Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:32 pm
Astus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:56 pm
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:47 am
Without empowerment, a guru is just a common Mahāyāna guru, there is no guru yoga in common Mahāyāna.. Guru Yoga is method which strictly belongs to Highest Yoga Tantra. So no, it is not an acceptable distinction. Guru Yoga is also connected with the so-called subtle body, and is not merely a practice of devotion, as is commonly misunderstood.
I did not mean the guru yoga as part of sutra but as part of Vajrayana. The distiction I asked about was regarding the difference of methods getting to the point of being capable of performing vipasyana.
There are, within, Vajrayāna, two methods of giving rise to nondual gnosis: the first is the practice of the two stages; the second is guru yoga. Not that it really matters, but Sakya Pandita also endorses these two means.
Vipaśyanā, in Vajrayāna is not a result of intellectual analysis, it is rather a product of integrating the experience of the example gnosis or the genuine gnosis induced during empowerment, depending on the practitioner. For example, Naropa likens the experience of the example gnosis to the first bhumi, and while this experience is not necessarily the first bhumi, it can be a genuine gnosis in some persons of higher capacity. When it comes to "direct introduction" or so-called pointing out, the principle is roughly the same.
The difference between the two stages and guru yoga is that one is using the power of devotion (mos gus gyi rtsal
) to recapitulate the experience of the introduction, where as the former uses the more gradual process of working with this experience in the context of the two stages.
For the latter, having recognized what was introduced, the nature of the mind, one rests in that state.
These two methods, thw two stages and guru yoga, are more effective for giving rise to vipaśyanā because there is no intellectual analysis involved. It is based on a direct perception, no matter how fleeting, not inferred through reasoning and analysis.
Virtually all schools use a combination of guru yoga and the two stages combined into a single practice, for example Five-fold Mahāmudra of Drikung, Naro Khacho of Sakya, and so on. Sort of hedging bets.
Guru yoga in all Tibetan Buddhist schools is regarded as the supreme path to awakening, bar none. Because Kagyu Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are both paths of self-liberation (grol lam), rather than paths of transformation (sgyur lam), guru yoga is the principle path, especially in Dzogchen teachings. The principle difference between Kagyu Mahāmudra and Dzogchen, as Ringu Tulku personally confirmed for me, is that the former lacks tögal. But in the Karma Kagyu and Drukpa Kagyu school, it is quite common for practitioners to spend a long time practicing Mahāmudra, and then eventually embark on practicing tögal, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso, Thrangu RInpoche, etc., are all examples of masters who teach students using this progression. As I understand things in Drikung, having long association with Nangchen Drikungpas such as Gyalpo Rinpoche and Ontul Rinpoche, who are both important gurus of mine who specialize in Yangzab, people other than lineage heads usually choose one track or other other.