Dzogchen and Buddhism

[bob]

Dear Malcolm,

You may remember me as hrtbeat7 from the old esangha. In any case, I just wanted to remark on how inspiring it is to observe your evolution! It's truly a testament to the awakening power of your practice, and will benefit many beings as you continue to open into the simplicity and compassion of your natural being. Thank you so much for your fine efforts!

Bob

[asunthatneversets]

859 posts and 9714 views in one week! Quite the thread.

[Mariusz]

859 posts and 9714 views in one week! Quite the thread.

Yes. It is sad, all of these posts emotionally produced by Malcolm after I had questioned him, were without purpose. He failed to add: Dzogchen exists as a lineage of teaching in Buddhism and Bon only. Until Namkhai Norbu or any other buddhist/Bon master of Dzogchen will not make a non-buddhist/non-Bon student to realize completely 4 visions of Thogal, people who are practicing Dzogchen will harm themselves in making Buddhism and Bon unnecessary.

[Malcolm]

The same applies to dzogchen, isn't it?

If you take Dzogchen as some intellectual school. Yes. But that is not Dzogchen.

M

[mindyourmind]

Well, any possible thought, or hope, that I had that Dzogchen has authentic Buddhist roots are forever dispelled by this thread.

In a sense I'm actually quite thankful for that.

[Lhug-Pa]

Right, Dzogchen doesn't have Buddhist roots.

However since the Buddha Shakyamuni is listed as one of the Twelve Dzogchen teachers, we could then say that the Buddha Dharma has Dzogchen roots.

[kirtu]

I'm not talking about (just)myself. You have a large following here, and I am concerned that anything that looks like a subtle rejection of gradual methods can be misunderstood and do much harm.

I have stated over and over again, it is everyone's responsibility to discover for themselves what is useful.

No, at times you have come out strongly against one day vows for example.

Kirt

[Sally Gross]

I'm not talking about (just)myself. You have a large following here, and I am concerned that anything that looks like a subtle rejection of gradual methods can be misunderstood and do much harm. We are talking about important issues here, concepts that can be easily misunderstood.

What Malcolm has said seems to me, perhaps naively, to boil down to "you pays your money and makes your choice" and "different strokes for different folks". As far as I can see, it doesn't condemn gradual approaches as such, though it does note that some gradualists and institutions within which gradualism has exercised a hegemony have been intolerant of Dzogchen. I do not doubt that what Malcolm has said can be misunderstood and that certain misunderstandings can indeed do much harm. Perhaps the historical intolerance of Dzogchen, or at least some of it, was a case in point -- a charitable construal; perhaps less lofty considerations of political and economic power and status which had little to do with concern for the Dharma sometimes played a role. When anything whatsoever is said, misunderstandings of what is said are possible however clearly that which is said is stated -- this doubtless has something to do with avijjaa/avidyaa/marigpa. It is no reason for not saying something which is likely to be helpful. Even things which are said and misconstrued can sow wholesome seeds which germinate and bear sound fruit in the fulness of time: sometimes one looks back at things one misunderstood at the time, realises that one misconstrued them, and reaps great benefit from both what was said and insight into the roots of the misconstrual.

I'd better get off my

[Jikan]

Finally: thank you, Malcolm, for describing your understanding to us. I for one greatly appreciate it.

You are welcome, Dan.

Thanks for the detailed response to my earlier post. I'll reflect on it.

[kalden yungdrung]

Right, Dzogchen doesn't have Buddhist roots.

However since the Buddha Shakyamuni is listed as one of the Twelve Dzogchen teachers, we could then say that the Buddha Dharma has Dzogchen roots.

Tashi delek,

- Who did "compose" that Lineage Tree? Or don't we speak here about a Lineage Tree?
- Are these 12 or 13 Dzogchen Teachers placed in succession?
- Did they all teached Dzogchen?

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Lhug-Pa]

Out of all who responded to my post, it looks like everyone except for Kalden Yungdrung missed this part:

However since the Buddha Shakyamuni is listed as one of the Twelve Dzogchen teachers, we could then say that the Buddha Dharma has Dzogchen roots.

The Dzogchen Tantras say that the Buddha Shakyamuni was one of the Twelve Dzogchen Teachers. If you don't agree with that, well then that's your choice. But as has been said a number of times in this very thread, if you don't agree with that then you could not on the same grounds say that Vajrayana (or maybe even Mahayana for that matter) has any more validity than Dzogchen.

[Malcolm]

Out of all who responded to my post, it looks like everyone except for Kalden Yungdrung missed this part:

However since the Buddha Shakyamuni is listed as one of the Twelve Dzogchen teachers, we could then say that the Buddha Dharma has Dzogchen roots.

The Dzogchen Tantras say that the Buddha Shakyamuni was one of the Twelve Dzogchen Teachers. If you don't agree with that, well then that's your choice. But as has been said a number of times in this very thread, if you don't agree with that then you could not on the same grounds say that Vajrayana (or maybe even Mahayana for that matter) has any more validity than Dzogchen.

Yes.

[kalden yungdrung]

Out of all who responded to my post, it looks like everyone except for Kalden Yungdrung missed this part:

However since the Buddha Shakyamuni is listed as one of the Twelve Dzogchen teachers, we could then say that the Buddha Dharma has Dzogchen roots.

The Dzogchen Tantras say that the Buddha Shakyamuni was one of the Twelve Dzogchen Teachers. If you don't agree with that, well then that's your choice. But as has been said a number of times in this very thread, if you don't agree with that then you could not on the same grounds say that Vajrayana (or maybe even Mahayana for that matter) has any more validity than Dzogchen.

Tashi delek,

As far as i know didn't teached Buddha Shakyamuni Dzogchen.
Dzogchen is written in another language than Pali like scripts and remarkable is that Tantric text is written and understood in another language a (vedic) kind of Sanskrit?
His attainments are realised in the Shravaka and Pratyekabuddha vehicles.
In case of Tantra, happened on the vulture peak. Yes some declare that in these Tantra would be the hidden meaning of Dzogchen explained.....

More i don' t know so in case the Buddha Shakyamuni did teached directly Dzogchen, that is for me astonishing.

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Lhug-Pa]

Kalden Yungdrung, according to Longchenpa and other Teachers, the Buddha Shakyamuni attained Total Illumination eons ago. So his life as described in his popularly-known life-story was all a show in order to display the Path to others. He would have had no need to renounce his wealth to attain Liberation, because he mastered Vajrayana and Mahasandhi long ago.

Maybe we have no proof that he taught Dzogchen to anyone, but that doesn't mean that he didn't know Dzogchen. According to a commentary on the Guhyasamaja Tantra, the Buddha Shakyamuni actually taught Vajrayana during his lifetime, as explained here by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche:

http://melong.com/teachings/54-karma-em ... ml?start=4

Tashi Delek

[Anders]

The same applies to dzogchen, isn't it?

If you take Dzogchen as some intellectual school. Yes. But that is not Dzogchen.

M

Come on, Malcom. You are juggling too many strawmen here to keep up a coherent picture. Posts like this:

As human beings, we have too much to lose if we continue to remain limited by religion, ideology, class, race and tribe. Yesterday, ChNN strongly stated that every human being should learn Dzogchen and put these teachings into practice. And if every human being did this, we would have much less problems in the world.

I cannot say the same thing about Buddhism. Why? Because the very first opponents of Dzogchen were Buddhists! And Buddhists remained hostile to Dzogchen for centuries.

Gets a big fat 'meh' from me. You are quick to disassociate anyone who confesses to be dzogchenpos but doesn't get it as 'not dzogchen', but do no such favours for 'Buddhism'. Buddhists also poisoned Bodhidharma (and Huike too for good measure) for being such a badass ol' rebel but you don't see him or his descendants distancing Dhyana/Chan from Buddhism because of it - they just call for a proper understanding of its limitation and tentative in-and-out relationship with it. You have a name for buddhadharma practitioners stuck up, 'buddhists' (though you tar many many sincere and profound practitioners with the same brush with your usage of words here). What do you call dzogchenpos who profess to dzogchen but nevertheless are stuck? All this moving of the goalposts and re-defining of terms you're engaged in here just ends up creating another system we'll have to extradite ourselves from. It is the unavoidable consequence of community and using words to relate to each other.

Fwiw, I think it's wonderful to see how your passion for a genuine life of liberation that is simply life and liberation without extraneous abstractions and social culture erected around it shines through. I also think you are going overboard embracing the flip side of the equation a wee bit too eagerly. I'm gonna don my hat of presumption and say that a year or two from now you will look back at this thread with at least some measure of embarrassment at how radical you're being.

[Lhug-Pa]

If the Buddha Shakyamuni already knew Dzogchen before he descended from Tushita around 2,500 years ago; then that would make the Buddha Dharma as having roots in Dzogchen, not the other way around.

[Anders]

If the Buddha Shakyamuni already knew Dzogchen before he descended from Tushita around 2,500 years ago; then that would make the Buddha Dharma as having roots in Dzogchen, not the other way around.

Buddhism has its root and centre in the liberation of the mind. If we call that 'Dzogchen', then yes. But this is all starting to risk sounding a bit too triumphalist. It's not really about whether whether the chicken or the egg came first. The point is just to be liberated, whether by means of that which we call 'Buddhism' (or 'Buddhadharma' as seems to be the currency in this thread) or 'Dzogchen'. We can say True Buddhism/Buddhadharma is liberation, or Dzogchen without quotation marks is Buddhahood or whatever, but at the end of the day a life of liberation doesn't need labels except to point others in the same direction.

[kalden yungdrung]

If the Buddha Shakyamuni already knew Dzogchen before he descended from Tushita around 2,500 years ago; then that would make the Buddha Dharma as having roots in Dzogchen, not the other way around.

Tashi delek.

Yes everything comes out of Nature that is right and also that all Buddhas can teach Dzogchen, no doubt about that.
But there are from the many Buddhas,there are a few who do teach emptiness and Dzogchen.
Also some don' t have monks.

Ok then we get the point that every Buddha has perfected the 3 Bodies so he can make use of the subsequent Teachings
Like Tantra and Sutra. My feeling is here so that we know the Buddha Shakyamuni more from the Sutra Vehicle, nevertheless that he can teach Dzogchen too etc.

Maybe would it be interesting to know, about what the Buddha Shakyamuni did teached in the heaven of the 33?


Mutsog Marro
KY

[Matylda]

The same applies to dzogchen, isn't it?

If you take Dzogchen as some intellectual school. Yes. But that is not Dzogchen.

M

But it still applies to dzogchen even if it is not intellectual school, though it has a magnificent literature. Just if ones practice of dzogchen brings no realization one may feel that it is ''invalid''. I do not think that it applies only to intellectual path, but it has much broader context.

[kalden yungdrung]

The same applies to dzogchen, isn't it?

If you take Dzogchen as some intellectual school. Yes. But that is not Dzogchen.

M

But it still applies to dzogchen even if it is not intellectual school, though it has a magnificent literature. Just if ones practice of dzogchen brings no realization one may feel that it is ''invalid''. I do not think that it applies only to intellectual path, but it has much broader context.

Tashi delek,

Corrections done by the Master brings valid realisations. Sure needed is a certain amount of correct understanding of Nature etc. These are part of Dzogchen preparations and very needed.
Lopon Lak explained that a group of 11 persons would be the best atmosphere for Dzogchen corrections, we can learn in that way very much from eachother.

Mutsog Marro
KY