Sam Harris receives a (literal) pointing out instruction

[Dechen Norbu]

.

I'll say this; his book has probably done more to promote Dzogchen in the general public than DW. In particular Dzogchen is promoted to that part of the public who would usually have zero interest in that type of topic. So even if his presentation doesn't meet DW standards, how is that a bad thing?

I'm not sure it is a good thing to really "promote" Dzogchen, especially to people that otherwise would have no interest, and even more so if the cost of promoting it is the quality of presentation. Dzogchen is something really precise, and so there is a fine line between promoting Dzogchen and Dzogchen-light. In effect Harris is also promoting Advaita and a significant equivalence between it and Dzogchen.

As someone pointed out, now Harris' forums are rife with people looking for a "secular Dzogchen" stripped of 'cultural baggage' and so forth. These kind of things, in my opinion, can easily lead to more fools, charlatans, and novices teaching 'Dzogchen' and in general people spreading misinformation or making rash judgments about Dzogchen.

Presenting a diamond as anything less than a diamond is selling it short which can inevitably lead to a lack of interest in properly inspecting the quality of that diamond.

'Secular Dzogchen' seekers and charlatans arise from certain conditions too. It's difficult to guess how many people have developed a genuine interest in the teachings through Harris's presentation and how many people have picked up a 1 way ticket to Jax-ville...which I suppose to a certain degree has to do with one's karma.

On principle, I agree. But have you ever seen a diamond before lapidation? To the untrained eye, it seems a vulgar stone, as ordinary as they come. Sometimes people need to be taught how to recognize and value what will be a magnificent gem beforehand.
I guess michaelb's point is that Harris work may pique the interest of those rightly biased against Abrahamic religions that could assume Dharma to be just another close relative if a more traditional presentation was provided. No diamond there, no sir, they would only see another stone, a shinny trinket to fool the gullible.
Now, I'm sure it would be better if the presentation was with less flaws ( I haven't read the book, but what I'm reading here leads me to suspect the quality is lacking), but maybe it has some value in the said regard. I can't really say, but I get his concern. OTOH there's jaxville... but even those exposed to good Dzogchen presentations may end up setting camp there.

[michaelb]

I'm not sure it is a good thing to really "promote" Dzogchen, especially to people that otherwise would have no interest, and even more so if the cost of promoting it is the quality of presentation. Dzogchen is something really precise, and so there is a fine line between promoting Dzogchen and Dzogchen-light. In effect Harris is also promoting Advaita and a significant equivalence between it and Dzogchen.:

Nonsense. Harris is totally unequivocal. If you want to practice dzogchen you must receive teachings from a qualified dzogchen teacher like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche. He looks at different problems with following a lama and how teachers can claim to be dzogchen teachers but then teach something else or be complete charlatans, but he says a teacher is necessary. He mentions two qualified dzogchen teachers; Tsoknyi Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche. Anyone that honestly read the book and then sought to practice dzogchen would then seek dzogchen teachings from these two lamas or others. If you are asserting that Tsoknyi Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche are only capable of teaching dzogchen lite, just as you doubted the ability of their father to point out the nature of mind, please make this clear.

[michaelb]

I guess michaelb's point is that Harris work may pique the interest of those rightly biased against Abrahamic religions that could assume Dharma to be just another close relative if a more traditional presentation was provided.

No, my point was that I found the book interesting. He talked about his experience of meditation over the years with clarity and wit. I like the way Sam Harris writes and speaks. I think he chooses his words well and conveys his meaning clearly. The book was never meant to be a dzogchen teaching as such, but showed the general reader that meditative practices are effective. I liked the way he described the reasons behind the pointing out instructions and liked his discussion on various things that often get heated here - progressive path vs instant realisation, authentic and false teachers, etc.

I liked the book maybe because i came across it at a time when a whole bunch of stuff suddenly made sense in a way ot hadn't previously and i listened to it in the light of that. I'm aware it is not a perfect presentation of dzogchen teaching and practice, but the short-comings (use of terms like nondual awareness, etc.) are shared by many other books.

And, at the end of the day, it's about Sam Harris who goes on TV to talk about the flaws of "faith based religion" then has dreams of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and receives direct introduction from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, and I just think that's quite interesting. I would recommend others to read it, just to see what they think. That's all.

[michaelb]

That he says both seek an insight into the non-duality of counsciousness doesn't mean that they both seek the same insight.

So if I understand you right, you're suggesting that Harris' true intent contradicts word for word what he actually says? Like a major typo or something?

No, the point is, to Harris the difference is irrelevant. As i have repeatedly said, his book is not a dzogchen teaching, he is not a dzogchen teacher and he does not concern himself with ontological or philosophical positions. Having been introduced to the nature of mind, as he was, maybe conceptual proliferations on issues of philosphical difference did not concern him.

But supposing that he means that advaita and dzogchen seek exactly the same identical insight; given that he only claims any kind of insight regarding dzogchen, having been introduced to sems nyid by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, he must assume that advaita vedantins, whose realisation he never claimed (and seems to be sceptical of) seek the same insight as dzogchen, rather than the other way round. Of course, people here who wish to discredit Harris want to show his knowledge of the nature of mind is incorrect. I, personally, would not feel comfortable in criticising a fellow practitioner or casting doubt on the teachings he received from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche over several years.

[Malcolm]

No, the point is, to Harris the difference is irrelevant.

That means there is a problem with his view. The difference is crucial.

Of course, people here who wish to discredit Harris want to show his knowledge of the nature of mind is incorrect.

I can't address his experience, only what he says in print.

[michaelb]

No, the point is, to Harris the difference is irrelevant.

That means there is a problem with his view. The difference is crucial.

Why? He doesn't go into any kind of detail about it. We can't say his view is wrong because he doesn't say what his view is. He neither explains what he means by advaita nor what he means by dzogchen in any kind of detail. We can't just assume that and to him it is irrelevant because that is not what his book is about.

[PuerAzaelis]

... nit-picking ... he doesn't care ... "Who cares if your idea is the same as another religions?" ...

i) "Being and consciousness aren't two separate things."

ii) "Ontological undecidability and clarity aren't two separate things."

To me i) and ii) are mutually exclusive. I have to pick.

The veterans may quibble with this but also, to me, ii) is a Buddhist view, through and through.

PS: If Sam Harris (I really like him btw) says something like "i) and ii) may be different, but that's irrelevant for beginners", I think it is pretty relevant.

[Malcolm]

No, the point is, to Harris the difference is irrelevant.

That means there is a problem with his view. The difference is crucial.

Why? He doesn't go into any kind of detail about it. We can't say his view is wrong because he doesn't say what his view is. He neither explains what he means by advaita nor what he means by dzogchen in any kind of detail. We can't just assume that and to him it is irrelevant because that is not what his book is about.

He does indeed say what he means by Advaita. He is a student of Poonja-ji, like Andrew Cohen, Ganga-ji, Mooji and so on. Thus, we have a very clear idea of what Advaita means for him.

He also paints a very clear picture of what Dzogchen means for him. This is one of the reasons why I characterized his description of Dzogchen as Vipassana gussied up in Tibetan drag.

He describes his religious career very precisely: He first practiced Burmese-style Vipassana; he then went on to study with Poonja-ji, and then he spent a few years (5) taking teachings from Tulku Urgyen.

His book is entitled, "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion." In this book he describes his view of religion in general, and Advaita and Dzogchen very thoroghly.

Now, as for myself, I really do not have anything more to offer on the subject of this book, other than that as a "purist," someone who has devoted to the past 25 years of my life to studying and practicing Dzogchen, I do not think these sorts of popularizations of the teachings do anything more than confuse people. People are very influenced by the first book they read on a given subject, and it pains me to think that the first book someone might read on the subject of Dzogchen teachings is Harris's book.

M

[Anonymous X]

He even goes as far as calling this 'True Self'. Of course, we immediately think of Advaita and it's posit of an atman as true self. This kind of conception is not very different from each other, and the Buddha lived in a time where this kind of teaching must have been prevalent. Buddhist scholars have argued this point of 'positive' essence vehemently, both for and against this kind of thinking. How do you personally interpret this? Is it just semantics that we get lost in and both systems are talking about the 'ineffable' using different terms? What would the difference between Brahman and buddhanature really be?

The term "true self" [satyātman] actually never appears in any of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras. It's presence in select English texts is a translational gloss chosen by a couple authors to fit their own biases.

Further, the Laṅkāvatāra is explicitly clear that the tathāgatagarbha is not to be conflated with the self of the non-buddhists.

The Laṅkā also states:

• O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman].

Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:

• The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.

These quotes seem to contradict what you just said. There are many more like these in the Tathagathagarbha 'class' of sutras.

From the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
'When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus. That is why he says: 'All things have no Self.'
Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman].'

In the chapter entitled, “The Tathāgata-garbha”,
the Buddha declares to Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva
Kāśyapa (I quote from Faxian, Hodge, 2005, p.1):
The True Self is the tathāgata-dhātu
[Buddha Principle, Buddha Element,
Buddha Factor]. You should know
that all beings do have it, but it
is not apparent, since those beings
are enveloped by immeasurable
kleśas [defects of mind, morality and
character] ....
The keen young Bodhisattva will have none of
this, however, and mounts a vehement, verbal assault
on the Buddha in an attempt to shore up the validity
of the general non-Self doctrine, attempting to argue
for the total illogicality and impossibility of a real
Self.
Does the Buddha at this point then modify or
even withdraw his revelation that the True Self is the
indwelling Buddha-Principle within all beings? No.
He strengthens it - by telling the tale of a rather
witless wrestler who mistakenly believes he has lost
a precious jewel, which he always wore fastened to
his forehead, when in fact it has merely been driven
under his flesh by the force of his engagement in a
bout with a wrestling rival. The Buddha states
(Faxian):
All beings are also like this. Each one of
them has the tathāgata-dhātu, but,
through having recourse to evil
acquaintances, they give rise to
attachment, hatred and stupidity and fall
into the three miserable states …,
adopting various kinds of bodies
throughout the twenty-five modes of
existence. The precious jewel that is
the tathagata-dhātu is buried within the
wound of the kleśas of attachment,
hatred and stupidity, so that they are
unaware of its presence there. Engaging
in the notion that there is no Self with
regard to the mundane self, they do not
understand the skilful words of implicational
purport of the Tathāgata …
They have the notion that there is no
Self and are unable to know the True Self. Regarding this, the Tathāgata …
utilises skilful means: he causes
them to extinguish the raging fires of
the countless kleśas, revealing and
elucidating the tathāgata-dhātu to
them … (Hodge, 2005, p. 2)

On the specific question of the supramundane
or nirvanic Self, it is apparent that the sūtra does
assert an eternally abiding entity or dharma – what
we might call the “Buddha-Self”, since the Buddha
utters the equation ‘Self = Buddha’ - as an everenduring
reality of the highest order. That Buddha-
Self is one with Nirvāna. In the Dharmaksema
Nirvāna Sūtra, the Buddha is asked by Mañjuśrī,
“What is the meaning of this ‘real truth’ that you
have mentioned?” The Buddha’s reply is instructive
and unequivocal:
Noble son, the real truth is the true
Dharma. Noble son, if the Dharma is
not true, then it cannot be called the
‘real truth’. Noble son, the real truth
is devoid of distortions …the real truth
is free from falsity. If it were not free
from falsity, it would not be called the
‘real truth’… Noble son, that which is
endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the
Self and Purity is stated to be the
meaning of the ‘real truth’. (Yamamoto/
Page, 2000, Vol. 4, “On Holy Actions, p.48".
Actions”, p. 48).

[Malcolm]

He even goes as far as calling this 'True Self'. Of course, we immediately think of Advaita and it's posit of an atman as true self. This kind of conception is not very different from each other, and the Buddha lived in a time where this kind of teaching must have been prevalent. Buddhist scholars have argued this point of 'positive' essence vehemently, both for and against this kind of thinking. How do you personally interpret this? Is it just semantics that we get lost in and both systems are talking about the 'ineffable' using different terms? What would the difference between Brahman and buddhanature really be?

The term "true self" [satyātman] actually never appears in any of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras. It's presence in select English texts is a translational gloss chosen by a couple authors to fit their own biases.

Further, the Laṅkāvatāra is explicitly clear that the tathāgatagarbha is not to be conflated with the self of the non-buddhists.

The Laṅkā also states:

• O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman].

Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:

• The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.

These quotes seem to contradict what you just said. There are many more like these in the Tathagathagarbha 'class' of sutras.

Tathatāgatagarbha is just a name for dharmakāya covered with afflictions. As such, it refers to the nature of the mind, that's all. It's doctrine was formulated as a reaction to the idea that the ultimate nature of sentient beings, beings with consciousness, is a blank emptiness. Hence, these sūtras and their commentary, the Uttaratantra, while acknowledging the essence of the mind is emptiness free from all extremes of proliferation, emphasize that the nature of the mind is an unconditioned clarity, just as for example, fire is not merely heat, but also light, for example, water is not just wet, it is also limpid.

Also, the Nirvana Sūtra and so on explicitly reject the atman of non-buddhists.

M

[fckw]

Isn't the term "secular Dzogchen" a pleonasm? However...

...this is NOT to be confused with the question: Can there be a non-Buddhist/Bon Dzogchen? Cause, without any epistemological framework, there can be no teaching/dharma. And only Buddhism/Bon have developed Dzogchen, so there can not be a, for example, Christian Dzogchen.

(The Buddha did not teach how to brew beer or build your own jet engine from nothing but lego bricks, but he taught the four noble truths. There is your epistemological framework.)

[Virgo]

People are very influenced by the first book they read on a given subject
M

Damn Skippy. And thankfully the first ones I read were by ChNN. This whole thread is rather painful. Dharmawheel is normally like a dentist visit, but now it's like he's really getting in there and I am just praying for the end.


Kevin

[Gyurme Kundrol]

People are very influenced by the first book they read on a given subject
M

Damn Skippy. And thankfully the first ones I read were by ChNN. This whole thread is rather painful. Dharmawheel is normally like a dentist visit, but now it's like he's really getting in there and I am just praying for the end.


Kevin

Its true, there is even a scientific basis for it! Information control isnt just about what is and isnt safe, its about preventing the creation of needless obstacles brought upon by premature learning and the subsequent wrong views that end up projected onto the subject matter and the difficulties involved in unlearning those views.

[Virgo]

Damn Skippy. And thankfully the first ones I read were by ChNN. This whole thread is rather painful. Dharmawheel is normally like a dentist visit, but now it's like he's really getting in there and I am just praying for the end.


Kevin

Its true, there is even a scientific basis for it! Information control isnt just about what is and isnt safe, its about preventing the creation of needless obstacles brought upon by premature learning and the subsequent wrong views that end up projected onto the subject matter and the difficulties involved in unlearning those views.

I think it's just about what's right and what's wrong, but I like how you put that. Thank you.

Kevin

[Anonymous X]

The term "true self" [satyātman] actually never appears in any of the tathāgatagarbha sūtras. It's presence in select English texts is a translational gloss chosen by a couple authors to fit their own biases.

Further, the Laṅkāvatāra is explicitly clear that the tathāgatagarbha is not to be conflated with the self of the non-buddhists.

The Laṅkā also states:

• O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self [anātman].

Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:

• The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone.

These quotes seem to contradict what you just said. There are many more like these in the Tathagathagarbha 'class' of sutras.

Tathatāgatagarbha is just a name for dharmakāya covered with afflictions. As such, it refers to the nature of the mind, that's all. It's doctrine was formulated as a reaction to the idea that the ultimate nature of sentient beings, beings with consciousness, is a blank emptiness. Hence, these sūtras and their commentary, the Uttaratantra, while acknowledging the essence of the mind is emptiness free from all extremes of proliferation, emphasize that the nature of the mind is an unconditioned clarity, just as for example, fire is not merely heat, but also light, for example, water is not just wet, it is also limpid.

Also, the Nirvana Sūtra and so on explicitly reject the atman of non-buddhists.

M

But I just quoted passages from the Mahaparinirvana sutra stating differently. I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by this. If buddhanature is indeed an essence that is eternal, how can we say it is devoid of substance? Why does the Buddha say: " Noble son, that which is endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the
Self and Purity is stated to be the meaning of the ‘real truth’. I'm just trying to understand where this is all coming from? I'm not making this up, obviously. It's there for all to read.

[GDPR_Anonymized001]

These quotes seem to contradict what you just said. There are many more like these in the Tathagathagarbha 'class' of sutras.
Noble son, that which is
endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the
Self and Purity is stated to be the
meaning of the ‘real truth’. (Yamamoto/
Page, 2000, Vol. 4, “On Holy Actions, p.48".
Actions”, p. 48).

Hello again, just to confirm, these quotes you're using that cite Hodge are actually from Tony Page's website, correct? If indeed you are using quotes from Tony Page's website then this more than fully answers my earlier question to you.

I'm honestly having a very difficult time putting your comments into context as they often sound so different from what I have studied and learned over the years. From what tradition do you spring forth? Or, if prefer not to "label" yourself, what are the key Sutra upon which you base your comments? Just so I can gain a better understanding of where you are coming from, please?

[Malcolm]

These quotes seem to contradict what you just said. There are many more like these in the Tathagathagarbha 'class' of sutras.

Tathatāgatagarbha is just a name for dharmakāya covered with afflictions. As such, it refers to the nature of the mind, that's all. It's doctrine was formulated as a reaction to the idea that the ultimate nature of sentient beings, beings with consciousness, is a blank emptiness. Hence, these sūtras and their commentary, the Uttaratantra, while acknowledging the essence of the mind is emptiness free from all extremes of proliferation, emphasize that the nature of the mind is an unconditioned clarity, just as for example, fire is not merely heat, but also light, for example, water is not just wet, it is also limpid.

Also, the Nirvana Sūtra and so on explicitly reject the atman of non-buddhists.

M

But I just quoted passages from the Mahaparinirvana sutra stating differently.

No, you didn't. The Nirvana Sūtra clearly states that the "self" it is discussing is different than the self of the nonbuddhists. Do you really need me to trot out the passages?

[Anonymous X]

These quotes seem to contradict what you just said. There are many more like these in the Tathagathagarbha 'class' of sutras.
Noble son, that which is
endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the
Self and Purity is stated to be the
meaning of the ‘real truth’. (Yamamoto/
Page, 2000, Vol. 4, “On Holy Actions, p.48".
Actions”, p. 48).

Hello again, just to confirm, these quotes you're using that cite Hodge are actually from Tony Page's website, correct? If indeed you are using quotes from Tony Page's website then this more than fully answers my earlier question to you.

I'm honestly having a very difficult time putting your comments into context as they often sound so different from what I have studied and learned over the years. From what tradition do you spring forth? Or, if prefer not to "label" yourself, what are the key Sutra upon which you base your comments? Just so I can gain a better understanding of where you are coming from, please?

Is Hodge the one that is mis-translating these things? And, Page is repeating these? The quote you paraphrased is not Page's, but Yamamoto, as you can see. My only intention is to straighten this out as I'm also surprised to see something like this that goes against everything I've studied about Buddhism.

[Anonymous X]

Tathatāgatagarbha is just a name for dharmakāya covered with afflictions. As such, it refers to the nature of the mind, that's all. It's doctrine was formulated as a reaction to the idea that the ultimate nature of sentient beings, beings with consciousness, is a blank emptiness. Hence, these sūtras and their commentary, the Uttaratantra, while acknowledging the essence of the mind is emptiness free from all extremes of proliferation, emphasize that the nature of the mind is an unconditioned clarity, just as for example, fire is not merely heat, but also light, for example, water is not just wet, it is also limpid.

Also, the Nirvana Sūtra and so on explicitly reject the atman of non-buddhists.

M

But I just quoted passages from the Mahaparinirvana sutra stating differently.

No, you didn't. The Nirvana Sūtra clearly states that the "self" it is discussing is different than the self of the nonbuddhists. Do you really need me to trot out the passages?

What did I actually quote, then?

[GDPR_Anonymized001]

Is Hodge the one that is mis-translating these things? And, Page is repeating these? The quote you paraphrased is not Page's, but Yamamoto, as you can see. My only intention is to straighten this out as I'm also surprised to see something like this that goes against everything I've studied about Buddhism.

I didn't want to quote the full post so I only left the Yamamoto translation which Dr. Page "copy-edited" (Source: http://www.nirvanasutra.net/responsetocritics.htm) Dr. Page has a PhD in German Literature, I believe.

As far as I know, Hodge's translation hasn't been finalized and published yet. The text you quote is from Tony Page's website and the comments that show in [brackets] are his own. I can't speak for others but I do not consider that particular website a good source of information. I would be exceptionally surprised if the source of confusion stemmed from Dr. Hodge.