Response to Bernie

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

It always puzzles me that, how come people who actually received mind instruction and 'got it' ever possible to stand up against that certain guru, as DJKR said 'you owe him the world for it'? Does that supposedly greatest moment so insignificant for some people, that they think when they find out the certain guru behaved badly, they don't owe that guru that favour anymore? Or actually it's so insignificant, because it was given in a wrong way, therefore insignificant for students?

This puzzles me as well.

/magnus

+1

That is, if it wasn’t all just make-believe on the student’s part.

[Simon E.]

I received mind instruction from a teacher and 'got it'.

Later he began to behave in an increasingly erratic way ( to say the least). Eventually his behaviour was such that I was no longer able to view samaya as still being an operant factor.

Which does not diminish my eternal gratitude to him. Both things are true.

[Powerful bliss]

I wonder why DJKR thinks he has a legitimacy to speak in the name of Vajrayana in general. He can talk for himself or his lineage but why does he think that he knows all about Vajrayana and its methods?

Clearly, different schools have different approaches. Why should we listen to him about Vajrayana if he is not one of our teachers?

[Malcolm]

It always puzzles me that, how come people who actually received mind instruction and 'got it' ever possible to stand up against that certain guru, as DJKR said 'you owe him the world for it'? Does that supposedly greatest moment so insignificant for some people, that they think when they find out the certain guru behaved badly, they don't owe that guru that favour anymore? Or actually it's so insignificant, because it was given in a wrong way, therefore insignificant for students?

People overrate their own capacity to "get it."

When we need to seriously talk about samaya based on text and commentaries, including unconventional pointing-out instruction really make defining samaya establishing and breakage quite difficult.

This is all very clearly explained in tantras such as the Rigpa Rangshar. 1) A qualified guru is indispensable. 2) Empowerments are indispensable 3) Protecting the samaya one receives from empowerment is indispensable. 4) Gurus can break samaya, and if so, the breach is irreparable.

Maybe not so much a problem when Dzogchen mind point out/rigpa tsal wang was so rarely given, so secret, and so strict in both guru and student's qualification, while nowadays.....

The idea that this was rare or difficult to get is an institutional myth. Secrecy is Vajrayāna's main marketing tool.

[dzogchungpa]

Maybe not so much a problem when Dzogchen mind point out/rigpa tsal wang was so rarely given, so secret, and so strict in both guru and student's qualification, while nowadays.....

The idea that this was rare or difficult to get is an institutional myth. Secrecy is Vajrayāna's main marketing tool.

I'm quite willing to believe this but, just out of curiosity, how do you know this?

[Malcolm]

Maybe not so much a problem when Dzogchen mind point out/rigpa tsal wang was so rarely given, so secret, and so strict in both guru and student's qualification, while nowadays.....

The idea that this was rare or difficult to get is an institutional myth. Secrecy is Vajrayāna's main marketing tool.

I'm quite willing to believe this but, just out of curiosity, how do you know this?

By reading Buddhist history and literature for the past 33 years?

[dzogchungpa]

The idea that this was rare or difficult to get is an institutional myth. Secrecy is Vajrayāna's main marketing tool.

I'm quite willing to believe this but, just out of curiosity, how do you know this?

By reading Buddhist history and literature for the past 33 years?

Well, what did you read that shows that this was the case?

[Malcolm]

I'm quite willing to believe this but, just out of curiosity, how do you know this?

By reading Buddhist history and literature for the past 33 years?

Well, what did you read that shows that this was the case?

You mean is there one book that demonstrates this? No, but it is obvious when one reads through Tibetan history that Dzogchen was a very poorly kept secret for something so reserved, esoteric, and only for the elect. Dzogchen masters like Rigzin Godem had thousands of students, same with many popular tertons like Jatson Nying, Dudul Dorje, Jigme Lingpa, etc. For something so secret, it is amazing there is more literature on Dzogchen in Tibetan literature than any other tantric genre. I mean, if Dzogchen is so secret, how is it possible that 100,000 monks at Kathog attained rainbow body, as the story goes? Kathog was the earliest Nyimgma monastery, founded in the 12th century by Deshek Dampa, Phamgo Drukpa's younger brother.

That equals 100 monks a year for the past thousand years attaining rainbow body, 8.3 per month— one rainbow body every 3.6 days for the past thousand years!

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I received mind instruction from a teacher and 'got it'.

Later he began to behave in an increasingly erratic way ( to say the least). Eventually his behaviour was such that I was no longer able to view samaya as still being an operant factor.

Which does not diminish my eternal gratitude to him. Both things are true.

I am currently entertaining the idea that advanced Vajrayana spirituality is not a guarantee against addiction.
Even though 12 step programs are much more basic spiritually, they are formulated in such a way so as to address that particular pathology.

I don’t advocate “mixing” the two per se, but rather I see recovery as being a good initial spiritual orientation the Vajrayana can build on. 12 step before/below Vajrayana. And I see elements of recovery in NgonDro, which would make sense.

Anyway that’s the kind of stuff I daydream about.

[dzogchungpa]

Well, what did you read that shows that this was the case?

You mean is there one book that demonstrates this? No, but it is obvious when one reads through Tibetan history that Dzogchen was a very poorly kept secret for something so reserved, esoteric, and only for the elect. Dzogchen masters like Rigzin Godem had thousands of students, same with many popular tertons like Jatson Nying, Dudul Dorje, Jigme Lingpa, etc. For something so secret, it is amazing there is more literature on Dzogchen in Tibetan literature than any other tantric genre. I mean, if Dzogchen is so secret, how is it possible that 100,000 monks at Kathog attained rainbow body, as the story goes? Kathog was the earliest Nyimgma monastery, founded in the 12th century by Deshek Dampa, Phamgo Drukpa's younger brother.

That equals 100 monks a year for the past thousand years attaining rainbow body, 8.3 per month— one rainbow body every 3.6 days for the past thousand years!

The issue is not whether the existence of Dzogchen was secret or how large its associated literature is, but rather how rare it has been to receive the pointing out instructions or whatever. This rarity may have varied historically, so citing certain specific cases is not sufficient. E.g., it is quite possible that there were more qualified students at various times etc. As far as the 100,000 monks goes, perhaps that is also a myth and even if it is true I point out that they were monks, not lay people. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, but I don't really see how one could establish this point.

[Malcolm]

The issue is not whether the existence of Dzogchen was secret or how large its associated literature is, but rather how rare it has been to receive the pointing out instructions or whatever.

Not rare at all. Instructions for ritual murder were and are much more restricted than any Dzogchen transmission. Then of course, any major treasure cycle must have three things: Guru, Avalokiteśvara, and Dzogchen.

This rarity may have varied historically, so citing certain specific cases is not sufficient. E.g., it is quite possible that there were more qualified students at various times etc.

In the 12th century, Nyangral Nyima Ozer states that after Chegom (early 12th century) the teaching of the 17 tantras were very wide spread in Tibet. There is simply no evidence that Dzogchen ever waned in popularity or was actually kept in the strictest of secrecy.

Finally, because Dzogchen was seen as controversial in the dominant monastic colleges of the day, it mainly spread outside monasteries among the laity, and the vast majority of Dzogchen literature, then as now, was committed to writing by lay tertons.

[dzogchungpa]

The issue is not whether the existence of Dzogchen was secret or how large its associated literature is, but rather how rare it has been to receive the pointing out instructions or whatever.

Not rare at all. Instructions for ritual murder were and are much more restricted than any Dzogchen transmission. Then of course, any major treasure cycle must have three things: Guru, Avalokiteśvara, and Dzogchen.

This rarity may have varied historically, so citing certain specific cases is not sufficient. E.g., it is quite possible that there were more qualified students at various times etc.

In the 12th century, Nyangral Nyima Ozer states that after Chegom (early 12th century) the teaching of the 17 tantras were very wide spread in Tibet. There is simply no evidence that Dzogchen ever waned in popularity or was actually kept in the strictest of secrecy.

Finally, because Dzogchen was seen as controversial in the dominant monastic colleges of the day, it mainly spread outside monasteries among the laity, and the vast majority of Dzogchen literature, then as now, was committed to writing by lay tertons.

Well, apparently some received ideas are myths so perhaps a few myths have crept into your preferred narrative. Anyway, like I said, it doesn't really matter, have to run.

[Malcolm]

Well, apparently some received ideas are myths so perhaps a few myths have crept into your preferred narrative. Anyway, like I said, it doesn't really matter, have to run.

Alternately, like many before you, you have fallen for the "secrecy" marketing scheme. Worked wonders for Masonry too.

[pemachophel]

ime, whether dzogchen is kept secret or not depends on the individual teacher. i've had three teachers who kept dzogchen extremely secret even though it was being broadcast openly all around them.

[Malcolm]

ime, whether dzogchen is kept secret or not depends on the individual teacher. i've had three teachers who kept dzogchen extremely secret even though it was being broadcast openly all around them.

Oh, I am not saying that it should not be kept within the confines of initiation. But the word "secret" in Dzogchen and Vajrayāna in general merely means that these principles are not known in lower vehicles, not that they are confidential like a top secret file.

[Punya]

For what it's worth I am of the view that the best thing he can do both for Rigpa and for Vajrayana in the west is shut the frack up about the issue.

Which he has now done. This has been posted on his Facebook page.

In the midst of all my imperfections. I can claim only a tiny bit of pure motivation in wanting to clarify some of the doubts, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings about the Vajrayana teachings that have arisen recently in connection with Sogyal Rinpoche and his behaviour.

As I am fundamentally just a mortal human being, I cannot make a judgement about another human being. Determining whether someone is a saint or sinner is an individual decision based on each person’s own reasoning.

After all, remember the Buddha’s fundamental instruction not to rely on the person but on the teaching. Those who want me to proclaim someone else as good, bad or anything else are empowering me as either an omniscient being or a cult leader.

So, all I’ve tried to do with the best of intentions and relying on the very limited knowledge I have acquired through my training, is simply to offer some clarifications on the Vajrayana. I hope that, at least for some people, our discussions might have shed light on some of their concerns. At the same time, I have no illusion whatsoever that my feeble blabbering has managed to dispel all confusions and resolve all doubts.

In its 2,500-year history, the Vajrayana has faced so much criticism, not only of the kind we have heard in recent months but indeed far more virulent. And because we are human beings grappling as best we can with cosmic and transcendent truths, I am certain such criticism will keep happening in the future.

If, due to my own prejudice and lack of humility and mindfulness, I have upset some people, I hope that they might at least not fall right away into a fixed bias either “pro” or “con”. And if I’ve caused anything like rage in people’s minds, I want to apologize totally and unreservedly from my heart.

At the same time, I know with certainty that the Vajrayana has extraordinarily vast, subtle and profound teachings and practices. So, if some people, like many of those writing on What Now for example, are still dissatisfied, then all I can do is aspire to use our present karmic link to wish them very well in all spiritual and worldly matters. Above all, may all our karmic debts be exhausted so that they never again have to suffer by bumping into someone like myself in their journey.

I also don’t want to be bound further by the karmic debts that will inevitably accumulate by persisting in these exchanges. So, this is my last posting on this Facebook page concerning the Sogyal Rinpoche affair and related matters, and I can no longer read or respond to any further questions, comments or challenges on this matter.

[Simon E.]

Anytime he needs my advice...

[Punya]

Anytime he needs my advice...

I'm sorry to tell you Simon, but it probably wasn't your advice that prompted this.

[dzogchungpa]

Anytime he needs my advice...

I'm sorry to tell you Simon, but it probably wasn't your advice that prompted this.

I wouldn't be so sure, Punya. I've long suspected that Simone's eloquent posts carry a great deal of weight with many of today's important lamas.

[Simon E.]

Anytime he needs my advice...

I'm sorry to tell you Simon, but it probably wasn't your advice that prompted this.

Darn..I'll cancel that Gucci robe set then.