Merging With The True Self While Dying by Elio Guarisco: Why?

[Grigoris]

Gzhan stong rhetoric has nothing to do with Dzogchen.

Well, it seems that for some it does.

And no Indian tathāgatagarbha literature ever used the term “true self” [satyātman].

You have read all the Indian tahagatagarbha literature in Sanskrit? And maybe the Indian literature doesn't, but the Tibetan literature uses the term.

I appreciate Elio’s contributions in terms of translations etc., but I’m not at all interested in why he harbors an affinity for tirthika type verbiage and ideas in general.

So you are not actually interested in receiving an answer for question, you are just here to bitch about Elio?

[Könchok Thrinley]

While I think this is absolutely silly, i'll let the thread continue if it generates something productive, but IMO given the recent requests regarding behavior, it's pretty borderline.

The thread is absolutely silly, and the timing is very bad.

I must agree. I get it that you would use a different term, but your concern and the fact that is based on basically two instances is a bit over the top. Elio has said he would do it differently so probably no need to worry about him becoming an advaitin.

Grigoris is right, this is better to take to the man himself.

[krodha]

Gzhan stong rhetoric has nothing to do with Dzogchen.

Well, it seems that for some it does.

Gzhan stong is a sūtrayāna system, their principles are no more applicable to Dzogchen than any other sūtra system, arguably less so given that their tenets are in direct conflict with the view of Dzogchen in various ways.

And no Indian tathāgatagarbha literature ever used the term “true self” [satyātman].

You have read all the Indian tahagatagarbha literature in Sanskrit?

This has been discussed on here before, “true self” only appears in English translations of tathāgatagarbha sūtras and is a reflection of the translator’s interests rather than anything accurate to the source material.

And maybe the Indian literature doesn't, but the Tibetan literature uses the term.

Rarely. Even then, figures like Dolbupa were certain to ensure such verbiage was understood to be a rhetorical device and not a reference to anything literal.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Dzogchen.

I appreciate Elio’s contributions in terms of translations etc., but I’m not at all interested in why he harbors an affinity for tirthika type verbiage and ideas in general.

So you are not actually interested in receiving an answer for question, you are just here to bitch about Elio?

Im here to bitch and engage in constructive discussion.

[krodha]

Elio has said he would do it differently so probably no need to worry about him becoming an advaitin.

Grigoris is right, this is better to take to the man himself.

Trust me no one is worried about Elio becoming an Advaitin, certainly not I. He only reconsidered controversial epigraph after the Vajracakra discussion was brought to his attention.

Really this isn’t about Elio specifically, but about the integrity of ChNN’s teaching being maintained by those who now carry the torch. That is the import of my gripe.

[Könchok Thrinley]

Elio has said he would do it differently so probably no need to worry about him becoming an advaitin.

Grigoris is right, this is better to take to the man himself.

Trust me no one is worried about Elio becoming an Advaitin, certainly not I. He only reconsidered controversial epigraph after the Vajracakra discussion was brought to his attention.

Really this isn’t about Elio specifically, but about the integrity of ChNN’s teaching being maintained by those who now carry the torch. That is the import of my gripe.

Understandible. However, for a year we are supposed to observe a mourning aperiod as requested by the family. And although your concern is for sure based on a good intention now it is not the time to share it. Lets just mindfully chill and do guruyoga.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Elio has said he would do it differently so probably no need to worry about him becoming an advaitin.

Grigoris is right, this is better to take to the man himself.

Trust me no one is worried about Elio becoming an Advaitin, certainly not I. He only reconsidered controversial epigraph after the Vajracakra discussion was brought to his attention.

Really this isn’t about Elio specifically, but about the integrity of ChNN’s teaching being maintained by those who now carry the torch. That is the import of my gripe.

Understandible. However, for a year we are supposed to observe a mourning aperiod as requested by the family. And although your concern is for sure based on a good intention now it is not the time to share it. Lets just mindfully chill and do guruyoga.

Such threads can only result in people becoming more confused than they already are. They clarify nothing whatsoever. They manage, however, to cast doubt on people who are likely to play a major role in the future of the DC.

The idea was, to quote what has been repeated ad nauseam by now, that we be "All together in the same state. / All together purifying our Samaya. / All together keeping the Precious Teachings in our heart." Like it or not, it is the Care Bears' time.

[krodha]

Understandable. However, for a year we are supposed to observe a mourning aperiod as requested by the family. And although your concern is for sure based on a good intention now it is not the time to share it. Lets just mindfully chill and do guruyoga.

That is all well and good. I’m just responding to the article the Melong republished yesterday.

[Grigoris]

Gzhan stong is a sūtrayāna system, their principles are no more applicable to Dzogchen than any other sūtra system, arguably less so given that their tenets are in direct conflict with the view of Dzogchen in various ways.

I happen to disagree on both points, but it is not important enough for me to get into a debate over, especially not here, so I will leave this conversation.

I will maintain though that this is better taken up with the author himself, since he is not here to defend his use of terms (or the logic behind them).

[krodha]

They manage, however, to cast doubt on people who are likely to play a major role in the future of the DC.

The intention isn’t to cast doubt. But that said they do have some big shoes to fill. I hope they remain mindful of that and walk the line.

I’m all for individual expression, but not at the expense of the integrity of Rinpoche’s legacy and the foundation he already laid via example.

[treehuggingoctopus]

defend

There is nothing here to defend, really. If there is, it means we are accusing not only Elio but also Garchen Rinpoche, at least two sons of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, James Low, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, Thrangu Rinpche, the notorious Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche, etc., etc. I do not think I have received teachings from many teachers who do not use the term (and I would not be so adamant that ChNN has never used it). They all contextualise it, which is after all what makes these words understandable in the very first place. Elio, a fantastic instructor ChNN had great confidence in, does it too:

When we say luminosity we do not really mean the appearance of a light. We are talking about the nature of the mind that has no form, no color, and whose nature is not easily expressible in words. We have mind and the nature of the mind, and just like fire and the nature of fire, these are not the same, yet not completely different.

Mind refers to the faculty I use, for example, now when I am talking, in order to coordinate some memories I have heard of the teaching. Mind is what you use when you try to understand what I am saying. But that mind is somewhat limited, it is judgement, it depends on the senses, on time and space.

Mind changes according to the time and the space or situation in which you are. For example, you may be in a nice restaurant for dinner and feel very happy. That is your state of mind because you are in that particular place, possibly with someone you like. But perhaps afterwards, in the street a person may make some comment about your girlfriend, your mind gets angry, and you get into a fight. That anger is also your mind. Mind changes quickly just like that.

Also the opinions we have about this world, politics, finances, ecology, spirituality etc., and to which we give great importance are mind: unstable and changeable. Yet these are something that changes just like the example I have just given, and most of the time the opinions we hold on to with great attachment are useless.

On the contrary the nature of the mind is beyond judgement; it doesn’t depend on time or space or on the circumstances we find ourselves in. For example, if we think about the sky, today it is not very nice, there are a lot of clouds. These clouds are like our mind. But when the clouds have passed there is this blue sky that appears which is like the nature of our mind. In truth, the blue sky is always there even if hidden by clouds. The nature of our mind never changes, regardless of what we do. It is always the same.

Usually people who practice a spiritual path think that in this way their mind will somehow transform and become different: this is not true. Their nature of the mind is always the same. If they think they are progressing along a path it just means that they have the concept of progressing. Actually there is nothing like that.

In our selves there is a kind of space, luminous, that has always been there. A space that as it was it will be, that does not improve nor get worse. In Dzogchen this space is called ‘nature of the mind’.

It is unchanging and yet, the nature of our mind is not like a stone: we have feelings, thoughts, and emotions. But when we don’t recognize the space that never changes within ourselves, we become dominated by the clouds of mind – feelings, thoughts and emotions.

During the intermediate state of life, a Dzogchen practitioner learns how to recognize, became familiar with and abide in that space. If we are able to be in that, we can have thoughts, feelings etc., but instead of being dominated by them we can use them. Therefore our life is very important, very precious, for during life we have the opportunity to approach the understanding of the nature of our mind, of what we really are.

[jet.urgyen]

I don't understand your issues with the article.

I was clear from the beginning that I have no issue with the article itself.

I’m simply questioning Elio’s reoccurring habit of introducing non-Buddhist themes into his writings on Dzogchen. While at the same time questioning whether this activity accurately represents the intention of our late master.

Him using the term "self", and quoting Maharishi Ramana once is "introducing non-Buddhist themes"? Can you unpack that a little more please?

It seems more like some Buddhists have an unnecessarily reactive relationship with some English words, even when contextually they seem fine.

Beyond that, honestly, don't you think Rinpoche would have had something to say if he'd had this concern? Trying really hard to take this seriously, but having a hard time.

At first sight those, both" true self and Maharishi R." sounds very much, like a lot, like ethernalist stuff; a wrong point of view.

This is strange lol

[schubertian]

so - other than that how was the book?

(curious, actually - I usually like EG's translations)

[Malcolm]

A couple of observations:

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

Even in the Uttaratantra, where we find the Tibetan term, dam pa'i bdag in the discussion of ātmapāramitā, the Sanskrit text simply gives the term as ātma. The "dam pa" was added by Ngog Lotsawa to distinguish this "self," free from the proliferation of the self [i.e. existence] imputed by the hindus and nonself [i.e. nonexistence] imputed by śrāvakas, as a quality of the dharmakāya, — in other words, it is another way of saying the dharmakāya is free from extremes. This usage in the Uttaratantra comes from contrasting the impurity, nonidentity, suffering, and impermanence of compounded phenomena, with the purity, identity, bliss, and permanence of dharmakāya. But if someone should think this contextual usage of "self" with respect to dharmakāya means dharmakāya is an existent self, they have not understood anything of Mahāyāna at all, let alone Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma for that matter.

With respect to the term bdag nyid chen po, it is a somewhat rare Dzogchen technical term, also found in the Guhyagarbha literature. Even so, its usage is very restricted. In his commentary on the Kun byed rgyal po, Khenpo Zhenphen Ozer glosses it as rang byung ye shes.

[Virgo]

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

What about "merging with" for attaining enlightenment?

Kevin...

[jet.urgyen]

A couple of observations:

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

Even in the Uttaratantra, where we find the Tibetan term, dam pa'i bdag in the discussion of ātmapāramitā, the Sanskrit text simply gives the term as ātma. The "dam pa" was added by Ngog Lotsawa to distinguish this "self," free from the proliferation of the self [i.e. existence] imputed by the hindus and nonself [i.e. nonexistence] imputed by śrāvakas, as a quality of the dharmakāya, — in other words, it is another way of saying the dharmakāya is free from extremes. This usage in the Uttaratantra comes from contrasting the impurity, nonidentity, suffering, and impermanence of compounded phenomena, with the purity, identity, bliss, and permanence of dharmakāya. But if someone should think this contextual usage of "self" with respect to dharmakāya means dharmakāya is an existent self, they have not understood anything of Mahāyāna at all, let alone Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma for that matter.

With respect to the term bdag nyid chen po, it is a somewhat rare Dzogchen technical term, also found in the Guhyagarbha literature. Even so, its usage is very restricted. In his commentary on the Kun byed rgyal po, Khenpo Zhenphen Ozer glosses it as rang byung ye shes.

Thank you Malcolm, but i have to say that the article is intended for general community, where not everyone knows such translations tips.

A person who reads it ¿what would think? a new practitioner, or even old, would see like there is some "true ego" to be achieved, and alike.

[Malcolm]

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

What about "merging with" for attaining enlightenment?

Kevin...

There is nothing with which to merge.

According to the teachings of Man ngag sde (but not sems sde or klong sde), at the time of death, the elements dissolve: earth into water, water into fire, fire into air, air into space, space into consciousness, consciousness into luminosity, and finally, luminosity dissolves into pristine consciousness. This happens to all beings at the time of death. The question is: will one recognize the sounds, lights and rays of one's own pristine consciousness in the bardo of dharmatā or not? If one does, liberation. If one does not, well, at worst one will be required to take rebirth in a nirmanakāya buddhafield, or at the very worst, one will be reborn a human being with a definite chance to meet and practice Dzogchen again.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I was clear from the beginning that I have no issue with the article itself.

I’m simply questioning Elio’s reoccurring habit of introducing non-Buddhist themes into his writings on Dzogchen. While at the same time questioning whether this activity accurately represents the intention of our late master.

Him using the term "self", and quoting Maharishi Ramana once is "introducing non-Buddhist themes"? Can you unpack that a little more please?

It seems more like some Buddhists have an unnecessarily reactive relationship with some English words, even when contextually they seem fine.

Beyond that, honestly, don't you think Rinpoche would have had something to say if he'd had this concern? Trying really hard to take this seriously, but having a hard time.

At first sight those, both" true self and Maharishi R." sounds very much, like a lot, like ethernalist stuff; a wrong point of view.

This is strange lol

Then people should learn not to trust their knee-jerk impulses perhaps, and read slower.

Better yet, instead of essentially engaging in back and forth speculation about a DC teachers writing decision, someone could email him and ask him about it.

Until that time, i'm gonna go ahead and close the thread, as I really feel like it contravenes the spirit of the requests coming out of the DC presently. If anyone has a compelling reason for me to re open it, you are (as always) welcome to PM with your reasons.