Institutional Buddhism

dorje e gabbana
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:54 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by dorje e gabbana »

Sonam,
Tunhuang texts you mentioned are Dzog chen texts - very simple and elementar - who prove, if ever, that dzogchen had a chinese diffusion ( Shri Simha origin was chinese as you probably know), but they do not prove that Dzog chen had an Indian diffusion at all.

Furthermore I am not claiming that dzog chen tantra as Kunjed Gyalpo is faulse, as Dzog Chen detractor loved to state. I am discussing here about another subject: that accoridng to Modern western indpependent scholar there is no evidence of the Dzog chen Indian diffusion
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

dorje e gabbana wrote:Sonam,
Tunhuang texts you mentioned are Dzog chen texts - very simple and elementar - who prove, if ever, that dzogchen had a chinese diffusion ( Shri Simha origin was chinese as you probably know), but they do not prove that Dzog chen had an Indian diffusion at all.

Furthermore I am not claiming that dzog chen tantra as Kunjed Gyalpo is faulse, as Dzog Chen detractor loved to state. I am discussing here about another subject: that accoridng to Modern western indpependent scholar there is no evidence of the Dzog chen Indian diffusion

Shri Singha's nationality is quite debatable -- some people think he was Indo-chinese, other's think he was from central asia. The texts are not very clear. In any event, what is clear is that he met Vimalamitra in India, as well as Vairocana.

As far as your contention above, then you have a hard time explaining Dzogchen in the Guhyagarbha which is a text of proven Indian provenance.

M
dorje e gabbana
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:54 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by dorje e gabbana »

If you bother to read any of the traditional accounts D&G, you will find out that Dzogchen was met with total hostility from Indian Buddhists by and large.
Malcom, I really appreciate your way to judge with open mind and intellectual autonomy the atrocities of tibetan feudal society and the big incongruencies you mentioned in various posts. I am serious.

But with the same open mind and intellectual autonomy you should recognize that traditional accounts are often quite far from reality, leaving a lot of incongruency without solutions, such as the indication that Garab dorje born in the second century BC and he transmitted also teaching to Padmasambhava at the same time, having more about 1000 years gap whitout solutions.
For this reason I take in consideration the positions of various modern western scholars who doubt the entire story you mention, because as it is impossible having Garab dorje contemporary of Padmasambhava as the traditional accounts report, it make sense doubting the indian or oddiyana origin of Dzogchen because of lack of historical evidence
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

dorje e gabbana wrote:
If you bother to read any of the traditional accounts D&G, you will find out that Dzogchen was met with total hostility from Indian Buddhists by and large.
Malcom, I really appreciate your way to judge with open mind and intellectual autonomy the atrocities of tibetan feudal society and the big incongruencies you mentioned in various posts. I am serious.

But with the same open mind and intellectual autonomy you should recognize that traditional accounts are often quite far from reality, leaving a lot of incongruency without solutions, such as the indication that Garab dorje born in the second century BC and he transmitted also teaching to Padmasambhava at the same time, having more about 1000 years gap whitout solutions.
For this reason I take in consideration the positions of various modern western scholars who doubt the entire story you mention, because as it is impossible having Garab dorje contemporary of Padmasambhava as the traditional accounts report, it make sense doubting the indian or oddiyana origin of Dzogchen because of lack of historical evidence
Dzogchen definitely has an Indian/Oḍḍiyāna origin. Guhyagarbha proves it.

If you wish to refrain from judging whether seventeen tantras, etc., are native Tibetan compositions or not, I can understand this. There are certainly a lot of reasons to suspect that they are, or if they are actually translations then they are very free translations. factually speaking, no one has done enough work on the 17 tantra to know for sure. to identify layers of composition etc.

I can tell you from my research they are very homogenous, and seem to composed by a single author or small group. Some sections read like translations from an Indic language, other sections read like straight up Tibetan. My guess honestly is that they are mixture of both.
dorje e gabbana
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:54 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by dorje e gabbana »

If you wish to refrain from judging whether seventeen tantras, etc., are native Tibetan compositions or not, I can understand this. There are certainly a lot of reasons to suspect that they are, or if they are actually translations then they are very free translations. factually speaking, no one has done enough work on the 17 tantra to know for sure. to identify layers of composition etc.
I was referring exactly to this issue when I started to consider what validity had the various traditional accounts about dozg chen.
But the Kunjed Gyalpo, for example, is wanderful and highly meaningful and it is not important to me the author is Manjusrimitra, reporting Garab Dorje teachings, as the traditional accounts swore, or just the brilliant fruit of a single author, or of a small group of tibetan scholars, as I suspect
Last edited by dorje e gabbana on Wed May 30, 2012 12:36 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Dechen Norbu »

heart wrote:
Dechen Norbu wrote:This has pissed many people whose conception of Dzogchen is different. This has pissed the students of these people because they are supposed to be pissed by something that renders the tantric approach to Dzogchen unnecessary since this is what their teachers teach. Then, some of these people use each and every excuse to attack ChNN, the DC or any person who dares to agree with ChNN. I am not addressing this comment to anyone in particular.
Dzogchen is Dzogchen there are not really different kinds. What I heard and read from ChNNR teachings are more or less the same as what I received from my Guru. Dzogchen works great in the context of the nine yanas and it certainly isn't a a gradual approach, because in that case it would not be Dzogchen. Everyone here have expressed their utmost respect and appreciation for ChNNR, to my knowledge no one have attacked him or you. Something else is making you very agitated, perhaps you should take a look at that.

/magnus
I consider your teacher a great lama and said that on several occasions already. I also see him as one of my teachers although we had little contact. I'm trusting your word that what he teaches is similar to what ChNN teaches. It isn't hard to believe.

ChNN was criticized by many lamas early in his teaching career for teaching Dzogchen openly. However now I'm being told to forget that and believe that everyone (or most lamas) teaches the same as him and always have. Sure... that's why they criticized him in the past.

Not everyone has shown respect for ChNN, I'm sorry to say. If to your knowledge I wasn't attacked, you might want to improve it. Being called a "DC zealot" is not very pleasant, especially when I'm not one. The tantric approach was a way to please the gradualists and make Dzogchen less radical at their eyes. Fell free to disagree, but debate it with Malcom whose historical knowledge is much vaster than mine.

After knowing ChNN method, his presentation of Dzogchen and the justifications for it, I consider such tantric approach a waste of valuable time for those who don't have much, but people are free to do as they like. It's their time, not mine and this is a personal opinion. Nobody needs to follow it.

Finally, I wasn't agitated when I wrote that post. I don't know where you got that idea, but I was in a very good mood.
username
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by username »

Also there are textual accounts of Dzogchen in India. Basically the principalities of North India banned it. It started with Buddhist monastic objections. But the main force behind it was the Hindu establishment joining in as it went beyond cause and effect mechanisms in dharmakaya. So baically in most of North India where it existed if you taught or gave transmissions for it you would be punished as you had disobeyed the local king's edict. Apparently IIRC keeping the texts by previous lineage members, in private, in some areas was allowed if not publicized.

There are textual accoutns of Vima and trio of Vairo and his two companions and their interesting journey and separations. As well as how the masters had to give transmissions in unusal ways including in secret. In one example the master had a pipe from the cottage going out and trasmitting through that to the receiver outside in case they were being spied on so they could deny meeting and other stories.
The text say the noble land unlike Uddiyana was not destined to keep the return of the ultimate teaching at this era but it will return from the land of snows in future. And that when the last text left India the land shook and storms arose and the sky went dark as the land hd lost it's real treasure. I read it years ago and gave it away but you can read these textual citations and sources in this book: Dhargyey, Eva. The Rise of Esoteric Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1977.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by muni »

The authencithy of the root texts, Nyingmapa (wrong info) is to ask to the master, since many here are considering Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche as their master. Then there is relaxation.

Here few notes: Again I want to point to the clever scholars, rationalists, investigators and philosophers like Bri gung dzal dzin who could not understand the profound texts. Like such a scholar even knowing the tibetan language and philosophy very well, cannot understand and cannot translate the meaning behind the words. The meaning is difficult "to obtain" (not literally meaning) and by fixating nails in correctednesses is their grasping to tool, like swallowing our right spoon for the soup instead of digesting the soup. Translator Vairotsana: understanding don't talk about.

Trust Garab Dorje and not Longchenpa, also a confusion. Garab Dorje, tell me, what wrote he down? The Nyingmapa wrote the texts, it is Nyingma mantric literature, the series dealing with "pure and total presence" (esoteric mantrayana). But understanding writing it down has no nationality!
When an "owner" of the root text is the importance to trust and understand the profound meaning, then we are not different than Bri gung dzal dzin. Since then we investigate phenomena, not mind. What the masters till now explain by the three statements, is not pointing to an artificial nature, not a wrong nature, even indeed the methods can be adapted in order to help.

Doubt and suspiciousness is coarse grasping mind.
Last edited by muni on Wed May 30, 2012 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Simon E. »

Malcolm wrote:
Paul wrote:
Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.
Yes, the archtypal bad reaction is when "500" Nalanda panditas travelled to Oḍḍiyāna to bully an 8 year old kid when they heard he was teaching that liberation was beyond cause and result. We know the rest of that story.

Tibetan power structures have been trying to keep the lid on Dzogchen ever since it entered into Tibet. Vairocana was banned to Eastern Tibet by a spurned queen and ministers who did not approve of Dzogchen. For example the 11th century translator Go Khugpa Lhatse accuses Vairocana of forging the five sems sde lungs, accuses Nubchen of forging the smad du byung wa, and excorciates Aro Yeshe Jungney for composed defiled compositions connected to sems sde, etc. The fourteenth century master, Buton accuses Guru Chowang (the treasure revealor of the seven line prayer) of being a fraud, dimisses symbolic dakini script as ridiculous, states outright that Dzogchen teachings are the indepedent fabrications of Nyingmapas. Indeed this was the standard attitude towards Dzogchen, etc. for centuries in Tibet. This is actually at the root of the whole Shugden controversy.

To make it worse, the Nyingmapas, eventually cowed by this pressure to conform to the Sutrayāna gradualism politically enforced by King Trisong Detsen after the outcome of the three year exchange of letters called "the Samye debate", gradually began to present Dzogchen as the summit of a gradual path, abandoning the earliest presentation of Dzogchen as a independent vehicle. There are some people enamored of scholars like Sam Van Schaik, a Sakyapa, who specializes in Dunhuang material. Now, he is a good scholar, and I like very much his point of view. But in my opinion, he has completely misunderstood the intent of the early Dzogchen tradition in Tibet. He presents Dzogchen based on the man ngag lta ba phreng ba (MTP), attributed to Padmasambhava and widely accepted to be his work even in Gelug. As you know or can find out, the MTP presents Dzogchen as the culimination phase of the creation and completion phase based on the Guhyagarbha tantra. Now there is nothing wrong with this at all. But this is not how Dzogchen is presented either in the Seventeen Tantras, klong sde or sems sde. For example, Nubchen, writing in the late 9th century clearly shows that Dzogchen is not merely a completion stage for Dzogchen in his bsam brtan mig gron [SMG]. he identifies Dzogchen as a cig char system. Not only this, but he defends Chan as being the definitive sutrayāna approach because it too is a cig char system. He says for example:

"Do not seek out a philosophical position [siddhanta], there is also nothing to illustrate, if there is something to illustrate, the non-dual is illustrated to be free from activity, thought, or analysis through an example."

But here on this thread, we have many people voice the opinion, to understand Dzogchen you need madhyamaka either Rang stong or gzhan stong, you need to have the view of dependent origination, etc. All kinds of preconditions but one, the indispensible one.

There is but one thing indispensible for Dzogchen, and that is an introduction from a master. As Nubchen points out this is the critical difference between sutra and tantra. The critical difference between tantra and Dzogchen is whether one's practice is based on the notion of cause and result or not. And that is based on whether or not one has authentically recognized one's own stage so that one is possession of that famous rigpa.

Some people are interested in how we know if our practice is moving ahead. It is easy -- are you more integrated, are you having less problems in life? Is your clarity increasing? Are you a nicer person? I do not mean are you a more "compassionate" person in that syrupy fake Lam rim way. I mean are you a nicer person? A decent, ordinary, normal human being who plays well with others? Or are you still an alienated freak who can't get along with anyone and always demands that everyone around you change in conformity with your own nuerosis, especially your religious neurosis?

How can anyone say incidentally these are merely features of a Buddhist path? Look at all the basket cases in Buddhism. Do we really think we have our shit together more than Hindus, Christians and so on? I don't think so -- incidentally I am not making a claim that people who are interested in Dzogchen necesssarily are more together, I have met a lot of flakes in and out of the community and there are a lot of people who think I am a flake. But most people like me even if they think I shoot my mouth off too much (I do).

Back to the main topic: the notion of a vehicle beyond cause and result, one that does not require accumulations, practice with effort, and so on is very threatening to the gradualist establishment in Tibetan culture. The gradualists really hate the message of Atiyoga. It threatens their grip on feudal power. This is why Dzogchen will not be found in Tibetan monasteries and large Dharma centers. It will only be found at the feet of Dzogchen masters. You can take a hundred high Dzogchen empowerments but if you do not understand the main point, then it is of limited benefit. But if you can put yourself at the feet of qualified master who teaches Dzogchen from their own experience then there is no limit of benefit and you will receive transmission whether you are a Buddhist, an Catholic or an Alien. Transmission is beyond mind. Dzogchen is beyond mind, a personal experience beyond reckoning, calculation, something within the reach of everyone who is interested to discover their own nature. So yes, Dzogchen is an aqua regia, a royal water capable of dissolving all limitations whatsoever if one just puts it into sincere practice.

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

In fact if you closely examine Dzogchen language you see that it uses non-Buddhist examples all the time. For example. the notion of the peacock feather's colors being naturally formed is actually drawn from the Carvaka India materalist school -- they use that example to prove there is no creator, and so do we. A peacocks feather has eyes just because it is the nature of a peacock's feather to have eyes. Wisdom exists in the heart of each and every sentient beings just because it is the nature of a sentient being to have wisdom in each and everyone's heart. We don't have to do anything to create that wisdom. We don't have to do anything at all to develop that wisdom. We cannot improve that wisdom or harm it in anyway. It is as integral to our state as the five elements from which we are made (since they are made from it, anyway).

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

And then we rest in our own state, or we discover it. These are the only choices we have in Dzogchen, discover, then rest.

M
Bump
Sometimes on a thread it is useful to find our way back to the start of it.
Here it is.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
User avatar
Mr. G
Posts: 4080
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Mr. G »

Ad Hom posts removed.

Off Topic Posts Split:

Karma in Dzogchen

Dzogchen and Buddhism
  • How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
MalaBeads
Posts: 803
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by MalaBeads »

We have a saying in English. It goes something like this: He (or she) that does not know their history is condemned to repeat it.

In slightly more modern day terms we might say, is conditioned to repeat it.

CNNR always says, "know your condition". I think this holds true for all history, whether it be calendar history or psychological history.

"Know your condition" is a profound pith instruction, imo.
I am well aware of my idiocy. I am also very aware that you too are an idiot. Therein lies our mutuality.
oldbob
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by oldbob »

oldbob wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Paul wrote:
Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.
Yes, the archtypal bad reaction is when "500" Nalanda panditas travelled to Oḍḍiyāna to bully an 8 year old kid when they heard he was teaching that liberation was beyond cause and result. We know the rest of that story.

Tibetan power structures have been trying to keep the lid on Dzogchen ever since it entered into Tibet. Vairocana was banned to Eastern Tibet by a spurned queen and ministers who did not approve of Dzogchen. For example the 11th century translator Go Khugpa Lhatse accuses Vairocana of forging the five sems sde lungs, accuses Nubchen of forging the smad du byung wa, and excorciates Aro Yeshe Jungney for composed defiled compositions connected to sems sde, etc. The fourteenth century master, Buton accuses Guru Chowang (the treasure revealor of the seven line prayer) of being a fraud, dimisses symbolic dakini script as ridiculous, states outright that Dzogchen teachings are the indepedent fabrications of Nyingmapas. Indeed this was the standard attitude towards Dzogchen, etc. for centuries in Tibet. This is actually at the root of the whole Shugden controversy.

To make it worse, the Nyingmapas, eventually cowed by this pressure to conform to the Sutrayāna gradualism politically enforced by King Trisong Detsen after the outcome of the three year exchange of letters called "the Samye debate", gradually began to present Dzogchen as the summit of a gradual path, abandoning the earliest presentation of Dzogchen as a independent vehicle. There are some people enamored of scholars like Sam Van Schaik, a Sakyapa, who specializes in Dunhuang material. Now, he is a good scholar, and I like very much his point of view. But in my opinion, he has completely misunderstood the intent of the early Dzogchen tradition in Tibet. He presents Dzogchen based on the man ngag lta ba phreng ba (MTP), attributed to Padmasambhava and widely accepted to be his work even in Gelug. As you know or can find out, the MTP presents Dzogchen as the culimination phase of the creation and completion phase based on the Guhyagarbha tantra. Now there is nothing wrong with this at all. But this is not how Dzogchen is presented either in the Seventeen Tantras, klong sde or sems sde. For example, Nubchen, writing in the late 9th century clearly shows that Dzogchen is not merely a completion stage for Dzogchen in his bsam brtan mig gron [SMG]. he identifies Dzogchen as a cig char system. Not only this, but he defends Chan as being the definitive sutrayāna approach because it too is a cig char system. He says for example:

"Do not seek out a philosophical position [siddhanta], there is also nothing to illustrate, if there is something to illustrate, the non-dual is illustrated to be free from activity, thought, or analysis through an example."

But here on this thread, we have many people voice the opinion, to understand Dzogchen you need madhyamaka either Rang stong or gzhan stong, you need to have the view of dependent origination, etc. All kinds of preconditions but one, the indispensible one.

There is but one thing indispensible for Dzogchen, and that is an introduction from a master. As Nubchen points out this is the critical difference between sutra and tantra. The critical difference between tantra and Dzogchen is whether one's practice is based on the notion of cause and result or not. And that is based on whether or not one has authentically recognized one's own stage so that one is possession of that famous rigpa.

Some people are interested in how we know if our practice is moving ahead. It is easy -- are you more integrated, are you having less problems in life? Is your clarity increasing? Are you a nicer person? I do not mean are you a more "compassionate" person in that syrupy fake Lam rim way. I mean are you a nicer person? A decent, ordinary, normal human being who plays well with others? Or are you still an alienated freak who can't get along with anyone and always demands that everyone around you change in conformity with your own nuerosis, especially your religious neurosis?

How can anyone say incidentally these are merely features of a Buddhist path? Look at all the basket cases in Buddhism. Do we really think we have our shit together more than Hindus, Christians and so on? I don't think so -- incidentally I am not making a claim that people who are interested in Dzogchen necesssarily are more together, I have met a lot of flakes in and out of the community and there are a lot of people who think I am a flake. But most people like me even if they think I shoot my mouth off too much (I do).

Back to the main topic: the notion of a vehicle beyond cause and result, one that does not require accumulations, practice with effort, and so on is very threatening to the gradualist establishment in Tibetan culture. The gradualists really hate the message of Atiyoga. It threatens their grip on feudal power. This is why Dzogchen will not be found in Tibetan monasteries and large Dharma centers. It will only be found at the feet of Dzogchen masters. You can take a hundred high Dzogchen empowerments but if you do not understand the main point, then it is of limited benefit. But if you can put yourself at the feet of qualified master who teaches Dzogchen from their own experience then there is no limit of benefit and you will receive transmission whether you are a Buddhist, an Catholic or an Alien. Transmission is beyond mind. Dzogchen is beyond mind, a personal experience beyond reckoning, calculation, something within the reach of everyone who is interested to discover their own nature. So yes, Dzogchen is an aqua regia, a royal water capable of dissolving all limitations whatsoever if one just puts it into sincere practice.

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

In fact if you closely examine Dzogchen language you see that it uses non-Buddhist examples all the time. For example. the notion of the peacock feather's colors being naturally formed is actually drawn from the Carvaka India materalist school -- they use that example to prove there is no creator, and so do we. A peacocks feather has eyes just because it is the nature of a peacock's feather to have eyes. Wisdom exists in the heart of each and every sentient beings just because it is the nature of a sentient being to have wisdom in each and everyone's heart. We don't have to do anything to create that wisdom. We don't have to do anything at all to develop that wisdom. We cannot improve that wisdom or harm it in anyway. It is as integral to our state as the five elements from which we are made (since they are made from it, anyway).

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

And then we rest in our own state, or we discover it. These are the only choices we have in Dzogchen, discover, then rest.

M
---------------------------------------------------
Row the boat!

Malcom gets it!!! Hurrah for Malcom!!!!!

All the words in the universe are contained in that one point.

Containing all those words, it is then appropriate, to apply words, naturally, when the occasion arises.

Beyond all limits there is no thing to do.

Resting in the natural state - all activity is accomplished!

Hurrah for the Malcom in everyone.

ob
----------------------------------------------

Version 2 - tried to edit the post, but was blocked. :smile:
---------------------------------------------

Row the boat gently....!

Malcom gets it!!! Hurrah for Malcom!!!!!

All the words in the universe are contained in that one point.

Containing all words, words arise naturally.

Beyond all limits there is no thing to do.

Resting in the natural state - all activity is accomplished!

Hurrah for the Malcom in everyone!

-----------------------------------------------
May the Dzogchen Masters live long, in good health and with success in all things.

Good fortune to all and All!
User avatar
Challenge23
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:36 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Challenge23 »

Dechen Norbu wrote:
As I have the experience of both sides, all I can say that while I was practicing the "tantric approach to Dzogchen", dedicating myself a lot- I should say- perhaps I would die before getting to actually practice it. I thought Dzogchen was for advanced practitioners and that idea was widespread. First you do ngondro, then yidam and then, if you're awsome :lol: Dzogchen. Of course all practice was "under the Dzogchen perspective" we received "direct introduction", empowerments, lungs, you name it. Meanwhile all we were practicing steamed from other yanas and Dzogchen practice, as I understand it now, was nowhere to be seen.

Recognizing our real nature was something we weren't expecting or had extensive teachings about, by the simple fact that it was considered very advanced stuff. This was for those life long practitioners who had completed ngondro a gazillion times and had deep attainments while practicing their Yidam and so on. We'd better stick to ngondro and Yidam practice. Perhaps others have different experiences, but this is mine.

Years have passed and most of those poor fellows are still to complete ngondro. Their life is busy, what can I say? The idea of immersing themselves in tantric practice, doing 3 year retreats as they should and so on is a mere fantasy. They'll never do it. I hope I'm wrong, but it will take a miracle. It takes time and money. It takes having a way to come back to society after. Most people don't have it. This is fine for someone who doesn't want to practice Dzogchen. I mean, if that's what they want, great. I'm sure they are having a blast and it's great for them, having little doubts that great benefit will come from that practice. Nothing against that. But tantra needs time, lots of time and it's very difficult to practice in modern society. Retreat is mandatory. If you are expecting to do that before actually practicing Dzogchen, you may well forget it for most cases. Some exceptions are there, gladly, but for most this will always be a fantasy.
My experience matches up with what you are talking about pretty closely. I was told by Rinpoche that in order to learn Dzogchen I would have to do the Ngondro, learn Phowa, Dream Yoga, Tummo, and Shinay, then Striking the Essence in Three Phrases by Garab Dorje and then I would be able to learn Dzogchen. Needless to say I am pretty sure that I won't be able to really buckle down and really learn all that until I retire(I'm soon to be 36 now), if ever.
IN THIS BOOK IT IS SPOKEN OF THE SEPHIROTH & THE PATHS, OF SPIRITS & CONJURATIONS, OF GODS, SPHERES, PLANES & MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST. IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. BY DOING CERTAIN THINGS CERTAIN RESULTS FOLLOW; STUDENTS ARE MOST EARNESTLY WARNED AGAINST ATTRIBUTING OBJECTIVE REALITY OR PHILOSOPHICAL VALIDITY TO ANY OF THEM.

Wagner, Eric; Wilson, Robert Anton (2004-12-01). An Insider's Guide to Robert Anton Wilson (Kindle Locations 1626-1629). New Falcon Publications. Kindle Edition., quoting from Alister Crowley
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Challenge23 wrote: My experience matches up with what you are talking about pretty closely. I was told by Rinpoche that in order to learn Dzogchen I would have to do the Ngondro, learn Phowa, Dream Yoga, Tummo, and Shinay, then Striking the Essence in Three Phrases by Garab Dorje and then I would be able to learn Dzogchen. Needless to say I am pretty sure that I won't be able to really buckle down and really learn all that until I retire(I'm soon to be 36 now), if ever.
None of which was ever required by Garab Dorje.

Dzogchen starts with direct introduction. Once you have received that, you are on a Dzogchen path and you do not need to do all this other stuff first.
User avatar
Challenge23
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:36 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Challenge23 »

Malcolm wrote:
Challenge23 wrote: My experience matches up with what you are talking about pretty closely. I was told by Rinpoche that in order to learn Dzogchen I would have to do the Ngondro, learn Phowa, Dream Yoga, Tummo, and Shinay, then Striking the Essence in Three Phrases by Garab Dorje and then I would be able to learn Dzogchen. Needless to say I am pretty sure that I won't be able to really buckle down and really learn all that until I retire(I'm soon to be 36 now), if ever.
None of which was ever required by Garab Dorje.

Dzogchen starts with direct introduction. Once you have received that, you are on a Dzogchen path and you do not need to do all this other stuff first.
Yeah. The ironic part is that if you would have asked me about 15 years ago if I wanted a group of teachings that would eventually allow me to have a solid foundation in Tibetan magic(which from my understanding I would be very close to by the time I got done with all of those prerequisites) I would have been so interested I would have gone into fits of approval. However, at the time I just wanted to learn Dzogchen and get on with my life. Now I'm not sure that all of the time past 20 minutes of meditation 3x a week would be better spent playing World of Warcraft.
IN THIS BOOK IT IS SPOKEN OF THE SEPHIROTH & THE PATHS, OF SPIRITS & CONJURATIONS, OF GODS, SPHERES, PLANES & MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST. IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. BY DOING CERTAIN THINGS CERTAIN RESULTS FOLLOW; STUDENTS ARE MOST EARNESTLY WARNED AGAINST ATTRIBUTING OBJECTIVE REALITY OR PHILOSOPHICAL VALIDITY TO ANY OF THEM.

Wagner, Eric; Wilson, Robert Anton (2004-12-01). An Insider's Guide to Robert Anton Wilson (Kindle Locations 1626-1629). New Falcon Publications. Kindle Edition., quoting from Alister Crowley
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Challenge23 wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Challenge23 wrote: My experience matches up with what you are talking about pretty closely. I was told by Rinpoche that in order to learn Dzogchen I would have to do the Ngondro, learn Phowa, Dream Yoga, Tummo, and Shinay, then Striking the Essence in Three Phrases by Garab Dorje and then I would be able to learn Dzogchen. Needless to say I am pretty sure that I won't be able to really buckle down and really learn all that until I retire(I'm soon to be 36 now), if ever.
None of which was ever required by Garab Dorje.

Dzogchen starts with direct introduction. Once you have received that, you are on a Dzogchen path and you do not need to do all this other stuff first.
Yeah. The ironic part is that if you would have asked me about 15 years ago if I wanted a group of teachings that would eventually allow me to have a solid foundation in Tibetan magic(which from my understanding I would be very close to by the time I got done with all of those prerequisites) I would have been so interested I would have gone into fits of approval. However, at the time I just wanted to learn Dzogchen and get on with my life. Now I'm not sure that all of the time past 20 minutes of meditation 3x a week would be better spent playing World of Warcraft.
Well, if you are into magic, just practice Dzogchen and all those results which take years of practice through elaborate rituals can accomplished merely through Dzogchen practice without uttering a single mantra.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Virgo »

Malcolm wrote: Well, if you are into magic, just practice Dzogchen and all those results which take years of practice through elaborate rituals can accomplished merely through Dzogchen practice without uttering a single mantra.
And you can play WoW too.
Sherlock
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Sherlock »

No one practising Western magic has to my knowledge achieved results as described in the grimoires even when they've followed them very literally (speaking as someone who has actually tried it, I haven't gotten any significant results either). There are no magicians out there who've managed to get demons to appear before them and instantly teach them everything about physics, languages etc or used demons to conjure up armies. There is a lot of magical thinking and lying going on in this field, not saying there isn't in Tibetan Buddhism, but then again Dzogchen isn't Buddhism. The results which Western magicians actually do achieve, you can too by anuyoga practice, and that will probably do more for helping with your experience of vidya at the same time.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Malcolm »

Sherlock wrote:No one practising Western magic has to my knowledge achieved results as described in the grimoires even when they've followed them very literally (speaking as someone who has actually tried it, I haven't gotten any significant results either). There are no magicians out there who've managed to get demons to appear before them and instantly teach them everything about physics, languages etc or used demons to conjure up armies. There is a lot of magical thinking and lying going on in this field, not saying there isn't in Tibetan Buddhism, but then again Dzogchen isn't Buddhism. The results which Western magicians actually do achieve, you can too by anuyoga practice, and that will probably do more for helping with your experience of vidya at the same time.
Grimoires for the most part were written for Christian priests expert in Christian liturgy. If you don't beleive in the Tetreagrammaton it is very likely that grimoire magic is not going to work for you. For example:

And I say to thee obey, in the name of him who spake and it was; and in every one of ye, O ye names of God! Moreover in the names Adonai, El., Elohim., Elohi, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, Zabaoth, Elion, Iah, Tetragrammaton, Shaddai, Lord God Most High, I stir thee up; and in our strength I say Obey!

If you don't beleive in god, it just ain't going to fly for you. You will lack conviction.

Ok, returning to topic...
Heartland
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Post by Heartland »

Dechen Norbu wrote: ChNN was criticized by many lamas early in his teaching career for teaching Dzogchen openly. However now I'm being told to forget that and believe that everyone (or most lamas) teaches the same as him and always have. Sure... that's why they criticized him in the past.

Not everyone has shown respect for ChNN, I'm sorry to say. If to your knowledge I wasn't attacked, you might want to improve it. Being called a "DC zealot" is not very pleasant, especially when I'm not one. The tantric approach was a way to please the gradualists and make Dzogchen less radical at their eyes. Fell free to disagree, but debate it with Malcom whose historical knowledge is much vaster than mine.

After knowing ChNN method, his presentation of Dzogchen and the justifications for it, I consider such tantric approach a waste of valuable time for those who don't have much, but people are free to do as they like. It's their time, not mine and this is a personal opinion. Nobody needs to follow it.
I just would like to say that there are other lamas who have taught Dzogchen to people right away (and have for quite a while). They are perhaps more under the radar than ChNN and don't do webcasts (which may partly be because it takes money and technical know-how and/or partly because they prefer not to). Also they may like being under the radar to avoid the criticism that ChNN received.

But they are out there. I just felt that point was getting lost in the discussion that is going on.
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”