and  Tuetonic languages are not. 

Further, even within Dzogchen literature, the same things are explained with different terminology. The personal experience of Dzogchen is vastly more important than the words.


kalden yungdrung said:
It shows that Dzogchen can be approached on different ways explained by different Dzogchen Masters.

Malcolm wrote:
What I observe is that for the most part the language this or that master uses depends on who they get as a translator and when. These days, non of Reynolds conventions are in vogue in Dzogchen Community. 

A lot of ChNN's translations of terms depend in the fact that he started teaching Dzogchen in Italian first, and then merely translated his Italian translations into English, for example, lhun grup in Italian is autoperfectione or self-perfection in English. 

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
it would be like saying the cake does not truly exist.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you saying the cake truly exists?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
What do you think about the qualities of our Yongdzin Rinpoche?

Malcolm wrote:
I only met him once, and never took teachings from him, but he is a great master.


kalden yungdrung said:
He is assisted by many very well learned people who have a university degree, and some of them can translate Tibetan  very well like Jean Luc Achard ,Donatelli, Snellgrove, Ermakovi, John Reynolds etc. and they all make the same translations about self awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
Achard, Donatelli, and Ermakovi are not native english speakers (as you are not); Snellgrove is ancient, his book on Bon is 50 years old before people had any understanding of the nuances of Dzogchen, and Reynolds too was educated in the 60's and has habits which persist from that era.

N


kalden yungdrung said:
i guess there are persons around Lopon Tenzin Namdak who can translate Tibetan as well as you do or even maybe better.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps, but I will stand by my opinion. You and I have gone back and forth on this one too many times. It is not useful. So we will agree to disagree.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Did Xuanzang meet Candrakīrti?
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
Nope. Anyway, at this point in my life, I find all this Buddhist philosophy boring and don't take it very seriously anymore. It was a useful tool, but eventually it is a distraction.
I am curious. Do you mean academically rationalizing the activity of meditation and the insights of meditation - or programmatic  or thematic meditations altogether, (bhavanakrama).

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, what I mean is that Buddhist Philosophy and tenet systems is pretty much a dry hump. It does not lead anywhere. In the end it is merely dry intellectualization divorced from personal experience.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


cloudburst said:
and so I do. And I can explain their existence. They exist by way of mental imputation, as becasue of this, there is no need to assert independence.

Namdrol said:
Then there is no difference between fire circles and firebrands since they both depend on mental imputation.

Mate in one move.

cloudburst said:
correct, no difference in terms of the ultimate.
Conventionally, big big difference.

mustn't advise sentient beings that drinking mirage water and actual water are  same

Malcolm wrote:
But since conventional imputations are deluded by definition, it is only from the point of view of the deluded that mirage water and "water" are different.

Checkmate.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Did Xuanzang meet Candrakīrti?
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
based on Atisha's praise of Candrakirti's works as the sole path to liberation
I stand corrected!  : )


... although I hope I can suggest Atisha's praise of Candrakirti doesn't mean I am to be shunned as an icchantika!

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Anyway, at this point in my life, I find all this Buddhist philosophy boring and don't take it very seriously anymore. It was a useful tool, but eventually it is a distraction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


cloudburst said:
and so I do. And I can explain their existence. They exist by way of mental imputation, as becasue of this, there is no need to assert independence.

Malcolm wrote:
Then there is no difference between fire circles and firebrands since they both depend on mental imputation.

Mate in one move.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Did Xuanzang meet Candrakīrti?
Content:


Leo Rivers said:
DON'T FORGET: Candrakīrti was made famous because it was a keystone of the State Religion in Tibet much later. And Tibetan literature was translated and printed by the USA because it annoyed the Chines with whom we were in a Cold War. )

Malcolm wrote:
No, Candrakirti was made famous in Tibet because of the clarity of his presentation of Madhyamaka and the fact that his works superceded those of Bhavaviveka as the dominant voice in Madhyamaka from the 12th century onwards based on Atisha's praise of Candrakirti's works as the sole path to liberation in the eleventh century.

It is most likely that Candrakirti lived between 600-650.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Did Xuanzang meet Candrakīrti?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Candrakirti was a rather late, much later than Xuanzang -- Candrakirit was a contemporary of Candragomin.

Leo Rivers said:
Xuanzang and Candrakīrti?

Nalanda was actually a University - meaning it consisted of colleges - and within a college students would cluster around a teacher in a department who was department-head or a popular "thesis adviser".

The way teachers became famous was to defeat a rival philosophy in a debate that was famous because it upheld the reputation of the School.

NEXT,  a biography must survive relating a teacher's "wins" in debates.  Xuanzang's debate at Nalanda survived because he defended the Yogacara which met applause in its contemporary context and was later supported by later rich patron who paid to have books telling us about it printed.

Xuanzang's Biography largely  survived because Xuanzang had state support in China. That's why his debates with Kumarajiva are known. (Wriggens, p. 30) And it is important "he defeated all challengers (ibid, page 53) - I think a draw is passed over in silence.

It seems Dharmapala's reputation a Nalanda rested on his effectiveness at calming down Madhyamaka/Yogacara tensions by offering reconcilling Views, "(Lausthaus, page 403-405), as per his is commentary on Aryadeva's Sataka sastra which is Darmapala's refutation of Bhavavivika's Maddhyamaka critique of Yogacara.

The Yogacarabhumi is the reason Hsuan Tzang went to India. It was this defense of Dharmapala's that actually makes its appearance in his own Ch'eng Wei-shin lun of Dharmapala's works.

Candrakīrti was against this spirit of the times at Nalanda. (my guess). Why?

Dharmapala was the was trained by Silabhadra who taught Yogacara to Hsaun Tzang. (Wriggens, page 131)

It may be Candrakīrti was most active subsequently to Hsaun Tzang, (this seems the implication from Lausthaus, page 412, and his opinion on page 447) He doesn't appear in Wriggin's index.
SO I believe Candrakīrti may have met with some disapproval at Nalanda - Candrakīrti was at odds with the 'spirit of the day' at Nalanda. Candrakīrti was made famous TO US by voicing the State Religion position in Tibet much later.)



Lusthaus, D., 2003. Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch’eng Wei-shih Lun, RoutledgeCurzon.

Wriggins, S., 2003. The Silk Road Journey With Xuanzang, Basic Books.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 7:21 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
Anders Honore said:
I see a lot of talk here about the status of phenomena, whether they lack essence, can be accurately cognised, and so forth, which to me looks like a kind of pseudo-ontology.

Malcolm wrote:
This is primarily a result of Tsongkhapa's over-intellectualization of Madhyamaka and his inability to differentiate between Candrakirti's POV and Bhavaviveka's, and his ideological commitment to the superiority of Candrakiriti's presentation.

The idea that Candra's presentation is superior to Bhava's is not unique, but what is unique is Tsongkhapa's simulataneous commitment to the language of logic as a tool to explain Madhyamaka, and as a result we see strange formulations such as "Prasangikas" do not refute valid cognizers and so on, when in fact they clearly do. In point of fact, that Prasangikas who do not reject valid cognizers are only the followers of Tsongkhapa. The rest, from Candrakirti, to Jayananda, and so on, do refute them.

Also, Buddhist logic never made significant inroads into Chinese philosophy, so much of this talk about valid cognition and so on would sound foreign to a Chinese Buddhist. But because of the trenchant polemics in India between Buddhists and non-Buddhists, there was much discussion of valid cognition and what entailed, since the whole field of pramana was adopted by the Buddhists defensively.

However, during the time of Nagarjuna there was no well developed school of Buddhist logic, and so we see in texts like Vigrahavyavartani a thorough rejection of the whole notion of valid cognizers since in the end the notion of a valid cognition depends on notions of inherency. So naturally the Chinese were not that interested.

However, in response to non-Buddhsits,Vasubandhu began to articulate the first epistemological responses to non-Buddhist criticism, his disciple,Dignaga, forumulized the foundations and Buddhist pramana, Dharmakirit elaborated it, and the rest is history. Pramana came to be regarded as one of the Panca Vidya, the five sciences with its understandable impact on Tibetan Buddhism.

Of course in Dzogchen, the principle is not the two truths, but simple vidyā and avidyā. By comparison, there is only one truth in Dzogchen teachings, vidyā. The rest, falling under the heading of avidyā (ignorance) is fundamentally false —— for example, in the same way that a jaundiced man sees everything as yellow, those who suffering from the jaundice of ignorance never see things as they truly are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
mmm said:
to cone: In kama dzogchen semde contains 18 rigpai calwang, longde contains vajra bridge and mengngagde empowerment of 17 tantras,which is by nature given in rather tantric style.  In Dupa Do there seems to be different ways of giving it. e.g. Trulshik Rinpoche gave a specific empoweremnt name for each of the 9 yanas wang are contained in it, also it took one day for one yana. For practise they say Narag Tongdrug contains the essence of all. Or just Vajrasattva single form. Something like this is given also to keep the blessing of the whole cycle. good luck, mmm

Pero said:
So the entire initiation lasts 9 days?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is a very long initiation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Maybe in additon, handy to read this link:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=8052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mutsog Marro
KY

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I frankly disagree with calling rang rig self-awareness for a number of reasons, not least of which I am a native English speaker, and understand the nuances of English better than LTN.

But in the end, if one has understood what rang rig actually is, that is more important than the word that we use for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


cloudburst said:
is an image of you savaging a straw man. Prasnagikas never refute valid cognition, although they do strongly and continuously refute intrinsic existence.

Malcolm wrote:
Nagārajuna refutes valid cognition in the Vigrahavyavartani. Since he does not accept it, ergo, neither does Madhyamaka in general.



Namdrol said:
You may say, for example, that "the cognition of the firebrand as unreal is a valid cognition".

Malcolm wrote:
This is one type of valid cognition


Namdrol said:
This is sloppy reasoning. In this case we may define one type of valid cognition as the cognition of the unreality of phenomena. There may be other valid cognitions that apprehend conventions whose ultimate nature is unreality.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you must admit that valid objects exist. Then you must explain their existence. This can only be done of you accept independent existence.


Namdrol said:
Hence we can state without error that all phenomena are completley equivalent with illusions, as it is proved eloquently by Rongzom Chökyi Pandita.
Rongdom got it rong. Present his case and we'll pull that apart also. I've read the Koppl book,

Malcolm wrote:
I have not read her book. But I have read Rongzom.




Namdrol said:
This may be frigtening to those who cling to notions of relative and ultimate truth.
I do find your reasoning frightening, but not becasue  I cling to any such notions, though I do uphold them, as did all the great Madhyamikas, esp Buddha Shakyamuni. The really frightening bit is where you abandon the Madhayamaka by abandoning the two truths. Or do you? Perhaps you accept the two truths in a way that is free from clinging?

Malcolm wrote:
"Since the jinas have stated nirvana is the sole truth, at that time, what wise person would think "the rest is not the opposite".
-- Yuktiṣaṣṭika

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


cloudburst said:
In your example, the firebrand is appearing but unreal, but it appears to a valid mind, free from causes of error. The circle is simply non existent, the mind to which it appears is a wrong awareness. You are equivocating sir.

Malcolm wrote:
If you assert that the mind apprehending the firebrand is valid, you must also have a valid object of cognition. This requires the prameya, the object of a valid cognition, which bear intrinsic characteristics from its own side; it must be a valid object prior to its apprehension.

In order to have a valid cognition (pramana) there must be a prameya. But if you claim, as you have, that even the fire brand is unreal, you have eliminated the basis for your claim that a mind that apprehends it can be valid since the definition of a valid cognition depends on the apprehension of a valid object —— a firebrand is not such an object, since you admit it is unreal.

If a valid cognition is valid, it must be valid intrinsically, in which case it needs not depend on a valid object of cognition. Likewise, a valid object of cognition must be intrinsically valid in its own right, independently of a valid cognition. In which case, all minds apprehending valid objects are valid, just as all objects apprehended by a valid cognition must be valid. Since this is so, the whole basis of your argument from the point of view of pramana fails, because you cannot establish the verity of valid cognition to begin with, and certainly there cannot be a valid cognition of something unreal free from error.

You may say, for example, that "the cognition of the firebrand as unreal is a valid cognition". This only works if you admit that all phenomena which are apprehensible by a valid cognition are unreal as well. In this case you are forced to define a valid cognition as the cognition of the unreality of phenomena. For that reason then, there is no good reason to make a distinction between phenomena such as fire circles, apparent, yet unreal; and fire brands, equally apparent, yet unreal. Hence we can state without error that all phenomena are completley equivalent with illusions, as it is proved eloquently by Rongzom Chökyi Pandita.

This may be frigtening to those who cling to notions of relative and ultimate truth.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Kilaya. said:
I find the melody of the DC Sang practice too complicated, so I simply recite the verses. Is that okay?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not that complicated at all, but it is a Tibetan cadence so a bit hard to follow for Westerners. Often what I do it refresh my memory once by hearning a bit fo the cd before I do Rinpoche's sang. Otherwise, I use Riwo Sangchö which I know quite well.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
Namdrol gave the example of the stick with fire, spinning and forming an illusion of a circle.
can you hold the circle? no. illusion.
can you hold the stick? yes. not an illusion.
.

Namdrol said:
If you say the fire circle is illusory because it arises from the cause and condition of whirling a fire brand, for what reason is the fire brand not illusory, since it too arises from causes and conditions?

cloudburst said:
It is not said that the circle is an illusion becasue it arises from causes and conditions, it is said becasue there is no circle. The fire brand is not illusory because there is a firebrand.

Malcolm wrote:
There is a circle when it appears, because causes and conditions to produce that circle are present; likewise, when the causes and conditions of a firebrand exist a firebrand appears. In this way we can understand that all phenomena are equally and totally illusory because no phenomenon can appear in absence of causes and conditions for that phenomenon's appearance regardless of whether it is a fire circle or a fire brand.

Illusory means "apparent, yet unreal". So to, all phenomena are apparent, yet unreal.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community webcasts and Buddhist symbols
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Yes, I'm not really serious about any of this, before I get shouted at

I'm more poking fun at my own love of garish Vajrayana displays that show more gold than Fort Knox and the Kardashians together.


Malcolm wrote:
Yup, Neuveau Riche Dharma.

A temple outfitted by Carmella Soprano.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community webcasts and Buddhist symbols
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
I for one prefer a clean look.

alpha said:
i am kind of the same.
my so called shrine is a board on which i pinned various deity images to help with visualization during tun or any other DC practices.And at the base of this board i have 2 candles and incense.

mindyourmind said:
Nah, I like my teachings with all the gold and brocade you can pile on, incense, flowers and more colour than at a Liberace concert, a true tarted-up show, bells and whistles, statues and thankas in and on every surface, and then some.

Malcolm wrote:
In Merigar, all the surfaces of the Gompa are painted -- all the deities are on the ends of the beams supporting the roof, and the ceiling is painted with the Song of the Vajra and the mantras of the Twenty Five Thigles. On the moulding between ceiling and wall are beautful murals of the important masters of Dzogchen in Bon, Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu and Gelug as well as major tertons, and the above his own throne is a mural of the thirteen primordial masters of Dzogchen from Nangawa Dampa down to Shakyamuni Buddha and Garab Dorje, as well as Samantabhadara and Vajrasattva.

But because most of the walls are floor to ceiling glass, there is no wall space for Thangkhas.

In the Tsegyalgar Gompa we have all these huge Thangkhas of Ekajati, Guru Rinpoche and three roots, Garab Dorje and Thirteen Primordial, Masters Gomadevi and so on.

So it is all based on circumstances.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community webcasts and Buddhist symbols
Content:


Blue Garuda said:
My point is simply that advanced practitioners simply do not need images, offering bowls and rupas and that the presence of these objects is for the disciples, not for the Guru or any Buddha.

mindyourmind said:
So there are no disciples at these webcasts?

Malcolm wrote:
MYM, if you look at pictures of retreats, there is always a shrine the necessary things, rupa, stupa, dharma text, and offerings. In Merigar, there is a more elaborate shrine, but still by comparison it is sparse by normal Tibetan Buddhist standards. ChNN cannot carry a shrine with him everywhere, and moreover, many times the retreats are in public venues because they can be quite well attended, sometimes 1000 people or more. So it is a little impossible to go over the top with elaborate thrones and so on on the road. ChNN likes to travel light.

But if you like that sort of thing, his throne in Merigar, his main seat is beautiful.



N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Navayana Buddhism
Content:
nowheat said:
for example in saying that if dukkha includes physical pain, then one can't be totally free of dukkha till after that last death


Malcolm wrote:
When free of clinging, then one is free of dukkha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
Namdrol gave the example of the stick with fire, spinning and forming an illusion of a circle.
can you hold the circle? no. illusion.
can you hold the stick? yes. not an illusion.
.

Malcolm wrote:
If you say the fire circle is illusory because it arises from the cause and condition of whirling a fire brand, for what reason is the fire brand not illusory, since it too arises from causes and conditions?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community webcasts and Buddhist symbols
Content:
mindyourmind said:
but I for one would like to see these teachings sometimes being presented in a slightly more traditional setting.

Malcolm wrote:
When Vidyadharas presented teachings, they rarely did so in elaborate temples and shrines. Garab Dorje for example taught in a charnel ground, not in an elegant temple. I doubt very much he had a statue of Shakyamuni.

So what could be more traditional than that?

That said, at most teachings there is a streamlined shrine with a statue of Buddha or Guru Rinpoche with water offerings, candles, incense and torma -- as PR just mentioned it is generally off camera.

But according to ChNN -- the only thing that is really essential in a shrine for a Dzogchen practitioner is a candle or light and incense (as an offering to the protectors, etc.). In my case, also I have a few symbols in our practice room room, peacock feather, crystal, melong, small stupa, statue of Guru P, small thankga of Drollo. Very, very simple and sparse.

Often ChNN mentions that in this day and age it is important not to draw attention to oneself. So for example he says it is sufficient to have a white A in a thigle of five colors framed like an art print on one wall (with candle and incense burner nearby). Then this seems to ordinary people, non-practitioners like art.

So ChNN says it is important not to make oneself a target. We do not need to show anyone we are practitioners. We do not need to have any statues of Buddha, Padmasambhava, etc. at all. Of course if we have the possibility to have a more elaborate shrine, than it is fine. But it is completely unnecessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
conebeckham said:
So, my understanding is that the Guhyagarbha is the crucial Kama transmission for Mahayoga Tantra practice.  This Dupa Do is the crucial Kama transmission for Anuyoga Tantra practice.  Is there a "Kama" transmission for Ati, as well?  Khandro Nyingthik, if I am not mistaken, is Terma, and Menngakde level of Ati, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Most sems sde, virtually all klong sde and the Vima Nyinthig (despite the fact that it contains many termas of Chetsun Senge Wangchuck) along with the seventeen tantas are Kama.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Blog (formerly Dzogchen World)...
Content:
mzaur said:
Yeah i'm not particularly sure why it's only for current members


Malcolm wrote:
Because it shows your commitment to Dzogchen Community.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
Namdrol said:
RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.

gregkavarnos said:
But surely recognition necessitates a mediation.  I mean there has to be something recognised and a recogniser, right?  In which case it all goes down the tubes again.  I guess we can put it down to the shortcomings of language.

Malcolm wrote:
Non-dual in Dzogchen does not discount a subject and an object. It is just that subject and object are non-dual. So when you recognize your primordial state, you are recognizing your own face, as it were.

The term "recognize" is used over and over again in Dzogchen texts. It is an experiential unmediated direct recognition. That recogniton is the basis for your knowledge/knowing/vidyā. Without that recognition, you are in a state of ingorance/āvidya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
Dronma said:
Sometimes, English scholars are using the Greek term Gnosis for indicating Rigpa in a more fancy way, which is wrong as I have posted in many threads before. 
Because gnosis means knowledge. As Greek, I would never say that Rigpa is Gnosis (Γνώσις). But I would say that Rigpa is Anagnorisis (Αναγνώρισις), which includes etymologically the root of the term Gnosis in it, but it is more specific and can be translated in English as Recognition.

Malcolm wrote:
RIgpa comes from recognition and is based on recogniton.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 4:45 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
mzaur said:
Thank you for clarifying. So this knowledge is not a thought... it's a non-conceptual knowing. Right? I guess what confused me was that I see knowledge as having thoughts about a certain topic.

Malcolm wrote:
It is direct perception and the knowledge that results from that direct perception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
mzaur said:
Knowledge sounds so abstract. Like, I have a lot of knowledge about computers. How do I rest in that knowledge?I guess I don't understand what you mean by knowledge. Language is tricky.

To use your example of a job well done. Ok, so I 'know' I did a job well done because I have the thought, 'wow I did a great job' and the feeling of relief, satisfaction, etc.. so there is a thought and a feeling.. and you rest in that?

Malcolm wrote:
It means you rest in the knowledge you discovered through a direct perception of your own state, your primordial state. One you have this knowledge, that's it. And yes there is relief and satisfaction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Amitabha Buddha
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Thanks for the clarification. That's the way I've always seen it. An elite club for the high capacity.

Mr. G said:
Namdrol clarifies the idea of capacity here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4002&p=38072#p38072 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Capacity depends on personal interest and diligence -- nothing more.

Malcolm wrote:
Diligence means you concretely apply what you were interested to learn.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Namdrol said:
Look, The Yangzab is a supplement of the Khandro Nyinthig, in some sense the Gongpa Zangthal is a supplement to the Khandro Nyinthig, etc., there are many termas that are considered to be supplements or in someway related to the KN because they are all based primarily on the klong gsal tantra and take Hayagriva and Vajrayogini Yab Yum as the main yidam of the practice.

But the Khandro Nyinthig is the first, and other termas are not the Khandro Nyinthig.

Mariusz said:
I'm not sure only about:  "Khandro Nyinthig is the first, and other termas are not the Khandro Nyinthig". Since it was from dakini script of Yeshe Tsogyal. But I will ask for it when the time comes to confirm it. Nevertheless it deals with KN as you also wrote here.

Malcolm wrote:
Many termas are held to have been written down by Yeshe Tsogyal, are they all the Khandro Nyinthig? No.

The Khandro Nyinthig is a specific teaching, with a specific history, and a specific time it was supposed to have been revealed by a specific terton at a specific place. The same is true of the Kunzang Gongdu. I do not think that most people will accept that if you received the empowerment for the Khandro Nyinthig/Yangthig that you have received the empowerment for the Kunzang Gondu as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:


Mariusz said:
Since Khandro Yangtig is a supplement, so is Kunzang Gondu.

Malcolm wrote:
It was not mine. Ask Rinpoche.[/quote]

Look, The Yangzab is a supplement of the Khandro Nyinthig, in some sense the Gongpa Zangthal is a supplement to the Khandro Nyinthig, etc., there are many termas that are considered to be supplements or in someway related to the KN because they are all based primarily on the klong gsal tantra and take Hayagriva and Vajrayogini Yab Yum as the main yidam of the practice.

But the Khandro Nyinthig is the first, and other termas are not the Khandro Nyinthig.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Blog (formerly Dzogchen World)...
Content:
mzaur said:
Is this it? https://dzogchen.tumblr.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
http://dzogchenworld.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_invite_net " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,   

Yes the term Rigpa, is a very difficult word to translate, sure when it is related to awareness. 
Also is it clear that Rigpa could also be inteligence, that was also one of my earlier suggestion.

Namdrol said:
In my opinion, translating rigpa as "awareness" is simply wrong. Intelligence is also not good, again IMO. 

In this case, knowledge is best. Why? Because rigpa is opposite to ma rig pa. Knowledge is the opposite of ignorance. 

N

mzaur said:
Could you please explain then how "rest in rigpa" makes sense? How do you rest in knowledge?

Malcolm wrote:
"He rested in the knowledge of a job well done..."

"He rested in his knowledge of the basis...."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:


Namdrol said:
No, the Kunzang Gondu is a completely different cycle. Yes, of course it is related to Khandro Nyinthig, since it, like the Khandro Nyinthig is rooted in the klong gsal nyi ma bar ma rgyud.

But specifically the Khandro Khandro Nyinthig is the terma of Tulku Tsultrim Dorje. The Khandro Yantig is the supplement to this by Longchenpa. Since Peme Lingpa is considered the tulku of Longchenpa, for this reason the Kunzang Gongdu is considered to be a further supplement to teh Khandro Nyinthig -- but it is not the Khandro Nyinthig which is only two volumes long and between the Khandro Nyinthig and Yanthig, there is only one empowerment composed by Longchenpa based on teh root texts of the Khandro Nyinthig.

Mariusz said:
It is said Longchenpa during his visit in Bhutan discovered the terma but buried it again. Pema Lingpa discovered it later again. So it is not the supplement. Kunzang Gondu "is more on Khandro Nyinthig".

Malcolm wrote:
Since Khandro Yangtig is a supplement, so is Kunzang Gondu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 3:28 AM
Title: Dzogchen Blog (formerly Dzogchen World)...
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
..is back up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Mariusz said:
Rinpoche gave the dzogchen cycle of initiations four or three years ago in Darnkow, Poland, but as I talked with some person it was not the full cycle. Another Rinpoche from Bhutan http://yeshekhorlo.mahajana.net/wp-content/gallery/materialy/awers.jpg gave the full cycle of initiations of Khando Nyinthig in 2009 during 2 weeks.

Pero said:
Says Kunzang Gongdu, not Khandro Nyingthig. In any case, I wish there was some mailing list for these events in Europe or something.

Mariusz said:
Kunzang Gongdu Kundu, "The Totality of Samantabhadra Enlightened Intentions" is bhutanese complete terma of Khandro Nyinthig, and it also cantains other teachings like Anuyoga tsalung and tummo. Pema Linga was the one of the 5 main tertons and also the one who was the incarnation of Longchenpa up to Princess Pemasel. If you look in bio of HH Dudjom Rinpoche it was one of His main transmissions He gave, also to Bhutan.

I will inform you next time, sorry

Malcolm wrote:
No, the Kunzang Gondu is a completely different cycle. Yes, of course it is related to Khandro Nyinthig, since it, like the Khandro Nyinthig is rooted in the klong gsal nyi ma bar ma rgyud.

But specifically the Khandro Khandro Nyinthig is the terma of Tulku Tsultrim Dorje. The Khandro Yantig is the supplement to this by Longchenpa. Since Peme Lingpa is considered the tulku of Longchenpa, for this reason the Kunzang Gongdu is considered to be a further supplement to teh Khandro Nyinthig -- but it is not the Khandro Nyinthig which is only two volumes long and between the Khandro Nyinthig and Yanthig, there is only one empowerment composed by Longchenpa based on teh root texts of the Khandro Nyinthig.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Pero said:
Why do you consider these three to be critical?

Namdrol said:
Please see section 2.8.6 of Precious Vase.

Pero said:
Yes I'm aware of this (it's 2.8.5 and funnily I opened the PV exactly on this page right now haha). However, I never really understood this. Here it almost sounds as if you can't practice anything unless you receive these but that shouldn't be the case since otherwise all those teachings we've received so far would be pointless. So could you shed some light on this?

I see that the Shitro Khorde Rangdrol from Changchub Dorje is also noted as one of those that one should receive if the others aren't an option. Rinpoche is giving it again this year in Merigar...


Malcolm wrote:
In my edition, (1999, 2001) it is 2.8.6.

I suspect that these initiations are the ones that render one suitable to continue in Santi Mahasangha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Pero said:
Why do you consider these three to be critical?

Malcolm wrote:
Please see section 2.8.6 of Precious Vase.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 23rd, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Namdrol said:
This is one of the three critical empowerments one can receive. The other two are the Guhyagarbha empowerment and the Khandro Nyinthig empowerment.

Clarence said:
Thanks N-la, as usual! Hope Rinpoche will be able to make it to Poland then. And me too of course.

BTW, which Khandro Nyingthig empowerment do you mean? I thought there are many in the KN. Still want to receive the Nyingthig Yabzhi.


Malcolm wrote:
There is only one empowerment for Khandro Nyinthig.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 23rd, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Clarence said:
Can someone elaborate on the Tantra please? What is it about? Why would it be good to receive? Etc. etc.


Namdrol said:
It is the root tantra and empowerment of Anuyoga.

Clarence said:
Thanks N-la, so this would be good to receive? I was hoping he would give the Gongpa Zangthal but this sounds very nice as well. Does it have Rigpa'i Tsal Wang?


Malcolm wrote:
This is one of the three critical empowerments one can receive. The other two are the Guhyagarbha empowerment and the Khandro Nyinthig empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 23rd, 2012 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Düpa Do - The Sutra which Gathers All Intentions
Content:
Clarence said:
Can someone elaborate on the Tantra please? What is it about? Why would it be good to receive? Etc. etc.


Malcolm wrote:
It is the root tantra and empowerment of Anuyoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 23rd, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
When i  am right informed would Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche have had some teachings from our Yongdzin Rinpoche, no doubt that Rigpa would be used many times in the sense of awareness........

KY

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever teachings ChNN received from LTN, it is certain they were in Tibetan and not English.

In the end, it does not matter what word you use. If you want to called Rigpa "George" it is also ok, as long as people understand what the word "George" is a symbol for. But if you examine the the range of meanings the word rig pa has in Dzogchen texts, you quickly come to the conclusion it is inappropriate to crib "rig pa" with a single English word. Hence it is better to leave it in Tibetan or backtranslate it into Sanskrit -- hence vidyā.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 23rd, 2012 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Andrew108 said:
If ChNN says the brain is like an office then I don't have to accept it as a definitive truth. I can see it as a relative truth. If ChNN says the brain is appearance/emptiness inseparable then I would accept that as a definitive truth and proceed accordingly.

Namdrol said:
That reason why Norbu Rinpoche says this is because Dzogchen is predicated on an understanding of the human body that founded on medical ideas current in Tibet and India at that time.

In Dzogchen,the rtsal or energy of wisdom, ye shes, is specifically stated to be located in the brain. And the brain is specifically stated to be the organ that coordinates input from the five material sense organs. This is symbolized by the presence of the mandala of the 58 herukas in the brain, just as the eight consciousness are symbolized by the presence of the 42 peaceful deities in the heart.

mzaur said:
I am curious...if this is so, then maybe Dzogchen needs a reboot given current medical ideas? There have been several advances since then

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. For example, the visual cortext located in the brain is responsible for sight on a coarse level. If it is destroyed, you cannot see, even if you have perfectly healthy eyes. If your eyes are destroyed, you cannot see, even if your visual cortex is undamaged. But if even if your sight is impaired, or you have brain damage that blinds you, you will still have dreams in which you have sight. This proves that visual consciousness is not located in the brain, necessarily.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


Huseng said:
Śabda-pramana, knowing through the testimony of an authoritative source, is traditionally an accepted source of knowledge by Buddhists. In this context deferring to the Buddha's word is perfectly acceptable provided we can establish the Buddha as a valid authority. Non-Buddhists will not accept it just as I do not accept the word of the Vedas or Bible as authoritative, but this is a Buddhist forum so I may employ the aforementioned pramana to prove a point.


Malcolm wrote:
Actually, that also does not work too well, since for example, if I read a sutra you don't, you will not accept it as an authority. For example, you are not likely to accept the Kulayarāja sūtra, the root text of sems sde in Dzogchen, as authoritative.

So this notion of authority only functions among those who accept the exact same set of texts and hermenteutical criteria for deriving authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: How are teachers like Mangos?
Content:
Sönam said:
I like the term Ripe ... because after a while it becomes Rotten

Sönam

heart said:
That might be true for mango's, not Guru's though. The 4th vision is even better.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
We can consider the fourth vision, the exhaustion of dharmatā, rotten. So indeed a rotten guru is even better than a ripe one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Amitabha Buddha
Content:


Namdrol said:
Yes, those instructions are provided for Dzogchen practitioners of the most average caliber so that they can acheive full awakening by taking rebirth in each of the pure nirmanakāya buddhafields for a period of one hundred years each, and attain full awakening within five hundred years, never returning to samsara. This result is attained by doing rushan, actually.
N

Nighthawk said:
Why is it not possible to reach full awakening in only one Buddhafield?


Malcolm wrote:
Each of the five pure nirmanakāya buddhafields corresponds to and is an external expression of one of the five wisdoms. For example, Sukhavati is an expression of purified desire i.e. the individually-discriminating wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: How are teachers like Mangos?
Content:
Paul said:
Could you please name those you consider ripe (or indeed unripe)?

Namdrol said:
Oh, that is easy -- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche.

As for the rest, people will have to go and check them out on the fruit stand personally.

kirtu said:
The whole of the Tibetan Buddhist world cannot learn just from two, three, four, five teachers even if we only go on a kind of retreat with them once a year.

Malcolm wrote:
I was not making a global statement. Paul asked me who I thought was "ripe", and the context here is Dzogchen masters. I do not know other Dzogchen masters, apart from ones who have passed away. This is not a dis against other teachers.

Dzogchen should be learned from a ripe master. There are very few of those -- meet them while you still have a chance. I just mentioned two.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: How are teachers like Mangos?
Content:
Paul said:
Could you please name those you consider ripe (or indeed unripe)?

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, that is easy -- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche.

As for the rest, people will have to go and check them out on the fruit stand personally.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 2:25 AM
Title: How are teachers like Mangos?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Qualified masters are extremely rare and hard to discern. They are like mangoes.

There are some teachers who look ripe and are ripe; some teachers who look ripe but are not ripe; some teachers who look unripe but are ripe; and some teachers who look unripe and are unripe.

If you find the first type of teacher or the third, fantastic. If you wind up with two or four, good luck.

Make sure your master has a real lineage.

There are many people out there these days who promote themselves as "Dzogchen masters", "tertons", "tulkus" and so on. There are many gullible people in America, etc., and many unethical people who don't mind taking advantage of them.

So be careful.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Amitabha Buddha
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Dzogchen requires the pointing out instructions.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is correct.

But since we are instrinsically endowed with Buddhahood down to the smallest particle of our being, there is no reason to seek rebirth in Sukhavati.

Of course, realizing that and saying are two different things altogether, and the former requires seeking out a qualified master of Dzogchen and following his or her instructions.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Amitabha Buddha
Content:
Namdrol said:
The point I was making is that there is no need to do aspirations to be born in Sukhavati, Zangdog Palri and so on if one is really practicing Dzogchen. If not, then, well, mileage varies.
N

Clarence said:
What do you consider really practicing Dzogchen?


Malcolm wrote:
sems sde, klong sde and man ngag sde.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Amitabha Buddha
Content:
wisdomfire said:
IMHO, pureland practice should be practised in conjunction with Dzogchen, it is a kind of safe-guard. Also, many enlightened masters went to Sukhavati...


Namdrol said:
Pure land practice is completely unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners. If someone thinks they need to take rebirth in a pure land, they have not understood one word of Dzogchen.

heart said:
I think no one thinks they "need to" do that. It is not exactly pure land practice but it Jigme Lingpa's Yeshe Lama deals in detail with how to attain rebirth in a pure land, those instructions are for Dzogchen practitioners.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, those instructions are provided for Dzogchen practitioners of the most average caliber so that they can acheive full awakening by taking rebirth in each of the pure nirmanakāya buddhafields for a period of one hundred years each, and attain full awakening within five hundred years, never returning to samsara. This result is attained by doing rushan, actually.

The point I was making is that there is no need to do aspirations to be born in Sukhavati, Zangdog Palri and so on if one is really practicing Dzogchen. If not, then, well, mileage varies.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Amitabha Buddha
Content:
wisdomfire said:
IMHO, pureland practice should be practised in conjunction with Dzogchen, it is a kind of safe-guard. Also, many enlightened masters went to Sukhavati...


Malcolm wrote:
Pure land practice is completely unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners. If someone thinks they need to take rebirth in a pure land, they have not understood one word of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Why the Buddha banned booze.
Content:
TenzinDorje said:
During teachings on Tsog this last fall, Lama Dawa said a Kapala full of alcohol is allowed each day for a Ngakpa.:

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on how strong it is. A Kapala full of chang is quite weak. A Kapala full of Bacardi 151 would knock most people out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: The permanence of enlightenment
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
...a non-conceptual target is...


Malcolm wrote:
...a contradiction in terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
Namdrol said:
Prasangas accept transmigration, but they reject that any of the aggregates transmigrates. Svsatantrikas assert that consciousness transmigrates.

Prasangas assert that the mistaken imputation "I am" (which is actually a non-existent) appropriates the series of aggregates, generates action, and experiences its results.

As I said, all that transmigrates is delusion.

N

Ogyen said:
not to sound asinine - but what is the consciousness that does not get destroyed then?

I  understand it's free of aggregates, clearly these fall apart with the body that dies -  but what is stored in the consciousness to move on - the delusion itself?

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness is an aggregate, and conventionally speaking, is momentary. There is no such a thing as a permanent consciousness. Ergo, there is a stream of moments of mind appropriated by the delusion of self-identity, but there is no consciousness, no entity at all that transmigrates per se. The continuum of rebirth is maintained solely by a delusion that appropriates the five aggregates, matter, sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness as a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Innovation in North American Zen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Why can't buddhism be reflected in wearing plain & casual clothing? . .


Malcolm wrote:
It can, but a lot of people like wearing ridiculous clothes. I guess it makes them feel more spritual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:


Namdrol said:
The so called "Prasanga" branch of Madhyamaka generally rejects the idea that consciousness transmigrates.

N

cloudburst said:
What sophistry is this?
Can we expect some terse qualification, or are you actually claiming that Prasangikas do not accept transmigration?

Malcolm wrote:
Prasangas accept transmigration, but they reject that any of the aggregates transmigrates. Svsatantrikas assert that consciousness transmigrates.

Prasangas assert that the mistaken imputation "I am" (which is actually a non-existent) appropriates the series of aggregates, generates action, and experiences its results.

As I said, all that transmigrates is delusion.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: losing yourself in buddhism
Content:
ryu said:
Hi all,

I often find that i am distracted by the different concepts / ideas and processes of the various schools of buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Tenet systems is a dry hump.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
tobes said:
I take your points Namdrol. Definitely in the Pali sutta's duhkah is explicitly cached out as -literally - the dis-ease of having aggregates etc.

I have been thinking about it more metaphysically, from an Abhidharmic and Madhyamakan point of view. I suppose there are some interesting distinctions to be made in this respect.


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's approach regarding the 4NT was to introduce an irrefutable experiential fact: everywhere you look there is suffering, because everything and everyone ages, then sickens, then dies. The point is that this is an experiential fact no needs guess at it -- everyone knows what suffering means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


tobes said:
I think I mentioned this responding to you in another thread: the state of duhkah gains its formal definition only in relationship to an enduring state of satisfaction (i.e. nirvana). If there was no such enduring satisfaction, then there is no real basis to define intransient bliss as duhkah.


Malcolm wrote:
Bliss in Buddhism is a strictly negative definition i.e. it is the absence of suffering just as health is defined as the absence of illness.

In fact that notion of dukkha and the notion of roga (disease) are intimately related.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


tobes said:
But unless you're presupposing a Buddhist framework, there is no necessity to define these pursuits in the negation. Someone like Bentham would just say: these people are looking for and finding pleasure, and gaining tangible and quantifiable satisfaction from it.

Malcolm wrote:
Pleasure is defined by misery, as satisfaction is defined by dissatisfaction.

tobes said:
The avoidance of suffering would be refraining from visiting your mother-in-law or walking into a fire.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

tobes said:
So you take the axiomatic Buddhist definition of duhkah - that conditioned pleasure is in reality duhkah because it is conditioned - as a self-evident truth, when really it is a truth claim which stands contrary to many other truth claims.

Malcolm wrote:
The suffering the Buddha was talking about was mental and physical disease and pain i.e. illness, aging and death.

No one can refute that illness is suffering, aging is suffering and death is suffering. That is was the truth of suffering is actually about -- not some rarified middle Indian abhidharma redefinition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: NON-DUALITY
Content:
mindyourmind said:
How does non-duality end suffering? What if the non-dual state is a state of suffering?

Malcolm wrote:
Non-duality does not end suffering. People suffer in the state of non-duality.

What is the state of non-duality [from the Buddhist and Dzogchen POV]? Just the fact that all things arise in dependence and are therefore empty, free from all extremes. There is no non-duality apart from that.

However, by recognizing that we are suffering because we do not perceive the non-dual nature of things, we can reverse that suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


Namdrol said:
No, suffering is self-evident.

tobes said:
It's not at all. Suffering is not a good translation for duhkah - because duhkah pertains to why conditioned phenomena are unsatisfactory.

It seems clear to me that most people take it as self-evident that conditioned phenomena are satisfactory. That's why everyone is out driving bmw's, getting pissed, eating chocolate and shagging.



Malcolm wrote:
In the contrary, suffering is a perfectly adequate translation for dukkha. Suffering is self-evident because all actions in which sentient beings engage is aimed at avoiding suffering, for example, driving beamers, getting pissed, eating choclate and shagging.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
Namdrol said:
No, suffering is self-evident.

kirtu said:
Only gross personal suffering is evident for everyone.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
That is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
Mariusz said:
"The reality is illusion". It is from Svatantrikas, not from Prasangikas. Svatantrikas in India were called “the Centrists who establish illusion through reasoning.”

Malcolm wrote:
It is from Nāgārjuna. Chapter 7 MMK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 1:45 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


Namdrol said:
At the level of the 4NT, belief does not ever need to enter into it. This is the beauty of the Hīnayāna approach -- one never needs to beleive anything. One can decide to experiment with the 4NT as a hypothesis and see if it is correct.

Mahāyāna and other forms of Buddhism (apart from Dzogchen) require more of a metaphysical commitment from the get go.

tobes said:
I think even on the most basic level, a certain amount of belief is required: to experiment with any degree of efficacy, one also has to assume that there is something true or meaningful in the 4NT's.


Malcolm wrote:
No, suffering is self-evident.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Difference between oral transmission and reading from a book
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
By the way, who give a transmission to Siddharta Gautama?

heart said:
All the other Buddha's.

/magnus

Konchog1 said:
And where did they get it from?

Malcolm wrote:
Other buddhas.

It's buddhas all the way down.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
Behind the illusory appearance is the emptiness, and we cannot speak of reality without emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is not real either.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Difference between oral transmission and reading from a book
Content:
lucidaromulus said:
i see...thanks for patiently helping me by answering my queries.

is it counted as a downfall or bad karma created if a non initiated person or one who did not receive oral transmission read text that were meant for the initiated?
two cases:
1. it was done not on purpose.(happened to me cause i was so new to tibetan buddhism and it happened to be an ebook which stated in the preface that "please do not read if not empowered", sadly i was so foolish by skipping the preface and read a some of the material. i felt bad but don't know what to do then and now if it happens again.)[and in the past i did not even know which are initiate-only text and which are not. However, lately i've managed to know that all tantra-deity teachings are off limits for me until i am initiated.]

2. if it was done on purpose.(no idea why would someone do that but curiosity might be at fault here.)

Malcolm wrote:
Don't worry, there is no problem.

These everyone reads everything. Of course this gives rise to many misunderstandings, but if someone really wants to understand the meaning of such things they should make an effort to find a qualified teacher who is in a respected lineage.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Difference between oral transmission and reading from a book
Content:
lucidaromulus said:
Thank you so much Namdrol for the knowledge

Take the mani mantra for example, personally how would you describe the difference between receiving oral transmission and not receiving it? that is of course from your experiences...

Malcolm wrote:
If you do not receive transmission you cannot use the Mani as a means personal realization. You can only recite it like a prayer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Difference between oral transmission and reading from a book
Content:
lucidaromulus said:
1) does that mean the person who received the transmission can transmit it to other people?
2) does this oral transmission need to be a formal ceremony?
3) if a qualified teacher speaks/chants any sutra or mantra through a microphone, anyone who hears it receives the oral transmission?

Malcolm wrote:
1) Not necessarily.
2) Not necessarily, no. But of course you have to sit and listen.
3) Only if that teacher is intending to give the transmission of that mantra or text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Difference between oral transmission and reading from a book
Content:


lucidaromulus said:
what is the difference between oral transmission and reading from a book?

for example a mantra/sutra, receiving oral transmission from rinpoche/reading from a book.

please enlighten me


Malcolm wrote:
When you receive a lung from a qualified teacher (not just any teacher) you receive a living transmission of energy, the power of the verbal transmission of dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
illusions occur.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
But that does not make them real. Likewise, phenomena occur, but this also does not make them real.

Something real does not need to occur because it has always been real from the beginning.

The problem with most people's understanding of dependent origination is that they actually conceive of dependent origination as "dependence on something else". But you see, Nāgārjuna clearly shows that other dependence (parabhāva) as a merely guise for svabhāva. Things do not derive reality from being dependent anymore than illusions derive reality through being dependent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
tobes said:
It's clearly more than this. It is a state of perfection, a supreme attainment, the basis for transcendental knowledge et al, et al.

One really doesn't have to look too hard in various canons to see that nirvana is doing more work than you want to acknowledge.


Sönam said:
This is because you believe than there is a greater thing than "our real nature" ... but that not the case in buddhism, nirvana is absence of suffering like it is said at the very beginning in the 4NT ...
In fact you do not really trust in Buddha's words.

Sönam

tobes said:
This is precisely my point Sonam: a very critical part of the epistemology of Buddhism is, as you put it, trusting the Buddha's words. To a large extent, the four noble truths and nirvana (whether it is defined in negation or stated more positively) depend upon that.

This does not mean 'blind faith' but nor does it mean 'absolute logical coherence.'

So I'm just saying: it is hypocritical to demand absolute logical coherence for non-Buddhists.

Moreover, where exactly have I stated that I believe in a greater thing than "our real nature?"


Malcolm wrote:
At the level of the 4NT, belief does not ever need to enter into it. This is the beauty of the Hīnayāna approach -- one never needs to beleive anything. One can decide to experiment with the 4NT as a hypothesis and see if it is correct.

Mahāyāna and other forms of Buddhism (apart from Dzogchen) require more of a metaphysical commitment from the get go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
tobes said:
It's clearly more than this. It is a state of perfection, a supreme attainment, the basis for transcendental knowledge et al, et al.

One really doesn't have to look too hard in various canons to see that nirvana is doing more work than you want to acknowledge.



Malcolm wrote:
Well, compared to samsara nirvana is perfect since it involves the cessation of suffering and is free from suffering; that cessation of suffering is a supreme attainment, and experiencing the freedom from afflictions is a basis for lokottarajñāna i.e. transcendent wisdom. But in the nirvana is merely state of the absence of further rebirth which given various salutory names; it is merely the state of freedom from afflictions which cause rebirth and that is all. I was not implying that the no effort was involved in removing those affliction mental patterns which sustain rebirth in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


5heaps said:
to call the dependently arisen 'an illusion' instead of 'like an illusion' would be nihilism, since everything was negated in its entirety

Malcolm wrote:
This is mistaken: illusions also depend on causes and conditions to arise, hence whatever arises dependently is illusory. The same mirages, dreams, fire wheels, etc.

When one removes the causes and conditions for an illusion, it vanishes. When one removes the causes and conditions of something dependently originated, it vanishes.

The eight examples of illusion show that the dependently arisen is merely illusory and not real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:



tobes said:
She demands that Buddhist claims must be evidence based and logical. You give her accounts of causality, selflessness and impermanence.

Great, she says. What about nirvana?

Malcolm wrote:
NIrvana is the absence of a cause for further suffering, and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Lungta
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Is the Three Whites and Sweets and different woods and so forth required for Sang? Or is just incense okay?


Malcolm wrote:
Just incense is ok. If you have opportunity to do more, than it is better.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The simple answer would be:  the same thing that moves from one moment to the next during the bardo of life.

Tilopa said:
Correct - the continuum of the subtle clear light conciousness.


Malcolm wrote:
That would be a tantric perspective (Gelug), but the Prasanga perspective is the one I outlined above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 15th, 2012 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Breaking the one vow
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Out of couriosity what was the vow? If it's´true private, then of ´course dont tell me.

Ogyen said:
I will not engage in divisive speech.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh well, say you're sorry and move on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
How is it then that we can equate reality with illusion...?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the real cannot be found on analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Lungta
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Then in that case there might be an explanation of the standard use of water for Lungta practices found in one of the following texts for example:

http://www.lotsawahouse.org/topics/riwo-sangcho " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
In our system, you use an evergreen branch and with it sprinkle water on the flags to purify them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Ganapuja
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
If we don't have a larger Puja Drum for parts of practices that it compliments, which is the next best scenario:

Malcolm wrote:
Use a bell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
If he valued righteousness so much he would have kept his kingdom. But have you ever heard of a righteous physician?

Namdrol said:
You statement is a non-sequitar.

maybay said:
One should not try to do the impossible. Have I failed?

Malcolm wrote:
non-sequitar #2


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
If he valued righteousness so much he would have kept his kingdom. But have you ever heard of a righteous physician?


Malcolm wrote:
You statement is a non-sequitar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
Show me a scripture that says reality is an illusion. You will not find it.

DarwidHalim said:
By the way, what is the difference between saying reality is like an illusion and reality is illusion?


Malcolm wrote:
The first is a form of weak realism; the second is the Buddha's view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: What is Kagyae Initiation?! (HH DL)
Content:
heart said:
No, I haven't received the Yeshe Zangtal from ChNNR but since I am not particularly searching for a pure Ati style, it is enough for me if I actually get what I am receiving. Direct introduction, no matter the package, is always completely pure for me.

Namdrol said:
According to ChNN, the idea of a "pure Dzogchen" is a mistake. He also says we need to understand our practice in terms of the unity of the three inner tantras. Dzogchen is how we practice those three inner tantras.

N

Mariusz said:
What about thogal of Dzogchen. Is it in Dzogchen only or is not? Does it mean for practice of thogal Maha and Anu Tantras are somehow necessary?

Malcolm wrote:
There are thogal intimate instructions connected with both mahāyoga and anuyoga cycles. It does not mean that these cycles are necessary in order to do thogal, however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Five Mountain Zen Order & Paul Lynch
Content:
Jikan said:
It's a lot easier for the buyer to beware when he or she is better informed of what's going on.

When does public criticism become pissing in the wind?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, for example, when it came to attention of the world that James Foster was improperly claiming to be a Tendai Priest, did he stop? No, he just morphed into a "Zen" Preist, and now he is an Ancient Buddha.

So you see, I while I am cynical about the hucksters, snake-oil salesman and racketeers in Buddhism (both Asian and Western), my observation is that they don't stop even when called to account.

Why? Because people are free to rip other people off when it comes to Religion. Religious careers are the sole occupation one can follow where there are no true standards, where one is free to bilk people for millions if one can get away with it. Religion requires very little capital startup, almost no training at all, and a reasonably articulate and amoral person or otherwise self-deluded person, can get people to go along with one's spiel and charge them good money for it.

So this is why it is just pissing in the wind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
Huseng said:
This is one perspective. Vasubandhu had a different idea (see 18a-d):

Malcolm wrote:
Vasubandhu's perspective is vastly inferior to that of Nāgārjuna in my opinion.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Nope, these are very clear. "the five aggregates are illusory. They do not exist" could not be clearer. The meaning of the illusion metaphor is very clear and is summed up in the tibetan term med par gsal snang i.e. clearly apparent non-existent.

Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
Huseng said:
Collectively it is the mental aggregates, which are a dependently-originated karmic reaction fundamentally driven by ignorance of reality (hence subject to perishing), that are reborn. There is no "self" in a concrete sense, but there is a reaction between causes and conditions which leads to the continued existence of a sentient being.

In explaining such things a general audience it is best just to say the mind is reborn. The mind, however, is not absolute either and is dependently originated just as much as a physical body is.

Malcolm wrote:
Nagāgarjuna opines:

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing has transmigrated
In that respect, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those are termed ‘serially connected’. Not having ceased, they produce another produced from that cause. Nevertheless, not even a subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next. That being the case, the wheel of samsara is created by the traces of erroneous concepts.

The so called "Prasanga" branch of Madhyamaka generally rejects the idea that consciousness transmigrates.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: What is Kagyae Initiation?! (HH DL)
Content:
heart said:
No, I haven't received the Yeshe Zangtal from ChNNR but since I am not particularly searching for a pure Ati style, it is enough for me if I actually get what I am receiving. Direct introduction, no matter the package, is always completely pure for me.

Malcolm wrote:
According to ChNN, the idea of a "pure Dzogchen" is a mistake. He also says we need to understand our practice in terms of the unity of the three inner tantras. Dzogchen is how we practice those three inner tantras.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Five Mountain Zen Order & Paul Lynch
Content:
jisahn108 said:
Astus, clearly you aren't going to meet me on this. You seem to think Dharma is maybe about stringing a logical series of words together in a convincing fashion, and sort of doing what you want as long as you can convince yourself that theoretically in the end it's skillful means? This isn't about a single claim being true or not. This isn't some vague hypothetical. Again - Zen teaching primarily consists of modeled and embodied behavior, not nice words. By this measure, Paul Lynch's teaching largely consists of inflation, distortion, manipulation, disrespect, outright lying, and a total lack of integrity, at a number of levels. In other words, not very Zen at all.

Please don't bother with more theoretical possibilities or historical examples. I can do that for myself, thanks. Our takes are on the table.


Malcolm wrote:
You do realize that all your complaining amounts to pissing in the wind, right? This issue is not confined to Zen/Chan/Son. Buddhism is rife with frauds, grifters and charlatons. That is just how it is.  Caveat emptor. And the sad thing is that I observe that money is the thing which drives it all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
The fact that someone could eventually mistake the Base for God doesn't make them the same.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it remains like the jaundiced view of a conch shell or a white cloth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
Show me a scripture that says reality is an illusion. You will not find it.

Namdrol said:
Because of dwelling in the equivalence of all phenomena with illusions, mirages, dreams, water moons, echoes and double vision, the Dharma free of affliction is perfectly realized.
-- ārya-lalitavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Further, sister, the five aggregates are illusory. They do not exist. There is no arising of erroneous action. It is conventionally designated through an error. Sister, awakening is like an illusion, it does not exist, it is conventionally designated through an error. Sister, though awakening is like an illusion, it does not exist, it is conventionally designated through an error. Therefore, sister, because illusions are the same, the aggregates are the same. Because the aggregates are the same, illusion is the same. Since illusion is the same, awakening is the same. Since awakening is the same, illusion is the same. Sister, therefore, I call you "awakened".

-- ārya-mañjuśrīvikurvāṇaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

maybay said:
The search continues...

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, these are very clear. "the five aggregates are illusory. They do not exist" could not be clearer. The meaning of the illusion metaphor is very clear and is summed up in the tibetan term med par gsal snang i.e. clearly apparent non-existent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


tobes said:
Prima facie, of course. But if you dig a little deeper, the story is far more complex.

For starters, svabava is not precisely commensurable with what is meant by essence in some western contexts. And what is meant by essence differs markedly in different thinkers and traditions.

Namdrol said:
Notions of essence boil down to the Paramedian distinction between being and non-being, as far as western philosophy goes.

At base, apart from Madhyamaka, all of these different schools are asserting some sort of being contrasted with some sort of non-being.

This is why everyone apart from Madhyamaka is considered realist in some sense or another.

N

tobes said:
That's an incredibly reductive and misleading account of western philosophy.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, given that I was raised by a professor of philosophy, I am entitled to be incredibly reductive about it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


tobes said:
Prima facie, of course. But if you dig a little deeper, the story is far more complex.

For starters, svabava is not precisely commensurable with what is meant by essence in some western contexts. And what is meant by essence differs markedly in different thinkers and traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
Notions of essence boil down to the Paramedian distinction between being and non-being, as far as western philosophy goes.

At base, apart from Madhyamaka, all of these different schools are asserting some sort of being contrasted with some sort of non-being.

This is why everyone apart from Madhyamaka is considered realist in some sense or another.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


tobes said:
Because I don't think anyone has done this yet. There's barely been a published paper on these kinds of topics.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not necessary. All theistic views, especially in ancient Philosophy boil down to essentialism. Madhyamaka rejects that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
maybay said:
Show me a scripture that says reality is an illusion. You will not find it.



Malcolm wrote:
Because of dwelling in the equivalence of all phenomena with illusions, mirages, dreams, water moons, echoes and double vision, the Dharma free of affliction is perfectly realized.
-- ārya-lalitavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Further, sister, the five aggregates are illusory. They do not exist. There is no arising of erroneous action. It is conventionally designated through an error. Sister, awakening is like an illusion, it does not exist, it is conventionally designated through an error. Sister, though awakening is like an illusion, it does not exist, it is conventionally designated through an error. Therefore, sister, because illusions are the same, the aggregates are the same. Because the aggregates are the same, illusion is the same. Since illusion is the same, awakening is the same. Since awakening is the same, illusion is the same. Sister, therefore, I call you "awakened".

-- ārya-mañjuśrīvikurvāṇaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Mint, Dechen Norbu, did you guys happen to hear Rinpoche's teaching on the last day of the recent retreat?

http://www.freezecast.com/replay/index.php " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He addressed the very topic that you two are debating (in context of course).

Malcolm wrote:
Not really -- what he said was is that it was possible to frame "God" as a signifier for one's primordial potentiality (i.e. the basis), but he did not state that this was how theistic traditions would understand it nor that they would accept it in this way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
Ogyen said:
I do NOT want to hash out a whole argument on rebirth.  I have often been asked this one question that I honestly don't know how to answer because I'm not qualified, but it has been bugging me now for some time.  According to my own studies (Nyingma tradition) there is no solid 'self' thing or anything to call a 'soul.'  So when I'm asked about 'reincarnation' by non-buddhists I flat out deny it, "Buddhism does not ascribe to 'reincarnation'' then they say, "What about rebirth" at which point I just say I'm not qualified to speak on the matter-because I'm not.  I'm a newb.  It's good practice for reducing self-importance to look like an dolt on a regular basis in showing you don't know something.  In my studies I've come to understand that there is nothing to 'reincarnate' - however the issue is complex because of the 12 links of DO we have ignorance as the cause and desire and nama and rupa etc etc, so something continues to grasp for form, for being...

I beg our members here to please NOT make this into a thread about rebirth's validity or not (as threads around this questions often degenerate and polarize), I'm not interested in that - in this sense, I have no questions around validity, in practice i just want to understand what is being asked and perhaps gain better insight myself in terms of "what moves on" into new form in rebirth - and how the cycle goes on and on...  Is it the deepest part of consciousness (alaya)?  What is it in me that will continue to grasp with desire out of ignorance into new form and find new ways to compound new karma?

Malcolm wrote:
Delusion and nothing more, that is what "moves". Which delusion? The delusion "I am".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Title: Re: Breaking the one vow
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Vows work like this -- when you break them, the break only lasts for a single day. You confess, and you move on with your life.

N


Ogyen said:
I have hit a brick wall - everywhere I look the filters of gloom cover my sight, a nasty negative energy shrouds my outlook despite keeping at it and doing everything I know (and that list is fairly extensive having years of practice working with the goggles of depression and the afflictions of mental stress).  My head knows it's just filters, tricks of perception, nothing to even dive too deep into - I watch the clouds like storms come and go.. I even sense very keenly some days there is no 'me' to get all bent out of shape and I let much of it rise and fall away without 'acting/reacting' to the whole cycle... but the one thing I'm least proud of that I did was break the one vow I made to my teacher when I took refuge.  He made me pick one of the 10 that I vowed and said, "This is the one that you vow to never do, the one that you vow to me." And I picked.  I don't know why I picked that one. I even felt I didn't know if I could always keep it no matter what.  And in the lowest of lowest, I broke it.  I feel like the biggest phony ever.  I probably am - I mean I don't even pretend to try to be Buddh ist... even that is a construct.  I feel like either I embody a Buddha or shut up kid - don't pretend or try to be anything.  There is no try, either do or don't  -and watch yourself doing or not doing.  Meanwhile, I FEEL the suffering.  Intensely.  And no relief is coming.

What are the consequences of breaking one's vow to one's teacher?  I imagine pretty dire...?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Then if we choose between combining Sang & Serkyem with a Tun or a Ganapuja, it would be better to choose combining it with a Thun practice?

Thanks again.


Malcolm wrote:
I think so. Ganapuja already has many offerings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Thank you Namdrol.

I wasn't thinking of actually combining Sang & Serkyem with a Tun or Ganapuja (was referring to doing them in sequence rather); but if we can do that, then I'd like to combine the practice with Thun or Ganapuja.

So let's say for example we combine Sang & Serkyem with a long Ganapuja; would we begin it right after the Offerings to the Guardians, right after the Invocations to the Guardians, or right after the Naggon or Ngagkong for the Guardians?

Also, if we are to offer milk-tea and red wine, we would mix them together in the upper Serkyem cup then?


Malcolm wrote:
generally you would not combined with ganapuja. But if you did, after ngaggong.

You offer the three drinks seperately.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Adamantine said:
Something I have a habit of doing when offering to the dharmapalas is filling a serkyem with offering substances, as the support torma. Is this considered acceptable, or complimentary to do in the context of a DC Tun or Ganapuja? I don't recall ever seeing a physical support offered to the protectors in any DC event I've been to, or Rinpoche ever mentioning it, so it clearly doesn't seem to be a requirement, -but is it acceptable to include if one likes and has the proper materials?

heart said:
In ChNNR book Sang offering and Serkyem for the eight classes he mention clearly how to us the serkyem and what to put in it http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=280

Lhug-Pa said:
When offering Sang & Serkyem is it generally acceptable—when finished—to go straight into a Long Life practice or Ganapuja and to leave the Serkyem on the Shrine with its contents?  If this is not acceptable, can we then just set the Serkyem aside somewhere in the Shrine room until the Ganapuja is finished?

And I take it that milk-tea can go in the lower basin of the Serkyem and red wine in the top offering cup of the same Serkyem?

Malcolm wrote:
Generally Sang and Serkyme are done alone --but if combining with Thun practices then they are done after the protectors.

When doing it by yourself, you only need wine. And no, tea, milk and wine go into the serkyem cup. The basin is to catch excess. Some people also put food in the basin. There are differing customs.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
The institution of "Buddhism" has many provided many unprovables. People born out of lotus flowers and so on.
This cannot be denied.
But believing in them is not essential. it is not demanded of the follower.

Malcolm wrote:
That very much depends on which school or teacher you follow.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Five Mountain Zen Order & Paul Lynch
Content:
jisahn108 said:
Personally, he gives me dharmic heartburn.

Malcolm wrote:
It is good stop eating foods that give you heartburn.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Author of Lujin
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
So you're saying the Lujin was initially compiled by Karma Chagme from the works of the III Karmapa and then further edited by the XIV Karmapa and Jamgon Kongtrul. So the original compiler is Karma Chagme but the version we use today in the Karma Kagyu is probably that of Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye?

Malcolm wrote:
Yup. And very likely, Karma Chagme was not the original compiler.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Author of Lujin
Content:
Knotty Veneer said:
I have seen the text of the Kagyu daily Chod practice or Lujin variously attributed to the XIV Karmapa Thekchok Dorje (Lama Lodo), Karma Chakme (Sarah Harding) or Lodro Thaye (Tenga Rinpoche). I understand that a lot of it is compiled from the work of the III Karmapa Rangjung Dorje but who was the actual author/compiler? Anyone know?


Malcolm wrote:
All of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:



tobes said:
Do you really think most neo-Buddhists are prepared to accept their position as mere ideology?


Malcolm wrote:
They will make faster progress if they do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


tobes said:
However, what worries me, is that this epistemological double standard leaves neo-Buddhism open to the charge that it is functioning more or less as an ideology.


Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is. That is the Dzogchen critque of the nine yanas, i.e., that they are ideologies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
Nighthawk said:
The Dzogchen view that all sentient beings will become Buddhas at the end of this aeon regardless if they have practiced the Dharma or not doesn't really make much sense at all.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the Dzogchen view.

The Dzogchen view is that all sentient beings will becomes Buddhas by the end of the eon because they will all meet Dzogchen teachings and practice them.


Nighthawk said:
And then these Buddhas are said to revert back to the "basis" in other words ignorance, but how can a Buddha ever revert back to that? If a Buddha will revert back to ignorance then he is not really a Buddha so why even label them as that?

Malcolm wrote:
Here, the usage "buddha" is not precise. It means those who have gained some measure of realization i.e. bodhi, but not necessarily annutara samyak sambodhi.

Also revert to the basis does not mean reverting to ignorance. There is no ignorance in the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Astrological "overlap" with others?
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Rinpoche wrote that traditionally we are to consider ourselves already a year old when we were born, so when the calendar and the consulting-the-calendar-book say to calculate specific things according to "when we were born" does this always come with the assumption that we should always consider that our animal and element are the ones that are actually of a year before our actual date of birth?


Malcolm wrote:
Never. If you are born in a Dragon year, you are one when you are born, are a dragon, and turn 2 at the next new year, even if you are  born the day before the Tibetan new year of the following year.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


steveb1 said:
That's really interesting. Not to tax the point, does this Buddha of the present eon have a name - I presume it was not Shakyamuni because other Buddhas preceded him?

Namdrol said:
Samantabhadra.

Nighthawk said:
Where did this idea originate from the Adi Buddha is the "Primordial" Buddha rather than the first Buddha of this aeon? Is it perhaps a mistranslation from Tibetan texts or the teaching of a different Tibetan school(s)?

Malcolm wrote:
Misunderstanding of early western scholars.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:


steveb1 said:
That's really interesting. Not to tax the point, does this Buddha of the present eon have a name - I presume it was not Shakyamuni because other Buddhas preceded him?

Malcolm wrote:
Samantabhadra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
freefromsamsara said:
How do you know the Lord Creator isn't the same being as Adi Buddha in buddhist cosmology?

Namdrol said:
Because the Adibuddha is not a creator.

steveb1 said:
Could someone please expand on this ... ?

I did not find much on Abi Buddha when I did a Google search, except that Abi Buddha is a primordial Buddha from whom things flow in an "emanationist" manner. Granted that this is accurate, and that emanation is not the same as creation, still: what is the essential difference ... ? If Abi Buddha is not a "sky father"-type creator, but still  "He" is an emanator, then is "He" not involved in the origination of universes and the structure of physical processes ... ? But if that is true, how is that a Buddha would emanate a samsaric world full of ignorance and suffering ... ?

Malcolm wrote:
Because "Adi" means first, and really refers to the first Buddha of the present eon, the first Buddha who woke up.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Really Magnus? I never noticed that...
I never understood him to see shamatha as the experience of emptiness.

Namdrol said:
ChNN frequently says this actually, but he does not mean realization of emptiness free from extremes, he means an experience where the mind is empty of thought.

heart said:
Like non-thought as in bliss, clarity and non-thought? He actually means something like non-conceptual?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
mzaur said:
Does anyone know what the topic will be for the NY retreat? I could not find any info here http://tsegyalgar.org/localcenters/kundrolling/kundrollingevents/retreatwithchoegya3/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
Most likely a general retreat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:


Namdrol said:
The experience of emptiness here is a Vajrayāna descrition.

mzaur said:
Ah, I see. So what does Vajrayana call the insight into Pratītyasamutpāda?

Malcolm wrote:
Realization of emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
heart said:
I always found it quite confusing that ChNNR seems to equate shamata and emptiness.

/magnus

mzaur said:
Ah, so that's it. Sonam's quote was indeed confusing...Rinpoche isn't talking about Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) when he says shunyata/emptiness... so what does Rinpoche call dependent origination then?

It does seem that many people, especially non-Buddhists but also Buddhists too, talk about emptiness as a state of mind free from thought, perhaps because the word emptiness does seem to point to that experience [although of course shunyata does not mean that]. It does seem skillful for Rinpoche to accept that definition and use it.

Malcolm wrote:
The experience of emptiness here is a Vajrayāna descrition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
That's how I take it. But never really noticed him equating with shamatha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he does. I have heard him say this many times over the years.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Really Magnus? I never noticed that...
I never understood him to see shamatha as the experience of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN frequently says this actually, but he does not mean realization of emptiness free from extremes, he means an experience where the mind is empty of thought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
heart said:
I always found it quite confusing that ChNNR seems to equate shamata and emptiness.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
He isn't. I used to find this consfusing too until I came across a passage by Sachen Kunga Nyingpo where he described the experience of the gap between two thoughts as being an experience of emptiness i.e. an experience of absence of thoughts.

But ChNN does not mean that this experience of emptiness is emptiness qua emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism on God
Content:
freefromsamsara said:
How do you know the Lord Creator isn't the same being as Adi Buddha in buddhist cosmology?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the Adibuddha is not a creator.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
mzaur said:
but what's stopping Zen practitioners from realizing that also?

Malcolm wrote:
Lack of intimate instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Title: Re: Peter Fenner - "Radiant Mind"
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Untill now i know only the sexual abuse related to karma mudra but there must be more like for instance the money shuffle side of town which is based on a certain Sangha power.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two main things: sexual misconduct and misusing the money of students for personal gain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Are Dharmapalas Necessary ?
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
Thank you - not the first time you have clarified for me the position vis a vis Yidam and Dharmapala forms.

I was misled by a footnote here, amongst other sources, regarding Hayagriva as a Dharmapala:

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/darmapalas.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note 6:   The eight Dharmapalas are Mahakala, Palden Lhamo, Yamantaka, Kubera, Hayagriva, Changpa, Yama, and Begtse.

Certainly in the recent Nyenpa Lha Sum empowerment with Dzogchen Rinpoche all three deities were Yidams - Hayagriva (Padmanta Trita), Vajrapani and Garuda. Yet all three are Antidote Deities which remove obstructions, and assist in dealing with illnesses and spirit harm.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, this is a "lesser" form of Hayagriva. But also Hayagriva/Vajravārāhī is the central deity of many Anuyoga cycles connected with Dzogchen such as the Khandro Nyinthig.

If you have received any transmissions from Ch. Namkhai Norbu, the Guru Dragphur is a combination deity of Guru Dragpo, Yangdag Heruka, Vajrakilaya, Vajrapani, Hayagriva and Garuda.

Guru Dragpo is Padmasambhava. Yangdag Heruka was his main practice. He realized the level of a mahamudra vidyādhara through practicing Vajrakilaya. And then of course, Vajrapani is for controlling celestial negative forces; Hayagriva is for controlling terrestial negative forces, and Garuda is for controlling subterranean negative forces.

N

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Are Dharmapalas Necessary ?
Content:


Blue Garuda said:
In terms of the broad topic, the fact that Mahakala and others appear as both Yidams and Dharmapalas would denote some necessity, so precisely what is it that the Dharmapala Mahakala can do that the Yidam Mahakala cannot?  Would it be that the answer is simply in the way we regard the deity rather than a material difference between the two forms, i.e. using the same tool for two different purposes?
.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what kind of empowerment you receive.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Are Dharmapalas Necessary ?
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
A second point I would make is that in practice we self-generate as a Yidam, but never as a Protector as far as I know.

Namdrol said:
Mahākala and Mahākali are both Yidams as well as Dharmapālas.

The practice of Mahākala as a Yidam is quite widespead in Sakya, actually. It is also widespread in Kagyu and Nyingma.

N

Blue Garuda said:
Yes, I believe that Hayagriva is similarly regarded as Yidam and Dharmapala within Nyingma.

Malcolm wrote:
Hayagriva is only a Yidam.

Blue Garuda said:
To choose one example, does the practitioner self-generate as the Dharmapala Mahakala or only as the Yidam Mahakala?

Malcolm wrote:
Only as Yidam in the Yidam practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 9th, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Are Dharmapalas Necessary ?
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
A second point I would make is that in practice we self-generate as a Yidam, but never as a Protector as far as I know.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahākala and Mahākali are both Yidams as well as Dharmapālas.

The practice of Mahākala as a Yidam is quite widespead in Sakya, actually. It is also widespread in Kagyu and Nyingma.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 9th, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: Peter Fenner - "Radiant Mind"
Content:
Yontan said:
Agreed.
Longchenpa has done his best to give us a leg up. I believe his Resting at Ease trilogy has good info. Paltrul's seminal ngondro text has good help as well. At the least a teacher's students should show some bodhicitta, but even that can be hard to discern when first starting out.
I suppose it all comes down to karma. Best to pray to the bodhisattvas for guidance.

Malcolm wrote:
There is not such thing as a teacher whose conduct is immune to reproach. Buddhsit tantras warn again and again about the necessity to pick a qualified Guru.

Unacceptable conduct in teachers is not the kind of thing one can necessarily predict in the beginning of a teacher/student relationship, and erudition, even the appearance of bodhicitta, will not prevent such people from engaging in completely unacceptable conduct.

When you discover unacceptable conduct in some "teacher" like this, you have no choice but to seperate yourself from that person, as Kongtrul makes very clear.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 9th, 2012 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Peter Fenner - "Radiant Mind"
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
- How can a beginner have a knowledge about the truly qualified Dzogchenpa Master?

Malcolm wrote:
Admittedly this is a difficult issue.

kalden yungdrung said:
- This does count also in chosing as a beginner, a Tantric Master.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, difficult.

kalden yungdrung said:
So it seems to be nearly impossible to make a correct choice as a beginner, so good karma and to have built up in previous lives a connnection / base, would be important........ Maybe i did forgot something


Malcolm wrote:
It is difficult even when one is not a beginner. Sometimes people makes errors of judgement, and someone they thought was a qualified to give teachings turns out not to be qualified at all.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 9th, 2012 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Peter Fenner - "Radiant Mind"
Content:


pemachophel said:
I offer this as a caveat against simply reading the available Dzogchen literature in English, thinking that one has understood the natural state, and then traveling down a wrong path.


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen texts are manuals, not literature, and need to be understood in that way.

They need to be studied in conjunction with a teacher, until one's understanding is comprehensive and moving in the right direction. If one is studying with someone who does not have an actual understanding of Dzogchen but merely uses Dzogchen as a way attracting students in order to make a living, this can also interfere with a student's progress. So it is important to make sure that one's teacher of Dzogchen is a truly qualified teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: The Buddha Witinin by Jamgon Kontrul
Content:
Jax said:
Jean Luc, who I know well, would agree with "knowledge" for Rigpa. As they both think rigpa is some kind of knowledge.

Malcolm wrote:
So in fact does my Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu -- in fact he said so again just last night. "Rigpa is not the basis, the basis is called bodhicitta; rigpa is one's knowledge of that basis and the ability to to remain in that knowledge."

It is also true that ChNN translates rig pa as instant presence. The term rigpa gets used in a variety of ways in Dzogchen texts, which is why Vimalamitra articulated five different forms of rigpa.

As for awareness, that bests translates shes pa as in thamal gyi shes pa i.e. ordinary awareness or ma bcos shes pa skad cig ma, momentary unfabricated awareness, etc. Sometimes shes pa means "to understand" when used as a verb. In other contexts it is better to translate shes pa as cognition, and so on. Tibetan is a language that is very synonym poor, so the same words have to do a lot of work in many different contexts.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche Quote
Content:


Jax said:
Then I learned how much many "masters" were not realized. They knew the spiel but had no profound realization.

Malcolm wrote:
Care to list any masters you think are realized?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
You moron, I explained it in exact detail. Ok, ok... You are a bit slow, I get it.

Mr. G said:
Couldn't even keep it under control after being given a second chance, huh?  ::sigh::


Malcolm wrote:
It's ok. I provoked him into on purpose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
Mental constructions cannot be said to exist or not exist as they are beyond both extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
We were not discussing the emptiness of mental constructs, but rather, how they come about. You have not provided an adequate response.

No worries. I did not imagine you could.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Title: Re: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche Quote
Content:
Jax said:
No belief necessary Nam... Doubt is just distraction." Feel the Force Luke... You can't know it with your intellect". Just having fun with you Nam( or is it Malcolm?)

Malcolm wrote:
Either Malcolm or Namdrol.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Title: Re: The Buddha Witinin by Jamgon Kontrul
Content:
Jax said:
Your translation is being influenced by the conceptualized vidya as used in all sorts of  (gelugpa) translations.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm no, it is being influenced by the title of numerous dzogchen tantras where vidyā is translated as rig pa. Two upadesha tantras bear the term vidyā for rigpa in their Sanskrit titles, as well as many other titles of tantras. For example, in the dgongs pa zang thal, there is a text entitled the cittavidyā praveśa tantra or in Tibetan sems dang rig pa dbye ba'i rgyud or in English the The Tantra of Distinguishing Mind (citta) and Vidyā (rigpa).

These days there is a movement to just leave the term rigpa in Tibetan. I prefer vidyā because we commonly use terms like dharmakāya, etc.

But your assertion that there is no term for rig pa in Sanskrit is truly humorous and completely false. Saying such things just makes you look like a fool.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
No Namdrol,"sentient beings" are  just a mental construction arising within the space of the Dharmakaya, like reflections in a mirror.

Namdrol said:
How do those those mental constructions come about according to you (I am perfectly familiar with what Dzogchen texts say)? Do mental constructions merely arise from themselves without a cause, or do they have a cause?

Jax said:
Mental constructions arise as the radiance of the ground, Zhi. They are an evolution of the Five Lights as tsal and rolpa, as an arising consciousness evolves it is bewildered by the display of the Five Lights, of which it is a part. Seeing the display as "other", subject and object are established. From this a false dichotomy arises in which all aspects of sem arise.

Malcolm wrote:
So you have retreated from your assertion that there are no "sems can" i.e. possessors of sem i.e. sentient beings.

Jax said:
But in fact nothing was "caused" because an "effect" never attained to the status of becoming an independently existing entity.

Malcolm wrote:
Independently existing entities do not require causes or conditions so your statement here is a non-sequiter.

Jax said:
Although a sentient being may be said to exist conventionally...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they may. Good to see you grasp this fact.

Still, there are two things: one you have not explained how an arising consciousness evolves, nor have you gven a reason why this happens. So you have not answered the question of whether these mental constructions are independently existent entities since they arise from themselves and lack causes, or are caused entities that lack independent existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche Quote
Content:
Jax said:
You are exactly right Namdrol, I have no "idea" what Rigpa is. There you have it, I came clean man. And I also know, you have only "ideas" about what Rigpa is. I have never been able to capture Rigpa as an idea.

Malcolm wrote:
We have seen you over and over again proclaim your qualities of realization and understanding. We just don't believe you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Title: Re: The Buddha Witinin by Jamgon Kontrul
Content:
Jax said:
Wow! Thank you Namdrol! I never considered myself an intellectual, but coming from you that has weight.

Malcolm wrote:
It's not a compliment.


Jax said:
Then you too can teach others from insight not just dry, literal parroting of others teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
That's funny, coming from you.

Jax said:
But you got stuck there because you try to translate Rigpa from the nuance of Sanskrit "vidya".

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, if you were less of an intellectual you woud understand that vidyā is the word that Tibetans translate as "rig pa". For example, the Tantra Of The Great Self-liberated Vidyā That Unravels All is translated into Tibetan as the rig pa rang grol chen po thams cad 'grol ba'i rgyud from the Sanskrit Mahā vidyā svamukti sarva ghadtita tantra

Jax said:
Sanskrit had no word for Rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Your ignorance is astonishing.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche Quote
Content:
Jax said:
Cap'n, ask around to people who had either large retreat "direct introduction" or webcast.  Ask them if they experienced the non-dual Rigpa.  In Tibet the populace came to Dzogchen masters for a "blessing", they weren't seriously engaged as practitioners (per Norbu). Real practitioners met in private for the Tsal Wang and other forms of "direct introduction". You need almost daily contact with a teacher until the retreat practice is completed as well as afterward. I know many people , for many years... As Tenzin Wangyal said "only about 1% of disciples will recognize actual rigpa". To me that id unacceptable, it's not that difficult when one on one instruction is available easily, lineage or not.  Senior students have the same capacity if they have really "recognized".


Malcolm wrote:
Jax, you have no idea what rigpa is. Just admit it, come clean man.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
samdrup said:
Jax, I'm beginning to think you're taking the piss.

Malcolm wrote:
It's been obvious for a while, but he also charges money for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 5:15 AM
Title: Re: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche Quote
Content:
Jax said:
Nam, Nubs was wrong. He didn't realize that Chan realization is Mahamudra and trekchod, realizing kadag.  Boy, you don't read my posts.  I explained that earlier.

Malcolm wrote:
Realization of Chan, Mahāmudra, and Dzogchen are all the same. The length of time it takes to gain that realization is what makes the distinction.

Your concept of ka dag is a bit limited though. Kadag is not simply emptiness, though it has been dumbed down in that way for people like you.


Jax said:
Nubs should have stayed within his own knowledge base.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, Nubchen had personal experience of Chan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: The Buddha Witinin by Jamgon Kontrul
Content:
Jax said:
Try to "recognize" Rinpoche's intent and meaning.. If you do, that's transmission of the best kind.


Malcolm wrote:
Your problem, Jax, and the reason why your teachings are complete shite, is that you are an intellectual. Not a particularly skillful one, nor especially articulate, but an intellectual nevertheless.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
Jax said:
Nam, only my intestines...

Malcolm wrote:
No, completely and utterly, head to toe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche Quote
Content:
Jax said:
Tom... Yes, at least some balance.  It seems there is similarity between some positions here as expressed in  "The Great Debate" at Samye in Tibet in the 800's (if it actually occurred!). The debate centered between the "sudden" or "all at once school" of the Chan school and the "gradual approach" of Kamalasila.

Malcolm wrote:
This solely concerned sutrayāna teachings and had nothing to do with Varjayāna. In his seminal Lamp of the Eye of Concentration, Nubchen clarifies that even though Mahāyoga is "gradual" is still superior to Chan because of the presence of introduction in Mahāyoga and its absence in Chan. Of course, Dzogchen is yet again superior to Mahāyoga, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
Jax said:
I most often write from that Space.



Malcolm wrote:
You, Jax, are completely and entirely full of shit, in my not so humble opinion of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
No Namdrol,"sentient beings" are  just a mental construction arising within the space of the Dharmakaya, like reflections in a mirror.

Malcolm wrote:
How do those those mental constructions come about according to you (I am perfectly familiar with what Dzogchen texts say)? Do mental constructions merely arise from themselves without a cause, or do they have a cause?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Peter Fenner - "Radiant Mind"
Content:


spanda said:
What do you think? Another attempt to "adapt" Dzogchen teachings to the westerners?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
Jax said:
Dechen please hang in here with me a second.  There is no one who attains or maintains the natural state or rigpa. There is no entity to rest in the natural state. The one who would recognize or rest is just the assembly of five skandhas, sem. The skandhas are arisings in that uncaused Dharmakaya, who you are. There is no self to realize Rigpa, that's a contradiction of terms.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no self to realize period in Dharma as a whole. Again, this is simple sutrayāna 101 stuff.

Jax said:
It's not that there is nothing "to do", but rather there is no one to do it.

Malcolm wrote:
So far you have shared nothing with us from Dzogchen teachings themselves. You have just shared a bunch of sutrayāna perspectives. The idea that there is really nothing to introduce is Sakyapa and Gelug idea, one the ChNN regularly laughs at. In Dzogchen there is something to introduce.

Your problem is that you are still hung up on the relative/ultimate dichtomy like a first year Zen student.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
What happened to "nyamnyid" as same taste wherein all appearances are equal in value?

Malcolm wrote:
All appeareances are equal in value.

But when people are not properly taught, they are cut off from the possibility of realization and that is an abomination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
Good answer Namdrol, but perhaps it would be more precise to say the only true refuge is one's own indestructible and changeless Nature as the Dharmakaya.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, if you want to go the Sutrayāna route, you might say this.

Still, Primordial Buddhahood is useless if it does not lessen your faults.

Nevertheless, if one does not practice, one will not realize anything and one will just remain an ordinary afflicted sentient being.

You do accept that there are such things, no matter how illusory, correct?

And you do accept you are one, correct?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
We find a slightly different rendering in the Pali Mahāparinibbāna Sutta where it says:
"Therefore, Ānanda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. (Tr. vipassana.com)
Tasmātihānanda, attadīpā viharatha attasaranā anaññasaranā, dhammadīpā dhammasaranā anaññasaranā.

How does this injunction from the Buddha square with Vajrayana in general?

Malcolm wrote:
The only true refuge one has is one's own practice of Dharma. Ultimately there is no other refuge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
Jax said:
"Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, the basis is always intriniscally liberated.

Jax said:
One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed Awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, since the basis is always intriniscally liberated.

Jax said:
What can be shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated. So there is the expression 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization'."

Malcolm wrote:
This is where you deviate in your understanding. The Tibetan text does not use the term "need". It says quite simply:

"Here, since it is demonstrated there is nothing to be realized, nothing introduced, beyond view and meditation, it is called "beyond realization and non-realization".

But the context of the sentence above is provided in the previous sentence:
"Because an object to realize is not established since that ultimate dharmatā is beyond mind, a so called "realization" in the relative is described to be solely a deluded concept."

This passage is not saying that introduction is unnecessary. It is saying that from the ultimate point of view, there is nothing to introduce. But from an ultimate point of view not only are there no sentient beings, there are also no buddhas. This point of view is not especitally profound. Even the Perfection of Wisdom sutras makes this point. So what?

Longchenpa is not saying that introduction is unnecessary. The context of this statement in general, in terms of the commentary as whole, comes after his description of the two types of transference, those of best capacity and those of medium capacity. Following this, he moves into a description of why Ati is considered unreasonable by those in lower vehicles since Ati is beyond cause and result.

But nevertheless, this does not mean that he considers introduction unnecessary. Quite the opposite in fact, given the shear number of introduction texts he wrote.

Incidentally, on his deathbed, Longchenpa never said "After I die, rely on chos dbyings mdzod". What he said actually was "After I die, rely on the Yangthig Yidbzhin Norbu" a.k.a. the Lama Yangthig.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Altar in Bedroom
Content:
Fa Dao said:
yeaaaah...ok..I get that. I was just wondering why that is considered bad?

Malcolm wrote:
It is considered part of sexual misconduct to screw in front of a shrine of a Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
So I and some others are presenting a generic approach to these teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
In my opinion, you and those others lack the necessary qualifications to present these teachings, generic or not.

Jax said:
The evolution and flowering of a generic Dzogchen in the West is an exciting and challenging prospect.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is an abomination. Such a thing is completely disconnected from the meaning of the teachings as well as the lineage of the teachings so on and so forth.

Jax said:
The other issue is that the lineage teachings are not presenting a format that allows real one on one access to the Guru in the intimate quality that maximizes the benefits.

Malcolm wrote:
Setting oneself up as a guru is not the way to go about "mono a mono" access to a true Dzogchen master. And the only valid Dzogchen teachings are "lineage teachings". Of course, there will always be "teachers" who manifest like mushrooms in a field after rain.


Jax said:
We have to work on that, just signing up and going to a retreat once in awhile is not functional without close instruction. It's a definite problem...

Malcolm wrote:
It is even more of a problem when con artists pretend to be Dzogchen masters in order to make money (whether Tibetan or not), and give invalid teachings of Dzogchen -- this just leads people to lower realms.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
Jax said:
For me, I take Longchenpa at his word.

Malcolm wrote:
Obviously you do not. When Longchenpa citations are produced which directly contradict your mistaken assertions, you blithely ignore them.

Likewise with kun byed rgyal po citations that contradict what you state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Altar in Bedroom
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Namdrol,
I have heard that before from other teachers. Why is that?


Malcolm wrote:
It is because people screw in their bedrooms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: nihilism
Content:
ngodrup said:
Indeed. The denial of intangible wisdom phenomena.


Malcolm wrote:
Mt. Meru is not an intangible wisdom phenomenon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Can dharma alone make life worth living?
Content:


Thrasymachus said:
My question is:
1) Is dharma alone enough to make life worth living

Malcolm wrote:
Dharma alone makes life worth living.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: rTsa, rTsal, and the Fruition of Trekchö
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Are there Tibetan (or even Sanskrit) words that would fill in the following blanks?


Trekchö - Kadag - Dharmakaya - Thigle - Essence - Sounds

Thögal - Lhungrub - Sambhogakaya - Lung - Nature - Lights

Yermed - ________ - Nirmanakaya - rTsa - Energy - Rays

Namdrol said:
samapatti; viśhuddhi, dharmakāya,tilaka/bindu, svabhāva, śabda
xxxxx ; nirabhogana/anabhogana, sambhogakāya, vāyu, prakriti, ābhāsvarāḥ, prabhā
asaṁbhedaḥ, karuna, nirmanakāya, nāḍī, kāra, raśmi

Greg said:
Just so I'm reading this correctly, "nyingje" should be in the blank spot after Yermed, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Thugs rje -- the honorific form.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Shang Shung Institute Online Tibetan Medicine
Content:
Nangwa said:
Distance learning program starts this year.
http://www.shangshung.org/home/about/school-of-tibetan-medicine/2012-on-line-tm-program/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Namdrol, any thoughts, comments or suggestions for people who might be interested?


Malcolm wrote:
Learn Tibetan first. it will help.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:


Jax said:
Isn't Longchenpa pointing to the fact that Awareness (rigpa) cannot be attained by training, practice or any efforts of any kind?  He says that because Awareness is fully present right now.  Its not hidden.  He even says in the same text that no "direct introduction" or realization is necessary.  Your cognitive presence that is experiencing, is the experience, of the five senses, as well as your thoughts and emotions...is this timelessly present Knowingness, that Norbu call pure "noticing".  It's not more present after practice or study or transmission.  Its the clear unchanging Awareness that appears as everything.  Is it really so hard to notice that the Awareness he is speaking of is your present open and clear awareness just as it is?

Malcolm wrote:
No actually, what Longchenpa is talking about vidyā as dharmakāya.

Because vidyā is essenceless, because a substantial active agent is contradicted in the real state, and because it has always been naturally formed, there are no stages to train on, paths to traverse, mandala to create, empowerment to receive, path to meditate, commitments to protect, activities to accomplish and so on. There is no need create again what has already formed naturally. If it were necessary, conventionally designating natural formation as unconditioned would be invalid. Consequently, the dharmakāya would be perishable because it would be conditioned, and because it would have been made by causes and conditions.

The purpose of this statement is to point out that in reality there are no agent and actions so therefore these following things do not exist in vidyā, the dharmakāya. It does not mean that there is nothing to do. Most people are unaware that lhun grub means "not made by anyone". It means that vidyā cannot be fabricated, only recognized.

But Longchenpa does not say that introduction is unnecessary. On the contrary, chapter nine explicitly teachs introduction:

From the two systems in which naked vidyā is suddenly recognized, this is the introduction which does not depend on critical points. Since that stark, uninterrupted and uniform awareness (which does not move outwardly, grasp inwardly, rest in middle, is not fabricated with the mind and is without conceptual movement) exists at all times, by introducing it's naked arising within the state of the blessing at the time when the master and student are momentarily in the same state, starkness is seen nakedly. That alone can generate confidence in dharmakāya. The critical point is to sustain that state without meditation and without distraction.

Then of course there is the system of introduction that depends on six critical points.

However your contention " He even says in the same text that no "direct introduction" or realization is necessary." is proven to be false.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Altar in Bedroom
Content:
The Seeker said:
Thanks for the replies.
Padma, I thought that the statues and stupas, as well as the Dharma text were to be considered Holy objects that deserve respect. I take it as it is stuff, in a store until you purchase it and it has been placed in a place of respect.
But then again, that's just a new comers understanding I guess.

Adamantine, thank you


Kindest wishes, Dave

Malcolm wrote:
You should put your alter in your living room, not in your bedroom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
I just am interested in interacting with people who are interested in approaching the teachings more from a practice perspective as opposed to pure literary discussions.  If the discussions are outside the norms for Dharma Wheel, the conversations can be carried on with PM or private messages.

Malcolm wrote:
Most of us have teachers and a practice and have no interest in your instructions or recommendations for practice. And for those who do wish to comunicate with you via pm about such topics, caveat emptor.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


Jax said:
The transmission that I received from Norbu could have been conveyed to me via an excellent book with the same information.

Malcolm wrote:
The Kun byed rgyal po has an entire chapter (chapter 83) on how a devoted student should relate to their guru:

The heart of the teachings, the Kulayarāja, should be given
to one who swears "For as long as I and the master should live, 
while life and body remain connected, 
your commands will be accomplished".


It is just not the case that a guru is optional in Dzogchen. No Guru, no Dzogchen. Period.

Further, in chapter 27 the Kun byed rgyal po states very clearly:

The inauthentic master teaches scripture like a monkey, 
his false path beset with concepts.


And it states:

The master who displays the truth is a precious treasury 
worth an inestimable price.


So this is what authentic Dzogchen teachings state.



N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Kelwin said:
Online debate is not going to help anyone anymore.

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out many times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Fa Dao said:
In point of fact, Norbu Rinpoche maintains the rga thal gyur is the most important text of Dzogchen.
So Namdrol, has this text been translated into English? And if so where does one find it? A little info on this text would be greatly appreciated by many here Im sure.


Malcolm wrote:
Nope it has not been translated into English. One of the reasons there is so very little understanding of Dzogchen is that very little of the basic and seminal literature of Dzogchen has been translated into English. The Kun byed rgyal po for example exists one very bad translation by Eva Neumeyer-Dargye and a partial translation by Adriano Clemente. Jim Valby has been translating a two volume commentary on it that is being publishedin sections and is available from SSI bookstore.

Most of the other texts that are being published are rather late compendiums like Yeshe Lama which are summaries of the main points of the teaching. But the early material sits neglected, piling dust, and acting as nests for insects.

As far as Longchenpa's works go -- I am not very keen on the translations of those that presently exist. In his native language, Longchenpa is a difficult writer at best, very, very intellectual, and the english renditions of his works do not do justice to his writings, I am afraid. People seem to think it is necessary to pile on foreign intellectual bullshit on top of what is already very difficult writing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Jax said:
I am fully capable of discussing my positions with textual references in as much detail as required.

Malcolm wrote:
When it comes to dancing on books, Jax, I am quite sure I am better at it than you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


Kilaya. said:
Okay, what's the difference? I mean, how is the real rainbow body superior to your body dissolving into subtle particles?

Namdrol said:
Simply put, one's body remains in an impure conditioned state since subtle particles are still conditioned phenomena. It means you have not removed all traces of affliction and karma in your psycho-physical continuum.

Sönam said:
Is that the difference between normal rainbow body and phowa chenpo, where it is said that they did not even manifest death?

Sönam

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that with so called normal rainbow body you realize the exhaustion of phenomena while in the bardo of dharmatā i.e. during thugdam, whereas in phowa chenpo you realize this during this lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


Kilaya. said:
Okay, what's the difference? I mean, how is the real rainbow body superior to your body dissolving into subtle particles?

Namdrol said:
Simply put, one's body remains in an impure conditioned state since subtle particles are still conditioned phenomena. It means you have not removed all traces of affliction and karma in your psycho-physical continuum.

Kilaya. said:
This is an interesting subject, mind if I ask more?
What happens after that? You continue to exist in some subtle form? Or you take birth again in a physical body and practice until you attain the highest level of realization?

Malcolm wrote:
You again take rebirth until you eradicate all traces.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:


Namdrol said:
It doesn't matter -- the main point is that it is the correctly one for your year, and that you authenticate it and keep it in your home.

Pema Rigdzin said:
I'm assuming the necessary info to enable one to choose the correct one can be found in ChNN's namkha booklet? Also, you know where properly made namkha can be found for purchase online?

Lastly, without asking you to share anything inappropriate, could you share a little about the benefits you've experienced from your namkha?


Malcolm wrote:
There is a book with complete instructions for calculating ones Namkha-- there is also a computer program for Windows that works too. http://tibecal.youhost.com.ar/namkha.php " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

well, it brightens my shrine room considerably.

They are very cheerful and useful. DOing the practice of Namkha balances your energy. You do need to periodically re-authenticate, especially when you are having a problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


Kilaya. said:
Okay, what's the difference? I mean, how is the real rainbow body superior to your body dissolving into subtle particles?

Malcolm wrote:
Simply put, one's body remains in an impure conditioned state since subtle particles are still conditioned phenomena. It means you have not removed all traces of affliction and karma in your psycho-physical continuum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
As Buddha and Garab Dorje attained perfect illumination without a Guru, learn to access the Guru within.


Malcolm wrote:
No Jax -- this is not how it is. Buddha and Garab Dorje were emanations, nirmanakāyas. They did not attain anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


Namdrol said:
Sems sde will not lead to rainbow body, as ChNN has stated many times.

Kilaya. said:
Is trekchö not part of the semde cycle? I heard from the above mentioned Lama that by perfecting trekchö one attains the rainbow body, while thögal leads to phowa chenpo.

Malcolm wrote:
Trekcho is not sems sde. Trekchö's result is that body dissolves into subtle particles. This is called "rainbow body" but is not true rainbow body, as the above lama, as well as many other masters, have clarified over the centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Jax said:
So it seems there is no willingness to relinquish fixed opinions that can't be supported on any level.

Malcolm wrote:
Jax, you are not in any position to tell anyone anything -- you have no authority whatsoever to speak of when it comes to Dzogchen with anyone who is not your student.

You are certainly welcome to share, but not to dictate -- clear?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Jax said:
Ok, I get it Namdrol,  I am criticized for scripturally unsupported positions, and then when I support my positions with absolutely  appropriate texts, I am "cherry picking". What absurdity! Namdrol, you have no problem with the speciousness of your argument?
I am fully capable of discussing my positions with textual references in as much detail as required.

Malcolm wrote:
Well then do so. Producing a citation without context is meaningless -- that is called "cherry picking".

But in any event, as I said, it is a waste of time to argue about Dzogchen.

Chos dbyings mdzod is a great text, but it also contains a number of criticisms, for example, it criticizes the idea that our ordinary thoughts and concepts are self-originated wisdom; the play of rtsal yes, but wisdom, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Mariusz said:
The situation is not so dramatic There are many other still living masters of Dzogchen now, just for practice with.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know these other teachers personally, so I cannot recommend them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 9:11 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
Like I said Namdrol, I have not violated any samaya that I have pledged to honor, especially not any that I have never been told about by m teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said you violated samaya -- I merely corrected your statement that you do not have any.

Jax said:
What you are quoting is a mish mash of Dzogchen and Tantric precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
No, what I am citing comes directly from the man ngag sde tantras themselves.

Jax said:
Norbu has said numerous times that "if you want to know the real, authentic Dzogchen you must refer to the only Kama text we have, the Kunje Gyalpo."

Malcolm wrote:
This is not Norbu Rinpoche's point of view at all. Moreover, there are many kama texts, the eighteen sems sde lungs of Dzogchen, etc. The reason ChNN started teaching sems sde is that his students were not understanding man ngag sde properly.

Jax said:
None of the contamination by tantric influence is present in KJG.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonesense. You have bought into a rather warped version of Dzogchen history-- the fantasy that at one time there was a pristine Dzogchen removed from all tantric influence -- it is a ludicrous propostion considering the sheer amount of tantric topics that are brought up in the kun byed rgyal po, even if they are brought up to be dismissed.

Jax said:
Norbu said later teachings incorporated Tantric and Vajrayana elements in order to survive in a hostile world of Sarma power players who were doing their best to discredit Dzogchen as a valid Buddhist teaching.  These are the words of your teacher.

Malcolm wrote:
Norbu Rinpoche is here referring to the treasure tradition where Dzogchen teachings were combined with anuyoga cycles of practice for example, the Khandro Nyinthig, Gongpa Zangthal and so on. However, even here, the Khandro Nyinthg, for example, contains some of the clearest teachings there are on man ngag sde. The Gongpa Zangthal contains many tantras there are pure man ngag sde. It also contains a Shitro cycle, it also contains a cycle on Vajrayogini.

The Vima Nyinthig, however is considered Kama, just like the seventeen tantras.

In point of fact, Norbu Rinpoche maintains the rga thal gyur is the most important text of Dzogchen. The types of doctrines present in man ngag sde are very radical compared to the kun byed rgyal po.

Jax said:
Semde has the same power as the Mahamudra tradition in being able to bring one to full and total realization.

Malcolm wrote:
Sems sde will not lead to rainbow body, as ChNN has stated many times.

[/quote]I teach from the Semde perspective as it is most attuned to the intellectual proclivities of Westerners.[/quote]

I don't agree that Semsde is most attuned to westerners. With respect, I think this is total bullshit. I will agree however that Sems sde has the most detailed presentation of the view. After all, sems sde is mostly about view.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Jax:

CYD is a long text with a very long argument -- you cannot just cherry pick quotes from it to suit yourself.


Jax said:
Did you all miss this last post?


Re: No-self and Rigpa
by Jax » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:23 am
More on "imputations" being the Great Perfection:

Longchenpa writes: "Everything is the perfection of awakened mind. Furthermore there is perfection in oneness, in that everything is perfect within the scope of awareness. There is perfection in duality, in that there is perfection in the creations of ordinary mind (sem)." Choying Dzod.
Jax

Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:05 pm
Top


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
I agree Namdrol...

However, well placed "pointing out" can easily bring about an " aha" moment. That is the reason the great masters like Longchenpa and others wrote so extensively. Their writings like Tilopa's, Maitripa's, Saraha's and Niguma's to mention just a few, were meant to trigger a realization of one's Natural State.

Malcolm wrote:
Let us take for example the chos dbyings mdzod. This text is not literature in the commonly understood western idea of the term. This text is meant to be used as a tool for giving introduction by a qualified master. Once someone has received Dzogchen transmission in a proper way, then the text may be used in order to reinforce the meaning of the teachings. But it was never the intent of the authors of texts like Chos dbyings mdzod, the Shabar's Flight of the Garuda and so on that they be read in absence of proper transmission by a qualified Guru.

Jax said:
I actually have never been asked to agree to any samaya by any teacher at any time.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a misunderstanding on your part. While it is true that samaya in Dzogchen is not really a catechistic list such as one finds in Mahayoga and so on, everyone who is an authentic Dzogchen pracitioner from having received Dzogchen transmission has samaya. For example, all Dzogchen practitioners have a samaya not to take life. This is the fundamental samaya of the body. Dzogchen practitioners do have a fundamental obligation to observe the principles of basic human decency which is embodied in avoiding the ten non-virtues and adopting the ten virtues. Longchenpa, of whom you are fond, writes in the Ocean of Liberation which is from the Lama Yangthig:

Now then, although there is nothing to damage or transgress, the natural great completion being beyond a boundary to protect, it is necessary for yogins on the path of practice to abide in samaya...

He then goes on to describe in great detail the 27 samayas of a practitioner of Dzogchen (body, speech and mind * outer, inner and secret * outer, inner and secret).

Such tantras as the sgra thal gyur, the rig pa rang shar and so on very clearly explain the meaning of samaya, how it must be kept, the fruit of keeping it, and consquences of not doing so.

Of course, if you choose to ignore samaya, that is your choice, and fundamentally the only person you are harming is yourself.


Jax said:
I guess it's not clear to me why you post here if you feel it can't be of any real value regarding Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
There are some people who have received transmission from authentic lineage holders of the teachings of Dzogchen, and since I have developed the skill of reading Tibetan, and since I have access to texts normally unavailable to people or only avalable in translations of questionable merit, people sometimes find my contributions of value. But in general I do not fund my contributions concerning Dzogchen to be of any value whatsoever to people who have not received transmissions in a proper way. For example, many times people from outside the Dzogchen tradition ask me questions about what sets Dzogchen apart -- and they cannot find any answer that I give satisfactory, The reason of course is that I do not feel it is appropriate to discuss various topics with people who do not have transmission, who do not have the fortune to meet an authentic teacher of Dzogchen like Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche, Loppon Tenzin Namdak and so on, to name three, still living, masters of Dzogchen. Even were I to "tell all" they still will not understand because the nine yānas are all paths based on mind, where as true Dzogchen goes beyond mind and is based on wisdom from the very beginning. Further, this basis in wisdom is based on one's personal experience which arises from one's interaction with a guru, and not on any sort of intellectual analysis.

Jax said:
I differ perhaps in feeling a responsibility to guide and share to the best of my capacity.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many ways to act responsibly. My approach is encourage people to discover the value of Dzogchen teachings by first and foremost receiving transmission from a qualified master. Encouraging them to learn things like Song of the Vajra, and so on as detailed in the Tantras of the Sun and Moon. Encouraging them to keep up ganapujas offered to qualified masters, as is recommended quite clearly in the ultimate root tantra of Dzogchen, the sgra thal gyur, to encourage people to learn about the peaceful and wrathful deities which are crucial part of Dzogchen teachings detailed no less than twice in the Rig pa rang shar, etc. I encourage people to understand the length and breadth of the Dzogchen teachings. Sems sde is fine, but it is primarily confined to view. Those who want to go deeper must engage the Nyinthig teachings. And the details of Nyinthig teachings just are not appropriate for discussion in a public forum, just as it is not proper to run one's mouth about tögal in a bar.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Dzogchen fundamentally concerns how delusion self-embodies as sentient beings, and what the embodied sentient beings who have good fortune to meet Dzogchen teachings can do to reverse that delusion through which they are embodied. That is all. There is nothing more to Dzogchen than this. The principles involved in reversing that delusion require personal instruction from a master who knows what they are doing.

Dzogchen is based on a personal experience introduced by such a master. That experience cannot be commununicated in words to people who do not have that experience. It can only be demonstrated. This is why arguing about Dzogchen on internet forums is hopelessly deluded.

N
Namdrol, that has to be one of the most profound and sad things I have read about Dzogchen in a very long time. Sad because what is one supposed to do if one does not have access to that "personal instruction" you spoke of?  (I am guessing that webcasts dont count as personal instruction)

Malcolm wrote:
Webcasts do count as personal instruction. But you have to pay very, very close attention to what is being said.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
Namdrol, I disagree. Great benefit can come from discussions that clarify the insight and means to that insight. Much in terms of conceptual deconstruction of deluded self-deceptions can be accomplished.  You have been doing that quite well here. Bows... To you!

Malcolm wrote:
That is not Dzogchen, whatever else it might be, Madhyamaka, etc.

While certainly one can dispell uncertainty concerning such things as whether Dzogchen tantras promulgate this or that point of view, in the end, since Dzogchen is based on a personal experience, if one lacks that experience, then most Dzogchen teachings are either pure intellectual verbiage, like sems sde, or hopelessly obscure references that make no sense without having the intimate context of personal experience of the subject matter.

Of course talking about Dzogchen practice among practitioners who understand the teachings can help those of lesser capacity have deeper understanding, but that in general is not what is happening here. What is happening here is mostly lot of negation [dgag] and offering of proofs [sgrub].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
Namdrol, unfortunately those challenging posts are often buried within a litany of critique and assumptions that really are most often too convoluted and rhetorical to respond. It would be great if there was one question, clean and simple quoting one of my comments alone that I can sensibly respond to. I have responded to many specific questions in great detail. I try to answer several points in one response that should clarify several related questions. I apologize if I missed some questions. I will try to do better...


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen fundamentally concerns how delusion self-embodies as sentient beings, and what the embodied sentient beings who have good fortune to meet Dzogchen teachings can do to reverse that delusion through which they are embodied. That is all. There is nothing more to Dzogchen than this. The principles involved in reversing that delusion require personal instruction from a master who knows what they are doing.

Dzogchen is based on a personal experience introduced by such a master. That experience cannot be commununicated in words to people who do not have that experience. It can only be demonstrated. This is why arguing about Dzogchen on internet forums is hopelessly deluded.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, April 5th, 2012 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
I challenge you to point out one statement that i have made regarding the "view" of Dzogchen that is inaccurate or misleading.

Malcolm wrote:
People have, but you ignore them.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I have the lung for this practice from ChNN and the dvd/cd and booklet set but the set does not include a practice.  Where can I get the text for the authentication rite/practice?


Malcolm wrote:
It in the back of the thun book.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Namkhas (colored-thread elemental) are they only Bon?
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Is it more effective to create a namkha for oneself vs. purchasing an authentic one made by others?

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't matter -- the main point is that it is the correctly one for your year, and that you authenticate it and keep it in your home.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:


Jax said:
Perhaps the Great Perfection IS the imputations and the populating by the intellect with dualisms... As opposed from being separate from or prior to?

Namdrol said:
So pompous elephants of ati would maintain, unable to distinquish sems from rtsal.

Jax said:
Namdrol... Sem is tsal ( or rolpa if you prefer) All of the display is "equally" the play or ornament of the Base.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you need to read chos dbyings mdzod, chapter 5, a little more carefully:

In Ati these days, conceited elephants [claim]
the mass of discursive concepts is awakened mind (bodhicitta);
this confusion is a dimension of complete darkness, 
a hindrance to the meaning of the natural great perfection.

And:

Thus, the energy of compassion moves from self-originated wisdom, that cognition arisen towards an object is called “play arising from energy”. That [cognition] is not self-originated wisdom because of the difference between the existence and non-existence of the object and because if there is no connection with the method, affliction and action leading to existence are generated, and because the nature of conceptuality and discursivess never transcends samsara.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
Pero said:
Well this sucks haha. I still wanted to get some replays from there. That's what I get for being lazy.

Dronma said:
Exactly the same with me! 
Does anyone know how this thing works for being able to listen to the replays?


Malcolm wrote:
It seesm to be broken


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Mariusz said:
Why? according to your definition one needs only to generate the meaning of the experience from the third empowerment as i understand it.


Namdrol said:
Because comprehending this meaning depends on one's merit and the instruction of the Guru.

Mariusz said:
So something has to be received also, unconditioned, not only generated from experience of the master, since the master had also one's own master from He/She received this something unconditioned too. Is it true?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the fourth empowerment, an example wisdom, simply contextualizes the experience of the third empowerment and is used to indicate the meaning of the innate. It is not an actual transference of any sort of experience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Mariusz said:
Why? according to your definition one needs only to generate the meaning of the experience from the third empowerment as i understand it.


Malcolm wrote:
Because comprehending this meaning depends on one's merit and the instruction of the Guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Namdrol said:
As tom mentioned, the fourth empowerment is an introduction [to] the meaning of the experience generated by the third empowerment, and this is the same in all four schools.

Mariusz said:
So is it possible to complete one's own HYT path without receiving the fourth empowerment from one's own HYTmaster?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Anders Honore said:
Is there anything about Dzogchen that should make the question of free will different from Buddhism in general?

Malcolm wrote:
No. Well yes, in Buddhism you have a bunch of old ladies squawking about karma, whereas in Dzogchen you have a bunch of old ladies squawking about self-liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:


Jax said:
Perhaps the Great Perfection IS the imputations and the populating by the intellect with dualisms... As opposed from being separate from or prior to?

Malcolm wrote:
So pompous elephants of ati would maintain, unable to distinquish sems from rtsal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
Maybe I've misunderstood the meaning of the term 'direct introduction'.  If it's simply a transmission of oral instructions based on experience, and the blessings of that instruction, I would agree that the fourth empowerment is a direct introduction.

Malcolm wrote:
As tom mentioned, the fourth empowerment is an introduction the meaning of the experience generated by the third empowerment, and this is the same in all four schools.

A direct introduction has the same meaning as the fourth empowerment but, according to the Nyingma system, does not need to be preceeded by the three lower empowerements.

Sakya Pandita accepts direction introductions given seperately from a formal empowerment, but only if that person has already received a formal empowerment.

The Nyingma and the Kagyu schools maintain that it is not necessary to give formal empowerments as a requirement for receiving direct introduction.

Pahongkha maintained that Tsongkhapa rejected the idea of direct introduction, which is why he  altered the transmission of Vajrayogini and excluded the introduction to dharmatā that clearly exists in the Sakya tradition of Naro Khachö from earliest times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


CapNCrunch said:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;  "“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives."

Malcolm wrote:
Well this definition itself is flawed since it presumes there are such things as "rational agents" and arguably by this definition anyone who knowingly engages in afflicted conduct is irrational and therefore incapable of free will even though they may be making all kinds of choices.

From a Dzogchen perspective sentient beings are fundamentally irrational since they are entirely products of ignorance and deluded appearances.

In other words, this western philosophical concept is entirely irrevelvant to Buddhism, including Dzogchen (which is a form of Buddhism, or rather, an a proposed solution to existential questions found in Buddhism).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
CapNCrunch said:
freewill exists in Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Why? Because you have a will (cetana,volition), and you can direct it wherever you want, including the path of freedom.

No. Why? Because as long as you continue under the power of the five afflictions you will never escape from samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
CapNCrunch said:
...where does sin come into this?

Malcolm wrote:
Free will.

Sin is meaningless unless we have free will to choose to sin or not.

This issue is a complete non-starter in Buddhism.

Determinism is also irrevelevant in Buddhism.

We make our own karma, and we can put an end to it too.

Thus, the philosophical context for the question of free will never arises and thus it was never an issue for Buddhists and the issue never comes up as a topic of philosophy in Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:


CapNCrunch said:
So having said that - How does free will, or the lack thereof thereof correspond to Dzogchen view?


Malcolm wrote:
Free will is of concern only to those who are trying reconcile sin with creation by a creator.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
The fourth empowerment is not a direct introduction, it's a description of the Spiritual Master's experience as a pointing out instruction that gives powerful blessings, but not a mystical transfer of his complete experience.

Malcolm wrote:
A direct introduction is not a mystical transfer of a master's complete experience. It is a pointing out instruction. It does not transfer the master's realization (that is impossible), it communicates the student's own state.

Actually the word translated as "introduction" and "pointing out" is the same word i.e. ngo phrad.

Tsongkhapafan said:
Regarding Sakya Pandita, didn't he say that Dzogchen was not Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
Sakya Pandita criticized certain trends he saw in the Nyingma (much in the same way that Gorampa and Shakya Chogden criticized certain trends in Gelug), but he never stated that Dzogchen was not Buddhism, quite the opposite. He stated in fact that he had received Dzogchen teachings and respected them, as is stated plainly in his Analysis of the Three Vows. In fact, Sapan reserved most of his criticisms for the Kagyu school, spending very little time on the Nyingma school. After all, Sapan is a very important master for Vakjrakilaya teachings. Dzogchen is the ancestral teaching of the Khon family.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Title: Re: Finally! Mahamudra Library of Tibetan Classics Volume
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
One of my teachers just informed me that he will be giving instructions on the section of this volume that deals with the mahamudra writings of Gampopa.  Does anybody have a list of the texts included in the volume?

I want to read them before the retreat but, unless things go hideously right, I doubt I will have the $70 needed to buy the book sometime soon.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahamudra and Related Instructions: Core Teachings of the Kagyu Schools (Library of Tibetan Classics) by Peter Roberts and Peter Alan Roberts (Kindle Edition - May 10, 2010) - Kindle eBook
Buy: $29.99

You can buy it in a kindle edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Question ~ Answer Thread
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Do you follow a daily routine or daily schedule? . .


Malcolm wrote:
First, find a teacher. Make sure they are qualified by observing their character for a number of years while learning Buddhism at the same time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
... (and Sakya Pandita) don't accept it.


Malcolm wrote:
This is not true. Sakya Pandita accepted direct introduction, but only subsequent to having received empowerments. The fourth empowerment is in fact a direct introduction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Totoro said:
According to the Sakya lineage, there are two kinds of persons, those who require the gradual training you mention (rim gyis pas), and those who are able to enter Vajrayāna teachings immediately without prior training (cig car bas). These two types of persons are clearly demonstrated in Aryadeva's commentary on the Pañcakrama.

Thus, it is best to understand that there are different approaches for different people.

N
	རིམ་གྱིས་པ་ (rim gyis pa)
	<noun> "That which proceeds gradually" or "gradual type".  One of a pair of terms.  The opp. is cig car ba, that which proceeds without any stages, that which goes at once.
In the language of the buddhist tantras, two types of practitioner are identified: the rim gyis pa is the gradual type, the person who goes to liberation by stages; the cig car ba is the sudden type, the one who goes to it immediately.  Acc. Tenga Rinpoche, the general distinction is as follows.  The gradual type person is someone who has not developed a connection to the practice previously or who has only developed a small connection to it.  Because of this, they have to work at the practice again and again before it comes to fruit.  A sudden type is someone who has developed a great connection to or realization of the practice previously and therefore, when they meet the teaching again, they are capable of realizing it all at once.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a little different than the standard disctintion between these two.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:


Will said:
N. - you mean that the sutric ethical, dialectical & meditative foundation are never used as a preliminary practice?  Surely in every lifetime those basic methods & practices must be recapitulated by everyone?  For the very advanced that revisiting of such basic practices may take only a few years (or less?), but all must have that foundation.

Namdrol said:
I never engaged in them. I entered Vajrayāna from the beginning without engaging in lam rim teachings.

Tom said:
Still, even if introduced later aren't sutra topics such as Abhidharma foundational for Tantric practice in Sakya? Actually, I have found Sakya lamas to be more concerned about their Vajrayana students understanding of basic Abhidharma topics even more than Gelugpa lamas.

Malcolm wrote:
Generally in Sakya, they backfill. In other words, people are given abhisheka right away, and then instructed to learn whatever they need to contextualize their Vajrayāna practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
according to the lineage of Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the Sakya lineage, there are two kinds of persons, those who require the gradual training you mention (rim gyis pas), and those who are able to enter Vajrayāna teachings immediately without prior training (cig car bas). These two types of persons are clearly demonstrated in Aryadeva's commentary on the Pañcakrama.

Thus, it is best to understand that there are different approaches for different people.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 2:46 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Mariusz said:
Is it possible to  progress through...
without necessity of sutra methods or not?

Namdrol said:
From the point of view of Nyingma, Sakya and so on, definitely.

Will said:
N. - you mean that the sutric ethical, dialectical & meditative foundation are never used as a preliminary practice?  Surely in every lifetime those basic methods & practices must be recapitulated by everyone?  For the very advanced that revisiting of such basic practices may take only a few years (or less?), but all must have that foundation.

Malcolm wrote:
I never engaged in them. I entered Vajrayāna from the beginning without engaging in lam rim teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Namdrol said:
You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.

Mariusz said:
Li_Ching-Yuen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen

Malcolm wrote:
And this is proof of what?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Mariusz said:
Is it possible to  progress through...
without necessity of sutra methods or not?

Malcolm wrote:
From the point of view of Nyingma, Sakya and so on, definitely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Nagarjuna was known as a Alchemist, and one of the Siddhis of Alchemy is the "Elixir of Long Life".

Is living for over 600 years any more far-fetched than other Siddhis described in Buddhist writings?

Or are the descriptions of the phenomena (or Noumena) of Siddhis only allegorical/metaphorical?

Malcolm wrote:
It is clearly a case of mistaken identity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Anders Honore said:
I think it's a vajrayana thing to reduce Madhyamika to a mere dialiectic tool. It certainly isn't so in its east-asian incarnation and I think neither was it so in its Indian incarnation.

gregkavarnos said:
In the Kagyu tradition Nagarjuna is one of the Mahasiddha, thus quite clearly a philosopher AND a great practitioner.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think we can seriously consider the Nāgārjuna who lived in the 2nd century CE and authored the Madhyamaka corpus to be the same person who was a disciple of Saraha in the eighth century and authored the Pañcakrama and other Vajrayāna texts. You are free to disagree of course, but I don't beleive in the existence of 600 year old human beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Namdrol said:
Not for beginners. Only for advanced pracitioners.

Mariusz said:
The ones who really enter HYT methods.

Malcolm wrote:
What Tsongkhapa is saying is that until one gains advanced proficiency in completion stage, one must rely on Madhyamaka analysis in tandem with the two stages. He is never saying that one may begin to engage [i.e. enter] in HYT practices without having done extensive analysis based on Madhyamaka texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Namdrol said:
Well, what Tsongkhapa is saying here is that first you generate the view in accordance with Madhyamaka texts. Then, outside of the context of creation and completion one still engages in Madhyamaka analysis.

However, advanced meditators in the completion stage have no further need to engage in such analysis and so they don't.

N

Mariusz said:
Yes. For me it is also. So in this case the HYT methods are sufficient alone without any need for the sutra adding even according to Tsongkhapa . No necessity for mixing the both.


Malcolm wrote:
Not for beginners. Only for advanced pracitioners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
Tom said:
Obviously from his writings it appears Tsongkhapa thought otherwise!

Mariusz said:
It is not so obvious. Here you have a quote on the analysis (sutra methods) which is not performed during HYTantra:

(Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom; page.158) Our own system is as follows: Even in the context of Highest Yoga [Mantra] the system (Vajrayana) of generating understanding of the view must be done in accordance with what occurs in the Middle Way texts. With respect to how it is sustained, on some occasions during states subsequent to meditative equipoise on the stages of generation and completion,
one takes suchness to mind within analyzing it, but when those on the stage of completion who have attained the capacity to put penetrative focus on essential points in the body sustain suchness in meditative
equipoise, although they definitely must meditate within setting [the mind] in the context of the view, they do not perform the analytical meditation of special insight as it occurs in other texts. Therefore, with respect to that occasion, do not posit analytical meditation as one-pointed meditation on suchness from within the context of the view ancillary to stabilizing [meditation].


Malcolm wrote:
Well, what Tsongkhapa is saying here is that first you generate the view in accordance with Madhyamaka texts. Then, outside of the context of creation and completion one still engages in Madhyamaka analysis.

However, advanced meditators in the completion stage have no further need to engage in such analysis and so they don't.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
So there's apparently no such thing as Kunzhi (Alaya) by itself, as Kunzhi (Alaya) is either shorthand for Kunzhi-Namshe or longhand for gZhi (someone correct me if I'm mistaken).


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is a kun gzhi which stands by itself.

In dzogchen we have the gdod ma' spyi gzhi, "the original general basis".

The we have the kung gzhi (ālaya), which arises from ignorance. From the ālaya or all-basis eight eight consciousness, including the ālayavijñāna (all-basis consciousness), dependent origination's twelve links and so on arise.

Not distinguishing the kun gzhi from the gzhi causes a lot of problems for people when trying to understand Dzogchen.

For example, the a text from the dgongs pa zang thal states:

The all-basis is the bardo of all,
unconsciousness, unclear, and inexpressible,
does not form wisdom, being the cause of samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Question ~ Answer Thread
Content:
bodhipunk said:
Here's another assessment straight from Buddha himself, "Both formerly and now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha."

Wesley1982 said:
Dukkha is called one of the 4 noble truths. Correct?


Malcolm wrote:
Sarvadukkham -- suffering is everywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Question ~ Answer Thread
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Can the complete teachings of the Buddha be assessed in a -{easy/medium/difficult]- fashion? . .


Malcolm wrote:
All conditioned things are impermanent.
All afflicted things are suffering.
All things lack identity.
Nirvana is peace.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and space
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="catmoon"]Space is a fundamental concept in Buddhism. /quote]

There are two kinds of space talked about in Buddhism -- unconditioned space which is simple absence of obsctruction and conditioned space, which means cavities.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
yes, as you say, "among other things" but in the last retreat webcast he seemed to be pretty clearly saying rigpa is not your real nature, it is your knowledge of your real nature (or words to that effect). whereas, as in the vimaningthig you posted:
3) The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms.
rigpa/vidya* is being used as a synonym for the basis, our real nature.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is correct. And the word is used both ways in Dzogchen texts. But what ChNN is emphasizing is the one basis, two paths, two results approach of the dgongs pa zang thal. I.e. he is presenting vidyā in its aspect as the experience of path (from among the trio of the vidyā of the basis, mentioned above; the path and the result) which is clearly discussed in those teachings.


gad rgyangs said:
-------------------------
* why use the sanskrit term when there are no sanskrit dzogchen texts, and probably never were? the tibetan term suffices, methinks.

Malcolm wrote:
Because the word vidyā is the term used in titles such as the rig pa rang shar tantra, etc., and because the term vidyā has cognates in English through Latin and is connected with seeing and vision. And finally,mostly,  because I prefer to use Sanskrit terms such as vidyā, dharmadhātu, prajñā, dharmakāya, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 2:44 AM
Title: Re: Confused on Yangti generalities
Content:
Namdrol said:
There is basically no difference in methods. Yangti methods such as dark retreat and so on on occur in Snying thig as well.

In snying thig there is the unsurpassed secret cycle. This equals yang ti.

Pero said:
Didn't you mention once that yang ti considers itself superior?


Malcolm wrote:
All Dzogchen texts have abundent triumphalist rhetoric.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Jax said:
Xabir, what you wrote is very interesting but Nagarjuna was not totally comfortable with the view of the Abidharma as it colored the Buddhist view of his day.  Consciousness in Abidharma is strictly "sem" or afflicted karmic mind that arises dependently.  This consciousness is not Rigpa Awareness or the unchanging cognitive Knowing of the Dharmakaya. The vision you describe is the more nihilistic nirvana of Abidharma theory. Dzogchen, especially thogal and Yangti offers the view of the Thigle Chenpo and Thigle Nyak Chik, Great Hyper Sphere and Unique Singularity. Beyond the skandha of consciousness you have the qualities of omniscience, clarvoyance and telepathy etc. All of which pertain to Buddha Mind, realized after the "collapse" of skandhic "consciousness". It's beyond, beyond at the other shore, the other shore that is always fully present right here in every moment as the only cognitive Presence in and as all experience.

xabir said:
Pardon my very limited understanding on this... may others correct me if I am wrong too.

In post-Yogacara teaching, consciousness is understood as dualistic vision, to be distinguished from Wisdom which is non-dualistic. But in Pali suttas, the original teachings of the Buddha, no such division was being taught - so there is no talk about converting consciousness into wisdom - consciousness is simply these six types of cognizance that arises whether you are awakened... except that for the awakened and liberated, there is cognizance/consciousness without taints or ignorance, while for the unawakened there is the instant of cognizance/consciousness quickly followed by the taints, the craving, attachment, and identification with 'I, me, mine'. In other words it is not the 'cognizance/consciousness' that is the problem, it is the taints, the ignorance, the grasping that is the problem.

For post-Yogacara teachings, consciousness is understood to be dualistic vision, so consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. In Dzogchen, I think it is not too different in this respect, as Namdrol once said: Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.


Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa also discuss the meditation of Dzogchen in the following way:


Just as reflections arise in limpid water, the eyes and clairvoyances will arise from limpid vidyā. Moreover, one should practice by leaving the unobstructed sense faculties in their own limpidity. Since the main organ, the eyes, are limpid, vidyā is limpid, because the eyes are the gate of the personal experience of wisdom. Otherwise, just as the appearances of reflections do not condition the water, [35/b] likewise, even though all outer appearances arise as a brilliant vision, since one’s awareness does become lost among such appearances, it is said “they are not established in vidyā”. The sense of this is also demonstrated in the Pramanaviniṣcaya: Having included everything in the mind, 
since there is no movement from this inner nature, 
the form [seen by] the eye arises 
from the power of that intellect of sight.


This passage from the Pramanaviniṣcaya, while obscure, is in fact a description of what we call pratyakṣa, direct perception or personal experience as mentioned above. So, in fact you are correct, the key point of meditation in Dzogchen is simply to let all sense objects meet their respective sense organs, as Longchenpa says "likewise, even though all outer appearances arise as a brilliant vision, since one’s awareness does become lost among such appearances, it is said “they are not established in vidyā”."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
You can either emphasize the ineffability of the base, or talk around it forever (which is a lot of fun actually), but either way the first thing is recognizing it. ChNNR seems to be campaigning for an adjustment of Dzogchen terminology, where "rigpa" is no longer to be used also as a synonym for the base itself (as it often is in the old texts) but is to be reserved for our knowledge of the base.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no campaign, he is right. Rigpa, among other things,  is exactly the knowledge of the display of the basis as one's own display, and ignorance is ignorance of that.

gad rgyangs said:
What does this knowledge "look like"? It can not be conceptual, otherwise just reading sentences like the quote above would be rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
There are five types of vidyā described by Vimalamitra in the Vima Snying thig i.e. 1) the vidyā that apprehends characteristics; 2)the vidyā that apprehends or appropriates the basis; 3) the vidyā that is present as the basis; 4) the vidyā of insight; and 5) the vidyā of thögal.

1) The vidyā that apprehends characteristics: “the vidyā that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names”, is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions. 

2) The [vidyā that] appropriates the basis creates all cognitions when present in one’s body, present as the mere intrinsic clarity [of those cognitions], is called “unripened vidyā”. 

3) The vidyā present as the basis is the reality of the essence, original purity, that exists possessing the three primordial wisdoms. The vidyā which is not covered by partiality is present as the essence of omniscient wisdom. Further, that primordial wisdom is present as a subtle primordial wisdom. If that primordial wisdom did not exist, there would be no liberation from emptiness. Further, there would be no liberation from the inert. However, if vidyā exists as primordial wisdom, it would be no different than the realist’s nirmanakāya. 

4) The vidyā of insight is those vivid appearances when the instruction is demonstrated. It is called “the essence of the self-apparent thigle”. As there are many unmixed appearances, the Teacher stated: Everything arose from non-arising,
showing the great miraculous display in every way.
5) The vidyā of thögal is the absence of increase or decrease in experience having reached the full measure of appearance through practice. Having completed all the signs and qualities, also they are not established by their own nature. When self-manifesting as omniscient wisdom, it [the vidyā of thögal] is called “abandoning phenomena”, “the exhaustion of phenomena”, “beyond phenomena”, “liberated from phenomena”, and “no arising even in mere arising”.

So the issue really is complex and there are many different ways or angles from which to discuss vidyā or rigpa.


N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
there is the irreducible presence of the here and now where we find ourselves.

Malcolm wrote:
It's reducible, thank goodness.

In any event, what you are talking about is the famous "clarity" aspect of the mind, the famed Descartes trope, "I can doubt everything but that fact that I am doubting". But this hardly constitutes "the fact of the existent".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the fact of the existent is given. everything else, like defining just what the existent is or isn't, is conceptual.

Malcolm wrote:
Interesting, Dante, I wouldn't have pegged you for being a realist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 9:01 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Dronma said:
That's all. Nothing more to say. [/color]

Malcolm wrote:
Doesn't exist. There is no better term, otherwise, I would be using it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Dronma said:
Personally I prefer the latter, because the first notion leads to nihilism or zero, which is wrong. [/color]

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness is not nothingness since somethingness was not proposed to begin with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Dronma said:
Chaos (Greek χάος khaos) refers to the formless or void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in the Greek creation myths.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:


Dronma said:
How can nothing manifest something?

Namdrol said:
It doesn't. The Dzogchen view is that everything is completely equivalent with an illusion.

"“Hey, hey, apparent yet non existent 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, discriminating knowledge does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
-- The Unwritten Tantra


Dronma said:
Exactly! Please remember that I am always talking here about linguistic expression. I am sure there must be better words to express "this". 
Well, according to my language which I have much better knowledge, I think that instead of κενότητα - emptiness, the word χάος - chaos is more closed to the concept of infinitum which has all potentialities but no inherent formation at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Stong (སྟོང) in tibetan is related to stongs (སྟོངས), which means to empty out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:


Dronma said:
How can nothing manifest something?

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't. The Dzogchen view is that everything is completely equivalent with an illusion.

"“Hey, hey, apparent yet non existent 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, discriminating knowledge does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
-- The Unwritten Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Namdrol said:
śūnyatā is a term in Indian mathematics which means 0.

N

Dronma said:
Sure, there is no doubt about that. But zero can manifest only zero, according to mathematics. 
So, "this" which is manifesting everything and it is full of potentialities cannot be zero!


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 7:50 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection, attachment and aversion, are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional concept of "no-self" as long as it's understood to be just that. The very self it(concept of no-self) negates arises from (and is sustained by) the very act of accepting/rejecting which is perpetually reborn as long as experience is dominated and swept away by the plague of delusion the initial(no-self) concept attempts to reveal. So you're right to be weary of this notion, however while you're correct in stating that only the "self" would dualistically accept/reject the self/no-self, it must also be taken into account that likewise only the "self" would accept/reject the acceptance/rejection of the self/no-self. It becomes an inescapable downward spiral(hence the endless cycle of samsara, the shoreless ocean of suffering). This is why skillful means and right view are so imperative. The more one struggles to escape, the tighter samsara's noose becomes around ones throat. But at the same time utter non-action is the same death sentence. There's no going beyond acceptance and rejection, it was empty from the start, the unestablished cannot go beyond that which is likewise primordially unestablished. There was never two to begin with.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found. - Nagarjuna



Dronma said:
Well said!   
However I was talking about the linguistic expression, and not about the essential meaning which is beyond words anyway. 
Even the terms "emptiness" or "voidness" are not really accurate for expressing śūnyatā or stong-pa nyid. 
I feel that they are incomplete and maybe misleading. 
Although in between "emptiness" and "voidness", I prefer the latter. 
I have the same doubt with the Greek versions of those 2 words. They are not accurate either.


Malcolm wrote:
śūnyatā is a term in Indian mathematics which means 0.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Sometimes what appears to a student as something negative is based on the limited understanding of the student.


Malcolm wrote:
It is possible to slide a lot of bullshit under this rug.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Confused on Yangti generalities
Content:
Namdrol said:
Both.

YangtiConfusion said:
So is this "yangti" terminology not found in Bon?


Namdrol said:
dark retreat and so on on occur in Snying thig as well.


YangtiConfusion said:
But only in something like Gongspa Zangthal right?  Not in most nyingthig?

Malcolm wrote:
No, in all major snying thig cycles.

The practices of snying thig, yang ti, etc, are also found in Bon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: On the Bardo - Stuck souls?
Content:


bardoq said:
I'm a little puzzled that you say that very few people see anyone in the Bardo, if it's so difficult, how has it then been possible to discover the max limit of 49 days and the "small deaths"? Someone must have been able to verify their existence over an extended period of time, right? And I would like to ask such a lama/tulku some follow-up questions, too.

Malcolm wrote:
49 days is symbolic number, not a fixed number.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Confused on Yangti generalities
Content:
YangtiConfusion said:
1. Is yangti a practice or a Nyingma classifcation of literature?  Or both?  See following link:

http://www.thlib.org/collections/texts/jiats/#!jiats=/01/germano/b8/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
Both.

YangtiConfusion said:
4. If you practice in Yangti methods for awhile and then switch over to the Seminal Heart, would the progress of the first automatically translate into the second?

Malcolm wrote:
There is basically no difference in methods. Yangti methods such as dark retreat and so on on occur in Snying thig as well.

In snying thig there is the unsurpassed secret cycle. This equals yang ti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:


heart said:
One even stranger thing was that this Geshe insisted that someone meditating on emptiness would not see or experience the world around him. Like emptiness was separate from phenomena somehow.

/magnus

Namdrol said:
This is a sūtrayāna idea.

Mariusz said:
Can you quote any sutra on "emptiness as separated from phenomena somehow"?


Malcolm wrote:
That is not the idea to which I am referring.

The idea to which I am referring is that when one is having a non-conceptual direct experience of emptiness on the path of seeing, etc. one does not have perception of phenomena. This how non-conceptuality is interpreted by those in sūtrayāna i.e. no eyes, not ears, etc.

And this is why Gelugpas frequently make the claim mentioned above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:


heart said:
One even stranger thing was that this Geshe insisted that someone meditating on emptiness would not see or experience the world around him. Like emptiness was separate from phenomena somehow.

/magnus

Namdrol said:
This is a sūtrayāna idea.

heart said:
Yes, but the heart sutra is also from the sutrayana, right?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this idea comes from the PP sutras mainly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:


Adamantine said:
Then don't name the women. If you keep the teacher's names quiet, than what about all the new students that arrive, with no idea what they may be in for? History repeats, unless provoked. . .


Malcolm wrote:
Yup quite true. But in naming the teachers, the women will be harmed. There is just no way to avoid it. Until they are willing to go public what to do? But these women feel constrained by many issues.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Namdrol said:
But...this is a pervasive problem in dharma centers in the West. To think otherwise is to be ignorant. I personally know instances (yes plural) of woman pressured to have abortions after they have been impregnated by their teachers.

Adamantine said:
That's really disturbing. I wonder why you keep the names quiet.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not about the teachers, it is about protecting the women from further harm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:
heart said:
One thing he often said was that Buddha nature is like a seed, then you have to make it grow with the nourishment of the accumulation of merit and wisdom.

Sherab said:
I too have problem with the idea of Buddha nature as a seed that needs to be grown.  This contradicts the Prajnaparamita sutras where one reads that enlightenment is not obtained or attained.  It also contradicts the classification of nirvana as unconditioned.

heart said:
One even stranger thing was that this Geshe insisted that someone meditating on emptiness would not see or experience the world around him. Like emptiness was separate from phenomena somehow.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
This is a sūtrayāna idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
heart said:
Then of course there is also the question how many Yidams one actually need to practice as a Dzogchen practitioner?

/magnus

Namdrol said:
The answer is none. Zero.

heart said:
Of course, but it helps just like all the preliminaries. But will 50 Yidams help more, I don't think so.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
There are many problems you can find in institutionalized Tibetan Buddhism...

Malcolm wrote:
I can't speak to the Sanghas you frequent since I do not know them, apart from Shenphen Rinpoche, and I know he is a good guy. I really do have full confidence in him.

But...this is a pervasive problem in dharma centers in the West. To think otherwise is to be ignorant. I personally know instances (yes plural) of woman pressured to have abortions after they have been impregnated by their teachers.

One of the problems is a corrupted idea of samaya -- women subject to harrasment, etc. in Tibetan Buddhist dharma centers feel silenced by "vows" and so they do not speak up for many reasons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:



Adamantine said:
I also feel like you are being willfully obtuse for someone who follows terma traditions and who was close with Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje who was able to alter weather patterns on a regular basis.

Malcolm wrote:
Ngagpa Rinpoche could control weather, but it is not a miracle. Doubtless, there are some people who can control the elements.

My point is that there is no reason to accept any of this on faith and nor should one.



Adamantine said:
Another huge impediment is that woman are not treated as equals in Tibetan Buddhism. In particular, young attrative woman are subject to tremendous sexual attention, most of it unwanted, as well as actual harrasament, emotional abuse and scare tactics  which prevent them from speaking out.
I am sure this happens sometimes.. but this is not particular to Tibetan Buddhism. This is particular to men-in-general across the globe. Men's libidos cause great harm to women, in various ways, across all traditions and among all those who hold no tradition. This is the sad truth. To blame Tibetan Buddhism for having men who also engage in this harmful stupidity is the same as blaming "Tibetan Buddhism" for having samsaric individuals in it that aren't yet Buddhas. Of course, not everyone practicing Dharma is yet a Buddha, and is subject to craving and aversion... and not everyone's conduct is in line with relative Dharma ethics. But this hardly can be determined to be a downfall of Tibetan Buddhism in particular. If that were true, then you wouldn't find these same downfalls across the board on a global scale. This is a human downfall. I don't think any Buddhas have acted in this way.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Pretending that this not a problem in Tibetan Buddhism is merely to put on your blinders. Until we accept that this is a problem in Tibetan Buddhism, it will not be properly addressed. This is just like saying pedophilia is not a Catholic problem, it is a problem with men across the world. Well, there are ways in which pedophilia was institutionalized in Catholicism, and ways in which sexual harrasement and so on are institutionalized in Tibetan Buddhism -- the sooner we recognize that fact and stop wishing it would just go away, the sooner women will feel safer around Tibetan teachers. You see, I know at least a dozen women who have been on the short end of that stick, and for them it is not pretty, and it is not fair.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:


Adamantine said:
You certainly appear to be clinging to this fabrication you call "common-sense".
And I simply don't have as much faith in historical empiricism as you do...

Malcolm wrote:
Look, the simple fact is that Tibetan Buddhism, like every other faith in the world, needs to adapt to the modern age. It is trying to adapt -- I am not suggesting that it needs to abandon its narratives, principles such as rebirth, and so on. But when it comes to how it works its way through the world, the teachings need to adapt themselves to the society in which they find themselves. Mahasiddhas stopping the sun are not essential to Dzogchen or Tibetan Buddhism. Insisting such stories are "true" is actually a huge impediment for many people who might otherwise come to the Dharma.

Another huge impediment is that woman are not treated as equals in Tibetan Buddhism. In particular, young attrative woman are subject to tremendous sexual attention, most of it unwanted, as well as actual harrasament, emotional abuse and scare tactics  which prevent them from speaking out. This is not of course a problem isolated to Tibetan Buddhism -- sexual harrasment of women is a worldwide issue. But the fact that is exists in Tibetan Buddhism needs to be recognized and not explained away, justified or otherwise ignored.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Namdrol said:
The only I have ever seen around Lamas that defies common sense is the willingness of people to lose it.

Adamantine said:
That's sad, if true. Well, you still have more life ahead of you. . .
Your dualistic framework of "either it's this or it's that" is not quite in line with how Buddhas communicate about the nature of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's framework is "Where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
Your dualistic framework of "either it's this or it's that" is not quite in line with how Buddhas communicate about the nature of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's framework is "Where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
Namdrol said:
Greed may be a failing but it is not a cause for a Vajrayāna student to criticize their teacher.

Sönam said:
That's why it's important to ponderate ... and not to excessively enter in a cycle of opinion, jugement and so on. Most of the discomfort could be resolved by spliting without necessarly providing a commentary. Of course if a guru is outrageously lying or abusing it should be reported ... but except for that, the best is only to quit.

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:



Namdrol said:
Funny how no one ever sees these "miracles" actually done. Oh right, we don't have enough merit, I forgot.

Adamantine said:
Sure, plenty of people see miracles. I have experienced enough
that defies common sense not to entrust my faith to common-sense.
Frankly, in all your time practicing Dharma and being around
the Lamas you have, I'd be surprised if you've never experienced
anything that defies "common sense". If you haven't, than I suppose
it explains our different positions.

Malcolm wrote:
The only I have ever seen around Lamas that defies common sense is the willingness of people to lose it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:


Adamantine said:
I think you've maxed out on the number of times you can use that example. But since it's your favorite, I'll give it a go:
If Virupa was indeed a Mahasiddha, and he was working with the display of appearances
to play with the presumptions of those in his immediate environment-- why would he want to scare the
shit out of an entire world? I think you are really clinging to something that you feel should make sense to you, about a display that
goes beyond sense altogether. This misses the point.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you have in fact admitted this is not a historical event, whatever else it may have been, and he did not stop the world's rotation on its axis (required for "stopping the sun").

So Mahasiddhas distort the perceptions of those whom they are trying to impress? Is that how it works?

Mahasiddhas can no more violate dependent origination than anyone else can.

I am not clinging to anything -- I don't take the stories of mahāsiddha's miracles literally, never have, never felt the need to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
If we don't believe that anything is possible, then we no longer believe in Sunyata. We are either nihilists or eternalists.

Namdrol said:
If you think that apple trees can grow from wheat seeds, you have left the realm of common sense.

N

Adamantine said:
Well, hand prints in rock, or Milarepa fitting inside a yak's horn...these have
all left common sense far behind. Vajrayana is meant to invoke uncommon sense.


Malcolm wrote:
Funny how no one ever sees these "miracles" actually done. Oh right, we don't have enough merit, I forgot.

If you assume for example that Virupa really stopped the sun such a cataclysmic event shoud have been recorded around the world. Can you imagine?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
There have been much greater numbers of authors in general in the West (what exactly are we defining as the West here?), so proportionally this is not a fair accounting. Also, you are clearly grouping many countries and multiple land masses into your accounting of what is the "West", and opposing it to India and Tibet, two countries only. I hardly think your comparisons are useful. Also, you deflect the issue of whether women are considered to have as great or greater potential as men onto an issue of authorship, which is a bit of a red-herring. Many yogis and yoginis who reach high levels of realization don't author texts.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you provide a citation from a primary text which states that woman have more potential than men for awakening? I personally do not beleive that gender makes one person superior to another person in terms of capacity for awakening. I think it is a very silly thing to say.

If Tibetan tradition truly maintains that woman had a greater potential for awakening than men, it would stand to reason that it would report more instances of awakened woman than men. But in the fact there are very few reports of awakened woman as opposed to endless litneys of men who are supposed to have achieved awakening.

While it is certainly the case that we can find positive messages about woman's potential for awakening in many tantras, in general Tibetan cultural practice, woman have been very disadvantaged.

If we take just one culture, Anglo-American culture, and compare it with Indo-Tibetan culture, the incidence of female authorship is much higher in our culture than in Indo-Tibetan culture. Why? It is quite simple -- in old Tibet educating women was not the norm, it was by far and away the exception. Of course, through the influence of Western values, Tibetan culture has decided to value the education of women, and this is a good thing, a positive direction. But there is still enormous sexism in both cultures, our and their's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
YogaDude11 said:
Have you had any experiences similar to what i have described?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but they are just experiences.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
deepbluehum said:
Okay. I have one question about samaya. What if the teacher falls into dualistic grasping in a such a way as to buy into a common run of the mill worldly point of view that the student thinks is petty?


Namdrol said:
The student should mind his own business.

deepbluehum said:
What if the teacher exhibits greed?

Malcolm wrote:
Greed may be a failing but it is not a cause for a Vajrayāna student to criticize their teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
If we don't believe that anything is possible, then we no longer believe in Sunyata. We are either nihilists or eternalists.

Malcolm wrote:
If you think that apple trees can grow from wheat seeds, you have left the realm of common sense.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Namdrol said:
Samaya is not koolaid, though it seem that many people treat it as such. Insitutionally mandated sexism does not need to be a part of Vajrayāna -- this just leads to the ruthless exploitation of women. Justifying it by invoking Machig Labdron is just sad.

N

Adamantine said:
I interpret this story of Machig in the same light as I would Padmasambhava being swallowed and eaten by his female teacher Kungamo,

Malcolm wrote:
The former (if true) is a story of teacher who gives a student a disease (though in fact the story hinges on ML breaking samaya and contracting a disease). The later is a story of a common feature of many initiations.

Adamantine said:
or Tilopa provoking Naropa to get the living crap beat out of him by a wedding party, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Tilopa, supposedly, had the power to completely restore Naropa to health.

Adamantine said:
If we decide that the stories of the siddhas are just fantasy, bent on political ends, and hold mundane views of social politics and western scientific materialism as supreme--

Malcolm wrote:
I think TNR's defense of Kosha Cosmology is pretty poor, frankly, since it also depends on us accepting the the Bible, the Koran and so on as superior to western empirical science.

Adamantine said:
then it seems to me that this would render our faith in vajrayana and guru yoga sterile, and there wouldn't be much point in following this path at all.

Malcolm wrote:
If we are following Vajrayāna because of some miraculous tale, we are doomed before we have even started.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
Jax said:
Namdrol, what do think of Germano's research regarding sPyti being a reaction to the tantric elements being so broadly integrated into Dzogchen?


Malcolm wrote:
Highly speculative. The spyi ti texts were largely produced by Nyangral, one of the major promulgators of Nyingma tantric cycles in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
how Gurus may expect free labor for Dharma centers etc. then this is deeply built into the Dharma itself-- not related to Tibetan political structures.. The Vajrayana is founded on the model of mandalas in the form of kingdoms, with the Yidam/Guru on thrones in the center of palaces, etc. And serving the Guru and the Dharma are considered the supreme way to generate merit. . . If you have issue with these things, which is generally why the social-structures of Dharma centers arise the way they do-- then you aren't critiquing Tibetan culture per se you are criticizing the nature of Vajrayana itself.

Malcolm wrote:
The model of Vajrayāna that emerged in India during the 8-12 centuries is very much a reflection of the style of feudalism and vassalage present in Indian culture, a model Tibetans adapted to their own feudal system.

Serving the master and the Dharma is wonderful. But such service can be easily perverted to worldly ends.

I have observed before that in a real sense, anuttarayoga tantra is not suited to institutional practice of the kind we see in Tibetan culture.

Many absolutist notions about gurus we find in traditional sources (where they are not shear didactic fabrications such as Milarepa's towers) need to be questioned, and can be questioned even after we have entered Vajrayāna.

Samaya is not koolaid, though it seem that many people treat it as such. Insitutionally mandated sexism does not need to be a part of Vajrayāna -- this just leads to the ruthless exploitation of women. Justifying it by invoking Machig Labdron is just sad.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
but from a feminist perspective this just doesn't fly.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not fly from the perspective of basic human decency. The minute that Vajrayāna practice becomes more important than basic human decency, Vajrayāna practice ceases to be Dharma and becomes a mere cult.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
then you aren't critiquing Tibetan culture per se you are criticizing the nature of Vajrayana itself.

Malcolm wrote:
I am ok with that. Vajrayāna can use some criticism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:


Pero said:
So I really doubt whatever anyone who doesn't respect his teachers says.

Namdrol said:
Of course. But I also would doubt what a teacher who does not respect his students says.

muni said:
Study/listen/reflect.... as much as you can, then find a teacher, I think, this advice once given, shouldn't be underestimated.

Malcolm wrote:
This is no guarantee that the teacher, once found, will be a good one, a qualified one. If that teacher does not measure up to Dharma standards, he or she should be dropped like a hot coal from one's hands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:


Pero said:
So I really doubt whatever anyone who doesn't respect his teachers says.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. But I also would doubt what a teacher who does not respect his students says.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
deepbluehum said:
Okay. I have one question about samaya. What if the teacher falls into dualistic grasping in a such a way as to buy into a common run of the mill worldly point of view that the student thinks is petty?


Malcolm wrote:
The student should mind his own business.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
YogaDude11 said:
Hey Namdrol, Are you a practitioner of yantra yoga?


Malcolm wrote:
I have practiced it on and off for years, and have been a student of ChNN since 1992.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
heart said:
[

At the best you are interpreting Samaya here, but your interpretation is not in harmony with what I been taught or studied nor with what I have experienced. But I have no energy for this discussion.

/magnus

Namdrol said:
On whether you should stay with a teacher who has acted in a way that is not in accord with Dharma, simply examine page 51 of Buddhist Ethics where it clearly says that one should immediately sever one's relationship with such a person. On whether it is necessarily a breakage of samaya to criticize one's guru, examine the six criteria Kongtrul lists for samaya breakage to exist when criticizing one's guru, page 257. It depends primarily on one's motives.

No one is ever going to feel good about it, but sometimes, for the protection of others, it is necessary.

heart said:
One might wonder what is to be considered in accord with the Dharma when one consider Samaya a social construct?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I consider non-harming to the be the basic criteria of Dharma. For example, it is the commitment of taking refuge in the Dharma.

Samaya is a social construct, and has no meaning outside of that construct. For example, samaya represents a contract between two people, a teacher and a student. But the salient point is that it is a two way contract and the teacher is as obliged to observe these comittments as the student.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
Jax said:
I use the Kunje Gyalpo as my root reference regarding original Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
The sgra thal gyur is considered the root tantra of Dzogchen, not the kun byed rgyal po. And, if you take a text critical approach, they were both written around the same time.

For myself personally, I consider man ngag sde more profund in general. As it says in the man sngag sde tantras, sems sde is for intellectuals.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
pemachophel said:
"If so, are we not breaking these samaya's constantly when not in rigpa?"

This is exactly what I have been taught by my Teachers. When an Australian Lama friend once asked H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche what He did when He realized His mind had wandered, His Holiness said He immediately said Vajrasattva mantra.


Malcolm wrote:
These four samayas represent the state of the basis. They cannot be broken.

However, the Rangshar says:

As such, the qualified master
remains in equipoise on the real,
the samaya holder does likewise.

Here samaya holder means the student. Allowing oneself to become distracted is a "breakage" of samaya i.e. one's delusion becomes stronger.

In the DC, rather than Vajrasattva, we would do Guru Yoga. Same meaning, different method.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
heart said:
At the best you are interpreting Samaya here, but your interpretation is not in harmony with what I been taught or studied nor with what I have experienced. But I have no energy for this discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Everything requires interpretation, Magnus. Even your literalist stance is actually an interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
heart said:
[

At the best you are interpreting Samaya here, but your interpretation is not in harmony with what I been taught or studied nor with what I have experienced. But I have no energy for this discussion.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
On whether you should stay with a teacher who has acted in a way that is not in accord with Dharma, simply examine page 51 of Buddhist Ethics where it clearly says that one should immediately sever one's relationship with such a person. On whether it is necessarily a breakage of samaya to criticize one's guru, examine the six criteria Kongtrul lists for samaya breakage to exist when criticizing one's guru, page 257. It depends primarily on one's motives.

No one is ever going to feel good about it, but sometimes, for the protection of others, it is necessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:


Namdrol said:
You can't really break these samayas since they concern your primordial state, and that is something you cannot break.

N

alpha said:
So these would be more like attributes of the primordial state?

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
YogaDude11 said:
No I have not. But I will be doing that very soon. All i have is the book and the dvds.


Malcolm wrote:
You should understand then that vegetarianism is not required, nor is abstinence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:


Namdrol said:
It lists general samaya as the famous four samayas of Dzogchen -- non-existence, singleness, ubuiquity, and natural formation.

N

alpha said:
Are these four samayas upheld only when resting in rigpa?
If so, are we not breaking these samaya's constantly when not in rigpa?


Malcolm wrote:
You can't really break these samayas since they concern your primordial state, and that is something you cannot break.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
Namdrol said:
And if you criticize them with a view to protecting others from their mistaken and harmful actions, there is also no fault.

N

Kilaya. said:
How do we decide whether a story about a specific Lama is correct or not, especially when we read it on the internet? I mean, there is no teacher you can't find any critical remarks about somewhere on the internet (including our own teacher).

Malcolm wrote:
How can one decide whether any gossip is correct? You have to go to the source, right?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Adamantine said:
I understand these things can be generalized-- but I just have rarely if ever seen any of these tendencies in a number of Tibetan lamas I've had the good fortune to study with-- a good portion from old Tibet, and some of which you and I share. But then, maybe the Nyingmas are a bit different because the monastic system isn't as overarching, and there's a greater proportion of female saints....


Malcolm wrote:
Nyingmapas are every bit as bad as the all the others -- this is a Tibetan cultural issue, not a lineage issue. Tibetans do not have, in their own culture, an idea of civil rights and universal sufferage. This is because Tibetans have not yet rejected the feudal power stuctures of their past -- in fact, all they have done is export them to west where they survive in extra-govermental organizations -- very much like the papacy preserving the stuctures of the Roman Imperium with the Pope as emporer and the college of cardinals representing the senate.

I do not want to paint all Tibetans in a bad light-- they are human beings just as we are, and we like they suffer many faults too that are a result of acculturation. But let's not be blind, shall we?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
Jax said:
Samaya etc. pertain to tantric and other lower yanas. Dzogchen is beyond all mind constructed concepts.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not strictly true, Jax. In terms of samaya, the Rigpa Rangshar's interlinear notes clarifies the samaya of the view to realized i.e. non-conceptual prajñā.

It lists general samaya as the famous four samayas of Dzogchen -- non-existence, singleness, ubuiquity, and natural formation.

Beyond that however, it also clarifies items constituting the body, speech and mind samayas of a Dzogchen practitioner:

The samaya of the body is abandoning taking life.
The samaya of speech is abandoning lying, calumny and harsh words.
The samaya of mind is not troubling concentration or disturbing the guru’s mind.

However, the Rangshar also makes it very clear that the Guru is obliged to follow these samayas listed here, and others as well.

It makes it very clear that that the worst samaya to break is the samaya of the body i.e. not to take life. In other words, like all other Buddhist systems, Dzogchen establishes ahimsa as the most basic standard of conduct for a Dzoghen practitioner.

But the system of samaya in Dzogchen is not the system of samaya of maha and anu. On the other hand, it does not mean we completley ignore these samayas too.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Namdrol said:
Off the top of my head, I can think of only five Tibetan woman who authored texts prior to the mid-twentieth century -- Yeshe Tsogyal, Machig Labdron, Jomo Menmo, Migyur Paldron (daugher of Terdag Lingpa) and Sera Khandro. There are only four or so significant Indian woman who authored texts too, Siddhirajni, Niguma, Sukhasiddhi, and Laksminkara.



N

Adamantine said:
This is more or less a global thing though Namdrol- - I mean, there were far fewer female authors in Europe or America in the 19th or early 20th century then there has been in the last 60 or so years... let's put things in perspective...

Malcolm wrote:
There have been hundreds of women authors through the ages in the West, especially since the 17th century. On this score, Western culture has a much better score than Indo-Asian culture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Have you received transmission from ChNN?

N


YogaDude11 said:
Thanks for the share. Sounds like I am entering some kind of stage of development.  I have been observing a vegetarian diet and i have cut out all intoxicants and everything that is not "good" for the body. I have tried to maintain celibacy as well, but I do have the occasional releases, but it seems to be getting more under control as time goes on. No television either, or as little as possible. It also seems that with consistent practice everyday I require much less oxygen on each breath, it is as if though the body just does not need to breathe as often.

From what I have read in the book by ChNN, it says that the resultant qualities of the practice are that the yogi develops "profound contemplation". From what I understand that means very deep meditation. So I do not know if what I am experiencing is profound contemplation or maybe the beginning stages of it?
I have been practicing yantra yoga for maybe a year now. I also do sitting mindfulness on the breath meditation. Lately I have been getting this extremely pleasurable feeling/vibration in the middle of the forehead. When I close my eyes my eyelids become heavy after a few minutes and I have this feeling like someone switched my mind off but I am still there fully present, no thoughts seem to arise. It is quite intoxicating and very pleasurable, to be honest if I did not have other things to do I can prob sit there the whole day and abide in this state. I have read some material on mediation and it seems what i am experiencing is the action of the third eye/ajna chakra. I am not quite sure what exactly I am experiencing, all I know is it feels pretty good. I was wondering if anyone can give some more info or personal experiences perhaps. Thanks!

Konchog1 said:
A step before the First Jhana? Try to spread the feeling throughout your body.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:


Namdrol said:
But as Jax says, in general samaya as commonly discussed in Tibetan Buddhism circles is just a social construct, a contract between you and a guru.

But what Jax did not say, and what he left out, was that real samaya is the comittment to discovering your own primordial state, and when discovered, maintaining knowledge (rigpa) of that state.

But in Dzogchen there are no specific rules or vows. It is all about being present, aware and working with circumstances.

N

heart said:
Really? I don't agree with that. If you disparage your Guru for example it is impossible to be present and aware at the same time.
/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
That depends on whether someone who has acted as your guru is acting in accordance with the Dharma or not. If they are no, there is not fault in severing one's relationship with them. And if you criticize them with a view to protecting others from their mistaken and harmful actions, there is also no fault. Look it up, you will find I am correct.

"Guru" is a role, not a person. The role as certain obligations, just as the role "student" has certain obligations. The sooner people sort this out, the better.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:


Namdrol said:
Its bullshit. skye dman simple means inferior rebirth, that is all.

Adamantine said:
Ok, but what's your understanding of what that means? Dronma is interpreting it that women don't have capacity for practicing Dzogchen, or Dharma, etc. .

My understanding is that it means there are greater obstacles to practicing Dharma. . . and to aspects of life in general-- freedoms, etc.. which is more or less what they were saying. . from a Vajrayana perspective it never meant that women had less capacity than men, that would automatically break a root vow to even use the term then..

Malcolm wrote:
What it has come to mean in the context of Tibetan society is that women are more suited to menial work. Off the top of my head, I can think of only five Tibetan woman who authored texts prior to the mid-twentieth century -- Yeshe Tsogyal, Machig Labdron, Jomo Menmo, Migyur Paldron (daugher of Terdag Lingpa) and Sera Khandro. There are only four or so significant Indian woman who authored texts too, Siddhirajni, Niguma, Sukhasiddhi, and Laksminkara.

The fact is that Tibetan Buddhism is completely patriarchal and sexist -- in fact it is pretty toxic for women in general and is in much need of reform (some of which is happening).

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:07 AM
Title: Re: Don't Let Dharma Reinforce Groupthink
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:


Adamantine said:
Well if the language changed in dependence on the sanskrit/indian then how that word gained contemporary meaning in the Tibetan society, how it was generally interpreted is another thing.. I believe this is what they are getting at and not just a simple revisionism. Certainly, either way is a generalization.. I am sure some used it in the most derogatory of ways at a given time and context, and some held other views..

Malcolm wrote:
Its bullshit. skye dman simple means inferior rebirth, that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
deepbluehum said:
but the fact is that the samsaric body somehow dissolves into the five lights.

Namdrol said:
Also no.

deepbluehum said:
Now you've really got me on the edge of my seat. I would just love to get a complete thought from you. That would be just too exciting. Honestly. Please, do tell.

Please tell me what happens to channels and physical body when practicing Dzogchen

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Dronma said:
Jilkan, it seems that officially Tibetans do not use the term Dzogchenma. Probably, according to their view about females as being of lower rebirth, they do not even believe that a female can have such capacity for practising Dzogchen. 
So, I personally doubt that they use Dzogchenpa for females, either.

Adamantine said:
This is not true, at all. Actually, women are generally considered to have superior spiritual potential then men. The term that we translate into English as "lower birth" according to Gross and Aziz via Judith Simmer-Brown is "not a point of doctrine but an insight from Tibetan Folk wisdom that accurately observes the constrictions and difficulties of a woman's life under patriarchy". Simmer-Brown also points out that this hardship is not looked at in traditional Tibetan understanding as something to lament, but rather something that provides greater recognition of the sufferings of samsara and thus even greater motivation for practicing Dharma. Actually, if you are interested in this issue, as you seem to be, -you should read Judith Simmer-Brown's book "The Dakini's Warm Breath: The Feminine Principle in Tibetan Buddhism"  and specifically the chapter on gender in traditional Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
Wonderful feminist revisionism — the term "skye dman" is a direct translation from Sanskrit i.e. jātihīna, and far from reflecting Tibetan folk wisdom, merely perpetuates the patriarchal oppression of women.

The pre-Buddhist name for women in Tibet is "sman mo" literally "good woman" where the sman, which also means medicine, has the connotation of "goodness".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
deepbluehum said:
but the fact is that the samsaric body somehow dissolves into the five lights.

Malcolm wrote:
Also no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
deepbluehum said:
Dzogchen transforms the channels into light.

Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
padma norbu said:
I've broken samaya and had no idea. My life didn't get any worse than usual.


Malcolm wrote:
Then you didn't break samaya. To break samaya you have to know what you are doing. You have to be aware and not care. You have to be indifferent.

But as Jax says, in general samaya as commonly discussed in Tibetan Buddhism circles is just a social construct, a contract between you and a guru.

But what Jax did not say, and what he left out, was that real samaya is the comittment to discovering your own primordial state, and when discovered, maintaining knowledge (rigpa) of that state.

But in Dzogchen there are no specific rules or vows. It is all about being present, aware and working with circumstances.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Books and Study Materials on Tibetan Medicine
Content:
Nangwa said:
Tibetan Buddhist Medicine and Psychiatry by Terry Clifford.

Early in the book is a very interesting discussion of how Vajrayana Buddhism greatly influenced and contributed to the sophistication of ayurveda in India.


Malcolm wrote:
It is the opposite way actually. Ayruveda contributed to the development of annutarayoga tantra completion stage practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
pemachophel said:
Namdrol,

You will know what?

A) That you broke samaya
B) The awakened state beyond pain and suffering

Malcolm wrote:
That you broke samaya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Vajra Hell
Content:
pemachophel said:
Jax,

Your theory sounds good. Recognize the suffering as empty and it's all good. However, in my experience, if you break samaya, you will experience suffering and you won't recognize. :

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not how it is explained in texts. When you break samaya, you will know.

However, when it comes to samaya, common human decency trumps all and any contracts with gurus. In other words, if you have to break "samaya" to act with common decency, pick common decency.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:



Jikan said:
I'm still unclear on something after reading this thread through.

Is it acceptable grammatically to refer to a woman who practices the Great Perfection as a Dzogchenpa?  is that normal usage?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Pero said:
What is a jenang again? I forgot.

Nangwa said:
Its just a shorter kind of empowerment that is thought of as being a permission giving ritual.
Usually takes between an hour and half or so to three hours, whereas a full wang (at least in Sakya and Gelug) can take a day or two to complete.


Malcolm wrote:
Permissions do not contain the full four empowerments. They contain only a a body, speech and mind blessing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Translating "Dzogchenpa"
Content:
Dronma said:
Then I was surprised to discover that some men are denying the female gender of Tibetan language, and they like to equate it with English, which has no gender in nouns and adjectives.

Malcolm wrote:
No one did that. However, some people, who lack expertise in Tibetan, like making up "Tibetan" words.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: the matter of life and death
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
]And at the end of the Mahapralaya is when the Basis begins to stir signifying the beginning of a Mahakalpa (?)
.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
heart said:
Then of course there is also the question how many Yidams one actually need to practice as a Dzogchen practitioner?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is none. Zero.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
But I cannot see the reason why I have to bow down to anyone who says something without providing any reliable source.

Malcolm wrote:
You do not. But you do need to learn a language before you start having many opinions about it.

As it so happens, I am one of the first batch of doctors who graduated from Shang Shung Institute, and I really do know Tibetan quite well.

The nature of language is that it changes, sometimes its influences are natural evolution from within; sometimes, like with so called "sngags ma", words are coined by outsiders that then become adopted.

For example, many people are not aware that mkha' 'gro really means ḍāka, the male; while mkha' 'gro ma means ḍākinī, the female. But in personal names the "ma" is general left off.

So, what I am trying to say is that while constructions like "rdzogs chen ma" might be possible, they are non-idiomatic, that is -- Tibetans never use these terms in their daily speech nor in their formal writing.

Also Tibetans are not, at this point, sensitive about politcal correctness in terms of gender use in speech. They still commonly refer to woman as "skye dman", lower rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
pemachophel said:
In Jamgon Kongtrul's Knowing One Liberates All, He says it usually takes six months of recitation retreat (when going by time) to accomplish a given Deity. However, each sadhana typically spells out how many mantra (when going by number) one should expect to recite before achieving accomplishment. In most of the sadhanas I am familiar with, the recitations are divided into three stages: nyen-pa (approach [familiarization]), drub-pa (accomplishment), and lay-jor (activity), with each stage/mantra being said a certain number of times. A general rule for nyen-pa is to say the root mantra 100,000 times for each syllable with possibly another 100,000 for good measure, i.e., to make up any deficiencies. However, in the Paltrul sung-gyud (Paltrul Rinpoche's lineage of Longchen Nyingthig [as, for instance, carried on by Kyabje Chatral Rinpoche]), one typically does 11% over and beyond what the text stipulates. So, if the text says 100,000, the practitioner does 111,111. I agree with Dechen Norbu that it usually takes serious time and effort doing the root mantra before being able to make the activity mantra really work. I have also heard one Lama say (on several occasions) that reciting more than just a few of the activity mantra before having done the requisite nyen-pa and drub-pa is a breach of samaya that can shorten the Teacher's life. If that is true, then I think it goes without saying that it would also be bad for/dangerous to the sadhaka that did so.


Malcolm wrote:
This is definitely not what ChNN says to his students in general. Quality is far more important than quantity. One week of high quality is much better than months of low quality recitation in terms of quantity.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: the matter of life and death
Content:
Namdrol said:
Not necessarily, they revert to the basis.

Lhug-Pa said:
So this is what happens for them at the end of a Kalpa or Mahakalpa.... What about at the end of a Pralaya or Mahapralaya?

Malcolm wrote:
They revert to the basis at the end of the mahakalpa. The dissolition of the universe, pralaya, happens between great eons.

Lhug-Pa said:
Do Buddhas who have not reached full enlightenment fall into ignorance again?

Malcolm wrote:
No, there are no buddhas or sentient beings in the basis, there is no falling into ignorance per se, since there is no ignorance in the basis either. In any event, this type of cosmology is useless for most people's practice.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
So, Namdrol was wrong when he said: "For example, all women from Eastern Tibet are Khampas, there is no term "Khamma" for eastern Tibetan women".

Malcolm wrote:
Well no, not really. While one can construct such a term, there is no word "khams mo" in any Tibetan dictionary.

There is a word "khams pa" which is defined as "khams kyi yul mi" i.e. a person of the region of Khams -- this term covers all persons from Khams.

But anyway, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you about a language I read fluently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: the matter of life and death
Content:
Ryoto said:
Arhats, praytyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas are not fully enlighthened buddhas. And in Vajrayana, those buddhas on the 11th and 12th bhumis are considered not fully awakened.
Thanks for your reply. Just to clear up the confusion are saying that these Arhats, Praytyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas all revert back to ignorance after the destruction of the universe?

Malcolm wrote:
Not necessarily, they revert to the basis.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
So, what happens with Naljorpa and Naljorma? Do they also reflect assignations in Sanskrit? [/color]

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Five Mountain Zen Order & Paul Lynch
Content:
jrzen said:
Especially since Foster is gone.

Malcolm wrote:
He is not just gone, he has gone beyond apparently, having become the 81st Ancestor of Zen.

https://prajnainstitute.org/faculty/myogak-foster/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Sugatagarbha : Gelugpa & Nyingma
Content:


Mariusz said:
Kagyu one of the best known Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje elaborates it:
Likewise,
once the adventitious stains—or, more personally speaking, we as sentient
beings—have dissolved, it is a moot question whether “our” dharmadhātu (or
buddha nature) and “all the rest” of the dharmadhātu (or the buddha natures
of all Buddhas) are the same or different, since what is called a sentient being
is nothing but the very mistakenness that makes up such a distinction.
p.101:

Malcolm wrote:
Correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: the matter of life and death
Content:


padma norbu said:
That's what I thought until I read Namdrol's post and when I asked him if the Buddhas are destroyed, too, his response was not quite as definite as yours. He said something like "what does it matter?" which suggested to me that, even if that is the case, there's no point struggling against reality, it's still the best option out there. Sorry, I don't have the thread bookmarked.

dakini_boi said:
That's funny, I thnk I read in another of Namdrol's posts that fully enlightened buddhas will not revert to samsara even after the destruction of the universe.  Think about it, if buddhahood is not permanent, then a buddha's reality would be samsara, by definition.  So there would be nothing other than sentient beings of the 6 realms.  Therefore there would be no buddha.  I tend to take this on faith, that buddhahood is possible and that it is permanent, because otherwise. . . it's just too depressing

Ryoto said:
So you're saying there is such a thing as not fully enlightened Buddhas? One is either a fully enlightened Buddha or not. There is no in between.

Is this some Dzogchen teaching?

Malcolm wrote:
Arhats, praytyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas are not fully enlighthened buddhas. And in Vajrayana, those buddhas on the 11th and 12th bhumis are considered not fully awakened.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2012 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
So, for clearing up my query, can we say - for example - that Ayu Khandro was a Dzopgchenma?
Is it correct from the point of Tibetan language? ?[/color]

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not correct as there is no word in tibetan རྫོགས་ཆེན་མ.

As Adamantine says, Tibetans reflect gender assignations in Sanskrit with pa and ma, but these do not necessarily appy to Tibetans terms themselves.

If you want to read about the gender of Tibetan words there is a book by Steven Beyer, The Classical Tibetan Language, that explains this very well i.e. when pa and ma are gender signs, and when they are not.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 25th, 2012 at 9:01 AM
Title: Re: the matter of life and death
Content:


padma norbu said:
That's what I thought until I read Namdrol's post and when I asked him if the Buddhas are destroyed, too, his response was not quite as definite as yours. He said something like "what does it matter?" which suggested to me that, even if that is the case, there's no point struggling against reality, it's still the best option out there. Sorry, I don't have the thread bookmarked.

dakini_boi said:
That's funny, I thnk I read in another of Namdrol's posts that fully enlightened buddhas will not revert to samsara even after the destruction of the universe.

Malcolm wrote:
What I said was that fully awakened buddhas never revert to the basis, as opposed to all those with lesser or no realization.

The basis however possesses compassion, so whenever there are sentient beings, buddhas appear. But the division between samsara and nirvana is merely the deluded vision of sentient beings. There is no samsara and nirvana in the basis.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2012 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: 2 Karmapas: Let's avoid any hostility
Content:


sherabpa said:
It does not follow that there could not ever be two Karmapas at any point in time.


Malcolm wrote:
Politics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
I asked about the Tibetan language!
So, like Naljorpa and Naljorma, Nagpa and Nagma, it might be Dzogchenpa and Dzogchenma or Dzogchenmo - as pensum suggested.
If somebody has accurate knowledge of this, I'd appreciate a lot an accurate grammatical response! [/color]

Malcolm wrote:
"sngags ma" is a western neologism that has been adopted by Tibetans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
I'd like to bring this question to the surface of the board again, since it was buried by many posts. 
So, from the replies it seems that "Dzogchenpa" is a qualified, serious practitioner of Dzogchen. Isn't it? 
Then, what is the term for the female Dzogchen practitioner? 
Dzogchenmo or Dzogchenma?

Pero said:
Perhaps there isn't one. The -pa doesn't necessarily indicate the male gender wherever you see it. In this case I think it simply means someone who is in the state of dzogchen.

Dronma said:
I think that -pa indicates the gender. 
I'd like a response from someone who really knows.


Malcolm wrote:
པ་is a nominalizer. It does not necessarily indicate gender. For example, all women from Eastern Tibet are Khampas, there is no term "Khamma" for eastern Tibetan women.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Namdrol said:
Sentient beings are deluded about the display of the basis. When they cease to be so deluded, they are buddhas.

The basis never displays as anything other than the five lights.

gad rgyangs said:
so you're saying sentient beings and buddhas are the display of a different basis? you're saying that sentient beings and buddhas are not included in "all phenomena of samsara and nirvana"? you seem to be claiming there is the basis and its display, on the one hand, and then there's sentient beings and buddhas, but they have nothing to do with each other. if this were so, in what way would the basis be "our real nature"?


Malcolm wrote:
I like the way you systematically misrepresent what I am saying.

read what I said above, and you will see how much your statement purporting to represent what I said, does not represent it, much in the same way that a man with jaundice persistently sees white as yellow.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Dronma said:
Much Ado About Nothing!
The whole topic has been mutated to a personal controversy between gad rgyangs and Namdrol.

asunthatneversets said:
What seems like personal controversy on this thread is more like a resurfacing battle which originates from an epic and ancient war spanning eons of thread. We may never see the end of it, but know that you'll learn some interesting things and gain valuable insight while it goes on. It never sleeps and it cannot be stopped... Resistance is futile!


Malcolm wrote:
No personal controversy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Therefore, are sentient beings and their delusion part of the display of the basis? check, and mate.

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are deluded about the display of the basis. When they cease to be so deluded, they are buddhas.

The basis never displays as anything other than the five lights.

Further, The Luminous Space states:
That mind is produced out of the dualistic grasping
to the six objects of the manifestation of wisdom.
How can that [mind] be produced? Since [the mind] is produced from that ignorance that does not recognize the intrinsic manifestation of wisdom [the mind] is produced.

Sentient beings, rocks and trees are assembled by delusion about the basis. But the basis only displays one way. It does not display as both samsara and nirvana.


Since that critical point of luminous empty vidyā was not recognized, grasping onto that produced the five elements, and the causal thigle [was produced] from the refined part of those. The body was produced from that [refined part] and energy [rtsal] of wisdom produces the five sense gates in that [body]. Within those [sense gates] the five wisdoms are produced. The five [sense gates] grasping onto those [five wisdoms produce] the five afflictions. After first being created by the energy of wisdom; in the middle, it was not recognized that the body of the refined part of the assembled elements actually is the five wisdoms, since this was not realized through intellectual views, the non-sentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it. Here, it is actually five wisdoms to begin with; in the middle, when the body is formed from assembly of the elements through ignorance grasping onto those [five wisdoms] also, it is actually the five wisdoms. The five aggregates, sense organs, and afflictions also are actually the five wisdoms. In the end, since one transcends accepting, rejecting, proofs, and negations since those are realized to be real. As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into wisdom without any effluents  because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the non-sentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instruction.

The basis only is the five wisdom and only displays the five wisdoms -- the rest is delusion. Ignorance [avidyā] is not a display of the basis, it is delusion about the display of the basis. Knowledge is not a display of the basis, it is the absence of delusion about the display of the basis.

One basis, two paths, two results.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
the reason why we disagree about this is because you have already forgotten the last thread where this was decided once and for all. I will copy the crucial citation:


Malcolm wrote:
"In brief, those delusions also are not delusion that exist in the cause and basis, but as one does not understand the actual state of the basis one is stubbornly deluded about one’s appearances. For example when grasping to a seeming appearance that does not exist in the material, a rope appears to be a snake. Like a conch shell appearing yellow, the actual state of the basis has not been understood, and there is fixated delusion about one’s appearances."

-- Khandro Nyinthig


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Instead of complaining more about things not going well for me, how about I offer something potentially helpful here....

It's funny that I said:
A happy song for sure.
As I'm thinking that the song in question might be from the following CD (?):

http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_9636.html


About offerings:


In [url=http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6203&start=60#p73628]Guardians of the Teaching,[/url] Namdrol said:
When you do medium thun for example, it is sufficient to visualize offerings. If you want to set them up, that is ok too. Whatever you have space and time for.

In general, there are only two things that you need for offerings (apart from the Ganapuja), according to my understanding of ChNN's intent: light and incense, and even these are not absolutely required.

If you like setting out water offerings, sense offering, medicine and blood, tormas and so on -- go for it -- but it is not absolutely necessary. After all, the universe is a torma according to the torma tantra.

Lhug-Pa said:
Therefore in regard to working with circumstances, in my case I currently cannot burn incense where I live, so if I were to offer Sang and Serkyem, I would have to take Sang incense and try to distill into an essential oil in order to use in my essential oil diffuser (whenever performing a Puja, I at least try to diffuse essential oil, even if it's just some Sage oil or something that I have on hand).

Malcolm wrote:
You can just use juniper essential oil.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Mariusz said:
Moreover, I pointed-out you the seeming is not totally faulty here again, after I wrote your statement "the relative truth is totally faulty" in Academic Discussion forum when we discussed Madhyamaka.  So it is only for you, not for me. As long as for you "the relative truth is always faulty" I recognize your view as nihilistic So I use here the dependent nature of Yogacara as one another antidote for your statement.


Malcolm wrote:
What I actully said that was "relative truth is the object of a mistaken cognition", "ultimate truth is the object of an unmistaken cognition". These are Candrakirti's definitions and not mine.

Further, Candra devotes a number of verses to refuting the dependent nature -- read them.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
If Being in the State of Dzogchen Contemplation is equivalent to proper Recognition of the Basis & Its display; then in that moment of Contemplation, all Vision is a display of the Basis, yes?


Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Mariusz said:
Where I accept something for me? .


Malcolm wrote:
If you accept the perfected nature, your view is not Madhyamaka. This is why Candrakirti in detail refutes the three natures scheme.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: gzhan stong and Great Madhyamaka
Content:
Namdrol said:
according to tortured late Tibetan exegesis [Mipham or Shakya Chogden]

Mariusz said:
I don't think so it is so. As you see above, I take it by simply using the subject-side perspective instead of object-side perspective. So for me nothing is "out there" existent, non-existent, so on and so fort.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, your view is cittamatra, since you accept the existence of the subjective side ultimately.

N


