Institutional Buddhism

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat May 19, 2012 9:12 pm

Paul wrote:
Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.


Yes, the archtypal bad reaction is when "500" Nalanda panditas travelled to Oḍḍiyāna to bully an 8 year old kid when they heard he was teaching that liberation was beyond cause and result. We know the rest of that story.

Tibetan power structures have been trying to keep the lid on Dzogchen ever since it entered into Tibet. Vairocana was banned to Eastern Tibet by a spurned queen and ministers who did not approve of Dzogchen. For example the 11th century translator Go Khugpa Lhatse accuses Vairocana of forging the five sems sde lungs, accuses Nubchen of forging the smad du byung wa, and excorciates Aro Yeshe Jungney for composed defiled compositions connected to sems sde, etc. The fourteenth century master, Buton accuses Guru Chowang (the treasure revealor of the seven line prayer) of being a fraud, dimisses symbolic dakini script as ridiculous, states outright that Dzogchen teachings are the indepedent fabrications of Nyingmapas. Indeed this was the standard attitude towards Dzogchen, etc. for centuries in Tibet. This is actually at the root of the whole Shugden controversy.

To make it worse, the Nyingmapas, eventually cowed by this pressure to conform to the Sutrayāna gradualism politically enforced by King Trisong Detsen after the outcome of the three year exchange of letters called "the Samye debate", gradually began to present Dzogchen as the summit of a gradual path, abandoning the earliest presentation of Dzogchen as a independent vehicle. There are some people enamored of scholars like Sam Van Schaik, a Sakyapa, who specializes in Dunhuang material. Now, he is a good scholar, and I like very much his point of view. But in my opinion, he has completely misunderstood the intent of the early Dzogchen tradition in Tibet. He presents Dzogchen based on the man ngag lta ba phreng ba (MTP), attributed to Padmasambhava and widely accepted to be his work even in Gelug. As you know or can find out, the MTP presents Dzogchen as the culimination phase of the creation and completion phase based on the Guhyagarbha tantra. Now there is nothing wrong with this at all. But this is not how Dzogchen is presented either in the Seventeen Tantras, klong sde or sems sde. For example, Nubchen, writing in the late 9th century clearly shows that Dzogchen is not merely a completion stage for Dzogchen in his bsam brtan mig gron [SMG]. he identifies Dzogchen as a cig char system. Not only this, but he defends Chan as being the definitive sutrayāna approach because it too is a cig char system. He says for example:

"Do not seek out a philosophical position [siddhanta], there is also nothing to illustrate, if there is something to illustrate, the non-dual is illustrated to be free from activity, thought, or analysis through an example."

But here on this thread, we have many people voice the opinion, to understand Dzogchen you need madhyamaka either Rang stong or gzhan stong, you need to have the view of dependent origination, etc. All kinds of preconditions but one, the indispensible one.

There is but one thing indispensible for Dzogchen, and that is an introduction from a master. As Nubchen points out this is the critical difference between sutra and tantra. The critical difference between tantra and Dzogchen is whether one's practice is based on the notion of cause and result or not. And that is based on whether or not one has authentically recognized one's own stage so that one is possession of that famous rigpa.

Some people are interested in how we know if our practice is moving ahead. It is easy -- are you more integrated, are you having less problems in life? Is your clarity increasing? Are you a nicer person? I do not mean are you a more "compassionate" person in that syrupy fake Lam rim way. I mean are you a nicer person? A decent, ordinary, normal human being who plays well with others? Or are you still an alienated freak who can't get along with anyone and always demands that everyone around you change in conformity with your own nuerosis, especially your religious neurosis?

How can anyone say incidentally these are merely features of a Buddhist path? Look at all the basket cases in Buddhism. Do we really think we have our shit together more than Hindus, Christians and so on? I don't think so -- incidentally I am not making a claim that people who are interested in Dzogchen necesssarily are more together, I have met a lot of flakes in and out of the community and there are a lot of people who think I am a flake. But most people like me even if they think I shoot my mouth off too much (I do).

Back to the main topic: the notion of a vehicle beyond cause and result, one that does not require accumulations, practice with effort, and so on is very threatening to the gradualist establishment in Tibetan culture. The gradualists really hate the message of Atiyoga. It threatens their grip on feudal power. This is why Dzogchen will not be found in Tibetan monasteries and large Dharma centers. It will only be found at the feet of Dzogchen masters. You can take a hundred high Dzogchen empowerments but if you do not understand the main point, then it is of limited benefit. But if you can put yourself at the feet of qualified master who teaches Dzogchen from their own experience then there is no limit of benefit and you will receive transmission whether you are a Buddhist, an Catholic or an Alien. Transmission is beyond mind. Dzogchen is beyond mind, a personal experience beyond reckoning, calculation, something within the reach of everyone who is interested to discover their own nature. So yes, Dzogchen is an aqua regia, a royal water capable of dissolving all limitations whatsoever if one just puts it into sincere practice.

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

In fact if you closely examine Dzogchen language you see that it uses non-Buddhist examples all the time. For example. the notion of the peacock feather's colors being naturally formed is actually drawn from the Carvaka India materalist school -- they use that example to prove there is no creator, and so do we. A peacocks feather has eyes just because it is the nature of a peacock's feather to have eyes. Wisdom exists in the heart of each and every sentient beings just because it is the nature of a sentient being to have wisdom in each and everyone's heart. We don't have to do anything to create that wisdom. We don't have to do anything at all to develop that wisdom. We cannot improve that wisdom or harm it in anyway. It is as integral to our state as the five elements from which we are made (since they are made from it, anyway).

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

And then we rest in our own state, or we discover it. These are the only choices we have in Dzogchen, discover, then rest.

M
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat May 19, 2012 9:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Sönam » Sat May 19, 2012 9:22 pm

thank you ...

and now applauses :D
Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Karma Dorje » Sun May 20, 2012 5:09 pm

Paul wrote:Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.


Except aqua regia was used to hide gold in something corrosive. This would be concealing something corrosive in gold.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sun May 20, 2012 5:12 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
Paul wrote:Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.


Except aqua regia was used to hide gold in something corrosive. This would be concealing something corrosive in gold.


I guess the intent of the metaphor was to indicate a solvent that other things are incapable of dissolving.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sun May 20, 2012 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Paul » Sun May 20, 2012 5:34 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Karma Dorje wrote:
Paul wrote:Thank you very much, Malcolm. That's sorted a lot of things out for me and I see exactly where you are coming from. I can also see why many religious institutions have reacted badly to the Dzogchen teachings - it seems to be something that could act as an aqua regia to any formal power structure.


Except aqua regia was used to hide gold in something corrosive. This would be concealing something corrosive in gold.


I guess the intent of the metaphor was to indicate a solvent than other things are incapable of dissolving.


Yes. I meant it in the sense that Dzogchen can dissolve anything that's conceptual, such as religious institutions in the same way aqua regia can dissolve even gold.

I'm currently reading Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche's book Natural Great Perfection, and there are parts of it - specifically his commentary on his "Mirror of Essential Points" that very clearly parallel some of the ideas in this thread. For example:

Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche wrote:This infinite vast expanse is one's own inconceivable nature. Who can say who has realised it and who hasn't? When we travel around the world or experience other dimensions, there are so many beings who have tasted it. We can see it in their behaviour, in their countenance, and in stories that are told - not just in the Dzogchen tradition or in the Buddhist tradition, but in any tradition, and in our Western world too.


Also, Malcolm I wonder if you have any comments on this post of mine - maybe you missed it: viewtopic.php?p=101677#p101677
This nature of mind is spontaneously present.
That spontaneity I was told is the dakini aspect.
Recognizing this should help me
Not to be stuck with fear of being sued.

-Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
Paul
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sun May 20, 2012 6:50 pm

Paul wrote:Malcolm -this post has really brought forwards something that's I've been ruminating over for a while, mostly unconsciously. One thing I have found to be increasingly odd is that the Dzogchen teachings seem to be frequently put on a high shelf, as if to keep them out of the way of many people.


I think this condition exists because Buddhists in India, and then later in Tibet, were so hostile to Dzogchen when it was first revealed by Garab Dorje.

Since Vajrayāna emerged out in the context of the Yogatantra systems, and is not fundementally at odds with the notion of cause and result in the terms of path theory in Buddhism in general, it never met with such a hostile reception.


There are many things that must often be done before a person is given instructions. A common attitude is that person must complete ngondro first, do many years of retreat, be adept at creation and completion etc. otherwise it's going to be too hard for a person to get any benefit at all. In some cases I've found that it's not seen as a good thing to even talk about Dzogchen. This seems frankly a little ridiculous and also counter productive as in my experience it can even damage a person's belief they can ever understand their nature experientially. In my opinion, with diligence and a good teacher it's pretty straight forwards.


There are lots of different ways to build golden cages.

Do you think that the 'sorry kid, it's too High and Special a teaching for you' stance that can be found in the orthodox Tibetan religious structure is a symptom of Dzogchen's problematic consequences to power structures - restricting it to only a few carefully selected groups? The part I've highlighted in bold above is a comment from you that makes me think I may be on the right lines.


I think it has more to do with the fact that Dzogchen tantras themselves utterly dimisses the cause/result approach to awakening; whereas Buddhism is heavily invested in the cause/result paradigm and has an entire intellectual and institutional edifice dedicated to preserving it at any cost. So therefore, the standard line you often get is "Dzogchen is a practice for Buddhas...." and so on. Dzogchen tantras completely toss out the whole conditioned merit making thing on its ear, for example -- and this is not good for the enterprise of gilding statues. If you tell people they will never attain awakening through making donations to monasteries, they might think twice before giving at the office. Dzogchen goes much further than tathāgatagarbha theory. Vimalamitra states:

Hey, Son of a good family, listen up! The one who is “free from virtue and sin” in the conventions of the natural great perfection are yogis who see the meaning of their own vidyā. That vidyā is connected with the intimate instructions of the Guru. If that is not demonstrated, a scholarly paṇḍita trained in tripitika will not know even a fragment of a subtle particle split into one hundred thousand pieces of the meaning. That being so, it is called “depending on the method of secret mantra”.
If demonstrated, since even a poor cowherd can see it, that being case it is called “without good and bad action”.
If it is not practiced, even Vajrasattva will not be liberated. That being the case, it is called ““familiarity with the intimate instruction meets its measure”. If practiced, even one who has committed one of the five limitless actions can be liberated from this appearance. That being so, it is called “being unaffected by the benefit or harm of good and bad actions”. Since it is impossible that a person who has the committed the five limitless actions cannot be liberated if demonstrated in that way, it demonstrated that [vidyā] itself is not affected by sins. Since it is impossible even for Samantabhadra to be liberated if it is not demonstrated, it is demonstrated that there [vidyā] itself is protected by virtue. That being so, it is shown that there is no difference between five hundred butchers who have seen vidyā and Vajrasattva who has also seen vidyā.


The leveling of social, and therefore, spiritual hierarchies which are a mere reflection of the latter, is threatening to the traditional Buddhist political establishment. I cannot tell you the number of times of I have heard educated Lama laugh at the idea that yak herders could have realization. They should just recite the Mani is the general attitude of many educated Tibetan Lamas. This kind of Tantric elitism is much more pronounced in Sakya and Gelug of course.

Thus the tool of secrecy has been used two ways in Dzogchen teachings -- it has been used by the external establishment to keep the wraps on the radical teachings of Mahāmudra on the one hand, and Dzogchen on the other. The way it has been used by Dzoghen is to protect itself.

But this is no longer necessary so much. We live in a somewhat democratic, egalitarian society. Dzogchen teachings can really flourish under such circumstances. This is not to say there is not a proper way to introduce people to the teachings, there is of course. But in the end, they will flourish more widely than all the other traditions of the world. ChNN has predicted many times that Dzogchen teachings will flourish worldwide and that everyone will be affected by them.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Paul » Sun May 20, 2012 8:47 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Do you think that the 'sorry kid, it's too High and Special a teaching for you' stance that can be found in the orthodox Tibetan religious structure is a symptom of Dzogchen's problematic consequences to power structures - restricting it to only a few carefully selected groups? The part I've highlighted in bold above is a comment from you that makes me think I may be on the right lines.


I think it has more to do with the fact that Dzogchen tantras themselves utterly dimisses the cause/result approach to awakening; whereas Buddhism is heavily invested in the cause/result paradigm and has an entire intellectual and institutional edifice dedicated to preserving it at any cost. So therefore, the standard line you often get is "Dzogchen is a practice for Buddhas...." and so on. Dzogchen tantras completely toss out the whole conditioned merit making thing on its ear, for example -- and this is not good for the enterprise of gilding statues. If you tell people they will never attain awakening through making donations to monasteries, they might think twice before giving at the office. Dzogchen goes much further than tathāgatagarbha theory. Vimalamitra states:

Hey, Son of a good family, listen up! The one who is “free from virtue and sin” in the conventions of the natural great perfection are yogis who see the meaning of their own vidyā. That vidyā is connected with the intimate instructions of the Guru. If that is not demonstrated, a scholarly paṇḍita trained in tripitika will not know even a fragment of a subtle particle split into one hundred thousand pieces of the meaning. That being so, it is called “depending on the method of secret mantra”.
If demonstrated, since even a poor cowherd can see it, that being case it is called “without good and bad action”.
If it is not practiced, even Vajrasattva will not be liberated. That being the case, it is called ““familiarity with the intimate instruction meets its measure”. If practiced, even one who has committed one of the five limitless actions can be liberated from this appearance. That being so, it is called “being unaffected by the benefit or harm of good and bad actions”. Since it is impossible that a person who has the committed the five limitless actions cannot be liberated if demonstrated in that way, it demonstrated that [vidyā] itself is not affected by sins. Since it is impossible even for Samantabhadra to be liberated if it is not demonstrated, it is demonstrated that there [vidyā] itself is protected by virtue. That being so, it is shown that there is no difference between five hundred butchers who have seen vidyā and Vajrasattva who has also seen vidyā.


The leveling of social, and therefore, spiritual hierarchies which are a mere reflection of the latter, is threatening to the traditional Buddhist political establishment. I cannot tell you the number of times of I have heard educated Lama laugh at the idea that yak herders could have realization. They should just recite the Mani is the general attitude of many educated Tibetan Lamas. This kind of Tantric elitism is much more pronounced in Sakya and Gelug of course.

Thus the tool of secrecy has been used two ways in Dzogchen teachings -- it has been used by the external establishment to keep the wraps on the radical teachings of Mahāmudra on the one hand, and Dzogchen on the other. The way it has been used by Dzoghen is to protect itself.

But this is no longer necessary so much. We live in a somewhat democratic, egalitarian society. Dzogchen teachings can really flourish under such circumstances. This is not to say there is not a proper way to introduce people to the teachings, there is of course. But in the end, they will flourish more widely than all the other traditions of the world. ChNN has predicted many times that Dzogchen teachings will flourish worldwide and that everyone will be affected by them.

M


Thanks for the considered reply. This reminds me of a statement from Dudjom Lingpa's Nang Jang, which would no doubt be annoying to some with fixed views:

Lonmgchenpa wrote:Furthermore, you may realise emptiness by undergoing great difficulties in studying, training, and so forth, or you may realise emptiness without the slightest difficulty. This makes no more difference than, for example, finding gold by experiencing great hardship or without the slightest hardship, right in your own bed, makes a difference to the quality of the gold.


And speaking of uneducated herdsmen, wasn't one of the 84 mahasiddhas a shepherd?
This nature of mind is spontaneously present.
That spontaneity I was told is the dakini aspect.
Recognizing this should help me
Not to be stuck with fear of being sued.

-Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
User avatar
Paul
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 10:38 pm

username wrote:Hi Malcolm,
I hope you are well. I merely said first in this thread that he got a lot of his ideas from buddhist yogachara schools and rebranded them which he did as Hindu. Even back then which was not so long ago when you founded a new school you were supposed to come clean if a lot of your tenets were based on someone else's completely different religion. Today they claim they had it all along.


Gaudapāda acknowledged the Buddha as the source of his ajativādin arguments. Shankaracarya sought to cover this up in his commentary on the Agamasastra. But we were not taking about the latter. We were talking about the former, and you were the one that used the term "plagiarism" to describe his literary activity. I have studied that Agamasastra in detail.

Malcolm I don't think you can accuse me of narrowmindedness after I praised nisargadata and even said he was probably a Tulku.


Proclaiming that Nisgardatta must have been a Buddhist Tulku can be seen as a kind of narrowness. This is a kind of narrowmindedness we see all the time among Buddhists -- everything good and interesting that we like in other religious schools must somehow be the activity of Buddhist tulkus, as if nothing good can come about in the world if it is not tied to some explicitly Buddhist institution or belief.

Yet you never mentioned Trungpa, a major terton,who you called something bad recently as well as saying you doubted his realization. Or others.


I made a blanket apology since I have said so many things and offended so many people, it is all I can do. I am sure people are still offended. But after a certain point it becomes their problem and not mine.

All I said about Trungpa that he seemed to me like an ordinary person based on the related episode. I guess calling someone an ordinary person is a bad thing. I honestly do not know whether Trungpa was realized or not. And I don't care much. He has been dead for more than twenty years. Perhaps he was completely naive about guns. Really. I reacted when I said that. I am sorry it offended you.

You say you're heart is now filled with love but you don't stop someone here attacking anyone against your views with personal attacks in your defense.


I have not defended anything, not have I attacked anyone. I have not attacked you either. I said you displayed narrowness in your post.

You praise all schools and religions and yet attack and have no understanding for buddhist institutions ' mistakes which is still less than the other religions outside Tibet.


My point about this was when we examine who really persecuted Dzogchen teachings, it was not Non-Buddhists, all the Non-Buddhists I have ever talked with about Dzogchen think it is cool. The Bonpos were totally into Dzogchen. They took to it like ducks to water. There is no history of Bonpos attacking Dzogchen, none at all.

I have found it is Buddhists who raise the largest and most sustained arguments against Dzogchen. And so I recounted that history. These things are merely facts -- facts are not attacks. I can understand however that many people's hackles are raised because I am presenting these things in the open. I understand the polemics against Dzogchen quite well.

If you said other religions fleece their students and screw their flock then it would have been fair but you just attack buddhist ones. And many have written here they perceive you attack Buddhism too.


I am quite sure there are false teachers in every religion, just as there are sincere ones. But since I am not privy to the sordid details of the false guides in other schools, I don't really have much to say about them. What I am familiar with is the situation of Tibetan Buddhism and the presence of a great deal of corruption and malfeasence in its institutions.

I am sorry Malcolm but you just changed one group of people you attacked with another, not your basic attitude.


Actually, I have not attacked anyone. I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in both India and Tibet and traced a little bit of the history of how it became normalized within the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism.

Now, I am sorry that you feel attacked, but I am equally certain that I am not attacking you or anyone else.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Matylda » Tue May 22, 2012 11:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in ...India...
M


Dear Malcolm, maybe I missed it somewhere in this long discussion, but it I am curious about India and dzgochen reception there... could you elaborate a little bit or give some source. I am interested in it.
Matylda
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Josef » Wed May 23, 2012 12:03 am

The genuine lineage of Dzogchen is between the student and their teacher.
It is direct and precise, and not limited by Tibetan politics and historical hierarchy.
Last edited by Josef on Wed May 23, 2012 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Josef » Wed May 23, 2012 12:04 am

Mariusz wrote:You want to get rid them also.

I would absolutely love to get rid of the politics and cultural hierarchy that so many people think of as "lineage".
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby username » Wed May 23, 2012 12:19 am

Malcolm wrote:Gaudapada acknowledged the Buddha as the source of his ajativadin arguments. Shankaracarya sought to cover this up in his commentary on the Agamasastra. But we were not taking about the latter. We were talking about the former, and you were the one that used the term "plagiarism" to describe his literary activity. I have studied that Agamasastra in detail.

Actually Buddhist said that and Karma Dorje tried to change what he said. However I agree with buddhist on that. My main point which you try to evade despite being clearly stated is this. You might have got away with "ripping off" half of another religion as a new one god gave you 3000 years ago but not 1200 yers ago or today. That is what they claim to their ignorant average followers en-mass to this day and this is fraud. If you were honest you would have answered this point, of mine, I clearly put to you. You indulged in sophistry.

Malcolm wrote:Proclaiming that Nisgardatta must have been a Buddhist Tulku can be seen as a kind of narrowness. This is a kind of narrowmindedness we see all the time among Buddhists -- everything good and interesting that we like in other religious schools must somehow be the activity of Buddhist tulkus, as if nothing good can come about in the world if it is not tied to some explicitly Buddhist institution or belief.

You are being dishonest again Malcolm. I did not say he must have been but probably was one as every one can read. These are cheap tactics. Then you extrapolate that I say everyone good in the world is a tulku. NO I DON'T. Then you call me narrowminded again based on this dishonest extrapolation and generalization and below say you never attacked me. Again untruths and dishonesty.

Malcolm wrote:I made a blanket apology since I have said so many things and offended so many people, it is all I can do. I am sure people are still offended. But after a certain point it becomes their problem and not mine.

Right so you apologize to one of the biggest samaya breakers that opposed the Dalai Lama in person on his doorstep and Gelug principles by trying to pervert them plus his recent victim and a couple of fake tertons which to us Nyingmapas are the worst spirits reincarnated, ie the evil ministers of the great king, not to mention saying you were wrong in your good work to warn people off NKT and then forget to mention a major terton and a few tulkus to boot. OK, I'll see if I can swallow your word on this one.

Malcolm wrote:All I said about Trungpa that he seemed to me like an ordinary person based on the related episode. I guess calling someone an ordinary person is a bad thing. I honestly do not know whether Trungpa was realized or not. And I don't care much. He has been dead for more than twenty years. Perhaps he was completely naive about guns. Really. I reacted when I said that. I am sorry it offended you.

No recently you said you doubted his realizations and said he was a jerk. Also your attacks on him goes back years. Again dishonest.

Malcolm wrote:I have not defended anything, not have I attacked anyone. I have not attacked you either. I said you displayed narrowness in your post.

Well calling someone narrowminded for attacking Hindus when he just called one of them a probable saint is not an attack to you? You have been attacking Tibetan Buddhist institutions for the whole of this thread. Honestly you think people do not see that.

Malcolm wrote:My point about this was when we examine who really persecuted Dzogchen teachings, it was not Non-Buddhists, all the Non-Buddhists I have ever talked with about Dzogchen think it is cool. The Bonpos were totally into Dzogchen. They took to it like ducks to water. There is no history of Bonpos attacking Dzogchen, none at all.
I have found it is Buddhists who raise the largest and most sustained arguments against Dzogchen. And so I recounted that history. These things are merely facts -- facts are not attacks. I can understand however that many people's hackles are raised because I am presenting these things in the open. I understand the polemics against Dzogchen quite well.

We have been saying these things for centuries but now is not the time for this. It is you who has just been struck by lightning on the way to Damascus.

Malcolm wrote:I am quite sure there are false teachers in every religion, just as there are sincere ones. But since I am not privy to the sordid details of the false guides in other schools, I don't really have much to say about them. What I am familiar with is the situation of Tibetan Buddhism and the presence of a great deal of corruption and malfeasence in its institutions.

Yes you have been saying suddenly how they vicitimized Dzogchen and also how institutionalized Tibetan Buddhism "fleece and screw their flock" etc. etc. while painting a rosy picture of Hindus, Christians, Jews, Moslems and every other major tambourine holding group. Do you honestly think we believe every illetrate Joe Blog on the street has heard of Catholic priests after boys, or evangelical fornicating fraudster TV ministers, beheading command issuing mullahs, Charlie Mansons, etc. but you who reads so widely does not know of atrocities outside of Tibetan Buddhism? You yourself have listed so much of them over the years. Malcolm we are not children and this is not honest either.

Malcolm wrote:Actually, I have not attacked anyone. I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in both India and Tibet and traced a little bit of the history of how it became normalized within the institutions of Tibetan Buddhism.

No Namdrol. You have widened your age old attack on Tulkus onto Buddhist institutions and lamas after switching position. Frankly we Nyingmas have been feeling the edge of that blade for years but we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Actually in our pure perception all beings are already enlightened but relatively and quietly we from all five schools and Rime (which you dismissed before too) do our work. The biggest problem right now is the Chinese regime and those who took institutional power gradually from a century ago and are now collaborating with the murdering regime inside Tibetan prisons and society. In a way those two are still the power institution problem in real-politique in Tibet. But you suddenly do not see any sense opposing this particular corrupt power anymore.

Malcolm wrote:Now, I am sorry that you feel attacked, but I am equally certain that I am not attacking you or anyone else.

My case was to show you that you did. I also showed, again, that you did only attack Tibetan Buddhist institutions and whitewashed the mega murderous ones outside Tibet which have killed hundreds of millions in wars and billions in the last few centuries by policy which continues to this day with corrupt neo-colonial and global institutionalized policies. But hey what is a few hunred million by war or billions dead by policy between friends? The main problems is what you have listed in this thread. I politely disagree my friend.

Attacking Tibetan Buddhist institutions at a time when a whole nation and culture under repression is about to disappear and glorifying other traditions whose followers have killed oceans is not my priority right now.

Further you did not answer my point that so many perceive you are also attacking buddhism.

Plus if someone made personal attacks on others in my defence, I would immediately tell them off and set myself separate from them. You neither do this from age old days nor now, nor answered my point on this. This is bullying and unfair not what a gentleman would put up with. It is a basic question of decency and civility.

Continuing on this theme as you said on this forum some time ago, like e-sangha before, you have institutional influence and power here. So I am saving these posts and if like others I or my posts get "disappeared" we can continue this discussion on a blog I shall set up on an ongoing basis and there it will be a level playing ground. This might not be one of your basic principles but it is one of mine from pre buddhist days on being fair. I know how to make it have high hits on google so I am sure you and others will find it after a while in case I get disappeared.

Finally I would like to point out that I am typing these responses with a smile and consider you overall a good Vajra brother.

Wishing you all the best as ever.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 23, 2012 1:49 am

Matylda wrote:
Malcolm wrote:I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in ...India...
M


Dear Malcolm, maybe I missed it somewhere in this long discussion, but it I am curious about India and dzgochen reception there... could you elaborate a little bit or give some source. I am interested in it.


The basic gist of it is that standard Vajrayāna received institutional support from the beginning primarily because it was heavily grounded in Yogatantra. For example, the Guhyasamaja is also listed among the 18 tantras Amoghavajra brought to China in the early 8th century, if I recall correctly. And the mother tantras such as Cakrasamvara, Hevajra, also received approval as well. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that they never sought to supercede the path structure, the abhisamaya process, as desribed in sutra. They were tantras that utilized Abidharma, as it were, differently. So for example, the 37 ḍākinīs in the Cakrasamvara mandala are described as being representative of the 37 bodhipakṣa dharmas, etc.

But Dzogchen tantras makes little or no use of these schemes at all. While they indeed make reference to the peaceful and wrathful mandalas mentioned also in the Guhyagarbha, they treat these quite differently than the Guhygarbha treats them. However, since these mandalas are mentioned in the Dzogchen tantras, especially the Rigpa Rangshar, and since the Guhyagarbha mentions Dzogchen explicitly in the body of the text, exegesis of the Guhyagarbha became a mandatory study since the Guhyagarbha has Indian commentaries and is based on verifiable Sanskrit text. Though Indian originals of the 17 tantras, the 18 sems de lungs and five tantras, and the klong sde tantras and so on either never existed or were lost, The Guhyagarbha as well as the Vajrakilaya fragment tantra, among others, provided a key link through which the adherents of the old translation school could proclaim that contrary to the accusations leveled by Go and others could claim that Dzogchen had an authentic ground on Indian soil. Because the monastery of Samyas burnt down several times, many precious Indian manuscripts were lost. Also the manuscripts of Samyas were written in I beleive Gupta script, which was not readable by most Indian panditas by the time fo Atisha, since the script in question used at that time was Pala, I think.

Anyway, according to the annals of the lineage of Dzogchen, Dzogchen received an incredibly hostile reception from Buddhists both in India and Tibet, confined to a very small group of practitioners and never grew in prominence in India as part of the siddha movement, in the same way as the more normative "Buddhist" tantras in which Mahāmudra is grounded. Thus, by the eleventh century, and certainly much earlier, all trace of Dzogchen and even the Guhyagarbha tantra was erased from Indian history as if it had never existed.

One possibility is that since the Bonpos had a teaching of Dzogchen already, when the Garab Dorje lineage of Dzogchen was introduced to Tibet they took it up immediately and with enthusiasm. They never produced any polemical literature against Dzogchen, instead they incorporated the Garab Dorje lineage of teachings, and even Garab Dorje himself, into ZZNG. But becuase they preserved Dzogchen clearly, also Dzogchen was framed as Bon teaching. Certainly I have read polemics to this effect. Then there is the Nyingma crib that Tapihritsa, one of the most important masters of ZZNG was really an emanation of Guru Rinpoche, which actually is proof that the Nyingmapas recognize that ZZNG preceded the advent of Buddhism in Tibet.

The Buddhist history of Dzogchen is very much bound up with the fact that Indian Buddhists rejected Dzogchen overwhelmingly -- according to the annals of Dzogchen, the 17 tantras, for example were concealed in Nalanda. When VImalamitra went to Tibet, Nalanda handed the only copy of the extant Dzoghen tantras surviving and thus Dzogchen disappeared from the subcontitent, or so the story runs.The difficulties facing Vairocana and Vimalamitra in Tibet are well known.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 23, 2012 1:44 pm

username wrote:... dismissing the Victor Shakyamuni's Buddhadharma as unnecessary for Dzogchen...


Actually my point was quite different. Just to remind you:

This is a very good question. I have been moving slowly toward the pov of view that for most people studying these lower yānas is a complete waste of time. Oh, it can be useful to study a bit of Abhidharma because it helps contextualize mandala practice, and Madhyamaka does help cut through intellectual proliferation, properly studied and absorbed. Studying a bit of Madhyamaka helps one avoid the pitfal of crypto-advaita. ...etc.

The one absolutely indispensible thing is direct introduction. There is no path of Dzogchen without that at its head. If people are unwilling to put into practice the methods of Dzogchen following receiving that, this is their limitation and there can be no help for it.

Dzogchen includes the meaning of all Buddhadharma, so one cannot say that by practicing Dzogchen as an independent path, one is dismissing Buddhadharma as unnecessary. One can dismiss the organized religion that has accreted around Buddhadharma i.e. "Buddhism", the corresponding socio/political/economic institutions, as unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners.

For example, most of the primordial teachers of Dzogchen did not have a monastic Sangha -- only Ser'wöd Dampa and Shakyamuni did. But Garab Dorje did not. The rest of these teachers had various kinds of retinues, some had retinues of buddhas, thers of bodhisattvas, some of daknis, others of yakshas and rakshashas. For example the retinue of Nangwa Dampa was 1002 Buddhas, as well as devas. We have no insight into the social organization and hierarchies of buddhas, bodhisattvas, devas, dakinis, yakshas and rakshasas. We only have insight into the social organization of human beings.

"Unnecessary" does not mean "should never participate". I have made it clear that if someone, a Dzogchen practitioner, likes to participate in shrines and temples constructed by Buddhists than they should. I like shrines. They can be beautiful. The most moving place for me so far in my life was seeing the Jowo in Lhasa, and being in Samye -- and being in the Yarlung Valley. Shrines can also be gaudy and unnecessary.

If someone likes to think of themselves as Nyingmapas, or Kagyus, or Sakyas, or Gelugs, its ok with me. I am not saying to anyone they need to feel the way I do.

While other people consider Shakyamuni the most important teacher of all, I consider Garab Dorje more important. Garab Dorje is the most important teacher for Dzogchen, even more important than Padmasambhava (for Nyingmapas, perhaps Padmasambhava is more important). Why? Because Garab Dorje, not Padmasambhava, not Shakyamuni, taught the six million four hundred thousands lines of Dzogchen tantras, all the Dzogchen tantras that had been taught by all the previous Teachers of Dzogchen.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Wed May 23, 2012 2:45 pm

username wrote:Many of us have been saying you can enter the Dzogchen or other dharma vehicles' paths being of other beliefs but in advanced stages of Dzogchen for example the person can not hold contradictory beliefs and expect results.


One does not need beleifs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience.

For example denying emptiness or grasping to a solid god. Or for example can not support the violent behavior of people like Muhammad and take refuge in him while expecting thogal advanced results or rainbow body.


I don't support Mohammed's violent behavior. Never said that I did. However, no one takes refuge in Mohammed, not even Muslims. They go for refuge to Allah.

I just mentioned an exception of someone, who can enter the path but not expect advanced results holding on to such old beliefs, which disproves your global rule and shows your misrepresentation of what Rinpoche says as invalid.


What global rule?

Thirdly with regards to such messages from you and others proclaiming peace and claiming to be right on yet constantly attacking squares like me, who had been against your extreme ultra orthodox views on the other extreme end till recently, with personal attacks:


No extreme ultra orthodox views here. But I do know how to play the scales of tenet systems as well as anyone, and when someone in the past said something that was out of line with tenet systems as I understand them, I corrected them. But as anyone who has followed my career online, I have wavered between orthodoxy and liberalism as much as anyone. When I was participating in the administration of E-Sangha, I felt we had to maintain a certain orthodox position viz Buddhism. I recognize now that was an error. Not because it is wrong to be na orthodox Buddhist, but all Buddhists have a very different idea of what that means and we were more or less enforcing an Indo-Tibean idea of orthodoxy. So yes, I have varied between very liberal expressions and very orthodox ones. Sorry for being so human.

More recently, you decided of your own volition to get into with me because I felt you were mispresenting Gaudapada, etc., and I told you so. In response you went ballistic.

You have completely ignored my basic statement: "I am not saying that every path leads to the same liberation, but where we can all agree is that everyone is seeking the peace and happiness that comes from freedom, and if we maintain presence and awareness of this fact, we can go beyond limitations regarding religion".

Then of couse, some people decided to have a metadiscussion about whether there is indeed liberation in other schools (something I never claimed. I hope so, but I don't follow those schools so I don't know). People trotted out various criteria for what differentiates Buddhist from non-Buddhist, for example, the idea of being an insider as someone who is concerned with their mind -- and I showed this definition equally applied to the Yoga system and others. Someone else advanced the idea that it was the four seals -- but I showed that this can be found in Advaita as well. Other people asserted that as far as Bon goes, they only achieve liberation because they adopted Buddhism -- that is quite kind in its spirit, but interestingly, you did not critique Bonpos for plagiarism, only poor Guadapada. I merely pointed out that dogmatic assertions that liberation only occurs in Buddhism are just that -- dogmatic assertions with no substance. I have in the past said the criteria for what constitutes liberation in this school or that school differs so dramatically that it is impossible to judge. All one can say is that in many cases, it does not resemble what Buddhists imagine liberation to be. And when it comes to Dzogchen, a lot of Buddhists cannot fathom what liberation is Dzogchen is. So there you go.

I also pointed out that the most trechant and sustained criticism of Dzogchen has come from within Buddhism and that it continues to this day. And I do feel a lot of Nyingmapas mispresent Dzogchen completely, perhaps they mean well, but a lot of Nyingmapas just don't get it because they are so conditioned by the Kadamapa outlook.

I have also said that Dzogchen is a personal experience, as you well know. If someone comes to Dzogchen who is a rabbi, for example, they do not need to shed their rabbi skin just because they are a Dzogchen practitioner. They can continue just as they are. Dzogchen is not a matter of belief. Having a Madhyamaka view makes you no nearer to Dzogchen than having a Christian view. That is my present understanding. If one does not have that unique personal experience called "Dzogchen" than one is very far away from Dzogchen. If one is trying very hard to discover that experience than one can be called a Dzogchen practitioner. If one has that experience and the attendent confidence in that experience, then one has no need of any beliefs at all -- which I also said.

Frankly, this thread has come to the point where I am responding to things I never said merely because someone claimed that I said them. That is a pity since it is waste of time for people to make such remarks and it is a waste of time to respond to them. So I am putting everyone on notice. If you make a claim about something I have said which in fact is not what I said -- I am not going to respond at all. I will not longer respond to distortions and misrepresentations. If you want to quote something I said and give an opinion of it -- fine. For other posts, in order to garner a response from me, that post must contain a direct citation. Otherwise, I will ignore as I choose.

Thanks,

M
Last edited by Malcolm on Wed May 23, 2012 2:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Matylda » Wed May 23, 2012 3:22 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Matylda wrote:I have critiqued the Buddhist reception of Dzogchen in ...India...
M


Dear Malcolm, maybe I missed it somewhere in this long discussion, but it I am curious about India and dzgochen reception there... could you elaborate a little bit or give some source. I am interested in it.


The basic gist of it is that standard Vajrayāna received institutional support from the beginning primarily because it was heavily grounded in Yogatantra. For example, the Guhyasamaja is also listed among the 18 tantras Amoghavajra brought to China in the early 8th century, if I recall correctly. And the mother tantras such as Cakrasamvara, Hevajra, also received approval as well. The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that they never sought to supercede the path structure, the abhisamaya process, as desribed in sutra. They were tantras that utilized Abidharma, as it were, differently. So for example, the 37 ḍākinīs in the Cakrasamvara mandala are described as being representative of the 37 bodhipakṣa dharmas, etc.

But Dzogchen tantras makes little or no use of these schemes at all. While they indeed make reference to the peaceful and wrathful mandalas mentioned also in the Guhyagarbha, they treat these quite differently than the Guhygarbha treats them. However, since these mandalas are mentioned in the Dzogchen tantras, especially the Rigpa Rangshar, and since the Guhyagarbha mentions Dzogchen explicitly in the body of the text, exegesis of the Guhyagarbha became a mandatory study since the Guhyagarbha has Indian commentaries and is based on verifiable Sanskrit text. Though Indian originals of the 17 tantras, the 18 sems de lungs and five tantras, and the klong sde tantras and so on either never existed or were lost, The Guhyagarbha as well as the Vajrakilaya fragment tantra, among others, provided a key link through which the adherents of the old translation school could proclaim that contrary to the accusations leveled by Go and others could claim that Dzogchen had an authentic ground on Indian soil. Because the monastery of Samyas burnt down several times, many precious Indian manuscripts were lost. Also the manuscripts of Samyas were written in I beleive Gupta script, which was not readable by most Indian panditas by the time fo Atisha, since the script in question used at that time was Pala, I think.

Anyway, according to the annals of the lineage of Dzogchen, Dzogchen received an incredibly hostile reception from Buddhists both in India and Tibet, confined to a very small group of practitioners and never grew in prominence in India as part of the siddha movement, in the same way as the more normative "Buddhist" tantras in which Mahāmudra is grounded. Thus, by the eleventh century, and certainly much earlier, all trace of Dzogchen and even the Guhyagarbha tantra was erased from Indian history as if it had never existed.

One possibility is that since the Bonpos had a teaching of Dzogchen already, when the Garab Dorje lineage of Dzogchen was introduced to Tibet they took it up immediately and with enthusiasm. They never produced any polemical literature against Dzogchen, instead they incorporated the Garab Dorje lineage of teachings, and even Garab Dorje himself, into ZZNG. But becuase they preserved Dzogchen clearly, also Dzogchen was framed as Bon teaching. Certainly I have read polemics to this effect. Then there is the Nyingma crib that Tapihritsa, one of the most important masters of ZZNG was really an emanation of Guru Rinpoche, which actually is proof that the Nyingmapas recognize that ZZNG preceded the advent of Buddhism in Tibet.

The Buddhist history of Dzogchen is very much bound up with the fact that Indian Buddhists rejected Dzogchen overwhelmingly -- according to the annals of Dzogchen, the 17 tantras, for example were concealed in Nalanda. When VImalamitra went to Tibet, Nalanda handed the only copy of the extant Dzoghen tantras surviving and thus Dzogchen disappeared from the subcontitent, or so the story runs.The difficulties facing Vairocana and Vimalamitra in Tibet are well known.

M[/quote]

Thank you very much for deep explanation of the topic. It is really very interesting to know about all the history. Thanks a lot :)
Matylda
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 24, 2012 3:01 pm

Adamantine wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Mariusz wrote:According to your new Dzogchen without Buddhism or what? :smile:


Buddhism is a human institution developed by ordinary human beings, and it shows.


So is Dzogchen Community, isn't it?


Dzogchen Community is not Dzogchen. It too is a human institution, and it shows.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 24, 2012 4:02 pm

mindyourmind wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Mariusz wrote:According to your new Dzogchen without Buddhism or what? :smile:


Buddhism is a human institution developed by ordinary human beings, and it shows.


Right there is an example of a statement that is quite acceptable, here on the Dzogchen sub-forum, but to comment on it may be again construed as policing, living in a cage, living with limitations etc.

Are there any institutions not made by humans? If so, what are they? Is Dzogchen a human institution, and does it show?


Dzogchen is not a "human" institution. There are human institutions that have been built up around Dzogchen teachings, and like all such things, they are subject to the flaws of the humans that participate in them. The purpose of Dzogchen Community, for example, is to assist people's development of the knowledge of Dzogchen in themselves, first and foremost through following a qualified master who has that knowledge. This is the purpose of any group of people assembled to develop the knowledge of any teaching. But whenever you have people gather, also there is always a very real probability that some people will not have a perfect understanding. Thus, Dzogchen Community is also not a perfect institution. People in the Community, as in any community, make many mistakes. However, they are gathered to develop Dzogchen teachings among human beings. Dzogchen Community is not a very tradtional organization in the Tibetan Buddhist sense of the term. There is no emphasis on reproducing the forms and culture of Tibetan Buddhism in the DC, unlike other organizations. This is because ChNN found there was no point in doing this, because while human culture is wonderful and rich, Dzogchen is beyond cultural limitations. Of course he loves his own culture, but he has no interest in converting people to the culture of Tibetan Buddhism because we are not Tibetans.

When human instutitions become old and entrenched, very often the institution becomes more important than the people it was original designed to serve. This point is very much lost in this discussion. People always say "We should serve the Dharma" but what happens in reality is that we wind up serving "Dharma" institutions, and naively, merely perpetuate the eight worldly dharmas. The same is true of the Catholics, Anglicans, Governments, etc.

A great deal of this thread has been devoted the question of whether it is important to consider Dzogchen a part of Buddhism. Well, one of the reasons this question has not been answered is because it is obvious Dzogchen exists within Buddhist institutions. Some people think that because it exists in Buddhist insitutions, this makes Dzogchen "Buddhist"and that this limits Dzogchen to Buddhism.

I sure don't share that view. Dharma in general does not belong to institutions. The Buddha himself never created a single Buddhist institution. Garab Dorje never created a Dzogchen "Insitution" -- he never built a temple, or a shrine, etc. Also Chogyal Namkhai Norbu did not create Dzogchen Community. He merely gave this name to the group of students that spontaneously gathered around him in the mid '70's when he decided there was sufficient interest in Dzogchen. Why did he give name? Because they were following Dzogchen teachings. They were not following "Buddhism". They were not Buddhists, the vast majority of them. They did not become "Buddhists" just because they became students of Dzogchen teachings. Most of the early students from that period of time still do not consider themselves "Buddhists". They were never told by their teacher they must consider themselves "Buddhists". The only thing they were told is that they were learning a teaching called Dzogchen. Buddhists who came to receive teachings were never told they must not call themselves Buddhists. The only thing they were told is that they were learning a teaching called Dzogchen.

As I said, I came to Dzogchen through Tibetan Buddhism. I am nominally a Buddhist. But I don't feel particularly Buddhist any more in so far as I feel a strong cultural allegiance to any Buddhist institutions be they Hinayana, Mahayana, or Vajrayana. I feel like a Doctor of Tibetan Medicine, and a Dzogchen practitioner.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 24, 2012 4:09 pm

Adamantine wrote:
Right. And anything else, organized around "Dzogchen", is just theoretical.



Well Dzogchen Community is not very organized. It has no sangha of monks, no hierarchy of practitioners, no unified corporate stucture, etc. This, in a real sense, is Dzogchen community:

Image

In the center there are the Dzogchen Teachings. Surrounding that are the gars, then the gakyils, the groups of pratitioners, then individuals, all interconnected. The Gars, Gakyils, and groups have three colors, symbolizing how we collaborate. The individuals in the periphery have the same color as the teachings in the middle symbolizing that we all have the same state. Everyone is the same, no one is higher, no one is lower.

I think the point is that there is nothing wrong with the essence of Buddhism...


There is nothing wrong with Buddhadharma, there are many things wrong with Buddhism.

The point is maturing in one's own practice to be able to discover the essence, and not holding on to the labels, whatever they may be.


Yes, but to discover that essence you do not first have to put on the label "Buddhist".
Last edited by Malcolm on Thu May 24, 2012 4:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12568
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Postby Adamantine » Thu May 24, 2012 4:12 pm

Dechen's post is a nice hypothetical fantasy. We could substitute "Buddhist practitioner" in the same sentence he uses "Seems to me that this doesn't necessarily makes you anything else than a Dzogchen practitioner."

"Seems to me that this doesn't necessarily makes you anything else than a Buddhist practitioner."

It doesn't matter, both are labels. They refer to the same thing.

Let's examine: ChNN and other teacher of Dzogchen point out that for most of us, we will not reach liberation in this life, but in the bardo. Like the Garuda, born fully grown once the egg hatches. How are we to interpret this outside of the teachings on the bardo? As a Christian, or Muslim, or Amazonian Shaman, you will have your own structured belief about what happens immediately at the time of death, which may contradict bardo teachings. How does this fit with the argument that any denomination of any tradition can also be a full-fledged Dzogchen practitioner? At a certain point, they will have to choose to discard one version, or the other, ---or both will lose all sense. If we don't believe in samsara, and rebirth, as Dzongsar Khyentse pointed out in his teachings on Abandoning the Four Attachments: it would be a lot easier and more fun to just rob a bank and retire to some exotic island, enjoying sensory pleasures indefinitely. Dharma practice can bring more apparent suffering to us, then immediate pleasure, in which case, if you abandoned thoughts of future lives it would render it pointless. Certainly, if you can instantly abide in Rigpa 24-7 this may not be the case, but none of us are in that situation, with that capacity.
It seems all or most of the people arguing for an autonomous Dzogchen are part of the Dzogchen Community, --as Malcolm points out, a very human institution. Are we arguing for a Dzogchen without the Dzogchen Community? Why would we? That's where the teachings are held, cared for, and transmitted. Same with Buddhism. And they are not different. In DC, Rinpoche has us do Tuns and Ganapujas which have very Buddhist, tantric, practices..
Deity Yoga, mantra recitation, seven line prayer, protectors, etc.
Where is the perfect example of an autonomous Dzogchen vehicle? I don't buy Dechen's hypothetical fantasy!
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Next

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

>