DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by Josef » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:30 pm

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:49 pm
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:30 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:22 pm




i'm afraid you are applying a Mahayana criteria to a Vajrayana way. The fact is that there is no such limit of morality in reality, it only acquires meaning in the mean time, in the path.

we have examples like, Guru Padmasambhava. Do you consider conventionaly moral for a Buddha to conquer a country?
I am definitely not applying a Mahayana criteria, Im applying the Ati yoga criteria outlined by Longchenpa and others specific to the path of Ati yoga, you simply have yet to encounter these teachings. I have given you references repeatedly, you just dont seem to like that it challenges your cursory reading of common tropes around mahasiddhas. You also had the opportunity to observe a Mahasiddha as an example of this yet seem to reject it in favor of a romanticized idea of what conduct for realized beings looks like.
Padmasambhava didnt "conquer" a country. He used upaya to tame obstructions in order to benefit beings.
I'm sorry, my Guru told me that in the nature of mind there is no limits, and that limitations are cause of suffering and not cause of realization. And i'm talking of skillful means, not of nihilistic behaviour.

Im sure Longchenpa had many students, perhaps some of them needed to hear/read specific things.

One last question, what you think Guru Padasambhava did in Tibet?
Nobody is talking about imposing limitations. I have repeated that numerous times here as well. You're completely missing the point of "ordinary conduct" as it applies to Dzogchen, it is completely beyond limitations.
Guru Padmasambhava established an environment that was fruitful for the dharma to flourish, and transmitted it to countless beings. Though his view was as vast as space his conduct was as fine as barley flour.
I believe we have the same guru and I also have the feeling that you listened to him for a couple of years. Some of us listened to him for many years and know full well what his intention and the meaning of those teachings were.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:33 pm

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:22 pm
i'm afraid you are applying a Mahayana criteria to a Vajrayana way.
But Vajrayana is a subspecies of Mahayana.
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:49 pm
I'm sorry, my Guru told me that in the nature of mind there is no limits, and that limitations are cause of suffering and not cause of realization. And i'm talking of skillful means, not of nihilistic behaviour.
My understanding of what our guru taught us is that if you remove all limitations, what is left is 100% genuine radically altruistic activity -- radical altruism being precisely what limitations obscure and cripple.
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:32 pm
And yes, there is a rule. That rule is governed by bodhicitta. How that bodhicitta manifests is without limitations. When we’re on the path it’s relative, when we’re realized it is an expression of the essence, nature, and energy. Clinging to stages and paths is released but that doesn’t mean you release all notions of ordinary conduct.
:good:
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:52 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:33 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:22 pm
i'm afraid you are applying a Mahayana criteria to a Vajrayana way.
But Vajrayana is a subspecies of Mahayana.
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:49 pm
I'm sorry, my Guru told me that in the nature of mind there is no limits, and that limitations are cause of suffering and not cause of realization. And i'm talking of skillful means, not of nihilistic behaviour.
My understanding of what our guru taught us is that if you remove all limitations, what is left is 100% genuine radically altruistic activity -- radical altruism being precisely what limitations obscure and cripple.
yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path, and found interesting that perhaps behaviour shouldn't be examined by exchanged morals.

So imo this is important while for the topic.

amanitamusc
Posts: 1639
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by amanitamusc » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:08 pm

treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:33 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:22 pm
i'm afraid you are applying a Mahayana criteria to a Vajrayana way.
But Vajrayana is a subspecies of Mahayana.
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:49 pm
I'm sorry, my Guru told me that in the nature of mind there is no limits, and that limitations are cause of suffering and not cause of realization. And i'm talking of skillful means, not of nihilistic behaviour.
My understanding of what our guru taught us is that if you remove all limitations, what is left is 100% genuine radically altruistic activity -- radical altruism being precisely what limitations obscure and cripple.
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:32 pm
And yes, there is a rule. That rule is governed by bodhicitta. How that bodhicitta manifests is without limitations. When we’re on the path it’s relative, when we’re realized it is an expression of the essence, nature, and energy. Clinging to stages and paths is released but that doesn’t mean you release all notions of ordinary conduct.
:good:
My take from ChNNR on limitations as I remember is that we all have limitations.Some limitations are necessary like laws and
regulations, only because we are not enlightened.We should recognize our own limitations and try to go beyond them.
When all limitations are overcome we are free.Rainbow body.

smcj
Posts: 6380
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by smcj » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm

yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path...
Not really.

Regardless of the path, school, or yana, the defilements as such are never indulged. If one has a mind that truly seeks liberation then “renunciation” is always a part of you. The Path of Transformation requires that deep kind of renunciation. With that one has such a positive motivation the even things previously seen as negative can be transformed into positive things.

It sounds as if transformation allows for indulgence, but it doesn’t.
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by Josef » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:40 pm

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:52 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:33 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:22 pm
i'm afraid you are applying a Mahayana criteria to a Vajrayana way.
But Vajrayana is a subspecies of Mahayana.
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:49 pm
I'm sorry, my Guru told me that in the nature of mind there is no limits, and that limitations are cause of suffering and not cause of realization. And i'm talking of skillful means, not of nihilistic behaviour.
My understanding of what our guru taught us is that if you remove all limitations, what is left is 100% genuine radically altruistic activity -- radical altruism being precisely what limitations obscure and cripple.
yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path, and found interesting that perhaps behaviour shouldn't be examined by exchanged morals.

So imo this is important while for the topic.
The notions of erratic conduct, "crazy wisdom", the conduct of a madman, are all paths that include effort. They are not entirely free of grasping like many think they are. Instead they are methods and approaches related to ones own path and the renunciation of clinging to appearances. At the stage of "conduct of mastery over phenomena" any notion of such contrived conduct fades away and and the practitioner actually expresses conduct appropriate to the time, place, retinue, and so on. The entire premise of radical conduct is that of the paths of effort and is different from conduct that is truly free of any kind of clinging.
Ati yoga is the only vehicle in which one can become fully realized through conduct alone because the view is completely purified in its own ground, path, and result. There is no need to apply effort to unconventional conduct and rebuttals of social norms. In fact, to do so is simply a display of contrived effort of the so-called lower yanas.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am

smcj wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm
yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path...
Not really.

Regardless of the path, school, or yana, the defilements as such are never indulged. If one has a mind that truly seeks liberation then “renunciation” is always a part of you. The Path of Transformation requires that deep kind of renunciation. With that one has such a positive motivation the even things previously seen as negative can be transformed into positive things.

It sounds as if transformation allows for indulgence, but it doesn’t.
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:40 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:52 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:33 pm


But Vajrayana is a subspecies of Mahayana.



My understanding of what our guru taught us is that if you remove all limitations, what is left is 100% genuine radically altruistic activity -- radical altruism being precisely what limitations obscure and cripple.
yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path, and found interesting that perhaps behaviour shouldn't be examined by exchanged morals.

So imo this is important while for the topic.
The notions of erratic conduct, "crazy wisdom", the conduct of a madman, are all paths that include effort. They are not entirely free of grasping like many think they are. Instead they are methods and approaches related to ones own path and the renunciation of clinging to appearances. At the stage of "conduct of mastery over phenomena" any notion of such contrived conduct fades away and and the practitioner actually expresses conduct appropriate to the time, place, retinue, and so on. The entire premise of radical conduct is that of the paths of effort and is different from conduct that is truly free of any kind of clinging.
Ati yoga is the only vehicle in which one can become fully realized through conduct alone because the view is completely purified in its own ground, path, and result. There is no need to apply effort to unconventional conduct and rebuttals of social norms. In fact, to do so is simply a display of contrived effort of the so-called lower yanas.
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.

User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by Josef » Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:43 am

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
smcj wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm
yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path...
Not really.

Regardless of the path, school, or yana, the defilements as such are never indulged. If one has a mind that truly seeks liberation then “renunciation” is always a part of you. The Path of Transformation requires that deep kind of renunciation. With that one has such a positive motivation the even things previously seen as negative can be transformed into positive things.

It sounds as if transformation allows for indulgence, but it doesn’t.
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:40 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:52 pm


yes, i meant that the skillful means in renunciation path are -radically?- different than those of transformation path, and found interesting that perhaps behaviour shouldn't be examined by exchanged morals.

So imo this is important while for the topic.
The notions of erratic conduct, "crazy wisdom", the conduct of a madman, are all paths that include effort. They are not entirely free of grasping like many think they are. Instead they are methods and approaches related to ones own path and the renunciation of clinging to appearances. At the stage of "conduct of mastery over phenomena" any notion of such contrived conduct fades away and and the practitioner actually expresses conduct appropriate to the time, place, retinue, and so on. The entire premise of radical conduct is that of the paths of effort and is different from conduct that is truly free of any kind of clinging.
Ati yoga is the only vehicle in which one can become fully realized through conduct alone because the view is completely purified in its own ground, path, and result. There is no need to apply effort to unconventional conduct and rebuttals of social norms. In fact, to do so is simply a display of contrived effort of the so-called lower yanas.
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
Now you’re just talking about a different subject and deflecting from your original question about conduct in Ati yoga.
You can use the meat example as Upaya in common Mahayana as well. Eating meat as Upaya is not limited to tantra or Dzogchen.
I think you’re having a difficult time comprehending what people are sharing with you here. The meat example can also be an example of indulgence. If you think you’re a practitioner of the inner tantras and simply say, “I’m a tantric practitioner so I can eat meat”, that spiritual bypassing and indulgence. If you actually have pure perception it’s upaya.
Things are far more nuanced than you’re making them out to be. Eventually you’ll come to understand this through your own experience.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

smcj
Posts: 6380
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by smcj » Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:36 am

My understanding of what our guru taught us is that if you remove all limitations, what is left is 100% genuine radically altruistic activity -- radical altruism being precisely what limitations obscure and cripple.
:good:
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:48 am

Josef wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:43 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
smcj wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:39 pm

Not really.

Regardless of the path, school, or yana, the defilements as such are never indulged. If one has a mind that truly seeks liberation then “renunciation” is always a part of you. The Path of Transformation requires that deep kind of renunciation. With that one has such a positive motivation the even things previously seen as negative can be transformed into positive things.

It sounds as if transformation allows for indulgence, but it doesn’t.
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:40 pm


The notions of erratic conduct, "crazy wisdom", the conduct of a madman, are all paths that include effort. They are not entirely free of grasping like many think they are. Instead they are methods and approaches related to ones own path and the renunciation of clinging to appearances. At the stage of "conduct of mastery over phenomena" any notion of such contrived conduct fades away and and the practitioner actually expresses conduct appropriate to the time, place, retinue, and so on. The entire premise of radical conduct is that of the paths of effort and is different from conduct that is truly free of any kind of clinging.
Ati yoga is the only vehicle in which one can become fully realized through conduct alone because the view is completely purified in its own ground, path, and result. There is no need to apply effort to unconventional conduct and rebuttals of social norms. In fact, to do so is simply a display of contrived effort of the so-called lower yanas.
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
Now you’re just talking about a different subject and deflecting from your original question about conduct in Ati yoga.
You can use the meat example as Upaya in common Mahayana as well. Eating meat as Upaya is not limited to tantra or Dzogchen.
I think you’re having a difficult time comprehending what people are sharing with you here. The meat example can also be an example of indulgence. If you think you’re a practitioner of the inner tantras and simply say, “I’m a tantric practitioner so I can eat meat”, that spiritual bypassing and indulgence. If you actually have pure perception it’s upaya.
Things are far more nuanced than you’re making them out to be. Eventually you’ll come to understand this through your own experience.
again, i'm not talking on indulgence...

time will tell, friend.

PeterC
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by PeterC » Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:12 am

Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:04 am
...for gurus who break their samaya the negativity is far greater. So great that the Rigpa Rangshar deems such breaches as beyond purification. So in that sense a guru who breaks their root samayas is bound to that karma, while students have the opportunity to purify it and move on.
Do you have the reference in the Rigpa Rangshar for that?

I remember seeing a while back a text saying that if the guru breaches samaya in certain ways there is no method of expiation and both guru and disciple go to vajra hell. But I can't remember which text.

PeterC
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by PeterC » Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:11 am

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
The consumption of meat and alcohol as samaya substances in a ganachakra has a specific ritual purpose and meaning, and in any case isn't done openly in front of non-initiates. It's really a different type of activity from engaging in unconventional activity as upaya.

The whole topic of 'crazy wisdom' / unconventional behavior is, I feel, greatly misunderstood in a contemporary context - apologies if I wander a little from the topic here. As Josef said, it was a path of effort; it was an unusual path; it was certainly not an easy path at all, or an excuse for indulgence. Historically the number of famous teachers who engaged in this sort of behavior was vanishingly small compared to the ones who upheld strict sila. Those who did engage in it typically did things that attracted disgust and opprobrium from the society of the day. Living in a brothel; living in a charnel ground; taking lower-caste consorts; these weren't fun or well-regarded things to do. The equivalent today would be something like getting sent to jail for pedophilia. It certainly would not be driving a Mercedes, having a dozen girlfriends, wearing the best silk robes and dining at Michelin-starred restaurants. The 'crazy' gurus underwent genuine hardship. Even Marpa, who lived as a normal householder, made multiple long, arduous and dangerous trips to India, including when he was an old man. There were famous gurus who lived a life of luxury, such as the kings counted among the 84 Mahasiddhas, but when you look at their stories they almost always kept their practice secret. There was really nothing like the Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr. model among the famous gurus of the past.

It's easy to read things in Atiyoga texts saying that our conduct should be natural and without limitations etc. etc., and think, great, I'll just watch Netflix all day in the natural state. But that would be absurd. Not only do texts warn against this sort of error constantly, but look at the lives of Dzogchen masters in things like the big red book or Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche's book - they continued to maintain sila and practice all their lives. NKR himself, after arriving in India, spent a period of time wandering around like a beggar. That was acting naturally and without limitations for him. Doesn't occur to many contemporary Western Dzogchenistas to do things like that very often, does it.

User avatar
Josef
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Contact:

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by Josef » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:55 am

PeterC wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:12 am
Josef wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:04 am
...for gurus who break their samaya the negativity is far greater. So great that the Rigpa Rangshar deems such breaches as beyond purification. So in that sense a guru who breaks their root samayas is bound to that karma, while students have the opportunity to purify it and move on.
Do you have the reference in the Rigpa Rangshar for that?

I remember seeing a while back a text saying that if the guru breaches samaya in certain ways there is no method of expiation and both guru and disciple go to vajra hell. But I can't remember which text.
Page 91 in the Bonds of Samaya chapter.
Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

User avatar
Vaktar
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:08 pm
Location: Surfsofa, Ectopia
Contact:

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by Vaktar » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:33 am

PeterC wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:11 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
There was really nothing like the Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr. model among the famous gurus of the past.
I guess you haven't read the 84 Mahasiddha stories very carefully. Or any materials related to the previous Trungpa tulkus. Or heard about the Reting Regent who was the most famous student of the late Jadral Rinpoche. Or know anything of the secret biography of Taranatha...

Wealthy, wild, potentially dangerous Tantric siddhas are more rare than the garden-variety, perhaps. But to say "nothing like" the present individuals you mention is probably not accurate. There have been plenty of wealthy, educated reputed masters in the past with whom you might not want to leave your mother, daughter, sister or wife alone for very long.

Basically successful gurus are like businessmen, or are, in many cases, heavily invested in making money somehow or other. And like most successful businessmen, many or most of them feel entitled to get laid whenever, however, with whomever they find suitable.

Having said that, it's not necessarily fair to mention " Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr." in the same breath. Mukpo Jr. is nowhere near as gifted, and certainly not as well-educated or as well-trained, as his more famous father. And Lakhar has nothing of the academic gifts or social skills that members of the Mukpo family tend to have. He's the son of a businessman who can barely read Tibetan. But he is a good businessman, like his Chinese father.

PeterC
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by PeterC » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:14 am

Vaktar wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:33 am
PeterC wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:11 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
There was really nothing like the Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr. model among the famous gurus of the past.
I guess you haven't read the 84 Mahasiddha stories very carefully. Or any materials related to the previous Trungpa tulkus. Or heard about the Reting Regent who was the most famous student of the late Jadral Rinpoche. Or know anything of the secret biography of Taranatha...
Tell me which of the 84 you have in mind here, with reference to their post-attainment conduct.
What about Jetsun Taranatha's life do you think substantiates this?
Are you asserting that the 5th Reting Rinpoche was a qualified guru? Many would strongly dispute that. Just because someone holds a throne and gives empowerments, particularly in modern times, does not mean they're qualified. It never meant they were qualified, hence the recommended period of observation.

Wealthy, wild, potentially dangerous Tantric siddhas are more rare than the garden-variety, perhaps. But to say "nothing like" the present individuals you mention is probably not accurate. There have been plenty of wealthy, educated reputed masters in the past with whom you might not want to leave your mother, daughter, sister or wife alone for very long.
Examples/citations please.

Basically successful gurus are like businessmen, or are, in many cases, heavily invested in making money somehow or other. And like most successful businessmen, many or most of them feel entitled to get laid whenever, however, with whomever they find suitable.
Do you mean contemporary self-declared gurus? Sure, they're a dime a dozen. But genuine qualified vajra masters exhibiting this behavior? Not so much

Having said that, it's not necessarily fair to mention " Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr." in the same breath. Mukpo Jr. is nowhere near as gifted, and certainly not as well-educated or as well-trained, as his more famous father. And Lakhar has nothing of the academic gifts or social skills that members of the Mukpo family tend to have. He's the son of a businessman who can barely read Tibetan. But he is a good businessman, like his Chinese father.
You could argue that Mukpo Sr was better qualified than the other two - that is certainly true. Whether his capabilities as a teacher outweighed the damage he could do; and whether his behavior was upaya or indulgence; are questions debated elsewhere ad nauseam.

I'll assume your reference to the ethnicity of Lakhar's father has no bearing on whether you consider him qualified or not

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:32 am

PeterC wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:11 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:08 am
Skillful means aren't indulgements and/or errati, nor the same in reounciation and transformation...

We are told to eat meat for example, this is not according to the morality of the renounciation. Eating a mutilated sentient being isn't moraly right.
This is a skillfull mean for example, that also benefits the being, but for sure we are told to confront our feelings of rejection throught meat consumption. This is a skillfull mean for example, not an indulgement nor erratic behaviour.

I don't know if we are really taking things for granted in practices we don't understand.
The consumption of meat and alcohol as samaya substances in a ganachakra has a specific ritual purpose and meaning, and in any case isn't done openly in front of non-initiates. It's really a different type of activity from engaging in unconventional activity as upaya.

The whole topic of 'crazy wisdom' / unconventional behavior is, I feel, greatly misunderstood in a contemporary context - apologies if I wander a little from the topic here. As Josef said, it was a path of effort; it was an unusual path; it was certainly not an easy path at all, or an excuse for indulgence. Historically the number of famous teachers who engaged in this sort of behavior was vanishingly small compared to the ones who upheld strict sila. Those who did engage in it typically did things that attracted disgust and opprobrium from the society of the day. Living in a brothel; living in a charnel ground; taking lower-caste consorts; these weren't fun or well-regarded things to do. The equivalent today would be something like getting sent to jail for pedophilia. It certainly would not be driving a Mercedes, having a dozen girlfriends, wearing the best silk robes and dining at Michelin-starred restaurants. The 'crazy' gurus underwent genuine hardship. Even Marpa, who lived as a normal householder, made multiple long, arduous and dangerous trips to India, including when he was an old man. There were famous gurus who lived a life of luxury, such as the kings counted among the 84 Mahasiddhas, but when you look at their stories they almost always kept their practice secret. There was really nothing like the Lakhar / Mukpo Sr. / Mukpo Jr. model among the famous gurus of the past.

It's easy to read things in Atiyoga texts saying that our conduct should be natural and without limitations etc. etc., and think, great, I'll just watch Netflix all day in the natural state. But that would be absurd. Not only do texts warn against this sort of error constantly, but look at the lives of Dzogchen masters in things like the big red book or Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche's book - they continued to maintain sila and practice all their lives. NKR himself, after arriving in India, spent a period of time wandering around like a beggar. That was acting naturally and without limitations for him. Doesn't occur to many contemporary Western Dzogchenistas to do things like that very often, does it.
why is it so different... is also "approaching what's repulsive" or dealing with what's desireable without self deceiving.

indulgent behaviour wasn't in the table... skillfull means aren't about being permisive with onself but doing whatever is needed.

how do we see our gurus then? i never saw my teacher angry, but he was angry somethimes as a friend and a more close student did. does a puritane consideration of Buddha made me think of my Guru to be decieving: absolutely not. there must certainly be a reason.

the examples of CTR, DK, etc.: ... one cannot deny that Tilopa killed at least one fish every single day, that's not secret nor a romantic story, instead,based on records, it'a a fact: the Mahasiddha also had to eat. Or even DKR ¿did you know he consumed psychodelics like mushrooms, ayahuasca and so? and he practices the conventional morality. when he said he consumed those things i was shocked and still examining him since i consider those substances to be good for nothing... it's my condition to consider it so, causes me repulsion, so this bald guy made me think and finally ok i don't care if my vajra siblings consume drugs, i won't bother on that, it's their decision and karma, and finally i could relax about this situation.

So, this ancient and new histories are wood for discussion, i know, but the for this topic, the actual point, is: why they -Gurus who behave unconventionally- do what they do ¿does it makes sense what they do (or have done)? ¿why? ¿em'i justifying a scammer in exchange of feeling special? etc.

i can only resume that one cannot define "a Buddha is like this or like that", there is never an absolute definition, it entirely depends on his/her actual situation.

i say again, asshole behaviour can be dangerous only if one has no certainty and goes around just pretending. i'm talking on going beyhond doubt on true nature, not intelectual/philosophical doubts. i mean, in ati yoga terms, not in philosophical terms. texts are fine, but experience is better, actually i think are the only thing that matters after one had a good time studying. So, by knowing nature one can see if one's Guru is a Buddha or not, like a gold merchant knows what gold is and who in the market is a scammer selling scrap.

so, at the time, should one be afraid of loosing rigpa by not being conventionaly moral? it is more easy to be ignorant by analizing than by not anayzing primordial experiences. frak. in the end philosophical morality is an obstacle. when comes naturally, then it's a good sign.

in time one can settle and apparently behave not because of conventional morality but because you understand that you can't loose what you know and relax. so, conventional morality -the community where you live morality- is a skillfull mean, a needed thing to communicate, just as unconventional behaviour is.

sorry for the short story in long, this topic is fun.

PeterC
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by PeterC » Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:15 am

javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:32 am
sorry for the short story in long, this topic is fun.
It’s a complex topic. Without doing a point-by-point discussion, could I instead distinguish between a few different types of conduct:

1. The conduct of someone who strictly observes their vows. This should be the conduct of almost all practitioners. The elements of tantric vows that to non-initiates seem contradictory to this - eating meat, drinking alcohol, etc. - are then typically practiced in secret.

2. The conduct of someone who in accordance with, say, the Yoginitantras, engages in unconventional behavior as purely personal conduct. This is not explained to non-initiates and is viewed by them as socially improper.

3. The conduct of a vajra master employing upaya to confront the limited thinking of a disciple. This is done purely for the sake of the disciple, the vajra master is indifferent to it (and certainly takes no pleasure from it) and is limited to what the disciple needs

4. The conduct in accordance with the view of the dzogchen tantras. Though one has no limitations in their view, one still observes outer discipline similar to point 1 unless one is acting for the benefit of others subject to point 3 above.

5. The self-indulgent conduct of one who does not uphold their vows. That this person is unqualified to be a vajra master is fully demonstrated by this conduct.

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:37 am

PeterC wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:15 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:32 am
sorry for the short story in long, this topic is fun.
It’s a complex topic. Without doing a point-by-point discussion, could I instead distinguish between a few different types of conduct:

1. The conduct of someone who strictly observes their vows. This should be the conduct of almost all practitioners. The elements of tantric vows that to non-initiates seem contradictory to this - eating meat, drinking alcohol, etc. - are then typically practiced in secret.

2. The conduct of someone who in accordance with, say, the Yoginitantras, engages in unconventional behavior as purely personal conduct. This is not explained to non-initiates and is viewed by them as socially improper.

3. The conduct of a vajra master employing upaya to confront the limited thinking of a disciple. This is done purely for the sake of the disciple, the vajra master is indifferent to it (and certainly takes no pleasure from it) and is limited to what the disciple needs

4. The conduct in accordance with the view of the dzogchen tantras. Though one has no limitations in their view, one still observes outer discipline similar to point 1 unless one is acting for the benefit of others subject to point 3 above.

5. The self-indulgent conduct of one who does not uphold their vows. That this person is unqualified to be a vajra master is fully demonstrated by this conduct.
This is a far better scheme. my opinion is irrelevant.

look, 3., "one still observes outer discipline similar to point 1 unless one is acting for the benefit of others", i still understand that conventional and unconventional acts -behaviour- are to be performed according to the situation. and unconventional behaviour is employed to "to confront the limited thinking of a disciple"

Who's the author btw? JK?

smcj
Posts: 6380
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by smcj » Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:12 pm

Who's the author btw? JK?
Could be PeterC.
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: DKR - How Will You See the Guru?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:13 pm

smcj wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:12 pm
Who's the author btw? JK?
Could be PeterC.
yeah, why not? that would be a good sign, it is really a good scheme.

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TrimePema and 108 guests