Intellectualism and Dzogchen

[Aryjna]

NNR is not about buddhist teaching.

Sure he is, it is all he teaches. He generally begins with the 4NT, the five indriyas, etc. Please revise your comment.

I don't think so. Buddha teaching was not created by "mistaken dualistic mind of human beings". It is not "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts". If it is true then the next topics on three ways is meaningless.

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Bhava, jneya, sila, citta, prajnapti\prapanca\vyavahara. Part of the philosophy topics are considered in the Dharma, so the NNR's quote is not about it.

1) If dzogchen recognizes the absence of bhava\abhava categories postulated by prapanca, karma, 12PS, skandhas etc. does NNR objects against himself?
2) If all dharmas may be categorised as body\speech\mind then would the teaching about body\speech\mind be "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts" as the teaching about dharmas?
3) Does dzogchen go beyond stages of hearing\thinking\applying? I don't think so for it is logically incorrect. What one can apply if he had previously thought mistaken dualistic concepts and heard mistaken dualistic concepts? Rather It was prajnapti but not mistaken.

So NNR is not about buddhist teaching as I read this article. On one of the last webcasts he said that "of couse it (dzogchen) is buddhism".

Dualism is the 'real root of our suffering' in the above quote, not Buddhist teaching. In the end even Buddhist concepts are concepts, and one needs to go beyond concepts and dualism. Why do you take this to be some kind of strange statement that is only found in ChNNR's teachings? I am quite sure this is quite clear in sutra Mahayana as well.

[KristenM]

I'm just going to put this out there as a burning question that I have. Is there an all encompassing compendium of literature for a Nyingma practitioner? I know about those 2 books of volumes of Nyingma texts, but do they leave a lot out? I've got the important singular text
here and there, like WOMPT and Cascading Waterfalls, but as for original sutras in English, I'm woefully
empty handed.

[DGA]

I'm just going to put this out there as a burning question that I have. Is there an all encompassing compendium of literature for a Nyingma practitioner? I know about those 2 books of volumes of Nyingma texts, but do they leave a lot out? I've got the important singular text
here and there, like WOMPT and Cascading Waterfalls, but as for original sutras in English, I'm woefully
empty handed.

There's Dudjom RInpoche's Big Red Book.

https://www.amazon.com/Nyingma-School-T ... 0861711998

There are others.

[DGA]

In dzogchen, in the beginning concepts are quite important. And this beginning in dzogchen can span over many years until we achieve total familiarity and stability.
Part of what we work with in GY is a concept isn't it?

There remains the question of what is useful after one is no longer a beginner.

[dzogchungpa]

I'm just going to put this out there as a burning question that I have. Is there an all encompassing compendium of literature for a Nyingma practitioner? I know about those 2 books of volumes of Nyingma texts, but do they leave a lot out? I've got the important singular text
here and there, like WOMPT and Cascading Waterfalls, but as for original sutras in English, I'm woefully
empty handed.

You might want to check out The Complete Nyingma Tradition From Sutra to Tantra, which was one of Lama Tharchin's projects that is now coming to fruition.

[Malcolm]

I'm just going to put this out there as a burning question that I have. Is there an all encompassing compendium of literature for a Nyingma practitioner? I know about those 2 books of volumes of Nyingma texts, but do they leave a lot out? I've got the important singular text
here and there, like WOMPT and Cascading Waterfalls, but as for original sutras in English, I'm woefully
empty handed.

The Guhyagarbha is the basic scripture of the Nyingma School.

[liuzg150181]

MAdhyamaka Prasanga and Dzogchen are very compatible, actually.

I presume you meant "freedom from four extreme" Sakya Madhyamaka, but what abt Gelug Madhyamaka?

[Malcolm]

MAdhyamaka Prasanga and Dzogchen are very compatible, actually.

I presume you meant "freedom from four extreme" Sakya Madhyamaka, but what abt Gelug Madhyamaka?

It’s just fine. Debating with Gelugpas is just sport, there is nothing wrong Tsongkhapa’s Madhyamaka, though some of his explanations suffer from prolixity.

[KristenM]

Thanks for the suggestions. Papa Noel or Papa Padmasambhava may be bringing some new books to the house soon.

[liuzg150181]

MAdhyamaka Prasanga and Dzogchen are very compatible, actually.

I presume you meant "freedom from four extreme" Sakya Madhyamaka, but what abt Gelug Madhyamaka?

It’s just fine. Debating with Gelugpas is just sport, there is nothing wrong Tsongkhapa’s Madhyamaka, though some of his explanations suffer from prolixity.

I see,and I think I had read somewhere that Zhentong Madhayamaka is nono for Dzogchen?

[passel]

^it worked for Jamgon Kongtrul.

[weitsicht]

So, am I really missing out by refusing to engage with detailed analysis of Buddhism any longer?

How about you?

I guess you already provided the answer yourself Mantrik.
As for me. I read here and there, but secondary literature only (I cannot make sense out of sutras, my Job is already mind challenging enough) for 2 years maybe. Stuff like Quantum and Lotos, Pema Chodron, Trungpa's 108 Poems. But yes, I also gathered some basic understanding on the 5 poisons, the 3 jewels, the 6 realms, 5 skandhas etc. But what now, looking back, keeps sticking is a Nyingmapa Lama saying, impermanence is his raincoat for whichever situation. Reflect on impermanence! It made me get this Feeling that actually the essence is very simple.
Then I met James Low and Dzogchen through him and "a trackless path" and that's it.

I struggled hard this summer to make sense out of Lati Rinpoche and Lorig. It felt as if I made strong knots into my brain. Then I asked James for advice and he cited CR Lama: There is no end to study but there is an end to our precious lives. So look directly at your mind. Everything already has been there. (this is a Quote from my Memory only). Friends from the Sangha also confirmed CR Lama saying "first realize, then study"

I am a fan of explaining concepts as is done in Precious Vase but can happily do without thousands of words of commentarial explanation, elaboration etc which delights intellectuals but may not actually advance practice.

I guess Dzogchen is mostly encountered, though, after other studies, and so there is a need to understand what limitations we live with in order to abandon them.

This was your path then. I'd say that seeing what was and is not any more is a good sign.
Some People Need limitations being pointed out, others Need to see for themselves. Some overcome limitations through prostration etc. This is why there are so many modes of teaching. Dzogchen is one of These modes and Dzogchen is accessible without Prior studies. (not that this is opposing your Statement, more of a clarification)

And it is exactly as you say: is it delight or does it help?? Any Scholar has to see for him (her-)self.

So, am I really missing out by refusing to engage with detailed analysis of Buddhism any longer?

The purpose of studying is to remove concepts that block one's practice.

Ultimately, do all concepts impede?

Yes, ultimately everything that is dualistic is, so are concepts.
Concepts are useful for being shown the way as much as float (kullu (?)) is useful to cross the river. However, as soon you have crossed it, you shall leave it behind.

[Mantrik]

I wonder if it is better never to have encountered, for example, Madhyamaka Prasangika in the first place rather than subsequently needing to negate it.

MAdhyamaka Prasanga and Dzogchen are very compatible, actually.

Maybe that was a poor example, or 'negated' is a bit strong - perhaps a better term is 'abandoned' in terms of conducting philosophical analysis, in favour of integrating what is essential.

ChNN's quote would seem to mean that such philosophies are at best unnecessary on the Dzogchen path.

[Mantrik]

So, am I really missing out by refusing to engage with detailed analysis of Buddhism any longer?

How about you?

I guess you already provided the answer yourself Mantrik.
As for me. I read here and there, but secondary literature only (I cannot make sense out of sutras, my Job is already mind challenging enough) for 2 years maybe. Stuff like Quantum and Lotos, Pema Chodron, Trungpa's 108 Poems. But yes, I also gathered some basic understanding on the 5 poisons, the 3 jewels, the 6 realms, 5 skandhas etc. But what now, looking back, keeps sticking is a Nyingmapa Lama saying, impermanence is his raincoat for whichever situation. Reflect on impermanence! It made me get this Feeling that actually the essence is very simple.
Then I met James Low and Dzogchen through him and "a trackless path" and that's it.

I struggled hard this summer to make sense out of Lati Rinpoche and Lorig. It felt as if I made strong knots into my brain. Then I asked James for advice and he cited CR Lama: There is no end to study but there is an end to our precious lives. So look directly at your mind. Everything already has been there. (this is a Quote from my Memory only). Friends from the Sangha also confirmed CR Lama saying "first realize, then study"

I am a fan of explaining concepts as is done in Precious Vase but can happily do without thousands of words of commentarial explanation, elaboration etc which delights intellectuals but may not actually advance practice.

I guess Dzogchen is mostly encountered, though, after other studies, and so there is a need to understand what limitations we live with in order to abandon them.

This was your path then. I'd say that seeing what was and is not any more is a good sign.
Some People Need limitations being pointed out, others Need to see for themselves. Some overcome limitations through prostration etc. This is why there are so many modes of teaching. Dzogchen is one of These modes and Dzogchen is accessible without Prior studies. (not that this is opposing your Statement, more of a clarification)

And it is exactly as you say: is it delight or does it help?? Any Scholar has to see for him (her-)self.

The purpose of studying is to remove concepts that block one's practice.

Ultimately, do all concepts impede?

Yes, ultimately everything that is dualistic is, so are concepts.
Concepts are useful for being shown the way as much as float (kullu (?)) is useful to cross the river. However, as soon you have crossed it, you shall leave it behind.

When I used to write for money, the perfect advice when you needed to fill column inches and had little to work with, was to use the '3 E' model:
Elaborate, Explain, give Examples.

Or in the case of Buddhists, do all 3 and then repeat it all 3 times, indulge in peregrinatory circumlocution for a while, invent a few new terms, demand others commit it to memory and then pretend it is profound and sacred, rather than something which can be summed up in 3 lines and be immediately useful. (Or even '3 Statements'.)

[Kris]

I'm just going to put this out there as a burning question that I have. Is there an all encompassing compendium of literature for a Nyingma practitioner? I know about those 2 books of volumes of Nyingma texts, but do they leave a lot out? I've got the important singular text
here and there, like WOMPT and Cascading Waterfalls, but as for original sutras in English, I'm woefully
empty handed.

Longchenpas seven treasuries may be interesting.
I have an extra copy of the Treasury of Dharamadhatu I can send you (or anyone who's interested)
Peace!

[Malcolm]

I presume you meant "freedom from four extreme" Sakya Madhyamaka, but what abt Gelug Madhyamaka?

It’s just fine. Debating with Gelugpas is just sport, there is nothing wrong Tsongkhapa’s Madhyamaka, though some of his explanations suffer from prolixity.

I see,and I think I had read somewhere that Zhentong Madhayamaka is nono for Dzogchen?

No, it is fine as well. Madhyamaka is all on the level of intellectual analysis. However, according to Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa, Prasanga is the Madhyamaka vierw most compatible with Dzogchen in general, and ChNN cites Jigme Lingpa to that effect.

[Tolya M]

Sure he is, it is all he teaches. He generally begins with the 4NT, the five indriyas, etc. Please revise your comment.

I don't think so. Buddha teaching was not created by "mistaken dualistic mind of human beings". It is not "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts". If it is true then the next topics on three ways is meaningless.

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Bhava, jneya, sila, citta, prajnapti\prapanca\vyavahara. Part of the philosophy topics are considered in the Dharma, so the NNR's quote is not about it.

1) If dzogchen recognizes the absence of bhava\abhava categories postulated by prapanca, karma, 12PS, skandhas etc. does NNR objects against himself?
2) If all dharmas may be categorised as body\speech\mind then would the teaching about body\speech\mind be "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts" as the teaching about dharmas?
3) Does dzogchen go beyond stages of hearing\thinking\applying? I don't think so for it is logically incorrect. What one can apply if he had previously thought mistaken dualistic concepts and heard mistaken dualistic concepts? Rather It was prajnapti but not mistaken.

So NNR is not about buddhist teaching as I read this article. On one of the last webcasts he said that "of couse it (dzogchen) is buddhism".

Dualism is the 'real root of our suffering' in the above quote, not Buddhist teaching. In the end even Buddhist concepts are concepts, and one needs to go beyond concepts and dualism. Why do you take this to be some kind of strange statement that is only found in ChNNR's teachings? I am quite sure this is quite clear in sutra Mahayana as well.

You misread mahayana sutras. Buddhist teaching is a very special kind of prajnapti. It is not just concepts and not prapanca, not vyavahara-common world language etc. It is nirvikalpa even when contenment to the layman is taught. The precise "dualism" of it's own is absent in the PC suttas fo ex.

Tell me please why canon texts are inscribed on the stone, carved in wood and stored by NNR in Merigar? It's simple. He never hold any such views but he is not precize in terms due to other-language difficulties. Prasangika is a poison as J. Taranatha said if applied incorrectly. There is no known buddhist school that hold that pannatti\prajnapti are paramarta in the sense that artha-phenomena are. But do you recognize the difference that water is not denoted by the word "brick"? It is not just "concepts" for there are many relations and one never can get the water if vyavahara prapancaised from every corner "brick" "brick" "brick".

[Malcolm]

NNR is not about buddhist teaching.

Sure he is, it is all he teaches. He generally begins with the 4NT, the five indriyas, etc. Please revise your comment.

I don't think so. Buddha teaching was not created by "mistaken dualistic mind of human beings". It is not "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts".

You are like a man with a fever who sees hairs in the sky where none exist.

ChNN is not including Buddhadharma within his notion of "philosophy created by the mistaken minds of human beings."

[Thomas Amundsen]

I'm just going to put this out there as a burning question that I have. Is there an all encompassing compendium of literature for a Nyingma practitioner? I know about those 2 books of volumes of Nyingma texts, but do they leave a lot out? I've got the important singular text
here and there, like WOMPT and Cascading Waterfalls, but as for original sutras in English, I'm woefully
empty handed.

The Guhyagarbha is the basic scripture of the Nyingma School.

Loppon, I hope you don't mind me asking your personal opinion here. Do you, as a non-sectarian Dzogchen practitioner/translator/etc., consider the Guhyagarbha Tantra to be as important as the Nyingmapas do?

[Aryjna]

I don't think so. Buddha teaching was not created by "mistaken dualistic mind of human beings". It is not "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts". If it is true then the next topics on three ways is meaningless.



Bhava, jneya, sila, citta, prajnapti\prapanca\vyavahara. Part of the philosophy topics are considered in the Dharma, so the NNR's quote is not about it.

1) If dzogchen recognizes the absence of bhava\abhava categories postulated by prapanca, karma, 12PS, skandhas etc. does NNR objects against himself?
2) If all dharmas may be categorised as body\speech\mind then would the teaching about body\speech\mind be "the real root of our suffering and of all our conflicts" as the teaching about dharmas?
3) Does dzogchen go beyond stages of hearing\thinking\applying? I don't think so for it is logically incorrect. What one can apply if he had previously thought mistaken dualistic concepts and heard mistaken dualistic concepts? Rather It was prajnapti but not mistaken.

So NNR is not about buddhist teaching as I read this article. On one of the last webcasts he said that "of couse it (dzogchen) is buddhism".

Dualism is the 'real root of our suffering' in the above quote, not Buddhist teaching. In the end even Buddhist concepts are concepts, and one needs to go beyond concepts and dualism. Why do you take this to be some kind of strange statement that is only found in ChNNR's teachings? I am quite sure this is quite clear in sutra Mahayana as well.

You misread mahayana sutras. Buddhist teaching is a very special kind of prajnapti. It is not just concepts and not prapanca, not vyavahara-common world language etc. It is nirvikalpa even when contenment to the layman is taught. The precise "dualism" of it's own is absent in the PC suttas fo ex.

Tell me please why canon texts are inscribed on the stone, carved in wood and stored by NNR in Merigar? It's simple. He never hold any such views but he is not precize in terms due to other-language difficulties. Prasangika is a poison as J. Taranatha said if applied incorrectly. There is no known buddhist school that hold that pannatti\prajnapti are paramarta in the sense that artha-phenomena are. But do you recognize the difference that water is not denoted by the word "brick"? It is not just "concepts" for there are many relations and one never can get the water if vyavahara prapancaised from every corner "brick" "brick" "brick".

He says clearly in that quote that knowledge (obviously a reference to buddhist teaching) should not remain intellectual but be integrated. He also says dualism is the problem, not the teachings as you seem to have understood in your previous post. You seem to be replying to your own projections instead of what is there.