Dzogchen and Buddhism

[Mr. G]

Off Topic Posts have been removed.

[Mariusz]

I also try to do my best in this forum, especially with Malcolm and Sönam

I meant I'm investigating here only. Excuse me for my english Thank you.

In my previous post to Malcolm should be:
In bardo of Dharmata everyone can have 4 visions after one's own death, as it is written in Longchen Rabjam, Tulku Thondup: "The Practice of Dzogchen", Snow Lion Publications, 2002, ISBN 1559391790. When it "occurs", there are the Eight Modes of Arising of Spontaneous Accomplishment (Wyl. Lhun-Grub) for Nirvana (complete enlightenment) or for Samsara (rebirth in one of the six realms): ...7) with the originally pure appearances (of Nirvana) appearing above, 8) with the appearances of six realms (of Samsara) appearing below. When you will "take refuge" in these "appearances of six realms", you "land" in Samsara again, because Sogyal Rinpoche wrote in his "Tibetan book of dying" they are familiar to us, not so frightening as buddhas.... Is it not true?

So be careful what "connection with" you are going to have!

[kalden yungdrung]

It seems that too many students of ChNN, to be able to understand the teaching, have to put them in boxes they can recognize ... these are there limitations and it does not serve the teacher and the teachings.

I am even asking my self if many have realized there true nature ...

Sönam

interesting reflection.

perhaps it would be beneficial that the forum users who are jumping in a role of experts, giving explanations and answering the questions could present some kind of study/practice background. we really don't know who is answering people questions etc. it could be just somebody who watched couple of webcasts or read few books
sometimes we see people who few months ago were asking most naive questions now are giving explanations and aswering people's questions

Tashi delek,

In a positive sense these people could have undergo a transformation from not-knowing to more knowing.
But if that would be sufficient to give a correct answer to all kind of difficulot questions, that is what i doubt.

Yes it is difficult to "understand" Dzogchen correct, but therefore we have this forum where these topics can be discussed in all colours.
So emancipation is there for the serious practioner therof am i realy convinced. But it takes time, nevertheless Dzogchen can be very fast (for some of us), maybe too fast for others?

Language and here the English, that is for some of us here very difficult, that does count also for myself.
Therefore the better English writing people here aboard which maternal language is English, would better write in simple English, that is also better to understand for some i guess. Does not mean that i cannot understand what is meant by some posts, but that is only due to what i have learned that i can have a certain understanding. Without a certain base like study and good English, many posts are here quite unclear.

So ain' t no easy here aboard, regarding understanding the meaning of some posts.


Mutsog Marro
KY

[Simon E.]

I appreciate fully that for those whose first language is not English, discussion of this topic in English must be tough.
I have a working grasp of Spanish, but there is no way that I would go to a Spanish website and try to debate Dzogchen...
We are talking of things that are subtle and which stretch the vocabulary even of those who are native English speakers.
This does not mean that only those fluent should attempt dialogue.
It does mean that there is a risk of misunderstanding, or only partial understanding.
This needs considering I would suggest.
In the absence of a more nuanced debate folk are apt to fall back on entrenched positions.

[kalden yungdrung]

I appreciate fully that for those whose first language is not English, discussion of this topic in English must be tough.
I have a working grasp of Spanish, but there is no way that I would go to a Spanish website and try to debate Dzogchen...
We are talking of things that are subtle and which stretch the vocabulary even of those who are native English speakers.
This does not mean that only those fluent should attempt dialogue.
It does mean that there is a risk of misunderstanding, or only partial understanding.
This needs considering I would suggest.
In the absence of a more nuanced debate folk are apt to fall back on entrenched positions.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your post.

Yes it is clear that one should do his/her utmost best to make a good convestation in English possible.
In case of Dzogchen this needs indeed more accuracy regarding the exact use of that kind of vocubulary which is related to the term.
A good example would be Awareness and Knowledge.


But when i may ask what is meant by:
- In the absence of a more nuanced debate folk are apt to fall back on entrenched positions.

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Simon E.]

Basically it means that if people are unable to follow the more subtle aspects of a debate they tend to go on repeating what they are " sure" of.
And often that will be the view which is most familiar to them, rather than reflecting on matters that others might approach from a different perspective.

[muni]

This is only rambling: No correct language can express-improve-prove nature, isn't? Primordial awareness is the mirror in which all reflections are free. to debate is grasping to concepts/reflections instead of allowing them to dissolve freely in themselves.

Primordial awareness doesn't say anything. Primordial = before thinking mind. Then how to say?

ASK THE AWAKENED MASTER. _/\_

[kalden yungdrung]

Basically it means that if people are unable to follow the more subtle aspects of a debate they tend to go on repeating what they are " sure" of.
And often that will be the view which is most familiar to them, rather than reflecting on matters that others might approach from a different perspective.

Tashi delek,

Yes "sure of" is the point of view and if right or wrong, that depends on a lot of cases of course. It is complex sometimes.
But one can sure compare things if they are in agreement with ones conviction / Lineage etc. and it seems that for instance (only an example) Dzogchen is sometimes not that Dzogchen that one knows. I have learned here those "differences".

Everybody has so its familiar point of view which is in agreement or not. Sometimes yes and sometimes not, that' s life. But nevertheless one can reflect but if there is no mirror there are no reflections and that can sometimes also happen. Left is the familiar point of view, enriched or not.

Mutsog Marro
KY

[MalaBeads]

This thread is clearly an act of compassion.

Anyhow, that's how I see it.

TY

[Malcolm]

So you actually consider Dzogchen Dharma? Does Dharma include any other parts of Buddhism for you?

Dharma includes all nine yānas. To the extent that so called "Buddhists" and "non-Buddhists" comport with one or another of these yānas, they are Dharma practitioners. To the extent they do not, they are not. "Buddhism" is a label. Dharma is a practice. One is a category, one is a function. You can call yourself a "buddhist" and not practice Dharma -- there are many people like this. You can not call yourself a "buddhist" and be a Dharma practitioner, there are also many people like this. You can call yourself a "buddhist" and a be Dharma practitioner, there are also many people like this.

There are many Dharmas out there for many different people. Some of those Dharmas do not fit in the category of "Buddhism" i.e. the Dharma directly taught by the Buddha, but because they lead people to better rebirths, result in happiness in this life, and so on -- these systems are considered Dharma and if people practice according to to them, eventually they will acheive total liberation. Even though these so called tirthika systems are couched on a metaphyical language of unacceptable to Buddhists, and so on, even here it is possible that people can have profound experiences. This is obvious because they report it to be so.

Isn't it true that there is a rather large set of teachings of Dzogchen that do have a tradition? This tradition seems to have been rather private, meaning closed doors (even a guard)? There is even one tradition of the "nyengyu" that is only from one person to one other. There is a tradition of transmitting the text i.e. given "lung" of the texts you give teaching on. There is a tradition of giving "rigpai tsal wang" to the student. So what exactly do you mean with no tradition here when talking about Dzogchen as a teaching?

Of course, at this point you are debating with ChNNs statement. But I will endeavor to set out what I take away from it. People have generated traditions around Dzogchen. Those traditions are secondary. The rig pa'i rtsal dbang is much misunderstood. It is not a ritual, though it can be packaged in one. The rig pa'i rtsal dbang is direct introduction. Dzogchen transmission depends solely on direct introduction. Direct introduction can be given in myriad ways, there is no set tradition.

I agree on this but I fail to see any serious conflict. Various ways of presenting the teaching dependent on the persons listening exist also in Dzogchen.

The Dzogchen tantras themselves maintain that no distinction is made in Dzogchen between those of higher capacity and lower capacity, good karmic accumulations or negative.

Teachings are a coherent way to present the Dharma so that it will benefit the persons listening.This however can happen at many different levels at the same time. This is because of the superior qualities of Dharma. I for example often feel that no matter on what level my Guru teach I hear Dzogchen. In this way I don't, in a very direct way, feel any conflict between Dzogchen and sutra/tantra.

Quite literally there are differences between the paths of renunciation (yānas 1-3), transformation (4-8), and self-liberation (ati).

As I have pointed out endlessly, there is a difference between Hināyāna and Mahāyāna, for example. Important differences in vows, conduct, practice, methods, etc. What is permissible in one is not permissible in the other. This also applies to Vajrayāna - what is permissible in Vajrayāna is not permissible in Mahāyāna. In Dzogchen there are no rules.

For this reason I also feel that it is quite possible that Shakyamuni was a Dzogchen teacher even if a lineage of these teachings don't remain today.

Sakyamuni did not teach Dzogchen so far as anyone knows -- there is no record of it in the original tantras of Dzogchen.

From a Dzogchen point of view for sure Shakyamuni's realization can't have been that different from for example Garab Dorje because then it would not have been enlightenment, it would have been something completely different.
/magnus

Not all nirmanakāya buddhas teach Vajrayāna, let alone Dzogchen. Not all buddhas teach a Vinaya and establish a monastic Sangha (such as Sikhin). Not all buddhas teach Mahāyāna. All nirmanakayā budhas are the same in terms of realization -- but their teachings, retinue, place, and time are all different. For example, when the buddha of hell manifests for hell beings, I am sure he is not teaching them Dzogchen.

M

[Malcolm]

...but Dzogchen in my opinion is impossible to value fully if 1. you haven't built a Buddhist identity and had Dzgchen deconstruct it and 2. you haven't at least understood the implications of absence of self.

I respect your opinion, but I differ becuase this is not how it is taught in the original Dzogchen tantras.

[kirtu]

The point of taking a graduated approach to Dzogchen is that by the time we are introduced to Dzogchen we will see it as something extremely precious. I've also met Osho people in the DC and they don't really think of Dzogchen as supreme at all and often go back to Osho practices and so on. I'm not saying they shouldn't but Dzogchen in my opinion is impossible to value fully if 1. you haven't built a Buddhist identity and had Dzgchen deconstruct it and 2. you haven't at least understood the implications of absence of self.

I take your point. But the main reason for the graduated approach from the POV of mind training is to have prepared the heart/mind for the teaching, and hopefully with some realization along the way. But even in the gradual approach you can find teaching going straight to the point - HH Trulshik Rinpoche did this with semde teaching in NYC in 1999/2000.

Kirt

[Sönam]

A question one can ask, "does Chnn speaks a correct english?"

Sönam

[greentreee]

This is only rambling: No correct language can express-improve-prove nature, isn't? Primordial awareness is the mirror in which all reflections are free. to debate is grasping to concepts/reflections instead of allowing them to dissolve freely in themselves.

Primordial awareness doesn't say anything. Primordial = before thinking mind. Then how to say?

ASK THE AWAKENED MASTER. _/\_

Primordial Awareness is NOT the mirror, but that which sees the mirror. Once one attempts to see what is seeing, then, there is a mirror.

at least that's my interpretation so far.

[muni]

This is only rambling: No correct language can express-improve-prove nature, isn't? Primordial awareness is the mirror in which all reflections are free. to debate is grasping to concepts/reflections instead of allowing them to dissolve freely in themselves.

Primordial awareness doesn't say anything. Primordial = before thinking mind. Then how to say?

ASK THE AWAKENED MASTER. _/\_

Primordial Awareness is NOT the mirror, but that which sees the mirror. Once one attempts to see what is seeing, then, there is a mirror.

at least that's my interpretation so far.

In the example of the totality of the mirror and its reflections, the reflections are free, the mirror is not grasping them. This nondual state cannot be expressed.

[greentreee]

This is only rambling: No correct language can express-improve-prove nature, isn't? Primordial awareness is the mirror in which all reflections are free. to debate is grasping to concepts/reflections instead of allowing them to dissolve freely in themselves.

Primordial awareness doesn't say anything. Primordial = before thinking mind. Then how to say?

ASK THE AWAKENED MASTER. _/\_

Primordial Awareness is NOT the mirror, but that which sees the mirror. Once one attempts to see what is seeing, then, there is a mirror.

at least that's my interpretation so far.

In the example of the totality of the mirror and its reflections, the reflections are free, the mirror is not grasping them. This nondual state cannot be expressed.

i am not expressing the non dual state. the non dual state is only experienced. there is no mirror, either. experience is only perceived through a mirror. grasp the mirror and you lose sight of the awareness. and a mirror, isn't a mirror either, that's just what it's called.

[heart]

A question one can ask, "does Chnn speaks a correct english?"

Sönam

I think it isn't very correct but it is quite free-flowing, that certainly is something.

/magnus

[Sherlock]

A question one can ask, "does Chnn speaks a correct english?"

Sönam

I think it isn't very correct but it is quite free-flowing, that certainly is something.

/magnus

He certainly has some lapses but I think he's consistently precise on the key points.

[Adamantine]

Well, D&G, most people who realize Dzogchen teachings fully awaken in the bardo. There are 21 capacities of practitioners. Having the ability to correctly and perfectly communicate the transmission of Dzogchen does not necessarily mean you yourself will attain phowa chenpo, or even rainbow body. But everyone who sincerely dedicates themselves to Dzogchen, having had the fortune to meet the full teachings will awaken in the bardo -- or at minimum they will spend 500 years in the pure nirmanakāya buddhafields before acheiving total realization. This is guaranteed as long as you understand the teachings. The third statement of Garab Dorje, literally translated means "continue in the confidence of liberation" -- this does not mean of course you are totally realized. It means you know the true meaning of liberation and are certain of acheiving it, so you "...continue in that state".

You really think Christians, Jews, Muslims, Jains, Rastafarians, Atheists, Agnostics, Scientific Materialists, Nihilists in general.. you think they can all easily accept and participate in Dzogchen teachings and practice when a big part of it is regarding Bardos and Buddhafields? And you believe that these teachings are not Buddhist?

Who is going to spend all of their time practicing something that most likely they will never see the biggest benefit from until after they die, in the "bardo" or "pureland", when they don't believe in bardos or purelands?

[muni]

[ mirror .

Debate about Dzogchen= perciever-percieved.
http://realdharma.wordpress.com/2011/01 ... awareness/

http://dzogchen.tribe.net/thread/ac587e ... 3f1396449f