Dharma Wheel

catmoon wrote:Ok, then there should be zero difference between realized masters.

There is zero difference in the substance of their realization.

Malcolm wrote:

catmoon wrote:Ok, then there should be zero difference between realized masters.

There is zero difference in the substance of their realization.

Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Lake and a waterfall. Same substance, different appearance. The funny part is that nobody knows, and few just gave up seeking.

catmoon wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

catmoon wrote:Ok, then there should be zero difference between realized masters.

There is zero difference in the substance of their realization.

Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Not at all. There is no difference in the realization of masters because what is realized is the nature of mind. This is the same for everyone everywhere.

There is endless variation in the expression of that realization because it is, as Malcolm has said often, a personal experience. I will add that this realization is expressed or manifest differently for everyone because individuals vary tremendously.

I will also add that the difference bewteen and master and an ordinary practitioner is that a master has not just glimpsed the nature of mind but is exceptionally at ease there, can access it at any time, can introduce others to it because he/she basically dwells there, can teach others "about" it and so on.

When you have a dzogchen teacher, you have a relationship with someone who can not only introduce you to the nature of your mind but someone who can guide you to the full expression of that in your daily life. HOW that occurs varies from master to master.

I say this because I have such a teacher. My circumstances are different from his and different from my fellow practioners. He is a master because he understands the nuances of this and he (unlike me and my fellow practitioners) is clear about this in all circumstances.

Dzogchen is always lived in the context of an individual life.

My apologies to oldbob for spouting off like this <laughing> but somebody had to do it.

catmoon wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

catmoon wrote:Ok, then there should be zero difference between realized masters.

There is zero difference in the substance of their realization.

Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Dzogchen masters are, when it comes to discussing Dzogchen.

MalaBeads wrote:

Not at all. There is no difference in the realization of masters because what is realized is the nature of mind. This is the same for everyone everywhere.

There is endless variation in the expression of that realization because it is, as Malcolm has said often, a personal experience. I will add that this realization is expressed or manifest differently for everyone because individuals vary tremendously.

Okay, then I win, because the endless variation is just what I was originally asserting. Yes?

Malcolm wrote:

catmoon wrote:
Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Dzogchen masters are, when it comes to discussing Dzogchen.

All righty. With that kind of agreeent, it must surely be impossible that there would be sects in Dzogchen, since all the teachers are in perfect agreement. It must be nice to enjoy the sort of universal agreement that no other religion in the history of humanity has attained. This would also explain the complete absence of conflict in the Dzogchen threads here.

Nope, couldn't say it with a straight face.

It is wrong to state all Dzogchen masters are united when discussing Dzogchen. ChNN often tells the story of when he was staying with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in Nepal and three Dozgchen masters, couple of Khenpos and a tulku, suddenly appeared to debate him in the presence of TUR on why ChNN is wrong to accept Bonpos as genuine Dzogchenpas. He disagreed. They asked for elaboration on the view of the base in Dzogchen and a debate on invalidity of Bonpo Dzogchen. ChNN said, you should know about the basis and there will be no explanation. We disagree and there will be no debate from me on Dzogchen or Bonpos with you. They promptly left.

catmoon wrote:All righty. With that kind of agreeent, it must surely be impossible that there would be sects in Dzogchen, since all the teachers are in perfect agreement. It must be nice to enjoy the sort of universal agreement that no other religion in the history of humanity has attained. This would also explain the complete absence of conflict in the Dzogchen threads here.

Nope, couldn't say it with a straight face.

By 'sects' are you referring to lineages? There may be minute differences between the traditions/practices of different
lineages but when it comes down to the heart of the matter it's all the same. The universal agreement is merely knowledge of one's state, which is an innate aspect of all beings (and reality in general), if that is recognized then where would contention arise from? Contention and conflict arise from attachment/aversion to ideas and concepts, those ideas aren't dzogchen... though they may be about dzogchen. If debates form then it's only ever ideas which are being discussed, dzogchen in itself is never subject to the debates, this would be impossible.

I'm sure that for those who are unfamiliar with dzogchen, making a statement of that nature sounds like a cop-out, like a member of a religion claiming that their god is beyond everything. And I can even make the statement that "it's not the same", but I'm sure those members of the other religions would say the same thing. So nothing that can be said about dzogchen will prove to be valid, that's why it's based on experiential knowledge. Dzogchen isn't a religion, philosophy etc..

I'm sure that if every individual who contributes to this forum was abiding in the knowledge of their authentic condition then there may be less conflict, but this is (most likely) not the case. So the character of these discussions naturally reflect the variety of individuals involved, this is only natural.

username wrote:It is wrong to state all Dzogchen masters are united when discussing Dzogchen. ChNN often tells the story of when he was staying with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in Nepal and three Dozgchen masters, couple of Khenpos and a tulku, suddenly appeared to debate him in the presence of TUR on why ChNN is wrong to accept Bonpos as genuine Dzogchenpas. He disagreed. They asked for elaboration on the view of the base in Dzogchen and a debate on invalidity of Bonpo Dzogchen. ChNN said, you should know about the basis and there will be no explanation. We disagree and there will be no debate from me on Dzogchen or Bonpos with you. They promptly left.

ChNN never said they were Dzogchen masters.

If you are going to tell a story, get the facts straight.

They wanted to question him on the basis of their misunderstanding of a point of history he had explained in one of his books i.e. that Tonpa Shenrab existed before both Shakyamuni and Garab Dorje, and therefore, they concluded he, ChNN was stating that Dzogchen has its origin in Bon. Of course ChNN explained to them to the history of the 12 ancient masters of Dzogchgen beginning with Nangwa Dampa, who are much more ancient than Tonpa Shenrab.

The three, abashed, then requested Dzogchen teachings from ChNN, who replied to the effect he does not teach Dzogchen to people who come to debate with him about.

catmoon wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

catmoon wrote:
Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Dzogchen masters are, when it comes to discussing Dzogchen.

All righty. With that kind of agreeent, it must surely be impossible that there would be sects in Dzogchen, since all the teachers are in perfect agreement. It must be nice to enjoy the sort of universal agreement that no other religion in the history of humanity has attained. This would also explain the complete absence of conflict in the Dzogchen threads here.

Nope, couldn't say it with a straight face.

With the exception that here we don't have Dzogchen masters debating, but students and people who know next to nothing about it.
Listen Cat, how about knowing what is Dzogchen before making those assertions? Realized masters don't differ in their understanding of Dzogchen. They may use different methods to help their students, at most. If you see two people with different realizations of what is Dzogchen, at least one is deluded.

catmoon wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

catmoon wrote:
Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

Dzogchen masters are, when it comes to discussing Dzogchen.

All righty. With that kind of agreeent, it must surely be impossible that there would be sects in Dzogchen, since all the teachers are in perfect agreement. It must be nice to enjoy the sort of universal agreement that no other religion in the history of humanity has attained. This would also explain the complete absence of conflict in the Dzogchen threads here.

Nope, couldn't say it with a straight face.

There are no sects in Dzogchen per se. There are differences in how this knowledge should be approached, which is what you see being discussed. But there is no room for debate about what Dzogchen is. Of course, most of the people here talking about Dzogchen have little or no facility in Tibetan, and therefore, are quite limited in their scope.

These days, the definitive read on Dzogchen is held to be Longchenpa's four treasuries of the dharmadhātu, reality, subjects and supreme vehicle. Dzogchen is a very precise teaching and in this end, even when people disagree about the best method of pedagogy, they do not disagree about meaning.

Malcolm wrote:

username wrote:It is wrong to state all Dzogchen masters are united when discussing Dzogchen. ChNN often tells the story of when he was staying with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in Nepal and three Dozgchen masters, couple of Khenpos and a tulku, suddenly appeared to debate him in the presence of TUR on why ChNN is wrong to accept Bonpos as genuine Dzogchenpas. He disagreed. They asked for elaboration on the view of the base in Dzogchen and a debate on invalidity of Bonpo Dzogchen. ChNN said, you should know about the basis and there will be no explanation. We disagree and there will be no debate from me on Dzogchen or Bonpos with you. They promptly left.

ChNN never said they were Dzogchen masters.

If you are going to tell a story, get the facts straight.

They wanted to question him on the basis of their misunderstanding of a point of history he had explained in one of his books i.e. that Tonpa Shenrab existed before both Shakyamuni and Garab Dorje, and therefore, they concluded he, ChNN was stating that Dzogchen has its origin in Bon. Of course ChNN explained to them to the history of the 12 ancient masters of Dzogchgen beginning with Nangwa Dampa, who are much more ancient than Tonpa Shenrab.

The three, abashed, then requested Dzogchen teachings from ChNN, who replied to the effect he does not teach Dzogchen to people who come to debate with him about.

They claimed to be Dzogchen masters and wanting to purge Dzogchen of Bonpos. They were told to go away once they started debating him by asking him about the view of the basis when he told them to go away. The point is there are people who are claiming to be Dzogchen masters that some accept that do disagree with other genuine Dzogchen masters. That was a valid point that was made and you dismissed. There are still TB Dzogchen masters who publicly do not accept Bonpos Dzogchen. I don't accept them. But that is my opinion.

Secondly among genuine Dzogchen masters there have been many differences of opinion when catmoon says:

Okay, then they should all be in perfect agreement in their teachings.

to which you replied: "Dzogchen masters are, when it comes to discussing Dzogchen."
We know there are differences of opinion on ngondro, etc. You are wrong on both counts.

Malcolm wrote:

username wrote:It is wrong to state all Dzogchen masters are united when discussing Dzogchen. ChNN often tells the story of when he was staying with Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in Nepal and three Dozgchen masters, couple of Khenpos and a tulku, suddenly appeared to debate him in the presence of TUR on why ChNN is wrong to accept Bonpos as genuine Dzogchenpas. He disagreed. They asked for elaboration on the view of the base in Dzogchen and a debate on invalidity of Bonpo Dzogchen. ChNN said, you should know about the basis and there will be no explanation. We disagree and there will be no debate from me on Dzogchen or Bonpos with you. They promptly left.

ChNN never said they were Dzogchen masters.

If you are going to tell a story, get the facts straight.

They wanted to question him on the basis of their misunderstanding of a point of history he had explained in one of his books i.e. that Tonpa Shenrab existed before both Shakyamuni and Garab Dorje, and therefore, they concluded he, ChNN was stating that Dzogchen has its origin in Bon. Of course ChNN explained to them to the history of the 12 ancient masters of Dzogchgen beginning with Nangwa Dampa, who are much more ancient than Tonpa Shenrab.

The three, abashed, then requested Dzogchen teachings from ChNN, who replied to the effect he does not teach Dzogchen to people who come to debate with him about.

Wow, somehow I managed to not ever hear this story. Thanks.

username wrote: We know there are differences of opinion on ngondro, etc. You are wrong on both counts.

Are there differing opinions on rigpa (or whatever the translation du jour is - maybe I've just answered the question...)?

underthetree wrote:

username wrote: We know there are differences of opinion on ngondro, etc. You are wrong on both counts.

Are there differing opinions on rigpa (or whatever the translation du jour is - maybe I've just answered the question...)?

We are told rigpa is not a matter of semantic, cognition, concepts etc. but of ineffable experience and realization or knowledge of the ultimate state by the person. There are many opinions by them on how to teach students though.

username wrote:

underthetree wrote:

username wrote: We know there are differences of opinion on ngondro, etc. You are wrong on both counts.

Are there differing opinions on rigpa (or whatever the translation du jour is - maybe I've just answered the question...)?

We are told rigpa is not a matter of semantic, cognition, concepts etc. but of ineffable experience and realization or knowledge of the ultimate state by the person. There are many opinions by them on how to teach students though.

So everyone is in agreement with regard to the natural state?

username wrote:
There are still TB Dzogchen masters who publicly do not accept Bonpos Dzogchen. I don't accept them. But that is my opinion.

What is that you do not accept? Bonpo Dzogchen masters?

We know there are differences of opinion on ngondro, etc. You are wrong on both counts.

Differences of opinion about pedagogy, not differences in opinion about the meaning of Dzogchen -- but you are such a tear to find fault with what I say, you are completely blind to anything other than whatever fictions you spin in your head.

username wrote:

underthetree wrote:

username wrote: We know there are differences of opinion on ngondro, etc. You are wrong on both counts.

Are there differing opinions on rigpa (or whatever the translation du jour is - maybe I've just answered the question...)?

We are told rigpa is not a matter of semantic, cognition, concepts etc. but of ineffable experience and realization or knowledge of the ultimate state by the person. There are many opinions by them on how to teach students though.

Yes, as I said, differences on pedagogy -- (but of course since you love to disagree with every fricking thing I say, you even do so when you contradict yourself).

username wrote:
They claimed to be Dzogchen masters and wanting to purge Dzogchen of Bonpos.

No.

They were told to go away once they started debating him by asking him about the view of the basis when he told them to go away.

No.