Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Sādhaka
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Sādhaka »

If one is really at the level that they can take sense pleasures onto the Vajrayāna Path, then their ‘hedonism’ has a useful context.

If however someone believes that their sole origin lies within some sea sludge single organism and that they eventually came from some ape like being period, and that there are no future lives (or even if they’re someone who goes to church on Sunday to repent, then spends the rest of the week drinking & smoking and taking advantage of people at their corporate job or whatever), then there’s no context, and they’re only creating more karmic traces....

Aside from abrahamic religions, sometimes, it seems that most wars are not because of religion; but religion is sometimes used as an excuse for wars, even though it is not the main reason.
Last edited by Sādhaka on Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 32411
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:00 pm If one is really at the level that they can take sense pleasures onto the Vajrayāna Path, then their ‘hedonism’ has a useful context.
If you have received any Vajrayāna empowerment, you are required by samaya to take sense pleasures for your own enjoyment.

However, I was making a little joke. Epicurus, the founder of Hedonism, is the founder of the doctrine at the heart of so-called Deism, a cover term for atheist, among educated Anglo-Americans during the revolutionary period.

It is the secularism at the heart of Hedonism which I was invoking. And after all, there is nothing wrong with living for pleasure, mundane or transcendent. It is better than asceticism.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:19 pm
Sādhaka wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:00 pm If one is really at the level that they can take sense pleasures onto the Vajrayāna Path, then their ‘hedonism’ has a useful context.
If you have received any Vajrayāna empowerment, you are required by samaya to take sense pleasures for your own enjoyment.

However, I was making a little joke. Epicurus, the founder of Hedonism, is the founder of the doctrine at the heart of so-called Deism, a cover term for atheist, among educated Anglo-Americans during the revolutionary period.

It is the secularism at the heart of Hedonism which I was invoking. And after all, there is nothing wrong with living for pleasure, mundane or transcendent. It is better than asceticism.
Well, my "hedonism" was also a shortcut to something somewhat more specific. But you knew that when you were making the comment.
To offer care and affection to sentient beings
In desperate situations who lack protection
Brings just as much merit as the meditation
On emptiness with compassion as its core—
So it has been said by glorious Lord Atisha.

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

If you cannot generate an altruistic mind, even extensive retreat will be of not much benefit.
Garchen Triptrul Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 32411
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Malcolm »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:32 pm
Well, my "hedonism" was also a shortcut to something somewhat more specific. But you knew that when you were making the comment.
I really can't understand why people still think asceticism is impressive or vital, given that we have Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna is the ultimate hedonic vehicle.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Simon E. »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:46 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:32 pm
Well, my "hedonism" was also a shortcut to something somewhat more specific. But you knew that when you were making the comment.
I really can't understand why people still think asceticism is impressive or vital, given that we have Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna is the ultimate hedonic vehicle.
This...
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Sādhaka
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:19 pmIf you have received any Vajrayāna empowerment, you are required by samaya to take sense pleasures for your own enjoyment.

Sure.

At the same time, I think this is with the assumption that the, well, sādhaka will close to the start become proficient in Tsa Lung, Trul Khor, Tummo, the Four Joys, etc. and that the sense pleasures will be enjoyed in that context. Unfortunately most people nowadays don’t seem to get that opportunity. They receive empowerments for a weekend, but then have to go home and work their 40 hours a week etc. instead.


However, I was making a little joke. Epicurus, the founder of Hedonism, is the founder of the doctrine at the heart of so-called Deism, a cover term for atheist, among educated Anglo-Americans during the revolutionary period.

This might explain why westerners or specifically Americans, whether they are materialist atheists or churchgoers, are all kind of the same. It’s almost as if it was by design, with the intent for an future corporatocracy or corpocratic rule (like you said in another thread recently, we’re all mere consumers now).


It is the secularism at the heart of Hedonism which I was invoking. And after all, there is nothing wrong with living for pleasure, mundane or transcendent. It is better than asceticism.
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:46 pmI really can't understand why people still think asceticism is impressive or vital, given that we have Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna is the ultimate hedonic vehicle.

But traditionally the sense pleasure enjoying aspect of Vajrayāna was considered secret (or was it not so secret circa 700 C.E. in India?); therefore we couldn’t really advertise it to the common person could we? If we could, for worse or for better, Vajrayāna would be much more popular in these times & days. But I‘m not sure that it would be appropriate to promote as such.

I mean if it were up to me, we would live in a Buddhocracy, a conservative-and somewhat-‘libertarian’-leaning one, and that would also allow for the sense-pleasure enjoying aspects of Vajrayāna; and Yungdrung/Vajrayāna would be the state religion as it was in Tibet, yet hopefully would be minus a lot of the unnecessary sectarian politicism.
Malcolm
Posts: 32411
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:37 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:19 pmIf you have received any Vajrayāna empowerment, you are required by samaya to take sense pleasures for your own enjoyment.

Sure.

At the same time, I think this is with the assumption that the, well, sādhaka will close to the start become proficient in Tsa Lung, Trul Khor, Tummo, the Four Joys, etc. and that the sense pleasures will be enjoyed in that context. Unfortunately most people nowadays don’t seem to get that opportunity. They receive empowerments for a weekend, but then have to go home and work their 40 hours a week etc. instead.
There are the off-time yogas, eating, sleeping, etc. These are supposed to practiced everywhere.

But traditionally the sense pleasure enjoying aspect of Vajrayāna was considered secret (or was it not so secret circa 700 C.E. in India?); therefore we couldn’t really advertise it to the common person could we? If we could, for worse or for better, Vajrayāna would be much more popular in these times & days. But I‘m not sure that it would be appropriate to promote as such.
Well, since there is no liberation for people in this degenerate age apart from Vajrayāna, seems to me we should be spreading it as widely as possible.
I mean if it were up to me, we would live in a Buddhocracy, a conservative-and somewhat-‘libertarian’-leaning one, and that would also allow for the sense-pleasure enjoying aspects of Vajrayāna; and Yungdrung/Vajrayāna would be the state religion as it was in Tibet, yet hopefully would be minus a lot of the unnecessary sectarian politicism.
Uggh, you read should read Aryadeva's take down of monarchy. Monarchs are fools, even Buddhist ones.


M
LolCat
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:50 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by LolCat »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:19 pm
Sādhaka wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:00 pm If one is really at the level that they can take sense pleasures onto the Vajrayāna Path, then their ‘hedonism’ has a useful context.
If you have received any Vajrayāna empowerment, you are required by samaya to take sense pleasures for your own enjoyment.
Is there any reading you would recommend on how to do this? Is it different from remaining present while partaking in sense pleasures?

Are yogas of eating Ganapuja, or is it referring to something different?
User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Vasana »

Simon E. wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:04 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:46 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:32 pm
Well, my "hedonism" was also a shortcut to something somewhat more specific. But you knew that when you were making the comment.
I really can't understand why people still think asceticism is impressive or vital, given that we have Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna is the ultimate hedonic vehicle.
This...

I think the topic of renunciation in vajrayana was looked at in a recent thread before Malcolm's return. In the end it was generally agreed that there were different definitions of renunciation according to context and so when Padmasambhava mentions renunciation being essential, he's not wrong and yet neither are those who say we should aim for a state where we don't reject sense pleasures.

I think attachment is always worth bringing up again. Sense pleasures or hedonism with attachment can't reasonably be justified as valid vajrayana unless you're intentionally practicing in that moment of sense contact. Not 'rejecting' is one side of the coin. Not 'accepting' /grasping/ attachment is the other. We often find it convenient to forget the latter.

If our motivation is hedonic and our view is attachment, then that's simple karma. If our motivation engaging in sense pleasures is total realization and there's still attachment, then there's still some karma. It probably goes without saying but I think the nuance is always worth drawing out given how many people give Buddha Dharma a bad public image in pursuit of hedonism.

Then there's also 'eudaimonism' in contrast to hedonism.

'Eudaimonism (or Eudaemonism or Eudaimonia) is a moral philosophy that defines right action as that which leads to the "well-being" of the individual, thus holding "well-being" as having essential value.'

Alan Wallace :
What is genuine happiness? I prefer the term “human flourishing,” which is a translation of the Greek word eudaimonia. The usual translation is “genuine happiness,” but “flourishing” is more accurate. Like the Buddhist notion of sukkha, and ananda—bliss, joy in the Hindu tradition—flourishing is a sense of happiness that’s beyond the momentary vicissitudes of our emotional state.

And what would that happiness entail? A meaningful life.

What makes for a meaningful life? I consider each day, not just the life as a whole. I look at four ingredients. First, was it a day of virtue? I’m talking about basic Buddhist ethics—avoiding harmful behavior of body, speech, and mind; devoting ourselves to wholesome behavior and to qualities like awareness and compassion. Second, I’d like to feel happy rather than miserable. The realized beings I’ve known exemplify extraordinary states of well-being, and it shows in their demeanor, their way of dealing with adversity, with life, with other people. And third, pursuit of the truth—seeking to understand the nature of life, of reality, of interpersonal relationships, or the nature of mind. But you could do all that sitting quietly in a room. None of us exists in isolation, however, so there is a fourth ingredient: a meaningful life must also answer the question, “What have I brought to the world?” If I can look at a day and see that virtue, happiness, truth, and living an altruistic life are prominent elements, I can say, “You know, I’m a happy camper.” Pursuing happiness does not depend on my checkbook, or the behavior of my spouse, or my job, or my salary. I can live a meaningful life even if I only have ten minutes left.
Maybe the two overlap but I think a genuine Vajrayana 'ism' would be Eudaimonism subsuming hedonism.
ཨོཾ ་ མ ་ ཎི ་ པ ་ དྨེ ་ ཧཱུྃ ། འ ་ ཨ ་ ཧ ་ ཤ ་ ས ་ མ །
Om Mani Peme Hum ། 'A Ah Ha Sha Sa Ma
'When alone, watch your mind,When with others, watch your speech' - Old Kadampa saying
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:46 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:32 pm
Well, my "hedonism" was also a shortcut to something somewhat more specific. But you knew that when you were making the comment.
I really can't understand why people still think asceticism is impressive or vital, given that we have Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna is the ultimate hedonic vehicle.
The terms of the opposition -- hedonism vs asceticism -- are not mine. I do not really know what you mean by either of the terms, either. When I spoke of "hedonism," what I meant is a kind of life in which, whether one living it is fully aware of it or not, it is only the pleasurable which is valuable or worth pursuing. I added "materialism" to specify the context. I ought to have added "pathological narcissism" as well.

That said: "Commit yourself to devote yourself to the good of others with pure intention based on love and compassion and not to let yourself get involved in the eight worldly dharmas such as self-interest, gain, fame, power, etc." Radically altruistic hedonism? Why not.
To offer care and affection to sentient beings
In desperate situations who lack protection
Brings just as much merit as the meditation
On emptiness with compassion as its core—
So it has been said by glorious Lord Atisha.

Chatral Sangye Dorje Rinpoche

If you cannot generate an altruistic mind, even extensive retreat will be of not much benefit.
Garchen Triptrul Rinpoche
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Simon E. »

Vasana wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:57 am
Simon E. wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:04 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:46 pm

I really can't understand why people still think asceticism is impressive or vital, given that we have Vajrayāna. Vajrayāna is the ultimate hedonic vehicle.
This...

I think the topic of renunciation in vajrayana was looked at in a recent thread before Malcolm's return. In the end it was generally agreed that there were different definitions of renunciation according to context and so when Padmasambhava mentions renunciation being essential, he's not wrong and yet neither are those who say we should aim for a state where we don't reject sense pleasures.

I think attachment is always worth bringing up again. Sense pleasures or hedonism with attachment can't reasonably be justified as valid vajrayana unless you're intentionally practicing in that moment of sense contact. Not 'rejecting' is one side of the coin. Not 'accepting' /grasping/ attachment is the other. We often find it convenient to forget the latter.

If our motivation is hedonic and our view is attachment, then that's simple karma. If our motivation engaging in sense pleasures is total realization and there's still attachment, then there's still some karma. It probably goes without saying but I think the nuance is always worth drawing out given how many people give Buddha Dharma a bad public image in pursuit of hedonism.

Then there's also 'eudaimonism' in contrast to hedonism.

'Eudaimonism (or Eudaemonism or Eudaimonia) is a moral philosophy that defines right action as that which leads to the "well-being" of the individual, thus holding "well-being" as having essential value.'

Alan Wallace :
What is genuine happiness? I prefer the term “human flourishing,” which is a translation of the Greek word eudaimonia. The usual translation is “genuine happiness,” but “flourishing” is more accurate. Like the Buddhist notion of sukkha, and ananda—bliss, joy in the Hindu tradition—flourishing is a sense of happiness that’s beyond the momentary vicissitudes of our emotional state.

And what would that happiness entail? A meaningful life.

What makes for a meaningful life? I consider each day, not just the life as a whole. I look at four ingredients. First, was it a day of virtue? I’m talking about basic Buddhist ethics—avoiding harmful behavior of body, speech, and mind; devoting ourselves to wholesome behavior and to qualities like awareness and compassion. Second, I’d like to feel happy rather than miserable. The realized beings I’ve known exemplify extraordinary states of well-being, and it shows in their demeanor, their way of dealing with adversity, with life, with other people. And third, pursuit of the truth—seeking to understand the nature of life, of reality, of interpersonal relationships, or the nature of mind. But you could do all that sitting quietly in a room. None of us exists in isolation, however, so there is a fourth ingredient: a meaningful life must also answer the question, “What have I brought to the world?” If I can look at a day and see that virtue, happiness, truth, and living an altruistic life are prominent elements, I can say, “You know, I’m a happy camper.” Pursuing happiness does not depend on my checkbook, or the behavior of my spouse, or my job, or my salary. I can live a meaningful life even if I only have ten minutes left.
Maybe the two overlap but I think a genuine Vajrayana 'ism' would be Eudaimonism subsuming hedonism.
Oh I think Malcolm knew just what he meant. And I think I know what he meant too. But perhaps you should engage with his point rather than my “this”. :smile:
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Vasana »

I never said anyone never understood anyone, I was just adding my two pennies to the pile and also responding to Malcolm and the discussion of whether vajrayana could be described as ultimately hedonic with attachment, aversion, cetanā and vipāka in mind.
ཨོཾ ་ མ ་ ཎི ་ པ ་ དྨེ ་ ཧཱུྃ ། འ ་ ཨ ་ ཧ ་ ཤ ་ ས ་ མ །
Om Mani Peme Hum ། 'A Ah Ha Sha Sa Ma
'When alone, watch your mind,When with others, watch your speech' - Old Kadampa saying
Malcolm
Posts: 32411
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Malcolm »

Vasana wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:23 am I never said anyone never understood anyone, I was just adding my two pennies to the pile and also responding to Malcolm and the discussion of whether vajrayana could be described as ultimately hedonic with attachment, aversion, cetanā and vipāka in mind.
It’s hedonism. You are practicing viewing everything as a fabulous palace in which there are nothing but delights, enjoyed by you, the king. Can’t get more hedonistic than that.

Vajrayana is not a path of renunciation, but rather transformation.
Sādhaka
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:55 am
Sādhaka wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:37 amSure.

At the same time, I think this is with the assumption that the, well, sādhaka will close to the start become proficient in Tsa Lung, Trul Khor, Tummo, the Four Joys, etc. and that the sense pleasures will be enjoyed in that context. Unfortunately most people nowadays don’t seem to get that opportunity. They receive empowerments for a weekend, but then have to go home and work their 40 hours a week etc. instead.

There are the off-time yogas, eating, sleeping, etc. These are supposed to practiced everywhere.

I don’t think that I could argue against this, but what does it have to do with enjoying sense-pleasures in Vajrayāna coming with the assumption that the sādhaka will close to the beginning become proficient in Tsa Lung, Trul Khor, Tummo, the Four Joys, etc., and that they would be enjoying the sense pleasures with that as a correct foundation for enjoying them?


Well, since there is no liberation for people in this degenerate age apart from Vajrayāna, seems to me we should be spreading it as widely as possible.

I’m inclined to agree.

However what about Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche having said that in Dzogchen doing missionary work is considered negative because it seeks to condition others? Rinpoche quotes Garab Dorje as saying that teaching Dzogchen to 1,000 interested people is not enough, yet teaching Dzogchen to 1 uninterested person is too many.

Now if I could ‘persuade’ everyone to become interested in Vajrayāna, Yungdrung Bön & Dzogchen, without conditioning them, I would. For one, because it would benefit them; and two, I would actually have something in common with those around me. Of course in samsara it is unlikely that everyone would ever become interested; but it would be nice to see a lot more become interested in Vajrayāna.

In my new found interest in things like hitting the gym hard, likely soon to be “yoga” classes (I would rather dedicate time to actual Yantra Yoga; yet even though I have all the Yantra Yoga books, DVD’s, and am technically authorized to practice all of it, I’ve come to the conclusion that for serious Trul-Khor/Yantra Yoga you need a Lama or someone like Fabio Andrico to teach you at first, in order to correct subtle mistakes in Asana posture, breathing, etc.), experimenting with things like a raw-carnivore based diet, intermittent-fasting (‘healthy’ youtube fads basically lol), I should be able to find more like-minded people; but all of this by itself is in the end superficial, compared to the overall profound vision of Vajrayāna.

I suppose just bring Vajrayāna into conversation with people if it can arise naturally in a conversation, gauge the individual’s potential interest; and if they seem interested, then continue on, and if they do not seem interested at all, then change the subject? Also, how many qualified Teachers are there going to be for people within the next decade or so?


I mean if it were up to me, we would live in a Buddhocracy, a conservative-and somewhat-‘libertarian’-leaning one, and that would also allow for the sense-pleasure enjoying aspects of Vajrayāna; and Yungdrung/Vajrayāna would be the state religion as it was in Tibet, yet hopefully would be minus a lot of the unnecessary sectarian politicism.

Uggh, you read should read Aryadeva's take down of monarchy. Monarchs are fools, even Buddhist ones.

M

The Tantric Aryadeva or the Sutric one?

And are these ‘two’ actually one and the same Aryadeva, just explaining the teachings for two different capacities of students? Or are they two different individuals?

In either case, even though I said “as it was in Tibet”, I didn’t mean necessarily to imply having a monarch (unless we could have a actual Cakravartin); but at least a society centered around Vajrayāna, Yungdrung Bön, and Dzogchen.

I think it is safe to say that we’ve gone off topic. Perhaps a moderator would split the topic to a new thread, beginning with treehuggingoctopus’ post that was posted on page 6 of this thread, or maybe Malcolm’s post at the very bottom of page 6....
Malcolm
Posts: 32411
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:51 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:55 am
Sādhaka wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:37 amSure.

At the same time, I think this is with the assumption that the, well, sādhaka will close to the start become proficient in Tsa Lung, Trul Khor, Tummo, the Four Joys, etc. and that the sense pleasures will be enjoyed in that context. Unfortunately most people nowadays don’t seem to get that opportunity. They receive empowerments for a weekend, but then have to go home and work their 40 hours a week etc. instead.

There are the off-time yogas, eating, sleeping, etc. These are supposed to practiced everywhere.

I don’t think that I could argue against this, but what does it have to do with enjoying sense-pleasures in Vajrayāna coming with the assumption that the sādhaka will close to the beginning become proficient in Tsa Lung, Trul Khor, Tummo, the Four Joys, etc., and that they would be enjoying the sense pleasures with that as a correct foundation for enjoying them?
The offtime yogas of sleeping, waking, bathing, clothing, eating, passion (for lay people), and so on meant to be practiced by beginners, from day one.

However what about Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche having said that in Dzogchen doing missionary work is considered negative because it seeks to condition others?
Well, I do not mean that we should stand on street corners with the Hevajra Tantra in hand trying to convert people. But, on the other hand, the entire point of the Vajramaster empowerment is committing to spread Vajrayāna dharma to benefit sentient beings.
I suppose just bring Vajrayāna into conversation with people if it can arise naturally in a conversation, gauge the individual’s potential interest; and if they seem interested, then continue on, and if they do not seem interested at all, then change the subject? Also, how many qualified Teachers are there going to be for people within the next decade or so?
Yes.

The Tantric Aryadeva or the Sutric one?
Nāgārjuyna's disciple who wrote the four hundred. In my opinion, when Dharma becomes the government, it becomes corrupted. This is the lesson of Buddhist Kingdoms. Constitutional monarchies are ok, as long the sovereign is merely a figurehead with no power. But I am a firm believer in separation of church and state and representational democracy. Not into kings.
Sādhaka
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:25 pmThe offtime yogas of sleeping, waking, bathing, clothing, eating, passion (for lay people), and so on meant to be practiced by beginners, from day one.

Well I guess that I did not formulate my question and thoughts on that thoroughly enough. But I digress for now.


I suppose just bring Vajrayāna into conversation with people if it can arise naturally in a conversation, gauge the individual’s potential interest; and if they seem interested, then continue on, and if they do not seem interested at all, then change the subject? Also, how many qualified Teachers are there going to be for people within the next decade or so?
Yes.

If we take your “yes” answer as being addressed to just my second question, it’s actually pretty funny.

I have an guilty pleasure of sometimes watching videos of Japanese & modified Japanese cars, Acura’s, Nissan‘s, Honda’s, etc., and there are a few youtube videos of Toyota Supra Turbos with like 8 or 9 thousand horsepower; and one of the comments in one of them was:

Mechanic: How much horsepower would you like your Supra Turbo to have?

Customer: Yes.

:rolling:

I have a feeling that this meme started with a depiction of a Eastern European or Russian guy’s “yes” answer to an similar not yes or no question.

Anyway, I take it that there should be a good number of qualified Teachers within at least the next decade or so?


Nāgārjuyna's disciple who wrote the four hundred.

You’ve posted in other threads before about how Tibetans generally consider that there was only one Nāgārjuna; and that you think that the Sutric one and Tantric one are two different individuals.

Is it a similar situation with (the) Āryadeva(s)?


In my opinion, when Dharma becomes the government, it becomes corrupted. This is the lesson of Buddhist Kingdoms. Constitutional monarchies are ok, as long the sovereign is merely a figurehead with no power. But I am a firm believer in separation of church and state and representational democracy. Not into kings.

Aside from a Cakravartirāja, government by nature is corrupt. And I think that I can see where you’re coming from on not wanting to taint Dharma by involving it with government; if that is what you’re getting at.

Democracy, assuming that we even have any semblance of democracy at all, without wise or at least fairly well informed people, is only mob rule (and mob rule can have an double meaning here).

Now if Vajrayāna were more widespread, then democracy could become something useful and not so mob-rule-ish. Then again, in seeing an larger percentage of western Buddhist’s opinions on social & political issues, I’m not so sure.... But like I said, could become something useful.

Anyhow, continuing with the youtube memes:

Democracy: I’m the perfect form of government.

Buddhist Monarch: Hold my beer.

Or:

No one:

Me: Let’s have a Cakravartirāja rule the entire world!

Seriously though; from what I remember, a Cakravartin only rules during a Satya Yuga anyway; and this contemporary world obviously ain’t no Satya Yuga....
Malcolm
Posts: 32411
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:50 pm

Nāgārjuyna's disciple who wrote the four hundred.

You’ve posted in other threads before about how Tibetans generally consider that there was only one Nāgārjuna; and that you think that the Sutric one and Tantric one are two different individuals.

Is it a similar situation with (the) Āryadeva(s)?
Definitely.


Aside from a Cakravartirāja, government by nature is corrupt. And I think that I can see where you’re coming from on not wanting to taint Dharma by involving it with government; if that is what you’re getting at.
The problem with absolute monarchies, all of them, is that power only changes hands through death or violence. And history shows that good kings are inevitably followed by incompetent kings or worse.
Democracy, assuming that we even have any semblance of democracy at all, without wise or at least fairly well informed people, is only mob rule (and mob rule can have an double meaning here).
Hence I specified representational democracy.

Democracy: I’m the perfect form of government.
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
—Winston Churchill
User avatar
lelopa
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by lelopa »

Reading "Crystal...." it seems Ch.N. Norbu prefered Synarchie
हूं हूं हूं
फट् फट् फट्
tingdzin
Posts: 1339
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by tingdzin »

Way, way, way :offtopic:
Sādhaka
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Practical difference between Bön and Nyingma Dzogchen

Post by Sādhaka »

Sādhaka wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:51 pm I think it is safe to say that we’ve gone off topic. Perhaps a moderator would split the topic to a new thread, beginning with treehuggingoctopus’ post that was posted on page 6 of this thread, or maybe Malcolm’s post at the very bottom of page 6....
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”