Curious Treasury ...

[muni]

Conceptual mind sees not clear and can use warnings.

There is clinging to emptinesses which is so dangerous. in such compassion is not. In clinging to solidnesses with characteristics is misperception only. Such examples are not revealing nature but are harmful is said.
Guru Rinpoche also warned for many such mistakes in different ways. All examples given are influencing when awareness is not looking to itself.

All free appearing movements cannot harm since empty mind is not caught in them, is said. But that is nondual nature. (guided by Dharmakaya)


Nondual, that is not revealed by conceptual mind.

[Dronma]

He speaks of samaya-breakers. Just before he says ...

ENVIOUS PRACTITIONERS

Spiritual practitioners who are envious have six failings:
They want more gain, wealth, and opportunity than others.
They want larger retinues and more students.
No matter how much merit they have, they want to gather more.
They want the banner of their renown to be raised throughout the land.
They want to be unique and unquestionably superior to everyone else.
They do not want others to have even a single thing that they do not have.
Such practitioners have been pierced by the flowered arrows of Kamadeva.

... so it is not nice, but, in my opinion, not to the point that
"Simply seeing them erodes your own renunciation and faith.
Simply hearing them propels you far from the path to liberation.
Simply thinking of them sows the seeds of samsara."

or if it does you better question your self about your motivations ... not very Ati.

Sönam

Sure, Longchenpa didn't know anything about Ati. He was not a Westerner with our fabulous and superior understanding of everything, so how could he?

[White Lotus]

thank you Sonam.

[Malcolm]

It is certainly very much 9 yanas approach ... for a treasure

Sönam

Man ngag mdzod is not about Dzogchen specifically niether is the grub tha' mdzod or the yid bzhin mdzod. Only the other four.

M

[Sally Gross]

I start to translate, in a parallel life, the Precious Treasury of Pith Instructions of Longchen Rabjam. I am more than surprize to found such assertion ...
To the light of our recent discussion it's quite ... incredible

FAULTY RELIANCE

Associating with such practitioners of inferior character has six drawbacks:
Simply seeing them erodes your own renunciation and faith.
Simply hearing them propels you far from the path to liberation.
Simply thinking of them sows the seeds of samsara.
Simply having contact with them causes blessings and spiritual attainment to fade.
Simply talking with them diminishes your pure outlook and devotion.
They contaminate all of your spiritual connections with the blessings of maras.
After their death, they fall into a hellish state of constant torment.
THerefore, avoid such unfortunate practitioners.

SIGNS OF INFERIOR PRACTITIONERS

There are six indications of the character of such inferior practitioners:
Far from being spiritual, they are baser than ordinary people.
Far from following the teachings, they are baser than the most dishonorable people.
Far from being Mahayana practitioners, they are baser than those who hold exterme views.
Far from being real practitioners, they are baser than people who commit harmful actions.
Far from cultivating view and meditation, they areas distant from the dharma as the earth is from the heavens.
They are thieves of the teachings, only pretending to be practitioners of the dharma.
Avoid them, for they take peaople with faith down the wrong path, one that leads to lower realms.

Sönam

A passage from the Dhammapada to which this may be related is Dhp 61:

"If, as the disciple fares along, he meets no companion who is better or equal, let him firmly pursue his solitary career. There is no fellowship with the foolish."

Notes: "Fellowship" (sahaayataa): according to the commentary, this term connotes higher morality, insights, the Paths and the Fruits of Steam-Entry, Once-Return, Non-Return and Arahatship. No such virtues and attainments are to be found in the foolish. A significant caveat is to be made, however: out of compassion, to work for their betterment, one may associate with the foolish but not be contaminated by them.

The passage and the notes are from the translation of the Dhammapada by Narada Thera, and his notes. See Narada Thera (trans.), 1993, The Dhammapada: Paali Text and Translation with Stories in Brief and Notes, Taipei: The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation.

[Sönam]

I could accept those allegations in the context of the sutras and the teachings about accumulations, what I had more difficulties to admit is when it comes from Master Longchen Rabjam, and even more when it comes from one of his treasuries ... but Malcom did answer to my astonishement : "Man ngag mdzod is not about Dzogchen specifically niether is the grub tha' mdzod or the yid bzhin mdzod. Only the other four. "

Sönam

[Sally Gross]

I was also wondering about that. Because otherwise, one could conclude that Longchenpa is talking about Hinayana practitioners (i.e. Theravadins).

This implies that it is reasonable to expect the blanket excoriation of Theravadins -- egregiously bad practitioners like the late Luang Por Chah, Luang Por Pa~n~navadho and Luang Por Maha Boowa, and others like Luang Por Sumedho and many others who are still alive andcontinue to spend their lifetimes assiduously pursuing what is, on this account, folly. Horror of horrors, I admire their folly and prefer it to some things which seem to be counted as wisdom. Anders might have some comments about this. Oh dear ....

The last thing I intend to do is to start a religious war. It seems to me, though my claim is likely to be contentious in the context of this particular forum, that the practices of more than one yana can perhaps be found in Theravada, at least in nuce, so that the equation of Theravadin and Hinayanist is over-simplistic just as the equation of of Tibetan Buddhist and Mahayanist or Vajrayanist is over-simplistic. As I understand it, ChNNR teaches, in any case, that all yanas are self-sufficient and adequate in themselves. As someone whose knowledge of Dhamma/Dharma is largely Theravada-based, I'm not sure how helpful these equations are.

[kalden yungdrung]

I was also wondering about that. Because otherwise, one could conclude that Longchenpa is talking about Hinayana practitioners (i.e. Theravadins).

This implies that it is reasonable to expect the blanket excoriation of Theravadins -- egregiously bad practitioners like the late Luang Por Chah, Luang Por Pa~n~navadho and Luang Por Maha Boowa, and others like Luang Por Sumedho and many others who are still alive andcontinue to spend their lifetimes assiduously pursuing what is, on this account, folly. Horror of horrors, I admire their folly and prefer it to some things which seem to be counted as wisdom. Anders might have some comments about this. Oh dear ....

The last thing I intend to do is to start a religious war. It seems to me, though my claim is likely to be contentious in the context of this particular forum, that the practices of more than one yana can perhaps be found in Theravada, at least in nuce, so that the equation of Theravadin and Hinayanist is over-simplistic just as the equation of of Tibetan Buddhist and Mahayanist or Vajrayanist is over-simplistic. As I understand it, ChNNR teaches, in any case, that all yanas are self-sufficient and adequate in themselves. As someone whose knowledge of Dhamma/Dharma is largely Theravada-based, I'm not sure how helpful these equations are.

Tashi delek,

Your post is very to the point.

My question to you as an expert in Theravada views, would be:

- Do you see Thervada - Mahayana - Tantra (yana) - Mahamudra and Dzogchen as interdependent?
- Could you elucidate then please your example for all above mentioned Traditions?

Thanks at beforehand

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Wesley1982]

Maybe he is simply pointing the finger at what he sees is wrong?..

[Sönam]

Maybe he is simply pointing the finger at what he sees is wrong?..

Except that from a dzogchen point of view such things are not "wrong" ...

Simply seeing them erodes your own renunciation and faith.
Simply hearing them propels you far from the path to liberation.
Simply thinking of them sows the seeds of samsara.

Sönam

[heart]

Maybe he is simply pointing the finger at what he sees is wrong?..

Except that from a dzogchen point of view such things are not "wrong" ...

Simply seeing them erodes your own renunciation and faith.
Simply hearing them propels you far from the path to liberation.
Simply thinking of them sows the seeds of samsara.

Sönam

Breaking Samaya with your Dzogchen master is not wrong?

/magnus

[Sönam]

Maybe he is simply pointing the finger at what he sees is wrong?..

Except that from a dzogchen point of view such things are not "wrong" ...

Simply seeing them erodes your own renunciation and faith.
Simply hearing them propels you far from the path to liberation.
Simply thinking of them sows the seeds of samsara.

Sönam

Breaking Samaya with your Dzogchen master is not wrong?

/magnus

who speaks about that?

Sönam

[heart]

He speaks of samaya-breakers. Just before he says ...

ENVIOUS PRACTITIONERS

Spiritual practitioners who are envious have six failings:
They want more gain, wealth, and opportunity than others.
They want larger retinues and more students.
No matter how much merit they have, they want to gather more.
They want the banner of their renown to be raised throughout the land.
They want to be unique and unquestionably superior to everyone else.
They do not want others to have even a single thing that they do not have.
Such practitioners have been pierced by the flowered arrows of Kamadeva.

You are.

/magnus

[Sönam]

It is not Dzogchen samayas, but Mahayana's ones ... this what surprized me from Longchen Rabjam

Sönam

[muni]

Longchen Rabjampa very clearly knew charcoal turns not into gold.

When understanding is, there is nothing to add and nothing to say. So is me told. The talk is but through COMPASSION. A master talks in order to help beings by their possibilities, not to show what he (the master) understand.

[heart]

It is not Dzogchen samayas, but Mahayana's ones ... this what surprized me from Longchen Rabjam

Sönam

Longchenpa had a very vast view and his teachings encompass the nine yanas and go beyond. I don't see anything surprising.

/magnus

[Sally Gross]

Tashi delek,

Your post is very to the point.

My question to you as an expert in Theravada views, would be:

- Do you see Thervada - Mahayana - Tantra (yana) - Mahamudra and Dzogchen as interdependent?
- Could you elucidate then please your example for all above mentioned Traditions?

Thanks at beforehand

Mutsog Marro
KY

I am no expert regarding Theravada, let alone Mahayana, Tantrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen, and am therefore not at all equipped to answer your questions in the terms you have set them out. There is a thread in this forum on Theravada and Dzogchen. What seems to emerge there is that, while the Dhamma-Vinaya displays no notion of Dzogchen, there are passages in the Suttas (and, something I do not think was noted, practices in certain Theravadin traditions, the Thai Forest tradition for example) which are likely to "ring bells" for practitioners of Mahamudra and Dzogchen. The thread also gives a reference to a book by Ajahn Amaro, a Thai Forest tradition monastic, in which he reflects upon Dzogchen. A number of passages from the suttas have been cited in that thread. It should be noted that there are strands of Theravadin tradition which teach methods of meditation which make use of chakras in much the same way as certain Tantric practices and some secondary practices used in Dzogchen. The "Access to Insight" website includes some of the teachings of the late Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro about mindfulness of breathing (anapana-sati), which includes methods of working with the chakras which are interesting. There are also key concepts in the practice of meditation -- sati-sampaja~n~na, for example, which Luang Por Sumedho calls "intuitive awareness" in his writings, which will also probably ring bells.

Something which has been pointed out several times in this forum is that different yanas are self-sufficient, each in its own right, and that it is specifics of the path of each and the speed of the journey to liberation, as it were, which differentiates between different vehicles. From this perspective, it is not a matter of superior and inferior: you pays your money and you makes your choice.

In addition to this, however, traditions (of which what is described broadly as Theravada) are not homogenous by any manner or means, and cannot necessarily be regimented narrowly into a single-vehicle schema. As I have noted, there are streams of tradition within Theravada which work with the chakras -- not just the Thai Forest tradition, there are esoteric samatha and samatha/vipassana traditions in Myanmar, and U Bha Khin, whose method is used as the basis of the practice of vipassana taught by Goenka, also involves work with energy -- what the late U Bha Khin called "the nibbaana-dhatu". Dig deep enough, and some tantric techniques will probably be found. There is a Bodhisattva tradition in Theravada -- some practitioners take a Bodhisattva vow -- though this looms far less large than it does in Mahayana. So: there are practitioners within the Theravadin tradition who stand within the Bodhisattva tradition, and there are also strands of tradition which teach what are tantamount to Tantric practices in the context of adaptations of methods of meditation with roots in the Suttas and later developments. By the same token, strands of tradition within Tibetan Buddhism also encompass different vehicles, and there are doubtless good and sincere practitioners whose practice remains essentially a shravaka practice whose goodness and sincerity should not be belittled because of this.

Regarding some of the people I mentioned in my earlier post, the late Luang Por Chah, the late Luang Por Maha Boowa and the late Luang Por Pa~n~navadho are all reputed to have achieved Arahatship, which Theravada regards as the highest attainment possible within the dispensation of a particular Buddha (in our case, Sakyamuni). The way in which the Dhamma-Vinaya and the Theravada tradition conceives of Arahatship and indeed of Buddhahood differs significantly from the way in which these are conceived in Mahayana and Vajrayana: technically, the Buddha of the current dispensation, Sakyamuni, is viewed in what might be described as docetic terms in Mahayana and Vajrayana, in stark contrast to the Dhamma-Vinaya and the Shravaka traditions. The term "docetic" is derived from a Greek word, "dokein" (to seem)/ "dokesis" (apparition, phantom), and was used to describe a view condemned by early Christians as heretical, to the effect that Jesus crucified on the cross was in fact an apparition. In similar fashion, if I understand the matter correctly, Mahayana and Vajrayana view the historical Buddha as it were, Sakyamuni, as an apparition of sorts, a Nirmanakaya controlled like a puppet (to use terms that Malcolm, in his days as Namdrol on E-Sangha used in a message to me) by the Sambhogakaya. The Theravadin view is emphatically non-docetic, by contrast. Notwithstanding the differences, it is common cause that the Suttas are the word of the Buddha and worthy of respect, and none of this impugns my point about different styles of practice within Theravada which do not support a simplistic equation of Theravada and "Hinayana". Any tradition of sufficient age, depth and complexity is probably more like a fleet of carriages and cars of different types than like a sigle car or carriage.

A note on terminology: not many Theravadins like being called "Hinayanists", which certainly looks and sounds like a term which judges Theravada to be inferior to Mahayana and Vajrayana. "Sharavakayana" is probably a far kinder term in this regard, and with reference to the Dhamma-Vinaya, whether involving the Paali Suttas or the Agamas preserved in Chinese or parallel texts discovered over the past years in other Prakrit languages, is more accurate.

Apologies for not anwering your questions directly.

[kalden yungdrung]

Tashi delek,

Your post is very to the point.

My question to you as an expert in Theravada views, would be:

- Do you see Thervada - Mahayana - Tantra (yana) - Mahamudra and Dzogchen as interdependent?
- Could you elucidate then please your example for all above mentioned Traditions?

Thanks at beforehand

Mutsog Marro
KY

I am no expert regarding Theravada, let alone Mahayana, Tantrayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen, and am therefore not at all equipped to answer your questions in the terms you have set them out.
Apologies for not anwering your questions directly.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for your answer.

You did wrote a lot of things which are for me at the moment clear.

But there is no answer to my question about the interdependency regarding the above mentioned Yanas where
Theravada / Sutrayana is one.

No apologies nescessary for not answering in a direct way, i can understand it.
If we see the Yanas as independent because they are in themselves complete and it would be only a question of time to reach the goal, then there is in between a lot of suffering possible.

Yes the karma mind doesn' t know about time and time for the karmic mind can be resulting in nearly endless wandering within Samsara.

So what does then mean a question of time for an unrealised mind?

I guess it could also be nearly timeless that experience of karmic time. We cannot also say in this case, let' s make a bet on the fastest horse, we can only stay in the respect to all horses and all will reach their stable, one time. But at one time is for many people not good enough, so out of fear for suffering bad migrations etc. some want to do it faster.

But how ? Yes that is indeed a good question and that does need a lot of further investigation(s).

Mutsog Marro
KY

[xylem]

i don't think this is overly puzzling. there are teachings that are definitive and teach directly about the ultimate truth. then there are teachings that are provisional and teach at the relative level. what is definitive and what is provisional depends upon the tradition and the level of teachings. here longchenpa is clearly teaching on the relative level, giving practical advice for disciples on the path who have not totally integrated the view and who may be overwhelmed by some appearances. -xy