I just rely on my own Guru, I hope that doesn't upset you.alwayson wrote:
feel free to disagree with Norbu
/magnus
I just rely on my own Guru, I hope that doesn't upset you.alwayson wrote:
feel free to disagree with Norbu
As I read (I think from ChNN but I cannot guarantee, anyway by a respectable master), in Dzogchen it is called tantra but it is for speaking convenience, but it is not like other tantras.heart wrote:The 17 Tantras are not Tantras?Sönam wrote:and as Namdrol already explained it, there is two approach, one witin the yanas and one direct. And as Mengagdé (Inner most secret) does not rely on words, how could it part of Vajrayana, and how it could rely on tantras?booker wrote:Sorry and again the quote I've put was copied from Wikipedia. There are so such statements in the book they refer to. *sigh*
However then, how is it explained in Nyingma about Ati Yoga falling into Vajrayana since obviously there's no transformation in Ati Yoga? Just asking.
Sönam
/magnus
heart wrote:With all respect to Namdrol I will side with the mainstream Nyingmas in this matter. You are of course free to believe whatever you want.alwayson wrote:Namdrol doesn't think Dzogchen Upadesha / Mennagade is part of "regular" Vajrayana and disagrees with the standard nine yanas classification of the Nyingmas.
Dzogchen Upadesha is an independent Buddhist vehicle.
/magnus
I have no problem accepting that Namdrol.Namdrol wrote:heart wrote:With all respect to Namdrol I will side with the mainstream Nyingmas in this matter. You are of course free to believe whatever you want.alwayson wrote:Namdrol doesn't think Dzogchen Upadesha / Mennagade is part of "regular" Vajrayana and disagrees with the standard nine yanas classification of the Nyingmas.
Dzogchen Upadesha is an independent Buddhist vehicle.
/magnus
Hi Magnus:
There have been epochs, traditionally speaking, where only the teaching of Dzogchen has been taught, and nothing else. In this respect, then, Dzogchen must be considered an independent and separate vehicle.
It can also be taught as the apogee of the nine yanas.
In our world system, Dzogchen is part of Vajrayana, in general.
N
Namdrol wrote: Each vehicle is so called because it offers a complete path to liberation. One can attain the stature of an ārya through any one of the nine vehicles. In this respect, all nine vehicles stand alone and are independent from one another and may be taught as self-sufficient paths.
So, it is an error to assert that Dzogchen is a seperate vehicle, but the others are not. All nine vehicles have the necessary teachings to bring someone to the state of being an ārya.
Hmm, then what to make of the Dzogchen teachings found in the Guhyagarba tantra - the root Mahayoga tantra? Or the complete interconnectedness of Maha, Anu, and Ati, mentioned in some Dzogchen tantras as ground, path, and fruit? Vajrayana does not only equal transformation. In Nyingma - the lineage through which all (Buddhist) Dzogchen teachings in our world have come to us - the three inner tantras of Vajrayana are Maha, Anu, and Atiyoga, and they are not so distinct as one might think. Now, depending on one's needs and capacity, one may practice the three inner tantras together or individually, including practicing Dzogchen as a completely stand-alone path. Of course the latter is not very practical for hardly anyone, which is why until a very advanaced stage, you really don't see anyone doing that. But Dzogchen pretty indisputably contains everything from A to Z to enable one to achieve absolute awakening.booker wrote:Weird, I though the very basic thing is Dzogchen is path of self-liberation, whereas Vajrayana is path of transformation. Hence they can't be equated.heart wrote: Dzogchen is Vajrayana. It is not some new idea, it is as old as the Dzogchen Tantras.
Also, I thought the Dzogchen texts are called tantras but this isn't automatically making Dzogchen path of transformation, since it's a path of self-liberation. No?
Hmmm
Here is a person who clearly understands dharma and Dzogchen. A novice would wisely take these words to heart.Pema Rigdzin wrote:Hmm, then what to make of the Dzogchen teachings found in the Guhyagarba tantra - the root Mahayoga tantra? Or the complete interconnectedness of Maha, Anu, and Ati, mentioned in some Dzogchen tantras as ground, path, and fruit? Vajrayana does not only equal transformation. In Nyingma - the lineage through which all (Buddhist) Dzogchen teachings in our world have come to us - the three inner tantras of Vajrayana are Maha, Anu, and Atiyoga, and they are not so distinct as one might think. Now, depending on one's needs and capacity, one may practice the three inner tantras together or individually, including practicing Dzogchen as a completely stand-alone path. Of course the latter is not very practical for hardly anyone, which is why until a very advanaced stage, you really don't see anyone doing that. But Dzogchen pretty indisputably contains everything from A to Z to enable one to achieve absolute awakening.booker wrote:Weird, I though the very basic thing is Dzogchen is path of self-liberation, whereas Vajrayana is path of transformation. Hence they can't be equated.heart wrote: Dzogchen is Vajrayana. It is not some new idea, it is as old as the Dzogchen Tantras.
Also, I thought the Dzogchen texts are called tantras but this isn't automatically making Dzogchen path of transformation, since it's a path of self-liberation. No?
Hmmm
It is also indisputable, though - for anyone who has received any of the main Dzogchen triyigs in this world - that the Dzogchen preliminary practices specific to the upadesha class make frequent and explicit mention of transformation level practices and at certain points incorporate them (in Anuyoga instant style), albeit with an emphasis unique to Dzogchen. Dzogchen upadesha often speaks in a way that presumes the disciple's previous receipt of Maha and Anuyoga empowerments and an understanding of those levels of practice... Anyone here claiming that Dzogchen upadesha doesn't contain or make use of so-called transformation practices really is presuming a knowledge of the Dzogchen approach that he doesn't yet have. Heck, upadesha even references one's previous learning of the four main Buddhist tenet systems, etc. and incorporates that learning into certain preliminaries. Granted, the knowledge from that learning itself is not the main point in said preliminaries, but the inclusion of every level of Buddhist teaching shows how comprehensive and all-inclusive Dzogchen actually is. Again, Dzogchen doesn't demand one take the nine yanas approach or that one take the Dzogchen stand-alone approach. The Dzogchen approach encompasses all those options.
I know though for us Westerners who are generally pretty well educated and are used to having exhaustive information at our disposal, it is our habit to quickly absorb a bunch of intellectual information and process it with our reasoning powers and relatively quickly come to have a fairly comprehensive understanding of topics... and there's a certain comfort in being able to do that. I also understand that for many of us, not being able to do that with Dzogchen can be kind of disorienting and uncomfortable. We often can't resist the temptation to do the same with Dzogchen: absorb some information, categorize it in our minds, feel comfortable that the limited amount we've actually learned about it is actually comprehensive. But understanding Dzogchen requires much more than reading a handful of books and hearing several short teachings and thereby glomming on to some concepts that really hit home. I'm sure those concepts hit home due to both karmic connections and the blessings of our gurus, and this is the beginning of opening up to real knowledge. But we have to allow ourselves to admit that our understanding about this topic is NOT comprehensive and that we don't understand it inside and out for as long as that remains to be true. I think the attitude of feeling grateful for what our gurus have enabled us to understand so far, combined with maintaining the attitude of one who still has much to learn, is a much more profitable outlook for a Dzogchen practioner than the know-it-all approach. The latter approach would seem to generally cause more blockages in one's practice than progress.
By "regular Mahayana", I'm assuming you are referring to the Mahayana's causal vehicle. No one has argued such a thing here, least of all me. Dzogchen is certainly a Mahayana vehicle, though.alwayson wrote:The logic of these arguments doesn't work.
Bodhicitta motivation is also a part of Dzogchen, but that does not mean that Dzogchen becomes a part of regular Mahayana.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:By "regular Mahayana", I'm assuming you are referring to the Mahayana's causal vehicle. No one has argued such a thing here, least of all me. Dzogchen is certainly a Mahayana vehicle, though.alwayson wrote:The logic of these arguments doesn't work.
Bodhicitta motivation is also a part of Dzogchen, but that does not mean that Dzogchen becomes a part of regular Mahayana.
No, I should not agree that Dzogchen has "no connection in any way" with lower yanas, because that's not what many Dzogchen upadesha tantras say, or what eminent Dzogchen guidance manuals like Yeshe Lama and Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo say, or what my Dzogchen gurus have taught. And the "shared elements" you speak of are no "coincidence" - certain tenet systems and creation stage practices are mentioned explicitly in a way that presupposes one's experiential familiarity with them. In particular, the three inner yanas of Maha, Anu, and Ati are very connected. They don't have to be practiced in tandem, but it sure is helpful when they are.alwayson wrote:Pema Rigdzin wrote:By "regular Mahayana", I'm assuming you are referring to the Mahayana's causal vehicle. No one has argued such a thing here, least of all me. Dzogchen is certainly a Mahayana vehicle, though.alwayson wrote:The logic of these arguments doesn't work.
Bodhicitta motivation is also a part of Dzogchen, but that does not mean that Dzogchen becomes a part of regular Mahayana.
Ok then you should agree that having shared elements with lower teachings by coincidence, does not connect Dzogchen with those lower teachings in any way.
Namdrol,Namdrol wrote: He almost never transmits teachings like thogal and yangti, though he has given the lungs for these practices any number of times with the proviso that he is not teaching thogal or yangti.
And he has not done a major cycle of empowerments since 2002 when he gave a long transmission for many cycles of his own termas known as the klong gsal mkha' 'gro snying thig.
Hmmm, I'm sure that not long ago, you mentioned that only one yana (Dzogchen Upadesha/Mennagade or Longde) can bring one to the Perfect Buddhahood while the rest are only temporal Buddhahood and are hence reversible. No? Or a change in stance?Namdrol wrote: Whether they can bring one to the state of perfect buddhahood, however, is a different story. Indirectly, all are capable of doing so. Only the three inner yanas can do so in a single lifetime.
It is not a coincidence...............I see it as a gradual evolution of Buddhist Dharma over the centuries.Ok then you should agree that having shared elements with lower teachings by coincidence, does not connect Dzogchen with those lower teachings in any way.
From the thirteenth bhumi onwards, they are stages of "abiding in wisdom". Presuming one manages to attain the thirteen bhumi, it is unlikely that one's realization will be blocked.Kai wrote:Hmmm, I'm sure that not long ago, you mentioned that only one yana (Dzogchen Upadesha/Mennagade or Longde) can bring one to the Perfect Buddhahood while the rest are only temporal Buddhahood and are hence reversible. No? Or a change in stance?Namdrol wrote: Whether they can bring one to the state of perfect buddhahood, however, is a different story. Indirectly, all are capable of doing so. Only the three inner yanas can do so in a single lifetime.
Because not many are ready to practice it, I guess.Virgo wrote:Namdrol,Namdrol wrote: He almost never transmits teachings like thogal and yangti, though he has given the lungs for these practices any number of times with the proviso that he is not teaching thogal or yangti.
And he has not done a major cycle of empowerments since 2002 when he gave a long transmission for many cycles of his own termas known as the klong gsal mkha' 'gro snying thig.
Why doesn't ChNN teach Thogal very often?
'
Kevin
Hi Dechen, yeah that is what I assumed to really was.Dechen Norbu wrote: Because not many are ready to practice it, I guess.
The more interesting part comes later when He added that:In each of the four visions, there are four stages: those of manifestation, increase, attainment and complete attainment. So there are, in fact, some sixteen stages of visionary experiences; these serve as measures of one's experience maturing into that of timeless awareness........
Okay, the above is added because I know some people here will be interested in that. What I'm really getting at is the one below:Thus, the sixteen stages that are termed "Causal" or "fruition" levels, are complete in either of two situations: that of one's gaining freedom in a body of light in this lifetime and that of one's gaining freedom in the intermediate state after death
Rigpa Rangshar Chenpo Rgyud states: What are termed "levels" do not, in fact, exist in and of themselves. In a single individual who have been introduced to their true nature first perceive the truth that arouses in them a sense of joy:this is the first level, that of The Utterly Joyful One............He moved on to talk about other fifteen stages
Over here, we can clearly see that JKT is trying to warn us against comparing and equating the Dzogchen's system of 16 bhumis with the Sutric ten bhumis despite them having the same label or title. The 16 bhumis work for Dzogchen because it clearly and neatly tied and matched the 16 different phrases of experiences of the four visions as shown above. He further stated that those 16 stages of experiences are in reality, meaningless divisions of one actual Bhumi; that of sentinel beings and Buddhas. The former failed to recognize or maintain Rigpa while the latter could.As this passage indicates, one is brought in stages from the first level that of the Utterly Joyful One (First Bhumi), to the eleventh, that of Total Illumnation and thence to the special levels such of the Lotus Bearing One (12 bhumi). However, although they are all approached in a similar manner from the point of view of how they manifest in one's experience, fundamentally these levels are distinguished from the perspective of their being aspects of the manifestation of a single level of utterly lucid awareness, which involves neither training nor traversal................These (16) levels are not the ten actual Bodhisattva levels............