Dzogchen Without Buddhism?

[Malcolm]

That's the way I see it. Your feedback will be appreciated.

DN

A Dzogchen without Buddhism is impossible for the simple reason that Dzoghen is a method of becoming a Buddha and nothing else.

[Dechen Norbu]

Yes, as I told, if one practices Dzogchen, one automatically is a Buddhist.
I wonder if Jim Valby isn't pointing to more external aspects of what generally being a Buddhist has attached (mainly concerning traditions that put much emphasis on renunciation). If you ask me, I personally don't like such style of putting things, as it seems plausible that we end up with some form of Dzogchen Lite as you wrote. I find very hard learning Dzogchen without deeply understanding one is a buddhist. Maybe he means an approach different than the traditional 9 yanas approach, I don't know.
What do you think is the point in presenting it that way? Saying Christians (just an example) can practice Dzogchen while keeping their beliefs? I think that in the beginning it may even be possible, but at a certain point such beliefs will need to go out of the window. At a certain point, whatever label we may choose, the fact remains that we are practicing the way of the Buddha. To me that means being a Buddhist.
Perhaps he wants to reach other audiences that aren't yet prepared to assume becoming Buddhists (maybe because they associate being a Buddhist with a lot of things alien to their native culture) and delays such realization to when they further themselves in practice (like: hummm now I realize I've become a buddhist without even noticing). I have no clue, just speculating...

[Heruka]

dzogchen in its purest form is beyond buddhist concepts, yet buddhism in its purest form is dzogchen.

what a laugh.

over the years jim has proven himself to be in the know,

....and i trust him.

[Dechen Norbu]

I believe the use of the word Buddhism is quite complicated and polemic as it is a western neologism. What Buddhism are we talking about? Dzogchen differs a lot from some schools.
The path taught by the Buddha leads one beyond concepts too. We can't assume Sadharma is Buddhadharma. It's its fruit. Sadharma is beyond "Buddhism" too, and it's the fruit of practicing Buddhadharma.
Don't assume I don't like Jim Valby. I don't know him, but knowing he is a cherished disciple of my lama, I naturally feel respect for his methods, although in this particular case it is not the sort of presentation that rings my bell (the title, note, because the rest I don't know). I'm just trying to dissect Namdrol's position, as for him too I feel great respect. It's not a matter of confrontation, but of my own understanding. It may even be the case that one of them is wrong (or not). It really doesn't matter much to me. I have great respect for both (although I owe Namdrol much more, since I've been learning from his explanations for a long time now).

[Heruka]

dear dechen,

in the old days, a newspaper editor in chief would tell his journalists, go out and find me a story to print and get the readers attention. they used to call this the "man bites dog" headline, not a "dog bites man" story which is very common.

a dzogchen without buddhism, is the man bites dog front page>



no conflict of teaching.

[Dechen Norbu]

hahaha!

That's how I've interpreted it.

[Heruka]

dechen your awesome dude!

dharmawheel the better for having you around!

[Adamantine]

Wasn't Chogyam Trungpa's whole Shambhala terma essentially a secular path with a Dzogchen view ? I know that now Sakyong Mipham has changed that, establishing it formally as Buddhist-- but I thought the inspiration was setting out
a path of 'wakefulness' that anyone from any faith or lack thereof could participate in. I agree with Namdrol's point, obviously if Buddhahood is the result then it is still essentially 'Buddhist'... but to present something as a path outside of Buddhism seems like potentially a skillful means, and nothing else, as others have pointed out.

[Malcolm]

I believe the use of the word Buddhism is quite complicated and polemic as it is a western neologism. What Buddhism are we talking about? Dzogchen differs a lot from some schools.
The path taught by the Buddha leads one beyond concepts too. We can't assume Sadharma is Buddhadharma. It's its fruit. Sadharma is beyond "Buddhism" too, and it's the fruit of practicing Buddhadharma.
Don't assume I don't like Jim Valby. I don't know him, but knowing he is a cherished disciple of my lama, I naturally feel respect for his methods, although in this particular case it is not the sort of presentation that rings my bell (the title, note, because the rest I don't know). I'm just trying to dissect Namdrol's position, as for him too I feel great respect. It's not a matter of confrontation, but of my own understanding. It may even be the case that one of them is wrong (or not). It really doesn't matter much to me. I have great respect for both (although I owe Namdrol much more, since I've been learning from his explanations for a long time now).

I know Jim quite well. We are friends. He lives about 6 miles from my house.

But I am not addressing his teachings in particular. I was addressing this mistaken notion that many people have that Dzogchen can be delinked from Buddhism. It can't. It does not work. Dzogchen only makes sense in light of Buddhism as a whole.

[Dechen Norbu]

That's how I see it too.
I knew you know him and had the idea you were friends.
You now I am also a bit of a traditionalist and thread very carefully when I see the teaching's "adaptations" to our culture (and needs and all that) (i.e. Stephen Batchelor, whose materialist explanation of the doctrine ends up in a sort of watered down Buddhadharma with little more than conventional therapeutic value, if even that). I'm not that bit of a traditionalist because I like tradition per se, but because while "adpating the Dharma to our needs" and not being enlightened one may end up with a useless version of the teachings. I read Namkhai Norbu's words about not being of much importance defining the spiritual tradition involved in the practice of Dzogchen, since to practice one doesn't need to master a lot of complicated concepts, doctrines and so on, yet transmission and subsequent recognition of the primordial state is a sine quo non.
It's not that I don't agree with you, since I can't conceive Dzogchen detached from Buddhism (at least at the present, in this place, under the actual circumstances) either. However I can conceive (only conceive, since it wasn't my case) the practice of Dzogchen detached, at least at some extent, from the usual approach to Buddhadharma. My attitude towards that sort of methods depends on the presentation and, mainly, on who is presenting it. If CNNR presents it, I follow such presentation. If J. Valby does it, I guess I would follow too. If another Joe I never hear about does it, I'll be concerned and probably will have a much more critical eye, since I've seen a lot of BS being presented as Dzogchen by unqualified people.

[Adamantine]

Anyone care to comment on the Shambhala terma? Wasn't it essentially (in it's original form) Dzogchen without Buddhism? And didn't Dilgo Khyentse ratify it as an authentic terma?

[tamdrin]

The idea of Buddhism without Buddhism is the idea of making ones religious practice to be primarily based on looking within, as the Tibetan term ngang pa- inner person denotes, rather than becoming Buddhist by accepting a prescribed set of beliefs about reality and then engaging corresponding set of rituals for dealing with that reality.

[Malcolm]

The idea of Buddhism without Buddhism is the idea of making ones religious practice to be primarily based on looking within, as the Tibetan term ngang pa- inner person denotes, rather than becoming Buddhist by accepting a prescribed set of beliefs about reality and then engaging corresponding set of rituals for dealing with that reality.

I would the former is Buddhism with Buddhism (i.e. nang pa (ནང་པ)) whereas that latter is Buddhism without Buddhism.

What you describe in the latter half of your post is vedic ritualism, shamanism, etc.

[tamdrin]

The idea of Buddhism without Buddhism is the idea of making ones religious practice to be primarily based on looking within, as the Tibetan term ngang pa- inner person denotes, rather than becoming Buddhist by accepting a prescribed set of beliefs about reality and then engaging corresponding set of rituals for dealing with that reality.

I would the former is Buddhism with Buddhism (i.e. nang pa (ནང་པ)) whereas that latter is Buddhism without Buddhism.

What you describe in the latter half of your post is vedic ritualism, shamanism, etc.

not if it is embraced by buddhist views and goals.. perhaps it would have been better to have said practices...

[Malcolm]

The idea of Buddhism without Buddhism is the idea of making ones religious practice to be primarily based on looking within, as the Tibetan term ngang pa- inner person denotes, rather than becoming Buddhist by accepting a prescribed set of beliefs about reality and then engaging corresponding set of rituals for dealing with that reality.

I would the former is Buddhism with Buddhism (i.e. nang pa (ནང་པ)) whereas that latter is Buddhism without Buddhism.

What you describe in the latter half of your post is vedic ritualism, shamanism, etc.

not if it is embraced by buddhist views and goals.. perhaps it would have been better to have said practices...

The Buddhist view is essentially that all situations of samsara and nirvana come from inside and are resolved by looking inside. You cannot say that there is one kind of Buddhism which is "insider", and another kind of Buddhism that is "outsider". The essence of the Buddhist view is in "insiderness". There isn't other kind of Buddhism.

[Adamantine]

The Buddhist view is essentially that all situations of samsara and nirvana come from inside and are resolved by looking inside. You cannot say that there is one kind of Buddhism which is "insider", and another kind of Buddhism that is "outsider". The essence of the Buddhist view is in "insiderness". There isn't other kind of Buddhism.

[Dechen Norbu]

I'm not overlooking your post, Adamantine and I've read some of CTR's work. It's hard to form an opinion based only in a few readings. If DKR vouched for it, probably it was useful.

[Dechen Norbu]

The Buddhist view is essentially that all situations of samsara and nirvana come from inside and are resolved by looking inside. You cannot say that there is one kind of Buddhism which is "insider", and another kind of Buddhism that is "outsider". The essence of the Buddhist view is in "insiderness". There isn't other kind of Buddhism.

Indeed.
We must never mistake practitioners with the Dharma. The fact that some practitioners mostly devote themselves to the "external apparatus" surrounding the practice doesn't change what Buddhadharma is.

[Adamantine]

I'm not overlooking your post, Adamantine and I've read some of CTR's work. It's hard to form an opinion based only in a few readings. If DKR vouched for it, probably it was useful.

I'm no expert either by any means, as I don't study in that lineage. I just thought it pertinent to the discussion, hoping someone here might have more knowledge about it.

[tamdrin]

I'm not overlooking your post, Adamantine and I've read some of CTR's work. It's hard to form an opinion based only in a few readings. If DKR vouched for it, probably it was useful.

I'm no expert either by any means, as I don't study in that lineage. I just thought it pertinent to the discussion, hoping someone here might have more knowledge about it.

Shambhala is very secretive about Vajrayana stuff.