New Rigpa letter

[Grigoris]

If one”s own vision of all phenomena is not pure in every way, tellling other people to practice pure vision is pure hypocrisy, whether or not one is a teacher.

I'm sorry, but did you just call Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche a hypocrite?

Are you saying that only a Buddha can practice pure vision? Surely one has to try (train in) practicing pure vision before reaching the 24/7 point?

Is everybody that is in training a hypocrite?

[Malcolm]

If one”s own vision of all phenomena is not pure in every way, tellling other people to practice pure vision is pure hypocrisy, whether or not one is a teacher.

I'm sorry, but did you just call Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche a hypocrite?

Of course not.

Are you saying that only a Buddha can practice pure vision?

Why would a Buddha need to practice pure vision? They are free of afflictions.

Surely one has to try (train in) practicing pure vision before reaching the 24/7 point?

Let me ask you —— what is the purpose of pure vision? What does it mean to you?

Is everybody that is in training a hypocrite?

Those people, whose own afflictions are not in check, that demand or suggest others observe pure vision are definitely hypocrites, whether they are teachers or students.

Therefore, everyone (gurus included) should check and see whether their own afflictions are in check prior to criticizing what they imagine to be the afflicted perceptions of others. If people really did this, I bet the silence would be deafening.

Full disclosure-- everything I say and do is merely the glow of the raging bonfire of my own afflictions, which is why you never see me recommending to anyone that they should "practice" pure vision with respect to anything or anyone as a rebuke or a remedy to some worldly controversy. I have discussed the notion of training in pure vision with respect to the creation stage, because that is the essential theory of the creation stage.

More to the point, if one has to train in pure vision one is afflicted. If one is afflicted, one's vision is not pure. One's vision will not become pure by imagining that one is a buddha in the middle of a palace surrounded by gods, goddesses, and so on. It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha.

One's vision will only become pure when one is free from grasping. Therefore, it is much better to train in nongrasping than it is to train in pure vision.

[Grigoris]

If one”s own vision of all phenomena is not pure in every way, tellling other people to practice pure vision is pure hypocrisy, whether or not one is a teacher.

I'm sorry, but did you just call Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche a hypocrite?

Of course not.

Well then, you should be careful with how you comment, because it was Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche that recommended people practice pure vision, and the discussion is about his recommendation. It can easily lead to all sorts of justified misinterpretations.

[Grigoris]

More to the point, if one has to train in pure vision one is afflicted. If one is afflicted, one's vision is not pure. One's vision will not become pure by imagining that one is a buddha in the middle of a palace surrounded by gods, goddesses, and so on. It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha.

Now what are you saying? That practice/training is useless???

One's vision will only become pure when one is free from grasping. Therefore, it is much better to train in nongrasping than it is to train in pure vision.

Somehow I do not think you can seperate non-grasping from pure vision.

[Malcolm]

I'm sorry, but did you just call Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche a hypocrite?

Of course not.

Well then, you should be careful with how you comment, because it was Shenphen Dawa Rinpoche that recommended people practice pure vision, and the discussion is about his recommendation. It can easily lead to all sorts of justified misinterpretations.

I don't care.

[Grigoris]

I don't care.

You don't care if it sounds like you are calling SDR a hypocrite?

[Malcolm]

More to the point, if one has to train in pure vision one is afflicted. If one is afflicted, one's vision is not pure. One's vision will not become pure by imagining that one is a buddha in the middle of a palace surrounded by gods, goddesses, and so on. It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha.

Now what are you saying? That practice/training is useless???

One's vision will only become pure when one is free from grasping. Therefore, it is much better to train in nongrasping than it is to train in pure vision.

Somehow I do not think you can seperate non-grasping from pure vision.

Nongrasping is more important than pure vision. How do we know this?

One does not start a sadhana, for example, beginning with pure vision. We begin by meditating that all phenomena are empty, free from extremes. Then, for a while we engage in conceptual proliferation that we pretend is pure. In the end, we let all that conceptual proliferation vanish back into emptiness free from extremes. This is the essence of the creation stage and the completion stage.

The completion stage is more important because the essence of the completion stage is nongrasping.

[Malcolm]

I don't care.

You don't care if it sounds like you are calling SDR a hypocrite?

Nope. Intelligent people will understand that I am not saying that, and stupid people are not my problem.

[pemachophel]

"It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha." (italics mine)

agreed. it becomes pure by recognizing, i.e., directly experiencing, one's guru is Buddha.

[Malcolm]

"It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha." (italics mine)

agreed. it becomes pure by recognizing, i.e., directly experiencing, one's guru is Buddha.

One will never actually recognize that one's guru is a Buddha until one discovers buddhahood within oneself.

This is a profound point of Atiyoga, the rest is all play for children.

Being a child, I like to play a lot. I much prefer it to work.

[pael]

We begin by meditating that all phenomena are empty, free from extremes.

All phenomena are beyond coming and going?

[pemachophel]

"One will never actually recognize that one's guru is a Buddha until one discovers buddhahood within oneself."

agreed.

[Malcolm]

We begin by meditating that all phenomena are empty, free from extremes.

All phenomena are beyond coming and going?

Got it in one!

[tranides]

Malcolm what do you think about training in all paramitas, bodhicitta, kyerim and dzogrim, in fact - by all those trainings - i do train in pretending beeing awaken. Is it also worthless becouse of mental afflictions? My teacher use to say, that even if we wont achieve the fruit of the path, we are planting karmic seeds of future acomplishemnt. Which is good anyway. I also have a question about thinking about the process lineary - except training in pure vision one will probably train in plenty other things, so his klesha will be purified gradualy which means hes wannabe pure vision will become more and more pure (kinda stupid expression), wont it? Tho i might be completly wrong.

Luke

[marting]

One does not start a sadhana, for example, beginning with pure vision.

Yeah, you do.

Jeez, the internet...

[Malcolm]

Malcolm what do you think about training in all paramitas, bodhicitta, kyerim and dzogrim, in fact - by all those trainings - i do train in pretending beeing awaken. Is it also worthless becouse of mental afflictions?

Pāramitās are not pāramitās unless one is free from grasping, right?
Bodhicitta with grasping is defective bodhicitta, right?
The creation stage is defective without the completion stage, right?

So in all of this, nongrasping in the most important point.

My teacher use to say, that even if we wont achieve the fruit of the path, we are planting karmic seeds of future acomplishemnt. Which is good anyway. I also have a question about thinking about the process lineary - except training in pure vision one will probably train in plenty other things, so his klesha will be purified gradualy which means hes wannabe pure vision will become more and more pure (kinda stupid expression), wont it? Tho i might be completly wrong.

The kleśas are not something to remove from the mind, the wisdoms are not something to add to the mind; the kleśas are themselves self-liberated wisdom when one cuts through grasping even though there is nothing to cut.

Therefore, cutting through grasping is the actual practice of all paths, from hinayāna to atiyoga. The only difference between the yānas, lower to higher, is the coarseness of the grasping one cuts through.

[Sonam Wangchug]

"It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha." (italics mine)

agreed. it becomes pure by recognizing, i.e., directly experiencing, one's guru is Buddha.

One will never actually recognize that one's guru is a Buddha until one discovers buddhahood within oneself.

This is a profound point of Atiyoga, the rest is all play for children.

Being a child, I like to play a lot. I much prefer it to work.

However, viewing ones guru as a Buddha is a helpful condition in discovering buddhahood within oneself. That is why in Lama naljor for example the lama is not visualized in their "ordinary" form. ( in case there are concepts the lama in his "ordinary form" is not the buddha)

Of course for those with a different sense of devotion, it is perfectly fine to visualize the lama in his/her "ordinary form" as lama shang clearly states being that the lama is the embodiment of the Wisdom. Even Dilgo khyentse rinpoche states in his commentary on the nyingthik ngondro whatever form gives you more devotion.

Vajrayana in a nutshell. In the beginning you view your lama as the buddha, in the middle you truly believe/see your lama as the buddha, in the end you recognize this very mind as the buddha

https://www.lionsroar.com/how-will-you-see-the-guru/

[Malcolm]

"It will not become pure by imagining one's guru is a buddha." (italics mine)

agreed. it becomes pure by recognizing, i.e., directly experiencing, one's guru is Buddha.

One will never actually recognize that one's guru is a Buddha until one discovers buddhahood within oneself.

This is a profound point of Atiyoga, the rest is all play for children.

Being a child, I like to play a lot. I much prefer it to work.

However, viewing ones guru as a Buddha is a helpful condition in discovering buddhahood within oneself. That is why in Lama naljor for example the lama is not visualized in their "ordinary" form. ( in case there are concepts the lama in his "ordinary form" is not the buddha)

And there are guru yogas where one does not visualize anything at all with five or more limbs. I tend to resort to the former more. I find that as I get older, I tend to prefer apophatic practice; but certainly when I was younger in the Dharma, I was very enthusiastic about cataphatic practices (Greg, this is your cue to lecture me about misusing Greek words).

I do like practicing Chö liturgies though.

[Malcolm]

One does not start a sadhana, for example, beginning with pure vision.

Yeah, you do.

Jeez, the internet...

No, you don't. You start a sadhana from the state of emptiness free from proliferation.

Prior to that, in one's ordinary impure form, one goes for refuge, generates bodhicitta, and generates merit on the pure and impure merit fields.

[dzogchungpa]

I find that as I get older, I tend to prefer apophatic practice; but certainly when I was younger in the Dharma, I was very enthusiastic about cataphatic practices (Greg, this is your cue to lecture me about misusing Greek words).

I do like practicing Chö liturgies though.

Well, Chö is a very phatic practice, if you catch my drift.