Dzogchen and Buddhism

[heart]

Dzogchen is not a practice...it is merely being. Everything else is a backup plan.

Of course it is. Dzogchen is a theory and a practice and also the natural state itself.

/magnus

[Sönam]

Does the practice of Dzogchen lead to Buddhahood?

If so it is a Buddhist path.

If not it is an inferior teaching.

This wrong reasonning ...

the practice of Dzogchen is a state liberated of all limitations ... even Buddhahood's one. It transcends what you label Buddhahood.

Sönam

A fact it shares with all Buddhist paths.

Dzogchen is the goal, the path and the fruit ... so it's less limitations. But it's ok for me to say it's the same with others ...

Sönam

[Sönam]

Dzogchen is not a practice...it is merely being. Everything else is a backup plan.

Of course it is. Dzogchen is a theory and a practice and also the natural state itself.

/magnus

You know it's not true ... If it's a theory, it's not Dzogchen. And about a practice it is set to a minimum. But as there is no limitations you can add on all secondary practices that fit to your circumstances ... even non buddhist.

Sönam

[username]

Many people of various religions as well as atheists and agnostics attend teachings or speeches by many lamas or rinpoches. Only in a minority of cases where certain empowerments or elaborate retreats are given people are assessed to see if they can do it. But the majority of teachings by various lamas are open for all. Same with ChNNR's teachings. Just like the coachload of Italian tourists who received Direct Introduction from Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche or when TUR reportedly did so again in Hong Kong to a very large crowd of many hundreds, over a thousand reportedly, of all sorts of people many of whom did not know what was going on. However ChNNR often says after the initial entry onto the Dzogchen path, you need to progress within the 3 stages as pithily laid out by Garab Dorje, or rather more elaborately by Manjushrimitra. Starting with Dzogchen preliminaries of Rushen and Semzins which he encourages and recommends and teaches often, but not orders, to newcomers who are having difficulty realizing their real nature, to be followed by higher practices.

He says the Mengagde Upadeshas' traditional approach might not work for many westerners, as he realized many were just talking realization but failed his assessments years ago initially. So Semde was started back then and then those westerners did make progress slowly. He further started Longde teachings for removal of doubts stage. He says in Tibet like most he was just trained within the Mengagde system. He goes on to say if you want to progress further systematically within the Dzogchen system you need to go beyond initial teachings, Rushen, Semzins, Yantra yoga and even Trekcho. Once you have reached a certain stage you have to do Yangti retreats and Thogal methods and practice cycles if you become serious about the final stages of Dzogchen.

He says the minimum is Guru yoga. This is the 'minimum'. This includes refuge, the two bodhicittas, the non-solid empty light wisdom nature of deities and finally dedication. If not having the time to do all these, you must intend these in your pithy guru yoga, which might even be a few seconds in your daily life. Which means you accept the lineage you are under and acknowledge how everyone suffers and needs help by you becoming enlightened eventually and the real nature of universe and not taking any manifesting deities and wisdom beings as solid gods and idols but arising from that basic wisdom nature of space which you also have and dissolving back and then giving away any possible merit to all beings not yourself. So if you have problems with any of these you are not doing Dzogchen Guru Yoga anyway. And even if you do this Guru yoga with a single breath, it includes all these as you have accepted them previously. This is what all Dzogchen teachers say as Guru yoga can be a couple of seconds or a seven year retreat. And in a second or two your mere intention by previously having accepted or better realized the above is enough. This he has said many times and stated in his restricted books.

He goes on to say because we are in temporal causality, circumstances affect us and depending on our situation various tantric toolbox treasures are at our disposal to generate necessary merit and to dispel obscurations and obstacles and negative energies and beings. Even in his dire ill health last year he conducted a 24 hours Drubchen to dispel obstacles to a certain location and asked his students to join in for however many hours they could. He has done longer Drubchens during the years. Every year he spends a considerable time in personal retreats taking time out of his busy schedule as teacher and overseeing many educational and Tibetan charity organizations plus post retirement academic ongoing activities and research and medical treatments. And more relevant to our discussion as do many of his senior students who retreat regularly under his suervision.

So in reality once you get advanced on the Dzogchen path under him, you will be doing much Anuyoga, as you will simply enjoy it, followed by Yangti retreats/Thogal practices. But different people are at different stages and he asks his students to hide their practice from ordinary people so they might not know you are a Buddhist even if they visit your house. He says a simple white Ah syllable calligraphy on the wall suffices and then to be secret yogis and yoginis is a very nice option and to practice whenever possible and inclined to and to integrate as much of day and night as possible. He knows once firmly set on the path, they are hooked and practices will unfold naturally in different specific ways as each person progresses and the more they progress the more they will want to practice.

[Sally Gross]

...the great Pharisaic sage Hillel, and was known as the school of Hillel...

Isn't Hillel Hebrew for Lucifer? (and the Pharisees were originally Parsi's or Parsees according to some Gnostics)

I have my doubt about the "Pharisees = Parsees" theory, though it is true that certain eschatological tropes, angelology and demonology found, inter alia, in Pharisee traditions, may well have entered the domain of Judaism from the Persian empire. The term "Pharisee", as far as I know, derives from the Hebrew root prsh (פרש) as in le-faresh (לפרש), in the sense of "to be separate" from those who did not eat their food in purity, for example.

The name "Hillel" is derived from the root hll (הלל), found in "hallel" (הלל), "praise". The connection with Lucifer comes from Isaiah 14: 3-20, clearly a late passage given that it has reference to Babylonian exile, which uses the title helel ben-shahhar (הילל בן־שׁחר), usually translated as "the morning star" (presumably the planet Venus), in excoriating a king of Babylon or the Babylonian Empire, which had destroyed the Kingdom of Judaea, destroyed the temply and exiled the Judaean notables to Babylon, saying in effect (as is sometimes said in Afrikaans), "lag nou, môre gaan jy kak" ("laugh now, tomorrow you'll ...umm ... let's say, not be laughing"). The word "helel" occurs just once in the entire canon of scripture, as far as I know, and the light-bearing (Luciferian) connotations are presumably due not to the word "helel" but due to it being followed by "ben-shahhar" (בן שחר), "son of the dawn".

All of this is seriously off-topic. To bring it back into at least some tenuous connection with the topic, perhaps I should add for the record that I know of no evidence which suggests that the Pharisaic sage Hillel practised Dzogchen. Given his history of patience and openness, however, had ChNNR been giving retreats in the Palestine of his time and had he approached Hillel as against Shammai, he would almost certainly have been heard with sympathy and patience, and who knows what might have happened .

[Simon E.]

Does the practice of Dzogchen lead to Buddhahood?

If so it is a Buddhist path.

If not it is an inferior teaching.

This wrong reasonning ...

the practice of Dzogchen is a state liberated of all limitations ... even Buddhahood's one. It transcends what you label Buddhahood.

Sönam

A fact it shares with all Buddhist paths.

Dzogchen is not a Buddhist path...it is not even a path.

I am puzzled as to the motive for those who are not dzogchenpas to insist on using their traditions own criteria while assessing dzogchen.

[Tarpa]

Does receiving Dzogchen related hyt empowerments ( protectors ) with ati yoga version sadhanas, yangzab lineage / Traga Rinpoche, count as direct introduction or entry on Dzogchen path ?

[Pero]

But we should not kid ourselves into to believing that liberation is only possible according to our preconceptions.

What does it matter if we "kid ourselves" like that?

Then we enter into unnecessary limitations.

So? Doesn't seem that relevant to me. Free from limitations doesn't mean you have to just accept everything.
BTW, you asked what it would cost me to be wrong. I said that nothing. But on thinking about it a bit, it would cost you and others to be wrong quite a bit.

When you asked me if I think liberation is possible outside of Buddhism, the only answer is yes, because otherwise, we would not have Buddha, etc.

Hehe come on that's just semantics.

One of ChNN's students is an orthodox rabbi who lives in Israel.

You don't mean Kennard Lipman I hope? Don't know where he lives.

All that matters for is us is they practice Dzogchen to the best of our abilities. Right?

Right.

[Simon E.]

Does receiving Dzogchen related hyt empowerments ( protectors ) with ati yoga version sadhanas, yangzab lineage / Traga Rinpoche, count as direct introduction or entry on Dzogchen path ?

Depends. I am not being cryptic for the sake of it...

[Karma Dorje]

So? Doesn't seem that relevant to me. Free from limitations doesn't mean you have to just accept everything.
BTW, you asked what it would cost me to be wrong. I said that nothing. But on thinking about it a bit, it would cost you and others to be wrong quite a bit.

Pascal's Wager doesn't apply if you have direct experience that God exists.

[Anders]

A fact it shares with all Buddhist paths.

Dzogchen is not a Buddhist path...it is not even a path.

I am puzzled as to the motive for those who are not dzogchenpas to insist on using their traditions own criteria while assessing dzogchen.

I hate to rain on your parade, but this whole 'not even a path' is not really as unique as dzogchenpos like to think. Nagarjuna makes clear in the Upadesha that the practise of Prajnaparamita is simply the practise of no practise (though this text never made it to Tibet, so they wouldn't know much of it), since this entails never departing from the three gates of liberation. It's commonly found in Chan and Zen, is featured in high Tiantai-end teachings and so forth. It is basically pretty standard Mahayana wisdom teachings. If there is a distinction between Dzogchen and standard Mahayana it lies in its special methods and not in its pathless nature.

If you think Dzogchen is so alien from Buddhism so as to not even bother with any Buddhist criteria, you really should be posting on DzogchenWheel. This is, I believe, a Buddhist forum first and foremost. I comment because I see a lot of "Dzogchen is..." stuff in this thread to argue it's distinctiveness from Buddhism when in reality these arguments are found in classical Buddhism and applies in equal measure to most all Buddhist traditions. Most of the stuff in the thread could substitute 'Zen' and 'Dzogchen' and remain just as true.

[muni]

Dzogchen is no tradition, no worldly whatever; since Dzogchen is our nature. But this means not all are masters who can transmit. (or however it is said when nature(master) invites student home) There is these days lack of respect for the Masters (wisdom) and grasping to names.

Many write here: Dzogchen is not this or not that, of course since saying what it is not possible through conditioned apprehended language.

[Simon E.]

A fact it shares with all Buddhist paths.

Dzogchen is not a Buddhist path...it is not even a path.

I am puzzled as to the motive for those who are not dzogchenpas to insist on using their traditions own criteria while assessing dzogchen.

I hate to rain on your parade, but this whole 'not even a path' is not really as unique as dzogchenpos like to think. Nagarjuna makes clear in the Upadesha that the practise of Prajnaparamita is simply the practise of no practise (though this text never made it to Tibet, so they wouldn't know much of it), since this entails never departing from the three gates of liberation. It's commonly found in Chan and Zen, is featured in high Tiantai-end teachings and so forth. It is basically pretty standard Mahayana wisdom teachings. If there is a distinction between Dzogchen and standard Mahayana it lies in its special methods and not in its pathless nature.

If you think Dzogchen is so alien from Buddhism so as to not even bother with any Buddhist criteria, you really should be posting on DzogchenWheel. This is, I believe, a Buddhist forum first and foremost. I comment because I see a lot of "Dzogchen is..." stuff in this thread to argue it's distinctiveness from Buddhism when in reality these arguments are found in classical Buddhism and applies in equal measure to most all Buddhist traditions. Most of the stuff in the thread could substitute 'Zen' and 'Dzogchen' and remain just as true.

Dzogchen alien from Buddhism is not possible. Just as Dzogchen dependant upon Buddhism is not Dzogchen/
I dont understand the emotionalism here.
No one is suggesting that anyone else should not practice their chosen way.

[kalden yungdrung]

A fact it shares with all Buddhist paths.

Dzogchen is not a Buddhist path...it is not even a path.

I am puzzled as to the motive for those who are not dzogchenpas to insist on using their traditions own criteria while assessing dzogchen.

If you think Dzogchen is so alien from Buddhism so as to not even bother with any Buddhist criteria, you really should be posting on DzogchenWheel. This is, I believe, a Buddhist forum first and foremost. I comment because I see a lot of "Dzogchen is..." stuff in this thread to argue it's distinctiveness from Buddhism when in reality these arguments are found in classical Buddhism and applies in equal measure to most all Buddhist traditions. Most of the stuff in the thread could substitute 'Zen' and 'Dzogchen' and remain just as true.

Tashi delek,

Here, at the moment we are dealing with the Dzogchen sub-forum of Dharma Wheel. Here we can discuss Dzogchen topics and the most are willing to give to non-Dzogchenpas like Buddhists as well Dzogchenpas some interpretations about what Dzogchen would be and about what Dzogchen is not.

Not nescessary to call this actual forum Dzogchen Wheel....... which is certainly not (per se) a Buddhist Forum, that is all elswhere possible here on Dharma Wheel.

But by the way what/where is Zen, here on this Dzogchen sub-forum?

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Anders]

Dzogchen alien from Buddhism is not possible. Just as Dzogchen dependant upon Buddhism is not Dzogchen/
I dont understand the emotionalism here.
No one is suggesting that anyone else should not practice their chosen way.

I am not particularly emotional here. And I am neither taking issue with any imagined suggestion that anyone else should not practice their chosen way nor for that matter insisting on using my traditions own criteria while assessing dzogchen.

What I am doing is pointing out there us a bit of a strawman being set up which regardless of tradition or whatever, is a bit silly really. Setting up Dzogchen in contradistinction to Buddhism, when the arguments for it are arguments Dzogchen have inherited from Buddhism and are points of commonality not difference is to me a misunderstanding of Buddhism and creates an unnecessary distinction. There is no need to bring in other traditions into the picture (really, that one is all on you). I am actually just staying within the parameters of the topic title - "Dzogchen & Buddhism."

[Simon E.]

I realise that it it easier to pose that point to me...who you do not know..rather than to Malcolm.

However I note your view.

[Anders]

I realise that it it easier to pose that point to me...who you do not know..rather than to Malcolm.

However I note your view.

I posed the same point to Malcolm earlier though he didn't respond. I'd welcome his input, fwiw.

[Simon E.]

I realise that it it easier to pose that point to me...who you do not know..rather than to Malcolm.

However I note your view.

I posed the same point to Malcolm earlier though he didn't respond. I'd welcome his input, fwiw.

In the meantime sir, out of interest, which school of Vajrayana do you practice ?

[Anders]

But rather than just disagreeing, maybe I should try and explain my point here. Take a look at this story cited by Nagarjuna in his commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. We have here our doggedly 'Buddhist' antagonist and our reality-based Mahayana protagonist. Try and subtitute our 'Mahayana' protagonist for a Dzogchen protagonist and tell me if it doesn't more or less mirror much of the discussion that has gone on in this thread:

The Bodhisattvas Prasannendriya and Agramati
Nāgārjuna’s Preamble: On Reality-based Skillful Means Sutra:
They were skillful in bringing about deliverance in accordance with reality.

Exegesis:
There are dharmas propounded by non-Buddhists which, although they are able to bring about “deliverance” of beings, do so in a way which does not accord with reality. How is this so? It is because of the deficits inherent in all manner of erroneous views and fetters.

Although the followers of the Two Vehicles teachings do have those whom they bring to deliverance, they effect deliverance through inappropriate methods. How is this so? This is on account of the fact that, because they do not possess omniscience, the
thought which they devote to skillful means is relatively shallow. Only the bodhisattvas are able to effect deliverance in accordance with reality. The difference here is analogous to that between two ferry men on a river, one of whom relies on a raft fashioned of reeds and floats, and the other of whom employs a ship. There is an obvious difference in the relative merits of the two approaches to ferrying people across. The bodhisattva’s skillful deliverance of beings is just like this.

Then again, one might say that this is comparable to methods of healing disease. Bitter herbs, needles and cauterization induce pain in the process of effecting a cure. On the other hand, one may use a method of healing such as the miraculous medicine known as śuddhaśāntā which the patient needs only lay eyes upon to effect the complete cure of a multitude of maladies. Although the two methods are the same in the sense that they both bring about the alleviation of disease, still, there is a difference as regards relative superiority of technique. The respective approaches employed by the Hearers and the Bodhisattvas in the teaching and deliverance of people correspond to this analogy.

The teaching of the Hearer disciples consists in gaining the Path through the contemplation of suffering, resorting to the rigorous implementation of the dhūta practices,3 and through sitting in dhyāna meditation, applying oneself with diligent mind in the
beginning, middle and latter periods of the night. The teaching of the bodhisattvas consists in achieving purification of the mind through contemplating the [true] character of all dharmas as being devoid of either that which binds or that which liberates. This is as illustrated in The Origins of Mañjuśrī.

Story: The Bodhisattvas Prasannendriya and Agramati Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying, “Greatly Virtuous One, in the past, during the course of my previous lifetimes, innumerable asaṃkhyeya kalpas ago, there was at that time a Buddha named
Siṃhanādarāja (lit. “King of the Lion’s Roar”). The lifespan of that Buddha and the beings in that world was a hundred thousand koṭīs of nayutas of years. That Buddha employed the teaching of the Three Vehicles in delivering beings to liberation.

The name of that country was “Thousand Rays of Light.” The trees in that country were made of the seven kinds of precious things. Those trees emitted innumerable pure sounds of Dharma, sounds proclaiming emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, neither production nor extinction, and the non-existence of anything whatsoever. When beings heard these sounds, their minds became liberated and they succeeded in bringing the Path to realization.

At that time when the Buddha Siṃhanādarāja proclaimed the Dharma, during the first assembly, ninety-nine koṭīs of people gained the path of arhatship. Within the assembly of bodhisattvas, it was the same. All of these bodhisattvas gained the unproduced-dharmas patience They entered into all manner of dharma gateways and saw innumerable buddhas. They paid their respects to them, made offerings to them, and were able to bring countless beings to deliverance. They gained innumerable dhāraṇī gateways and became able to realize innumerable samādhis of all different kinds. Those bodhisattvas who had but recently established their resolve and who had newly entered the entrance to the Path were inexpressibly numerous. The innumerable adornments of this buddhaland exhausted the descriptive power of words. At that time when that buddha had completed his teaching and transformation of beings, he entered upon the nirvāṇa without residue. His Dharma dwelt in the world for sixty thousand years. Eventually, the Dharma sound of those trees ceased to come forth. At that time there were two bodhisattva bhikshus, one of whom was named Prasannendriya (lit. “Joyous Faculty”), and the second of which was named Agramati (lit. “Superior Intellect”).

As for this Dharma Master Prasannendriya, in his comportment he was virtuous and in his character he was direct. However, he did not repudiate worldly dharmas, nor did he indulge in making discriminations as to what was good and what was bad. The disciples of Prasannendriya were intelligent, were pleased by Dharma, and were brought to delight through listening to the most abstruse levels of meaning.

Their master did not devote himself to praising the virtues of having but few desires and knowing when enough is enough, nor did he extol the merits of the prohibitions or cultivating the dhūta (ascetic) practices. He simply proclaimed that the true character of dharmas is [consistent with] purity. He told his disciples, “All dharmas, even if they are marked by sensual desire, marked by hatefulness, or marked by delusion—the marks of all of these dharmas are identical to the true character of dharmas. There is nothing therein which should serve to hang one up or obstruct one.” He employed this skillful means to instruct his disciples and afford them entry into the “single-mark” wisdom. At that time his disciples came to have no more hatred or resentment with respect to other people. Because their thoughts were free of resentment, they gained the patience with regard to beings. Because they gained the patience with regard to beings, they were then able to realize the patience with regard to dharmas. They dwelt in the dharma of reality, remaining as unmoving as mountains.

The Dharma Master Agramati was pure in his observance of the prohibitions. He cultivated the twelve dhūta practices and gained the four dhyāna absorptions as well as the four formless samādhis. The disciples of Agramati were of dull faculties and were much inclined to make discriminations as to this being pure and that being impure. Thus their minds were easily moved and turned about. There was a time when Agramati went into the town and, having arrived at the house of one of Prasannendriya’s disciples, he sat down in the appointed seat and proceeded to extol the observance of the prohibitions, the limitation of desires, the knowing when enough was enough, the cultivating of the dhūta practices, and the taking up of dhyāna meditation and the cultivation of stillness in a quiet place. Additionally, he proceeded to disparage Prasannendriya, saying, “When this man speaks Dharma, he instructs people in a way which influences them to enter into erroneous views. He speaks of lust, hatred, and delusion as being devoid of any characteristic features which should constitute an impediment. He is a man whose conduct is rather mixed. He is not entirely pure.”

This disciple was one possessed of sharp faculties and who had achieved the patience with regard to dharmas. He asked Agramati, “Greatly Virtuous One, by what characteristic does one know this dharma of sensual desire?”
[Agramati] replied, “Sensual desire is characterized by afflictions.”

He asked, “Do these desire-associated afflictions reside outwardly or do they reside inwardly?”

[Agramati] responded, “These desire-associated afflictions do not reside inwardly nor do they reside outwardly. If they resided inwardly, then it shouldn’t be the case that they rely on outward causes and conditions for their arising. If they resided outwardly,
then they should have nothing to do with oneself and should not therefore be able to afflict oneself.”

The layperson then declared, “If it is the case that sensual desire does not come from the inside or from the outside or from the east or from the west or from the south or from the north or from any of the four midpoints or from above or below, and if it is the case that one can search everywhere and be entirely unable to find any real aspect in it, this dharma then is neither produced nor destroyed. If it is devoid of any mark of production or extinction, it is empty [of any inherent existence] and thus is entirely devoid of anything whatsoever which exists. How then can it be that it is able to be afflictive?”

After Agramati had listened to this declaration, he was not pleased and was unable to offer a reply. He got up from his seat and said words to this effect: “Prasannendriya has engaged in an extensive deception of many people and has influenced them to take up an erroneous path.”

This Agramati Bodhisattva had not yet studied the dhāraṇī of sound. When he heard words which had been spoken by the Buddha, he was delighted. When he heard the doctrines of other paths, he was filled with aversion. When he heard of the three roots
of unwholesomeness, then he would be displeased. When he heard of the three roots of wholesomeness, then he would be greatly delighted. When he heard of birth and death, then he would become worried. When he heard of nirvāṇa, then he would be happy.

[Agramati] departed from that layperson’s house, went to the forest, entered the monastery, and announced to the Bhikshus, “You should all be aware that this Prasannendriya Bodhisattva has engaged in deceptions whereby he has extensively influenced people to engage in the unwholesome and the improper. How is this so? He has said, ‘As for the characteristics of lust, anger and delusion as well as those of all other dharmas—they are all characterized by mutual non-obstruction.’”

At this time Prasannendriya thought, “This man is extremely hateful, is covered over by unwholesome karma, and is going to fall into committing a grave offense. I should now speak the most profound Dharma. Although he will gain nothing from it now, still,
it will constitute for him a cause and condition for the path of buddhahood in a future age. Then Prasennendriya called an assembly of the Sangha and single-mindedly uttered a verse:

One’s sensual desire’s identical with the Path.
And so it is with hate and delusion.
In just this way, amidst these three,
One finds the Path of innumerable buddhas.
So if a man discriminates
‘Twixt lust and hate, delusion and Path,
This man strays far away from Buddha,
Just as heaven’s far from earth.
The Path, lust, hatred, and delusion
Are all one dharma, all the same.
Should one who hears this cringe in fear,
He’s far away from Buddha’s Path.
The dharma of lust’s not born or destroyed,
And cannot cause the mind affliction,
But if one has a view of self,
This lust leads forth to the wretched destinies.5
Seeing dharmas of existence and nonexistence as different,
One can’t leave existence or nonexistence.
But knowing existence and nonexistence as same,
Transcending supremely, one achieves Buddha’s Path.

[Prasannendriya] spoke more than seventy verses of this sort. At that time thirty thousand gods gained the unproduced-dharmas patience. Eighteen thousand Hearer disciples, because they did not cling to any dharmas, achieved liberation. At that time Agramati Bodhisattva fell into the hells where he underwent sufferings for an immeasurable period of ten million koṭīs of years. When he came out again and was born among men, for seven hundred and forty thousand existences, he was always slandered. He did not even hear the word “buddha” for an innumerable number of kalpas thereafter.

When [the karmic burden of] these offenses gradually became lighter he was able to hear the Buddha’s Dharma. He then became able to leave the home life and become a monk for the sake of the Path, but, [even then], he relinquished the precepts (i.e. returned to lay life). In this manner, for sixty-three thousand existences, he always relinquished the precepts. Then, for an innumerable number of existences he was able to remain a śramaṇa but, although he no longer relinquished the precepts, his faculties remained dark and dull.

This Prasannendriya Bodhisattva is now a buddha far away to the east, one hundred thousand koṭīs of buddhalands away. His land is known as “Jeweled Adornment” and his buddha name is “Sun-Surpassing Brilliance King” (Sūryālokasamatikrāntarāja).
Mañjuśrī said, “At that time that bhikshu Agramati was myself. I observe that for just such a period of time I endured this immeasurable amount of suffering.”

Mañjuśrī again addressed the Buddha, saying, “If there be a man who seeks the path of the Three Vehicles and who doesn’t wish to undergo all manner of suffering, he should not [attempt to] discredit the [true] character of dharmas, cherishing hatefulness in doing so.”

The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, “What benefits did you gain from listening to those verses?”

He replied, “When I heard these verses, [they served as the causal basis for] my achieving the ending of the multitude of sufferings such that [eventually], in life after life, I gained sharp faculties and wisdom. I became able to understand the profound Dharma and became able to skillfully expound the profound meaning. I became foremost among the bodhisattvas in this regard.”

Nāgārjuna’s Concluding Comments
Examples such as these illustrate what is meant by “skillful explanation of the [true] character of dharmas.” This is what is meant by “They were skillful in bringing about deliverance in accordance with reality.”

It is in fact the true intention of the Mahayana that we need not be limited by Buddhism, but that the skilful means of liberation can be expressed in any context and to anyone.

[Sönam]

This is not the point ...

The first requirement for Dzogchen is "Direct Introduction" (Garab Dorjé) ... therefore, if for any reason you encounter a master and receive direct introduction, you fit to Dzogchen. You could be a buddhist (most of the cases), a catholic, a french guy or an alien, if you receive it you fit in the first requirement.
If on that base you "don't remain in dark" (as ChNN expresses it yesterday) you fit the second requirement, you could still be a muslim, a jewish or even a buddhist. And if you occupy your life with stabilizing that experience, possibly using Guruyoga with white A, you may still be a goalkeeper, a brahmanist or even a zenist, you fit with the third requirement ... and one may say of you that you are a dzogchenpa.

Sönam