﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
when computers communicate with each other over a network, does that mean they are sentient?


Malcolm wrote:
The internet is not a self-organizing system, it's a limited extension of our neurology.

gad rgyangs said:
if computers are connected to a network, to robots who can build computers, and run software that evaluates its own architecture, modifies designs, and uses the robots to build new computers and robots that further evolve and change, is it sentient?

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps machines can evolve into sentience. But at this point I don't think we can consider consider machines self-organizing at the level of complexity we see with biological life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Let's not confuse form with sentience.  Apparently not all sentient beings have form and not all forms are sentient.

Malcolm wrote:
All sentient beings have form.

M

Blue Garuda said:
Hmmm:  'Swans are white therefore all white things are swans' kinda logic here?

All things which have form are not necessarily 'beings' or 'sentient'  - we just attach those labels.

Malcolm wrote:
The standard Buddhist view is that there are sentient beings who lack form. This is not accepted in Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Fa Dao said:
WOW!!  this has been going on now for quite some time. Some people are really getting fired up. Not my place to take a side or say who is right or wrong. But at some point dont we all have to ask ourselves "is all of this bickering really helping anyone?"  (and it truly has turned into bickering) Maybe its time to bury the hatchet and just move on to more productive discussions?  Just a thought.....

Silent Bob said:
Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants, you are wrong once again! This is not bickering, not at all, though it may appear that way to the unlettered. It will be recognized in years to come as the First Internet Council of the Wise, where the future direction of Buddhadharma was decided and the tulku system abolished.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh hell bob, now you've gone and spoilt everthang. Iffen we cain't bicker, what else is we gonna do in our dilbert cubes???


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Let's not confuse form with sentience.  Apparently not all sentient beings have form and not all forms are sentient.

Malcolm wrote:
All sentient beings have form.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
misrepresenting what I said.

Malcolm wrote:
I have not misrepresented a single thing you have said. The reverse, sadly, is not true.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


username said:
You have completely lost your critical reasoning, rationalism and any sense of balance.

Malcolm wrote:
You brought up Mao not me.

username said:
My point was that it is part Buddhist tradition. Just that.

Malcolm wrote:
What you said was that refuge was a Buddhist tradition. I pointed out that not only Buddhism has a tradition of refuge.

username said:
Like when Mariusz asked if a believer of other traditions denying emptiness can receive the whole of Dzogchen transmissions and go through the four visions while holding on to those contradictory beleifs. You said he can receive all of Dzogchen Transmissions.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, he can.

username said:
You have been debating people in the thread when they talked of bodhicitta methods in their traditions. I said they are necessary specially if someone mistakenly thinks he has realized his nature as well as Rushens Semzins etc. There is a restricted booklet on this by ChNNR that I have from Dzogchen POV. They are necessary after that initial stage too. The rest of your post above again is nothing to do with what I said, like Ganesh on youtube etc.. Finally you are engaging in sophistry again as bodicitta is included in the nine yanas of buddhism as I said "Buddhist relative bodhicitta methods" quote you attack. That Buddhist path for most Dzogchenpas includes Ati yoga. So again my definition is valid and the mistake is yours. QED.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said anywhere that bodhicitta was unnecessary.What I did say that gradual cultivation of contrived compassion and so on is unnecessary.

You should really not jump to conclusions.

We all know the three sublime things you have for a perfect practice: refuge, knowledge of our real condition (bodhicitta), and dedication.

Now, I would expect about now you are a little bored with this, cause I sure am. Between your persistant misrepresentations of what I have actually said, and Dronma's persistent accusations that I am leading a Jihad (really???!!!???, what silliness) it is all a bit much.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Yes but not everyone you learn some facts from as is claimed here in error. You could watch a film clip of Hitler or Mao or George W. Bush and learn a few statistics or facts you might not know but then you can't stick them up there in the tree and take refuge which BTW is Buddhist. So you have to weed out some and not include all as Malcolm claims.

Malcolm wrote:
When I first heard this teaching from ChNN in 1992, he said all your teachers, anyone from whom you have learned anything -- he included grade school teachers and so on.

The concept of going for refuge (sharanam) is not strictly Buddhist. Also Hindus go for refuge:

https://youtu.be/4jXAMZtnxn0 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

username said:
1- Well tell the Dalai Lama who had to endure lectures and facts and figures on a few occasions from Mao who killed tens of milllions of Chinese by war and famine that he needs to take refuge in Mao too as part of his refuge tree. As before you misunderstand ChNNR.

Malcolm wrote:
HHDL considers himself a Marxist, and he learned his Marxism from Mao.

NDTV: Do you still think of  yourself as a Marxist ?

The Dalai Lama: Yes . As far as social economic theory is concerned I am a Marxist.

http://dalailama.com/messages/transcripts/barkha-dutt-interview-ndtv " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2- Irrelevant, my point was that refuge tree is part of Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana founded by Padmasambhava whose inner most essence teaching and intent is Dzogchen.
You mean refuge tree visualizations did not exist in India?

username said:
Excluding relative Bodhicitta from Dzogchen path in the name of sectarianism is yet another lack of realization.

Malcolm wrote:
Who excluded relative bodhicitta from the Dzogchen path -- not me? You said:

username said:
The best way to cultivate it is by buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a standard sectarian Buddhist view. Oh well.
I did not exclude anything.

I just pointed out once again your limiting language. Relative bodhicitta, for example, is only "buddhist" according to you. I guess a lot of bodhisattvas who have never heard of Buddhism are screwed since they do not know about your relative bodhicitta, having never heard of it. Frankly, I know many non-buddhists who have much better bodhicitta than a lot of the so called mahāyāna buddhists I know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But if you look at my siganture, you will see that it is not that way in Dzogchen.

Virgo said:
I understand.

Kevin

tomamundsen said:
Hi Malcolm. Could you please explain your signature? I don't understand it...

Thanks


Malcolm wrote:
It means that plants are part of the display of Samanabhadra, just like everything else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Have you ever caught a fish? They certainly do feel pain.

Virgo said:
I don't really like fishing it was never my thing.

And yeah I was just joking.  Fish certainly do feel pain.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
I did not understand the jk.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
when computers communicate with each other over a network, does that mean they are sentient?


Malcolm wrote:
The internet is not a self-organizing system, it's a limited extension of our neurology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
greentreee said:
wow,  Hitler and Jihad?


Malcolm wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.

And:

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[9]

And:

Some have called for Godwin's law to be renamed Beck's law because of the numerous allusions to Nazi Germany by talk show host Glenn Beck.[16] The Washington Post tallied 202 mentions of Nazis or Nazism, according to transcripts, 147 mentions of Hitler, 193 uses of "fascism" or "fascist," and another 24 mentions of Joseph Goebbels, all within 18 months. Media Matters used these facts to assert Godwin's Law is no longer relegated to chat rooms but now applies to cable news and other media outlets.[17]

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Termas discovered outside of Tibet/Nepal
Content:
Josef said:
Didnt KDL reveal mind ter in New York state as well?

Malcolm wrote:
And at my house when I was living in Shelburne Falls, on my front porch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Nemo said:
To say some DNA based life is sentient and some is not sounds implausible. It makes me think of the turn of the century "scientists" who unequivocally said animals like dogs cannot feel pain.

I will treat all life like it is alive.


Malcolm wrote:
Good point:

In the center of every plant cell – from algae to orchids – and in the center of every animal cell – from jellyfish to you and me – there’s a copy of the organism’s genetic material. This DNA carries a complete blueprint of the organism. It’s what transfers characteristics from one generation to the next.

There are pretty obvious differences between plants and animals, but – at the chemical level – the cells of all plants and all animals contain DNA in the same shape – the famous “double helix” that looks like a twisted ladder. What’s more, all DNA molecules – in both plants and animals – are made from the same four chemical building blocks – called nucleotides.

What is different is how these four nucleotides in DNA are arranged. It’s their sequence that determines which proteins will be made. The way the nucleotides are arranged, and the information they encode, decides whether the organism will produce scales or leaves – legs or a stalk.

Research shows that plants and animals may produce some proteins in common. One prominent example is known as Cytochrome C. But because the DNA copying process is imperfect, mistakes accumulate over time, making Cytochrome C slightly different in different creatures. The gene regions that specify the amino acid sequence in human Cytochrome C are more similar to those in another mammal like a rabbit, and less similar to a more evolutionarily distant creature, like a sunflower.

The schematic of classifying animals and plants in kingdoms is facing competition. More recently an alternative system has arisen, based on evolutionary and molecular information. Cytochrome c is perhaps the canonical or paradigmatic molecule in this approach.

Every species has a characteristic number of chromosomes, called the chromosome number. Animals have more chromosomes; plants have fewer.

http://earthsky.org/?p=433 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Nemo said:
To say some DNA based life is sentient and some is not sounds implausible. It makes me think of the turn of the century "scientists" who unequivocally said animals like dogs cannot feel pain.

I will treat all life like it is alive.

Virgo said:
Fish don't feel pain, though.

Jk


Malcolm wrote:
Have you ever caught a fish? They certainly do feel pain.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
No one practising Western magic has to my knowledge achieved results as described in the grimoires even when they've followed them very literally (speaking as someone who has actually tried it, I haven't gotten any significant results either). There are no magicians out there who've managed to get demons to appear before them and instantly teach them everything about physics, languages etc or used demons to conjure up armies. There is a lot of magical thinking and lying going on in this field, not saying there isn't in Tibetan Buddhism, but then again Dzogchen isn't Buddhism. The results which Western magicians actually do achieve, you can too by anuyoga practice, and that will probably do more for helping with your experience of vidya at the same time.

Malcolm wrote:
Grimoires for the most part were written for Christian priests expert in Christian liturgy. If you don't beleive in the Tetreagrammaton it is very likely that grimoire magic is not going to work for you. For example:

And I say to thee obey, in the name of him who spake and it was; and in every one of ye, O ye names of God! Moreover in the names Adonai, El., Elohim., Elohi, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, Zabaoth, Elion, Iah, Tetragrammaton, Shaddai, Lord God Most High, I stir thee up; and in our strength I say Obey!

If you don't beleive in god, it just ain't going to fly for you. You will lack conviction.

Ok, returning to topic...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, is the human host body "sentient"? The minute you admit that "spirits" inhabit plants, you are opening the door for plants to be considered sentient. Just as the mind leaves the host body, so to would plant spirits leave the their host plants, and take up a new life in a newly germinated plant, for example. This just means that "plants" would be part of the preta realm.

M

Virgo said:
Explained that way it seems more plausible.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for as long as one is still attached the principle of a dichotomy between mind and matter.

But if you look at my signature, you will see that it is not that way in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
PS It seems that the term inhabits (in reference to the Yakshas) is the key to understanding the statement.  Like humans inhabit houses but this does not make houses sentient so Yakshas inhabit trees, rocks, and other natural physical phenomena but this does not make the phenomena sentient.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, is the human host body "sentient"? The minute you admit that "spirits" inhabit plants, you are opening the door for plants to be considered sentient. Just as the mind leaves the host body, so to would plant spirits leave the their host plants, and take up a new life in a newly germinated plant, for example. This just means that "plants" would be part of the preta realm.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
If we are to consider plants as sentient then where do they fit into the 6 realms schema? What is the mental "poison" that causes one to be born as a plant? Why did the Buddha not include plants in the schema of realms? Why is there no reference in the bardo teachings on the light, Buddha, wisdom and poison associated with the plant realm?

Malcolm wrote:
The answer is I have no idea.

gregkavarnos said:
Do you believe that the concept of "plants as sentients" can be introduced into the teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
I think it is extraneous to the teachings.

gregkavarnos said:
How would that benefit practice or help one achieve liberation?

Malcolm wrote:
If plants are conscious communities, and this is demonstrable, then this opens up the door for increased awareness and understanding of our world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Challenge23 said:
My experience matches up with what you are talking about pretty closely.  I was told by Rinpoche that in order to learn Dzogchen I would have to do the Ngondro, learn Phowa, Dream Yoga, Tummo,  and Shinay, then Striking the Essence in Three Phrases by Garab Dorje and then I would be able to learn Dzogchen.  Needless to say I am pretty sure that I won't be able to really buckle down and really learn all that until I retire(I'm soon to be 36 now), if ever.

Malcolm wrote:
None of which was ever required by Garab Dorje.

Dzogchen starts with direct introduction. Once you have received that, you are on a Dzogchen path and you do not need to do all this other stuff first.

Challenge23 said:
Yeah.  The ironic part is that if you would have asked me about 15 years ago if I wanted a group of teachings that would eventually allow me to have a solid foundation in Tibetan magic(which from my understanding I would be very close to by the time I got done with all of those prerequisites) I would have been so interested I would have gone into fits of approval.  However, at the time I just wanted to learn Dzogchen and get on with my life.  Now I'm not sure that all of the time past 20 minutes of meditation 3x a week would be better spent playing World of Warcraft.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you are into magic, just practice Dzogchen and all those results which take years of practice through elaborate rituals can accomplished merely through Dzogchen practice without uttering a single mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Challenge23 said:
My experience matches up with what you are talking about pretty closely.  I was told by Rinpoche that in order to learn Dzogchen I would have to do the Ngondro, learn Phowa, Dream Yoga, Tummo,  and Shinay, then Striking the Essence in Three Phrases by Garab Dorje and then I would be able to learn Dzogchen.  Needless to say I am pretty sure that I won't be able to really buckle down and really learn all that until I retire(I'm soon to be 36 now), if ever.

Malcolm wrote:
None of which was ever required by Garab Dorje.

Dzogchen starts with direct introduction. Once you have received that, you are on a Dzogchen path and you do not need to do all this other stuff first.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Huseng said:
This is interesting (from Bhante's blog above):
The ancient Indians believed that trees would give their bounty on condition that they were treated with a degree of respect and the Buddha told a story to illustrate this very point. Long ago, the mythical King Koravya had an amazing banyan tree in his realm which bore fruit of exceptional sweetness. Everyone in the realm enjoyed the fruit freely and so there was no reason to guard the tree. But one day a man ate his fill of the fruit then broke a branch and went away. So angry was the spirit of the tree by this ingratitude that it caused the tree to bear no more fruit (A.III,369-70).

It seems the idea that trees could be inhabited by "spirits" (I'd be curious what the Pali or Sanskrit would be ... deva?) was widespread.

Malcolm wrote:
Yaḳsās.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
I was going to say that there has got to be an Eastern counterpart specifically related to the idea of Plant Elementals, but here we have it from the Jataka Tales, Tree Spirits:


Huseng said:
I also recall a Jataka tale about two "tree spirits"...

http://www.danielharper.org/story22.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't think this is really canonical, let alone widely accepted. The issue of plant sentience is basically just that the Buddha never said, "Plants are not sentient beings." Within the six paths you don't see plants listed anywhere and even in early Buddhism I've never seen mention of "rebirth as a plant". It might be that even in early times people were uncertain about the "sentient status" of plants.

Malcolm wrote:
Schmidthausen has an interesting monograph on the status of plants in Early Buddhism, his take on it is that early Buddhists did regard plants as sentient in some fashion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It makes me realize the truth of this Upanishadic statement:

"All beings, that exist on earth, are born of food; then they live by food,then again to the food they go at the end . so verily food is the eldest of all creatures. Therefore, it is called the medicament of all. All those who worship food as Brahman obtain all food. Food is indeed the eldest of all creatures. Therefore,it is called the medicine for all. From food all being are born, having been born they grow by food. Food is eaten by the beings and it also eats them. Therefore, it is called food (Anna)."

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

Huseng said:
There is a kind of reassuring comfort knowing that despite having consumed and harmed so many beings in this life, when all is said and done my flesh and blood will nourish many other beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhists spend so much time worrying about the "self" that they fail to appreciate the great and profound wisdom to be gleaned from the rishis who composed the Vedas and Upanishads. Consider the Hymn to Herbs:

1. HERBS that sprang up in time of old, three ages earlier than the Gods,—
Of these, whose hue is brown, will I declare the hundred powers and seven.
2 Ye, Mothers, have a hundred homes, yea, and a thousand are your growths.
Do ye who have a thousand powers free this my patient from disease.
3 Be glad and joyful in the Plants, both blossoming and bearing fruit,
Plants that will lead us to success like mares who conquer in the race.
4 Plants, by this name I speak to you, Mothers, to you the Goddesses:
Steed, cow, and garment may I win, win back thy very self, O man.
5 The Holy Fig tree is your home, your mansion is the Parna tree:
Winners of cattle shali ye be if ye regain for me this man.
6 He who hath store of Herbs at hand like Kings amid a crowd of men,—
Physician is that sage's name, fiend-slayer, chaser of disease.
7 Herbs rich in Soma, rich in steeds, in nourishments, in strengthening power,—
All these have I provided here, that this man may be whole again.
8 The healing virtues of the Plants stream forth like cattle from the stall,—
Plants that shall win me store of wealth, and save thy vital breath, O man.
9 Reliever is your mother's name, and hence Restorers are ye called.
Rivers are ye with wings that fly: keep far whatever brings disease.
10 Over all fences have they passed, as steals a thief into the fold.
The Plants have driven from the frame whatever malady was there.
11 When, bringing back the vanished strength, I hold these herbs within my hand,
The spirit of disease departs ere he can seize upon the life.
12 He through whose frame, O Plants, ye creep member by member, joint by joint,—
From him ye drive away disease like some strong arbiter of strife.
13 Fly, Spirit of Disease, begone, with the blue jay and kingfisher.
Fly with the wind's impetuousspeed, vanish together with the storm.
14 Help every one the other, lend assistance each of you to each,
All of you be accordant, give furtherance to this speech of mine.
15 Let fruitful Plants, and fruitless, those that blossom, and the blossomless,
Urged onward by Bṛhaspati, release us from our pain and grief;
16 Release me from the curse's plague and woe that comes from Varuṇa;
Free me from Yama's fetter, from sin and offence against the Gods.
17 What time, descending from the sky, the Plants flew earthward, thus they spake:
No evil shall befall the man whom while he liveth we pervade,
18 Of all the many Plants whose King is, Soma, Plants of hundred forms,
Thou art the Plant most excellent, prompt to the wish, sweet to the heart.
19 O all ye various Herbs whose King is Soma, that o’erspread the earth,
Urged onward by Bṛhaspati, combine your virtue in this Plant.
20 Unharmed be he who digs you up, unharmed the man for whom I dig:
And let no malady attack biped or quadruped of ours.
21 All Plants that hear this speech, and those that have departed far away,
Come all assembled and confer your healing power upon this Herb.
22 With Soma as their Sovran Lord the Plants hold colloquy and say:
O King, we save from death the man whose cure a Brahman undertakes.
23 Most excellent of all art thou, O Plant thy vassals are the trees.
Let him be subject to our power, the man who seeks to injure us.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10097.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: My Open Message to Gyatrul Rinpoche
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I am absolutely mystified why there has been no public calling to account of this organization by the Palyul organization as a whole.

Malcolm wrote:
Because to acknowledge that there is a problem means that someone is responsible for the problem, and in this case it all leads back to Gyaltrul Rinpoche and Penor Rinpoche.

This is the just the standard Tibetan approach, if you pretend that something isn't a problem, it ceases to be one, theoretically.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, he isn't.

Huseng said:
I also recall a Jataka tale about two "tree spirits"...

http://www.danielharper.org/story22.htm " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is an interesting matter to consider.

It makes me consider a Jain diet to be honest.

Malcolm wrote:
It makes me realize the truth of these Upanishadic statements:

"All beings, that exist on earth, are born of food; then they live by food,then again to the food they go at the end . so verily food is the eldest of all creatures. Therefore, it is called the medicament of all. All those who worship food as Brahman obtain all food. Food is indeed the eldest of all creatures. Therefore,it is called the medicine for all. From food all being are born, having been born they grow by food. Food is eaten by the beings and it also eats them. Therefore, it is called food (Anna)."

And:

He perceived that food is Brahman, for from food these beings are produced; by food, when born, they live; and into food they enter at their death.

And:

Let him never abuse food, that is the rule.
Breath is food', the body eats the food. The body rests on breath, breath rests on the body. This is the food resting on food. He who knows this food resting on food, rests exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to eat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.

Let him never shun food, that is the rule. Water is food, the light eats the food. The light rests on water, water rests on light. This is the food resting on food. He who knows this food resting on food, rests exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to eat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.

Let him acquire much food, that is the rule. Earth is food, the ether eats the food. The ether rests on the earth, the earth rests on the ether. This is the food resting on food. He who knows this food resting on food, rests exalted, becomes rich in food, and able to eat food (healthy), becomes great by offspring, cattle, and the splendour of his knowledge (of Brahman), great by fame.

'I am food (object), I am food, I am food! I am the eater of food (subject), I am the eater of food, I am the eater of food! I am the poet (who joins the two together), I am the poet, I am the poet! I am the first-born of the Right (rita). Before the Devas I was in the centre of all that is immortal. He who gives me away, he alone preserves me: him who eats food, I eat as food.

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


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Plant Sentient
Content:
Huseng said:
Beautiful research.

I've often wondered if trees could be self-aware on some level.

I'm aware that the Jains insist that all plants have souls, hence their unique ideas on vegetarianism.

As far as I know the Buddha is not on record declaring that plants could not be sattva.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Title: Plant Sentient
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/05/02/how-trees-communicate-video/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Yes but not everyone you learn some facts from as is claimed here in error. You could watch a film clip of Hitler or Mao or George W. Bush and learn a few statistics or facts you might not know but then you can't stick them up there in the tree and take refuge which BTW is Buddhist. So you have to weed out some and not include all as Malcolm claims.

Malcolm wrote:
When I first heard this teaching from ChNN in 1992, he said all your teachers, anyone from whom you have learned anything -- he included grade school teachers and so on.

The concept of going for refuge (sharanam) is not strictly Buddhist. Also Hindus go for refuge:

https://youtu.be/4jXAMZtnxn0 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Termas discovered outside of Tibet/Nepal
Content:
Sherlock said:
Have there been any termas discovered outside of Tibet/Nepal in recorded history? Much of Southeast Asia and even the Maldives (and of course even Oddiyana, Gandhara etc) used to practise Vajrayana, and lamas travel around this region all the time, have they uncovered any sidhis here yet? ChNN did receive an initial dream of one of his mind-ters in Singapore but it wasn't really connected to the region from what I've read.


Malcolm wrote:
Not earth treasures, so far as I know.

But the treasures of ChNN are very connected with place --  the Vajradance for example was first revealed at Khandroling just 6 miles from the house I grew up in, in Ashfield, MA, and 7.5 miles away from where I presently live. ChNN will come here to have very specific dreams for new indications for details of his teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


username said:
Not really. You started this whole thing by saying (gist of) going up a hill by a stream or something how you were struck by the beauty of nature and realized being 50 you suddenly felt full of love for all beings and felt the need to apologize to 3 of the biggest damsi mandalas currently going not to mention saying what you said about opposing the nkt and leaving out others you had attacked/argued with but said you mean them all.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually this all started because I said that you don't need much besides the five elements, etc.

I think when we hurt the feelings of others without need, we should make apologies. It does not matter of we think they are samaya breakers or whatever. That concept of "samaya breakers" only functions in the Buddhist world. This kind of thing is all completely relative. And really, in the long run, if someone breaks their samaya thay is their business, and not ours.


username said:
However you soon picked up criticizing TNR who according to many including some of your dead and living gurus was a great siddha. So it was a sudden U-turn in your own words which you deny as gradual. This sort of thing happens to many who are actually quite settled and happy. That is the point.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not criticize TNR, I just said I don't agree with his reasoning about Mt. Meru and so on.

username said:
You have had many shifts of position on Dzogchen. First being an orthodox Sakya. Then saying Dzogchen was the highest. Then before e-sangha's parinirvana you suddenly had another U-turn and said you were wrong and "years of study and sitting on your meditation cushion (realizations?) had led you to beleive that in fact Dzogchen was not above other systems and equivalent to the fourth Word empowerment". Then on this forum you had a fourth U-turn saying Dzogchen was the greatest above others in the Buddhist system. Now you are turning left saying you are not a buddhist and Garab Dorje was not a Buddhist and he is who matters to you not Padmasambhava as for Nyingmapas. But your lineage masters would say they got it from Padmasambhava's lineage who said he and Garab were Buddhists!

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't really say I was not a Buddhist, I said, actually that nominally I was a Buddhist meaning that other people will still consider me a Buddhist, but that I don't care about that label anymore, that I am not really feeling it. I find it is just a lable that causes separation and limitations. So I don't need it anymore. You are welcome to it.

I never said Padmasambhava does not matter to me, but Garab Dorje is more important.



username said:
You tarred me with the same brush

Malcolm wrote:
I did not tar you with any brush -- I simpy disagreed with a statement you made about Gaudapada.

username said:
If you look at most of my postings you will see I was supporting many of your positions and saying I have been at this position all along.

Malcolm wrote:
In the past, yes this is true,
Also as I said this is not the time to start a crusade
No one started a crusade.


username said:
As I said Buddhist is a label but so is Dzogchenpa which you have to concede. Also you quote me saying Buddhism is an illusory upaya, but so is nirvana and the bhumis and as I said the Dzogchen path is also an illusory upaya which you you have to accpet too. So samo samo, and better have the realization that peoples' various conditions have to be respected.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree with all of this.

username said:
The best way to cultivate it is by buddhist relative bodhicitta methods.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a standard sectarian Buddhist view. Oh well.

username said:
All the best Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks, and you too.
M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
Malcolm,

You know for me being Buddhist has nothing to do with belief or intellectual ideas. It is a path. Since I received direct introduction from my Guru 20 years ago I have slowly come to the conclusion that the practices I been working so hard at before receiving direct introduction were actually perfectly designed to make you relax in the natural state.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, never said otherwise.

heart said:
So you can say that the direct introduction verified Buddhism as a valid path for me and also as a very perfect path.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, never said otherwise.

heart said:
When I applauded your now removed blogpost on the inability to separate Dzogchen and Buddhism, that you wrote in response to Jim Valby teaching "Dzogchen without Buddhism", it was of course a lack of openness on my part.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not write that as a reponse to Jim Valby, actually. I wrote that as a response to a title of a program. I removed the post temporarily, because I want to write a response to myself. I don't disagree with many things I said in that post, but I want to clarify somethings.

heart said:
You see I never had any other spiritual path or religion than Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Me either.

I wasn't baptized: me either

never took the first communion: me either

never felt interested i anything but old magic and anarchism: me too

heart said:
In general I must say that I know very little about spiritual paths compared with the people on this forum for example. I think that is a good thing I learned from this discussion, that one actually is limited in many ways. For this reason it is probably a bad idea to say that you have to be a Buddhist to attain full enlightenment, I certainly don't know that. But I am afraid I can't give up the label "Buddhist" because it is the path I am standing on, it is the methods I use, and its heart of wisdom is the Dzogchen Tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said anyone had to change anything. That is not the principle of Dzogchen. Buddhists do not have to change being Buddhist, Xtians do not have to change being Xtians, Hindus do not have to change being Hindus, etc. If they are interested enough to practice Dzogchen, all they have to do is receive introduction and apply the practice, but they don't have change a thing.

heart said:
Anyway Malcolm, you certainly know how to put the house on fire, it is your dramatic streak. Sorry if I come of as the small minded and limited person I am. So, in to the lions mouth with you Loppon Kunga Namdrol Malcolm Smith and may you only know happiness and go from clarity to clarity.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
My apparent "changes" sometimes take people by suprise, and as person born in a Tiger year, it is impossible for me to march to anyone elses drummer.

I never mean to be dramatic, but I guess some people take things I say as dramatic.

Anyway, I appreciate your reply.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Virgo said:
What does this discussion have to do with a mid-life crisis at all.
Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Noithing of course. But because I decided once and for all to depart from the mask I have maitained for years as an orthodox Buddhist polemicist, people are understandably puzzled, critical, or disbelieving.

Once people have fixed you in their minds, if you do not satisfy their criteria of you, they generally become critical. For example, when I originally defended meat-eating on E-Sangha, some people supported that, others did not. When I went through a phase of having personal issues with eating meat, and discussed it, some people supported it, others did not. When I reversed my thinking about it once and for all, some of the people who supported me in my meat-critical phase were understandably puzzled at my reversal of perspective.

Now, some people are do not like the fact that as far as I am concerned, "Buddhism" is just another limitation. They do not like the fact that I am not holding some sacred place for Buddhism over against non-Buddhist religions. They think that this is some sudden shift on my part. But had they really been paying attention to my posts over the years they would have noted my gradual evolution away from "Buddhism" per se.

They have not understood my basic point at all:...when you have received direct introduction, and are diligently applying the practice of Dzogchen, it does not matter at all what you beleive while you are not practicing, it does not matter what your intellectual view is. Dzogchen view is not an intellectual posture, it is a personal experience of instant presence, and no amount of "correct" Buddhist thinking will lead you to that personal experience of your primordial state, and no amount of "incorrect" non-Buddhist thinking will prevent you from having that personal experience of your primordial state if you diligently apply the teaching in practice having received direct introduction.
People seem not to realize that this is precisely what is stated in many Dzogchen tantras and upadeshas.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Buddhism is an illusory upaya...

Malcolm wrote:
Then all your sturm and drung and breast beating is rather unnecessary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Some never fully abandon contradictory beliefs to Dzogchen...

Malcolm wrote:
Including Buddhists as we can clearly see on this forum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Consciousness & the Brain
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In Abhidharma yes, matter comes from mind. In Dzogchen, no. Matter comes from the non-recognition of the five lights.
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.
Consciousness is produced by the body, but it is not primarily located in the brain. It is located in the heart. Even during the process of the rebirth, there is a never a time a when there is a mind is separate from matter.
Even during the process of the rebirth, there is a never a time a when there is a mind is separate from matter.

Bhusuku said:
I find the things you're writing about this topic very interesting and very useful, especially your(?) translations from the Khandro Nyinthig. But since I'm a slow learner and not that particularly bright, I'd like to ask if you can point me to any book where these things are discussed in greater detail?


Malcolm wrote:
Not in English. apart from Lipman's translastion of the some of the same materials in the KN.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
If you bother to read any of the traditional accounts D&G, you will find out that Dzogchen was met with total hostility from Indian Buddhists by and large.
Malcom, I really appreciate your way to judge with open mind and intellectual autonomy  the atrocities of tibetan feudal society and the big  incongruencies you mentioned in various posts. I am serious.

But with the same open mind and intellectual autonomy you should recognize that traditional accounts are often quite far from reality, leaving  a lot of incongruency without solutions, such as the indication that Garab dorje born in the second century BC  and  he transmitted also teaching to Padmasambhava at the same time, having more about  1000 years gap whitout solutions.
For this reason I  take in consideration the positions of various  modern western scholars who doubt the entire story you mention, because as it is impossible having Garab dorje contemporary  of Padmasambhava as the traditional accounts report,  it make sense doubting  the indian or oddiyana origin of Dzogchen because of  lack of historical evidence

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen definitely has an Indian/Oḍḍiyāna origin. Guhyagarbha proves it.

If you wish to refrain from judging whether seventeen tantras, etc., are native Tibetan compositions or not, I can understand this. There are certainly a lot of reasons to suspect that they are, or if they are actually translations then they are very free translations. factually speaking, no one has done enough work on the 17 tantra to know for sure. to identify layers of composition etc.

I can tell you from my research they are very homogenous, and seem to composed by a single author or small group. Some sections read like translations from an Indic language, other sections read like straight up Tibetan. My guess honestly is that they are mixture of both.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Dronma said:
They freely consider themselves as Buddhists! [/b]

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, there are also many people in the DC who consider themselves Buddhists. I know this, obviously, since I used to be one of them.

There are people who consider themselves buddhists and christians, etc. No problem for me at all.

And there are a lot of people in teh DC who do not consider themselves Buddhist at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:38 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
Sonam,
Tunhuang texts you mentioned are  Dzog chen texts - very simple and elementar -  who prove, if ever,  that dzogchen had a chinese diffusion (  Shri Simha origin was chinese as you probably know), but they do not prove that Dzog chen had an Indian diffusion at all.

Furthermore I am not claiming that dzog chen tantra as Kunjed Gyalpo is faulse,  as Dzog Chen detractor loved to state. I am discussing here about another subject: that accoridng to Modern western indpependent scholar there is no evidence  of the   Dzog chen  Indian diffusion


Malcolm wrote:
Shri Singha's nationality is quite debatable -- some people think he was Indo-chinese, other's think he was from central asia. The texts are not very clear. In any event, what is clear is that he met Vimalamitra in India, as well as Vairocana.

As far as your contention above, then you have a hard time explaining Dzogchen in the Guhyagarbha which is a text of proven Indian provenance.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Dronma said:
They consider themselves as Buddhists also.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, no they don't. I can introduce you to many people I know very well in the DC who just do not think of themselves as Buddhist, and if you ask them, they will deny they are Buddhists. If you tell them are taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, they will say, no, I am taking refuge in the Guru, deva and dakini.

Trust me, for years I told all these people they were Buddhists even if they did not care to lable themselves such. Then I understood, and now I accept their point of view. Also I don't feel that need anymore to belong to the religion called "buddhism". And I am pretty expert in "Buddhism", ask anyone -- that is why I have an Acarya degree from the Sakya school, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
Yes...which is why ChNN encourages his Christian students to continue to go to church if they like. I know one member of the DC who is really into the Dzogchen teachings, was a member of the Tsegyalgar Gakyil a couple of years ago, and who is presently studying in a Baptist seminary in Kentucky. His facebook page combines Dzogchen symbols like A, Aom, and Hūṃ with Jesus and the Apostles.
Despite the fact you seem enthusiastic in presenting this nice melt pot Christian-Dzogchen as a step forward in Dzogchen  free diffusion in the global village, it would be interesting to understand how this guy can at the same time follow dzog chen view, where there is no God to pray and the only ultimate refuge is your own nature of mind (as explained in Lonchen Nyntig as for the ultimate Gururyoga), with the teistic Christian approach when you can be saved only because of the grace of Jesus and you have to pray him as a god in order to be saved.

These are 2 tawas very difficult to practice at the same time.....

Malcolm wrote:
As ChNN says, if you regard god a symbol of your primodial potentiality, then there is no problem. In any event, you can just keep assuming that your point of view is right util you decide differently. For example, last night I had a discussion with an SMS teacher, and he felt there was no problem at all in including Jesus in your refuge tree.

I used to be like you, a True Buddhist(tm) member of Dzogchen Community and  always had (minor) arguments with people who did share your (and my former) POV. I gave it up because my former view (your present view) and Rinpoches teachings on these issues do not correspond. There are very few people I know in the community that have your POV. But it is ok, I respect it even if I don't agree with it for many reasons, not least of which is that I read TIbetan fluently and have access to the originals.

But I did not give up my former POV based on ChNN's say so. I gave it up because I personally understood that all this stuff which is so important to you, dronma, magnus, adamantine, greg and kalsang yungdrung was completely extraneous to the teachings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
[
" Buddhist ostility was the cause of Dzog chen desappearing in India"  as if it were matter of fact, as you do.

Malcolm wrote:
If you bother to read any of the traditional accounts D&G, you will find out that Dzogchen was met with total hostility from Indian Buddhists by and large.

When Vimalamitra left for Tibet, he brought the sole copy of Nyingthig cycle with him, as well as the remaining texts of sems sde and klong sde.

rdzogs pa chen po, incidentally, in the language of Oḍḍiyāna is santimahā, not mahāsandhi (Sanskrit).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Consciousness & the Brain
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Even during the process of the rebirth, there is a never a time a when there is a mind is separate from matter.

jeeprs said:
And vice versa?

Malcolm wrote:
You can draw that inference if you like. It is controversial from a Buddhist standpoint, but not from a Dzogchen standpoint.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Paul said:
Hi Malcolm - thanks for posting all that.

Most of that, especially sections like this:
Malcolm wrote:
Further, to begin with,  the body is formed by ignorance of the wisdom of basis. The nature of wisdom in that body is the refined part of the five elements,  present in the material bindu as the play of the kāyas and wisdoms. Since their luminous radiance arose as light, it is given the name “three wisdoms”.

Paul said:
seems to be linked to the theory and practice of togal. Is is of any direct relevance to the practice of trekcho?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it explains how one's impure vision evolved.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Male and female
Content:
justsit said:
A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have, 1-2 million. Only one to maybe 9-10 eggs max are available during each monthly cycle, contrasted with billions of sperm per ejaculation. At fertilization, one egg is fertilized by one sperm. How does "profuse" apply here to determine sex?

Malcolm wrote:
It basically has to do with how the quantity of female sexual fluids during the time of arousal, or amount of ejaculate. This is how I understand it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes I see that now. You are right. I'm sorry I doubted what you said.

Malcolm wrote:
It makes our job as Dzogchen practitioners a lot easier. Of course if it is useful, we can study anything. But after a certain point, spending time on becoming expert in Madhyamaka, or Mahyoga, etc., is kind of a waste of time unless you are going to be a teacher. Even then, maybe not so useful. This is why I abandoned my sutra studies for Medicine. Medicine is useful, Dogchen is useful -- the rest of it is not so useful. Someday the Dzogchen tantras and texts like Khandro Nyingthig will be available and people will be able to focus on Dzogchen teachings alone.

Also, the above is just an indication, it is not enough for practice. You need to find a qualified teacher to practice the above. Fortunately, klong sde is sufficient.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Wow thanks Malcolm!
Paul - many thanks too!


Malcolm wrote:
As I said to understand Dzogchen all you need to understand is the five elements, and to cut grasping to solidity, the examples of illusion, how else do you think illiterate cowherds can attain rainbow body -- of course at a certain point their prajñā flowers and they understand everything without need to study.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Adamantine said:
Statements like this prove to me you have really missed my point.

Malcolm wrote:
So maybe express your point more clearly. [/quote]

I expressed it pretty clearly, but people keep on coming with whatifs and maybes.

My point was only this -- anyone at all can practice Dzogchen a) without abandoning their previous faith b) without converting to Buddhism.

Adamantine said:
I don't think he means that, but is that what you are saying?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes...which is why ChNN encourages his Christian students to continue to go to church if they like. I know one member of the DC who is really into the Dzogchen teachings, was a member of the Tsegyalgar Gakyil a couple of years ago, and who is presently studying in a Baptist seminary in Kentucky. His facebook page combines Dzogchen symbols like A, Aom, and Hūṃ with Jesus and the Apostles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


AilurusFulgens said:
Malcolm, is this the Kunnu Lama you were talking about?

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Khunu_Lama_Tenzin_Gyaltsen " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


AilurusFulgens said:
May I ask, what is the reference for the statement that Kunnu Lama met sadhus in Varanasi in the 1930s, who were Cakrasamvara practitioners. I am very interested in this. In which text was this mentioned?

Malcolm wrote:
Oral communication to me by one of his western students.

AilurusFulgens said:
Do you think that these traditions still exist today? I mean unbroken, native Indian lineages of Vajrayana?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

AilurusFulgens said:
Btw, I read the excellent article about Buddhaguptanatha written by Templeman and would concur with your view that the situation concerning the destruction of Vajrayana in India is much more complex than it appears to be.

It would be interesting to see the true extent of the connections between the Nathas and Vajrayana - apart from the token "Gorakshanatha is one of the 84 Mahasiddhas".

Malcolm wrote:
And the fact that the 80 Siddhas are mentioned as part of the Nath lineage.

AilurusFulgens said:
Is there any indication that the Nathas might have practiced Dzogchen teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
I have no idea. But Nathas used to visit Tibet a lot and it is possible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The elements form from the non-recognition of of the five lights of connected with the five wisdoms.

Andrew108 said:
This is particularly hard to grasp since the elements described here seem to be co-emergent with individual ignorance. Or is it more that the elements are 'held in place' as a conceptual form rather than how they are originally constructed? Is it possible to elaborate on this? How would the element of water form from the non-recognition of the five lights? Hope you can help.

Malcolm wrote:
The Khandro Nyinthig states:
Since that mind arose as automatic manifestation of six mental apprehenders, the five elements are produced. Since those are not recognized as the five wisdoms, the five elements assemble in dependence upon grasping those [five wisdoms]. Since those assemble, the body forms through the action of one [element] assisting the other. With that forms the apprehended and the apprehender.
And: As such, that basis, the natural reality of things, the great intrinsic energy of wisdom, the dharmakāya, was not recognized, and because of the stains of grasping to it, the elements assemble; the body forms from them, and based on that [body], one wanders in samsara until one ages and dies.
And: Since the five energies of wisdom are unceasing, the body forms from the five elements. Since two kāyas are integrated with the relative elements, that previous understanding of the intrinsic energy of wisdom is totally forgotten. The ultimate four elements is the dharmakāya, the relative four elements is the sambogakāya. Nirmanakāya is the lack of sameness and difference of the two kāyas.
And: To sum it all up, ignorant attachment to dualistic appearances assembles the energy of wisdom into the elements, and forms the body in actuality.
And: Energy is produced unceasingly from that wisdom. Since that energy was not recognized, that apparent and natureless radiant luminosity of wisdom arose as the empty luminosity of the five lights. [430] Within that, since this thinker of thoughts grasps the unceasing energy of wisdom, and since that five colored energy is assembled as the elements, therefore, the body, flesh, blood, warmth, breath, channels and so on are formed from that energy of wisdom. For as long as the mind and the body do not separate, the channels, vāyus, bindus, wisdoms and so on are inseparable. Since that is not recognized as such and the one is grasped as many, like the nameless becoming named, since the five wisdoms, the five afflictions, and so on are divisions in one thing, also those wishing for Buddhahood have aggregates, without contacting the meaning of this even slightly.  With this everything is recognized as coming from the energy of wisdom. Since inseparability is recognized,  therefore the defiled also comes from the energy of wisdom. Also that self-liberated from the mind, and as the defiled does not appear, Buddhahood is attained in the expanse of wisdom. Therefore, it is inseparable. Others hold them as different, and respond with practice.
And:... after the body formed because the energy of initial vidyā was not recognized as wisdom, there is delusion because of the grasping of materiality, and wandering in samsara.
And: The relative material bindu is the intrinsic radiance of those five wisdoms of the originally pure dharmadhātu externally manifesting as five lights, after which, the elements are produced upon the mere traces of grasping of the mind. Further, the natural reality of that mind (that established in anyway) is space. Whether that is like this or not, the energy of that vivid luminosity arising as the diversity, that is called “vāyu”, it is called “mind”. Though luminosity is called mind, because of movement, it is called “vāyu”. When examined, it is not established in anyway. Also luminosity is not established, also movement is not established, also inseparability is not established. 

Since that is not recognized, since that energy that grasps so called “vāyu” produces heat, there is fire. For example, just as when sweat and heat is produced when a person does hard work, [fire] is produced from that grasping onto heat. When the heat of fire touches the ground, water is produced in the form of vapor. Since grasping onto that energy of wisdom arose, the outer five elements are produced, caused one by one. The five elements form matter. Since grasping onto that arose, the five elements assemble, and the body forms through the condition of the five refined parts of those [elements], one by one. 

If it is asked why, now then to begin with, the energy of wisdom is vāyu, from that is heat; from that, earth; from that, water: since each assists another, the body develops more i.e. the body actually forms out of the refined part of the five elements. That [body] is pervaded by the refined part of the five elements. The refined parts and that energy of wisdom are given the name “channels, vāyus, and bindu”. The energy of wisdom is the five elements. Since wisdom is present in them, there are five wisdoms. That is given the name material bindu. Wisdom is inseparably present within that material bindu.
And: Further, to begin with,  the body is formed by ignorance of the wisdom of basis. The nature of wisdom in that body is the refined part of the five elements,  present in the material bindu as the play of the kāyas and wisdoms. Since their luminous radiance arose as light, it is given the name “three wisdoms”.
And: Though the body is formed form ignorance of the basis, as soon as that is recognized, it is not beyond wisdom in the beginning, the end and in the middle.
Etc. this text just goes on and on in the same vein.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
muni said:
The old kadampa from Lama Atisha, respected by the Nyingmapa is not the new kadampa from Je Tsongkapa, which came later.


Malcolm wrote:
The main opponents of Dzogchen in the tenth century in Tibet were the Kadampas, hence Rongzom's Theg chen tshul 'jug, Introduction to Mahāyāna Principles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
it is uncorrect under many POVs proposing the reduction that dzogchen desappeared from India because of Buddhist hostility.
Well Malcom but you did not answer to the main point above

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, thought you knew your Dzogchen history better. There was only one copy of the Dzogchen tantras, according to the traditional accounts and it existed at Nalanda. When the Nalanda panditas, hostile to Dzogchen already (they didn't very much like all this talk about a result without a cause, a buddhahood that does not come from mind, and an upadesha that is not based on citations), heard that Vimala had been invited to Tibet, they dispatched with him the last remaining copies of the Dzogchen tantras in India and Dzogchen vanished forever from the Indian Subcontinent thenceforth. So it is absolutely correct to observe that Dzogchen disappeared from India due to Buddhist hostility against Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:08 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
The answer is that due to Buddhist hostility against Dzogchen teachings, Dzogchen completlety died out in India. It was preserved in Tibet by Tibetans.
Malcom, As matter of fact not only Dzogchen desappeared from India, but all Buddhism in general, Vajrayana included, due to the Muslims' activity.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna survived in India until at least the 16th century, as witnessed by the fact that one of Taranatha's most important gurus was  Nath sadhu by the name of Buddhaguptanatha, from whom Taranatha received the Tarayogini tantra and transmissions, which had not been brought to Tibet prior to this time. There are another Nath, by the name of Vajranatha, who in the 15th century taught Drikung Rinchen Phunstok as well as Khyentse Wangchuck an important collection of teachings which continues in both Sakya and Drikung. The demise of Vajrayāna in India is greatly overstated. In fact Kunnu Lama recounts meeting sadhus who were Cakrasamvara practitioners in the 1930s when he was in Varanasi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
That Bonpos "don't feel" them not Buddhist, that is more a word game in so far Bon has a Buddha inside their Lineage.
But we have Chos Pas and Bon Pos and not Buddhists inside Tibet, remarkable.
Also misunderstood for non-Bonpos, that the Buddha Shakyamuni was a student from the Bon Buddha, so he is known in Bon by name.
So Bon can sure be called Buddist in that sense but is spoken different, for some reasons.

Malcolm wrote:
And up until the HHDL accepted Bon as a "fifth school" of Tibetan Buddhism, most so called chos pa would not accept bonpos as "nang pas" i.e. insiders. You just read Dudjom Rinpoche's highly critical remarks about Bon in his History of the Nyingma School


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Adamantine said:
I just think anyone who wants to practice Dzogchen is inevitably practicing the Buddhadharma. . .

Malcolm wrote:
There are just as many concepts in Dzogchen that absolutely contradict accepted Buddhist ideas.


Adamantine said:
Do you agree with him now?

Malcolm wrote:
Why would I agree with that? Statements like this prove to me you have really missed my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Mariusz said:
To have faith for example in no bardo state after death at all, and practice rushen according to it, is the experiment. I don't like further to write on rushen because I'm not allowed.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand your position now -- you have to accept Buddhist teachings otherwise you are not suitable candidate for Dzogchen -- is that about right? Otherwise you are "experimenting", which is a bad thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
No, I wasn't asking about ethnicity.. I was asking about Buddhist background. .You cry murder when you feel someone else twists your words but like to freely do it yourself.

Josef said:
Why does it matter?
On this planet at least we can probably say that there are none without the Bon or Buddhist background yet.
But again, why does this matter?


Malcolm wrote:
It matters because for them Dzogchen is "Buddhist", with a charitable shout out to the recently validatd "Buddhist" Bonpos.

And you have a good point, there are also thirteen other world systems were Dzogchen is taught. I don't think you will find a Buddhist or Bonpo sangha in any of them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Yeah, who are the great Dzogchen masters in the last few centuries that didn't have a Buddhist or Buddhist-colored Bon background?

Malcolm wrote:
First, I thought you were referring to those with monastic educations from the way you framed your question --my error.

The question is who in the past 1000 years has been a great Dzogchen master who was not Tibetan. The answer is that due to Buddhist hostility against Dzogchen teachings, Dzogchen completlety died out in India. It was preserved in Tibet by Tibetans. So only Tibetans have been great Dzogchen masters for many centuries.

That will now change.

Adamantine said:
No, I wasn't asking about ethnicity.. I was asking about Buddhist background. .You cry murder when you feel someone else twists your words but like to freely do it yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
The Bonpos don't feel influenced by Buddhism so, unless you are gainsaying them, there have been many great Bonpo Dzogchen masters since the 10th century, begining with Shenchen Luga. You may wish to insist they are Buddhist, but I remember when we shut down the Bon forum because on E-Sangha because Kalsang Yundrung refused to admit he took refuge in Sakyamuni Buddha as a Bonpo. We decided that E-Sangha was for Buddhists, and Bonpos were not included under that rubric.  Bonpos sure don't feel Buddhist. Try telling Loppon Tenzin Namdag he is a Buddhist and see how far you get.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:42 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Mariusz said:
I'm not so brave to experiment with other yet incompatible supports like other religions/atheism. So I'd like the quickest

Malcolm wrote:
Yet another misconception -- no one has suggested expirimenting with other religions.

To reiterate, people may, if they are interested, learn and practice Dzogchen without converting to Buddhism or abandoning their previous faiths. What is so difficult to understand about this statement?

I have no where said that anyone should feel compelled to rush out and become a Hari Krishna. I have basically said that a Dzogchen practitioner should feel free to go anywhere and study anything they feel will be useful for their personal path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Yeah, who are the great Dzogchen masters in the last few centuries that didn't have a Buddhist or Buddhist-colored Bon background?

Malcolm wrote:
First, I thought you were referring to those with monastic educations from the way you framed your question --my error.

The question is who in the past 1000 years has been a great Dzogchen master who was not Tibetan. The answer is that due to Buddhist hostility against Dzogchen teachings, Dzogchen completlety died out in India. It was preserved in Tibet by Tibetans. So only Tibetans have been great Dzogchen masters for many centuries.

That will now change.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Male and female
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If semen is more profuse, it will be a boy. If the ovum is more profuse then it will be a girl. If both are in equal portion, then the child will be homosexual or intersexed.

M

justsit said:
Do you mean profuse as in absolute numbers?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in terms of quantity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Isn't it interesting that such a vastly realized Dzogchenpa could emerge from such a corrupt system such as Tibetan Buddhism?


Malcolm wrote:
Lotuses grow in mud.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
So where is there an example of a great master of Dzogchen in the last 1000 years who didn't have this background?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you serious?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
So whose personal experience of the bardos and the purelands are we talking about, --which practitioners exactly?

Malcolm wrote:
Since you don't know the answers to these questions I suggest you ask your teacher.

M

Adamantine said:
I wouldn't ask my teacher about your claims.. I am asking you.

Malcolm wrote:
One can understand the experience of the bardo of dharmatā and the pure nirmanakaȳa buddhafields  experientially in this life, you don't have to wait. If you want to understand this experientially, ask your teacher.I am not your teacher, so don't ask me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
"Timeless awareness" is a translator's gloss of the term ye shes. You cannot understand Dzogchen without understand the terms and a bit of tibetan grammer. These are the various ways this term has been translated:

ye shes - jnana, (exalted, primordial) wisdom, (primal, transcending, original, unitary, authentic, pure, absolute, a priori, genuine, spiritual, ever-fresh, pristine) awareness, wakefulness, pristine cognition, mystic illumination, gnosis, understanding by peak experience, (intuitive, transcending, comprehensive, true) knowledge, SA mched pa'i ye shes, mnyam nyid ye shes, me long ye shes, chos dbyings ye shes, bya sgrub ye shes, sor rtog ye shes, perfect absolute divine wisdom, pristine wisdom, primordial awareness, timeless awareness

Since the brain is made of five elements, it too is made of the five wisdoms (ye shes) of vidyā. Therefore, there is no problem with awareness, etc., having a basis in the body. Actually, what we say in Dzogchen is that the wisdom of vidyā is located in the heart, the energy of vidyā is located in the brain, where it governs sense organs and cognitions.

M

Andrew108 said:
Thanks Malcolm very useful. I understand the 'ever-fresh' aspect to it in the sense that it's so fresh that it seems unborn, but in what way can ye she be said to come into existence? I mean if ye shes is indeterminate or ever-fresh then in what sense are the elements 'formed'? What accounts for perceived 'duration' of the elements'?

Malcolm wrote:
Ye nas means "has always been...", it contrasts another grammatical phrase rtag tu i.e. "...will always be".

Wisdom has no origin, it formed naturally. Hence the metaphor of the peacock feather.

The elements form from the non-recognition of of the five lights of connected with the five wisdoms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
You keep talking about that, "personal experience" at the same
time you keep talking about the realization of Dzogchen practice not being
fully accomplished until the bardo, or some time in purelands, for the
majority of practitioners.
So whose personal experience are we referring to here?

Malcolm wrote:
The practitioners, of course.

Adamantine said:
So whose personal experience of the bardos and the purelands are we talking about, --which practitioners exactly?

Malcolm wrote:
Since you don't know the answers to these questions I suggest you ask your teacher.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Anders said:
What does that make Longchenpa? Was he just being a Buddhist apologist when he wrote the Great Chariot?

No small amount of hubris in some of the statements being made here.

Sönam said:
Sorry, I am not able to set a relation between what I've said and what you answer. Longchenpa, like all we are had his own culture, but why would he be an apologist? You mean Longchenpa was all along on the institution side?

Sorry, develop please
Sönam

Anders said:
I mean Longchenpa wrote extensively on the integration of Dzogchen into a graduated 9-yana scheme, in works such as the Great Chariot. To reduce all this to no more than the political pressure of Buddhist institutions that we can now do away with as an artefact of history reads to my mind like saying that works like the Great Chariot are in fact no more than apologetic propaganda for 'the institution'.

Malcolm wrote:
The Great Chariot was written pretty early Longchenpa's career. As such is presents the standard tantra, agama, upadesha approach to Dzogchen made famous at Kathog monastery combined with the so called kadampa style bstan rim (stages of the teachings). He was educated at the Kadampa University, Sangphu.

Other texts such as the yod bzhin mdzod and the grub mtha' mdzod are mainly polemical defenses of Dzogchen trying to site it within the nine yānas scheme.

Texts such as the tshig don mdzod, chos dbyings mdzod, theg mchog mdzod, and the gnas lugs mdzod however present Dzogchen itself in and of itself, as an independent vehicle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
You keep talking about that, "personal experience" at the same
time you keep talking about the realization of Dzogchen practice not being
fully accomplished until the bardo, or some time in purelands, for the
majority of practitioners.
So whose personal experience are we referring to here?

Malcolm wrote:
The practitioners, of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
Still don't agree with that Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you need to reread your history of Dzogchen in India and in Tibet. I think you missed some chapters.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Dzogchen is no longer presented as the apex of years of practice of other yanas. The practitioner starts with Dzogchen practice and ends with Dzogchen practice.

heart said:
While you are doing the list on corrupt Lama's could you please make a list of Lama's that teach Dzogchen in this way? I never met even one.

/magnus

Sherlock said:
Namkhai Norbu and KDL. Probably a few others too, I think http://youngedrodulling.org/2012retreat.shtml is doing that as well for one.


Malcolm wrote:
FAIK, only ChNN and KDL. Not Khachab.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
The only thing I didn't like was his idea that Dzogchen in reality was foreign to both Buddhism and Bon. This I don't agree on.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, what I said was that the primary hostility aimed at Dzogchen has always come from Buddhists. I said that the Bonpoas were never hostile to Dzogchen. They incorporated it in everything, even their "abidharma".

Funny, you are the first person ever to call me "dramatic".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
Malcolm and Dechen and everyone else that feel that Tibetan Buddhism is just a about money, power and sex. Please, in the interest of all can you list all corrupt teachers that you know about and what they have done? I think it is quite important to be open about these things and even the Dalai Lama have said that if one is sure about a Lama being corrupt one should call the newspapers (or something like that). I find it very difficult to respond to these allegations when I have no idea what you are talking about or what your personal experience is. My personal experience with Dharma been a mixed bag but I don't know any Lama that I could call corrupt, but I might be very gullible or just lucky.

/magnus

Adamantine said:
I would appreciate this list too.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no point in trotting out a laundry list. It does not change anything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
When one has eliminated the traces of afflcition and action in one's own five elements ones body reverts to its original state as five lights, hence "The body of light".

Andrew108 said:
Malcom - could you talk about 'timeless awareness'. I see the term in translations so often. For me the term is key because it seems to point to an awareness that is not temporal or brain-based (if we accept the commonly held view that the brain is key to temporality). Can you comment on this? Isn't time and experience mistaken?

Malcolm wrote:
"Timeless awareness" is a translator's gloss of the term ye shes. You cannot understand Dzogchen without understand the terms and a bit of tibetan grammer. These are the various ways this term has been translated:

ye shes - jnana, (exalted, primordial) wisdom, (primal, transcending, original, unitary, authentic, pure, absolute, a priori, genuine, spiritual, ever-fresh, pristine) awareness, wakefulness, pristine cognition, mystic illumination, gnosis, understanding by peak experience, (intuitive, transcending, comprehensive, true) knowledge, SA mched pa'i ye shes, mnyam nyid ye shes, me long ye shes, chos dbyings ye shes, bya sgrub ye shes, sor rtog ye shes, perfect absolute divine wisdom, pristine wisdom, primordial awareness, timeless awareness

Since the brain is made of five elements, it too is made of the five wisdoms (ye shes) of vidyā. Therefore, there is no problem with awareness, etc., having a basis in the body. Actually, what we say in Dzogchen is that the wisdom of vidyā is located in the heart, the energy of vidyā is located in the brain, where it governs sense organs and cognitions.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Nyala Rinpoche Rigdzin Changchub Dorje
Content:
Sherlock said:
His disciples probably, like ChNN. Actually I think it's unclear if he was really illiterate or just unschooled in all the classical literature. I hope the Communists only destroyed his discs and the texts are still somewhere.


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN has a complete collection of all surviving manuscripts that made it through cultural revolution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Male and female
Content:
Virgo said:
Is there Buddhist and/or medical reasons why children are born either male or female?  What causes birth as a particular sex?  Are people always born as one or the other successively over lifetimes or does it change?

Thanks for any responses.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
There are reasons connected with karma and with biology. Tibetan Medicine emphasizes the biological aspect more. If semen is more profuse, it will be a boy. If the ovum is more profuse then it will be a girl. If both are in equal portion, then the child will be homosexual or intersexed.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Consciousness & the Brain
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
[
You are believing in a different metaphysical system, that's all. There's nothing factual about it. Those materialist claims about the brain creating consciousness are nothing but fallacious metaphysical extrapolations. Question that also, for goodness sake, especially because they contradict your own experience! Don't swallow hook, line and sinker.

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness is produced by the body, but it is not primarily located in the brain. It is located in the heart. Even during the process of the rebirth, there is a never a time a when there is a mind is separate from matter.

Sherlock said:
So the vayus are technically "matter"?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they are composed of the element of air (vāyu).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Clarence said:
So, one uses Thogal to bring the 5 elements back to the 5 lights?


Malcolm wrote:
When one has eliminated the tracesof afflcition and action in one's own five elements ones body reverts to its original state as five lights, hence "The body of light".

Clarence said:
And one uses Thogal to accomplish that?


Malcolm wrote:
or klong sde, or yang ti, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
No, I was not aware of this.  That's very interesting.  I take it you mean the first Ju Mipham left the letter?  Where can one find a reference for this?  Thanks!

Malcolm wrote:
I think if you read any detailed bio of MIpham you can discover this fact. I forgot where I read this, but it was in an academic work.

Perhaps in Kapstein. In any event, as far as I am concerned there are no tulkus of Mipham who are in reality reincarnations of Mipham.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Consciousness & the Brain
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
[
You are believing in a different metaphysical system, that's all. There's nothing factual about it. Those materialist claims about the brain creating consciousness are nothing but fallacious metaphysical extrapolations. Question that also, for goodness sake, especially because they contradict your own experience! Don't swallow hook, line and sinker.

Malcolm wrote:
Consciousness is produced by the body, but it is not primarily located in the brain. It is located in the heart. Even during the process of the rebirth, there is a never a time a when there is a mind is separate from matter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
...but other are incompatible for complete realization of Dzogchen including the 4 visions.

Malcolm wrote:
Right. I understand how you feel. I just don't happen to agree with you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Clarence said:
So, one uses Thogal to bring the 5 elements back to the 5 lights?


Malcolm wrote:
When one has eliminated the tracesof afflcition and action in one's own five elements ones body reverts to its original state as five lights, hence "The body of light".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
I have no problem with this except that I personally feel incapable to, among the huge amount of worldly Dharma systems that exist, even guess which are of short term or long term benefit. I certainly can't say if any of them will eventually lead to liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
All of them are Samantabhadra's vehicles.



heart said:
Of course, at this point you are debating with ChNNs statement. But I will endeavor to set out what I take away from it. People have generated traditions around Dzogchen. Those traditions are secondary. The rig pa'i rtsal dbang is much misunderstood. It is not a ritual, though it can be packaged in one. The rig pa'i rtsal dbang is direct introduction. Dzogchen transmission depends solely on direct introduction. Direct introduction can be given in myriad ways, there is no set tradition.
Which of these interpretation of "tradition" do you think ChNNR intend? Because certainly some of these above does corresponds pretty good with both Dzogchen and Dzogchen Community.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen Community is not Dzogchen, just like the thun book is not Dzogchen practice.


heart said:
No matter how direct introduction is achieved, it certainly can happen in many different ways, ChNNR himself have regularly been given three special transmissions every year according to a preset and that can, at least to a certain degree be called a ritual.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is a rite that goes with the WW transmission days. But direct introduction is not restricted to that and does not depend on that.


heart said:
The Dzogchen tantras themselves maintain that no distinction is made in Dzogchen between those of higher capacity and lower capacity, good karmic accumulations or negative.
Well, Jigme Lingpa certainly do that distinction in the Yeshe Lama.

Malcolm wrote:
I prefer to follow what Dzogchen tantras say. Tri Yeshe Lama is important, but it is not the end all be all of Dzogchen.

heart said:
Quite literally there are differences between the paths of renunciation (yānas 1-3), transformation (4-8), and self-liberation (ati).

As I have pointed out endlessly, there is a difference between Hināyāna and Mahāyāna, for example. Important differences in vows, conduct, practice, methods, etc. What is permissible in one is not permissible in the other. This also applies to Vajrayāna - what is permissible in Vajrayāna is not permissible in Mahāyāna. In Dzogchen there are no rules.
That things are different don't meant that they are incompatible or in any kind of conflict.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen practitioners can and should eat meat. Mahāyanists should never eat meat. If you want to wish away the various contradictions that exist in the three or nine yānas, which are demonstrated in tantras such as kun byed rgyal po to be misakes and devitions, feel free.

heart said:
Sakyamuni did not teach Dzogchen so far as anyone knows -- there is no record of it in the original tantras of Dzogchen.
Except that he, for example in the Vima Nyingthik, is counted among the twelve Dzogchen Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as has been pointed out endlessly, the reason for this is not that he taught Dzogchen, but because he predicted Garab Dorje. Also, the source of the twelve teachers is sgra thal gyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Because the sympathy for the Teachings of the Buddha one is called a Buddhist and not anymore a Muslim etc.

Mariusz said:
I agree with this approach. Having it no any intolerance and bias is needed. Also no any need for the new theory of "universal Dzogchen for every religion" or something fancy the same.

Malcolm wrote:
Not Dzogchen for every religion -- Dzogchen for every person regardless of religion.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Paul said:
I really recommend reading through all of Malcolm's posts on this issue to clarify things.

asunthatneversets said:
I do too but I'm not sure if a materialist view is being propagated. I don't discount the fact that gross physicality is unbelievably compelling and seems 100% real but investigate this belief. The body in a dream can also seem very real and subject to compelling experiences.

Malcolm wrote:
The five elements form out of the five light of the wisdom of rigpa under the influence of ignorance. Everything is made out of the five elements. The division between sentient and non-sentient appears, but do not believe in it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 7:49 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
You really think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Jains, Rastafarians, Atheists, Agnostics, Scientific Materialists, Nihilists in general.. you think they can all easily accept and participate in Dzogchen teachings and practice when a big part of it is regarding Bardos and Buddhafields? And you believe that these teachings are not Buddhist?

Who is going to spend all of their time practicing something that most likely they will never see the biggest benefit from until after they die, in the "bardo" or "pureland", when they don't believe in bardos or purelands?

Malcolm wrote:
Since Dzogchen is based on personal experience, anyone can practice if they are interested, no matter what they beleive. If they are not interested, what can we do? But if they are interested, they do not need to be converted to Buddhism in order to benefit from Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Let's take another example:  the 17th Karmapa Thaye Trinley Dorje is a tulku, recognised by tulkus, whose father is a tulku (the third Ju Mipham)

Malcolm wrote:
This is a littel off topic -- but you do realize that Mipham left a letter expressly stating that he was not coming back as a tulku at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti, Prasanapada
[Valid cognitions and valid objects] are established through mutual dependence . When valid cognitions exist, then there are things that are objects of comprehension. When there are things that are objects of comprehension then they are valid cognitions. However neither valid cognitions nor objects of comprehension exist essentially

Malcolm wrote:
The point the Vigravahavyavartani makes is that they cannot be mutually established. If a pramāṇā is a pramāṇa, it does not need a prameya; and vice versa.

M

cloudburst said:
As always, one must examine the discussion in its own context. This point made by the Vigravahavyavartani is directed at Nyayika logicians who are attempting to show that an independent pramana, which had already been shown by Nagarjuna to be in impossibility, is mutually established with it's independent object. Nagarjuna shoots down this move and explains that these two cannot be mutually established since establishing something that is already established would make no sense.

As the quotation from Chandrakirti demonstrates, neither valid cognitions nor objects of comprehension exist independently, but they are established in mutual dependence.

Therefore your point
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.


cloudburst said:
is refuted and done.

Malcolm wrote:
What you fail to recognize is that there was no system of Buddhist pramāṇa at this time. Bhavaviveka's intrested in syllogism is post-Dignaga etc.

Since there can be no ultimately established prameya, there can be no ultimately established pramāṇa, and if you argue they established mutually, they are relative and therefore, not ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
...but Dzogchen in my opinion is impossible to value fully if 1. you haven't built a Buddhist identity and had Dzgchen deconstruct it and 2. you haven't at least understood the implications of absence of self.

Malcolm wrote:
I respect your opinion, but I differ becuase this is not how it is taught in the original Dzogchen tantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
So you actually consider Dzogchen Dharma? Does Dharma include any other parts of Buddhism for you?

Malcolm wrote:
Dharma includes all nine yānas. To the extent that so called "Buddhists" and "non-Buddhists" comport with one or another of these yānas, they are Dharma practitioners. To the extent they do not, they are not. "Buddhism" is a label. Dharma is a practice. One is a category, one is a function. You can call yourself a "buddhist" and not practice Dharma -- there are many people like this. You can not call yourself a "buddhist" and be a Dharma practitioner, there are also many people like this. You can call yourself a "buddhist" and a be Dharma practitioner, there are also many people like this.

There are many Dharmas out there for many different people. Some of those Dharmas do not fit in the category of "Buddhism" i.e. the Dharma directly taught by the Buddha, but because they lead people to better rebirths, result in happiness in this life, and so on -- these systems are considered Dharma and if people practice according to to them, eventually they will acheive total liberation. Even though these so called tirthika systems are couched on a metaphyical language of unacceptable to Buddhists, and so on, even here it is possible that people can have profound experiences. This is obvious because they report it to be so.

heart said:
Isn't it true that there is a rather large set of teachings of Dzogchen that do have a tradition? This tradition seems to have been rather private, meaning closed doors (even a guard)? There is even one tradition of the "nyengyu" that is only from one person to one other. There is a tradition of transmitting the text i.e. given "lung" of the texts you give teaching on. There is a tradition of giving "rigpai tsal wang" to the student. So what exactly do you mean with no tradition here when talking about Dzogchen as a teaching?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, at this point you are debating with ChNNs statement. But I will endeavor to set out what I take away from it. People have generated traditions around Dzogchen. Those traditions are secondary. The rig pa'i rtsal dbang is much misunderstood. It is not a ritual, though it can be packaged in one. The rig pa'i rtsal dbang is direct introduction. Dzogchen transmission depends solely on direct introduction. Direct introduction can be given in myriad ways, there is no set tradition.


heart said:
I agree on this but I fail to see any serious conflict. Various ways of presenting the teaching dependent on the persons listening exist also in Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen tantras themselves maintain that no distinction is made in Dzogchen between those of higher capacity and lower capacity, good karmic accumulations or negative.

heart said:
Teachings are a coherent way to present the Dharma so that it will benefit the persons listening.This however can happen at many different levels at the same time. This is because of the superior qualities of Dharma. I for example often feel that no matter on what level my Guru teach I hear Dzogchen. In this way I don't, in a very direct way, feel any conflict between Dzogchen and sutra/tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Quite literally there are differences between the paths of renunciation (yānas 1-3), transformation (4-8), and self-liberation (ati).

As I have pointed out endlessly, there is a difference between Hināyāna and Mahāyāna, for example. Important differences in vows, conduct, practice, methods, etc. What is permissible in one is not permissible in the other. This also applies to Vajrayāna - what is permissible in Vajrayāna is not permissible in Mahāyāna. In Dzogchen there are no rules.


heart said:
For this reason I also feel that it is quite possible that Shakyamuni was a Dzogchen teacher even if a lineage of these teachings don't remain today.

Malcolm wrote:
Sakyamuni did not teach Dzogchen so far as anyone knows -- there is no record of it in the original tantras of Dzogchen.

heart said:
From a Dzogchen point of view for sure Shakyamuni's realization can't have been that different from for example Garab Dorje because then it would not have been enlightenment, it would have been something completely different.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Not all nirmanakāya buddhas teach Vajrayāna, let alone Dzogchen. Not all buddhas teach a Vinaya and establish a monastic Sangha (such as Sikhin). Not all buddhas teach Mahāyāna. All nirmanakayā budhas are the same in terms of realization -- but their teachings, retinue, place, and time are all different. For example, when the buddha of hell manifests for hell beings, I am sure he is not teaching them Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
That is perhaps another issue, but there are many animal rights activists who don't like pet ownership. Pet ownership could be phased out too or alternatively there are vegetarian dog foods that can be made with all the nutrition and protein a dog needs. Cats on the other hand are pretty strict carnivores. As the food science advances I imagine they may come up with a vegetarian alternative for cats too.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense. This is just a fantasy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


David N. Snyder said:
The world will not become completely vegetarian overnight. It would be a gradual process (if it even happened, of course this is just hypothetically speaking). Even if 10,000 new people stopped eating meat everyday, the agri-businesses would simply stop breeding the livestock so much. The breeding would slow down, even stop if necessary until everyone became vegetarian or vegan. And then you have less slaughtering going on and eventually close the slaughter houses.

Malcolm wrote:
Such sentiments display a complete lack of understanding of sustainable agriculture. It is not about agro-business. It is about environmental sanity. Environmental sanity requires animal husbandry since it is the primary way soil fertility is ensured.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 9:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Our master ChNN Rinpoche advised them - when they asked him - not to include Jesus Christ in their unification of Gurus.

Malcolm wrote:
We are not talking about the same thing, so we will end this here.


Dronma said:
Of course, Malcolm. 
Talking theoretically is very easy. Making things practically grounded in our daily life, is the most difficult part!  
Thank you for discussing with me.


Malcolm wrote:
Funny you should say that -- I was not talking theoretically but there is no point in carrying this further, I respect your point of view, I just think you don't understand mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Our master ChNN Rinpoche advised them - when they asked him - not to include Jesus Christ in their unification of Gurus.

Malcolm wrote:
We are not talking about the same thing, so we will end this here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Yes, this is true! 
It is clear that Khyentse Yeshe is the successor Master of DC. 
There is no doubt about it, and personally I am feeling fine!!!

Malcolm wrote:
Not just him, also his sister, who started teaching years before he was interested.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
But my question was about the unification of "non-buddhist" masters in the Ati Guru Yoga. Since our teacher has explained that we cannot include Jesus Christ (hence Mohammed, nor Jehovah) in the Refuge Tree, then who are those "non-buddhist" masters? [/color]

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, first of all. If you were never a Christian, or a Hindu, or never took teachings from such a master, for example, Hatha Yoga, Ayurveda, etc., then there is no need. But if you have taken teachings from such people, then you can carry this into your Ati Guru Yoga.

When we do refuge in the DC -- we generally do not do an elaborate refuge tree visualization, we do the One Jewel Unifies All system, so the principle is still the same.

It is not about including Jesus, Mohammed and so on in some imaginary refuge tree; it is about honoring the sources of all of our spritual knowledge, so the idea is completely different. It is about honoring all of our teachers, no matter what Dharma tradition they come from in the nine yānas. All Yānas belong to Samantabhadra, including the so called samsaric ones. This is the principle that is in play here. The Rigpa Rangshar states:

Though my yānas are inconceivable, when summarized,
they are included in two, samsara and nirvana

This means that all Dharma systems, "Buddhist" and "Non-Buddhist" are vehicles of Samantabhadra. If you have a connection with any of them, you unify them through the principle of Guru Yoga and go beyond limitations.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Moreover, if we have to take into account the 1st Yana, then we have to accept that the whole spectrum of the 9 Yanas is included in Dzogchen Guru Yoga.

Malcolm wrote:
I am going to present my understanding, and how I was taught by ChNN.

The reason why we can unify all teachings and teachers in Ati Guru Yoga is two-fold:

1) We all have the same state
2) This is the state we are all trying to discover, whether putatively "buddhist" or "non-buddhist"

Dronma said:
Which gives us the conclusion that no separation can be made between Dzogchen and Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Now, if we follow your logic here, since Hinduism, Christianity, etc., is part of the nine yānas too, and since the next seven are the vehicles that normally characterize "buddhism" it then follows that "Buddhism" and "Non-buddhism" cannot be separated either, and it therefore also follows we cannot separate Dzogchen from these non-buddhist religions as well.

But it is not like this. "Yāna" means vehicle. It carries you somewhere. Where? In this case, to liberation. The nine yānas are not a progressive program where you train in one yāna and then move onto the next one, like changing trains at a station or like a system of grades in a school.

Each yāna is an independent method for liberation, some are direct, like Dzogchen, some are very indirect, like the vehicle of gods and men. The rest are in the middle. So each yāna and also Dzogchen are independent vehicles. It is also the same with the three yāna scheme. One does not need to train in Hinayāna to enter Mahāyāna. One does not need to train in Mahāyāna to enter Vajrayāna. Each of these three vehicles of a complete conveyance for liberation. The idea common in Tibetan Buddhism that you need to stack up the three yānas, in terms of the three vows, or progress through the three yānas as a gradual training. But this is not an exclusive approach. One can also enter Vajrayāna immediately.

Dzogchen can also be practiced as an intimate instruction for mahāyoga and anuyoga. So, there are two ways to approach Dzogchen -- as a completely independent vehicle, which in general is the approach of ChNN, KDL, etc., or as an intimate instruction for the inner tantras, the usual approach of the Nyingma school.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
For example, before Buddhism I was taken part in an order of western mysticism, in where I had received initiations, too. Do you think that I can include those initiators in my Dzogchen Guru Yoga?

Malcolm wrote:
You can unify everything in Ati Guru Yoga. Even the person who taught you to tie your shoes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So it is just coincidence that the "presidential" position will go to his son (a recognised tulku, whose father is a tulku) rather than ChNN's senior student?  Right?  Spare me Malcolm, I'm not a fool. There is no such a thing as enforced collaboration.
Of course there is, collabaration under duress.

Malcolm wrote:
You really have no idea what you are talking about Greg. Khyentse Yeshe has to go through the same exams as everyone else to teach a given level of SMS. And he does not give transmissions or introduction.

But I am done trying to disabuse you of your ideas.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
After some discussion with a good friend about this thread I have decided to ask Malcolm this;

When you say "Dzogchen and Buddhism" do you mean the teaching of Dzogchen or the natural state?

Malcolm wrote:
Both. But I have clarified that I have come to make a hard distinction between "Buddhism" and Dharma. There can even be a "Dzogchen Buddhism" -- but would just be Dzogchen turned into a religion divorced from personal experience. I could careless about "Buddhism" anymore. Dharma however is important.

heart said:
Statement by ChNNR like "Dzogchen has no method, no tradition" do you think it is the natural state that is intended or the teaching of Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Both. The state of Dzogchen is your primordial state -- Dzogchen teaching is the introduction of that state through a personal experience or a direct perception or transmission of means to recapitulate that personal experience or direct percepoton on your own. There is no set method of performing this transmission, unlike for example, Sutra and Tantra in which there are very established traditions and methods which create a lot of attachments and limitations (read: the entire history of polemics in Buddhism).

heart said:
Saying things like "Dzogchen is in conflict with the teachings of sutra and tantra"  is it the natural state that is intended or the teaching of Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
The latter. Sutra and tantra also aim at the state of Dzogchen whether directly or less directly. However, the teachings of Dzogchen about such things as paths, stages, cause, result and so forth in terms of Dzogchen and the other eight yānas are often incompatible and conflict with one another.

The sutra and tantra followers usual approach to this incompatibility is to chalk it up to absence of realization i.e. we are at a lower level, a causal level (whether in the true vehicle of the cause or the result vehicle approach of taking the result as the path); whereas Dzogchen is the result level, what we are aiming for.

My understanding is different. My understanding is that buddhahood is innate and exists to be demonstrated even to ordinary persons.Incidentally, this a vastly different proposition than the tathāgatagarbha sutra position, which holds that tathāgatgarbha can only be seen by buddhas. When one's innate buddhahood is demonstrated then liberation is possible; if not, liberation is not possible.

heart said:
My friend pointed out that there seems to be a a lot of flipping back and forth between Dzogchen as a teaching and as the natural state in this thread and that this therefore might be making unnecessary confusion for people and perhaps creating difficulties in the discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, that is a good observsation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti, Prasanapada
[Valid cognitions and valid objects] are established through mutual dependence . When valid cognitions exist, then there are things that are objects of comprehension. When there are things that are objects of comprehension then they are valid cognitions. However neither valid cognitions nor objects of comprehension exist essentially

Malcolm wrote:
The point the Vigravahavyavartani makes is that they cannot be mutually established. If a pramāṇā is a pramāṇa, it does not need a prameya; and vice versa.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Paul said:
Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche say, interestingly:
Now we are entering the realm of Ati yoga, where we discover that actually the fundamental state of our being is our physical body - our existence as body

Malcolm wrote:
This is perfectly in line with what I have said all along for many years. Let those who have ears, listen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
All organisations rely on collabaration whether voluntary, enforced or rewarded.  It's a moot point.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such a thing as enforced collaboration. But in general the point of view is that everyone, including ChNN, etc., in the community is equal. No one is higher than anyone else.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Dronma said:
It is exactly the same for the Guru Yoga which is transmitted by ChNN Rinpoche. 
Rinpoche has explained clearly a few times that Jesus Christ cannot be included in our Guru Yoga when he was asked by some of his students. The reasons are the same like the ones you are referring here, kalden yungdrung. 
So, I guess, Mohammed neither....

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I had also mentioned this fact earlier in this very thread. I really do not recall anyone suggesting we can use Jesus or some other teacher who has no connnection with the Dzogchen lineage in an Anu or Mahahyoga style guru yoga. There is no basis for it.

Dronma said:
I am glad that we agree.  
But Sönam claimed a few posts ago:

Sönam said:
Even non Buddhists masters ...

Sönam

Dronma said:
Like whom for example??? 
I need some specific names and not abstract personal guesswork.
Then, we can ask Rinpoche himself....

Malcolm wrote:
What Sonam means is that when we do Guru Yoga we can unify all knowledge and masters into Guru Yoga including the knowledge we might have learned from non-Buddhist masters. This is quite different from saying we can use non-Buddhist masters for Dzogchen Guru Yoga. The point is that non-buddhist traditions are included in the first Yāna i.e. the vehicle of gods and humans. That is all Sonam means. The point, as I have understood it since 1992, is that one unifies all knowledge into the state of Guru Yoga.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Dronma said:
It is exactly the same for the Guru Yoga which is transmitted by ChNN Rinpoche. 
Rinpoche has explained clearly a few times that Jesus Christ cannot be included in our Guru Yoga when he was asked by some of his students. The reasons are the same like the ones you are referring here, kalden yungdrung. 
So, I guess, Mohammed neither....

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I had also mentioned this fact earlier in this very thread. I really do not recall anyone suggesting we can use Jesus or some other teacher who has no connnection with the Dzogchen lineage in an Anu or Mahahyoga style guru yoga. There is no basis for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So let's just cut the bs about DC not being a (Tibetan styled) institution. I mean really.


Malcolm wrote:
You are inferring from the fact that ChNN and Khyentse Yeshe are tulkus that Dzogchen Community is a traditional institution? A Tibean styled one?

That is a pretty thin inference, Greg, even you can see that, I hope.

Sometime you should buy a copy of this book:

THE DZOGCHEN COMMUNITY: PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.

It establishes the DC as a society based on the principles of mutual respect and collaboration between practitioners with a common aim. That is the key word "Collaboration". You can read about ChNN's vision of the Dzogchen Community in The Song of the Vajra, ppg. 105-114.

So someone like you, who may appreciate ChNN and his teachings, has your own comittments and your own path. You have no real idea about the internal life of Dzogchen Community and our values.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
Sönam said:
Hello Greg ... can you give your sources

gregkavarnos said:
http://khyentseyeshe.com/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://tsegyalgar.org/theteachers/namkhainorbu/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Malcolm wrote:
Beleive what you will.

gregkavarnos said:
I believe what I can very clearly see.


Malcolm wrote:
In my opinion, you see what you beleive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So let's just cut the bs about DC not being a (Tibetan styled) institution.

treehuggingoctopus said:
It's NOT a Tibetan-styled institution. Not like it, either - at least I know no Tibetan institutions comparable to the DC. Judging what it is on the basis of info leaflets, adverts or wiki entries will not do, btw. Join it - or talk to those who've done so - and you'll understand.

It really is an autarky, with all the (numerous) pros and (not so numerous, but by no means scant) cons autarkies entail. And no, ChNNR is not its hidden puppet-master. In no way he is.


Malcolm wrote:
You're wasting your breath. Let those who live in instutional Buddhism keep their institutions. It is not our job to condition anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It does not support a feudal elite.

gregkavarnos said:
Well not a poltical feudal elite but definitely a spiritual one...

Malcolm wrote:
Beleive what you will.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
here you go...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I am not putting words in his mouth.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually you are. You just did. And it proves that you are not reading what I am saying dispassionately. You have a grudge. Perhaps it is time you put me on ignore.

M

Adamantine said:
Malcolm, if I didn't directly quote you in one response it's because
I was attempting to distill your sentiments from 10 different posts
of yours into one line, to save time and space. If you feel misrepresented
I apologize but it's really the gist of what I got from some of your statements..
Things you said I think are problematic.

I don't have a grudge against you. I more often agree with you than
not, I appreciate you presence here and I like you, having
spent time with you. I have no gripe with you. I was just disagreeing
with things you have communicated and the way
you've communicated them. You also make many claims which I don't think
stand up to common sense, or scrutiny. So if my
disagreeing or questioning you on this pisses you off, sorry, but then
don't be so overly opinionated on a public forum.

Malcolm wrote:
I dont mind disagreement, I do mind when someone distorts what I am saying. The comparisons with Batchelor, the Trimondi's and so on,  are very unhelpful exercises in polemical rhetoric. I am a very plain-spoken person, and I never distort what other people say. I just flat out disagree with them and then tell them why.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
Many dharma centers subsist on fledgeling budgets barely making ends meet. I just don't see all the financial corruptions.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever made you think I was talking about the pathetic Dharma center scene in the US? Though one reason it is pretty sad is that when Lama tours come through everyone goes broke trying to host them and money sure does not stay in the Dharma centers.


LunaRoja said:
Actually the point that I was trying to make is that there are other Lamas like ChNN that do not live off of donations  and visiting Lamas that do not walk away with large sums of money.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there are some.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
Many dharma centers subsist on fledgeling budgets barely making ends meet. I just don't see all the financial corruptions.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever made you think I was talking about the pathetic Dharma center scene in the US? Though one reason it is pretty sad is that when Lama tours come through everyone goes broke trying to host them and money sure does not stay in the Dharma centers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
That's not what you meant? Then clarify, because I was not trying
to misrepresent you, that's clearly how I read it based on your choice
of words and sentence structure.

Malcolm wrote:
You could have asked me what I meant. Instead you chose to read into it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
Listen, I don't disagree with many of your critiques
of Tibetan Buddhist institutional politics. I think there
are many problems with institutions in general, not only
monastic or political ones. I am aware of many problems in Tibetan
politics both historically and currently.

However, I separate that from my experience, because my experience,
---and it has been extensive-- has been wholly positive.

Malcolm wrote:
You are lucky you are not an attractive woman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
...if anyone reaches SMS Level 9...

Bhusuku said:
I'm curious about that. I mean, AFAIK, until today no one, not even the oldest students who are practicing since almost 40 years passed beyond level 4 or 5, hence I'm wondering how big the chances are that anybody ever is going to reach level 9...

BTW, is Khyentse Yeshe actually participating in the SMS program? I ask, because he doesn't show up in the lists of SMS instructors...

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
I am becoming a little tired of seeing you distort what Malcom says, Adamantine.
I don't know if you aren't really understanding him or if you are distorting what he says on purpose by reasons unknown to me, but nevertheless it's becoming annoying already. Can you stop? Thank you.

Malcolm wrote:
He is just pissed because I am tired of the hierarchical bullshit that is so integral to Tibetan Buddhism and am open about it. He is mad because I have over the years made it absolutely clear that I disdain the tulku system as a mere money game, and so on. He is mad because I don't respect the system -- and I don't. Of course, lotuses grow in swamps, and likewise, there are mavelous persons who have come out of that system, or rather, despite it. I also don't share the sort of lame "anti-science" rhetoric he is into dereived in large part from the late Thrinly Norbu Rinpoche. He brought it up earlier in this thread and it is never far from his lips in these discussions. Now, I understand why he is into it, since TNR is one his gurus, but I don't find it TNR's arguments very compelling at all, and I am far from a "new athiest" of the Dawkins and Harris variety. Indeed, recently, Adamantine compared me with Batchelor, as if I had abandoned the notion of rebirth. So he is clearly approaching me from some ideological bent that I honestly can't relate to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I am not putting words in his mouth.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually you are. You just did. And it proves that you are not reading what I am saying dispassionately. You have a grudge. Perhaps it is time you put me on ignore.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
This sentence structure I am not saying that there are no good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and tulkus,
clearly indicates that good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and Tulkus would be the rare exception,
not the rule.

Malcolm wrote:
Thank you for telling me what I mean. Honestly-- the amazing thing to me is how you and others go out of your way to misrepresent what I say. I never do that you or anyone else.

It is quite dishonest -- you sound like Fox News.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
He decided to take responsibility. It is from his side. Actually, both Yeshe and his sister, Yuden, are ChNN's lineage holders.

Adamantine said:
Then it's exactly the same social structure as any
Nyingma dynasty where a powerful lama
enthrones one or both of his offspring to hold the lineage.

Why not one of his Western students instead?

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, ChNN has never publically declared anything, AFAIK. I just happen to know this is fact i.e that Yuden and Yeshe are his lineage holders. ChNN is 100 percent convinced that Yeshe is the reincarnation of his uncle.

As far as his western students go, well, there are SMS teachers. And in fact he has placed Fabio and Laura Evangelisa 100 percent in charge of Yantra Yoga. He has actually placed a number of people in places of great responsibility.

Adamantine said:
Your theories that the DC is so radically different don't
hold up to scrutiny.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure they do. You just don't to see it because you have an personal axe to grind with me based in your Nyingmapa conservativism.


Adamantine said:
It seems the more traditional "Buddhist" Chagdud Tulku
was much more modern and liberal in this regard: his Dzogchen
lineage holder and most of his tantric lineage holders he left to run
his scene were mostly if not all Westerners he trained. Not his
own Tibetan flesh-and-blood, as with ChNn

Malcolm wrote:
Different teacher, different group of students, different situation.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
You imply most followers of the lineages of Buddhas
are sexual predators, greedy manipulators or power hungry
deadbeats. It seems especially in regards to Tibetan Buddhism
you feel everyone is complicit in a hierarchical conspiracy
of control and deceipt.

Malcolm wrote:
As for the first statement, that is an unreal misattribution. I never implied anything of the sort. However, since you bring it up, I have heard or met a number of Lamas here in the west that precisely fit the descriptions you have provided. I never said they were the majority.  But it only takes a few bad apples...

As for the second, I guess you just have no idea. I guess I have known people involved with Tibetan religious politics a little more closely than you. It is every bit as nasty and corrupt and widespread as I have painted it.

I have seen first hand the incredibly nasty politics that infect every lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Anyone who denies these things just has their head in the sand.

Adamantine said:
You are starting to sound like the Trimondis.

Malcolm wrote:
They have no idea what they are talking about. They are attacking Vajrayāna teachings out of pure malice and misunderstanding. I have not done that. What I am saying is an honest critique of a system that is badly in need of modernization and reform if it is to adapt to the modern world.

Adamantine said:
You don't need to tear apart something that is much vaster and less homogenous then you
disgenuously pretend.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to study more history of Tibetan Buddhism.

For example, Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje told me never to go to Dharamsala because it was filled with evil people. He was beaten within an inch of his life for no reason on Losar in the mid 80's.

The good things about Tibetan culture and the Dharma do not cancel out the negative side of Tibetan religious politics. We spend a lot of time being involved in Tibetan internecine conflicts we are completely unaware of. I have heard Nyingma students proclaim "If your view of emptiness is Gelug, you will never be able to practice Dzogchen...." oblivious to the fact that both Shabkar and Jigme Lingpa favored Tsongkhapa's view of Madhyamaka. It just goes on and on. There is a certain bliss in ignorance, but I am too knowledable about controversie and issues in Tibetan Buddhism to be blind to the fact that they form a certain patterns.

The strongest critics of Tibetan culture are Tibetans themselves, people like Milarepa, Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen, Drukpa Kunly, Patrul and others who were not blind to the problems of the institutional culture of Tibetan Buddhism. Of course, if they say things, they are heralded as great saints, but if I make the same observations I am accused of being a Trimondi. Honestly, what nonesense.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


kirtu said:
I hope you will permit me a contrarian view.

Malcolm wrote:
How dare you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I think ChNN is great, and I think what he is doing is great. And I think it does him a disservice
to attack Buddhists, including other Dzogchen teachers in his name...

Malcolm wrote:
I did not do that. Your flights of rhetoric merely serve to make things less clear.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts on Togal for newcomers
Content:
Sherlock said:
Looks like you're right Malcolm. Unless he schedules it at the end of next year or in 2014. He's not even coming to my country next year.


Malcolm wrote:
He has said many times that klong sde is sufficient for total realization - also with klong sde you work with the four visions. He is giving klong sde twice this year.

Pema Rigdzin said:
When is he giving Longde next (after the current retreat)?

Also, I was able to receive the donwang the other night but have only been able to catch bits and pieces of the actual instructions for Longde. If I wish to implement Longde, would it be considered insufficient to do so on the basis of going back and listening to the replays? In other words, would I need to catch the next retreat and hear the specific Longde instructions live?

Malcolm wrote:
You can listen to replays.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen Community is an autarchy. It is self-governed. All practitioners are equal. We all have the same state. We are working toward the same goal. Some of us are further along, like ChNN, some of us are not, like me. But in the DC all practitioners are equal, we all have the same state.

Adamantine said:
It's great that you can idealize things like this, but I don't see that. If it was truly an autarchy and not an oligarchy then why would ChNN's son Yeshe need to be preened as the one to take over?

Malcolm wrote:
He decided to take responsibility. It is from his side. Actually, both Yeshe and his sister, Yuden, are ChNN's lineage holders.

But no one is in "charge" so to speak --every gar is autonomous.

Adamantine said:
I am having a hard time interpreting you curt remarks.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What is left here is my conviction that Dzogchen will leave behind its traditional trappings and spread to all human beings on this planet. If you consider this utopian, fine. I consider this inevitable.
M



Mariusz said:
He failed to recognize Rigpa


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
Simply it is very difficult to concilate thesw 2 facts: Less realized master on one hand and the Spreading of real dozgchen on the other hand, instead of a fake misleading dzogchen taught by not realized master

I guess I just have more confidence in people than you do.
Positive thought  is fine if you speak about master like Antony Robbins, but you have not anwered to my previous consideration I quote above

I have not heard about many  Rainbow around,  after HH Dudjom rinpoche, when according to CNNR stories  in Tibet there where many rainbow bodies between Dzog chen masters?

So Malcon,  tell me please how you can conciliate  Less realized master as the time goes by on one hand and the Spreading of real dzogchen on the other hand?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, D&G, most people who realize Dzogchen teachings fully awaken in the bardo. There are 21 capacities of practitioners. Having the ability to correctly and perfectly communicate the transmission of Dzogchen does not necessarily mean you yourself will attain phowa chenpo, or even rainbow body. But everyone who sincerely dedicates themselves to Dzogchen, having had the fortune to meet the full teachings will awaken in the bardo -- or at minimum they will spend 500 years in the pure nirmanakāya buddhafields before acheiving total realization. This is guaranteed as long as you understand the teachings. The third statement of Garab Dorje, literally translated means "continue in the confidence of liberation" -- this does not mean of course you are totally realized. It means you know the true meaning of liberation and are certain of acheiving it, so you "...continue in that state".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Why is a lung for mantra necessary?
Content:


LunaRoja said:
YAY we agree!

Malcolm wrote:
Well, when we exercise patience, we will almost always get to yes if we want to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
think the implicaion of my statement is that there will be more people who have real knowledge of Dzogchen and are able to successfully communicate this to others
I wish you will be right but  it sounds a little bit like a new age thought, like the celestine prophecy, Aquarian age and a lot staff  like that.


Malcolm wrote:
I guess I just have more confidence in people than you do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
And CNNE was very clear about the fact that without real realization Dzog Chen trasmission cannot  happen

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. What could you have possibly thought I meant?

dorje e gabbana said:
I wasn't referring to what you meant. Simply it is very difficult to concilate thesw 2 facts: Less realized master on one hand and the Spreading of real dozgchen on the other hand, instead of a fake misleading dzogchen taught by not realized master


Malcolm wrote:
I think the implicaion of my statement is that there will be more people who have real knowledge of Dzogchen and are able to successfully communicate this to others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
And CNNE was very clear about the fact that without real realization Dzog Chen trasmission cannot  happen

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. What could you have possibly thought I meant?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Malcolm, you are kidding! Isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. There are predictions to this effect in the original tantras of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


rai said:
sorry i dont really follow this thread. you are joking Malcolm, right?

i mean, you mentioned in other thread that realisation is very rare and we have seen so many great teachers passed away last years and all the great teachears we have left are getting old. so who is going to carry the transmission? or who will have the ability to spread the transmission?

Malcolm wrote:
About a Dzogchen New World Order? Of course i was kidding.


rai said:
no i mean that the Dzogchen will spread. you mentioned that we have very few realized masters alive and they are getting old so who is going to do the job?


Malcolm wrote:
Of course Dzogchn will spread, it is now spreading. I firmly believe this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Reality is found in the complete version of Buddhadharma namel like Andrew did suggest also in Sutra and Tantra.
So if Dzogchen would be spread without Sutra and Tantra would mean that everybody is fit for Dzogchen, and that is what is greatly doubt by me.

KY

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN has often spoken of a time in the future on this planet when all teachings apart from Dzogchen have completely disappeared, and all people practice only Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


rai said:
sorry i dont really follow this thread. you are joking Malcolm, right?

Malcolm wrote:
About a Dzogchen New World Order? Of course i was kidding.


rai said:
i mean, you mentioned in other thread that realisation is very rare and we have seen so many great teachers passed away last years and all the great teachears we have left are getting old. so who is going to carry the transmission? or who will have the ability to spread the transmission?

can even DC survive without someone giving the transmissions? do you think Jim Valby will do?

Malcolm wrote:
It will all become clear in time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Yeshe Tsogyal/Vajrayogini
Content:
sangyey said:
How about relationship with Tara?


Malcolm wrote:
Tsogyal is considered an emanation of Tara as well. This is why for example in the Togyal cycle in Longchen Nyinthig there is a special section for combining mantras of tara with Dechen Gyalmo pratice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
To have a hope that the world will wake up to Dzogchen is falling into an extreme.


Malcolm wrote:
།རྒྱལ་བ་ཀུན་གྱི་གསང་ཆེན་མཛོད།
།བླ་མེད་རྫགས་ཆེན་བསྟན་པ་ནི།
།ཇི་ལྟར་མཁའ་ལ་ཉི་ཤར་བཞིན།
།རྒྱལ་ཁམས་ཡོངས་ལ་དར་རྒྱས་ཤོག

May the secret treasury of all victors,
the unsurpassed Dzogchen teachings,
spread widely through all nations
just like the sun rising in the sky.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Mipham's Shower of Blessings
Content:
yenima said:
Thanks for your answer, Adamantine, I think you're right on the dot.  I'm pretty sure when we did the SoB Tsok at the temple, we did the entire practice from beginning to end, left nothing out, and I don't recall ever receiving a specific empowerment for that.  I can't reach my lama right now to clarify this but I think your presentation is correct.

I'm drawn to this beautiful brief sadhana, for its use as a daily Guru Rinpoche Guru Yoga practice, with or without the Tsok, that is a lot simpler and perhaps more effective than other Guru Yogas such as Konchog Chidu, Thigle Gyachen or Pema Sangthig, for all of which I've received the empowerment, lung & commentary, in which the Guru is treated more like a yidam in a maha/atiyoga kyerim practice.

This may be particularly effective in conjunction with a study of Mipham's text "White Lotus."

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on how you practice it. There are many ways to practice Konchog Chidu. It is an anu yoga system in fact. But after it hit the Kagyus it has been treated more of a Mahāyoga system. But it isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
I had the opposite experience. Two great video webcasts only with minor glitches.

Sally Gross said:
It looks as if the problems were due to my connections. Reception on my cellphone is bad in my house for some reason, and it may affect the 3G USB stick as well. Will it be possible to review the transmissions off-line? I will need to do so with these teachings, and would also like to review the two Australian retreats I followed. The first of the two Australian retreats was my first, and there was a lot I was not able to understand in that webcast or in the second Australian retreat because of my lack of knowledge. Light seems to be dawning gradually over the whole (with apologies to Wittgenstein, On Certainty, 141). None of the webcasts I have attended thus far (the two Australian retreat webcasts) are available for review in the replays section of the webcast website yet. Is there anywhere else where replays of the webcasts are available for review?

Malcolm wrote:
You can usually buy them later if you attended the webcast as best you could you can also listen to replay.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Is there any room for buddhafields in a Dzogchen without "traditional trappings" since buddhafields is a purely Buddhist concept and not a Dzogchen one?

Malcolm wrote:
By traditional, one should understand "Tibetan Cultural Trappings".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Perhaps you are suggesting a new tradition...

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not what I mean. But it is natural that some peple might misunderstand what I mean.

What I mean is that Dzogchen in the future may be transmitted in the traditional buddhist and bon containers it has had -- but it will also be spread seperately from them depending on circumstances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Sally Gross said:
...
It is a lovely image, though it jars me slightly as a South African to see a globe showing on North America. I'm used to images of the globe showing at least a bit of Africa and other continents as well. What is needed is a holographic 3D rainbow sphere. Is a drop or a sphere also a thigle?

Sönam said:
I had the same though coming from that image ... BUt my self is more use of the European view in front

this view for exemple

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Well good the thing the globe turns on an axis. I have no skill with 3d images so I am sorry that some of you feel left out.

The image I used was the famous Blue Pearl, the first color image of the globe take from space.(Oh Lord, now someone is going to accuse me of subverting Dzogchen with Siddha Yoga's blue pearl meditation)/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
What is left here that is utopia which resembles Dzogchen new age a la 2012.

Malcolm wrote:
What is left here is my conviction that Dzogchen will leave behind its traditional trappings and spread to all human beings on this planet. If you consider this utopian, fine. I consider this inevitable.
M

heart said:
You sound like a taliban.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Nice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
What is left here is my conviction that Dzogchen will leave behind its traditional trappings and spread to all human beings on this planet. If you consider this utopian, fine. I consider this inevitable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79376210@N05/7274576886/


M

Andrew108 said:
This is scary. As Dzogchen isn't really open for criticism I hope that it doesn't become another form of control.

Sally Gross said:
A form of control is something which is imposed. How can Dzogchen be imposed? A state of awareness which cannot be achieved by striving .... We are talking about letting go and relaxing, about letting things be and not about some kind of global power-structure which seeks to manilulate and to control. It is a lovely image, though it jars me slightly as a South African to see a globe showing on North America. I'm used to images of the globe showing at least a bit of Africa and other continents as well. What is needed is a holographic 3D rainbow sphere. Is a drop or a sphere also a thigle?


Malcolm wrote:
Well you see, Sally, it means the New Dzogchen World Order will start in the Southwest, with the former USA as the central capital of the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Why is a lung for mantra necessary?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For this reason the first of all syllables is A.

N

LunaRoja said:
The manjushri nama samgiti also teaches that all sound comes from the short A. The shortest recitation of the prajnaparamitra is also the short A.

So it is really the basis of all.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Also Hindus beleive this as well. This a common idea between Buddhism and many non-dual Hindu traditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
What is left here is my conviction that Dzogchen will leave behind its traditional trappings and spread to all human beings on this planet. If you consider this utopian, fine. I consider this inevitable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79376210@N05/7274576886/


M

Andrew108 said:
This is scary. As Dzogchen isn't really open for criticism I hope that it doesn't become another form of control.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we are going to force everyone to have rainbow body whether they want it or not

Bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Why is a lung for mantra necessary?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sounds, lights and rays are the qualities of the three kāyas, not the three kāyas themselves. Kalacakra is a sambhogakāya manifestation. Shakyamuni had that realization, so he was able to communicate that concretely to those who could perceive it.

LunaRoja said:
Actually this is not what he said. He said the source of Kalachakra was from the mantra the sound.

Malcolm wrote:
Sound is a quality of dharmakāya because vibration is related to emptiness and all manifestations ultimately arise from dharmakāya. So we can say that all manifestations come from sound, and sound is possible because of emptiness. The way I understand this is that emptiness permits vibration; that vibration manifests as light, the quality of clarity; light manifests as rays, the quality of energy. For this reason the first of all syllables is A.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Why is a lung for mantra necessary?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Just found this thread:

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=4303

I've wondered, or maybe even heard, that it could be that some Mantras were empowered by the Deity who originated them or by the Rishi who first received them, in such a way that they will work for anyone; and that other Mantras were empowered by the Deity or Rishi in such a way that they will work only for ones who have received the transmission for them.  Or maybe the latter type of Mantras can still work for those who haven't received the transmission, but will be much more limited in their effect.

LunaRoja said:
Actually I think it is the opposite the deity comes from the mantra. One time when ChNN was teaching he mentioned Kalachakra. How could Kalachakra have come from Shahkyamuni Buddha since Shakyamuni was a monk? He then said Kalachakra came from the mantra. For me this is why the mantras are sacred. First comes sound then rays and lights. The sacred sound is the origin of the deity as I understand it. Also it is through mantra recitation that you become the deity in deity yoga practice, sending and receiving blessings throughout the universe.

Peace,

LR

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds, lights and rays are the qualities of the three kāyas, not the three kāyas themselves. Kalacakra is a sambhogakāya manifestation. Shakyamuni had that realization, so he was able to communicate that concretely to those who could perceive it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Yeshe Tsogyal/Vajrayogini
Content:
Kelwin said:
I'm familiar with Vajrayogini from the Kagyu perspective, but how common is she in Nyingma lineages? (I am aware of the somewhat artificial dichotomy here).
Are there terma practices of Vajrayogini that are used within a Nyingma and Dzogchen context?

Edit: PS I didn't mean to hijack the thread, I hope the original question is sufficiently answered by Malcolm's reply. I would however be interested to know, if there are Nyingma practices of her, in the same dancing posture, and if Yeshe Tsogyal plays a role in the Sadhanas.


Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayogini in various forms is a critical Anuyoga practice in many, many, cycles of teachings, beginning with the Khandro Nyinthig, which set the pattern for the rest.

Kelwin said:
I've practiced her in other forms, like Throma Nagmo, but haven't encountered her yet in the same 'Kagyu style' red form, dancing on one leg. But she will be there again then, once I dive more deeply into the Nyingthig's? That, somehow, is reassuring

Malcolm wrote:
This form is found in Khandro Nyinthig.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Norwegian said:
Malcolm,

That is an awesome image.


Malcolm wrote:
I have no skill as a graphic designer, but I think it gets the message across.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 2:24 AM
Title: The Future of Dzogchen Teachings
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
What is left here that is utopia which resembles Dzogchen new age a la 2012.

Malcolm wrote:
What is left here is my conviction that Dzogchen will leave behind its traditional trappings and spread to all human beings on this planet. If you consider this utopian, fine. I consider this inevitable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79376210@N05/7274576886/


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Thank you very much you finally wrote after our long forum: "it is only your belief - masters of Dzogchen will be neither buddhist nor bon"! I will remember it in the future.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said otherwise. But I am glad you feel you have wrung such an important admission out of me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:


cloudburst said:
By the way, earlier in this thread Malcolm claimed that Madhyamakas reject logic. I challenged that assertion and asked for citations.
None were provided.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not true -- I provided you with the reference for the Vigrahavyavartani and suggested you read it. There is a very readable translation by E.H Johnston.

Candra rejects pramāṇa when it comes to emptiness, accepting consequences as sufficient to show emptiness. He does not reject pramāṇa in every case, however, when he accepts that we can infer first stage bodhisattas through their compassionate deeds.

When I said Madyamakas reject "logic", I meant that they reject pramāṇa as being a meaningful path to ultimate truth. That is all I meant. Pramāṇa is a useful worldly science -- but as Rongzom states in his Introduction To The Principles of Mahāyāna (which I have incidentally translated completely, but it is unedited), "If one could reach the ends of objects of knowledge with a single flawless reasoning, for what reason was it not demonstrated in all the transmissions of the victors to begin with?"

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sherlock said:
So night practice was how Rinpoche did most of his practices including togal while he was a professor?


Malcolm wrote:
I think so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself.
This is true, His a retired Professar who taught many yrs in the Eastern University of Naples, in Italy, and he has always lived in simple but  decent conditions without using his student money

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is no class of indigent mendicants who have an excuse not support themselves in the DC. This alone makes it a very different proposition. I know a Lama who won't visit India, at least not where there are any monasteries because if he feels required to bring a minimum of $10,000 merely to make tea offerings.

I mean, fine, this is Tibetan culture, and I am not judging Tibetan culture on its own merits. But this is completely at odds with Western culture.

But the above is not, as far as I can tell, what the Buddha intended for his Sangha of monks. Heck, one of the reasons Ashoka cracked down on the Bhikṣu Sangha and purged tens of thousands of monks from the ranks of bhikṣus is that within 150 years the Bhikṣu Sangha had become a haven for all kinds of negative people.

Poor Langdarma was murdered because he wanted to tax the monasteries, so the revisionists who rewrote the history of Imperial era cast him as a Dharma destroyer. Actually, a better read is that he saw the monasteries as an economic drain on the people and wanted to rein it in. For that he was murdered even though he has a Buddhist and wrote Buddhist texts, as the Tunhuang documents prove.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Yeshe Tsogyal/Vajrayogini
Content:
Kelwin said:
I'm familiar with Vajrayogini from the Kagyu perspective, but how common is she in Nyingma lineages? (I am aware of the somewhat artificial dichotomy here).
Are there terma practices of Vajrayogini that are used within a Nyingma and Dzogchen context?

Edit: PS I didn't mean to hijack the thread, I hope the original question is sufficiently answered by Malcolm's reply. I would however be interested to know, if there are Nyingma practices of her, in the same dancing posture, and if Yeshe Tsogyal plays a role in the Sadhanas.


Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayogini in various forms is a critical Anuyoga practice in many, many, cycles of teachings, beginning with the Khandro Nyinthig, which set the pattern for the rest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
It does not support a feudal elite.

Josef said:
I think this is a key point. And it illustrates a huge problem with how Tibetan Buddhist structures function in the west.

We are often treated at best as placeholders for the teachings until the next generation of Tibetans come of age and at worst we are expected to be serfs with American dollars and a good exchange rate.

When Tibetan teachers are busted sexually abusing or ripping off their American students its called crazy wisdom or they just get a free pass. When an American teacher does this kind of thing they are excommunicated and publicly ruined and turned into an example of how "we arent ready" to be real holders of the lineage.
Its feudalism and racism, nothing more.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and when Someone Rinpoche and Tulku So and So gets into trouble, the putative hierarchies in Tibetan Buddhism act with complete impotence, because Someone Rinpoche and Tulku So and So are "recognized" to be some enlightened yogin, and it is all such total intolerable bullshit.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
All that matters is that one's lineage is valid. If someone takes Dzogchen teachings from ChNN -- he never insists that you must adopt Buddhism as your religion. I am very sure now that Dzogchen has burst out of the Tibetan culture sphere, there will indeed be dzogchen masters who are neither buddhist nor bon.

Andrew108 said:
Hi Malcolm - what has ChNN said about the two accumulations and Dzogchen? I'm wondering particularly about accumulation of merit. As you know there are contrived practices within Tibetan Buddhism for the accumulations. How does this work in Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, as I understand it, the two accumulations have always been complete.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.
I agree

Malcolm wrote:
Good we can agree on something.

dorje e gabbana said:
But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money.
It is the same also for DC.  DC asks for membership card you pay cash, if you attend a DC retreat you pay cash. What is the difference between DC ond other Tibetan Buddhisy Instition regarding this point?   please explain

Malcolm wrote:
It does not support a feudal elite.

dorje e gabbana said:
Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations.
CNNR do the same. in 20yrs I have never seen not even one Namkhai Norbu retreat ending without Rinpoche  lead a lottery where you pay cash, they raise money and people around selling you lottery ticket. Don't tell me please that lottery is a primary Dzog chen practice, neither a secondary practice......

Malcolm wrote:
Generally speaking, Rinpoche gives %100 of money to the Gar for its various projects. Like a good gardener, he turns the crop right back into the soil, he leaves it right where it is to keep that that garden growing and rich.

One of his strict personal samayas is to never accept money for Dzogchen teachings, to use it as means of fame, etc.

But in general, Tibetan Buddhism uses the West as a wealth pump (so do Hindus, etc., just to make sure that people understand that I am not being selective). Now, I have no problem with this when Lamas are completely up front about it like Kunzang Dechen Lingpa ("I never came here to teach, only to raise money, but then I found out there were some interested people, so I am teaching Dzogchen to those of you who are interested"). People are free to do with their money what they like. But one thing I particulary don't like is Lamas who use the name "Dzogchen" to support themselves.

dorje e gabbana said:
I am not saying it is bad from CNNR, but asking for money in DC  it is non dissimilar to other Tibetan buddist Insititution.
BTW CNNR has been accepting donations troughout the yrs for his projects from his students exatly like other tibetna buddist lamas has done and I do not see the difference.
I

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, sure, if people want to donate money to this or that project, there is no problem.

But ChNN is completely self sufficient. He does not need to raise money for himself. He had a regular job his whole life. He did not spend his life living on the donations given to monasteries. In that he is a completely different.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
I don't know why Dzogchen is from buddhist teachers. But it is merely the fact these days. In that way as flower is called a flower, but you can see and smell it.

Malcolm wrote:
All that matters is that one's lineage is valid. If someone takes Dzogchen teachings from ChNN -- he never insists that you must adopt Buddhism as your religion. I am very sure now that Dzogchen has burst out of the Tibetan culture sphere, there will indeed be dzogchen masters who are neither buddhist nor bon.

M

Mariusz said:
You meant, you are a oracle? Padmasambhava mentioned it but He didn't say it will be not from buddhists, as I know?

Malcolm wrote:
It is what I believe, and what is predicted by ChNN. Eventually, according to him, all will practice Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
I don't know why Dzogchen is from buddhist teachers. But it is merely the fact these days. In that way as flower is called a flower, but you can see and smell it.

Malcolm wrote:
All that matters is that one's lineage is valid. If someone takes Dzogchen teachings from ChNN -- he never insists that you must adopt Buddhism as your religion. I am very sure now that Dzogchen has burst out of the Tibetan culture sphere, there will indeed be dzogchen masters who are neither buddhist nor bon.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
How can they find Dzogchen teachers then if otherwise?

Malcolm wrote:
They simply find someone who is teaching the practice of Dzoghen. Not so hard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
You can said it even with Dzogchen: "dzogchen is not Dzogchen,  People label it a "Dzogchen", but they need that comfort from a "nominally buddhists" who can teach it completely these days. Is it not true?

Malcolm wrote:
We call potters "potters" because they make pots. We called drivers "drivers" because they drive vehicles. We call practitioners "practitioners" because they pratice. We call Dzogchen practitioners "Dzogchen practitioners" because they practice Dzogchen.

It is pretty straight-foward, I don't see where your confusion lies. I don't see what useful benefit your attachment to the label "Buddhism" for Dzogchen is. Of what benefit is it to insist that Dzogchen must be part of the religion called Buddhism? Please explain this.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Magnus, maybe it is simply about not limiting oneself with conceptual labels?

Malcolm wrote:
...Chogyal Namkhai Norbu ... is a nominally a Buddhist in name, because he was raised in a Buddhist culture
M

Mariusz said:
Thank you for it. You are already also "a nominally a Buddhist in name, because you was in a Buddhist culture". So the question was not about you, not also about Rinpoche. I will wait if someone who is not "a nominally a Buddhist in name because not in a Buddhist culture" will realize 4 visions completely and if really will establish the new Dzogchen lineage these days. I will agree then with you and I will be very happy of course about the "someone" who can teach Dzogchen completely. Ok?


Malcolm wrote:
Mariusz -- I am not a "Buddhist". I am a Dzogchen practitioner. I have no complaints about Dharma, but I have many complaints about "Buddhism" (and Hinduism, etc. -- just so you don't think I am leaving anyone out).

People label me a "Buddhist" because that is the box that makes people comfortable. I used to lable myself a Buddhist because it made me comfortable. I don't need that comfort anymore.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
But any so called "Buddhist" or "Nyingma" would never consider themselves really[/i] a Buddhist or a Nyingma, etc. . . because the whole point is not clinging to anything, especially to self identifications or labels...

Malcolm wrote:
I saw pages and pages and pages in this thread alone where people were furiously insisting that Dzogchen was Buddhism, etc., people strongly proclaiming their identities as Buddhists and so on -- all because a stalwart bastion of Buddhist sectarianism on the internet, a guy name Namdrol, decided to let people know he had dropped it.

Adamantine said:
The teachings just have one structured framework or another... the DC is one kind.  You often say you are a member of Dzogchen Community.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, a card-carrying one. Dzogchen Community is a fraternal organization. You pay dues to belong.

Adamantine said:
It can be that certainly, but it can also be a cup that holds the sacred Dharma, just as the DC with all it's global centers and books and sangha is. Just because there are people who call themselves Buddhist who don't really understand Dharma or do any practice or who screw up or act sectarian does not degrade the many noble beings who are actually practicing Dharma and accessing their Buddha nature, at whatever capacity or yana they may be able to relate to. Same as DC. It just seems like a different conceptual framework to me, is all. But maybe we will just have to not see things eye to eye on this point.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen Community is an autarchy. It is self-governed. All practitioners are equal. We all have the same state. We are working toward the same goal. Some of us are further along, like ChNN, some of us are not, like me. But in the DC all practitioners are equal, we all have the same state. 

In my opinion, in Buddhism the insitutions have become more important than the people. Actually, it has been this way for centuries -- Buddhist Institutions have functioned to support a priviledged elite in a very feudal manner. Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, is an oligarchy. Tibean Buddhism functions based on a system of vassalage and fealty. It is actually the same in other Buddhist cultures as well. The reason for this has to do with the way Buddhism has adapted itself for the past 2300 years to various aristocracies. 

I used to think that since democracy and Buddhism were not compatible, we needed to subordinate ourselves to hierarchy of monks, lamas, tulkus, etc because it was necessary for the survival of the Dharma, because they supposedly represented the work of the Dharma in the world. I no longer believe that. There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many. 

I am not saying that there are no good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and tulkus, genuinely spiritual people who mean nothing but the best for everyone. Of course there are. Not all catholic preists are pedarests either. But I am pretty toasted on the worldy ambitions of Tibetan Buddhism. 

I do not beleive that traditional Buddhism is in any way capable of addressing the problems we face in the world today. I am sure that it was never capable of addressing these issues. I regard the Shambhala vision of an enlightened society to be a total fantasy, and I regard Thurman's call for a rule of Buddhist philosopher kings a farce -- it completely failed in Tibet, from the beginning. Since it failed there, it will not succeed here.

The only way we can solve the problems we have in the word today is to put down our socio/religious/culture banners. We must be like Angulimala -- we must stop. If we human beings cannot get along as one human family, there will be no chance for Dharma let alone Buddhism, no anything -- just war, famine, sickness and death. 



M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sherlock said:
Does the belt absolutely have to be made traditionally or would a similar belt (say for weightlifting) be useable as long as it holds in your sides tightly?

Malcolm wrote:
You should get a Gomthag, a meditation belt.

https://www.ligmincha.org/store/vmchk/root-category-40/category-43/view-all-products.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.tibetanspirit.com/productview.asp_Q_id_E_1514_A_catid_E_271_A_maincat_E_Meditation_A_subcatid_E_277_A_subcat_E_Shawls+%26+Belts " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts on Togal for newcomers
Content:
Sherlock said:
Looks like you're right Malcolm. Unless he schedules it at the end of next year or in 2014. He's not even coming to my country next year.


Malcolm wrote:
He has said many times that klong sde is sufficient for total realization - also with klong sde you work with the four visions. He is giving klong sde twice this year.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
ok, so then basically you do the postures etc until you get to the point of no doubt and then just work on integrating it into daily life, right? So then where does the rainbow body part fit in?

Malcolm wrote:
It comes at the end of the four visions. You also use the postures in cultivating those.

Muy advice, you just apply the practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts on Togal for newcomers
Content:
Sherlock said:
ChNN will give threkchod and togal in Tenerife right? Will he also give yangti transmission?

Andrew108 said:
That was last year. Is he giving these practices again?


Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...no daily practice other than a commitment to discover your real nature through atiyoga...

gregkavarnos said:
Oh, is that all...


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, indeed, that is all. That includes a lot of things to do, however.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
I could use a little help here...Rinpoche has said that many people have attained rainbow body by practicing Longde i.e full realization. So I thought a while back that maybe Longde would be perfect for me as I come from a Chan background and that I could do it for the rest of my life. Then of course during this retreat he said that you only practice Longde until your doubts are dispelled. ( Rinpoche has this knack for tearing down ones mental constructs and leaving one floating with nothing to grasp onto, or is it just me?)
Anyways, if I have misunderstood or whatever I could use a little help/clarification. Thanks.

Jikan said:
I had thought he said that the postures that are part of longde practice are used only temporarily, and that the whole of longde practice is related to the second of Garab Dorje's three statements ( no longer remaining in doubt).

I'm interested in longde for more or less the same reason as you.

Malcolm wrote:
What he is said is that you do not need to spend the rest of your life in a posture.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Anyways, if I have misunderstood or whatever I could use a little help/clarification. Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
You can practice klong sde for your entire life, just like many practitioners have done.

He is saying that the series of klong sde is primarily connected with not remaining in doubt, but because it includes total realization, it is also connected with continuing in that state.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Yeshe Tsogyal/Vajrayogini
Content:
sangyey said:
What is Yeshe Ysogyal's relationship to Vajrayogini?

Malcolm wrote:
Tsogyal is considered to the a nirmanakāya, Vajrayogini is considered to be the Sambhogakāya; Samantabhadri is the Dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Magnus, maybe it is simply about not limiting oneself with conceptual labels?

Malcolm wrote:
Guys -- it is really not hard to understand: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu is not a Nyingmapa, though all the Nyingmapas think he is. He is not a Sakyapa, though all the Sakyapas, think he is; he is not a Drugpa Kagyu, though all the Drukpa Kagyus think he is; He is not a Bonpo, though all the Gelugpas think he is.

He is a nominally a Buddhist in name, because he was raised in a Buddhist culture and Buddhist monastery -- and no one ever said otherwise. But he has also said explicitly he is not a Buddhist, nor a Bonpo. "Buddhist", Bonpo, Hindu, Christian, etc. are cultural identification -- but Dzogchen is beyond culture.

So what is he really? A Dzogchen practitioner who has integrated the meaning of Dzogchen into his life as completely as he can.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Good point. . . hmmmmnnn.. maybe it's more of a conceptual difference?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it means that Ati Gury Yoga is the center of DC practice. The center of DC practice is not the thun book. You know, every retreat ChNN's holds up the thun book and says "Some people think this is Dzogchen practice -- this is not Dzogchen practice." There used to be a book called Dzogchen Ritual Practices. A nice book, very useful. Because people misunderstood, the book was swiftly discontinued and has now been out of print for twenty years.

Theoretically can be a DC practitioner and never practice a single deity their whole life. Of course, that would be a silly limitation, because sometimes it is useful to use a method of transformation. But transformation is not Atiyoga. In atiyoga,as taught by ChNN there is nothing to transform, no vows to take, no daily practice other than a commitment to discover your real nature through atiyoga -- hence the reason working with the transmission with ati guru yoga is indispensible.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
You just don't get it, the point is that he gives "lung" for it just about every time he teach.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as a secondary practice.

heart said:
This term "secondary" is a bit confusing the way you use it since Ati Guru Yoga and Song of the Vajra is a part of every thun practice.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
I used it the way ChNN uses it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Conceptual said:
In the current webcast ChNN mentioned something about breathing (on the right side for males). What is he referring to?


Malcolm wrote:
When you can win a poker game or do good in business.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Title: Re: CONFUSED
Content:
dakini_boi said:
Any thoughts?

Malcolm wrote:
Part of your primordial state is thugs rje -- what could be more comforting than that?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I believe the player uses flash.  Apple (famously) doesn't support Flash on iOS.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes and yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Much more, we should never discuss about direct transmission publicly


Malcolm wrote:
Corret, we should never discuss the details of various methods of transmission of direct introduction. The fact of direct introduction however may be discussed because it is widely mentioned in all kinds of publically available books by ChNN and other authors.

Dronma said:
I am sorry, Malcolm. Maybe you should listen again on what Rinpoche advised us today. 
He said that we should never mention that we received direct transmission even to the other Dharma teachers we might have! Much more, we should never discuss about direct transmission publicly. Nothing more to say.


Malcolm wrote:
I know very well what he was saying I have heard him say it a gazillion times. Sakyapas and Gelugpas do not accept direct introduction as an independent method (The Gelugpas negate it completely, Sakyas accept it only after one has received a major empowerment -- like ChNN I was educated in the Sakya system). Therefore, he was saying that you should not go to a Sakya or Gelug Lama and tell them that you have received direct introduction because they might negate you.

But in fact Sakya and Gelug Lamas know this perfectly well.

So, saying "Dzogchen is based on direct introduction, not tantric intitiation" is a perfectly acceptable thing to say when someone asks you "What is the difference between the method of entering Dzogchen teachings and Vajrayāna."

Just out of curiosity, just how long have you been a student of ChNN? Beyond that, you follow your conscience, I will follow mine, deal?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Much more, we should never discuss about direct transmission publicly


Malcolm wrote:
Corret, we should never discuss the details of various methods of transmission of direct introduction. The fact of direct introduction however may be discussed because it is widely mentioned in all kinds of publically available books by ChNN and other authors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Haha no arguements here, except for one, which is that I'm quite sure that The Precious Vase says that Yantra Yoga is a indispensable secondary practice.

Malcolm wrote:
It says yantra is an indispensible practice related to behavior for integrating the three gates.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Secondary also does not necessarily mean not indispensable.

Of course the primary practice, Guru Yoga, is indispensable.

However it seems that there are secondary practices that are indispensable, and secondary practices that are not indispensable.

Indispensable secondary practices, in the Dzogchen Community, I believe would include Ganapuja, the Song of the Vajra, and Yantra Yoga.


Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, lhug old buddy -- for DC people only Ati Guru Yoga is indispensible.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Is ganapuja also considered a secondary practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. Being "secondary" does not mean "not useful".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
I note that the triple refuge is a part of the Thun's ChNNR teach.

Malcolm wrote:
The thun book is not Dzogchen, as ChNN says everytime he gives the lung from that text.

heart said:
You just don't get it, the point is that he gives "lung" for it just about every time he teach.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as a secondary practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
Just received 'The Crystal and the Way of Light' today.

Very clear explanations about many things which I'm looking forward to examining more deeply, and very much consistent with advice given on other threads here with regard to : 'how to maintain commitment by applying the essentials of practice'.

I came across the drawing of Dorje Legba and, for reasons obvious to some of you, was a little taken aback until I noticed his right hand held a vajra. LOL


Malcolm wrote:
Yes,Vajrasadhu, the Dzogchen practitioner's friend.



This is the more characeristic way he presented in the DC, as a wild Masang.

Blue Garuda said:
'Masang' ?

I Googled the word and came up with local protector or a physical region of Tibet.  Would 'local' or 'worldy' be correct, or another wording?

In the book the description is of a protector to be called upon for worldly and less powerful action than Rahula (not sure about using the names on an open forum).

Having only spent a couple of hours skimming the book (which I always do before I read in depth) it seems a pity that you can't just point to it online and use it to support answers about Ati Guruyoga and Direct Introduction.  You see, I'm slow and pernickety and I got it (finally) so there's hope for everyone.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Dorje Legpa's job among other things, it to control the masang, just like Ejajati's job is to control mamos and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
What is your real contribution to this discussion in terms of contents, so far ? ZERO

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, and you have made a real contribution? All you have done since showing up is spread fractious contention, as well as demonstrated rudeness, arrogance and pride.

But you have not made one substantially valuable post since appearing here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
So don’t go around claiming to be some great Dzogchen meditator when in fact you are nothing but a farting lout, stinking of alcohol and rank with lust

Malcolm wrote:
It would be nice if you followed this advice, and behaved a little more humbly yourself.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
By the way it sounds  strange hearing people claiming that CNNR just teaches  Dzog chen as an indipendent vehicle.

Malcolm wrote:
What was said was that ChNN teaches that Dzogchen is an independent path; no one said he does not also teach there are other ways to approach Dzogchen.



dorje e gabbana said:
In The Santi maha sanga training you must:

complete Ngondro

Malcolm wrote:
Not in the way you imagine. But this is a first level requirement, so I am not going to discuss it.

dorje e gabbana said:
Practising tza sum, that is 3 roots: guru, deva e dakini mantra accumulating at list  one bum for each one

Malcolm wrote:
Visualizing clearly the Three Roots of the Anuyoga practice - Guru (Padma Thötrengtsal), Deva (Guru Tragpo or Guru Tragphur) and Dakini (Simhamukha) - and connecting the concentration with recitation of the mantra, for each of the Three Roots:
• According to recitation based on quantity, one must do seven hundred thousand, five hundred thousand or at least three hundred thousand recitations.
• According to recitation (based on quality) with perfect visualization integrated with the reciting of the mantra (singing the melody in the case of Padma Thötrengtsal) one must dedicate at least three weeks of recitation (in retreat).

So you have a choice between time and number.

dorje e gabbana said:
So he asks people seriously committed in getting semde, londe, mennagde teachings, to practice before the standard tantric set of practice required by all Nyma masters.

Malcolm wrote:
Another misconception.

dorje e gabbana said:
And it is very very good, and also nornal in a serious way to teach dzogchen,  even if for some people used to get only  external teaching form CNNR it seems very strange

Malcolm wrote:
SMS is not for everyone. Only for people who are interested.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Inge said:
Hi!
A few years ago I prematurely attended some teachings and empowerments that were given with lifetime daily practice commitments. Afterwards I struggeled immensely with these practices for maybe a half year of so, but they made no sense to me, and I ended up doing them out of guilt, and fear of vajra hell. Then I gave them up alltogether. Now I only try to follow the teachings of ChNN, do Guru Yoga when I remember, and other DC practices when I have time and energy, but I still fear negative consequenses for abandoning past practice commitments.

LunaRoja said:
In all fairness to Inge's original question she states she does Guru Yoga when she remembers. How often does she remember; once a day, once a week, once a month, every couple of years etc...?

Malcolm wrote:
And what business is it of yours? She is asking those of us who are in the DC what our teacher thinks about such things. So we explained it, very clearly.

All you people will wind up doing -- assuming she is paying the slightest attention to you (which she ought not) -- is enhancing her anxiety. This is not useful.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
conebeckham said:
Those of you with full faith and confidence in CNNR, follow his instructions.  Those of you with full faith and confidence in another teacher, follow that teacher's instructions.

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


samdrup said:
Thanks for your condescending reply anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
I know, and I thought I was a condescending prick...I have been bested.

heart said:
You didn't see that one coming, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope, right out of the goddamn blue sky.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


samdrup said:
Thanks for your condescending reply anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
I know, and I thought I was a condescending prick...I have been bested.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Adamantine said:
Or do you read this differently Malcolm?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I read it to mean that since the goal of all teachings is Atiyoga, doing Ati Guru Yoga sincerely actually develops all these transmissions.

People keep on bringing up this idea of a half-hearted A etc. Don't you understand that this in itself is a distracting misrepresentation? Or is it more important to you to tease out every possible defect then understand the main goddamn point?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Adamantine said:
Perhaps I did hear, and forgot. Hard to say. Although I have great respect for ChNN, and use many things he has taught me, he is not my main teacher since I feel it is important to have more access to my main teacher for questions and clarification than a moment on stage every couple years in the midst of a long line or a short email. As such, I have had many teachings which may not agree with ChNN's perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
We all have different paths. He is my main Guru. So for me, what he says matters first, then upadeshas, then tantras, etc. -- last on the list and very far down is the opinion of other Lamas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes! For the 100th time! I have said this over and over again for years. I find it hard to beleive that anyone who has been following ChNN's teachings for years could have failed to hear him say this.

M

Adamantine said:
Perhaps I did hear, and forgot. Hard to say. Although I have great respect for ChNN, and use many things he has taught me, he is not my main teacher since I feel it is important to have more access to my main teacher for questions and clarification than a moment on stage every couple years in the midst of a long line or a short email. As such, I have had many teachings which may not agree with ChNN's perspective.

I also was a student of KDL, could you clarify what he said regarding Guru Yoga fulfilling commitments? Which guru yoga was he referring to, any one, or a specific terma of his own?

Malcolm wrote:
He was referring to himself. Mere devotion to him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


dorje e gabbana said:
Dzog chen and  white A   GY are far beyond intellectual understanding.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh I get it now -- you really deeply understand Dzogchen teachings and Ati Guru Yoga much better than anyone here on Dharmawheel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
I think  DC practioners are intelligent  people and not 7 years old  children like you seem to think.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently not since you insult their intelligence at every turn and tell them that what they have heard that have not heard, what they have seen, they have not seen. It is actually you who are insisting that DC people are children, and not the other way around.

Anyway:

"First of all, when you take a a Tantric Initiation, you're given a water to drink. And this is called the water of one's vows, of one's promises. When you drink that water you've taken a kind of oath. You've sworn to follow that which you are about to commit yourself to. Many people do not know all this and collect hundreds of of different initiations. If one does this and then does nothing about these commitments, far from having done yourself good, what you have done is created obstacles and impediments for yourself. 

What do you have to do? You have to maintain the transmission. If you're a practitioner of Dzogchen and understand the principle involved, and you don't remain in some boxed-in limited conditions, you can for all of these commitments made carry them to the level of Guruyoga. Whatever transmissions you have received, you can take them to the level of their unification,and at that level practice the Guruyoga. In such a case it all becomes positive. That is to say, you're acting to deepen and develop all these transmissions you have received. 

You have to remember that this is the way of seeing of a Dzogchen practitioner. If one lives limited and boxed in to some level of teaching, then that's not the case for you. But you have to therefore understand and see through the limits of the traditions and systems.

Talks in OZ, 1982 ppg 171-172

As far as I can tell, you are very interested in keeping people in boxes of your own contrivance.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Pero said:
Perhaps you should learn something from them.

Malcolm wrote:
Honestly, it is amazing -- answer a simple question and the Buddhist Sanhedrin gets all up in arms. Seven pages of pointless perseveration about poor Inge's personal business.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
I  think  CNNR's teaching about the  way to integrate all samaya  trough Guruyoga is very precious. But  GY  according to him  is sinynomous of rigpa because he is a dzogchen master  and not a tantric master.

Well, many people are satisfied with general answers and don't dig in to the problem because they are not aware of all the implicatons or just to cut the story short not to feel  guilty conscience
Try to ask CNNR instead very directly if the samaya are kept even if you are not in the rigpa state and just  sound A, using your mind and not abiding in the nautre of mind..

Malcolm wrote:
As long as you are not indifferent, and are trying your best, then there is no problem, as I said -- a statement you rejected.

dorje e gabbana said:
The way to integrate alll lineage and samaya in the "White  A guru yoga" does not mean  that everthing is OK if you practice GY only following a dzog chen style, rather the real issue is to be really in dzog chen state of natural mind , and if you are or not in that rigpa state while sond A.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as you are trying your best, there is no problem.

dorje e gabbana said:
Unfortunately many people is not very interested in understandig if they really recognize  what your suppesed to recognize in Dzog chen.  T
They are just satisfied sounding A and everthing is really wonderful

Malcolm wrote:
Another misrepresentation. The question was "Can Ati Guru Yoga received from ChNN maintain your comittments to previously taken tantric practice commitments, etc." The answer, for those people who do not have wax in their ears and cobwebs in their eyes, YES!


Ati Guru Yoga is not just a method of maintaining commitments, no on said that it was. It is a method of discovering your instant presence, a supreme method, more important than many others. If you need help, more assistance, then you add Song of the Vajra. The point is not to remain complacent -- and if you think that is what I was saying you really are very wrong.

I don't even know who you are or if ChNN is your main teacher or what. But if he is, I am amazed that you do not understand the principle here. If not, then I can understand why you are out of step with our understanding.

Still, you should know better than to sow doubts in people's minds when they ask honest questions. This person, Inge said she could not relate to the practice she had received. She wanted to know a simple answer. She received it according to the principles that ChNN has been enuciating for years. If you are folloing his teaching, you should integrate all your transmissions and teachings into Guru Yoga of one of three styles, Ati, Anu, or Mahā -- your choice. That's it -- it is really simple. No one was advocating complacency or indifference to samaya or anything else -- so it is egregious that you, gabbana, have created such a mispresentation.

If people are offended because I said she did not have to go back to her former teacher and "give back" her practice commitment -- tough. Too goddamn bad. It is not necessary.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
Just received 'The Crystal and the Way of Light' today.

Very clear explanations about many things which I'm looking forward to examining more deeply, and very much consistent with advice given on other threads here with regard to : 'how to maintain commitment by applying the essentials of practice'.

I came across the drawing of Dorje Legba and, for reasons obvious to some of you, was a little taken aback until I noticed his right hand held a vajra. LOL


Malcolm wrote:
Yes,Vajrasadhu, the Dzogchen practitioner's friend.



This is the more characeristic way he presented in the DC, as a wild Masang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Thrasymachus said:
If it based on anything, it is based on income, since to purchase 100% organic you have to be fairly economically privileged.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense, you just have to be willing to cook.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
Your behaviour about this subject is really strange. I  do not intend coming back on it

Malcolm wrote:
Fine, you are not Pizza.

From my point of view, your behavior is strange. And it is good that you give this up.

I know very well, from long experience of many people including myself, that if she wrote an email to ChNN and asked him, he would tell her not to worry and to just continue to do Guru Yoga -- I have seen many personal emails from him to people with similar anxieties, because indeed this is a common anxiety. He always says the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Sherlock said:
Actually just yesterday he said that you can integrate teachings from other teachers, Gelugpa, Sakyapa etc with Guru Yoga but advised against telling them that because they would disagree.

Adamantine said:
Are you sure he was not talking about integrating the teachers into Guru Yoga? I don't see how you could integrate other teachings into Guru Yoga, but Rinpoche always encourages us to integrate all of our teachers while doing Guru Yoga.


Malcolm wrote:
No, he was talking about sadhana practice daily commitments! I frankly do not see why this is hard to understand. This was also teaching of Kunzang Dechen Lingpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Adamantine said:
I don't want to split hairs here, but this is a general, and interpretable statement. Does he really intend this to mean: whatever tantric samayas you may have received from other Lamas, however profound, and despite whatever they may tell you themselves: it doesn't matter, just do the Guruyoga I teach you and drop the rest, and you don't need to worry about the rest.??

Malcolm wrote:
Yes! For the 100th time! I have said this over and over again for years. I find it hard to beleive that anyone who has been following ChNN's teachings for years could have failed to hear him say this.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Adamantine said:
I might be missing something, but I don't see ChNN's quote as contradicting Longchenpa's in any way. The way I read ChNN's quote is that in Dzogchen practice, the only samaya is to find oneself in the condition of "what is," as it is. I believe this is the Dzogchen samaya, once one has transmission for it. He does not here say, imply, or intend that if you have already taken a Mahayoga empowerment for instance, with whatever samayas that entails, that taking Dzogchen transmission relieves you of that samaya and all you need to focus on is your Dzogchen samaya. I don't see how you get that at all from this quote. Please find some textual proof, in Dzogchen tantras or ChNN's own writing or transcribed teaching where he says this. I have attended a few retreats with him in person and a bunch of webcasts and read his books and I never ever heard him say this.

Sönam said:
"...according to Dzogchen the way to keep all samayas is to do Guruyoga." ... but of course it implies that one understand what is Dzogchen. Dzogchen is not incuded in Vajrayana ... Vajrayana can be included in Dzogchen. ChNN call it "to integrate".

Dzogchen is not for all practitioners ...
Sönam

Malcolm wrote:
I would revise that slightly -- ChNN's Dzogchen is not for all practitioners since people find his perspectives unsettling. Anyway, he said even just now, if you have not understood rigpa, then you do Song of the Vajra, as it says in the Nyi zla kha byor tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Sönam said:
Some people are making Tune book, they say I make Dzogchen practice, it is not Dzogchen practice. Tune book is Anuyoga. Dzogchen is Guru Yoga ...
ChNN - 5/25/2012


Malcolm wrote:
Yes -- but it is not our job to condition people. Mostly, we have been pushing back because people are strongly trying to condition us. The truth is that we just need to ignore people who disagree with us about what our teacher says. We are committed to his teachings, they are not -- so their opinion is pretty irrelevant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Adamantine said:
I might be missing something, but I don't see ChNN's quote as contradicting Longchenpa's in any way. The way I read ChNN's quote is that in Dzogchen practice, the only samaya is to find oneself in the condition of "what is," as it is. I believe this is the Dzogchen samaya, once one has transmission for it. He does not here say, imply, or intend that if you have already taken a Mahayoga empowerment for instance, with whatever samayas that entails, that taking Dzogchen transmission relieves you of that samaya and all you need to focus on is your Dzogchen samaya. I don't see how you get that at all from this quote. Please find some textual proof, in Dzogchen tantras or ChNN's own writing or transcribed teaching where he says this. I have attended a few retreats with him in person and a bunch of webcasts and read his books and I never ever heard him say this.


Malcolm wrote:
From the Guruyoga book:

"...according to Dzogchen the way to keep all samayas is to do Guruyoga."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
Malcom Please provide any proof that CNNR has really stated or written what you have just stated about the fact that trying do to your best even though you are not in rigpa state is enough to keep other tantric samayas.


Malcolm wrote:
Pizza, If I do not reply to your question, you can understand that I think your question is absolutley worthless because it mispresents what I said. The same goes for Mariusz. However, this one last time:

From the Guruyoga book:

"...according to Dzogchen the way to keep all samayas is to do Guruyoga."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


rai said:
because i cannot rest in rigpa and dont have really idea about it is but i can sound A with visualization. would that be sufficient then?

Malcolm wrote:
It means you understand that the white A and thigle in your heart unifies all your transmissions. Even if you have not yet come to confidence about what rigpa means, since you are trying your best, this is sufficient. If you want to do something more elaborate, you can do an Anu or Mahāyoga style guru yoga ala the short thun or medium thun. It is always up to you.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
I note he is acting like a normal Nyingma master sending his son to Tibet to be enthroned as a Tulku and set him up as his successor. What am I missing?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
well, for one, it was a Sakya monastery, the Sakya monastery ChNN's family has been associated with for centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
I note that the triple refuge is a part of the Thun's ChNNR teach.

Malcolm wrote:
The thun book is not Dzogchen, as ChNN says everytime he gives the lung from that text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen Community is not part of Nyingma. I wish people would just get used to this fact.

heart said:
Because you say so, or do you have a quote?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Because ChNN says he is not a Nyingmapa.

Also I do not belong to any school of Tibetan Buddhism. I am just a member of the DC.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Now, I never met Longchenpa -- but I know ChNN, since he is my root guru. The person who asked the original question is a student of ChNN and interested in following him, I will refer that person to ChNN's POV over Longchenpa.

Sorry if you find that offensive.


LunaRoja said:
No offense. It is good to offer different POV.


Malcolm wrote:
In ChNN's case, you can consider that he has granted all of his students permission to just unify their practice in Ati Guru Yoga. I was talking to a ChNN student.

At the end of the day, one must admit that students of ChNN have a very different attitude towards these issues than Nyingmapas. So really, it is better to leave it alone.

And it is super boring to have people insist to us we have not understood our own teacher's point of view. I have been to countless retreats with ChNN and read countless books by him. But every now and again, someone comes along who is not in the DC who starts telling DC people based on Nyingma, or Kagyu, or whatever, what we are supposed to think. Just stop it.

Dzogchen Community is not part of Nyingma. I wish people would just get used to this fact.

Thanks,

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Is that supposed to be Lama Drimed Norbu?

because I think he's a Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
What I heard as that Wynn Fischel got bounced from Rigdzin Ling because he started incorporating Shamanic work and so on for his students and freaked out the Buddhist conservatives. Or so I have been told by people who lived there and are close to the situtation.

M

Adamantine said:
I think his name is Alwyn, and I don't know about all that.. All I know is David (in LA) who I think you must know via Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, speaks quite highly of him.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, everyone I know speaks highly of Wynn. It is also true that he started working with shamanism and energy practices from non-Buddhist sources because he thought it was useful for his students and from what I understand the Buddhist conservatives at Rigzin Ling freaked out and tossed him out on his ear.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
LunaRoja said:
"When one is practicing on such a path, it is necessary to observe all the primary and secondary samayas (which are subsumed within the principles of enlightened form, speech, and mind) just as they are described. If one does not observe them, one will develop many faults, the inevitable consequences of which are weighty, and one will linger for a long time in lower states of rebirth" Longchenpa ( How the Lower Approaches are Subsumed into The Higher) p.353 The Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems

Malcolm wrote:
When one receives an initiation, for example, one promises to carry out the transformation practice daily, reciting the corresponding mantra at least three or seven times. On top of this commitment, there are also many other related samaya which must be observed. But in Dzogchen the only samaya involved is to find oneself in the condition of "what is," as it is. All the rest, that is to say all the judgments and creations of the mind, all our limits, and so on, all these are false and superfluous.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (Kindle Locations 986-989). Kindle Edition.

Now, I never met Longchenpa -- but I know ChNN, since he is my root guru. The person who asked the original question is a student of ChNN and interested in following him, I will refer that person to ChNN's POV over Longchenpa.

Sorry if you find that offensive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
LunaRoja said:
I also have heard of returning samaya. Thank you Dorje e gabbana!

Malcolm wrote:
No one said you cannot ask some Guru to relieve you of samaya you may have undertaken. But there is no ritual to do so. You simply ask.

It is also true that if you are a Dzogchen practioner, there is no need to return anything -- all samayas are maintained perfectly by pursuing Dzogchen practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
I have never met a stand along dzog chenpa and probably the only one in all the dzog chen history was Garab Dorje -Prahevajra

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen practitioners can make use of all and any methods they choose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
This is all nice, but in reality it is just so much conceptual proliferation. Commitments are connected with a path. If you decide you are not going to follow that path, then what is the point of maintaining commitments to a path one is not following? None
Malcolm Your point is very original in both vajrayana and dzogchen.
Try to explain it to dakinis and Daharmapala and  Damchens when you will be in the bardo, they  will probably consider your little Occam  human logic even though they are everything but humans and they are not P.C. and sensitive about human rights

Malcolm wrote:
You worry about you. I will worry about me.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
These are the first  sources I can give you right away.  Study both of you guys  better Vajrayana and you will find evidence of that

Malcolm wrote:
These are not sources. This is just hearsay. A source would be, for example, a clear statement from some tantra, etc. Since no such rite exists, however, you will not be able to provide such a source.


Adamantine said:
Maybe not in a text, but Kagyu is the "ear whispered" lineage after all Malcolm! Maybe give the benefit of the doubt to this persons teachers. . . Tantras are coded and interpretable, which is why there is such an emphasis on oral instructions. . .

Malcolm wrote:
All Varjayāna lineages are so called snyan rgyuds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
but this is anyhway the teching I received from the lama I mentioned

Malcolm wrote:
Your lama is not an authority for anyone but you. Further, this has nothing to do with Dzogchen teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Josef said:
Its completely unnecessary to "remove" the samayas whether or not there is a ritual to do so.
Practicing Dzogchen properly keeps all samayas.
There is no need to give anything up or give anything back.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, correct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
These are the first  sources I can give you right away.  Study both of you guys  better Vajrayana and you will find evidence of that

Malcolm wrote:
These are not sources. This is just hearsay. A source would be, for example, a clear statement from some tantra, etc. Since no such rite exists, however, you will not be able to provide such a source.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Is that supposed to be Lama Drimed Norbu?

because I think he's a Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
What I heard as that Wynn Fischel got bounced from Rigdzin Ling because he started incorporating Shamanic work and so on for his students and freaked out the Buddhist conservatives. Or so I have been told by people who lived there and are close to the situtation.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When one receives an initiation, for example, one promises to carry out the transformation practice daily, reciting the corresponding mantra at least three or seven times. On top of this commitment, there are also many other related samaya which must be observed. But in Dzogchen the only samaya involved is to find oneself in the condition of "what is," as it is. All the rest, that is to say all the judgments and creations of the mind, all our limits, and so on, all these are false and superfluous.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (Kindle Locations 986-989). Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Yontan said:
There's no benefit to "worrying" about past commitments, but from our confused pov, the importance of maintaining prior commitments is not something to poo-poo and abandon. When we commit to and engage in a higher practice it encompasses the intent of the lower practice. It reminds us of the parable of the friends who made a boat to carry them to the island of gold and then carried the boat on their heads out of respect.
If we abandon prior commitments, it robs us of the power to commit. When we commit to a higher practice, we can feed all of our resolve into it and make aspirations that all previous dharmic committments be fulfilled in this practice, and that any failing of commitment will be mitigated by our even stronger current commitment. This keeps us from being lazy and from falling into the fault of abandoning the lineage.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all nice, but in reality it is just so much conceptual proliferation. Commitments are connected with a path. If you decide you are not going to follow that path, then what is the point of maintaining commitments to a path one is not following? None.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
As matter of fact  in Vajrayana there are specific  rituals  in order to give back  tantric samaya to the master who gave you...

Malcolm wrote:
Nonesense -- such a rite does not exist.

dorje e gabbana said:
For the same reasons a monk can give back his vinaya vows and come back to the layman status.

Malcolm wrote:
This only applies in Hīnayāna. There is no rite for returning a vow in Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
Perfect. But I wasn't speaking about what he said from the 90's on. What you say , Malcolm,  is very well known by everybody who followed CNNR throughout the years.

Instead I was speaking  about what he tought in the 70's and I tried to figure out why he changed his definition of rigpa


Malcolm wrote:
I explained, it is the difference between dran shes and shes rig i.e. aware mindfulness and knowing awareness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Pero said:
(and you shouldn't abandon your Vajra teachers in any case).

Malcolm wrote:
Unless they prove to be total dipshits and false guides.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:
dorje e gabbana said:
He calls rigpa instant presence because in tregchö the essence is ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma i.e. a moment of unfabricated awareness. ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma is not mind, it is beyond mind, thoughts and concepts.
Yes but as I explained in the 70's he pointed out that whatever kind of presence (instant presence or presence) was not rigpa. Than he changed as he changed many other things
How long have you been known CNNR?
In any case I am  just  dorje e gabbana and nobody else.

Malcolm wrote:
Since 1992. Now, CHNN is very clear presence = mindfulness; instant presence = rigpa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:
Unknown said:
CNNR got probably used to indicate rigpa as the state of presence after meeting the Gurdjef followers in Conway Comunity. They gave him their own centre recognizing him as the master they were looking for many yrs who was the natural link with the gurdjef simple teachings about presence, they were used to adopt in their studies. That is my thought because CNNR did not use the word presence as synonymous with rigpa before meeting the Conway's guys.

CNNR started to use very often the equation rigpa=presence, may be because he thought it was a more understandable definition for western disciples, even though in the 70's it was very clear about the fact that Rigpa is not Presence.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, ChNN does not equate rigpa with presence. That is mindfulness.

He calls rigpa instant presence because in tregchö the essence is ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma i.e. a moment of unfabricated awareness. ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma is not mind, it is beyond mind, thoughts and concepts.

BTW, welcome back Dorje Pizza


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:
Sönam said:
Not to forget that Namkhai Norbu itself has choose to translate rigpa by "presence".
Sönam

Malcolm wrote:
Sonam: ChNN translates dran pa i.e. mindfulness as presence. rig pa is translated as instant presence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The idea of a daily practice commitment comes from lower tantra. This is not a Dzogchen principle.

LunaRoja said:
No I am not being deliberately obtuse. I wanted you to clarify your answer which I did not understand. The daily practice commitments usually come from HYT not the lower tantras. I know some Dzogchen Lamas that also give HYT empowerment's.
No need to be insulting. So far I am not in agreement with what you said. I will maintain my samaya with my Vajrayana gurus. You make your own choice.

Malcolm wrote:
The notion of daily practice commitments comes from lower tantras. In Tibet the practice of the three outer tantas has greatly influenced the way higher yoga tantras are practiced.

Also such things as the shape of the vajra and the bell, etc. You have a mantra, you must recite this everyday. This is completely not in accordance with any principles of Dzoghen teachings. Of course they have their own principles, but there is no Dzogchen tantra anywhere that says "When you receive this empowerment, you must recite this mantra, etc...".

The question was: is a Dzogchen practitioner required to maintain previous practice comittments they might have received. The answer is you can unify all comittments into Guru Yoga, and no, you do not have to recite every mantra that came with a lifetime practice comitment because that idea is a from lower tantra, which includes maha and anu.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I hope in this Dharma Wheel forum for Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists we can celebrate and rejoice in the great fortune we have to have met the Dharma in this life.

Malcolm wrote:
I have not been debating, just teasing out more possibilities than Buddhists typically wish to allow.

But yes, of course -- Namo Shakyamunaye.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Sönam said:
not only they are deaf ... but also they are blind

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they only see what they beleive.

Oh well, the funny thing is I am not conditioning anyone. But Mariusz in particular is very interested in conditioning others to his point of view. Well this is his limitation, and not ours.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I fear that these type of dialogues may even produce some new examples.

Malcolm wrote:
"Fear is the mind-killer."

-- Bene Gesserit litany against fear


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen teachings are neither a philosophy, nor a religious doctrine, nor a cultural tradition. Understanding the message of the teachings means discovering one's own true condition, stripped of all the self-deceptions and falsifications which the mind creates. The very meaning of the Tibetan term Dzogchen, "Great Perfection," refers to the true primordial state of every individual and not to any transcendent reality.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (Kindle Locations 123-125). Kindle Edition.

For example, those who already have a certain familiarity with Tibetan culture might think that to practice Dzogchen you have to convert to either Buddhism or Bon, because Dzogchen has been spread through these two religious traditions. This shows how limited our way of thinking is. If we decide to follow a spiritual teaching, we are convinced that it is necessary for us to change something, such as our way of dressing, of eating, of behaving, and so on. But Dzogchen does not ask one to adhere to any religious doctrine or to enter a monastic order, or to blindly accept the teachings and become a "Dzogchenist." All of these things can, in fact, create serious obstacles to true knowledge.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (Kindle Locations 161-166). Kindle Edition.

The principle in Dzogchen is to avoid creating anything false, and to really understand the reasons for what one is doing. It is not important to define oneself as belonging to this or that school, tradition, or point of view, and it makes no difference whether one considers oneself to be Buddhist or not. Basically, feeling oneself to be a follower of something or other is just a limit, and what one really needs is to understand one's own condition and to open oneself, getting rid of all these kinds of barriers.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (Kindle Locations 1048-1051). Kindle Edition.

For a practitioner of Dzogchen, even to call oneself "nonsectarian" is just another way of taking a position of one's own in relation to the position of someone else, which is irrelevant, because the truth is that any definition of this kind at all is an unnecessary limitation.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State (Kindle Locations 1054-1055). Kindle Edition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Have you found this master in non-Buddhism or non-Bon now in the world? Simply answer please.

Malcolm wrote:
I already answered this question.

Mariusz said:
Please repeat, I didn't read it.

Malcolm wrote:
Read my posts. I am not here merely to answer your obsessive questions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
So are you finally agree Buddhism or Bon is necessary for complete transmission of Dzogchen now, including realization of 4 visions? I,ve questioned you it here.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither Buddhism nor Bon are necessary for a complete transmission of Dzogchen. All that is necessary is a Dzogchen master.


M


kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Is it for that so called Dzogchen Master important to partake or not within the Buddhist Dzogchen Lineages and Masters?

Mutsog Marro
KY

Malcolm wrote:
What do you mean by partake?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
So are you finally agree Buddhism or Bon is necessary for complete transmission of Dzogchen now, including realization of 4 visions? I,ve questioned you it here.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither Buddhism nor Bon are necessary for a complete transmission of Dzogchen. All that is necessary is a Dzogchen master.


M

Mariusz said:
Have you found this master in non-Buddhism or non-Bon now in the world? It is necessary or not? Simply answer please.

Malcolm wrote:
I already answered this question.

I will say "My master was educated a Buddhist."

You will say Aha! So Dzogchen must be Buddhist! (or Bon).

I will say, no, Dzogchen is beyond that.

You are merely chasing your tail.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Ok, it is a Buddhist belief with a couple noted exceptions. This doesn't really change the point. Unless you are arguing that some Hindus and followers of a relatively extinct version of Christianity can practice Dzogchen without contradiction, but not everyone else?

Malcolm wrote:
It is also a mondern finding consistent with Quantum physics of various strands, and so on -- there are all kinds of people and people who do not think that world is "real" per se.

People who think the world is real generally do not seek out Eastern spiritual traditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:11 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Who said anything about erase? One's comittment is to discover one's primordial state. As long as that remains your focus, there is no problem at all.

M

LunaRoja said:
To clarify my question a Lama who may or may not be a Dzogchen master gives a student an empowerment and states the samaya is to do the sadhana for the rest of one's life. The student decides to focus on discovering their primordial state instead of doing the sadhana.  How does this fulfill their commitment?

Malcolm wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The idea of a daily practice commitment comes from lower tantra. This is not a Dzogchen principle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pero said:
Is it OK to post such long excerpts from restricted books (if they're not explaning the practices itself)?

Malcolm wrote:
that is on the web for anyone to read.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
dupe


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
So are you finally agree Buddhism or Bon is necessary for complete transmission of Dzogchen now, including realization of 4 visions? I,ve questioned you it here.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither Buddhism nor Bon are necessary for a complete transmission of Dzogchen. All that is necessary is a Dzogchen master.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
...experiences of realms are just as real as our experience of our human realm.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is to say they are not real at all.

Adamantine said:
That is a Buddhist belief.

Malcolm wrote:
Well no it isn't. It is a commonly shared perspective all across the spectrum of Indian relgions. It is also present in Christianity vix platonism, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Again, how is anyone from another tradition (most other traditions have elements of Eternalism), or a scientific-materialist/empiricist going to agree with this? Let alone be able to practice a tradition based on this view? I understand that people from other traditions can be exposed to Dzogchen teachings, and even begin practicing them.. but at a certain point, they are going to have to choose one view or another.

Malcolm wrote:
The only "view" they have to adopt is that the ignorant mind has the capacity to display all possibilities of suffering. They do not have to adopt a cosmology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Here I'm writing there is no any lineage outside Buddhism and Bon now. Someones believe otherwise here...

Malcolm wrote:
It is really amazing how persistant and wrongheaded your mischaracterizations are.

I never stated anywhere that there was at present a lineage of Dzogchen that existed outside the container of the religions known as Buddhism and Bon.

What I said was that in order to practice Dzogchen one does not have to sign up and become a Buddhist or a Bonpo. Two entirely different statements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Lets say we decide to take ChNN's theory of the origin of ZZNG as being the correct theory. There is no evidence in what scholars consider to be "early Bon" that the Bonpos had a theory of rebirth that corresponds to the Pan-Indian cultural idea of the six lokas.


Adamantine said:
There is not much known about "early Bon" at all so there is hardly room for much beyond speculation. . .Not much to go on as a basis for your arguments.

Malcolm wrote:
One thing for sure, Bonpos did not have a Buddhist cosomology.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
...experiences of realms are just as real as our experience of our human realm.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is to say they are not real at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality there are no six lokas anyway.

M


Adamantine said:
In "reality" there is no reality. But relative to our shared experience of the human realm, the 6 lokas exist: according to Buddhism and Dzogchen.


Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not true. For human beings, there is no hell realm, not deva realm, no ghost realm: when is the last time you saw any types of sentient being that was not a human or an animal?

When you have the experience of a hell being, you will not have any awareness of human beings, devas, etc.

The six lokas are merely potentialities in our bodyminds. Right now that potentiality is expressing itself as the human realm. The six lokas are not external realities that exist side by side like six bookshelves which have books on devas, asuras, humans, animals, pretas and hell beings.

To put it another way -- ignorance can experience itself as any of the six lokas. This does not say anything about some "objective" or "relative" existence of the six lokas.

It may be convenient for someone to believe in the relative existence of the six lokas, but it is pretty hard to defend the existence fo the six lokas as anything more than the expression of traces. And when we are not expressing those traces those realms do not "externally" exist for us in any way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
The point is, how do Dzogchen teachings function without any belief, in the sense of Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs?  I don't think based on what and how ChNN teaches, that this is his intent.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen practice does not depend on a literal belief in the six lokas. It depends on the understanding that the ignorant mind can generate all false appearances because of not percieving our true condition. Six lokas practice merely eliminates the traces for those false appearances. For example, for us, there is no hell. We do not perceive hell, hell is outside our experential range. For us hell is completely false. For a hell being, the human realm is completely false. The root of both is an ignorant mind that has traces to produce those experiences. We do not need to imagine the six lokas exist anywhere other than in our own bodyminds.

But I did not advance Dzogchen as radical empiricism. The Dzogchen proposition that our experience of sentient beings and the world is a misperception of radiant wisdom light is sufficient to put an end the idea that it is.

However, the essential point in Dzogchen teachings is direct introduction and an experience of instant presence. That does not depend on any belief at all other than desire to come to recognize one's real state.

Considering that the body of light is a commonly advanced desiderata of Dzogchen practice, it is difficult to be a radical empiricist ala Batchelor, Dawkings and Harris and practice Dzogchen.

Lets say we decide to take ChNN's theory of the origin of ZZNG as being the correct theory. There is no evidence in what scholars consider to be "early Bon" that the Bonpos had a theory of rebirth that corresponds to the Pan-Indian cultural idea of the six lokas. But they had Dzogchen. Later, when the Dzogchen lineage of Garab Dorje entered Tibet, the Bonpos adopted a number of ideas from the adoption of Buddhism including the bardo, six lokas, and so on.

So, there are number of angles we can approach this from without having necessarily adopt scientific atheism as our view.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:




Adamantine said:
BTW, I don't have a horse in this race: however, there are simple points that don't hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps that is why you are not responding to them in any adequate way. For instance, purification of the six lokas: standard Dzogchen preliminary-- how do you relate to this if you simply do not believe in karma, bardo, or rebirth in the six realms?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, anyone can see they have five afflictions. So if they understand the six lokas as being metaphors for the six afflictive states, then they can do the practice without beleiving in rebirth.

In reality there are no six lokas anyway.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pero said:
Yes great idea, so he can become pissed again.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes I can see it now:

Dear ChNN:

Your student Malcolm says anyone can practice Dzogchen, they do not have to become a Buddhist. He even says Dzogchen is not Buddhist, it goes beyond Buddhism. Is this really true? I really think Malcolm is harming Buddhism and ruining people's paths. I am sure he is going to go to hell for eons, but I just want to make sure that I am right, so I am writing to you to confirm my opinion. He is a really bad person, and is confusing everyone with all this talk of Dzogchen being an independent vehicle, and the fact that you do not have get a Buddhist name to practice Dzogchen. He even says that Dzogchen is a separate lineage in Bon! But we all know that our compassionate Padmasambhava took pity on the poor ignorant Bonpos and manifested as a teacher to till the soil a bit to make them ready to receive the seed of our wonderful true Buddhist Dzogchen(tm). Please write back soon so that I can tell him and everyone else how wrong he is.

Thanks, 

Faithful Buddhist Snitch 

PS It does not matter that he has introduced scores of people to your teachings via webcast via private emails for the past 10 years, he still is a very bad man.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Btw, insofar as I understand Malcolm doesn't disagree with the notion that Dzogchen is 'the essence of Buddhist teachings'. On the contrary, he's been arguing that Dzogchen is very much the essence of Buddhist teachings - as well as of any other 'spiritual' teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, my point is that Dzogchen, our true state, is the essence of _all_ Dharmas and that it just not come from the store bearing a tag that says "Made in Buddhism".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
Buddhadharma, even if it recognizes a greater value in human life, still sees significant value in the lives of all other beings, including animals. Part of this is recognizing that our own mindstreams can incarnate in such forms, and that any animals or other beings may have been a close relation to us in prior lives. This is a practical way to see an equalizing factor that instills a naturally arising empathy: Kantian theory doesn't even have a trace of this. I don't find any solace in his ethical theory regarding animals.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of this exercise was not to say that Kant's teaching was better than the Buddha's. The point was the remove the objection that a theory of rebirth was necessary to behave as a moral agent, which is essentially what DKR was saying. I did not agree with it when he said it in Walden, I do not agree with it now. And I never would be so foolish as to use it as an example.

However, there is a level of sophistication of discourse in western moral philosophy which is absent in Buddhist philosophy. As you know, moral philosophy did not end with Kant, nor begin with him.

It is a good thing we have such as a Journal of Buddhist Ethics, because slowly Buddhist philosphers will gain sophistication when discussing these issues among themselves and with others.

On the other hand, Buddhists also use animals as things all the time.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
If you follow Dzogchen as a system of assertions...

Malcolm wrote:
I don't. Others may.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Christians, and everyone will experience sound, lights and rays in the bardo.
M

Adamantine said:
So says your religion. (Buddhism). A Christian will not agree that this is what everyone will experience.

Personal experience trumps belief, even Buddhist beliefs.
You are claiming personal experience of the bardo after death?

Malcolm wrote:
No, of course not. I would have to die in order in order to have that experience and I don't remember the last round.

But, even if you don't accept rebirth, practicing Dzogchen will help you relax in this life, and if you have experience in this life, then when you find yourself in the bardo, you will know what do to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Anuyoga in Kyrgyzstan
Content:
Sherlock said:
ChNN has said a few times that anuyoga was mainly transmitted to Tibet from what is currently Kyrgyzstan. Does anyone have more information about this? There does not seem to be an archaeological record of a literate, Buddhist culture there. Could it be instead a reference to the Tocharians?


Malcolm wrote:
It depends on whether you identify 'Dru sha as a corruptions of "Turkish" as ChNN seems to, or whether you think 'bru sha is Gilgit, which is the modern academic consensus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Title: Re: Other students of Changchub Dorje?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Are there any other known students of Changchub Dorje besides ChNN? If so, are they teaching? IF not then I suppose most of them are still in Tibet and quite old now; does anyone know where Changchub Dorje's gar was?

Malcolm wrote:
Lama Wangdor is one, and there may be some others in Tibet near Khamdo gar. Changchub Dorje's grandson is alive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
All deity practices represent a method of trying to discover your primordial state. Also that is the purpose of Dzogchen. If you are doing the latter you don't need to do the former.

M

LunaRoja said:
I don't understand how Dzogchen practice can erase your previous commitments and maybe this commitment is to another Dzogchen master.


Malcolm wrote:
Who said anything about erase? One's comittment is to discover one's primordial state. As long as that remains your focus, there is no problem at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Let's examine: ChNN and other teacher of Dzogchen point out that for most of us, we will not reach liberation in this life, but in the bardo. Like the Garuda, born fully grown once the egg hatches. How are we to interpret this outside of the teachings on the bardo? As a Christian, or Muslim, or Amazonian Shaman, (or existentialist) you will have your own structured belief about what happens immediately at the time of death, which may contradict bardo teachings. How does this fit with the argument that any denomination of any tradition can also be a full-fledged Dzogchen practitioner? At a certain point, they will have to choose to discard one version, or the other, ---or both will lose all sense.

Malcolm wrote:
Christians, and everyone will experience sound, lights and rays in the bardo. If they practice Dzogchen, they will learn how to recognize this experience.

Personal experience trumps belief, even Buddhist beliefs.


Adamantine said:
It seems all or most of the people arguing for an autonomous Dzogchen are part of the Dzogchen Community, --as Malcolm points out, a very human institution. Are we arguing for a Dzogchen without the Dzogchen Community? Why would we? That's where the teachings are held, cared for, and transmitted. Same with Buddhism. And they are not different. In DC, Rinpoche has us do Tuns and Ganapujas which have very Buddhist, tantric, practices..
Deity Yoga, mantra recitation, seven line prayer, protectors, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Insitutions are impermanent. They develop, flourish and then die out. Buddhism developed, flourished, and is now dying.

Dharma, on the other hand, is eternal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I am aware, and I am aware of how completely amoral Kant was in regards to animals. As he determined animals to be not rational, and without wills, he saw them as mechanical and in no need of any ethical treatment. It is traces of Kantian theory which I believe lie at the root for the scientific atrocities that are perpetrated on animals every day in modern society, not to mention industrial animal farming. I find Kant completely ethically bankrupt on this count. I couldn't think of a worse example.

Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing Kant with Descartes:

Any action whereby we may torment animals, or let them suffer distress, or otherwise treat them without love, is demeaning to ourselves
-- Immanuel Kant.

Adamantine said:
Maybe Kant developed a little more subtlety around his approach to animals than Descartes, but he still retained the view that animals were without will, and basically mechanical. I don't see how you can have it both ways, I don't think he did much to further any ethical approach to animals, when he continued to further Descartian paradigms.  Anyhow, even in the above quote, the act of killing is not included as being problematic.

Malcolm wrote:
'

If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.

-- Kant

That the Buddha did not accord animals the same status as humans can be understood from the mere fact that killing animals is an act which requires mere confession with no punishment at all, like drinking alchohol, digging in the earth or plucking the leaves off of trees. For a Buddhist monk, masturbation is considered a more serious offense than killing an animal, requiring not only confession but a form of stringent probation in isolation. Needless to say, killing a human or even a human fetus is a parajika offense which causes one to lose one's vows completely.

In general, the prohibition against killing for lay people primarily means killing humans, but has been extended to all sentient beings though long and ancient custom as an extension of Ahimsa, formally included in Tibetan Buddhism as a commitment of refuge in the Dharma. But the discussions of killing in Abhidharma, etc., never involve discussions of killing animals, only the murder of human beings.

The practice of ahimsa is actually separate from the vow of not taking life, since ahimsa extends not only to animals but plants and other features of what we considered the natural environement. Ahimsa is not a vow. Ahimsa is an ethic, a way of life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


cloudburst said:
Sorry if I upset anyone!


Malcolm wrote:
Nope, no one is upset here.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Back then, when you made those statements, you were (obviously) sure of their validity, as you are sure of the validity of your current statements.


Malcolm wrote:
Hopefully we all are capable of being self-reflexive and seeing where we have erred.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
I am aware, and I am aware of how completely amoral Kant was in regards to animals. As he determined animals to be not rational, and without wills, he saw them as mechanical and in no need of any ethical treatment. It is traces of Kantian theory which I believe lie at the root for the scientific atrocities that are perpetrated on animals every day in modern society, not to mention industrial animal farming. I find Kant completely ethically bankrupt on this count. I couldn't think of a worse example.

Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing Kant with Descartes:

Any action whereby we may torment animals, or let them suffer distress, or otherwise treat them without love, is demeaning to ourselves
-- Immanuel Kant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:


Adamantine said:
Horses are slaughtered everyday in USA and used for petfood. I can't speak to how things may have been done in old Tibet, but clearly the meat-for-food industry was questionable using muslims as butchers, etc. as a way to distance themselves from the killing, even as they were placing the orders. However, I don't think it would have been too unusual to find dead animals in old Tibet either.. harsh climate. . especially at a time when weather-control would have been deemed necessary. I assume Malcolm can clear all this up, having been close with Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje.

Malcolm wrote:
Mostly this phenomena of using muslim butchers is a Lhasa custom. In other regions, where Muslims were not to be found, Tibetans had to kill their own food animals. It is a pratical necessity.

Actually, it is just a fact of samsara -- animal husbandry and salughter provides the raw resources for virtually all organic farming. This is one reason why I think the vegans are nuts. They are not living in the real world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
kirtu said:
However Malcolm told us that his ngakpa teacher did indeed perform a blood sacrifice of real animals as part of a weather controlling ritual of some sort.

Adamantine said:
I think you are mistaken here Kirt. Malcolm can clarify, but I recall that NYD may have used some horse heads or something as an offering to placate certain entities with control over the weather, -- but he did not kill these animals or order them to be killed. In this sense, it does not seem much different than ganapuja or protector offerings that include meat.

kirtu said:
I hope that I am mistaken but horse heads can't be that easy to come by.  Cow heads unfortunately are another matter.  But look, in old Tibet how would this ritual have been performed?  Would they have waited around for some animals to die naturally and then to encase the head or other animal part in some kind of resin for reuse, etc.?  Probably not.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans, especially nomads and farmers, slaughter animals quite regularly (by suffocation usually, basically waterboarding them), feel bad about it, and try to purify the effect of that karma yearly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
kirtu said:
However Malcolm told us that his ngakpa teacher did indeed perform a blood sacrifice of real animals as part of a weather controlling ritual of some sort.

Malcolm wrote:
I never said that.

They went to an abbatoir and procured the head of a bull that had been slaughtered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
In regards to the philosophical approaches to ethics within an existential or scientific-materialist framework, perhaps there can be found an infinite number of reasons to act ethically. But ethics are completely subjective in many ways, as is the idea of non-harm. For many, capital punishment, or abortion as a means of family-planning, or even torture are considered ethical for many. And even if some nominal sense of ethics can be found in materialistic traditions or those of other religions, your above quotations included, I think the six paramitas would be way outside of their comfort-zones, and would appear completely nonsensical.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite clear from your statement you have not delved into the Western tradition of moral philosophy very deep.

The impact of Kant's metaphysic of morals is very simple, and can be stated as follows: "A rational being has the obligation to protect other rational beings, even and especially at their own expense because rational beings must never be used as a means for our own end as we would never wish to be used as means."

The entire human rights movement grew out of Kant's moral metaphysics. In terms of moral philosophy, Buddhism is far behind the curve in terms of sophistication, for the most part still in the 14th century somewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I imagine many here will find themselves with egg on their faces and their feet lodged firmly in their mouths.


Malcolm wrote:
What the hell does that mean Greg?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
Malcolm, with all due respect you were at the same teaching and brought up this same quote, with a similar point in a thread about Reggie Ray on Esangha a few years ago. He wasn't in your list of things you felt sorry for, should he have been? If you've completely gone 360 on this issue, that is fine, it is sad to see you join the ranks of Stephen Batchelor though.

Malcolm wrote:
With all due respect, I never said that ethical action without beleiving in karma was impossible. I think it is a foolish thing to say.

As far as Ray goes, I criticized him for saying that rebirth was not a necessary part of the Dharma taught by the Buddha. He was wrong to say that. So, not I am not sorry for making that observation. If someone claims that we can eject rebirth as so much Asian baggage, that person is not teaching the Dharma of the Buddha correctly.

Just because I feel a little sad for some things I have said does not mean that I have necessarily changed my opinions about these issues. It just means that I recognized the folly of creating enemies when it is not necessary.

Adamantine said:
I also strongly disagree that Dzongsar Khyentse's statement is intellectually impoverished. .

Malcolm wrote:
I find the suggestion that moral action only to be possible in the context of rebirth a repugnant claim.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Hi Malcolm

I understood all of that the first time you explained it. I just cannot agree with you that somehow Buddhism is a human construct, a human institution (and it shows), but Dzogchen is not.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is not Dharma.

mindyourmind said:
Another big disagreement there.

Your cynicism is really not good to see, Malcolm. I know there is this wordplay going on about the meaning of "Buddhism" and "Dharma", but I just look at that in plain language, and this trip of yours not something I want to be  a part of.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, Buddhism is just a container. Bon is another. Dharma is beyond these things. We categorize these things into convenient categories put them on shelves, and then we begin to think the label is the food.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Hi Malcolm

I understood all of that the first time you explained it. I just cannot agree with you that somehow Buddhism is a human construct, a human institution (and it shows), but Dzogchen is not.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is not Dharma. Just a container.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Death at Tibetan Buddhist meditation retreat in Arizona
Content:
conebeckham said:
The "touched my genitals" thing vis a vis a Yamantaka empowerment?  WTF?

Malcolm wrote:
Come on, admit it -- you're just jealous!!!

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
What many are saying is that they can conceive a Dzogchen that can be practiced by people who don't identify themselves as Buddhists and that there's the possibility of Dzogchen standing outside the limitations of any denomination, Buddhist or otherwise. I keep failing to understand why this is polemic. Do you think Dzogchen must be considered Buddhist to work?

heart said:
Not at all, for me you are free to experiment. Anyway, who could stop you, the pope of Buddhism? The whole way through this long thread my only point is that Dzogchen is, and have been since Garab Dorje, a part of Buddhism. As I said many times, for me Dzogchen is the heart of Buddhism.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and no one told you that you could not or should not feel that way.

I don't agree with your historical read, however.

For me, Dzogchen is the essence of Dharma, be it samsaric or nirvanic, but not all Buddhists accept all Dharma as valid, as we see in this thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
Whatever the fancy images, it is still a samsaric institution, with flawed beings creating all kinds of political and financial tensions. I don't see how it is superior to what you are critiquing in so-called Buddhist institutions. There are the same tensions about fundraising, supporting centers, paying rent, and not allowing people who are too broke to pay into the teachings. (Yeah, I know there are free webcasts but that is not unique to the DC).

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, the flaws in the DC comes from people. Good thing no one thinks the DC is Dzogchen, not even in the DC.

As far as the webcast go, no one is teaching profound Dzogchen the way CHNN is via webcast. They just aren't. I don't know why. There are perhaps many reasons, distrust of technology, concerns about samayas, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Adamantine said:
If we don't believe in samsara, and rebirth, as Dzongsar Khyentse pointed out in his teachings on Abandoning the Four Attachments: it would be a lot easier and more fun to just rob a bank and retire to some exotic island, enjoying sensory pleasures indefinitely.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh this is total nonsense. There are many reasons to behave ethically, and most people behave ethically merely because it is in their best interest to do so, no medieval threats of hell realms needed.

You know, when ever Buddhists bring this example up, normal people look at them like they are completely full of shite and just consider them fundamentalist weirdos.

These kinds of statements by eminent Buddhists teachers are intellectually impoverished. They make these statements largely out of cultural ignorance of the centuries of upon centuries of very pointed western philosophical inquiry into the nature of morals and ethics.

My father is a former philosophy professor and he would consider such as proposition above childish and simplistic, which indeed it is.

Apparently Dzogsar as never read Kant's Groundwork For a Metaphysics of Morals nor does he know anything about the categorical imperative. Indeed, the human rights movement grew out of Kantian moral metaphysics.

1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

2) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

3) Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Adamantine said:
Right. And anything else, organized around "Dzogchen", is just theoretical.

Malcolm wrote:
Well Dzogchen Community is not very organized. It has no sangha of monks, no hierarchy of practitioners, no unified corporate stucture, etc. This, in a real sense, is Dzogchen community:



In the center there are the Dzogchen Teachings. Surrounding that are the gars, then the gakyils, the groups of pratitioners, then individuals, all interconnected. The Gars, Gakyils, and groups have three colors, symbolizing how we collaborate. The individuals in the periphery have the same color as the teachings in the middle symbolizing that we all have the same state. Everyone is the same, no one is higher, no one is lower.

Adamantine said:
I think the point is that there is nothing wrong with the essence of Buddhism...

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing wrong with Buddhadharma, there are many things wrong with Buddhism.

Adamantine said:
The point is maturing in one's own practice to be able to discover the essence, and not holding on to the labels, whatever they may be.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but to discover that essence you do not first have to put on the label "Buddhist".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
According to your new Dzogchen without Buddhism or what?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is a human institution developed by ordinary human beings, and it shows.

mindyourmind said:
Right there is an example of a statement that is quite acceptable, here on the Dzogchen sub-forum, but to comment on it may be again construed as policing, living in a cage, living with limitations etc.

Are there any institutions not made by humans? If so, what are they? Is Dzogchen a human institution, and does it show?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is not a "human" institution. There are human institutions that have been built up around Dzogchen teachings, and like all such things, they are subject to the flaws of the humans that participate in them. The purpose of Dzogchen Community, for example, is to assist people's development of the knowledge of Dzogchen in themselves, first and foremost through following a qualified master who has that knowledge. This is the purpose of any group of people assembled to develop the knowledge of any teaching. But whenever you have people gather, also there is always a very real probability that some people will not have a perfect understanding. Thus, Dzogchen Community is also not a perfect institution. People in the Community, as in any community, make many mistakes. However, they are gathered to develop Dzogchen teachings among human beings. Dzogchen Community is not a very tradtional organization in the Tibetan Buddhist sense of the term. There is no emphasis on reproducing the forms and culture of Tibetan Buddhism in the DC, unlike other organizations. This is because ChNN found there was no point in doing this, because while human culture is wonderful and rich, Dzogchen is beyond cultural limitations. Of course he loves his own culture, but he has no interest in converting people to the culture of Tibetan Buddhism because we are not Tibetans.

When human instutitions become old and entrenched, very often the institution becomes more important than the people it was original designed to serve. This point is very much lost in this discussion. People always say "We should serve the Dharma" but what happens in reality is that we wind up serving "Dharma" institutions, and naively, merely perpetuate the eight worldly dharmas. The same is true of the Catholics, Anglicans, Governments, etc.

A great deal of this thread has been devoted the question of whether it is important to consider Dzogchen a part of Buddhism. Well, one of the reasons this question has not been answered is because it is obvious Dzogchen exists within Buddhist institutions. Some people think that because it exists in Buddhist insitutions, this makes Dzogchen "Buddhist"and that this limits Dzogchen to Buddhism.

I sure don't share that view. Dharma in general does not belong to institutions. The Buddha himself never created a single Buddhist institution. Garab Dorje never created a Dzogchen "Insitution" -- he never built a temple, or a shrine, etc. Also Chogyal Namkhai Norbu did not create Dzogchen Community. He merely gave this name to the group of students that spontaneously gathered around him in the mid '70's when he decided there was sufficient interest in Dzogchen. Why did he give name? Because they were following Dzogchen teachings. They were not following "Buddhism". They were not Buddhists, the vast majority of them. They did not become "Buddhists" just because they became students of Dzogchen teachings. Most of the early students from that period of time still do not consider themselves "Buddhists". They were never told by their teacher they must consider themselves "Buddhists". The only thing they were told is that they were learning a teaching called Dzogchen. Buddhists who came to receive teachings were never told they must not call themselves Buddhists. The only thing they were told is that they were learning a teaching called Dzogchen.

As I said, I came to Dzogchen through Tibetan Buddhism. I am nominally a Buddhist. But I don't feel particularly Buddhist any more in so far as I feel a strong cultural allegiance to any Buddhist institutions be they Hinayana, Mahayana, or Vajrayana. I feel like a Doctor of Tibetan Medicine, and a Dzogchen practitioner.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Does it not show once more Dzogchen is not without Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
It shows a characteristically Buddhist approach to Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
According to your new Dzogchen without Buddhism or what?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is a human institution developed by ordinary human beings, and it shows.

Adamantine said:
So is Dzogchen Community, isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen Community is not Dzogchen. It too is a human institution, and it shows.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
According to your new Dzogchen without Buddhism or what?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism is a human institution developed by ordinary human beings, and it shows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Thank you, the old well-know Namdrol, I'm glad you again are here Please read our archives.

Malcolm wrote:
I am happy that you feel you have successfully tilted a windmill.

Mariusz said:
According to your new Dzogchen without Buddhism or what?

Malcolm wrote:
I was referrring to your quixotic effort to prove that relative truth was not entirely false. Now lets please return to the topic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Ouch, sound problems

Conceptual said:
Try opening the webcast in two tabs — audio webcast & video webcast. Mute the audio in the video tab. I find that alleviates any issues.


Malcolm wrote:
This is not a good idea -- it puts extra strain on server.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
I have already debated successfully it with Namdrol in many forum threads in Dharmawheel, as for example "the seeming is not totally faulty".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you feel you have. Others have a different perception of your "success".

Mariusz said:
Thank you, the old well-know Namdrol, I'm glad you again are here Please read our archives.

Malcolm wrote:
I am happy that you feel you have successfully tilted a windmill.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
I have already debated successfully it with Namdrol in many forum threads in Dharmawheel, as for example "the seeming is not totally faulty".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you feel you have. Others have a different perception of your "success".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
To complain about being misunderstood, more than once, could also simply mean that a message was conveyed poorly...

Malcolm wrote:
In my case, no.

mindyourmind said:
...as opposed to the recipients twisting the message.

Malcolm wrote:
In their case, yes.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Democracy in the country that gave birth to democracy
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The president of Golden Dawn and current member of national parliament, Mihaloliakos, taking his dogs out for their afternoon walk. images.jpg

kirtu said:
This is truly frightening stuff.  Why is radical nationalism making a come back in Russia, the Balkans and Greece?

Kirt

treehuggingoctopus said:
Don't forget about France (Marine le Pen), Finland's True Finns (ponder the name!) and the Netherlands (Wilders). Those guys are fascists as well - suit-wearing types, sure enough, not boneheads - but fascists nonetheless. The whole Third Position talk is ridiculously easy to see through.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is Nationalist Socialism. But the causes of it are neo-liberalism at the core, the gutting of national economies and infrastructure in the interest of so called "free trade".

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
I have signed up but not received any notification about membership.  How long does this process take?  Who is the best person to call to attempt to expedite in time for the start of the retreat tomorrow?

Thanks to all for your help!


Malcolm wrote:
Call Harold at tsegyalgar


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Democracy in the country that gave birth to democracy
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The president of Golden Dawn and current member of national parliament, Mihaloliakos, taking his dogs out for their afternoon walk. images.jpg

kirtu said:
This is truly frightening stuff.  Why is radical nationalism making a come back in Russia, the Balkans and Greece?

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
It is a symptom of the weakening of local economies under the forces of international globalization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Abandoning past practice commitments
Content:
Inge said:
Hi!
A few years ago I prematurely attended some teachings and empowerments that were given with lifetime daily practice commitments. Afterwards I struggeled immensely with these practices for maybe a half year of so, but they made no sense to me, and I ended up doing them out of guilt, and fear of vajra hell. Then I gave them up alltogether. Now I only try to follow the teachings of ChNN, do Guru Yoga when I remember, and other DC practices when I have time and energy, but I still fear negative consequenses for abandoning past practice commitments. This is due to the snake in the bamboo image. I find in unreasonable to go to Vajra hell just for attending some teachings. I might understand if it was do to some kind of practices that manipulated the pranas, etc., that if done wrongly might lead to madness, etc., but just for attending empowerments and teachings? It does not make sense. I was thinking at the time that going could only be a good thing, that nothing bad could come from attending. So this was my motivation. I did not know anything about the teacher, lineage, teachings, practices, etc. So in this case, what am I to do?

Malcolm wrote:
Don't worry about it at all. With Ati Guru Yoga you are going into the essence of all teachings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Alternatives for the Dzogchenpa
Content:
Sherlock said:
Malcolm once said that if you received the teachings from ChNN and did the practice daily (I assume guru yoga?) he guarantees that you will face no difficulties upon death. I'd also be curious to know his answer.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.

Inge said:
Is this also the case for non-recognizers like me?

Malcolm wrote:
If you apply Ati Guru Yoga with diligence, then you will face no difficulties at death.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
As for advanced results such as obtaining the rainbow body or four visions while for example dismissing emptiness in favor of worshipping Jesus or Jehovah then Malcolm is undecided.

Malcolm wrote:
I really wish you would stop having my opinions for me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Curious Treasury ...
Content:
Sönam said:
It is certainly very much 9 yanas approach ... for a treasure

Sönam


Malcolm wrote:
Man ngag mdzod is not about Dzogchen specifically niether is the grub tha' mdzod or the yid bzhin mdzod. Only the other four.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I'm wondering how someone from another 'faith' background can work within the Dzogchen tradition if they frame their experience and practice in terms of prayer. Is it that prayer is a secondary practice if you are a Christian Dzogchenpa? Or is it that by becoming a dzogchen practitioner you will no longer have need for a belief in Christianity or in the need for prayer?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Dzogchen practitioner who is a Christian, presumably it means you still participate in your denomination, sing hymns, etc., because these things for you are meaningful. Perhaps your family is Christian and it is important for them that you continue to participate in the Church. I honestly do not know how it works for these people. But since ChNN has any number of sincere students who are followers of his who nevertheless continue to participate in other faiths besides Buddhism, all I know is that it must be possible to integrate this with Dzogchen teachings since people seem to manage to do it.

I am not in a position to judge them -- merely note that they do not see a conflict. Perhaps they see God, as ChNN suggested, as meaning their primordial potentiality -- I have no idea.

So I prefer to remain open.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Many of us have been saying you can enter the Dzogchen or other dharma vehicles' paths being of other beliefs but in advanced stages of Dzogchen for example the person can not hold contradictory beliefs and expect results.

Malcolm wrote:
One does not need beleifs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience.

username said:
For example denying emptiness or grasping to a solid god. Or for example can not support the violent behavior of people like Muhammad and take refuge in him while expecting thogal advanced results or rainbow body.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't support Mohammed's violent behavior. Never said that I did. However, no one takes refuge in Mohammed, not even Muslims. They go for refuge to Allah.

username said:
I just mentioned an exception of someone, who can enter the path but not expect advanced results holding on to such old beliefs, which disproves your global rule and shows your misrepresentation of what Rinpoche says as invalid.

Malcolm wrote:
What global rule?

username said:
Thirdly with regards to such messages from you and others proclaiming peace and claiming to be right on yet constantly attacking squares like me, who had been against your extreme ultra orthodox views on the other extreme end till recently, with personal attacks:

Malcolm wrote:
No extreme ultra orthodox views here. But I do know how to play the scales of tenet systems as well as anyone, and when someone in the past said something that was out of line with tenet systems as I understand them, I corrected them. But as anyone who has followed my career online, I have wavered between orthodoxy and liberalism as much as anyone. When I was participating in the administration of E-Sangha, I felt we had to maintain a certain orthodox position viz Buddhism. I recognize now that was an error. Not because it is wrong to be na orthodox Buddhist, but all Buddhists have a very different idea of what that means and we were more or less enforcing an Indo-Tibean idea of orthodoxy. So yes, I have varied between very liberal expressions and very orthodox ones. Sorry for being so human.

More recently, you decided of your own volition to get into with me because I felt you were mispresenting Gaudapada, etc., and I told you so. In response you went ballistic.

You have completely ignored my basic statement: "I am not saying that every path leads to the same liberation, but where we can all agree is that everyone is seeking the peace and happiness that comes from freedom, and if we maintain presence and awareness of this fact, we can go beyond limitations regarding religion".

Then of couse, some people decided to have a metadiscussion about whether there is indeed liberation in other schools (something I never claimed. I hope so, but I don't follow those schools so I don't know). People trotted out various criteria for what differentiates Buddhist from non-Buddhist, for example, the idea of being an insider as someone who is concerned with their mind -- and I showed this definition equally applied to the Yoga system and others. Someone else advanced the idea that it was the four seals -- but I showed that this can be found in Advaita as well. Other people asserted that as far as Bon goes, they only achieve liberation because they adopted Buddhism -- that is quite kind in its spirit, but interestingly, you did not critique Bonpos for plagiarism, only poor Guadapada. I merely pointed out that dogmatic assertions that liberation only occurs in Buddhism are just that -- dogmatic assertions with no substance. I have in the past said the criteria for what constitutes liberation in this school or that school differs so dramatically that it is impossible to judge. All one can say is that in many cases, it does not resemble what Buddhists imagine liberation to be. And when it comes to Dzogchen, a lot of Buddhists cannot fathom what liberation is Dzogchen is. So there you go.

I also pointed out that the most trechant and sustained criticism of Dzogchen has come from within Buddhism and that it continues to this day. And I do feel a lot of Nyingmapas mispresent Dzogchen completely, perhaps they mean well, but a lot of Nyingmapas just don't get it because they are so conditioned by the Kadamapa outlook.

I have also said that Dzogchen is a personal experience, as you well know. If someone comes to Dzogchen who is a rabbi, for example, they do not need to shed their rabbi skin just because they are a Dzogchen practitioner. They can continue just as they are. Dzogchen is not a matter of belief. Having a Madhyamaka view makes you no nearer to Dzogchen than having a Christian view. That is my present understanding. If one does not have that unique personal experience called "Dzogchen" than one is very far away from Dzogchen. If one is trying very hard to discover that experience than one can be called a Dzogchen practitioner. If one has that experience and the attendent confidence in that experience, then one has no need of any beliefs at all -- which I also said.

Frankly, this thread has come to the point where I am responding to things I never said merely because someone claimed that I said them.  That is a pity since it is waste of time for people to make such remarks and it is a waste of time to respond to them. So I am putting everyone on notice. If you make a claim about something I have said which in fact is not what I said -- I am not going to respond at all. I will not longer respond to distortions and misrepresentations. If you want to quote something I said and give an opinion of it -- fine. For other posts, in order to garner a response from me, that post must contain a direct citation. Otherwise, I will ignore as I choose.

Thanks,

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Isn't it amazing how people that are not bound by golden cages, who aspire to be free of most normal constraints and who practice non-duality daily end up, in the Dzogchen forum, with a thread 60 pages and counting.

It's hilarious.

Malcolm wrote:
One, you cannot "practice" non-duality; two, no one said anything about being free from normal constraints. Another mispresentation.

The level of misrepresentation in this thread of what I have said is most astonishing.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
... dismissing the Victor Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma as unnecessary for Dzogchen...

Malcolm wrote:
Actually my point was quite different. But whatever, misrepresentation of what I have been saying has abounded in this thread, so I shan't expect it to cease now.

username said:
So you are still saying that someone taking refuge and prostrating 5 times a day to the God of Muhammad knowing full well he beheaded hundreds of a certain innocent Jewish tribe guilty of only giving water and food to another Jewish tribe who were being starved to death women and babies included and those hundreds beheaded one by one included young teenage boys which they do not deny and sharing in that collective karma by intention, can go through the four visions and necessary thogal practices onto rainbow body? And that is what Rinpoche says?

Malcolm wrote:
Username, when is the last time you beat your wife?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:44 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
... dismissing the Victor Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma as unnecessary for Dzogchen...

Malcolm wrote:
Actually my point was quite different. Just to remind you:

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. ...etc.

The one absolutely indispensible thing is direct introduction. There is no path of Dzogchen without that at its head. If people are unwilling to put into practice the methods of Dzogchen following receiving that, this is their limitation and there can be no help for it.

Dzogchen includes the meaning of all Buddhadharma, so one cannot say that by practicing Dzogchen as an independent path, one is dismissing Buddhadharma as unnecessary. One can dismiss the organized religion that has accreted around Buddhadharma i.e. "Buddhism", the corresponding socio/political/economic institutions, as unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners.

For example, most of the primordial teachers of Dzogchen did not have a monastic Sangha -- only Ser'wöd Dampa and Shakyamuni did. But Garab Dorje did not. The rest of these teachers had various kinds of retinues, some had retinues of buddhas, thers of bodhisattvas, some of daknis, others of yakshas and rakshashas. For example the retinue of Nangwa Dampa was 1002 Buddhas, as well as devas. We have no insight into the social organization and hierarchies of buddhas, bodhisattvas, devas, dakinis, yakshas and rakshasas. We only have insight into the social organization of human beings.

"Unnecessary" does not mean "should never participate". I have made it clear that if someone, a Dzogchen practitioner, likes to participate in shrines and temples constructed by Buddhists than they should. I like shrines. They can be beautiful. The most moving place for me so far in my life was seeing the Jowo in Lhasa, and being in Samye -- and being in the Yarlung Valley. Shrines can also be gaudy and unnecessary.

If someone likes to think of themselves as Nyingmapas, or Kagyus, or Sakyas, or Gelugs, its ok with me. I am not saying to anyone they need to feel the way I do.

While other people consider Shakyamuni the most important teacher of all, I consider Garab Dorje more important. Garab Dorje is the most important teacher for Dzogchen, even more important than Padmasambhava (for Nyingmapas, perhaps Padmasambhava is more important). Why? Because Garab Dorje, not Padmasambhava, not Shakyamuni, taught the six million four hundred thousands lines of Dzogchen tantras, all the Dzogchen tantras that had been taught by all the previous Teachers of Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
... dismissing the Victor Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma as unnecessary for Dzogchen...

Malcolm wrote:
Actually my point was quite different. But whatever, misrepresentation of what I have been saying has abounded in this thread, so I shan't expect it to cease now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 9:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=77770#p77770 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, I did not call CTR a jerk. I said, "Frankly, in this story, Trungpa just comes across as a clueless jerk."

Pretty different statement. I am quite certain the waitress though he was a total jerk.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All I said about Trungpa that he seemed to me like an ordinary person based on the related episode. I guess calling someone an ordinary person is a bad thing. I honestly do not know whether Trungpa was realized or not. And I don't care much. He has been dead for more than twenty years. Perhaps he was completely naive about guns. Really. I reacted when I said that. I am sorry it offended you.

username said:
No recently you said you doubted his realizations and said he was a jerk. Also your attacks on him goes back years. Again dishonest.

Karma Dorje said:
Saying Trungpa was a jerk is a simple statement of fact.  He slept with his student's regardless of whether they were in a relationship or not.  He promoted a preening and predatory student as his successor that ended up killing those he should be protecting.  Was he a siddha?  Perhaps, but irrespective of his realization, he was a jerk.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think I said he was a jerk. Someone recounted an episide where he apparently was trying to shoot a gun at a bird. The owner of the gun took it away from him and shot the bird in front of Trungpa. I think what I said was "for me, Trungpa is an ordinary person".

I said it on a thread on Chris Battis's facebook page. Should still be there.

As far having said other negative things about CTR -- I never said a peep about him ever.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
[But you are facing some obstacles in this apsect. .

Malcolm wrote:
Hi username:

No obstacles, quite the opposite. But like any good vintage of wine, you have to let things sit in the bottle for some years.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
conebeckham said:
So much energy and emotion invested in proving points, dicing up the vegetables.....and so many assumptions being made about other people's statements....it's quite exhausting.  To coin an essential Dzokchen instruction...."Relax."

IMO, Namdrol's not making stew.  Nor is he devaluing any path, unless that path takes an exclusivist stance. He was quite clear about where he felt certain paths "go wrong."   Now, Dzokchen can be accused of taking that same stance...but if you really understand what he's saying, I think all these conceptions and assertions can be sidestepped if one understands that, in Dzokchen, all that is just so much wind.  Personal experience, one's own personal experience, is so removed from that stuff.

He's not "endorsing" Hinduism, or "demeaning" Buddhism.  He's also not validating any path but the one he practices. He's saying, simply, he can't "know" those paths he doesn't practice, personally, and therefore can't condemn them or call them invalid--how could he? And how can we?  Yes, we can point out logical and conceptual inconsistencies, but when we do so we are so in danger of missing the forest for the tress, you know?   Don't forget the forest, even when you're lopping branches off trees, and be careful lopping of branches......they may, or may not, block the view.   I'm happy he's happy, and I am grateful for his words.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks Cone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:



Mariusz said:
I'm not naive. Limitations/calculations are necessary to survive in this world.


Nangwa said:
This samsaric world that is.
Get rid of those limitations and we just might get rid of samsara.



Mariusz said:
It was about genuine lineages of dzogchen also. You want to get rid them also.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that is what I want, I want to get rid of the genuine transmission of Dzogchen
(not)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in ...India...
M

Matylda said:
Dear Malcolm, maybe I missed it somewhere in this long discussion, but it I am curious about India and dzgochen reception there... could you elaborate a little bit or give some source. I am interested in it.

Malcolm wrote:
The basic gist of it is that standard Vajrayāna received institutional support from the beginning primarily because it was heavily grounded in Yogatantra. For example, the Guhyasamaja is also listed among the 18 tantras Amoghavajra brought to China in the early 8th century, if I recall correctly. And the mother tantras such as Cakrasamvara, Hevajra, also received approval as well. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that they never sought to supercede the path structure, the abhisamaya process, as desribed in sutra. They were tantras that utilized Abidharma, as it were, differently. So for example, the 37 ḍākinīs in the Cakrasamvara mandala are described as being representative of the 37 bodhipakṣa dharmas, etc.

But Dzogchen tantras makes little or no use of these schemes at all. While they indeed make reference to the peaceful and wrathful mandalas mentioned also in the Guhyagarbha, they treat these quite differently than the Guhygarbha treats them. However, since these mandalas are mentioned in the Dzogchen tantras, especially the Rigpa Rangshar, and since the Guhyagarbha mentions Dzogchen explicitly in the body of the text, exegesis of the Guhyagarbha became a mandatory study since the Guhyagarbha has Indian commentaries and is based on verifiable Sanskrit text. Though Indian originals of the 17 tantras, the 18 sems de lungs and five tantras, and the klong sde tantras and so on either never existed or were lost, The Guhyagarbha as well as the Vajrakilaya fragment tantra, among others, provided a key link through which the adherents of the old translation school could proclaim that contrary to the accusations leveled  by Go and others could claim that Dzogchen had an authentic ground on Indian soil. Because the monastery of Samyas burnt down several times, many precious Indian manuscripts were lost. Also the manuscripts of Samyas were written in I beleive Gupta script, which was not readable by most Indian panditas by the time fo Atisha, since the script in question used at that time was Pala, I think.

Anyway, according to the annals of the lineage of Dzogchen, Dzogchen received an incredibly hostile reception from Buddhists both in India and Tibet, confined to a very small group of practitioners and never grew in prominence in India as part of the siddha movement, in the same way as the more normative "Buddhist" tantras in which Mahāmudra is grounded. Thus, by the eleventh century, and certainly much earlier, all trace of Dzogchen and even the Guhyagarbha tantra was erased from Indian history as if it had never existed.

One possibility is that since the Bonpos had a teaching of Dzogchen already, when the Garab Dorje lineage of Dzogchen was introduced to Tibet they took it up immediately and with enthusiasm. They never produced any polemical literature against Dzogchen, instead they incorporated the Garab Dorje lineage of teachings, and even Garab Dorje himself, into ZZNG. But becuase they preserved Dzogchen clearly, also Dzogchen was framed as Bon teaching. Certainly I have read polemics to this effect. Then there is the Nyingma crib that Tapihritsa, one of the most important masters of ZZNG was really an emanation of Guru Rinpoche, which actually is proof that the Nyingmapas recognize that ZZNG preceded the advent of Buddhism in Tibet.

The Buddhist history of Dzogchen is very much bound up with the fact that Indian Buddhists rejected Dzogchen overwhelmingly -- according to the annals of Dzogchen, the 17 tantras, for example were concealed in Nalanda. When VImalamitra went to Tibet, Nalanda handed the only copy of the extant Dzoghen tantras surviving and thus Dzogchen disappeared from the subcontitent, or so the story runs.The difficulties facing Vairocana and Vimalamitra in Tibet are well known.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Your work here is benefiting many and I hope it continues in force as well as looking forward to your translations as I think you might be the best living English translator but can not fathom why you procrastinate so much.

Best of Luck to you.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks, that's a nice compliment.

As to the other thing, I am not procrastinating, but the process of bringing out a proper translation is pains-taking, and since I am very productive, the shear amount of raw translations I need to edit is rather staggering. And it is not in my nature to allow editors to edit my work withouy my approval and discussion of every change. I need to live another 50 years.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Finally I would like to point out that I am typing these responses with a smile and consider you overall a good Vajra brother.

Wishing you all the best as ever.

Malcolm wrote:
I consider your objections to be largely incoherent in many respects, others sort of along the lines of "When is the last time you beat your wife", and a large number of obvious distortions as anyone can plainly see.

Be well,

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Malcolm. Why are you not just waiting if the hypothetical experiments with non-buddhist or non-bon people will succed in their fully realization of 4 visions of dzogczen thogal according to instructions of Namkhai Norbu or any other buddhist/Bon master, and further if their future non-buddhist/non-bon lineages will surive outside Buddhism or Bon? I agree with username. You are still fighting although only on speculations. Earlier you was fighting sakyapa with protectors based on some facts. So it even get worse. Buddhism was the institution where Dzogchen fully survived! Not Hinduism or other.

Malcolm wrote:
You just keep right on dividing up the world into limitations. But at the of the day, the only one you are limiting is yourself.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Hi Malcolm,
I hope you are well. I merely said first in this thread that he got a lot of his ideas from buddhist yogachara schools and rebranded them which he did as Hindu. Even back then which was not so long ago when you founded a new school you were supposed to come clean if a lot of your tenets were based on someone else's completely different religion. Today they claim they had it all along.

Malcolm wrote:
Gaudapāda acknowledged the Buddha as the source of his ajativādin arguments. Shankaracarya sought to cover this up in his commentary on the Agamasastra. But we were not taking about the latter. We were talking about the former, and you were the one that used the term "plagiarism" to describe his literary activity. I have studied that Agamasastra in detail.

username said:
Malcolm I don't think you can accuse me of narrowmindedness after I praised nisargadata and even said he was probably a Tulku.

Malcolm wrote:
Proclaiming that Nisgardatta must have been a Buddhist Tulku can be seen as a kind of narrowness.  This is a kind of narrowmindedness we see all the time among Buddhists -- everything good and interesting that we like in other religious schools must somehow be the activity of Buddhist tulkus, as if nothing good can come about in the world if it is not tied to some explicitly Buddhist institution or belief.

username said:
Yet you never mentioned Trungpa, a major terton,who you called something bad recently as well as saying you doubted his realization. Or others.

Malcolm wrote:
I made a blanket apology since I have said so many things and offended so many people, it is all I can do. I am sure people are still offended. But after a certain point it becomes their problem and not mine.

All I said about Trungpa that he seemed to me like an ordinary person based on the related episode. I guess calling someone an ordinary person is a bad thing. I honestly do not know whether Trungpa was realized or not. And I don't care much. He has been dead for more than twenty years. Perhaps he was completely naive about guns. Really. I reacted when I said that. I am sorry it offended you.

username said:
You say you're heart is now filled with love but you don't stop someone here attacking anyone against your views with personal attacks in your defense.

Malcolm wrote:
I have not defended anything, not have I attacked anyone. I have not attacked you either. I said you displayed narrowness in your post.

username said:
You praise all schools and religions and yet attack and have no understanding for buddhist institutions	' mistakes which is still less than the other religions outside Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
My point about this was when we examine who really persecuted Dzogchen teachings, it was not Non-Buddhists, all the Non-Buddhists I have ever talked with about Dzogchen think it is cool.  The Bonpos were totally into Dzogchen. They took to it like ducks to water. There is no history of Bonpos attacking Dzogchen, none at all.

I have found it is Buddhists who raise the largest and most sustained arguments against Dzogchen. And so I recounted that history. These things are merely facts -- facts are not attacks. I can understand however that many people's hackles are raised because I am presenting these things in the open. I understand the polemics against Dzogchen quite well.

username said:
If you said other religions fleece their students and screw their flock then it would have been fair but you just attack buddhist ones. And many have written here they perceive you attack Buddhism too.

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite sure there are false teachers in every religion, just as there are sincere ones. But since I am not privy to the sordid details of the false guides in other schools, I don't really have much to say about them. What I am familiar with is the situation of Tibetan Buddhism and the presence of a great deal of corruption and malfeasence in its institutions.

username said:
I am sorry Malcolm but you just changed one group of people you attacked with another, not your basic attitude.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, I have not attacked anyone. I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in both India and Tibet and traced a little bit of the history of how it became normalized within the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism.

Now, I am sorry that you feel attacked, but I am equally certain that I am not attacking you or anyone else.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
Buddhist's point was that Gaudapada copied it, rebranded it and presented as something new of his own. Plus he came much much later than centuries of Buddhist philosphical debates he "ripped off" without quoting the sources. Sort of intellectual theft and plagiarism.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is completely unfair. In his Agamasastra, he prostrates to the Buddha openly. He was beyond limits of Hindu and Buddhist sectarian divisions. He used arguments of derived from Mahāyāna to tease a middle way between Samkhya (satkaryavādins) and Vaisheika (asatkarvādins) perspectives and establishes ajativāda, the position of non-origination.

I am sorry to say, username, this is exactly the type narrowness that is a problem. Why is it is problem for some intelligent brahmin to make use of Buddhist arguments when he sees that they point out a deficiency in some other tenet systems perspetive? Are you implying that to make use a logical formula derived from Madhyamaka, you must declare yourself a Buddhist? This is like insisting that in order practice Dzogchen, you must declare allegiance to Buddhism.

Also Karma Vajra has a point, the ethos of ancient scholarship did not included the idea of plagiarism. This is a modern idea based on capitalism.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The nirvana of the early Buddhists is an attributeless unconditioned consciousness as Peter Harvery very eloquently shows in his The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism.

xabir said:
The point is not pure consciousness. There is nothing wrong with pure consciousness. It is making it into an ultimate reality, ultimate ground, a transcendental essence that is despite being said to be beyond conceptual notions yet clung to as truly existent (despite how they want to phrase it being beyond notions of existence etc which is simply trying to express the non-conceptuality of that reality, it will always be treated as an ontological essence which therefore leads to clinging to the ultimate ground).

I do not believe Theravada talks about consciousness as an ultimate ground, and the Buddha actually rejected the view of making nirvana into a source right in MN 1 and Thanissaro Bhikkhu made a good commentary on it.

Malcolm wrote:
Unconditioned means ultimate, generally speaking.

Brahmin is not a ground in the sense of prakriti. It is a ground only the sense that since it is not recognized, māya emerges, etc.

My point all along being is that also Advaita, like Dzogchen and other forms of Dharma recognize that ignorance of our true nature is the real problem, and the solution is to discover that real state.

The rest is semantics after a certain point. Nevetheless, I am not committed to a postion that is stating absolutely Advaita realization and Buddhist realization are the same. My only point is bringing this up is shake up the tree of dogmatic clinging to views.

As I said, all human beings are searching for the peace and happiness that comes from freedom. We can go beyond sectarian limitations by keeping this point in our minds.

As for myself, I am a Dzogchen practitioner. My religious background, obviously is Buddhist. I am not a Bonpo. But first and foremost I am a practitioner of the path of Dzogchen. Buddhist teachings and practices which assist that practice are can be useful. Those that are not, I don't use and leave them aside for others to use as they wish.

But Dzogchen in the end cannot be reduced to "Buddhism" -- Dzogchen goes beyond these sectarian, ideological and culture limitations. Of course these days there are many teachers who teach a system called "dzogchen", an elaborate textual system culled from many texts. But this is not real Dzogchen, this is an intellectual system. This kind of teaching is very far away from the real meaning of Dzogchen. Like anything with an extensive literature it is possible to turn "dzogchen" into a mere intellectual trip. We must keep this in mind.


This is not the Dzogchen I have learned from my principle gurus. The Dzogchen that I have learned from my teachers is based on personal experience. Frankly, talking about Dzogchen in absence of that personal experience is a bit like talking about sweet to a man who cannot taste anything. Nevertheless, in order to encourage people to pursue these teachings who express interest I talk about the teachings.

The point of this is not to engage in intellectual discussions about whether Dzogchen is Buddhist or non-Buddhist. Honestly, I don't care anymore. I don't care whether people think I am a Buddhist or non-Buddhist. I have no interest in defending Dzogchen as a part of Buddhism. If people want to think it is not part of Buddhism, that is ok with me. If people want to think it is part of Buddhism, that is ok with me too. If some people decide they do are not interested in Dzogchen because it is "not buddhist" -- this is your loss. If someone people think they should only study Dzogchen because it is part of Buddhism -- this is your limitation.

Dzogchen is path of  personal recognition of one's primordial potentiality, the basis, one's true nature, dharmatā, and integration into that, and that is all — it is not a school, a religion or a philosophy. You can be a Buddhist, Bonpo, or not, and practice Dzogchen. In the end Dzogchen is about the our state of innate freedom and learning to be in that state.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you understand atman to mean your primodial potentality, for example the way the word bdag nyid chen po (mahātman) is used in Sems sde and so on, then there is no real difference. Just as if one understands "God" in these terms, then there is no problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
xabir said:
Brahman is an ultimate reality that is beyond notions of existence and non-existence, because Brahman is deemed as a transcendental, unchanging and independent ultimate reality that cannot be accessed with concepts. It is attributeless pure consciousness.
[/i]

Malcolm wrote:
The nirvana of the early Buddhists is an attributeless unconditioned consciousness as Peter Harvery very eloquently shows in his The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Sherlock said:
From an old thread
The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. So based on your current readings Malcolm, does Advaita actually say that brahman is real/ultimate/truly existent?

Malcolm wrote:
Some would hold the basis as lhun grub, and lhun grub as a self. This is one of the six perspectives about the basis which the Dzogchen tantras reject,

You can find statements by Advaita authors that define brahmin as real, you can also find statements by advaita authors which deny this kind of real existence to brahman in their effort to show that brahmin goes beyond all limitations. Advaita, like everything, is not monolithic.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


mzaur said:
I don't see how emptiness negates lhun-drub at all, unless you view emptiness as Brahman instead of as freedom from extremes. Emptiness is the condition of all phenomena. I don't understand why you keep talking about is as something other than the nature of phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
lhun grub is not a phenomena, and has nothing to with with phenomena. Phenomena are a result of ignorance that does not recognize the basis. Lhun grub is one of the three wisdoms inherent to the basis, the visible side. Ka dag is the emptiness aspect of the basis, the non-visible side. Energy/compassion is the inseperability of those two.

Now pay careful attention: I never equated Dzogchen with Advaita, nor did I venture an opinion on the nature of realization in Advaita. I said I don't know what Advaitans and other Hindus realize. I never denied that Dzogchen was a Buddhadharma.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


mzaur said:
I am talking about Ācārya Dharma Vajra in that article. He is talking about Madyamaka not Dzogchen

Malcolm wrote:
He mentions both.

mzaur said:
Define empty. Is Atman free from extremes or not?

Malcolm wrote:
Empty = lacking inherent existence. Atman is not free from extremes. Atman is Brahman, and Brahman is inherently existing. When I talk about Brahman, I refer to Nirguna Brahman (undifferentiated sat chit ananda)

Inherent existence is an extreme, no?[/quote]

First of all, that definition of emptiness is incomplete unless you are a Gelugpa.

If you investigate carefully, you will discover than brahmin is considered to go beyond this notion of inherent existence [svabhāva] since it is considered to be beyond predicates and extremes and thus is inexpressible.

Now, I am not saying that Advaita and Madhyamaka are precisely the same -- but in terms of linguisitic formulation, it is very difficult to distinguish them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mzaur said:
It's actually very easy to differentiate the two.

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
Sridhar SJB Rana's reponse first of all is just crypto-realism:

"First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion."

And he is wrong -- I have addressed this issue at length elsewhere on this forum. Rongzom clearly states that in Dzogchen at any rate, all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions:

mzaur said:
He isn't talking about Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, he is.



mzaur said:
Second, Bhavaviveka admits that the distinction between the Vedantic Atman and the Buddhist Anatman is extremely difficult to parse.
It's not difficult at all. Atman is not empty.

Malcolm wrote:
Define empty. Is Atman free from extremes or not?


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


mzaur said:
Yes, Advaita does teach that there is an ultimate space which is the source of all reality, all phenomena. But this is wrong view according to Buddhadharma.

Malcolm wrote:
The Chos dbyings mdzod states "Everything arises from the dharmadhātu, everything subsides into the dharmadhātu..."

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mzaur said:
I would agree with Namdrol that Dzogchen is not Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
Namdrol never said this, nor does Malcolm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka.

mzaur said:
It's actually very easy to differentiate the two.

https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
Sridhar SJB Rana's reponse first of all is just crypto-realism:

"First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion."

And he is wrong -- I have addressed this issue at length elsewhere on this forum. Rongzom clearly states that in Dzogchen at any rate, all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions:

"Likewise, the system of dzogchen realizes and is the culmination of the comprehension of all phenomena as totally equivalent with illusions. That being the case, the mind is not confused by the power of appearances and there is no ability to develop formations; nothing is adopted, nothing rejected, nothings moves, nothing is sought. As such, this culmination of the comprehension of being like an illusion is also proven to the culmination of comprehending the two truths as inseparable."

And:

"Because the system of dzogchen understands four things for all phenomena— understanding what is to be abandoned; understanding what is to be taken up; understanding what can be left in equanimity; and what understanding what can never be actualized, it establishes all phenomena as non-dual. At that time there is no difference between non-duality, homogeneity, [68/a] non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Since that is so, because this proof of all phenomena as non-dual is the heart of all intimate instructions, therefore, [dzogchen] is “the heart of all intimate instructions”

Second, Bhavaviveka admits that the distinction between the Vedantic Atman and the Buddhist Anatman is extremely difficult to parse.

Third, as I already pointed out, Santaraksita complains of the Advaitan, since they accept the non-arising nature of phenomena, which is the Tathāgatas position, for what reason then do they not simply join the Buddhist fold.

Fourth, the similarities between Advaita and Mahāyāna did not go unnoticed by Hindu scholars, with the Dvaita Vedantins and others going so far as to accuse Shankaracarya of being a crypto-buddhist.

So, while I am not claming that Advaita and Madhyamala are making the same point, I am pointing out that it is much more difficult to differentiate them mere sectarian declarations like Shridhar Rana makes in his article.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Nighthawk said:
Eckhart Tolle says experiential wise Dzogchen is identical with Advaita and Zen. Malcolm seems to be echoing the same words now.

Not saying that's a bad thing. It's probably true.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not saying that. I don't know what Advaitans experience. I was simply making the observation that if we reduce Buddhism to the three or four seals, well Advaita can fit that description too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Bon
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you want to understand the situation of pre-Buddhist bon than read Drung Deu and Bon by ChNN.

Lhug-Pa said:
Not if many Böns had become corrupt back then.

From what I've learned there are basically three types of Bön:

"Black" Bön

"White" Bön

Yungdrung Bön

"Black" Bön is apparently Shamanism more or less devoid of the Dzogchen of Yungdrung Bön.

"White" Bön is apparently Bön mixed with Buddhism mainly for the purpose of avoiding persecution.

Yungdrung Bön is Eternal Bön which has the pure Dzogchen Transmission, such as the Zhang Zhung Nyengyud.

It would have been "Black Bön" that would have fallen into some nasty sorts of practices, corruption, etc.

But I believe that all three forms of Bön have Shamanistic practices.

It seems that these days most Bönpo's teachings are a mixture of White Bön and Yungdrung Bön.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
username said:
What we often forget is that many of our previous lives was as different lifeforms  in other worlds. Apart from the thousand Buddhas there are infinite types of manifestations of nirmanakayas in the universe and each Buddha emphasizes different aspects to suit the time and location. Dzogchen is also having separate histories in the thirteen lucky worlds that receive it in a large sector. The final fruit of the fourth vision is an actual dissolution of all phenomena back into the basic pure aspect of ultimate space. This includes the path and deities which should not be solidified by vajrayana practitioners either out of habit. Even if not dismissed in the higher Anuyoga yana the deity is nevertheless an empty clear manifestation that arises and dissolves from and back into that space. Thinking otherwise out of habitual needs is a great fault even in vajrayana.

mzaur said:
Sounds like Brahman. You sure that's Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 3:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
It's static in the sense of been seen as a 'oneness'. Now I understand the necessity of the Uttaratantra Shastra. Thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
You could draw the same complaint against Dzogchen.

For example: Shankaracarya writes:
In its identification with the five-sheaths the Immaculate Atman appears to have borrowed their qualities upon Itself; as in the case of a crystal which appears to gather unto itself colour of its vicinity (blue cloth, etc.,).
This is exactly how the gdangs of original purity is described when discussing essence.

Again, I am not saying Advaita realization and buddhahood are the same. But I think that in general Tibetan Lamas are terribly ignorant  of the subtleties and profundity of non-Buddhist systems such as Advaita, Trika, Samkhya and so on. They generally only read about them to refute them, and badly at that.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dakini_boi said:
Could you explain the root of the Shugden controversy?  I have never understood it.

Malcolm wrote:
It's complicated, but it ultimately emerged out of Mongolian Gelug anxiety about the growth of Nyingma practitioners in that region. Shugden is very strong in Mongolia. It is stronger there than in any other country.

M

dakini_boi said:
So Shugden's main original function was to stop the spread of Dzogchen?  And that is one of the reasons he is considered by HHDL to be a harmful worldly force?


Malcolm wrote:
Not Dzogchen, Nyingmapas. Of course Pabhongkha accepted the sectarian polemics against Dzogchen and the terma tradition but this is way off the point. We should stop here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view. His only response was a sectarian polemic "But there is no buddhahood in Vedanta!" Now, mind you, I am not saying that there is such a thing. But when you study these texts, you come to realize, even as Bhavaviveka and Shantaraksita both observed, that language of Advaita and the language of Madhyamaka are more or less identical. Shantaraksita complains in his Tattvasiddhi to the effect "If you accept the nature of things is non-arising, why do you not become Buddhist!?"

M

Andrew108 said:
Hi Malcolm. Lovely post again. Great to read this. One thing though. The assertion of buddhahood in Shentong and it's absence in Vedanta is not merely being sectarian. It's of vital importance. The reason is that buddhahood / buddhanature is dynamic and responsive and is an active non-duality rather than the Advaita assertion of unchanging passive non-duality.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a misreading of Advaita. Advaita is a great deal more subtle than your summary here. Maya is the sport (lila) of Brahman, so it is not static at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
dakini_boi said:
Could you explain the root of the Shugden controversy?  I have never understood it.

Malcolm wrote:
It's complicated, but it ultimately emerged out of Mongolian Gelug anxiety about the growth of Nyingma practitioners in that region. Shugden is very strong in Mongolia. It is stronger there than in any other country.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pero said:
Well he does say things like "unify all teachers of all traditions" but I have found it always in context with Buddhism and Dzogchen. Nowhere (that I know of) does he directly say things like "unify with your Catholic priest", but he did say things like you don't have to (I think it wasn't that you can't, just that it doesn't make much sense) unify with your teacher of carpenting or Jesus etc.

Malcolm wrote:
When I first heard ChNN explain Ati Guru Yoga he said unify all teachers of all knowledge you have received from a positive source, no matter what it is. I beleive at the time he included school teachers as an example.

Since the vehicle of gods and men is included in the nine yānas, then this also includes all teachers one may have had or will have who are not necessarily Buddhists. This does not mean you are mixing traditions. It means that all knowledge you have learned contributes to your integration and practice of your main path, in this instance, Dzogchen.

BY the way, just to be clear, I am not for one second advocating combining this or that random thing with Dzogchen. Absolutely not. We have to respect other traditions, and we have respect Dzogchen. "Combining" is not respecting. That is why I rejected Jikan's propostition about "HIndu Dzogchen, Catholic Dzogchen, etc. There is only one Dzogchen. But it can be practiced by anyone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State
Content:
Will said:
One of these days I will have to finish Crystal.

Since Dzogchen has been around for a very long time and been part of many Asian cultures, what other names might it be known under besides Ati Yoga?  Also, in ancient Dzogchen were ashrams or monasteries or some sort of groupings standard or was it wandering yogis and scattered lay disciples or both or neither?


Malcolm wrote:
ChNN has asserted that it may have influenced Chan. I am sure there is a little influence of Taoism. Toaism and ancient Bon have a lot of similarities, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Now (and here I refer back to the original post) it seems that to experience the state of Great Perfection one does not need the theoretical framework (method) of Buddhism (or Bon, or even Dzogchenism), the only thing that is needed is know the state (have it pointed out to you).  I believe though that without Buddhadharma (and by this I mean a system of practice that is based on the Four Dharma Seals, something that Dzogchenism is also ) one would have no opportunity to abide in the true nature of their mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Greg:

What are the four seals?

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All afflicted phenomena are suffering
All phenomena lack identity
Nirvana is bliss.

You can find these four seals in Advaita Vedanta as well. Just substitute brahman for nirvana and you have a perfect match. It is very hard to differentiate brahman from nirvana. Really, go ahead and try.

I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view. His only response was a sectarian polemic "But there is no buddhahood in Vedanta!" Now, mind you, I am not saying that there is such a thing. But when you study these texts, you come to realize, even as Bhavaviveka and Shantaraksita both observed, that language of Advaita and the language of Madhyamaka are more or less identical. Shantaraksita complains in his Tattvasiddhi to the effect "If you accept the nature of things is non-arising, why do you not become Buddhist!?"

Now, again, I am not saying that if you practice Advaita you will become a buddha -- I honestly do not know. But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka. The main difference between them is that Hindus accept the Vedas as self-originated and Buddhists do not.

But in Dzogchen we accept that Dzogchen tantras are self-originated, that they arise directly out of the sound of dharmatā. So, this is not really very different than what the Vedic scholars believe. For example, the Song of the Vajra is just the intrinsic sound of dharmatā, the state of realization of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri in union.

Though Dzogchen tantras do take pains to differentiate themselves from Upanishadic doctrines of the atman, these very same ideas get used in Dzogchen in a very similar way -- which is why there is a rebuttal in Dzogchen tantras of certain ideas we find in the Upanishads so we don't run out and say "The Upanishads teach the same thing as Dzogchen".

So we can find a lot of parallels in Dzogchen and non-Buddhist teachings. The one main difference between Dzogchen and most non-Buddhist traditions is that in Dzogchen there is a definite rejection of creation by a creator. Even in Advaita, on a relative level, they accept Ishvara as a creator. So this is an important difference.

Don't beleive it when people say that Kun byed rgyal po is a Buddhist creator myth. It is not true. Kun byed gyal po refers to the mind. It does not mean Samantabhadra is a primordial creator deity or a kind of Buddhism theism. People who claim this like Alan Wallace and Eva Dargyay-Neumier are mistaken.

But as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu says, "God" can be understood as a symbol of one's primordial state. So we do not necessarily have to reject "God" if we are Dzogchen practitioners, if by "God" we mean our own primordial potentiality and the primordial potentiality of everything. This is why we have that famous passage the text on Rigpa from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, cribbed by Shabkar in this way:

Now then,  fortunate beloved children, listen!
Concerning this important term widely known as “mind”, 
in terms of existence, the mind does not exist as a single entity.
In terms of sources, the mind is the source of the diverse happiness and suffering of samsara and nirvana.

Assertions about the mind exist in many categories of the vehicles.
The mind is designated by inconceivable different names:
ordinary people call the mind “I”;
some non-Buddhists give it the name “atman”;
the shravakas call it the “selfless person”;
the mind-only school gives it the name “mind”;
some call it “the perfection of wisdom”;
some give it the name” sugatagarbha”;
some give it the name “mahāmudra”;
some give it the name “madhyamaka”;
some give it the name “the single unique sphere”;
some give it the name “dharmadhātu”;
some give it the name “all-basis”;
some give it the name “ordinary mind”.
Although it is given inconceivable names,
since it is just this mind in reality, one must recognize it.

You must let the mind itself go free just where it is.
Having been let go, naked ordinary awareness,
a clarity that cannot be seen by looking for it,
the clear and vivid personal experience of vidyā,
is not established in any way at all, empty and pellucid.
Brilliant non-dual clarity and emptiness
is not permanent— not established at all;
is not annihilated— clear and vivid;
is not single— manifold, knowing and clear;
is not manifold— indivisible, one taste. 
Not existing elsewhere, this is one’s own vidyā,
the true face of the original guide dwelling within one’s heart,
seen here right now in one’s personal experience. 
Never be separate from this beloved children!

We could add a passage:

"other non-Buddhists give it the name “god”..."

This passage illustrates the point I have made all along. We do not need to imagine that all faiths lead to the same point, we merely have to accept that all humans beings are trying to find the same thing: the peace and happiness that comes from freedom.

I feel that Dzogchen is one path which can lead all of us beyond all schools so we can all find that peace and happiness that comes from freedom. Why? Because whatever measure of freedom, and the ensuing peace and happiness, I have found comes from practicing Dzogchen teachings.

Someone might object, and say but what about your Sakya practice, etc. Of course all of these things have helped. But I was a very sectarian Sakyapa, even while receiving teachings about Dzogchen, I was very conditioned by Sakya Pandita, and so on. For me, Dzogchen was just another completion stage system. I found it very hard to understand Dzogchen as a separate independent path because I was so conditioned by the Sakya school's point of view, conditioned by Madhyamaka before that, and so on. I can't really say when my present understanding arose. I think it has been some time. To a large extent, in the past few years, I have been slowly shedding my fabricated identity as a "buddhist". If it is important for others such as Buddhist to regard me as a buddhist, that's ok, but that is more about them than it is about me. For me "Dzogchen practitioner" is enough.

I have been thinking about my comments about Dzoghen and how they related to Mahāmudra. I think one can say the same thing about Mahāmudra. I also think that Mahāmudra in a real sense transcends the boundaries of sect and culture. Why? Because it too is based on direct introduction.

I think it is possible to teach Mahāmudra and Dzogchen without insisting on the label "Buddhist". In India, the siddhas taught Mahāmudra to Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. Naropa had many non-Buddhist students, actually, just as one example. Gorkshanatha is a mahasiddha who practiced both Vajrayāna Buddhism and Shaivism side by side. If you read his texts he moves from Shunyatā to Shiva in one breath.

Some people think that what I am saying amounts to pissing on Buddhism, but that would be a wrong perception. What I am saying is that there is no happiness in these labels "Buddhist", "Christian", "Muslim", "Hindu", "Jew" and so on-- none at all. We all have the same nature, the same primordial state. It is time we recognised that in each other and put an end to the pretense of otherness. According Dzogchen doctrine, all sentient beings will realize their primordial state. I can't say if this is really true, but I hope it is. A Christian might say "We and everything else were all created for His (i.e. God's) enjoyment." This is very similar to the Shaivaite idea of all phenomena being the lila of Shiva. This is very similar to the idea of all phenomena being the rol pa, display of bodhicitta,in Dzogchen and Virupa's statement in his Doha:

All sentient beings are emanations of mahāmudrā,
the essence of those emanations is the forever non-arising dharmadhātu,
also all characteristics of dualistic appearances, happiness, suffering and so on,
are the play of mahāmudrā, the original dharmatā.

We should be circumspect about criticizing others since that creates enemies in a concrete sense. I guess a large part of my present point of view has a lot to do with the sectarian arguments I have taken part in here on this board and E-sangha. Really, I feel very sad about that. We were all trying to do our best on E-Sangha -- but I myself, and we together, admins and mods, made many mistakes.

I feel a little sad about what happened with Jax. Oh, I don't agree with his approach or much of what he says, and I find it sad that he has positioned himself as a master when there are more qualified masters one can follow; but I feel a little sad that I was so harsh with him. It was unnecessary and disrespectful -- so since you are reading this, "Sorry Jax, my bad". That action of mine turned a person into an enemy. This is my fault. The same is true of the rest of what I have to say.

I also feel sad about my strong criticism of the Aro folks and Kirkpatrick. Of course that came about because I am a student of Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje (whose memory is dear to me-- I was with him at the very end of his life -- he showed me personally how a real yogi faces death). But in the end, given all the evil that is in the world today, what they are doing is not really harmful at all on any level. Actually, Kirkpatrick has a beautiful farm and tries to help people in Pemakod, etc. So this is a good thing. Chogyam has a ranch near Kalispell Montana and likes to dress up like a 1880's cowboy. I am sure they have a lot of fun. To be honest, while we were all groaning, pissing and moaning about the Aro thing, they were largely ignoring us and having a blast, so who really lost in that exchange?

I am not really sorry for criticizing the NKT. I think the pratice of Shugden is a harmful erroneous practice and should be ended. But on the other hand, they are never going to listen to what we say, so what is the point of saying anything at all? They are very successful, people like their scene. We should leave them alone.

We also leave alone animists in Africa, and they make blood sacrifices to some very heavy worldly deities every day, deities that are much worse than Shugden. Millions of chickens, goats, and cows are sacficed to them every year in Africa. But at least they eat the animals afterwards, and in many instances their motivations are perfectly altruistic (which is not to say they won't turn to black magic in a second if they feel threatened by an enemy) because they are making offerings to benefit the whole world -- this is what they beleive. Also the NKT strongly beleive that what they are doing is positive. In other words, if someone is practicing something we think is based on an error, we just avoid that practice ourself. Still of course, if someone asks me about them, I am going to be honest and say "Better you look elsewhere." But if someone is happy in NKT, it is not our job to condition that person. We also need to respect that person, even when they make what we might consider poor choices.

I am also not sorry for [lightly] criticizing the Diamond Mountain scene. I think that there are many things going on in that scene that are pretty unhealthy. But again, apart from observing that it is not for me, what else is there to do? And I feel sad that Christy Macnally's second husband died such an awful death and that she is in pain (Michael Roach was husband number 1).

I do feel sad for having criticized Lama Tsongkhapa's point of view. This is the sectarian side of the Sakya school that I find distasteful. I also find it distasteful that we in the West just pick up and carry Tibetan polemics as if they are our own. This is a mistake.

I feel sad for having allowed Theravada people think that I feel their practice is inferior.

I am sorry about the whole Zen thing, the Jundo Cohen episode. I tried to handle that skillfully, but it was Indo-Tibetan sectarian bullshit on my part, even though my motive was to try and bring clarity about who was a monk and who was not.

I also feel sad about having indulged in Sakya polemics about Kagyu Mahāmudra.

There are probably many other things I should feel sad about in my online relations with others. But I can't remember everything I said. So, my blanket apology is-- If I said something upsetting to you that came from narrow-mindedness on my part, I am sorry". So I have made a lot of mistakes. I am sorry that I hurt anyone.

I do not believe that anyone who is attached to a sectarian outlook, whether towards Buddhists or towards non-Buddhists can really be a fully integrated person. I do not beleive that such a person, be they a student of Dzgchen or "master", has integrated the meaning of their primordial state completely.

All the conflicts in the world come about because of religion and ideology, whether political or economic. But Dzogchen is not based on ideology or belief, it is based on personal experience that is introduced by a master, someone who has integrated that knowledge into their life completely.

My personal goal in this life is to be as integrated as I can be. I have still have a lot of work to do on that score, but I am trying. That for me is the main point, in case anyone cares.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Now (and here I refer back to the original post) it seems that to experience the state of Great Perfection one does not need the theoretical framework (method) of Buddhism (or Bon, or even Dzogchenism), the only thing that is needed is know the state (have it pointed out to you).  I believe though that without Buddhadharma (and by this I mean a system of practice that is based on the Four Dharma Seals, something that Dzogchenism is also ) one would have no opportunity to abide in the true nature of their mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Greg:

What are the four seals?

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All afflicted phenomena are suffering
All phenomena lack identity
Nirvana is bliss.

You can find these four seals in Advaita Vedanta as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
No, because both all Buddhist vehicles--Sutra, Tantra, and Dzogchen(as a path)--sprouted from Shakyamuni's ultimate realization, and that ultimate realization is what is the real Dzogchen. So again, all enlightening paths--whether provisional or direct--come from realization, not religions and their adherents.

gregkavarnos said:
So in effect the title of this thread: "Dzogchen and Buddhism" is actually invalid.  Why?  Because the discussion in this thread revolves around Dzogchenism and Buddhism, NOT ultimate realisation/true nature/ultimate nature... and Buddhism.  Unless, of course, one wishes to make the preposterous claim that realisation of ones true nature only comes through Dzogchenism OR that Buddhism is not a valid path to "uncover" ones ultimate nature.

Malcolm wrote:
I titled the thread Dzogchen and Buddhism principally because many people think, as I once did, that you need to have a lot of instruction in other Buddhist topics before approaching Dzogchen teachings. This is the standard, post-Kadampa approach.

Understanding of other foundational Buddhist topics is necessary for people who are going to be translators and teachers. But not for those who are just wanting to practice.

As a practice, Dzogchen is a completely independent system; it has its own tantras and commentaries, its own set of outer preliminaries called the "seven mind trainings"; it's own set of inner preliminaries called rushan and semzin, and its own main practices in the form of the four samadhis of Sems sde, the four symbols of klong sde, or the trekchö and tögal, etc., in man ngag sde. The central practice in Dzogchen is Ati Guru Yoga.

Beyond this, a Dzogchen practitioner may make use of whatever else is helpful for their practice. If that means going to Catholic Mass on Sundays, or going to a Kirtan, etc., or practicing a Tara sadhana, then that is fine.

As for myself, for many years I practiced Dzogchen practice side by side with Sakya practices, this is even true up until late last year. I had also put aside all formal practice between the periods of 1998-2001 and focused only on Guru Yoga and Tregchö. In 2001 I met some excellent Lamas like Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche, like Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, (whose termas I also received and from whom I received the Nyingthg Yabzhi) and so on, and practiced Konchog Chidu, Troma, etc., for a while. Then I reconnected with my root Guru, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu in 2002. (For me, ChNN and KDL are inseparable). Also I received Vajrayogini from HH Jetsun Kusho -- I practiced this for a few years. Now however I practice only Dzogchen according to the instructions of ChNN, KDL and other Dzogchen masters I have received instructions from. So that's it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Caz said:
And how it surpasses everything that was ever taught.

Malcolm wrote:
Non-Buddhist schools, as well as Hinayāna and Mahāyāna, are classified as vehicles of the cause.

The various levels of Vajrayāna are classifed as vehicles of the result.

Dzogchen defines itself as the vehicle beyond cause and result. For this reason many Buddhists reject it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Is it Buddhism that has 'sectarian limitations' or some Buddhists?

Are all Dzogchenpas free of 'sectarian limitations'?

Malcolm wrote:
As to the first question, it is the first alternative.

As to the second, no -- there are many people who turn Dzogchen into a school.

M

Will said:
I wonder how there can be 'Buddhism' without Buddhists?

Malcolm wrote:
As you well know will, some people will turn that which is free from limits into a limitation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Will said:
Is it Buddhism that has 'sectarian limitations' or some Buddhists?

Are all Dzogchenpas free of 'sectarian limitations'?

Malcolm wrote:
As to the first question, it is the first alternative.

As to the second, no -- there are many people who turn Dzogchen into a school.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State
Content:
Huifeng said:
Hi,

While I read some general books about Dzogchen years ago, finally got around to reading some more recently.
Just finished off Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State.  Nice entry point, I felt.

That's it.  Thanks!

~~ Huifeng

Malcolm wrote:
Number two on intro books to Dzogchen. Crystal however is still requred reading.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
The Dzogchen Tantras may not say all of this explicitely, but what I'm saying also does not contradict them.

Malcolm wrote:
They do, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
In which year(s) were those Termas and where discovered?
Forgot to ask what was the reason for concealment / hiding?

Malcolm wrote:
All we can say for certain is that Chetsun Senge Wangchuk had passed on the lineage and texts for the 17 tantras and the Vima Nyinthig by 1128.

We don't really know how old he was when he met Lhungyal nor how old he was when he achieved rainbow body.


kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Do you eventual know the reason why these texts were hidden?


Mutsog Marro
KY

Malcolm wrote:
I assume it was because it was met with strong opposition by court Buddhists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
In which year(s) were those Termas and where discovered?
Forgot to ask what was the reason for concealment / hiding?

Malcolm wrote:
All we can say for certain is that Chetsun Senge Wangchuk had passed on the lineage and texts for the 17 tantras and the Vima Nyinthig by 1128.

We don't really know how old he was when he met Lhungyal nor how old he was when he achieved rainbow body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Anders Honore said:
Buddhism has its root and centre in the liberation of the mind.

Malcolm wrote:
One can say the same thing about many traditions. This is not a unique feature of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: buddhahood that reverts to the basis
Content:
CapNCrunch said:
Are Dzogchen practitioners guaranteed to eventually attain the buddhahood that doesn't revert to the basis?  Does this necessarily include the body of light?


Malcolm wrote:
If they practice


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Out of all who responded to my post, it looks like everyone except for Kalden Yungdrung missed this part:

However since the Buddha Shakyamuni is listed as one of the Twelve Dzogchen teachers, we could then say that the Buddha Dharma has Dzogchen roots.

The Dzogchen Tantras say that the Buddha Shakyamuni was one of the Twelve Dzogchen Teachers. If you don't agree with that, well then that's your choice. But as has been said a number of times in this very thread, if you don't agree with that then you could not on the same grounds say that Vajrayana (or maybe even Mahayana for that matter) has any more validity than Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Matylda said:
The same applies to dzogchen, isn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
If you take Dzogchen as some intellectual school. Yes. But that is not Dzogchen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Rheumatoid Arthritis
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Thank you Malcolm. What are the recommendations for diet?

LunaRoja said:
Does the arthritis hurt more when it is cold or warm?

N

Malcolm wrote:
Definitely cold and humidity is very difficult. I don't eat dairy since that seems to exacerbate it so I was wondering if there is anything else I can either remove or add to my diet.

Thank you kindly for your help. A Tibetan Dr comes to town here every couple of years but she is usually booked up before she arrives. I have also tried accupinture which has been very helpful.[/quote]


I would recommend you do an ayurvedic cleanse and rekindle your digestive fire. You need to stay warm, eat only warm food, such as lamb, buffalo, with spices like pepper, cardamon, ginger, etc.:


diet for rheumatoid arthritis: Ayurvedic recommended food
Posted on January 13, 2011 by Dr J V Hebbar MD(Ayu)
In rheumatoid arthritis Ayurvedic treatment, diet plays an important role in improving the joint health and to keep control on swelling and pain. Since Ayurveda believes that the root cause of rheumatoid arthritis lies in impaired digestion and metabolism, the rheumatoid arthritis diet also targeted to improve the same.
Rheumatoid arthritis Ayurvedic diet:
Ayurveda advises to include following food items to be included in rheumatoid arthritis.

Garlic: Recent study states that the micro nutrients of garlic helps in preventing arthritis changes of bones.

Buttermilk: Curds is a food item to avoid, but buttermilk is good for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Two garlic pearls with 2 ounces of buttermilk is an excellent daily drink and home remedy for rheumatoid arthritis.

Ginger, long pepper and pepper –  These three help to correct digestion and metabolism, hence recommended for daily usage in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Barley, horse gram: Both these are very easy to adopt in diet.

Bitter gourd (Bitter melon): It improves digestion, very low in calorie and good source of Vitamin B1, 2 & 3.  It is a good detoxifying herb and is traditionally indicated in diet for rheumatoid arthritis.

Hot water: Hot water drinking is beneficial to improve digestion. Regular drinking of hot water helps to bring lightness to the joints and improves flexibility in Rheumatoid arthritis.

Food to avoid: While it is important to know what food is good, it is also important to know food to avoid in rheumatoid arthritis. It makes the complete rheumatoid arthritis diet plan.

http://easyayurveda.com/2011/01/13/diet-for-rheumatoid-arthritis-ayurvedic-recommended-food/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We all have compassion. So the way to increase it is to simply see that we have it, and exercise that muscle a bit more.

M

LunaRoja said:
What is the difference between, exercising that muscle a bit more and cultivating compassion? They are both a conscious attempt to be more compassionate just worded differently.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhist approach alway starts out by suggesting that everyone has a compassion deficit. I don't agree. Some people's compassion is not developed however even after years of Lam rim meditation. This is so easy to see.

So, I think a different approach is needed.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Paul said:
Malcolm -this post has really brought forwards something that's I've been ruminating over for a while, mostly unconsciously. One thing I have found to be increasingly odd is that the Dzogchen teachings seem to be frequently put on a high shelf, as if to keep them out of the way of many people.

Malcolm wrote:
I think this condition exists because Buddhists in India, and then later in Tibet, were so hostile to Dzogchen when it was first revealed by Garab Dorje.

Since Vajrayāna emerged out in the context of the Yogatantra systems, and is not fundementally at odds with the notion of cause and result in the terms of path theory in Buddhism in general, it never met with such a hostile reception.


Paul said:
There are many things that must often be done before a person is given instructions. A common attitude is that person must complete ngondro first, do many years of retreat, be adept at creation and completion etc. otherwise it's going to be too hard for a person to get any benefit at all. In some cases I've found that it's not seen as a good thing to even talk about Dzogchen. This seems frankly a little ridiculous and also counter productive as in my experience it can even damage a person's belief they can ever understand their nature experientially. In my opinion, with diligence and a good teacher it's pretty straight forwards.

Malcolm wrote:
There are lots of different ways to build golden cages.

Paul said:
Do you think that the 'sorry kid, it's too High and Special a teaching for you' stance that can be found in the orthodox Tibetan religious structure is a symptom of Dzogchen's problematic consequences to power structures - restricting it to only a few carefully selected groups? The part I've highlighted in bold above is a comment from you that makes me think I may be on the right lines.

Malcolm wrote:
I think it has more to do with the fact that Dzogchen tantras themselves utterly dimisses the cause/result approach to awakening; whereas Buddhism is heavily invested in the cause/result paradigm and has an entire intellectual and institutional edifice dedicated to preserving it at any cost. So therefore, the standard line you often get is "Dzogchen is a practice for Buddhas...." and so on. Dzogchen tantras completely toss out the whole conditioned merit making thing on its ear, for example -- and this is not good for the enterprise of gilding statues. If you tell people they will never attain awakening through making donations to monasteries, they might think twice before giving at the office. Dzogchen goes much further than tathāgatagarbha theory. Vimalamitra states:

Hey, Son of a good family, listen up! The one who is “free from virtue and sin” in the conventions of the natural great perfection are yogis who see the meaning of their own vidyā. That vidyā is connected with the intimate instructions of the Guru. If that is not demonstrated, a scholarly paṇḍita trained in tripitika will not know even a fragment of a subtle particle split into one hundred thousand pieces of the meaning. That being so, it is called “depending on the method of secret mantra”.
If demonstrated, since even a poor cowherd can see it, that being case it is called “without good and bad action”. 
If it is not practiced, even Vajrasattva will not be liberated. That being the case, it is called ““familiarity with the intimate instruction meets its measure”. If practiced, even one who has committed one of the five limitless actions can be liberated from this appearance. That being so, it is called “being unaffected by the benefit or harm of good and bad actions”. Since it is impossible that a person who has the committed the five limitless actions cannot be liberated if demonstrated in that way, it demonstrated that [vidyā] itself is not affected by sins. Since it is impossible even for Samantabhadra to be liberated if it is not demonstrated, it is demonstrated that there [vidyā] itself is protected by virtue. That being so, it is shown that there is no difference between five hundred butchers who have seen vidyā and Vajrasattva who has also seen vidyā.

The leveling of social, and therefore, spiritual hierarchies which are a mere reflection of the latter, is threatening to the traditional Buddhist political establishment. I cannot tell you the number of times of I have heard educated Lama laugh at the idea that yak herders could have realization. They should just recite the Mani is the general attitude of many educated Tibetan Lamas. This kind of Tantric elitism is much more pronounced in Sakya and Gelug of course.

Thus the tool of secrecy has been used two ways in Dzogchen teachings -- it has been used by the external establishment to keep the wraps on the radical teachings of Mahāmudra on the one hand, and Dzogchen on the other. The way it has been used by Dzoghen is to protect itself.

But this is no longer necessary so much. We live in a somewhat democratic, egalitarian society. Dzogchen teachings can really flourish under such circumstances. This is not to say there is not a proper way to introduce people to the teachings, there is of course. But in the end, they will flourish more widely than all the other traditions of the world. ChNN has predicted many times that Dzogchen teachings will flourish worldwide and that everyone will be affected by them.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


mindyourmind said:
I'm not talking about (just)myself. You have a large following here, and I am concerned that anything that looks like a subtle rejection of gradual methods can be misunderstood and do much harm.

Malcolm wrote:
I have stated over and over again, it is everyone's responsibility to discover for themselves what is useful.

mindyourmind said:
We are talking about important issues here, concepts that can be easily misunderstood. This fine line is one of the reasons why Dzogchen has been kept secret in the past, why it should only be approached when the student is ready.

Malcolm wrote:
The reason Dzogchen was kept secret in the past is because of the hostility it garnered from Buddhists since its inception. Now Dzogchen is out in the world, and it not within the clutches of Tibetan Buddhists anymore. This does not mean we can ignore things like transmission, lineage and so on. But it does mean that we can speak more freely to those who are interested in what the real point of view of Dzogchen is itself. And it is not the gradual system the Nyingmapas were forced to adopt to forstall criticisms of the Kadampa influenced hegemony.

mindyourmind said:
Another point I'm making is that Dzogchen itself (if such a monolithic view can ever be found)does not really consistently propose a sudden approach.

Malcolm wrote:
If by Dzogchen, we are referring to the what Dzogchen tantras themselves state quite clearly, then this is not correct.

If we are talking about how Dzogchen has been presented by the Nyingma school under intense pressure from its opponents, then it is true, Nyingma presents Dzogchen as a graduated path. But the point of view of the Nyingma school and the point of view of Dzogchen are not necessarily the same thing.

mindyourmind said:
We are also, in some of the discussions so far, on the verge of confusing whether compassion is inherent, and whether the methods to cultivate it, are sudden or gradual.

Malcolm wrote:
In Mahāyāna, as I stated, compassion is gradually cultivated over many lifetimes.

In Dzogchen, there is little need to "cultivate" compassion since compassion is recognized a) to be innate b) will be expanded up by recognizing your own state.

I know many Mahāyāna pratitioners who cultivate compassion for many years, who are like rocks in the bottom of the ocean. They talk about compassion a lot, but never stop to help anyone or anything.

I know many non-buddhists who never "cultivated" compassion even once in their lives. But they are always helpful, without restraint.

I have little confidence in the canned meditations of the gradual system. They sure did not work for me when I was in retreat, so I abandoned them in favor of a more experiential approach. I just recognized that I had compassion, that I often acted compassionately, and then continued to move in the direction. I built on what I had, and expanded it -- rather than just sitting on my ass running through canned meditation topics. This is much better than sitting around with a Lam rim book in hand and practicing scales.

We all have compassion. So the way to increase it is to simply see that we have it, and exercise that muscle a bit more.

Then, when we recognize our true condition, our compassion will burst out like the sun behind a cloud.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Western Buddhism
Content:


Huseng said:
Most of them seem to be pasting a cherry picked version of Buddhism elements onto a default base of materialist ideology and narrative. If you're born and raised in a 1st world country, chances are you believe in materialism as the default worldview by virtue of it being the state sanctioned view. To deviate from it is not so comforting to many.

Malcolm wrote:
The religion of the state is only power. Always has been, always will be. Power reduces everything to mere things to used. That is the real materialism we should worry about.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Paul said:
Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.

Karma Dorje said:
Except aqua regia was used to hide gold in something corrosive.  This would be concealing something corrosive in gold.

Malcolm wrote:
I guess the intent of the metaphor was to indicate a solvent that other things are incapable of dissolving.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?
Content:
Banned said:
Virupa's back lineage is actually Mahamudra isn't it?


Malcolm wrote:
Virupa realized Mahāmudra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As you probably know, I was a Sakya pracitioner for many years.

N


Matylda said:
So did you give up sakya? In favor of ChNNR?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I did not give up Sakya. But ChNN has been my primary root guru since 1992.

I unify, I don't abandon.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
If even the Lonchen Nyingtig contains a graduated method (and gradual realization) then we should accept that instantaneous vs gradual depends on a lot of things, such as the practitioner's abilities and so on. There is no right and wrong way. The development of compassion needs all the help it can get.

Jigme Lingpa himself is said to have favored a gradual approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Mym:

It all depends on how fast you want that compassion express itself fully, rapidly or slowly.

If you are convinced that you need gradual methods, then there is no point trying to tell you otherwise. It is best to impart to you those methods. If you wish to practice Dzogchen, then compassion is inherent in the path without needing copious amounts of cultivation. Compassion is released merely from recognizing your true condition.

Really.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So you are saying that true compassion only arises via pointing out?  Is that why everybody here has devoted their lives to voluntarily assisting lepers in Bangladesh?


Malcolm wrote:
What I said was that unlimited compassion arises from recognizing your real nature. I also said that compassion was innate and everyone has it.

gregkavarnos said:
The question was directed towards Sonams statement.  I am not saying that compassion is not innate, but if one recognises their real nature via pointing out or via a gradual didactic approach is ultimately irrelevant.  What is bizarre to me is to consider didactic approaches "contrived" in contrast to instantaneous approaches as uncontrived.  True compassion, whether it is arrived at (realised) gradually through Lojong/Lam Rim practices or whether arrived at instantaneously through pointing out can never be contrived.  Pretending to be compassionate is contrived. (Yes, I know you said this, I'm just repeating it for others sake).

Back to the walking example:  you gotta fall over and bruise yourself a number of times before you can walk.

This is apparent even in the direct introduction approach coz seeing it once is not enough.  You lose sight, then you see it again, then... until it is stablised.  Thus it is obviously as contrived (or uncontrived) as having it taught to you.

And back to the leper example, I am sure mother Theresa did not have a Dzogchen master point out her innate compassion to her, not in this lifetime anyway.

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Greg,

I am not talking about true compassion versus contrived.

No one needs to meditate on compassion for hours and days. of course, cultivating the four immeasrubles is a good thing, but do you know what its function really is? Accumulating merit. Now this is not bad, of course. But what results from accumulating merit? Just a better body in samsara, that's all.

When we see suffering, we respond with empathy, unless we are a twisted f#ck.

What I was talking about was the difference between bound compassion and boundless compassion.

We all have bound compassion. Boundless compassion only comes from discovering our real nature. In Mahāyāna, this may mean cultivating compassion in a meaningful way through many kinds of practices. Of course, if someone wants to do that, that is fantastic -- who does not want people in the world who are more compassionate?

The problem with Mahāyāna is that this kind of cultivation takes eons.

But if you wish to have boundless compassion without waiting eons, then it is better for you to go to a Dzogchen master or a Mahāmudra master, receive introduction and discover your real nature as fast as possible.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: buddhahood that reverts to the basis
Content:
trevor said:
So all those beings that have not achieved budhahood through the Dzogche doctrine will have to cycle in samsara again at the end of the dark eon?


Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. What happens is, the best I understand is, is that while their consciousnesses are liberated, they have not completely eradicated all traces from the elements, and therefore, this unresolved contamination causes the latent awareness in the basis to arise from the movement of vāyu in the basis. When this neutral awareness recognizes its own state, it becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes ignorance. Just to be clear, this latent awareness of the basis is not a unified field, it is relative and differentiated. Thus, even though all sentient beings acheive liberation, sentient beings are not somehow newly created.

Sentient beings are just nexus of affliction, nothing more.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Jikan said:
Finally:  thank you, Malcolm, for describing your understanding to us.  I for one greatly appreciate it.

Malcolm wrote:
You are welcome, Dan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Jikan said:
If, as Malcolm suggests, a Sufi or Christian or Hindu Dzogchen might be possible... what might a Tendai Dzogchen look like?  I don't know:  I'm just proposing it as a thought experiment (or in my case, a life experiment)

Malcolm wrote:
There is no Buddhist Dzogchen or Bonpo Dzogchen. This why there cannot be a Hindu Dzogchen, a Sufu Dzogchen, a Christian Dzogchen, or a Tendai Dzogchen, a Zen Dzogchen.

Dzogchen does not belong to a school. There is no school of Dzogchen. A Dzogchen school would not be Dzogchen. This would be a completely wrong approach.

But anyone from any school or traditon who would like to learn Dzogchen can come and learn Dzogchen from a qualified teacher.

For example, the lineage of Dzogchen at this juncture in time appears in Buddhism and Bon. This does not make Dzogchen Buddhist and Bonpo. Dzogchen is the essence of the teachings, all teachings. When we do Ati Guru Yoga, we unify all the knowledge we learned from any teacher, be they Buddhist, Bon, Hindu, Christian, Sufi, etc.

If you are a Dzogchen practitioner, you must go beyond the limitations of schools. In the context of Tibetan culture, the rimey movement was started by Dzogchen practitioners. Why? Because they understood the need to go beyond the limitations of schools and discover the essence of the teachings. Now Dzogchen, the jewel of Tibetan culture, has left the confines of Tibean culture. We must go beyond the limitations of all schools, all philosophies, all ideologies if we are to practice Dzogchen.

As human beings, we have too much to lose if we continue to remain limited by religion, ideology, class, race and tribe. Yesterday, ChNN strongly stated that every human being should learn Dzogchen and put these teachings into practice. And if every human being did this, we would have much less problems in the world.

I cannot say the same thing about Buddhism. Why? Because the very first opponents of Dzogchen were Buddhists! And Buddhists remained hostile to Dzogchen for centuries.

We human beings like our niches, our cages we build for ourselves, the limitations in which we place ourselves. We justify those limitations, and create many arguments for them. I suggest that people look at that. I have, and I have found these wanting, and unnecessary.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Requirements to give empowerments?
Content:
Caz said:
The story of the dogs tooth is a perfect example of how someones faith transformed the perceived object.

Malcolm wrote:
The dogs tooth story is a perfect example of how unscrupulous sons dupe their mothers naive faith.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
zerwe said:
...
Realizing that the example of the kind mother is the source of compassion

Sönam said:
I'm not shure it's a good exemple ... it's most often an exemple of egoism, centered on herself, HER kid.

Sönam

zerwe said:
Sönam, I can see your point. However, if we are describing it as innate the only worldly example we have

of love and compassion is in the "mother." It would seem that it is through this example of the mother, developing compassion for oneself through recognizing our own suffering,

and turning this gradually toward others that we can realize our own  true nature.

Shaun

Malcolm wrote:
The reason that compassion is said to lead to profound realization in Mahāyāna is that gradual cultivation of compassion in an authentic way can lead to seeing the absence of identity in phenomena. This perfectly fine and wonderful.

Even more wonderful is the recognition of our real condition that unleashes the tap of compassion spontaneously.

Buddhahood does not come about because of engaging in the conditioned benefit of sentient beings. When you fully integrate with your real conditions, since compassion is innate in the basis, the needs of sentient beings are automatically satisified.

This at least is the Dzogchen view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Rheumatoid Arthritis
Content:
LunaRoja said:
How does Tibetan Medicine treat flares of Rheumatoid arthritis especially in the joints in the fingers and hands?


Malcolm wrote:
Medicinal baths, herbs, bloodletting/moxa (depending on cause), diet.

LunaRoja said:
Thank you Malcolm. What are the recommendations for diet?

Malcolm wrote:
Does the arthritis hurt more when it is cold or warm?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 7:54 PM
Title: Re: Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?
Content:


LunaRoja said:
How does it differ from the Kagyu school?

Malcolm wrote:
Mainly it is just difference in lineage. Result is the same.

N

LunaRoja said:
There are philosophical difference since Sapan did not believe in the pointing out instructions...

Malcolm wrote:
Sure he did, he just felt is needed to be based on having already received the four full empowerments.

Sapan did not accept sutra mahāmudra as such -- but he opined that Mahāmudra could be realzied through either the two stages or through Guru Yoga.


LunaRoja said:
but thought the great seal depended on initiation into a full Mandala. Sapan thought Mahamudra was totally free of concepts but criticized Gampopa's Mahamudra as just creating greater clarity and calm. He considered any sutra based non-tantric great seal to be impossible. Mahamudra in Sakya is depended on complete initiation into the Hevajra tantra. Now the Tsarpa Sakya I have been told do believe in pointing out instructions, but in general the Ngor and Khon lineages do not. So those are the major differences that I am aware of.

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayogini has had a mahāmudra pointing out instruction from the beginning. It is in Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen's collected works. Therefore, the Ngor and Khon Lineages accept pointing out.

As you probably know, I was a Sakya pracitioner for many years.

As for the disctinction between the inseperability of clarity of the three visions and emptiness and sutra mahāmudra, this is just fighting over a name. The meaning of the two is the completely identical.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Regarding the next closed webcast for Longsal Longde, if we have an immediate family member who wants to attend with us, yet who is not yet a Dzogchen Community member and would not be able to join in time; would this be permissable? Or is this something that we would have to try to ask Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche?

Malcolm wrote:
It would be permissable if they are truly interested.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
So you are saying that true compassion only arises via pointing out?  Is that why everybody here has devoted their lives to voluntarily assisting lepers in Bangladesh?


Malcolm wrote:
What I said was that unlimited compassion arises from recognizing your real nature. I also said that compassion was innate and everyone has it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Title: Re: Rheumatoid Arthritis
Content:
LunaRoja said:
How does Tibetan Medicine treat flares of Rheumatoid arthritis especially in the joints in the fingers and hands?


Malcolm wrote:
Medicinal baths, herbs, bloodletting/moxa (depending on cause), diet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
zerwe said:
It would not seem to be innate, but something that must be developed.

Malcolm wrote:
It is innate, but because of not recognizing the absence of identity, it's scope is limited.

If you want your compassion to be free from limitations, the only way to do that is to recognize your own state.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Title: Re: Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?
Content:


LunaRoja said:
It is not the same as Kagyu Mahamudra I thought it was from the unique point of view of the 3 Visions.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is one of the three tantras, the result tantra.

Sutra Mahāmudra = union of clarity and emptiness
Tantric mahāmudra = the result tantra
Essence mahāmudra = the inseperability of samsara and nirvana

LunaRoja said:
How does it differ from the Kagyu school?

Malcolm wrote:
Mainly it is just difference in lineage. Result is the same.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Title: Re: Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?
Content:


LunaRoja said:
It is not the same as Kagyu Mahamudra I thought it was from the unique point of view of the 3 Visions.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra is one of the three tantras, the result tantra.

Sutra Mahāmudra = union of clarity and emptiness
Tantric mahāmudra = the result tantra
Essence mahāmudra = the inseperability of samsara and nirvana


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?
Content:
Banned said:
My understanding is that Virupa's lineage descends from Mahamudra.

Is Lamdre just a branch of Mahamudra?

LunaRoja said:
No it is much deeper than that it is the path and the fruit, the indivisible nature of Samsara and Nirvana.

Malcolm wrote:
The result of Lamdre is mahāmudra. It is not deeper than mahāmudra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
Ok if you say so!


Malcolm wrote:
It is simple, when you see suffering, do you have compassion or not? Did that compassion come about because you spent lots of time sitting thinking about your kind mother, etc....? No, probably not. It came about because compassion is a natural part of our state and when we witness suffering, we are empathetic.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: shilajit
Content:
Pero said:
So, who normally takes it? Is it addictive?


Malcolm wrote:
Shilajit enhances the potency of other medicines. No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Requirements to give empowerments?
Content:
Luke said:
What traditionally are the requirements that a lama has to fulfill in order for him or her to be able to give empowerments to other people?

Have any living western lamas fulfilled these requirements?

Malcolm wrote:
You need to have permission of your Lama. For example, when I received the transmission of Troma Nagpo from Kayprok Tulku, a Sherpa Lama was was one of Trulshik Rinpoche's best friends from childhood, when he concluded the empowerment, he told us that he had given it in the most complete way so that if we ever needed to bestow the empowerment, we could. Granted, this means that one has to learn a considerable number of things, but you see how it is.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mirage said:
Anyway, I am not really interested in discussing it, just expressing my feelings. Don't mind me.

Malcolm wrote:
I am drawing a distinction between aritifically contrived compassion, the kind of "mouth" compassion and bodhicitta that drips out of the mouths of Buddhist teachers and students alike (while they screw their students, steal money, manipulate each other and so on) and real compassion that stems from recognizing one's actual state and the resulting automatic responsive concern for those sentient beings who do not recognize their own nature.

LunaRoja said:
All compassion is contrived until one reaches a realized state. In the causal vehicles contrived compassion leads to absolute compassion or in terms of the non-causals schools it results in removing the obscurations to realizing one's natural state. I thought this is why we practiced compassion (contrived) until it is actualized.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is the gradualist party line. I think it is really just disempowering. Compassion is part of your state. Just let it go free.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mirage said:
Anyway, I am not really interested in discussing it, just expressing my feelings. Don't mind me.

Malcolm wrote:
I am drawing a distinction between aritifically contrived compassion, the kind of "mouth" compassion and bodhicitta that drips out of the mouths of Buddhist teachers and students alike (while they screw their students, steal money, manipulate each other and so on) and real compassion that stems from recognizing one's actual state and the resulting automatic responsive concern for those sentient beings who do not recognize their own nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Malcolm - some people see a rainbow and think that it exists. Look at the illusion of the internet if you are not sure how it is that people fixate illusions. I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. Emptiness  is simple but not that simple.


Malcolm wrote:
This is why there are eight examples of illusion, and not just one.

But it is sufficient, Rongton Sheja Kunrig refers to this as the upadesha lineage of Madhyamaka. Longchen wrote a whole book about them.

The examples of illusion are all that someone interested in Dzogchen needs to know about emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Why is it sufficient to merely reflect on the examples of illusion to understand emptiness?

Malcolm wrote:
Because that is all that is necessary for anyone to understand emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Are you a nicer person? I do not mean are you a more "compassionate" person in that syrupy fake Lam rim way.

M

LunaRoja said:
This statement seems a little unfair to our Lam Rim friends. I have met some wonderfully compassionate Lam Rim students and some very grouchy Dzogchenpas. As far as compassion goes one of the most compassionate people I've met in my life is a Roman Catholic. I really think the nonsectarian approach is best. There are great fruits in all the schools and religions.

Sincerely,

LR


Malcolm wrote:
Put emphasis on fake, then you will understand my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


Paul said:
Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the archtypal bad reaction is when "500" Nalanda panditas travelled to Oḍḍiyāna to bully an 8 year old kid when they heard he was teaching that liberation was beyond cause and result. We know the rest of that story.

Tibetan power structures have been trying to keep the lid on Dzogchen ever since it entered into Tibet. Vairocana was banned to Eastern Tibet by a spurned queen and ministers who did not approve of Dzogchen. For example the 11th century translator Go Khugpa Lhatse accuses Vairocana of forging the five sems sde lungs, accuses Nubchen of forging the smad du byung wa, and excorciates Aro Yeshe Jungney for composed defiled compositions connected to sems sde, etc. The fourteenth century master, Buton accuses Guru Chowang (the treasure revealor of the seven line prayer) of being a fraud, dimisses symbolic dakini script as ridiculous, states outright that Dzogchen teachings are the indepedent fabrications of Nyingmapas. Indeed this was the standard attitude towards Dzogchen, etc. for centuries in Tibet. This is actually at the root of the whole Shugden controversy.

To make it worse, the Nyingmapas, eventually cowed by this pressure to conform to the Sutrayāna gradualism politically enforced by King Trisong Detsen after the outcome of the three year exchange of letters called "the Samye debate", gradually began to present Dzogchen as the summit of a gradual path, abandoning the earliest presentation of Dzogchen as a independent vehicle. There are some people enamored of scholars like Sam Van Schaik, a Sakyapa, who specializes in Dunhuang material. Now, he is a good scholar, and I like very much his point of view. But in my opinion, he has completely misunderstood the intent of the early Dzogchen tradition in Tibet. He presents Dzogchen based on the man ngag lta ba phreng ba (MTP), attributed to Padmasambhava and widely accepted to be his work even in Gelug. As you know or can find out, the MTP presents Dzogchen as the culimination phase of the creation and completion phase based on the Guhyagarbha tantra. Now there is nothing wrong with this at all. But this is not how Dzogchen is presented either in the Seventeen Tantras, klong sde or sems sde. For example, Nubchen, writing in the late 9th century clearly shows that Dzogchen is not merely a completion stage for Dzogchen in his bsam brtan mig gron [SMG]. he identifies Dzogchen as a cig char system. Not only this, but he defends Chan as being the definitive sutrayāna approach because it too is a cig char system. He says for example:

"Do not seek out a philosophical position [siddhanta], there is also nothing to illustrate, if there is something to illustrate, the non-dual is illustrated to be free from activity, thought, or analysis through an example."

But here on this thread, we have many people voice the opinion, to understand Dzogchen you need madhyamaka either Rang stong or gzhan stong, you need to have the view of dependent origination, etc. All kinds of preconditions but one, the indispensible one.

There is but one thing indispensible for Dzogchen, and that is an introduction from a master. As Nubchen points out this is the critical difference between sutra and tantra. The critical difference between tantra and Dzogchen is whether one's practice is based on the notion of cause and result or not. And that is based on whether or not one has authentically recognized one's own stage so that one is possession of that famous rigpa.

Some people are interested in how we know if our practice is moving ahead. It is easy -- are you more integrated, are you having less problems in life? Is your clarity increasing? Are you a nicer person? I do not mean are you a more "compassionate" person in that syrupy fake Lam rim way. I mean are you a nicer person? A decent, ordinary, normal human being who plays well with others? Or are you still an alienated freak who can't get along with anyone and always demands that everyone around you change in conformity with your own nuerosis, especially your religious neurosis?

How can anyone say incidentally these are merely features of a Buddhist path? Look at all the basket cases in Buddhism. Do we really think we have our shit together more than Hindus, Christians and so on? I don't think so -- incidentally I am not making a claim that people who are interested in Dzogchen necesssarily are more together, I have met a lot of flakes in and out of the community and there are a lot of people who think I am a flake. But most people like me even if they think I shoot my mouth off too much (I do).

Back to the main topic: the notion of a vehicle beyond cause and result, one that does not require accumulations, practice with effort, and so on is very threatening to the gradualist establishment in Tibetan culture. The gradualists really hate the message of Atiyoga. It threatens their grip on feudal power. This is why Dzogchen will not be found in Tibetan monasteries and large Dharma centers. It will only be found at the feet of Dzogchen masters. You can take a hundred high Dzogchen empowerments but if you do not understand the main point, then it is of limited benefit. But if you can put yourself at the feet of qualified master who teaches Dzogchen from their own experience then there is no limit of benefit and you will receive transmission whether you are a Buddhist, an Catholic or an Alien. Transmission is beyond mind. Dzogchen is beyond mind, a personal experience beyond reckoning, calculation, something within the reach of everyone who is interested to discover their own nature. So yes, Dzogchen is an aqua regia, a royal water capable of dissolving all limitations whatsoever if one just puts it into sincere practice.

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

In fact if you closely examine Dzogchen language you see that it uses non-Buddhist examples all the time. For example. the notion of the peacock feather's colors being naturally formed is actually drawn from the Carvaka India materalist school -- they use that example to prove there is no creator, and so do we. A peacocks feather has eyes just because it is the nature of a peacock's feather to have eyes. Wisdom exists in the heart of each and every sentient beings just because it is the nature of a sentient being to have wisdom in each and everyone's heart. We don't have to do anything to create that wisdom. We don't have to do anything at all to develop that wisdom. We cannot improve that wisdom or harm it in anyway. It is as integral to our state as the five elements from which we are made (since they are made from it, anyway).

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

And then we rest in our own state, or we discover it. These are the only choices we have in Dzogchen, discover, then rest.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
pemachophel said:
In any case, knowing what I know about Kyabje Chatral Rinpoche, I find the previous respondents hypothesis unlikely.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is certainly true that for many Buddhist masters of Dzogchen declaring a religious allegiance to Buddhism is a very important first step with all that entails i.e. eschewing non-Buddhist gods and companions, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Paul said:
In Dzogchen a persona has to discover rigpa, which is the point where concepts collapse and wisdom arises. A person's beliefs - such as being a Nyingmapa for example - is actually just a bunch of concepts. So from the Dzogchen POV (i.e. the experience of actually resting steadily in rigpa) it's actually false and as equally false as any other belief. There's no such thing as a 'more correct dream' - there's only waking up.

Malcolm wrote:
Check.

Paul said:
In order to fully integrate everything a Dzogchen practitioner cannot pick and choose. As you mention it's the path of not changing anything - i.e. not accepting and not rejecting. So if a person is going to practice, they have to 'eat whatever's on their plate', but the corollary is that as long as they are remaining in the liberated state that their teacher pointed out they can eat whatever they like. And it actually helps deepen their practice to have a varied diet - their capacity grows and limitations dwindle.

Malcolm wrote:
Check.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Malcolm - thanks. Would you equate real knowledge of instant presence to something like 'stream-enterer' in Therevada? I mean in the sense of the knowledge of instant presence having with it a quality that liberates and that does not degenerate?

Malcolm wrote:
I guess you could say something like that i.e. a Dzogchen stream entrant is someone who has discovered their real state.

The difference of course is that discovering your real condition does not mean you are liberated from what buddhists call "fetters" and hindus call samskaras.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Malcolm I hope you are right. How many members of the Dzogchen Community do you think have achieved this liberation?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't really know where they keep those sorts of statistics. But I am very certain that many of our sibs have real knowledge of instant presence. So I do not worry so much. Some of whom in which I have personal confidence.

M

Andrew108 said:
Hi Malcolm - do you mean by 'sibs' those that have studied and completed SMS level 1?

Malcolm wrote:
I mean those who have received transmission and applied themselves in a serious fashion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
But didn't you debate for the "Aryan invasion theory" in the other thread about Hindu and Buddhist Deities? A 'theory' that if true, would show the Dravidian culture to be the bedrock of Indian civilization. If this is true, it of course does not necessarily negate Sanskrit as a 'Primordial' or 'Sacred' language.

Malcolm wrote:
Indian Civilization as we know it is based on the Vedas, first and foremost regardless of the AIT or the Hindutva theories of history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Malcolm I hope you are right. How many members of the Dzogchen Community do you think have achieved this liberation?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't really know where they keep those sorts of statistics. But I am very certain that many of our sibs have real knowledge of instant presence. So I do not worry so much. Some of whom in which I have personal confidence.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
pemachophel said:
It's clear that one can practice Dzogchen as a stand-alone system. It is also clear that one can practice Dzogchen along with whatever practices ones chooses/one's Guru chooses for them from the other eight yanas. Most Nyingma Lamas alive today (such as Kyabje Chatral Rinpoche) and those recently deceased (such as Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche, Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Kyabje Trulshik Rinpoche, Urgyen Kusum Lingpa, etc.) make/made pretty heavy use of the other eight yanas both for Themselves and Their students. IMO, since everything depends on the Guru, the right approach or mix depends on one's Guru's instructions and example and the student's faith and devotion to their Teacher(s). The report card comes at the time of death. Since most Baby Boomer practitioners will be dying in the next 20 years, we should have ample evidence of which approaches produce the most consistent or dependable results. Till then, may all of us on this forum practice according to our Guru(s) instructions as diligently as possible and may all of us bring the path to fruition as quickly as possible.

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing to disagree with there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Alternatives for the Dzogchenpa
Content:
Sherlock said:
Malcolm once said that if you received the teachings from ChNN and did the practice daily (I assume guru yoga?) he guarantees that you will face no difficulties upon death. I'd also be curious to know his answer.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
Yes, but we don't exactly know much about the history of the klong sde lineage before the 11th century? But we know it been a part of the klong sde lineage for almost 1000 years so that seems like something, at least to me.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Sure we do, we know the name of each master, who attained rainbow body, etc.

When Dzin Dharmabodhi combined klong sde with the practice of Ngondzog Gyalpo, he did so because Ngondzog Gyalpo taught the klong sde tantras. Ngondzog Gyalpo is a guru sadhana from anuyoga. So we do this practice to connect with the lineage, just as we do Guru Yoga of White A to connect with Garab Dorje, but that is also from Anuyoga system, it is not Dzogchen.

N

heart said:
Yes, but they are not exactly historically verified yet, even if I am sure they will be eventually. But the last 1000 years are of a historically verified lineage, that is worth something. But I think I heard ChNNR call the Guru Yoga with a White Ah a Ati Guru Yoga, no?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
There are three versions of this. What I am talking about is "A dkar bla ma'i rnal sbyor" it is a text with visualization of Garab Dorje, in the collective pratices book.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
.........All that is necessary for liberation is direct introduction and subsequent diligence applying that introduction.
M

Andrew108 said:
Are you really sure about this...
Do you really think this happens?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
xabir said:
But I do not see how a person can awaken and then still hold on to their old beliefs and views or their religions, since they would have seen through the views of their old religions. Even a stream enterer has ended three fetters: self-view, sceptical doubt and attachment to precepts and practices.

heart said:
Recognizing your own nature is not the same as realization except for a select few. I assume that is what you mean with awaken.

/magnus

xabir said:
Yes, in my understanding based on what I have read on ChNNR's texts and Namdrol's explanation, recognising Instant Presence is not equivalent to realizing emptiness and so does not have the effect of ending the fetters.

Malcolm wrote:
No, then there is something to do with that instant presence. No one said, "oh now I have recognized my real nature, now I am done."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
xabir said:
It is impossible to continue holding on to a view of self and at the same time be liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
It is impossible to hold onto a view of self or non-self and at the same time be liberated.

xabir said:
But I do not see how a person can awaken and then still hold on to their old beliefs and views or their religions, since they would have seen through the views of their old religions. In other words they can be a non-Buddhist up to the point of their awakening.

Malcolm wrote:
You still have not grasped the principle of "not changing anything". That means you integrate with wheverever you find yourself. If you recognize your real condition while belonging to the Christian religion, you do not suddenly have to stop going to church. Maybe you like going to church. Maybe, being a Dzogchen practitioner makes a _better_ Christian.

Maybe being a Dzogchen practitioner can make Buddhists better Buddhists because Buddhists quite frankly are really grumpy and narrow minded, just like anyone else caught in the grip of grasping one-sided views. I can say this because I have more experience of Buddhists. Maybe, being a Dzogchen practitioner can make a Dzogchenpa a better Dzogchenpa.

An example of using old beleifs and views while still awakening is Bon. Bon did not throw anything out. They still teach their egg cosmology along with another more modern, "Buddhist" cosmology. They divide all that "non-Buddhist stuff" and call it all "The causal vehicle", right where the sgar thal gyur places the vehicle of gods and men i.e.:

Causal vehicles:
Gods and men
Hināyāna
Mahāyanā

Result vehicles:
kriya
upa
yoga
mahā
anu

Vehicle beyond cause and result
Ati.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
Yes, but we don't exactly know much about the history of the klong sde lineage before the 11th century? But we know it been a part of the klong sde lineage for almost 1000 years so that seems like something, at least to me.

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Sure we do, we know the name of each master, who attained rainbow body, etc.

When Dzin Dharmabodhi combined klong sde with the practice of Ngondzog Gyalpo, he did so because Ngondzog Gyalpo taught the klong sde tantras. Ngondzog Gyalpo is a guru sadhana from anuyoga. So we do this practice to connect with the lineage, just as we do Guru Yoga of White A to connect with Garab Dorje, but that is also from Anuyoga system, it is not Dzogchen.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
you don't have practice with Anuyoga Deities or do Guardian Practices in Dzogchen, although it can help to do so.

heart said:
Depends on what you mean with that but Ekajati is a Dzogchen protector and there is a Dzogchen Tantra on her practice, can't recall the name. Similarly I have been told some other deities appear in the Dzogchen Tantra's as practices. The empowerment of the Dzogchen Longde is for a deity and the Longde contains also lot of deity practice. Also Garab Dorje received all the Dzogchen teachings from Vajrasattva, who is a deity. So it is not so clean cut as I used to think. Of course the main point of all Dzogchen teachings is the realization of the natural state, but at least I think that could be said about Buddhism or rather the Dharma as a whole.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
The addition of the empowerment for the Anuyoga style Guru Yoga of the primordial master Ngondzog Gyalpo was tacked onto the klong sde lineage in the 11th century by Dzin Dharmabodhi. Before that, there was no specific empowerment of klong sde.

Vajrasattva is one of Garab Dorje's names. For example, if you read the Rigpa Rangshar tantra, the master who teaches that Tantra is Zhonnu Pawo Tobden -- during the course the tantra, he is called Mahavajradhara, Samantabhadra, Vajrasattva andmany other names and title. Any fully awakwned person is the manifestation of all three kāyas.

Garab Dorje's Speech is Vajrasattva. His Mind is Samantabhadra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Tarpa said:
I have one question, do you think liberation is possible in other religions without the teaching of dependent origination ?

Malcolm wrote:
I understand why you ask this because it is strong statement I have made in the past.

But the view of Dzogchen is not dependent origination at all. Dependent origination, in Dzogchen, is how we describe the arising of afflicted phenomena in Dzogchen, the pheomena that manifest out of non-recogition of our real nature.


Tarpa said:
I understand a direct experience surpasses any need for intellectual study of anything, like reading a map after you've already arrived at a destination and since our real nature is inherent than of course it would be accessible to anybody able to recognize it, wich is a wonderful thing of course, but do you think study of dependent origination and the wisdom teachings of Buddhism necessary for liberation ?

Malcolm wrote:
As I said in the first post in this thread, all that I think is necessary for studying Dzogchen is understanding the five elements and three gates and having a good motivation. All that is necessary for liberation is direct introduction and subsequent diligence applying that introduction. Of course one can study anything and it can be helpful and useful to broadening one's understanding, so if you read my first post, you will see what I said. If you are going to be a teacher, you have to study a little more broadly in order to relate to more diverse capacities.

Tarpa said:
Are you saying all other religions or whatever people want to call them can be looked at as stepping stones to an ultimate experience of ones real nature ( wich of course there is no label there saying " welcome to Buddhism you've made it " or anything like that ) , or looked at like part of the staircase of the gradual teachings, is what " the paths of gods and men mean ? It's okay they don't have understanding of dependent origination for now they are starting off in a good direction ? But wouldn't eternalist and solid self / soul / reality views etc. be a problem ?

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Dzogchen practitioner, it does not matter much what your intellectual view is.

For example, no matter whether you are a cittamatrin or a madhyamaka you can still attain liberation if you follow the the sadhana method. Why? Because the sadhana method in Vajrayāna recapitulates the experiential introduction in the third and fourth empowerments. The "view" in Varjayāna in general is not a result of intellectual analysis, it is a result of introduction and the experiential cultivation of introduction. If it does not matter whether you are a cittamatrin or a madhyamaka when it comes to practicing sadhana -- because you will still attain liberation either way. Your post-meditation view will not interfere with your sadhana practice. Since cittamtra is a realist viewand is does not intefere with your liberation when practicing a vajrayāna sadhana, why should other realist views interfere with your liberation?

Dzogchen is based completely on direct introduction. As long as you are willing to employ its methods, then what does it matter if you come to Dzogchen practice beleiving in Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.? What does it matter if you believe in Para-atma? What does it matter if you believe in tathāgatagarbha which is described in so many tathāgatagarbha texts as a self (though, perish the thought, not the SAME self as advocated by the Hindus -- actually, if someone is reallty, really honest with themselvs , they will admit it is impossible to differentiate the sat cit ananda of the Hindus from the atman, sukha, nitya, śuddha of the uttaratantra)? The Dzogchen view is not a view, it is the experience of a moment of uncontrived awareness aka instant presence (an Indian moment i.e. roughly about 5 miliseconds) based on direct introduction.

As long as you are practicing Ati guru yoga etc., and doing your best, none of your previous conditioning, whether non-Buddhist or Buddhist will interfere with your liberation. Why? Because "liberation" is solely based on recognizing your real condition. It is not based on belief philosophy, intellectual analysis, conditioned merit,  or anything else. It is not based on having a view of emptiness, dependent origination, buddhanature, etc. These views are just as relative as views of self, a creator, and so on.

Tarpa said:
I think I'd like to finally start getting into dzogchen, I have read a bunch of books about dzogchen but no actual dzogchen books per se, texts, I have been putting it off for years because I found it a bit confusing while studying mahamudra after experienced practitioners such as yourself were saying it is not the same thing while all the intro books about buddhism were saying it was, then I got the sense that maybe trekcho and mahamudra are more or less same but togal is something completely different than anything elsewhere, and terms and definitions seemed to be different in both systems so I didn't want to confuse myself and decided to study one or the other and picked mahamudra. Togal is mainly what I'm interested in learning about.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, start with klong sde. Listen to ChNN retreat coming up, it is closed, so you have to get your membership and the login right away. starts very soon, like thursday or something.

Tarpa said:
I think I'll join the dzogchen community.

Malcolm wrote:
Good call.

Tarpa said:
I'm a Buddhist and will always cherish it...

Malcolm wrote:
You don't have to change anything to be a Dzogchen practitioner. If you are a Catholic, you don't suddenly have to change and call yourself a Buddhist because you have become a Dzogchen practitioner and you can still partake of the Sacaraments of the church as much as you like, just do so with presence and awareness.
If you are a Wiccan, you don't suddenly have to change and call yourself a Buddhist because you have become a Dzogchen practitioner. If you want dance naked under the moon during during a sabbat, there is no problem, just do so with presence and awareness.
If you are a religious Jew, you don't suddenly have to change and call yourself a Buddhist because you have become a Dzogchen practitioner, you can still observe the sabbath, there is no problem, just do so with presence and awareness.
If you are a Taoist, you don't suddenly have to change and call yourself a Buddhist because you have become a Dzogchen practitioner, when you practice Taoist rites and so on, just do so with presence and awareness.
If you are a Buddhist, you don't suddenly have to change and call yourself a Dzogchen practitioners because you have become a Dzogchen practitioner, when you practice meditation, sadhana, etc., just do so with presence and awareness.

If you are a Dzogchen practitioner, and all of sudden you don't feel very much like you need the label "Catholic, Wiccan, Jew, Taoist, Buddhist" there is also no problem. Just continue to practice Dzogchen and be present and aware.

Some people think I have abandoned Dharma. It is not true. My relationship to Dharma and my understanding of it has changed. As I mentioned before all Dharma paths, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist, have the same motivation, the peace and happiness that comes from freedom.

I just don't feel the need to self-identify as a "buddhist" anymore. I am personally finding the label "buddhist" to be a limitation for me. I am not suggesting to anyone else that they need to change anything.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Tarpa said:
Does receiving Dzogchen related hyt empowerments ( protectors ) with ati yoga version sadhanas, yangzab lineage / Traga Rinpoche, count as direct introduction or entry on Dzogchen path ?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure. Yangzab is an Anuyoga system.Traga Rinpoche is a Dzogchen master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Dzogchen has no tradition. Dzogchen is beyond tradition"

ChNN 5/18/2012


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We find four main kinds of conflict narratives in Tibean religious culture

1) The narratives of conflict between Buddhists and Bonpos during the imperial period

2) The narratives of conflict between Indian Mahāsiddhas with Hindus during the early new translation period

3) The narratives of conflict expressed in the subjugation of Rudra, the Ogre King of Lanka, in Nyingma Mahāyoga sources (which clearly parallel Rama's defeat of Ravana in the Ramayāna) and those expressed in the subjugation of Bhairava/Shiva, etc. in the Sarma tantras.

4) The narratives of conflict of Indian Buddhists with masters of the Atiyoga lineage.

Please do not forget that Indian Buddhists completely rejected Ati as a heresy, completely. People forget this. One could make the argument that treasures attributed to Padmasambhava such as klong gsal nyi ma bar ma rgyud, mkha' gro snying thig and so on served to validate and normalize the heretofore controversial teachings of Dzogchen that were under severe attack by Kadampas, Sakyas, and so on and earlier, during the tenth century by such people as Lha Bla ma Yes she 'od, etc i.e. the tenth century Buddhist conservatives who maintained the old imperial era policies against translating mahayoga tantra texts and so on. Creating the narrative that Padmasambhava had validated them served to propel Nyingthig to new heights of popularity. Not only were there treasures, but also in the kama tradition we find texts with colophons stating they were translated by Guru Padmasambhava. The problem here is that the first Nyingma catalogue of Tantras was not compiled until the 13th century, etc., etc.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: Triyik Yeshe Lama.
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
1. The Bonpo Dzogchen Guardians have ordered the Masters to teach it openly
2. Dzogchen Teachings are an open secret i.e. if one has no capacity then one will not be able to understand them and will not be interested in reading
3. For those who have the capacity and connection, it may bring great benefit by providing a link to the text and Master which they can then follow if they wish to enter the way of dzogchen
4. It is clearly stated in the text that if one wishes to put these Teachings into practice then just reading the book is not enough. One must find and follow an authentic Master.

So reading is different than doing the practice. i guess it is always good to have some knowledge before one gets started.

Malcolm wrote:
I was not talking about other people, I was referring to how those who consider themselves students of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu ought to behave.

I, for one:
a) have no problem with all Dzogchen teachings be taught openly.

b) do not consider Dzogchen secret in anyway. "Secret" does not mean "...never show anyone" -- it means, only show it to those who are interested. Do not talk about thogal, etc., on internet forums, bars and coffee shops. For example, Tibetans call one's private parts "gsang gnas", the secret place. So, just like we do not expose our penises and vaginas in public places, and only show them to people who are interested, likewise, these teachings should only be shown to people who are interested. They should not be made available so people can make a kind of book collection.

c) people who want to read Heartdrops can buy the book. I do not support this idea that all books should be downoadable for free.

4) Yes, I know. It says this clearly.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But we should not kid ourselves into to believing that liberation is only possible according to our preconceptions.

Pero said:
What does it matter if we "kid ourselves" like that?


Malcolm wrote:
Then we enter into unnecessary limitations.

By the way, I did not assert to TKfan that there was liberation in other schools.

Merely that his dogmatic scholastics were articles of faith, not proofs of anything concrete.

When you asked me if I think liberation is possible outside of Buddhism, the only answer is yes, because otherwise, we would not have Buddha, etc.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pero said:
In the end we have little time and no doubt Buddhadharma leads to Buddhahood. You cannot say the same about other teachings (save Bon).

Malcolm wrote:
I am not suggesting we change anything. I am in the path I am content with. But we should not kid ourselves into to believing that liberation is only possible according to our preconceptions.

The best thing is to just confess that one does not know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pero said:
But the thing is there is no knowledge of the reality of phenomena outside of Buddhism and Bon (and Dzogchen).

Malcolm wrote:
Are you really, really, really sure about that? And what would it cost you if you were wrong about that?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Pero said:
Malcolm, do you now believe that achieving Buddhahood is possible outside of Buddhism and Bon (including Dzogchen)?

Malcolm wrote:
Acheiving Buddhahood has always been possible outside of "Buddhism". There was no Buddhism when appeared. or when Tonpa Shenrab appeared. Or when Ngon Dzog Gyalpo, appeared. Etc. In fact, Ngondzog Gyalpo left no Buddhist sangha behind. Nor when Zhonnu Pawo Tobden appeared, or Nangwa Dampa, etc.

Then there are pratyekabuddhas. They in fact often appear in the garb of so called non-Buddhist ascetics.

Nagarjuna has said that even if there are no Buddhas in the world, it is always possible to for there to be liberation anyway since the reality of phenomena is always present.

So yes I think it is possible. I do not think any longer that liberation is the sole province of Buddhists.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
Your story is right except that Gyerpung Nang Zher Lodpo was a student from Taphiritsa.

Malcolm wrote:
Vision/student, same difference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since there is no arising, there is no cessation,
no coming nor going, all pervasive;
the unmoving supreme dharma of great bliss,
immaculate liberation equal with space.

Without a foundation, unsupported,
non-abiding, not appropriated, a great dharma;
a vast naturally uniform primordial liberation
not bound nor unbound.

An all-embracing dwelling place that has always existed, 
throughly uncorrupted, beyond karma, 
a vast area, the expanse of space,
the blazing great dharma is the orb of the sun and the moon. 

Naturally formed and personally experienced,
a vajra, a mountain, a great lotus,
the sun, a lion, wisdom, a song,
Great sound, incomparable music.

Enjoyed to the limits of space,
fully awakened equal with all the buddhas,
on the vast stage of Samantabhadra, the pinnacle of dharma,
in the dimension of space, the spacious womb of Samantabhadri, 
the naturally-formed luminous dimension has always been totally perfect.

This is my rendering in a more literal way done some years ago, and slightly revised this morning.

There is a very beautiful free rendering of the Song of the Vajra on page 91 of Crystal and the Way of Light. It seems to have been taken from an oral commentary, so not all the words of the Tibetan text of Longchenpa's translation [found in the Tshig don mdzod, vol. 2, page 1295] are represented in this version.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
According to Tun huang documents, Gyer chen sNang bzhed lhod po was a contemporary of Srongtsan Gompo. He wrote down the rgyud chung bcu gnyis, the root verses of the whole Zhang Zhung snyan rgyud after a vision of Taphihritsa, and wrote a number of commentaries on them.

Jnana said:
Okay. Are there Dunhuang documents containing Bon teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
However, it is clear that Zhang Zhung snyan rgyud predates the arrival of Dzogchen from India.

Jnana said:
Clear from archaeological sources? Or text-critical analysis? Or?...

Malcolm wrote:
As to one, yes. As to two, in terms of archaeology, not yet so far as I know. In terms of text criticism, ChNN has done a lot of work here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Unknown said:
Personally, I have no confidence that an awakened teacher has ever existed or will ever exist without realizing pratītyasamutpāda in both forward and reverse sequence and the four noble truths.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok.
And yet, the Bonpos had Dzogchen in the form of the Zhang Zhung snyan rgyud prior to the introduction of Shakyamuni's teachings into Tibet. This is a most excellent reason to support the notion that Dzogchen can be fruitfully practiced as an independent vehicle.
What is your "objective fact to which all will readily agree, like the heat of a flame" that proves this claim that Bonpos had dzogchen prior to Buddhism being introduced into Tibet?
According to Tun huang documents, Gyer chen sNang bzhed lhod po was a contemporary of Srongtsan Gompo. He wrote down the rgyud chung bcu gnyis, the root verses of the whole Zhang Zhung snyan rgyud after a vision of Taphihritsa, and wrote a number of commentaries on them.

But you have not proven that awakened beings are found solely within Buddhism. Nor have you proven Buddhism alone has the methods of producing such beings. You have merely recited some received dogma. The fact that awakened beings are also found in Bon contradicts your assertion.
And what is your "objective fact to which all will readily agree, like the heat of a flame" for this claim that awakened beings are also found in Bon, specifically, prior to Buddhism being introduced into Tibet?[/quote]

That was not the scope of the question I had in mind Shardza, etc.  However, it is clear that Zhang Zhung snyan rgyud predates the arrival of Dzogchen from India.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Mariusz said:
If you meant I should be a dzogchen pracitioner - I'am practicing in Nyingmapa the Kün­zang Gongdü Nyinthig cycle of Pema Lingpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, and that's fanatastic. You can be a buddhist and a Dzogchen pracitioner -- never said you couldn't.

M

Mariusz said:
As you will see I questioned you earlier and waiting for answers? You seems to me not reliable for such an advise now. Take your statement made outside Dharmawheel for example.

Malcolm wrote:
I did not see your question. This thread has 28 pages in three days -- a little hard to keep up.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


mindyourmind said:
Except if your "real state" actually holds a view. That then will be dzogchen

Malcolm wrote:
But your primordial state does not contain a view.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Mariusz said:
If you meant I should be a dzogchen pracitioner - I'am practicing in Nyingmapa the Kün­zang Gongdü Nyinthig cycle of Pema Lingpa.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, and that's fanatastic. You can be a buddhist and a Dzogchen pracitioner -- never said you couldn't.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
A deliciously funny thing about this thread is that those who are now opposing Malcolm most vehemently are relying to a great extent on the arguments he himself used years ago - and has abandoned by now and exposed as wanting. 27 pages of Malcolm being attacked by people who do little but raise Malcolm's ghosts - which he's all laid to rest

Andrew108 said:
Perhaps we shouldn't 'oppose' (and 'we' don't actually) but just accept. Sounds like you might have the mindset to be a good Dzogchen practitioner. Just wait until Malcolm speaks, accept what he says. No need to bother trying to work it out for yourself. Nice and easy way to enslave yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a very nice thing to say to THO. That is not respecting him at all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
Not to you, Malcolm, but to a lot of us it is.
M

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and that is fine. I have nothing against buddhists. I am nominally a buddhist.  And I have nothing but love for Buddha's Dharma.

But many of our Dharma brothers and sisters, some my closest friends in Dzogchen Community, do not feel nor consider themselves buddhists. So I see no reason to condition them into accepting a label that is not important for them; just as I have no wish for you or anyone else to abandon a label that is important for you.

For example, if you came to me and said "I feel anyone can practice Mahāmudra". They do not need to be a Buddhist to do so." I would agree. End of conversation. If you said "I don't feel like a buddhist, but I really like practicing mahāmudra, I would said -- excellent.

For me it is not about accepting and rejecting the appellation "buddhist".

In the end, when it comes to the personal experience of your primordial state, that experience has never come with the lable "buddhist" attached to it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
tomamundsen said:
So, is the emphasis here on "considers themselves" as a Buddhist? Or do you mean they can actually hold views that are not in accord with Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
What kinds of views you hold does not really matter. Dzogchen is not a question of holding a view. It is a question of discovering your real state thorugh your personal experience. All the intellectualization about what is Dzogchen? what is not Dzogchen? is it Buddhist? is it not Buddhist?  will never, ever substitute for that personal experience. When you have that personal experience, all that intellectualization is becomes unnecessary.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddha just means someone who is awake. Also Hindu yogis and ascetics strive to become awake, to become Jivanmuktis, "liberated while still alive". What is your objective fact to which all will readily agree, like the heat of a flame, that these persons do not achieve awakening?

M

xabir said:
Have you seen a Hindu have experiential realization of the two emptiness, dependent origination, etc? I haven't. If they had, I can't see how they could still call themselves Hindu.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not answer the question I posts to T-fan.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 10:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Everyone has compassion because they have Buddhanature, but the wisdom methods to develop this Buddhanature and transform it into enlightenment can only be found within Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
What is your objective fact that proves this point? A fact so objective all will agree to it, just as all agree there is a sun in the center of our solar system?

Tsongkhapafan said:
It's also arguable that the methods to transform ordinary, limited compassion into enlightened compassion can also only be found within Buddha's teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
It is also arguable that this is not so. Hence, Hindus and those of other faiths very much disagree with you. What is your objective fact to which all will readily agree, just as all agree that the moon appears in the sky, that proves this to be so?

Tsongkhapafan said:
True compassion is really bodhichitta, and that, being a compassionate wish to become a Buddha, is most definitely and exclusively Buddhist.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha just means someone who is awake. Also Hindu yogis and ascetics strive to become awake, to become Jivanmuktis, "liberated while still alive". What is your objective fact to which all will readily agree, like the heat of a flame, that these persons do not achieve awakening?

Tsongkhapafan said:
I'm not being sectarian and exclusivist

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you are. And that is perfectly alright. Just admit to yourself that you are being both sectarian and exclusivist. Self-knowledge is a very good thing.

Tsongkhapafan said:
everyone needs enlightenment, but in order to attain enlightenment it's very necessary to go for refuge to enlightened beings, their Teachings and their qualified followers to create the foundation, otherwise it's like trying to grow a seed with no soil.

Malcolm wrote:
But you have not proven that awakened beings are found solely within Buddhism. Nor have you proven Buddhism alone has the methods of producing such beings. You have merely recited some received dogma. The fact that awakened beings are also found in Bon contradicts your assertion. If they can be found in Bon, why can't they be found in other traditions? Of course we can invent fantasies about why it is impossible for them to be found in other Dharmas. But those fantasies will be just fantasies. They will not be based in facts.

You are a Gelugpa. You pride yourself on hard logic and facts. Where do your facts end and unprovable beliefs begin? This is something for you to discover. When you discover where your facts end and where your beliefs begin, you will be just a little bit closer to the truth. When you discover where your facts end and where your beliefs begin, then you will be more free.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
You have to turn your email on to receive replies.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
"Buddhist" is not only lable, but the context and environment until complete realization of Dzogchen. I wish you to solve all your contradictions related with Buddhism. I remember your final statement after our long debate: intention of madhyamaka and dzogchen is the same. We are still in the progress. Thank you for inspirations

Malcolm wrote:
Hi Mariusz:

As I said, if it is important for you to contextualize Dzogchen as a buddhist path, that's ok with me. But I don't feel that need anymore. I don't find it necessary. I once felt very much as you did. But for a long while that feeling has been weakening. You can ask anyone from my e-Sangha days. I would be fiercely extolling the necessity of being a Buddhist to practice Dzogchen.

Buddhism does not own Dzogchen. No one does.

As I have said, I don't think one has to be a "Buddhist" (or a Bonpo) to practice Dzogchen. Dzogchen, from my point of view is an independent path for total realization. It does not depend on any other path. I am glad there are other paths. I am glad there is a Dharma out there for every person on the planet to follow. I am glad there is Bon Dharma, Hindu Dharma, Christian Dharma, Muslim Dharma, Jewish Dharma, Taoist Dharma, etc.

In Tibetan, the term Dharma is translated as Chos. What does chos means in Tibetan? It is the imperative of the term འཆོས ('chos) -- it means to set right, to fix, etc. The purpose of Dharma is to set right. So there are all kinds Chos out there for all kinds of people.

Not only are the intention of Madhyamaka and Dzogchen the same, the intention of all spiritual traditions is the same, the peace and ease that comes from freedom. That is what comes from setting things right.

So Dzogchen can be followed by Buddhists, Bonpos, Hindus, Jews, Christians right along side of their own religions. It is up to each person to decide this for themselves.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: mind/matter dichotomy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As we know, Madhyamaka adopts the conventional truth either according to the Sautrantika system, or the Yogacara system. But since it's own perspective is grounded in the Prajñāpāramitasūtras, it regards distinctions such as mind and matter to be merely conventional designations that do have any real basis apart from imputation.

Jnana said:
Don't you mean to say " merely conventional designations that do not have any real basis apart from imputation "?


Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
It means that when you have reached a decisive understanding in Madhyamaka then you will have a profound understanding of the Dzogchen view. So what could be better than that?

Malcolm wrote:
It means you will have understood the ka dag side. From personal experience I can tell you that the lhun grub side cannot be understood through intellectual analysis at all. It is completely missing in sutra altogether.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: protection from lower realms
Content:
Namdrol said:
The method of Dzogchen to protect practitioners from the three lower realms has not one single thing to do with tantric methods, Buddhist or Bon.

dakini_boi said:
Are you referring to the purification of the six lokas?  If so, how can what you said be so, when the practice includes visualization & generation of deity?

Dronma said:
All practices of the Purification of Six Lokas from the Longsal Cycle include: Refuge and Bodhichitta, Guru Yoga with Padmasambhava, 6 Syllables of Samantabhadra, Song of the Vajra, and Dedication of Merits. 
Especially the one, which is preliminary of the Path of Ati, includes visualization of Vajrasattva for purification.

Malcolm wrote:
It is sufficient to do Ati Guru Yoga and then engage in purification of six lokas. One can recite SOV or not, depending on how you feel. Then dedicate.

One can also do the Long Longsal Ngondro as you mention above. It is a beautiful practice. There is also another six lokas purification which ChNN will teach this year which is based on physical postures and breathing called "self liberation of the six lokas". It is very interesting.

So there is, like with everything, an essential way, a medium way and a more elborate way, depending on your time and how you feel.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What could you possibly want to know?

M

Clarence said:
Honestly, it is none of my business. That said, your development on the forum is very interesting. I just wonder whether your insights are the result of any special "experiences" or something else.
Maybe you reached third vision and came to your new realization. Or maybe you just started to think differently about things because you got a pet plant. You also changed your avatar name. You are now Malcolm and not Namdrol anymore. I just find it fascinating, that's all. Especially since there is another western Lama who also started saying similar things like you do after he did his 3-year retreat and he reached a certain level.


Malcolm wrote:
I had been thinking of ditching the namdrol nym for sometime. It is not like no one knows who I am.

At this point in my life and practice I just feel differently about things than I did before. I am nearly 50 (in about a month actually). I have spent most of my adult life engaged in the pursuit of spiritual truths. I remember when I first met Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. I was so buzzed someone needed to put chains on my legs to keep me from floating off the ground. It changed my life. But I am a stubborn person, and I was also very conditioned by the Sakya school by the time I met him. So when I did my three year retreat, I combined Lamdre practice with tregchö according to ChNN's instructions. I was in a golden cage of my own making (some will say I still am) to a large extent. I became very expert in debating various tenet systems.

Then, 2003, I started to study the system of Tibetan medicine. This changed my understanding of Dzogchen considerably because now I had access to a different way of seeing the body and I began to see things in Dzogchen teachings that that years of studying static tenet systems had not prepared me for. When I looked at Dzogchen texts after that, they became alive for me in a different way, the very language of the Dzogchen tantras changed. I understood Tibetan language differently.

Also I started to study medicine because it it useful for helping everyone, whereas with Madhyamaka and even Buddhism, people have to sign on to a point of view. With medicine, no one has to sign onto any point of view -- they are sick, they go to a practitioner like me, and I help them get well based on their own experience. It is all driven by their own experience. Dzogchen is also like that, as I see it. The view of Dzogchen and the view of Tibetan Medicine are exactly the same.

They both propose two states, a unchanged state and a changed state. The former is healthy and balanced and the latter is unhealthy and out of balance. The cause of the unhealthy state is ignorance. The role of introduction and practice in Dzogchen and diagnosis and therapies Tibetan Medicine are to remove ignorance through knowledge (rigpa) and restore balance through methods. The changed state has all the components of the unchanged state, but because the unchanged state is not correctly seen, imbalances enter the system, change occurs, and ill-health results. When the imblances are adressed the changed state is correct and returned to the unchanged state. The result of both Dzogchen and Tibetan Medicine is the body of light.

Tibetan Medicine is connected with Dzogchen and it is also connected with the ancient Rishis of India, the Drang srong of Tibet, and the immortals of China.

Why is institutional Buddhism different? Institutional Buddhism is a bit like allopathic medicine -- if you have x disease, you get exactly the same treatement as everyone else with x disease. Maybe it will cure a disease, but just as likely, you will contract another illness from your treatment But if you go to a skilled Tibetan doctor , everyone who has x disease will receive a completely different treatment. So Dzogchen is like that, at least the Dzogchen that I practice, as I understand it.

If you go to Sakya, you get one practice, Nyingma, another practice, etc. Of course this is fine and there is nothing wrong with it. But in my opinion the modern institutional approachs we find in Tibetan Buddhism are not truly healthy, just like the institutional approaches to  medicine create as many illnesses as they treat. I think they reflect more about Tibetan fuedal culture than they do about Dharma. There are eight great practice lineages in Tibet and a thousand minor ones. That is a more accurate way to define things -- those eight pratice lineages are the real Dharma in Tibet. Not, Kagyu, Sakya, Nyingma, Gelug, Jonang, Bon, etc.

I don't care anymore where wisdom comes from-- wisdom about plants, yoga, channels, winds, bindus,  nature of mind, elements, people, etc. I just don't care anymore where it comes from. Wisdom is wisdom. If other people want to be involved in counting the horns on rabbits with tenet system studies, that is fine, I also put in my time with it until I realized it was a total waste of energy and never got me one inch closer to recognizing my true nature. That kind of knowledge, as far as I am concerned is only useful for polemics. And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatuence for the most part.

There are beautiful teachings in the Vedas, the Puranas, Mahāyāna, the Pali Canon, Bon, Taoism, Confucism, Tantras, both Buddhist and Hindu, and of course, for me most of all, in the Dzogchen tantras irrespective of whether they are from Oddiyāna or Zhang Zhung.

We live in a world contaminated with rage, hate, anger, division and so many of us sit around and pick lint out of our navels. And the reason we do this is because we take our pet philosophy, whether it is Buddhism, Dzogchen, etc., and rather than helping one another, we try to convert everyone to our point of view. Lord (take your pick, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Krishna) knows that in the past I also have behaved in precisely the same way. For example, our friend Magnus told this poor guy "If you are a Zen practitioner you must be a Buddhist!". My reply to this, if he does not feel like a Buddhist, then for Buddha's sake don't insist to him he must feel that way.

To be perfectly frank I don't really feel very much like a Buddhist either. I do feel like a Dzogchen practitioner, because that is what I spend most of my time doing and have been doing so since 1992. But please don't tell me I don't love the Dharma as much as the next guy because I am not feeling very buddhist anymore. There is more to the Dharma than the name "buddhist". Our friend Jñāna pointed out that Buddhism is for whoever is interested. This is perfectly true, well, with one proviso. Dharma is for whoever is interested. Buddhism is only for "Buddhists" by definition.

Just because I am not feeling very buddhist does not mean I won't practice Shitro for my loved ones and friends when they die, that I won't practice Mandarava for longevity, that I won't do Ganapuja to Guru Rinpoche, etc. Guru Rinpoche never said, for example, I will only come to Buddhists on the tenth day of the lunar month when they invoke me. He said I will come before anyone in person on the tenth day of every month who invokes me. This is his samaya, to appear in person to anyone who calls on him with faith (good thing he is beyond limitations because that day is very full of appointments). Don't tell me I don't have confidence in Guru Rinpoche because I am not feeling very buddhist. Don't tell me that my bodhicitta, or my love and compassion is defective because I am not feeling very buddhist these days.

Just because I am not feeling very buddhist does not mean that I have lost the sense of refuge. My path is the path of Dzogchen. It is not other paths.  So the path upon which I am going for refuge is the Dzogchen path. If you want to see it as a buddhist or a bon path, that is ok if it makes you feel more comfortable. It is not meaningful for me to see the path of Dzogchen as a buddhist or bonpo. I am going for refuge on the Dzogchen path. I am not conditioning others. I am talking about it means for me. So I am going for refuge on a Dzogchen path and I am not feeling particularly like I need that lable "buddhist" anymore. I also don't need the label "Dzogchen practitioner". But my path is Dzogchen, so that is the most accurate label for me at present, though "malcolm" is a little better still.

When I was feeling very Buddhist I used to read the religious books of other schools, but not to enjoy them, only to reject them. What foolishness! The Upanishads are beautiful. There is a beautiful hymn to medicinal herbs in the Atharvaveda. There are beautiful praises the moon, the sun, the stars, the planets and so on in the Rk Veda. The Bhagavad Gita is renowned for its beauty. But buddhists tend to merely read them to reject them. We even have rules about how much time we should spend reading non-buddhist books. What nonsense! When we read a Bonpo mdo (sutra), we read it to compare it with some imagined Buddhist "original" because we buddhists can't get our heads out of our own asses long enough to see how foolish we look. Because of this bias, Bonpos don't even want to share the beauty of their tradition with buddhists, because face it buddhists -- we (to the extent I still feel buddhist) have been total assholes to the Bonpos for 1400 years, ever since Srongtsan Gampo assassinated the last king of Zhang Zhung in the 5th decade of the seventh century. The buddhists scattered them like ants during the time of Trisrong Detsen, fabricated stories about their beliefs that are still repeated to this day, forced them to ape buddhist morays and so on.

I read authors like Wendell Berry, who is a lovely man, a very important writer in the local farming movement in the US who writes lovely things like the following:

It would be foolish, probably, to suggest that God’s pleasure in all things can be fully understood or appreciated by mere humans. The passage suggests, however, that our truest and profoundest religious experience may be the simple, unasking pleasure in the existence of other creatures that is possible to humans. It suggests that God’s pleasure in all things must be respected by us in our use of things, and even in our displeasure in some things. It suggests too that we have an obligation to preserve God’s pleasure in all things, and surely this means not only that we must not misuse or abuse anything, but also that there must be some things and some places that by common agreement we do not use at all, but leave wild.
Berry, Wendell (2010-04-23). What Matters?: Economics for a Renewed Commonwealth (pp. 98-99). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

The old grumpy buddhist in me would have bristled at such language. Now I just see the beauty that Mr. Berry is trying to convey. For example, before a series of intense thunder storms yesterday in western Ma, I went for a walk up the hill. My senses open, as I walk up the hill, my heart beating faster, the stream by the road full from the previous days runoff, birds singing in the woods by the road, and I know exactly what Wendell Berry is talking about. As Garab Dorje said, "The Color of Rtsal is green".

We may not see directly the wisdom display that underlies all of our karmic experience, but if we know it is there through our personal experience, we can still come to the appreciation of mystery of things as they are, we can come a little bit more into balance when we integrate with our natural surroundings, sitting with the experience of the five elements. The teachings of the Gongpa Zanghtal state that we can also use our aesthetic experiences of beauty to be in a state of instant presence.

The lable "buddhist" was just getting in my way. It's a label I don't need anymore. I guess it does not really apply except in the most superficial of ways i.e. I am a Sakya Acharya. I have received teachings from Nyingma and Kagyu teachers, and even Bon teachers. I hold the lineage of Abhidharma, among other things. I have a small amount of skill explaining Dharma tenets and texts. I still enjoy reading sutras, tantras, sastras, though I read them now quite differently than I once did. These things many people will think define me as a Buddhist. But for myself, I really don't feel very buddhist.

But I definitely feel like a Dzogchen practitioner. And that, my friends, is all I want and need for the moment.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: protection from lower realms
Content:
Namdrol said:
The method of Dzogchen to protect practitioners from the three lower realms has not one single thing to do with tantric methods, Buddhist or Bon.

dakini_boi said:
Are you referring to the purification of the six lokas?  If so, how can what you said be so, when the practice includes visualization & generation of deity?


Malcolm wrote:
I was not referring to the rushen practice of purification of the six lokas. Six lokas practice definitely does not necessarily included generation of a deity, though I have seen systems where it does.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is a lot of misunderstanding of things that I have said here. There are some people who think this is a debate. It is not, at least not for me (apart from some correction of facts). Some people are uncomfortable with what it is they imagine I am saying. Other people seem to understand what I am saying but disagree, as is their right. Other people seem to understandand and agree with it whole-heartedly. To make clear the main points as I stated them:

1) Dzogchen is a teaching for all of humanity, not just Buddhists or Bonpos
2) Dzogchen is an independent path, not dependent on sutra or tantra
3) All methods from any tradition or yāna can be utilized by a Dzogchen practitoner according to their understanding and condition
4) As Dzogchen practitioners, we should be free from all limitations of religion, ideology, nation, race, class and tribe

Andrew108 said:
There is a debate here because not everyone accepts this description of Dzogchen. From my own side I see this description as a reification whether unintended or not.
That is what has been discussed. I am aware of what ChNN says about this but the above description has no meaning for me. And so we discuss it. No worries. Except of course when it is said that not accepting the above description implies a lack of faith or understanding even. And so it gets discussed.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for some people:

1) Dzoghen is not a teaching for all humanity, it is only for Buddhists and Bonpos
2) Dzogchen is not an independent path, it is dependent on sutra and tantra
3) Dzogchen practitioners should confine themselves to methods found in Buddhism and/or Bon

I accept that many people feel this way. It is their right to understand Dzogchen however they do. I am not interfering with anyone at all. I am merely expressing my own perspective.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
Putting Dzogchen on a special throne and calling it the only pure and true Dharma is actually a way to limit Dzogchen practitioners, not liberating them.

Malcolm wrote:
Please cite the passage where I said this?

Otherwise, please retract your mischaracterization of my writings.

M

heart said:
I am not quoting you Namdrol I am expressing what I think you are saying. If you don't think Dzogchen is the only pure and true Dharma I apologize. I think personally that the Dzogchen methods just don't sum up Dzogchen, it goes way beyond that.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
HI Magnus:

Dozgchen itself is a personal experience introduced by one's Guru. That is about all I said on the subject.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: mind/matter dichotomy
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The contradiction between sutra and tantra on the one hand, and Dzogchen on the other, concerning the difference/non-difference between mind and matter is not an important contradiction.

dakini_boi said:
This is an intriguing point that Malcolm has made a few times lately.  I had never heard it put in quite that way.  I'm wondering, Malcolm, if you could give a short explanation of the sutra, tantra and dzogchen view on mind/matter.  I would have thought that even in sutra, and definitely in tantra, because the nature of both mind and matter is emptiness, there would be no such dichotomy.

Malcolm wrote:
If you elevate everything to the ultimate level, even "...matter is unconditioned without anything missing", as it says in the Yum Chenmo, the sutra of Perfect Wisdom in 100,000 lines.

But the Buddhist scholastics from Sarvastivada up to Dharmakirti have always maintained a hard division between mind and matter, between nāma on the one hand and rūpa on the other. For example, in the account of the twelve links in the Vibhanga, the Pali Abhidharma compendium, when discussing the twelve nidanas, it even leaves off the rūpa in the nidana of nāmarūpa, running ignorance, formations, consciousness, name, etc.

The Yogacara school attempts to supercede this dualism through asserting that everything is fundamentally a projection of the mind -- in fact the 15th century Lamdre Master Khyentse Wangchuk states, there is no dualism of mind and matter because everything is mind.

As we know, Madhyamaka adopts the conventional truth either according to the Sautrantika system, or the Yogacara system. But since it's own perspective is grounded in the Prajñāpāramitasūtras, it regards distinctions such as mind and matter to be merely conventional designations that do have any real basis apart from imputation.

But we can see that this division is well preserved in Buddhist tantric literature (as well as Hindu tantric literature) when we find for example that the mind is described as a rider of a horse, vāyu. This is because both forms of tantra, Buddhist as well as Hindu, are concerned with the mechanics of the body for understanding how to gain realization through our embodiment through the practice of various kinds of yoga.

Granted, this is sometimes is found in Dzogchen literature as well. But when we examine that actual system of Dzogchen according to the ancient Dzogchen tantras, we find that in fact even consciousness itself is generated phsyiologically in the body by a vāyu. I have yet to find in an  original Dzogchen tantra the common Buddhist term khams drug, sadadhātu i.e. earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. I may yet find it, but at least the Valby KWIC tool does not in fact list it in the 83 or so important Dzogchen tantras that he converted into searchable text files. It also does not list every instance of thod rgal in the Dzogchen tantras as well so its look up routines are not completely infallible. But there are hundreds of references to the five elements ('byung lnga, pañcabhutani).

I have been also examining the Mdzod phug lately, Bon "Abhidharma" and cosmology, is largely freed from the constraints of Buddhist conservatism, has very interesting things to say about the five elements and so on, and when is a text clearly influenced by Dzogchen. A kind of Dzogchen Abhidharma. One of the reasons why I started looking into this text is that the Rigpa Rangshar tantra contains a very breif mention of a primordial egg cosmology which accounts for the formation of the world, similar to the Vedas and Bon:

Now, to demonstrate the ignorance of the object of delusion: delusion is deluded by the forgoing. The field is prior to the formation of the world; a so called “wish-fulfilling tree” grows, a tree growing from the blessing of the youthful vase body of the buddha, born from warmth and moisture which arose from an egg. The Sahāloka formed from the mind disturbing the so-called self-originated wisdom in that. That is called the ignorance of the field of delusion.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Clarence said:
Very interesting thread. Fascinating to follow Malcolm's development over the years.

Now, Malcolm-la, will you also start telling us about your practice? That would be really nice.

Malcolm wrote:
What could you possibly want to know?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
I totally agree, and it wasn't ChNNR that started this thread with a statement that Dzogchen contradict sutra and tantra.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps you should go back and read the post that started this thread.

heart said:
Oh I did several times Namdrol. You don't come straight out and say it but it is there.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so it is true that you are reacting to your own projections.


heart said:
Putting Dzogchen on a special throne and calling it the only pure and true Dharma is actually a way to limit Dzogchen practitioners, not liberating them.

Malcolm wrote:
Please cite the passage where I said this?

Otherwise, please retract your mischaracterization of my writings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
I know what a contradiction is and as you can see below Namdrol think there is one, not me.

Malcolm wrote:
There are all kinds of contradictions between various yānas. For example:
In Hināyāna a monk may eat meat but must not touch gold.
In Mahāyāna a monk must not eat meat but may touch gold.
In Vajrayāna a monk may both eat meat and touch gold.

The contradiction between sutra and tantra on the one hand, and Dzogchen on the other, concerning the difference/non-difference between mind and matter is not an important contradiction.

A more important contradiction between sutra, tantra and Dzogchen is that the latter is a vehicle beyond cause and result, whereas both sutra and tantra are vehicles of cause and result.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is a lot of misunderstanding of things that I have said here. There are some people who think this is a debate. It is not, at least not for me (apart from some correction of facts). Some people are uncomfortable with what it is they imagine I am saying. Other people seem to understand what I am saying but disagree, as is their right. Other people seem to understandand and agree with it whole-heartedly. To make clear the main points as I stated them:

1) Dzogchen is a teaching for all of humanity, not just Buddhists or Bonpos
2) Dzogchen is an independent path, not dependent on sutra or tantra
3) All methods from any tradition or yāna can be utilized by a Dzogchen practitoner according to their understanding and condition
4) As Dzogchen practitioners, we should be free from all limitations of religion, ideology, nation, race, class and tribe


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
"Dzogchen is a path. You can start with Dzogchen, you can finish with Dzogchen."

-- ChNN 5/17/12

Jnana said:
Yes, and there's really nothing provocative or controversial in this statement. Norbu Rinpoche is doing excellent work separating the wheat from the chaff.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as there is nothing really provocative or controversial in mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
if your Master is inside a Dzogchen Lineage ?


Namdrol said:
???

kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Does it mean you don't know?


Mutstog Marro
KY


Malcolm wrote:
Who is my Guru, KY?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
To me it seems like a strange intellectual game trying to separate Dzogchen from the Buddha's Dharma.
/magnus

Namdrol said:
Well, it would be strange if that is what I was suggesting. But it appears that most people have not understood what I am talking about.

N

Andrew108 said:
In the end you are saying that..in order to be liberated that you only need study Dzogchen...Dzogchen for you is all inclusive...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. That is what I am saying. The rest of what you have supposed does not apply.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"Dzogchen is a path. You can start with Dzogchen, you can finish with Dzogchen."

-- ChNN 5/17/12


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
if your Master is inside a Dzogchen Lineage ?


Malcolm wrote:
???


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: neck trauma
Content:
Lobsang P. said:
I have had an MRI. The neck vertebrae are intact but muscularly compromised.
I have a vague memory of reading that chronic inflammation can be aided by diet.

Malcolm wrote:
fresh beef, goat, goat milk, etc. Iwill get back to you more recommendations


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


heart said:
I totally agree, and it wasn't ChNNR that started this thread with a statement that Dzogchen contradict sutra and tantra.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps you should go back and read the post that started this thread:
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.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 6:56 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
To me it seems like a strange intellectual game trying to separate Dzogchen from the Buddha's Dharma.
/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it would be strange if that is what I was suggesting. But it appears that most people have not understood what I am talking about.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Dronma said:
I agree that the two stages are not necessary in Dzogchen practice, but Anuyoga does not contain the two stages.


Namdrol said:
Both Mahāyoga and Anuyoga contain the two stages my dear. Please see section 2.8.5 in Precious Vase.

Thanks.

N


Dronma said:
I am trying to find what you are saying in the Precious Vase. 
I don't see anything in any of the existing 2.8.5 sections. ]

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what edition you are using. I am using the 1999/2000 edition, the outline numbers off by one in the revised translation. The section is titled "the fundamental difference between mahāyoga and anuyoga".

In any event, both Mahāyoga and Anuyoga have the two stages. The difference in the creation stage and completion stage i.e. gradual or non-gradual, marks the difference between Mahāyoga and Anuyoga in terms of method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
It is impossible for a Nirmanakaya emanation Shakyamuni to have a Nirmanakaya emanation Garab Dorje.

Malcolm wrote:
ok if you say so


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
The gist of what is being said here, is that Dzogchen...

Malcolm wrote:
...can be practiced by anyone who is interested to do so regardless of their institutional affliation to any of the world's religions, regardless of their culture, etc.

But since no one listens to this when my guru,Chogyal Namkhai Norbu says this, it is not suprising then that no one listens to me when I say it.

C'est la vie.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
The unpleasant tangle starts when we try to establish through our personal experience a universal rule which is good to be followed by everybody.
[/color]


Malcolm wrote:
The unpleasant tangle starts when people start engaging in unfounded projections that are based ultimately in their own attachments and fears rather than carefully listening and reading and paying attention.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


LunaRoja said:
I am still not clear on when Shakyamuni Buddha taught Dzogchen?


Namdrol said:
Never, but he predicted Garab Dorje.

N

LunaRoja said:
When exactly did he predict him and what did he say?

Malcolm wrote:
You are already asked me this and I told that apart from ChNN's say so, I dont have a handy citation. When I have it, I will present it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Dronma said:
I agree that the two stages are not necessary in Dzogchen practice, but Anuyoga does not contain the two stages.

Malcolm wrote:
Both Mahāyoga and Anuyoga contain the two stages my dear. Please see section 2.8.5 in Precious Vase. 

Thanks. 

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


LunaRoja said:
I am still not clear on when Shakyamuni Buddha taught Dzogchen?


Malcolm wrote:
Never, but he predicted Garab Dorje.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Norwegian said:
If you think that Dzogchen does not have an ethical framework, or think that Dzogchen do not have methods that guards practicioners from the lower realms (and so on), then you really don't know anything at all about Dzogchen.

gregkavarnos said:
Of course it currently has ethical frameworks:  Buddhist and Bonpo.  Of course it has methods to guard practitioners from the lower realms:  Buddhist tantric methods.


Malcolm wrote:
The method of Dzogchen to protect practitioners from the three lower realms has not one single thing to do with tantric methods, Buddhist or Bon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I think that the failure of the Dzogchen that is being presented here...

Malcolm wrote:
That is the failure of the Dzogchen you are presenting. Not the failure of Dzogchen as I have come to understand it.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: My Open Message to Gyatrul Rinpoche
Content:
mujushinkyo said:
Hey, thanks Andrew and also to all of you. I must say I am only asking for help because it's starting to get worse again, rather than better. I thought that when the FBI returned my laptops I wouldn't hear anything from "Jetsunma" again. But last week she threatened to sue me over my Twitter posts. Also, the crazy "Protecting Nyingma" blog is now claiming that I'm conspiring with William Cassidy to fly helicopters over the KPC compound (!!).


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I saw that. What a bunch of kooks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
Nothing the Buddha taught was false, first of all. Everyone should understand that at the outset ... But Dzogchen as such as self-sufficient. The Dzogchen tantras themselves describe a complete teaching that is not dependent on any other teaching, but which can be integrated with anything a practitioner needs.

gregkavarnos said:
Wouldn't you say though that Buddh-ism does play an important role by providing the framework within which Buddhadharma can be practiced AND protected?  I mean if it wasn't for Buddh-ism then people like Michael Roach, Aro, Jax, neo-Advaita and some new age shamanic Dzogchenpas would have free reign with no structure or framework to compare them to, and thus define them, as adharmic.  The Four Dharma Seals are Buddhadharma AND the defining characteristic of Buddh-ism as well.  I don't know if one can seperate them at this point in history without pulling the finger from the dyke and causing a deluge.

Malcolm wrote:
I think we need to make a distinction between the worldly institutions we called "Buddhism" and the Dharma it is supposed to represent. Words like Buddhist, Buddhism, etc. are not important.

The Dharma is important. In particular, Dzogchen is a complete teaching unto itself. It also encompasses all Dharmas whether nominally Buddhist or not. -- but I have explained this already.


Dronma said:
What makes you believe that Dzogchen (even in the case of being totally disengaged from any Buddhist preconceptions) will not follow the same deterioration?

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is is not a school, it is not a sect, it is not a philosophy, it is not a religion -- it is a personal experience. It has a view, a meditation, conduct and a result grounded in that personal experience. Since it is based on a personal experience (introduced by a master who is capable of introducing that knowledge to us) Dzogchen is immune to degeneration of that kind. Of course, we must find a master who has that capacity.

Now then, if it makes you happy to consider me a Buddhist, I am fine with that. I have nominally been a Buddhist since I was too ignorant to understand that that meant 16 or so. I also have those Dharma lineages which I treasure since all Dharma is important as it was taught to benefit people. But I once received Guru Yoga transmission from Tenzin Wangyal many years ago, so some people might consider me a Bonpo too. I very much would like to receive the transmission of Zhang Zhung Nyan rGyud from Loppon Tenzin Namdak -- and if I can do that, some Buddhists will consider me a tainted Bonpo, just as people have complained for years about Chogyal Namkhai Norbu -- accusing him of being a Bonpo. For several years, I have wanted to study Hatha Yoga and the Yoga Sutras with a qualified brahmin master I know about, a disciple of Krishnamacarya -- I have not been able to make time to do that -- but if I do, some of you will feel certain that I have broken my vows of refuge by studying with this brahmin master, learning how to chant the Yoga Sutras in proper Sanskrit cadences and so on.

Dronma, do you have any idea how many people in the Dzogchen Community do not consider themselves Buddhists at all in any sense? They simply do not self-identify as buddhists. I used to be annoyed by this, but now I deeply understand where they are coming from. Refusing to consider yourself a buddhist is not a denegration of Buddhadharma, and does not disqualify one from studying and practicing Buddhadharma. Refuge, as we know, is merely being interested in following a path and doing so. In this thread I noticed so far that some people are very attached to the name "Buddhist", but this is just a label. Even Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has said that really, he is not a "Buddhist", that he is a Dzogchen practitioner. This used to bother me too and was an obstacle for many years. Not considering yourself a Buddhist is not disrespectful to Buddhadharma.

So what am I? like all of you, I am a human being, I use speech and I am able to make distinctions -- this is the basic definition of a human being according to Tibetan Medicine. Second, I am a man -- I have that gender mark. So this is the first place where we differentiate human beings. Third, I am middle aged. The next way we distinguish people is on the basis of their age. Fourth, I am an Anglophone (obviously). Fifth I am a caucasian. Sixth, I am Dzogchen practitioner. Seventh, I am a doctor of Tibetan Medicine. That's it. That is all I need to be and all I want to be. And I have no choices about the first five items.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: colored light
Content:
dakini_boi said:
So then, the appearance of the five lights are still a manifestation of ignorance?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but in this case it is non-afflictive ignorance, since the imputational ignorance is that which does not recognize this display to be its own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Hi Namdrol - so the purpose of Dzogchen is to have this buddhanature recognized and demonstrated? Isn't it the case that only the qualities can be recognized and demonstrated?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not the case.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
One does not need to be grounded in and conditoned by "conventional" Dharma in order for Dzogchen to be introduced to a student who is interested.

justsit said:
Does it matter if the student is not only interested but ready, or "ripened," as it were?

Malcolm wrote:
Interest indicates ripeness for the teachings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Do you dissociate Dharma from Buddhism? [/color]

Namdrol said:
It is obvious that Buddhism is rife with Adharma these days, so yes, yes I do.

gregkavarnos said:
So seperate it from Buddh-ism yet maintain it's basis in Buddhadharma?  Is that what you are saying?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing the Buddha taught was false, first of all. Everyone should understand that at the outset.

What the Buddha taught is Dharma, there is no doubt.  But the Buddhists schools that have sprung up around the teaching of the Buddha are mired in various limitations, no doubt all with the best of intentions. We can know this because the Dzogchen tantras describe in very clear detail what the limitations of each of the nine yānas, as well the samsaric vehicles, are, as well as the polemical schools in classic Indian Buddhism, the four siddhāntas i.e. vaibhāṣika, sautrāntika, yogācāra and mādhyamika.

For example, our friend Andrew 108 is very enamored of the idea of the three Dharmacakras, and advocates the standard gzhan stong approach to Vajrayāna that sees the three turnings as being a progressive series of teachings intened to prepare one for Vajrayāna, with gzhan stong being the ultimate view which is carried through sutrayāna. This is certainly one approach to Dzogchen teachings, and perhaps it works for some people. It doesnt' work for me because even though these sutras are profond and interesting, in terms of personal experience intellectual views do not matter much.

I personally ceased being very interested in the intellectual study of tenet systems many years ago when I understood from a work by Gorampa Sonam Senge's that they are unnecessary for Vajrayāna practitioners in general. Since that time I have been primarily interested in the Yogic side of Buddhism once I understood finally that correct view is based on the personal experience of the introduction and not on any intellectual analysis and subsequent meditation.  Of course, if you are not a Vajrayāna practitioner, then this intellectual analysis and subsequent meditation is the only method of progress. It can be effective in the very long run, but it requires many lifetimes of effort and application. There is no short path sans secret mantra.

There are others such as Magnus, who may agree with the above, but still believe that it is essential to engage in practices of the two stages and so on and so forth as a preparation for Dzogchen practice and realization.

But there are other practices in Dzogchen for supporting and reinforcing the experience of introduction so it is not certain that the two stages are necessary in Dzogchen practice at all, though it can be helpful for some. Also since the teaching of the basis in Anuyoga and Atiyoga is the same, for this reason Anuyoga practice is especially suited for Dzogchen practitioners who need or want to practice the two stages.

But beyond this, methods such as fire puja, sang offerings, lungta, namkha, lüd, bla gug, etc., all these practices from the mundane vehicles can also be employed for the health and well being of the pracitioner.

But Dzogchen as such as self-sufficient. The Dzogchen tantras themselves describe a complete teaching that is not dependent on any other teaching, but which can be integrated with anything a practitioner needs.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Dronma said:
Do you dissociate Dharma from Buddhism? [/color]

Malcolm wrote:
It is obvious that Buddhism is rife with Adharma these days, so yes, yes I do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
You can see from this quote how closely a genuine understanding of rigpa is tied to the buddhist vehicles (second and third turnings) and it is presented as a union of these two. So the idea of Dzogchen standing by itself is wrong in my view because this would be like presenting just the 'union' without an understanding of the the things that were unified. In this case the second and third turnings. To proceed in this way distorts the teachings and you get left with just the skin of it and none of the meat so to speak.
I don't really see Namdrol disagreeing with this but there has been a habit of experienced Dzogchen practitioners believing that Dzogchen is all you need. The process that gets you to to a point where Dzogchen is all you need has been forgotten about and there is a little bit of celebratory arrogance at work.

Malcolm wrote:
I completely disagree with this. I do not think a genuine understanding of rigpa is necessarily tied to the second and third turnings at all.

I  might have agreed with this once, but my understanding has changed considerably.
N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
We are debating whether or not this knowledge can be introduced in an authentic way without the student first being grounded in and conditioned by so-called 'conventional' dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
You're debating this. For me there is no debate. One does not need to be grounded in and conditoned by "conventional" Dharma in order for Dzogchen to be introduced to a student who is interested.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Namdrol said:
It is making the claim that disctinction between the sentient and the non-sentient is false. You can work out the rest.

N

Andrew108 said:
Sorry for being pedantic but the statement is not making a distinction as to what is false - otherwise that would be a position held in regard to the relative. And as you know in Dzogchen there are no positions held in terms of conventional and ultimate truth.

Malcolm wrote:
There are statements made with regard to what a product of ignorance and a product of knowledge.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
..I'm asking because one might say if buddhahood is an innate attribute then why also follow Dzogchen teachings or 'become a Dzogchenpa'? Here we just seem to be replacing Buddhism with Dzogchen. Within buddhism there are many sutras that talk explicitly about buddhanature for example.

Malcolm wrote:
As it says in the Tantra of Self-arisen Vidyā, that buddhahood exists to be demonstrated. If it is not demonstrated, it will not be recognised, thus the purpose of following Dzogchen teachings.

Tathagatagarbha as it is discussed in sutra is not discussed as something that can be demonstrated, rather it is quite the opposite. According to the Śrimāladevisuātra,for example, Tathagatagarbha can only been seen by buddhas. It is not a buddhahood that exists be demonstrated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
Guru Chowang makes no mention of of Padmasambhava at all in his Great History of Treasures.
[/i]

Mariusz said:
Heavy statement. Are you completely sure? I just quoted. Have you received the commentaries/oral instructions on it?

Malcolm wrote:
What I meant was, that when he discusses Bon in his "Great History of Treasures", which I cited above directly, he makes no mention of Padmasambhava.

We have not access to the terma, bka' rstis, that Padma Namgyal cites in his text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Namdrol - Dzogchen is your religion. Is this not the case? Could you give it up?

Namdrol said:
No, for me, Dzogchen is not a religion, nor it is a philosophy. I cannot speak about other people's perspective.

Mariusz said:
Can I ask you a personal question if you are not a buddhist now?

Malcolm wrote:
I never said I was not a Buddhist. You apparently did not pay very close attention to my post. But go ahead and ask anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Andrew108 said:
Namdrol - Dzogchen is your religion. Is this not the case? Could you give it up?

Malcolm wrote:
No, for me, Dzogchen is not a religion, nor it is a philosophy. I cannot speak about other people's perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Jnana said:
Well, "Buddhism" is just a designation primarily referring to the theories and practices associated with the Buddha's Dharma, and other related social and cultural accretions.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhadharma is a better descriptive than "Buddhism"; it excludes the related social and cultural accretions.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
According to our karmic vision plants are non-sentient. But according to Padmasambhava in the Khandro Nyinthig:

After first being created by the energy (rtsal) of wisdom, in the middle, as 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... 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 instructions.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Thanks a lot.

Andrew108 said:
This is part of the all inclusive view of Dzogchen where there really isn't 'reality' -  just wisdom. So it's not saying plants are sentient and it's not saying that they are not. It's not making claims about sentience as such or that there is a reality that can be established as anything other than wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
It is making the claim that disctinction between the sentient and the non-sentient is false. You can work out the rest.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:


Thrasymachus said:
Personally as a vegan I know I am doing a very small favor to livestock animals by being on the vanguard of the animal liberation movement with my dietary choice, not to mention the health and environmental benefits. Every year over 10 billion totally enslaved animals are slaughtered so Americans can be one of the fattest populations around the globe.

tobes said:
How about this argument Thrasymachus: If no one ate meat, those 10 billion animals would not ever be born. If you care for their sentience, isn't it better that they exist rather than they never exist?

Five years in a paddock, as a sentient creature, is surely more valuable than non-existence.

The cause of those 5 years of sentient life? People eating meat!

You want an argument about causality, here it is. Advocating global veganism is not simply advocating the cessation of killing: it is also advocating the cessation of breeding, birth, life and the existence of however many animals are desired by humans for food.


Malcolm wrote:
No, he wants us all to keep them as pets. Oh right, I forgot, keeping pets is chattle slavery too. I guess we just cut all these cows, chickens and pigs loose and let them fend for themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
Dzogchen is for anyone who is interested, without any preconditions at all.

Jnana said:
So is Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is not really true.

Dharma is for anyone who interested without preconditions. Buddhism is a religion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Is the Shenrab Miwoche from Bon listed among the 12 Dzogchen Buddhas?


Namdrol said:
Not in the sgra thal gyur. But Tonpa Shenrab has been added to the 12 Teachers by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, where he has an equal position with the twelve mentioned in the sgra thal gyur

Mariusz said:
So what is the source or quote He did it?

Malcolm wrote:
I just cited one source, Guru Chowang. But in general, it is because ChNN considers Zhang Zhung Nyan rGyud a valid independent stream of Dzogchen he includes Tonpa Shenrab with the other twelve who existed before Garab Dorje.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Tashi delek. It is great the Bon in Tibet entered Buddhism, including Dzogchen, not only from Gelug. Buddhism is without bias. Just quoting "the Practice of dzogchen" p.109: In terma discovered by Guru Chowang: when Guru Padmasambhava was in absorption..Tibet controlled by Bon, was hard to spread Dharma  ...he manifested as Shenhla Odkar. Terton Longsal Nyingpo said: Guru Padmasambhava saw Zhangzhung would be only tamed by Bon. He went there with the retinues of self-lights and spoke "My father is Trenpa Yeshekyi Namkha... opened the door of numerous teachings....

Malcolm wrote:
Guru Chowang makes no mention of of Padmasambhava at all in his Great History of Treasures. He writes:

First: the two the supreme of all beneficial qualities, [5/a] the treasure of the true words of Bon emanations: the way the compassionate body came from the pure dimension of the bon nyid [= dharmatā]  and the after the treasure of body, speech and mind arose, the way the teaching was spread, i.e. the way a treasure descends from a treasure.

First: the pure dimension of the bon nyid, completely free from falling into any parts or divisions was singular and unique, the treasure of the hidden Bon dharmakāya [bon chos sku] which has nothing to give up, appeared from pure activity to tame beings as the sambhogakāya Shenlha Wodkar [gshen lha 'od dkar]. The way his compassion was moved is that in general he thought of all migrating beings. Specifically, he thought of beings in Jambudvīpa.

Second: after the treasure of the body, speech and mind was produced, the teachings were widely spread. The way the treasure descends from a treasure is that in order to tame the the confusion of ignorance, the root of samsara, at Wolmo Lungring in the land of Zhang Zhung the hidden treasure of compassion arrived in the form of Shenrab Miwoche [gshen rab mi bo che, i.e. the supreme one of the Shen clan, the greatest of men]. The hidden treasure was concealed in a single intention by all the Tathāgatas in the mind of Shenrab, and he taught the nine vehicles of Bon.

Afterwards, Shenrab's words were collected by the fortune Bonpos and placed in a catalogue. The cause Bon tamed ordinary beings, and result Bon tamed intelligent beings. 

The teachings were spread in Tokharistan, where people wear silk turbans, the land India and the border lands and also spread in dPur rGyal in Tibet and Bon was disseminated first.

The King was given the name as the Elder Brother of Bon because he made sure the teaching did not decline, and also he concealed the Bon treasures of cause and result in Zhang Zhung the temple of Shampo Lhatse. Furthermore,  as they were spread in the mountain of white peaks in Oddiyana, the Chinese mountain Dru Dzin and in southern and northern Tibet, having concealed treasures which descended from treasures, the Bon texts were not destroyed, and the Bonpo’s became renowned. 

Also I, Chowang, say that the profound teaching of Bon is uninterrupted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:18 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Isn't it the case that you want to do the SMS course? Why do the course if it's o.k to have received the transmission and to be an outsider?

Malcolm wrote:
Look at your language of exclusion.

But to answer your question, why do not do the course?

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:14 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
If Garab Dorje would be the "first" "human teacher" who did teach Dzogchen here on our planet called world, that is a very one sided vision, imo.

Namdrol said:
Right, I did not say that, so you were not reading carefully: Garab Dorje was the last, before him, Shakymuni, before him Shenrab, before him Kashyapa Buddha, before him, Ngondzog Gyalpo, etc.

Mariusz said:
Is the Shenrab Miwoche from Bon listed among the 12 Dzogchen Buddhas?


Malcolm wrote:
Not in the sgra thal gyur. But Tonpa Shenrab has been added to the 12 Teachers by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, where he has an equal position with the twelve mentioned in the sgra thal gyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Namdrol said:
Shakyamuni is an emanation of Vajradhara, so is Garab Dorje.  ChNN frequently calls Garab Dorje an emanation of Shakyamuni.

LunaRoja said:
My understanding is that ChNN said that Garab Dorje is an independent Nirmanakaya Manifestation. Where has he said that Garab Dorje is a Shakyamuni emanation? I would like to read this.

Thank you again for your help.

Malcolm wrote:
He said so yesterday in his lecture. You can listen in the replay.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


kalden yungdrung said:
If Garab Dorje would be the "first" "human teacher" who did teach Dzogchen here on our planet called world, that is a very one sided vision, imo.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, I did not say that, so you were not reading carefully: Garab Dorje was the last, before him, Shakymuni, before him Shenrab, before him Kashyapa Buddha, before him, Ngondzog Gyalpo, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Title: Re: colored light
Content:
dakini_boi said:
It is said that the nature of the five elements are the five colors of light.  Is this actual visible light, or something else?

Malcolm wrote:
The colors which the five lights express arise because of the adulteration of the five wisdoms with karmic winds or vāyus, without which the five wisdoms have no manifest expression. At the gross level, these five lights are expressed though delusion as the five elements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
But this could get into a debate about whether or not non-Dzogchen traditions in themselves could introduce to people that which is introduced (the Nature of Mind) in Dzogchen (a debate which has been done to death).

anjali said:
I have no intention of stirring up any old debates, but, but an outsider looking in, it has been my experience that non-Dzogchen (specifically Advaita) traditions can introduce people to the cognizant nature of the mind. What seems to be missing is an introduction to the essence of mind, emptiness. At least it was for me. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Dronma said:
In fact, Emptiness or Voidness or Sunyata does not exist to anyone of the aforementioned doctrines I am aware! 
Which bring us the first and most serious obstacle for the actualization of the otherwise Namdrol's appealing theory............

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is for anyone who is interested, without any preconditions at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:



Namdrol said:
Shakyamuni is an emanation of Vajradhara, so is Garab Dorje.  ChNN frequently calls Garab Dorje an emanation of Shakyamuni.

LunaRoja said:
Yes, but when did Shakyamuni predict his emanation? This is definitely not in any sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have a specific citation for you. Perhaps the source is in the commentary to the sgra thal gyur. When I find it, I will post it. Though I may not do so anytime soon.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Namdrol said:
Also, it does not seem that Tonpa Shenrab taught all the Dzogchen tantras as Garab Dorje did. In fact Shakyamuni is considered to be a Teacher of Dzogchen, but he did not teach even one Dzogchen text. But he is so considered because he predicted his emanation of Garab Dorje.

N

LunaRoja said:
Garab Dorje is an emanation of Shakyamuni! I have never heard this before. When did he predict his emanation of Garab Dorje? Is this in the Dzogchen tantras?

LR


Malcolm wrote:
Shakyamuni is an emanation of Vajradhara, so is Garab Dorje.  ChNN frequently calls Garab Dorje an emanation of Shakyamuni.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
I am confused about how our inherent state resting within it's primordial nature fulfills the bodhisattva vow.

Namdrol said:
When you realize your primordial state, out of that realization nirmanakāyas will naturally flow because compassion is inherent in your real nature.

tomamundsen said:
Could you elaborate on this, please?

Malcolm wrote:
One of the mains functions of the third primordial wisdom of the basis, called thugs rje, and translated in various ways to emphasize different aspects, is to provide the basis for working for the benefit of sentient beings after samsara and nirvana "turn their backs on one another". When we consider this from the point of view of its function, we call it rtsal -- and this rtsal is what is visible to ordinary sentient beings -- everyone can experience rtsal directly through their six senses. In fact, the operation of rtsal through their six senses is what gives rise to sense consciousnesses and so on. Nirmanakāyas are simply the energy of the basis that functions to help sentient beings in samsara in the same way that a wishfulflling gem grants all wishes, without thought, naturally, spontaneously.

So when we fully integrate with our primordial state and acheive the great tranformation body or the body of light, out of that emanates so called nirmanakāyas to benefit sentient beings. Of course when we practice, we are practicing also out of concern for sentient beings. But we don't need to contrive that compassion. Even a hint of an experience of the nature of our mind is sufficient to activate our bodhicitta for others. This is a million times better than all the contrived meditations on bodhicitta one finds in such texts as Lam rim and so on. Of course, of you want to do Lamrim and systematically cultivate bodhicitta, there is no fault.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
Garab Dorje was the first human teacher of Dzogchen in this epoch.

dakini_boi said:
Thank you.  Could you clarify what is the definition of "epoch"?

Malcolm wrote:
Good question. We can say during the  śāsana of Sakyamuni Buddha. However, the cycles of manifestations of Dzogchen teachers do not really match up with the principles of so called supreme Nirmanakāyas.

Also, it does not seem that Tonpa Shenrab taught all the Dzogchen tantras as Garab Dorje did. In fact Shakyamuni is considered to be a Teacher of Dzogchen, but he did not teach even one Dzogchen text. But he is so considered because he predicted his emanation of Garab Dorje.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Plant a Bee Garden
Content:


Qian Zheng Yi said:
From The Honey Bee Conservancy:
http://thehoneybeeconservancy.org/act-today-2/plant-a-bee-garden/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Malcolm wrote:
Fantastic Idea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
Zhang Zhung Nyengyud is an authentic line of Dzogchen intimate instruction that do not depend on Garab Dorje.

dakini_boi said:
I thought, according to ChNNR, Garab Dorje was the first teacher of Dzogchen on this planet (or in this time cycle or something, not sure of the terminology). . . am I mistaken?


Malcolm wrote:
Garab Dorje was the first human teacher of Dzogchen in this epoch. Tonpa Shenrab lived rougly 2000 years before the Buddha. Before him was Buddha Kashyapa, another Teacher in the 12 Traditons. In Dzogchen Community we add Tonpa Shenrab to the 12 teachers mentioned in the sgra thal gyur. And in the sras gicg bu rgyud many more teachers are mentioned beyond these twelve. So we can understand that in reality the Teachers of Dzogchen are limitless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
I am confused about how our inherent state resting within it's primordial nature fulfills the bodhisattva vow.

Namdrol said:
When you realize your primordial state, out of that realization nirmanakāyas will naturally flow because compassion is inherent in your real nature.

LunaRoja said:
I thought the idea of the 3 KAYAS came from the Mahayana tradition. If Dzogchen posits Nirmankayas isn't this a Buddhist concept? How could a non-buddhist practice Dzogchen without an understanding of the 3 kayas?

Thank you for your help.

LR


Malcolm wrote:
The three kāyas are just the essence, nature and energy/compassion of your own state. If you recognize that, it does not matter what you call them.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Tibetan word for Buddhism denotes “to turn inwards". We must consider Buddhism as The science of mind.


Namdrol said:
Not exactly. The Tibetan word for "Buddhist" is "nang pa" "insider" as opposed to "phyi pa" i.e. outsider. We must cease to make a distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders".

Mariusz said:
I quoted His Eminence the Third Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche, Karma Lodrö Chökyi Senge; The Relationship between Buddhism & Christianity from http://www.dharmadownload.net/pages/english/Natsok/0010_Teaching_English/Teaching_English_0001.htm

Malcolm wrote:
Many forms of Hinduism would qualify as "Buddhism" under this definition of "nang pa" because certainly, Hindu yogins all turn "inwards" to observe their consciousness, just as Kongtrul says: "We look at the source of discontent by turning our attention on our consciousness." Under this definition Hindu religious tradition such as Yoga, Samkhya, Advaita, Trika, etc., as well as Bon, Sufism, Mystical Christianity, Taoism and neo-Confucism, and Modern Psychology in its various forms all qualify under the this definition.

But I will am happy to agree that by the definition you have provided all these different disciplines are devoted to turning "...our attention inwards".

However in reality, the term "nang pa" is a sectarian term which distinguishes insiders (Buddhists) from outsiders (Non-Buddhists,including Bonpos, depending on which Tibetan author one reads and depending on the century).

This we can see clearly in the common definition of nang pa in any Tibetan dictionary, but in particular, the bod rgya tshig mdzod chen mo give it as follows:
nang pa: chos phyi nang gnyis su phye ba'i nang pa ste sangs rgyas pa

Insider, the insiders of the division of both insider and outsider dharmas are the Buddhists (sang rgyas pa).
And for outsiders: phyi pa -  phyi rol pa ste, sangs rgyas chos lugs pas rang nyid la nang pa zer zhing, rang gi chos lugs ma yin pa rnams la phyi rol pa'am mu stegs pa zer,

Outsider: the one who is outside. Dharma system of the Buddha calls itself "insiders", but those who are not of our dharma system are called outsiders or tīrthikas (mu stegs pa).
If you gloss the term "nang pa" as Kongtrul has done (and this is a common gloss popular in the West), then as I said, you are left with the conclusion that all these tīrthikas are nang pas too. Which suits me just fine since they too are concerned to know their minds and turn inwards to do so.

So in the end we are left with the fact that this language should be abandoned. Buddhists should not call themselves "insiders" in contradistinction to "outsiders" as if Non-buddhists are not concerned  with the same issues as freedom from suffering and liberation from the kleshas through turning their attention within for they very clearly are.

In fact the terms "insider" and "outsider" are just native sectarian Tibetan terms that Buddhists in Tibet used to distinguish themselves from Bonpos, Muslims, Christians, Taoists, and so on.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Tibetan word for Buddhism denotes “to turn inwards". We must consider Buddhism as The science of mind.


Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly. The Tibetan word for "Buddhist" is "nang pa" "insider" as opposed to "phyi pa" i.e. outsider. We must cease to make a distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
LunaRoja said:
I am confused about how our inherent state resting within it's primordial nature fulfills the bodhisattva vow.

Malcolm wrote:
When you realize your primordial state, out of that realization nirmanakāyas will naturally flow because compassion is inherent in your real nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 3:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So Namdrol have you realized your real condition?


Malcolm wrote:
That depends on what you mean by "realize".

if you mean experientially understand, than yes. If you mean am I prepared to go rainbow, not anytime soon, probably not in this lifetime unless I stop writing posts and translating texts, gardening, and everything else I do.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Title: Dzogchen and Compassion
Content:
Anders Honore said:
Are you saying bodhicitta is a dispensible part of Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
Compassion is an innate quality of one's primdordial state i.e. the basis. You can't really give up bodhicitta, and you can't really create it. It can be covered over by obscurations, but those are adventitious. When you recognize your condition as it is, compassion for others naturally arises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is the heart of all paths, whether of samsara or nirvana, and is the truth that everyone is trying to discover. What is Dzogchen? We all know the answer to that question -- it is our real condition.

Everyone, no matter what religion they belong to, is trying to discover the truth. That truth exists in the heart of every single sentient being. So when you discover that truth, there is no need to remain locked in the limitations of "Buddhist" and "non-Buddhist".

Limitations are what cause all the suffering in the world.

We cannot change the world for others, but we can change the world for ourselves. The only way to do this is to evolve beyond the limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race, and tribe. If we go beyond these limitations through discovering our primordial potentiality, then we are participating in changing the world.

As we have seen, for example, the six liberations are not just for Buddhists -- you don't have to make someone a Buddhist in order to sing Song of the Vajra for them, for example, or recite the Aspiration of Samantabhadra -- any sentient being who hears these sung or recited will have a seed of future liberation planted in their continuum, thos grol (liberation through hearing). You don't have to make someone a Buddhist to give them some myong grol (liberation through taste), or give them a btags grol (liberation through wearing), or show them some image that is a mthong grol (liberation through sight), or give them some incense which is a specially formulated dri grol (liberation through smell), etc.

Of course I am a Buddhist. But where I used to be a Buddhist before I was a Dzogchen practitioner, now it is other way around. This is not because of some intellectual trip. This is based on my practice of Buddhism and Dzogchen for 20+ years now.

I can see really clearly that we need to go beyond Buddhist provincialism. We even complain about sectarianism among Buddhists. We also war with each other about such things whose Karmapa is the real one; which is better, gzhan stong or rang stong; is yogacara as high as madhayamaka or not; is Theravada Hinayāna or not; is Mahāyāna or the tantras the real teaching of the Buddha or not. If we do not go beyond these kinds of petty intellectual differences, we will never survive as a species and we will continue to destroy ourselves.

In the end it honestly does not matter much whether we put our faith in Jesus, Krishna or Buddha. There is no perfect faith that leads to liberation. The only thing that leads to liberation is knowledge of our true condition. When we know that state, we don't have need of faith since now we have certainty.

We do not need to ecumenically pretend that all paths lead to the same place. All we need to understand is that everyone is searching for the same thing, the peace and happiness that springs from freedom. We can overcome all our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe just by maintaining presence and awareness of this fact.

When we have overcome our own limitations regarding religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe, then we can work with any circumstances. If one is attached to some limitation, there is no way one can work well with circumstances. One can only work with circumstances by seeing what one's limitations are.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe then we are more free. We are more free to celebrate life, sorrow at death, wonder at creation, we are more free to enjoy our lives and the lives of others.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe we are more free to celebrate the threatening "other", to celebrate the beauty of human diversity and difference, which is the strength of our species.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe we are more free to act wisely, to cherish this beautiful planet we live on and all the richness of life, the plants, the animals, the rocks, minerals, oceans, mountains, rivers, and lakes it offers us.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our own state through personal experience the universe and all the beings in it are revealed as an astonishing panoply of spheres of light and color, sound, lights and rays that has no boundary nor center.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our own state just as it is, we have no need to ensure any creed, no need to confirm any ideology, no need to control anyone or anything -- we can let the free be free as they have been all along whether they know it or not.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe thorugh direct and perfect knowledge of our own state, then, if we have the capacity, we can introduce others to their own state without regard to religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe.

If, for example, Dzogchen teachings are only for Buddhists, how can we ever hope to overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe? How can enforcing limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe ever be useful in the project of overcoming our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe?

Dzogchen teachings are for all who are interested. Because the ancient peoples of Zhang Zhung and Tibet were interested in Dzogchen, Dzogchen spread there before the formal advent of Buddhism in that country. Originally Dzogchen was not a formal part of Buddhism. It spread through a very small lineage of practitioners. This group of practitioners, beginning with Mañjuśrīmitra, saw that Dzogchen was the essence of what the Buddha was trying to communicate. So they spread it slowly. Later, because Padmasambhava, Vairocana and Vimalamitra brought it to Tibet and some Tibetans too understood it was the essence of the Buddha's teaching, they kept it in secret and it slowly spread among Tibetans. Then, in the 11-12th century, when the Nyingmapas gained self-awareness as an independent school, they adopted Dzogchen as their official "position" in competition with the new translation trends and incorporated it into their school. But by this time, Dzogchen had completely died out in India. But Dzogchen, as is proven by its presence in Bon, is not strictly the provence of Buddhism. Though the Bonpos revised their teachings to bring them into line with Buddhist teachings, Zhang Zhung Nyengyud is an authentic line of Dzogchen intimate instruction that do not depend on Garab Dorje. Therefore, in the same way that early masters of Dzogchen were free from limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe and taught Dzogchen to whoever came to them, we should also endeavor to overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe.

We must not consider the Dzogchen teachings as belonging to any religion, ideology, nation, class, race or tribe. Instead, as practitioners of Dzogchen, we should endeavor to overcome our personal limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our real state just as it is. When we know our own state just as it is, we can engage with people wherever they are without ourselves throwing up any barriers of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. So I suggest it is very important for Dzogchen practitioners, including myself, to overcome any limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. We already have the means to do this -- we simply need to will to do it. If we ground ourselves in the deep natural transformation that comes from recognizing and integrating with our primordial potentiality, then we can go beyond the limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. By going beyond these limitations (as well as the limitations of conceptuality, imputation, paths, stages, realizations, attainments, buddhas and sentient beings) through recognizing our own innate state that is originally pure and naturally formed, we can move freely through the world and meet everyone and everthing from the authentic space of recognition of great original purity of all that is.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
I prefer to think that the Dzoghen practitioner can make use of all methods without regard to whether they are Buddhist or non-Buddhist.

Kilaya. said:
I agree, let's just think of NNR who regularly visited a Catholic church for years after arriving in Italy. But then again, Dzogchen seems to be totally intertwined with Tibetan Buddhism. No Dzogchen teacher will tell you it's okay to do guruyoga with Shiva or Jesus.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because Shiva and Jesus are not part of the transmission lineage, so it does not apply.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
heart said:
[

Dzogchen, or rather the Dzogchenpa, is a part of Buddhism as long as you use the Buddhist methods, even if it is "only" Anuyoga.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Since the first vehicle, according to the sgra thal gyur, is the vehicle of gods and men, are you stating that when a Dzogchenpa uses the methods of vehicles of gods and men they cease to be Buddhist?

I prefer to think that the Dzoghen practitioner can make use of all methods without regard to whether they are Buddhist or non-Buddhist. If you want to go to a kirtan, go. If you want to go to a Catholic service, go. If you want to go to a prayer meeting, go. If you want to dance with dervishes, go. If you want to attend a sweat lodge, go. If you want to hang out with a shaman, go, If you want to experiment once or twice with Ayuhuasca with a Brazilian shaman, go ahead. If you want to take peyote once or twice with a Mexican shaman, go ahead. If you want to spend time among Shaivite Sadhus, go ahead. If you want to hang out with Bonpos, go ahead. If you want to hang out with Brahmins, then like the Buddha himself, go ahead.  Likewise, if you want to practice shrakvayāna methods, then go ahead.If you want to take refuge, and get a nice Tibetan name, then go ahead. If you want to practice Mahāyāna, then go ahead. If you want to take bodhisattva vows, then go ahead. If you want to practice the six levels of outer and inner tantra, then go ahead. Do you as Dzogchen practitioner have to do anything of these things? Nope. Should you criticize others for doing these things? Nope. What is indispensible for a Dzogchen practitioner in the tradition of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu? Ati Guru Yoga and that is all. Other teachers of Dzogchen will see things differently.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: neck trauma
Content:
Lobsang P. said:
Three months on from suffering a neck trauma I am still experiencing pain and limited movement. Most exercise
seems to make it worse..any thoughts ?




Malcolm wrote:
It sounds like you have a serious inflammation of the tendons in your neck. You should alternate hot and cold compresses and avoid anything that will cause more inflammation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Any regular Mahamudra webcasts?
Content:
Astus said:
Mahamudra is not as bound to transmissions as Dzogchen,

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāmudra, like Dzogchen, is dependent on direct introduction.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Inge said:
I've heard ChNN sometimes mention a remedy for rlung disorder consisting of good quality old wine and some other ingredients. Do you remember the other ingredients?


Malcolm wrote:
Butter I beleive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
Having a fast track which only a few may be suited whilst the rest will have to make to with lesser 'means' sounds pretty elitist to me.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Is recognizing that different beings have differing needs and proclivities elitist? Do you not recognize that no matter what sphere we look at, either mundane or spiritual, beings have differing needs and proclivities? Whose fault is it that not all beings are xerox copies of each other? And is there even something wrong with the fact that they're not? Are some better or possessive of greater worth than others because of their differences?

There is no hegemony in Buddhism steering otherwise qualified people away from some Dzogchen fast track only the privileged few can access. People are as free to pursue the direct way of Dzogchen as they feel they are. Wanna practice according to Dzogchen, go meet a Dzogchen guru. Can't find one near you or can't afford to travel to meet one? Can't afford some large, fixed donation for teachings that are available in your area? Can't find a teacher who will teach you Dzogchen straight away without first completing ngondro or some other preliminary? ChNN is a fully qualified master who gives it away for free to literally anyone with an internet connection and the interest and attention span to participate. Not very elitist at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I always have to chuckle when I see this charge of elitism being made. Anyone who is interested in Dzogchen and decides to meet a teacher and do practice is part of "the elite". Those who are not, are not. People self-select though their own karma.

I don't know how many people I have sent to ChNN. Then I see them later, "how is your practice going" . They reply, oh, I am studying with someone else. I am like, that is nice. People always cry about wanting to have realized teachers, and when there is one in the world, who really teaches Dzogchen just as it is, I am constantly amazed at people who just do not see the incredible value of ChNN in this day and age. I have come to the conclusion that people like limitations, it makes them feel comfortable.

Do I personally think Dzogchen is the bees knees, the most profound thing since sliced bread? Of course I do, that is way I spend most of my time studying and practicing it. All teachings have their value, even non-Buddhist teachings. I am especially fond of Kashmir Trika Shaivism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: garlic for rlung
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Mashing is not cooking though, is it?  I mean you mash it raw.  Or do you mean boil and mash?


Malcolm wrote:
Boil and mash.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: garlic for rlung
Content:
dakini_boi said:
If garlic is to be therapeutic in treating rlung disorders, must it be raw?


Malcolm wrote:
No, actually, what you ought to do is mash it.

Yu can get some Agar 35 from Siddhi energetics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 4:44 AM
Title: Dzogchen and the Two Stages
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
However, the purpose is to shift the mind and become the Yidam in the Yidam's world. The mind enters that reality totally so all phenomena are also real.

If the mind finally enters the mandala and remains there, it becomes that of an enlightened Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not the function of a HYT mandala visualization. Without understanding the principle of the basis of purification, the result of purification, and the purifier, one has not understood the purpose of the creation stage on any level at all. And no one has 16 arms and four legs, for example, not one single human being alive, past or present. This is the reason, for example, that when doing completion stage practices, one generally uses the sahaja or natural form of the deity i.e. with one face and two arms and legs.

Secondly, as Nangwa pointed out, the principle of the completion stage, partially, is to break clinging to the mentally generated pure appearances of the creation stage. The generated mandala is only mind, meant to cut attachment to the world of the impure vision. It does not go beyond mind in any sense. In order to go beyond mind one needs the experience of the completion stage. When one is able to unify the two stages within one's pratice, this is called the state of mahāmudra, in tantric terms.

Blue Garuda said:
What does Dzogchen offer that is greater?

Malcolm wrote:
It is said that if an butcher is given the explanation of Dzogchen they will achieve buddhahood more rapidly that a learned pandita who has never received any explanations of Dzogchen. So when explainging and teaching Dzogchen to an uneducated butcher, do we resort to complicated Buddhist words and topics? Do we belabor them with skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas? No. We just explain their state to them in terms any one can easily grasp -- the five elements and body, speech and mind. These eight things are readily understood by anyone.

There is no need to spend years learning the forensics of dead medieval tenet systems that no one beleives anymore merly to refute these topics with Madhyamaka reasonings that everyone disagrees on. How pyrrhic this exercise is. Enjoyable, a past time, but ultimately a dead end.

Other people have brought up the issue of Dzogchen as a triumphalist position. But that is missing the point. What I brought up was the fact that much of what is studied in the "lower" vehicles can be passed over when learning Dzogchen.

People seem upset because Dzogchen does position itself both within and outside of the the nine vehicles. I did not invent this. One can read this very same thing in Norbu Rinpoche Crystal and the Way of Light:

"...there is a danger that some readers may make the false assumption that it implies a hierarchy of teachings with Dzogchen at the top. In fact, the whole layout could have been reversed with Dzogchen at the bottom; or the chart could be read from the bottom up which is the sequence in which the gradual paths are presented and practiced, each stage having to be completed before the next can be approached. Dzogchgen differs from gradual paths because the master introduces the disciple directly to the Great Perfection, which is the heart of all paths. But the reason so many paths exist is that there is a teaching suited to the capacity of every indivuidual. So, for example, for someone to whom sutra teaching is best suited, that teaching can be said be the "highest", because that teaching will work best for that individual. Any use of the words "high" and "highest" in relation to the Dzogchen teachings, should be read with this important proviso in mind." pg. 53

"Gradual paths insist that a practitioner must work from here upwards. Dzogchen, on the other hand, doesn't adopt a hierachical approach; it poceeds right away on the basis of of the master giving the student a Direct Introduction to the primordial state to enable the student to recognize that state for him or herself, and then remain in it.

Dzogchen is beyond limits, and the practices of any of the other levels can be used a secondary practices by a Dzogchen practitioner. But the principle practice of Dzogchen is to enter directly into a non-dual contemplation, and to remain in it, continuuing to deepen it until one reaches total realization." pg. 175

My concern here in this thread is not defending Dzogchen as the highest. My interest in the OP's question has to do with certain features I have observed in reading original Dzogchen texts, and seeing that they consistently confirm and reinforce many things my teacher has said in the 36 years he has been teaching Dzogchen around the world.

I don't have a partcular agenda in sharing these thoughts with people. I am a pretty open book and people have seen the evolution (or degeneration) of my thinking on various topics based on my study and practice. We have all been having a long conversation with each other for many years now. Sometimes my thoughts make people happy and sometimes they do not.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, May 15th, 2012 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Namdrol said:
Dzogchen abandons the dichotomy between mind and matter found in sutra and tantra. Theoretically, this is a most crucial difference. Because it abandons this dichtomy, it also abandons the dichtomy between the sentient and the non-sentient.

N

Blue Garuda said:
If you can find dichotomies in sutra and tantra perhaps it is because you have been conditioned to think that way.  Certainly in self-generation in HYT there can be no dichotomy, surely.

Malcolm wrote:
Self-generation is a visualization practice. Nevertheless it still involves creating an inanimate container universe to support the inner mandala. However, the plants and trees and so on that one visualizes are simply that, a mental image, and mental creation and nothing more.

The dichtomy between mind and matter in scholastic Buddhism is well established. How many times has one seen defenses of rebirth predicated on the difference in kind between mind and matter? We find them in Abhidharma, Sutra and even Tantra (i.e. where the mind is held to be a rider on the energy of the body). And this is perfectly fine within the context of those teachings.

In Dzogchen on the other hand, mind is held to be generated by the vāyus in the body. In the Khandro Nyinthig Padmasambhava declares that mind and vāyu are just different names for the same thing:

"...the energy of that vivid luminosity arising as the diversity, that is called “vāyu”, and it is called “mind”. Though luminosity is called mind, because of movement, it is called “vāyu”"

Mind, such as it is can be considered the subtle aspect of vāyu. But in reality, vāyu, the air element functioning in the human body, is what we call mind.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Chulen - max 3 months?
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Should Chulen be taken for max 3 months at a time?


Malcolm wrote:
One can take chulen indefinately.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Namdrol said:
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.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Wow, that is another little shock for me here - I'd been convinced for quite a few years that according to Dzogchen plants are very much insentient, and loads of old time practitioners would confirm what now turns out to be my misconception. Thanks for bringing up Garab Dorje and correcting it at last

Would you be so kind as to elaborate a bit more, though? What's the position of plants in samsara? Are there any available texts that deal with the matter?

Malcolm wrote:
According to our karmic vision plants are non-sentient. But according to Padmasambhava in the Khandro Nyinthig:

After first being created by the energy (rtsal) of wisdom, in the middle, as 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... 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 instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Namdrol said:
Dzogchen abandons the dichotomy between mind and matter found in sutra and tantra. Theoretically, this is a most crucial difference. Because it abandons this dichtomy, it also abandons the dichtomy between the sentient and the non-sentient.

N

Matylda said:
But then it sounds like zen teaching... I think Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche does not like it. Then what about the view? If it is only the mind body issue doesn't it implicate only the difference in the method? Then some would not agree again.

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN likes Chan/Zen just fine.

I am not sure I understand the rest of your question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
pensum said:
i find it fascinating that so many people seem to be omniscient and know what is best for other individuals at their stage in life, understanding and practice. almost everyone, whether Buddhist, Dzogchenpa, Nyingma, Kagyupa, Gelugpa, Sakyapa, Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Shingon, Jodo Shinshu, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. etc. all claim that their path is the best or only true path. being an ignorant old fool i don't doubt that for them whatever path they are on is the best path, as it is the result of their own individual karma. so many of the world's ills and problems seem to arise however from assuming that you are the only person in the world and everyone else is simply your clone and either ignorant, evil or damned for not seeing or admitting that fact and that yours is the one true path. well, count me among the damned for i can't help but feel that those scriptural statements that there are as many paths as their are individuals have a basis in fact.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is correct. This is why it is crucial that Dzogchen be presented as a path available to all without any restriction other than their interest.

Buddhism has become in many respects an ossified missionary religion primarily concerned with gaining converts and worshipping in nice houses. Now, don't get me wrong, I like nice houses, but it seems to me that by and large nice houses have become more important than the Dharma they are supposed to house. All that is Buddhist is not necessarily Dharma. All that is Dharma is not necessarily Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


mindyourmind said:
I just don't think it's for me, and I say that after a long and rigorous investigation. And that has nothing to do with my mental and intellectual abilities, it's just what I see as an effective vehicle for me, one where I will make the most progress with.

As I see it Dzogchen was an add-on, a stage that you reached after you did the hard yards, once your arse was already calloused from meditation and all those "unnecessary" things.

Malcolm wrote:
A Dzogchen pracitioner's fundamental responsibility is to understand their own condition. They may use any and all useful methods from the nine-yānas, or even non-Buddhist traditons like hatha yoga to better integrate with their own state. So for example, if someone is having obstacles, then perhaps they should focus on Tara or Guru Drag Phur. Since Manjushri is the state of the realization described in the 80th chapter of the Self-Arisen Vidyā tantra, someone who wishes to understand Dzogchen in general better might concentrate on a Manjushri cycle such as Manjushrivadasimha, etc. If someone needs to extend their life, they should rely on Amitayus or Mandarava or White Tara.

There is no limitation on what a Dzogchen pracititioner can practice. We can study the Yoga Sutras for example, since they are interesting and have valuable advice on meditation practice. There are no limitations apart from those we impose on ourselves and others. The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them.

The idea that Dzogchen is an "add-on" is not the perspective of Dzogchen tantras or Garab Dorje himself. This is a later gradualist view that was largely promulgated as a response to criticisms of the Sarma schools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: 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?

heart said:
In what way does Dzogchen contradict the sutra and tantra teachings?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen abandons the dichotomy between mind and matter found in sutra and tantra. Theoretically, this is a most crucial difference. Because it abandons this dichtomy, it also abandons the dichtomy between the sentient and the non-sentient.

N


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
And just like it happened that all these incredibly important ideals and means have been reduced to a money making scam, you will find that it will also (has already started to) happen to Dzogchen.  Then what will you do?  Look for something new and untainted until that is worn thin again?

Malcolm wrote:
I will recommend that someone find an authentic teacher of Dzogchen, if that is their interest. Then this is sufficient. I can't help what con artists who sell the name "Dzogchen" to make money do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mindyourmind said:
This whole Ati-lite thing is getting on my nerves. Read something like "Blazing Splendor" and see how Dzogchen should be studied.

Malcolm wrote:
The state of Dzogchen is Buddhahood. Whoever practices Dzogchen is trying to integrate with that state. A Dzogchen without Buddhism is not possible, since Dzogchen represents the goal of all paths, whether non-Buddhist or Buddhist. That goal is buddahood or full awakening.
"My vehicles are inconceivable,
when summarized, are included in two, samsara and nirvana"
-- The Tantra of Self-Arisen Vidyā


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Bhusuku said:
Thanks, Namdrol! This is interesting, since by taking ChNN's words about always going to the essence to heart I came more and more to the same conclusion.
Namdrol said:
as far as Tantra goes, anuyoga is sufficient.

Bhusuku said:
If that's the case, why is it that the Precious Vase explains Atiyoga more from the Mahayoga POV? Doesn't that approach make things unnecessary more complicated?


Malcolm wrote:
The Precious Vase is based on Padmasambhava's Man ngag lta ba phreng ba, that is why.


