Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by smcj » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:06 pm

Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, not by any stretch of the imagination.
No, it's not a path of renunciation. But to (almost) quote Malcolm on another recent thread (that I can't find right now), "...that's different than having renunciation, which is necessary to practice any path at all."
Last edited by smcj on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
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)

Urgyen Dorje
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Urgyen Dorje » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:09 pm

Renunciation is primordially complete. What renunciation is about isn't the objects but rather attachment and aversion. If one abides in awareness the root of attachment and aversion is cut and one is a renunciate.
smcj wrote:
Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, not by any stretch of the imagination.
No, it's not. But to (almost) quote Malcolm on another recent thread (that I can't find right now), "...that's different than having renunciation, which is necessary to practice any path at all."

WeiHan
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by WeiHan » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:09 pm

Ivo wrote: You won't find any discussion of sutra topics, including refuge and bodhichitta, in the dzogchen practice manuals.
There is refuge and bodhicitta instructions in Pema Lingpa's Kunzang Gongdu (Dzogchen Practice manual)

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by smcj » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:14 pm

Urgyen Dorje wrote:Renunciation is primordially complete. What renunciation is about isn't the objects but rather attachment and aversion. If one abides in awareness the root of attachment and aversion is cut and one is a renunciate.
:good: Exactly
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
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)

User avatar
Ivo
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: EU
Contact:

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Ivo » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:14 pm

smcj wrote:
Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, not by any stretch of the imagination.
No, it's not. But to (almost) quote Malcolm on another recent thread (that I can't find right now), "...that's different than having renunciation, which is necessary to practice any path at all."
:) What happens then if someone just has great interest in the Dzogchen teachings, without necessaryly analyzing in any way "the suffering of samsara" . Do you think that this person is not qualified to recieve and practice dzogchen? :)

Malcolm
Posts: 30810
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:16 pm

smcj wrote: Right. So to rephrase my question in the terms you just used; when the afflictions are not recognized for what they are (wisdoms), and still have the power of poisons to produce karma, is that Vajrayana practice or samsaric activity?

If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, and you allow yourself to fall under the power of afflictions through lack of awareness, you have broken your samaya. That is even worse than samsaric activity.

theanarchist
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by theanarchist » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:18 pm

Ivo wrote:
theanarchist wrote:If you don't renounce, it's not buddhism.

Even in Dzogchen you have to renounce your samsaric views, attachment, aversion, ignorance etc. You can not keep your delusions, while being enlightened, no matter which set of teachings you follow.
Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, not by any stretch of the imagination.

It is. Because you can not keep your attachment and aversion state of mind if you want to rest in the nature of mind. Also, you have to decide that samsara is crap in the first place to decide to take up the path of dzogchen, that in itself is renunciation.

WeiHan
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by WeiHan » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:22 pm

theanarchist wrote:

It is. Because you can not keep your attachment and aversion state of mind if you want to rest in the nature of mind. Also, you have to decide that samsara is crap in the first place to decide to take up the path of dzogchen, that in itself is renunciation.
I have been wanting to add this. Not only that the person have to decide that samsara is crap to take up dzogchen, he has to have renunciation to persist in the subsequent effort to continuously rest in rigpa (i.e practice). This, then I think answer the question what happens if someone is only interested in Dzogchen. It will take renunciation for that person to persist in the practice though it is possible that it is pure interest that draws him to it initially.
Last edited by WeiHan on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by smcj » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:23 pm

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote: Right. So to rephrase my question in the terms you just used; when the afflictions are not recognized for what they are (wisdoms), and still have the power of poisons to produce karma, is that Vajrayana practice or samsaric activity?

If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, and you allow yourself to fall under the power of afflictions through lack of awareness, you have broken your samaya. That is even worse than samsaric activity.
Basically that is the point I've been trying to make for quite a few pages now. Thanks.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
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)

Malcolm
Posts: 30810
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:29 pm

theanarchist wrote:
Ivo wrote:
Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, not by any stretch of the imagination.
It is.
No, it is not. Here "path" means "method." Neither the method of Vajrayāna practice (the two stages) nor the method of Dzogchen use the method of renunciation as the path (taking restrictive vows, eschewing objects of desire and so on).
Also, you have to decide that samsara is crap in the first place to decide to take up the path of dzogchen, that in itself is renunciation.
Having a sense of disgust for continuing in samsara does not equal using renunciation as a path method.

Malcolm
Posts: 30810
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:30 pm

smcj wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote: Right. So to rephrase my question in the terms you just used; when the afflictions are not recognized for what they are (wisdoms), and still have the power of poisons to produce karma, is that Vajrayana practice or samsaric activity?

If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, and you allow yourself to fall under the power of afflictions through lack of awareness, you have broken your samaya. That is even worse than samsaric activity.
Basically that is the point I've been trying to make for quite a few pages now. Thanks.
No, you were making the point that you should avoid as much as possible having such afflictive states.

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by smcj » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:46 pm

Malcolm wrote: If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, and you allow yourself to fall under the power of afflictions through lack of awareness, you have broken your samaya. That is even worse than samsaric activity.
From p.7 of this thread:
smcj wrote:...that in the Vajrayana poisons are never to be indulged in as such, but rather transmuted into wisdoms/medicine. If they remain untransmuted they are still poisons, and are not part of any Dharma path.
Malcolm wrote:...you were making the point that you should avoid as much as possible having such afflictive states.
A corollary to this idea is that if you can't keep the correct awareness while cultivating a poison you shouldn't be doing that action.So on that level you're right, I was also making that point in the context of someone that can't actually pull off the Vajrayana techniques. Someone that is actually competent in the Vajrayana is a whole other matter. Just saying to yourself, "I'm a Vajrayana practitioner" doesn't qualify someone as a competent to actually have the requisite awareness to see the wisdom behind the poison.
Last edited by smcj on Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:06 pm, edited 7 times in total.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
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)

theanarchist
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:26 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by theanarchist » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:51 pm

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not. Here "path" means "method." Neither the method of Vajrayāna practice (the two stages) nor the method of Dzogchen use the method of renunciation as the path (taking restrictive vows, eschewing objects of desire and so on). .

Renunciation means, you have realized that samsara is crap. Then you make an effort to get away from your samsara state of mind.

It doesn't matter if the object of your renunciation is material or mental.

If I say, a state of craving is undesirable and instead I do my best to rest my mind in rigpa to end it, that is renunciation. You decide to give it up. It's renouncing the samsaric state of craving.

Malcolm
Posts: 30810
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:59 pm

theanarchist wrote: If I say, a state of craving is undesirable and instead I do my best to rest my mind in rigpa to end it, that is renunciation. You decide to give it up. It's renouncing the samsaric state of craving.
Again, you are failing to observe that there is a difference wishing to be free of samsara and paths of the śravaka, pratyekabuddha and bodhisattva, i.e., the paths of renunciation.

Vajrayāna practitioners do not follow those paths because in this day and age we are for the most part too heavily afflicted to follow them successfully on the one hand, and on the other hand we are more intelligent and so on, and thus do not need to follow those paths.

User avatar
Ivo
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: EU
Contact:

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Ivo » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:53 am

WeiHan wrote:
Ivo wrote: You won't find any discussion of sutra topics, including refuge and bodhichitta, in the dzogchen practice manuals.
There is refuge and bodhicitta instructions in Pema Lingpa's Kunzang Gongdu (Dzogchen Practice manual)
You are probably referring to the practice manual of Gyurme Dorje. This is a manual which includes the outer ngondro and has indeed brief explanation of these topics. There are a number of such manuals, but this is not what I meant. I meant the proper dzogchen manuals, like the YL.

theanarchist wrote:Also, you have to decide that samsara is crap in the first place to decide to take up the path of dzogchen, that in itself is renunciation.
You don't have to decide any such thing to take up the path of Dzogchen.
WeiHan wrote: ...Not only that the person have to decide that samsara is crap to take up dzogchen, he has to have renunciation to persist in the subsequent effort to continuously rest in rigpa (i.e practice)...
Resting "in rikpa" does not require effort, nor persistence.
theanarchist wrote:If I say, a state of craving is undesirable and instead I do my best to rest my mind in rigpa to end it, that is renunciation.
If for you there is something undesirable and you are trying to get away from it by "resting your mind in rikpa" this will never, ever work.

You don't have to have aversion to samsara in order to practice dzogchen. You don't have to have any kind of renunciation. All you need is genuine interest in the Dzogchen teachings. Most of you are constantly confusing the sutra teachings, which have the renunciation
of samsara as a basis ,with Dzogchen. Dzogchen does not rely on any such thing. In fact, it can be a big hindrance. If you find your life nice and tolerable and are just interested in Dzogchen, you will probably be in a better position to receive the pointing out instructions and to authentically rest, than someone who is fixated on the suffering of Samsara.

The bottom line - Dzogchen is a different thing.

WeiHan
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by WeiHan » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:50 am

Ivo wrote:
Resting "in rikpa" does not require effort, nor persistence.
There is no need to play semantics. After recognition, apart only if you are Chik Chagpa, you need make intentional effort to practice very hard for a long time. i.e resting in rigpa. This is effort.

User avatar
Ivo
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: EU
Contact:

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Ivo » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:02 pm

WeiHan wrote:
Ivo wrote:
Resting "in rikpa" does not require effort, nor persistence.
There is no need to play semantics. After recognition, apart only if you are Chik Chagpa, you need make intentional effort to practice very hard for a long time. i.e resting in rigpa. This is effort.
I don't think this is semantics. It just doesn't work like that. You need to recognize repeatedly and integrate, but this has nothing to do with effort, or renunciation, or with "practicing very hard". There is no way you can achieve this with effort. The only practice where some kind of effort comes into play is thogyal.
You are very much mixing principles from the sutra and tantra paths into dzogchen. The methods are different.

Malcolm
Posts: 30810
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:16 pm

Ivo wrote:The only practice where some kind of effort comes into play is thogyal.
And even that effort depends on total relaxation.

User avatar
Ivo
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: EU
Contact:

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by Ivo » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:17 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Ivo wrote:The only practice where some kind of effort comes into play is thogyal.
And even that effort depends on total relaxation.
Indeed.

WeiHan
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Anti-Tibetan Buddhism Signs

Post by WeiHan » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:59 pm

Ivo wrote:
I don't think this is semantics. It just doesn't work like that. You need to recognize repeatedly and integrate, but this has nothing to do with effort, or renunciation, or with "practicing very hard". There is no way you can achieve this with effort. The only practice where some kind of effort comes into play is thogyal.
You are very much mixing principles from the sutra and tantra paths into dzogchen. The methods are different.
The mindfulness to repeatedly recognise and integrate is effort unless you define it differently.This is semantic. Even Dzogchen teaching says that Diligence is the foremost factor for success in a student.

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mandog, Nita-ooi, Varis and 66 guests