Institutional Buddhism

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby heart » Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:15 am

xylem wrote:i thought i was perplexed in the other thread... lesson to not come out of my retreat... christ...

there is an interesting intellectual conflict here. one group-- "A"-- suggests that dzogchen, as direct knowledge of one's true nature, is trans-religious and trans-philosophical. another group-- "B"-- suggests that dzogchen, as direct knowledge of one's true nature, is the pith essence of all of buddhism.

on the surface, since "A" and "B" agree that dzogchen is the yoga of direction knowledge of one's true nature, that the main difference is methodology.

i can understand camp "A" having the view of being anti-intellectual and anti-religious. your drukpa kunleg's type of spirit. i can grok that vantage point. i remember getting teachings from one of my teachers on the theksum nedek and figuring while i had him, i'd ask some questions about some other practices other lamas gave me. his response: why would you want to do those things? didn't you listen?

but camp "A"'s position doesn't seem to be anti-religious as it claims that people of all faiths can practice dzogchen, which i would admit that they can, based on the words of my own teachers. one can't say that religion is immaterial and even detrimental to dzogchen practice and simultaneously cast a pan religious attitude. what's odd is that while claiming to be pan religious and ecumenical there is also a vibe that's anti-buddhist re traditional institutional buddhism.

camp "A" doesn't seem to be anti-intellectual either as there certainly do seem to be some very definite social and political ideas about institutional versus non-institutional dzogchen and so on.

i don't get it.


I understand that you don't get it. Group A says that Dzogchen isn't Buddhism, that it is a foreign teaching that only superficially been a part of the religion Buddhism. So one part of the discussion is if Buddhism is an empty shell and a institutional religion without any true wisdom or not. The other part of the discussion is if Dzogchen can be applied by people of any religion. Here group A suddenly defines Dzogchen as the natural state while the people of group B feels a bit confused since in the first part of the discussion Dzogchen is treated as a standalone systematic teaching and set of practices foreign to Buddhism.
But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3144
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Karma Dorje » Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:57 am

heart wrote:I understand that you don't get it. Group A says that Dzogchen isn't Buddhism, that it is a foreign teaching that only superficially been a part of the religion Buddhism. So one part of the discussion is if Buddhism is an empty shell and a institutional religion without any true wisdom or not. The other part of the discussion is if Dzogchen can be applied by people of any religion. Here group A suddenly defines Dzogchen as the natural state while the people of group B feels a bit confused since in the first part of the discussion Dzogchen is treated as a standalone systematic teaching and set of practices foreign to Buddhism.
But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.
/magnus


Respectfully, Magnus if you reread the thread as it is written rather than your recall of it, the idea that Dzogchen is a foreign system is only a very small sideline that a few people indulged in. If anything was sudden, it was that you noticed that we are talking about Dzogchen as the natural state and that there are countless approaches to it, some but not all within Buddhism.

Likewise, no one has accused Buddhism of being an empty shell. To varying degrees the effectiveness of the gradualist position has been questioned by people loosely on one side of a conglomeration of ideas under discussion. Some have completely eschewed the standard lam rim approach, others have not. There is however a great deal of "my mother, drunk or sober" groupthink from the Tibetophiles that seems to preclude a reasoned analysis of the numerous shortcomings of Tibetan culture and insitutions.

And even if I was to assume that you are correct in saying that there are "some problems (with group "A") getting their arguments together", a point which I vigorously dispute, in what alternate reality has an Internet discussion ever dwindled for want of cogency?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Sönam » Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:37 am

heart wrote:But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.

/magnus


This is provocative and wrong ... arguments of all sorts have been provided, and Malcom has not been the only one to post on the subject. Anyone can consult them in previous threads. It is just than there is no positive reasons in looping again and again in the same circle.
Also, having been understood, I have been asked not to come again and again on the same subject ... so I considere it right and I stop posting.
But now that some of us have decided not to continue this looping discussion, what you call group B is coming strongly and say "you see they don't post anymore ... it's because they have nothing to say, ah, ah, ah"

Be happy.
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: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby heart » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:11 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
heart wrote:I understand that you don't get it. Group A says that Dzogchen isn't Buddhism, that it is a foreign teaching that only superficially been a part of the religion Buddhism. So one part of the discussion is if Buddhism is an empty shell and a institutional religion without any true wisdom or not. The other part of the discussion is if Dzogchen can be applied by people of any religion. Here group A suddenly defines Dzogchen as the natural state while the people of group B feels a bit confused since in the first part of the discussion Dzogchen is treated as a standalone systematic teaching and set of practices foreign to Buddhism.
But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.
/magnus


Respectfully, Magnus if you reread the thread as it is written rather than your recall of it, the idea that Dzogchen is a foreign system is only a very small sideline that a few people indulged in. If anything was sudden, it was that you noticed that we are talking about Dzogchen as the natural state and that there are countless approaches to it, some but not all within Buddhism.

Likewise, no one has accused Buddhism of being an empty shell. To varying degrees the effectiveness of the gradualist position has been questioned by people loosely on one side of a conglomeration of ideas under discussion. Some have completely eschewed the standard lam rim approach, others have not. There is however a great deal of "my mother, drunk or sober" groupthink from the Tibetophiles that seems to preclude a reasoned analysis of the numerous shortcomings of Tibetan culture and insitutions.

And even if I was to assume that you are correct in saying that there are "some problems (with group "A") getting their arguments together", a point which I vigorously dispute, in what alternate reality has an Internet discussion ever dwindled for want of cogency?


Actually I doubt that there is a group A and B at all but I understand that someone not participating in the discussion might feel like there are two groups. There are a lot of different ideas being expressed here more or less eloquently. One mistake I feel I made myself was to start arguing with Malcolm directly instead of asking him more carefully what he meant. On the other hand I am still quite unsure of what he mean even though he did a lot of post since then so it is possible that he himself is not exactly clear about what he wanted to say.
I used to think there was something seriously wrong with Tibetan institutions until I read an article about scandals in American Zen centers. Almost all those centers had American Senseis that have caused every possible kind of scandal you ever heard about. So we are not doing much better with western institutions.
I have only noticed one clear gradualist post so I think you probably are making assumptions about the rest of us.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3144
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby heart » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:20 pm

Sönam wrote:
heart wrote:But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.

/magnus


This is provocative and wrong ... arguments of all sorts have been provided, and Malcom has not been the only one to post on the subject. Anyone can consult them in previous threads. It is just than there is no positive reasons in looping again and again in the same circle.
Also, having been understood, I have been asked not to come again and again on the same subject ... so I considere it right and I stop posting.
But now that some of us have decided not to continue this looping discussion, what you call group B is coming strongly and say "you see they don't post anymore ... it's because they have nothing to say, ah, ah, ah"

Be happy.
Sönam


I am always wrong Sönam, but it wasn't meant as a provocation. I only noticed that very little happened since Malcolm stopped posting (probably my fault) in these threads. My sincere apologize for the provocative way I formulated that sentence my only excuse is that I really don't believe there is any homogenous group A or B.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3144
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Simon E. » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:26 pm

Sönam wrote:
heart wrote:But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.

/magnus


This is provocative and wrong ... arguments of all sorts have been provided, and Malcom has not been the only one to post on the subject. Anyone can consult them in previous threads. It is just than there is no positive reasons in looping again and again in the same circle.
Also, having been understood, I have been asked not to come again and again on the same subject ... so I considere it right and I stop posting.
But now that some of us have decided not to continue this looping discussion, what you call group B is coming strongly and say "you see they don't post anymore ... it's because they have nothing to say, ah, ah, ah"

Be happy.
Sönam

It also assumes that every one agrees that there is merit in bringing logical debate to that which is not subject to conceptual analysis.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Sönam » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:30 pm

heart wrote:...
I really don't believe there is any homogenous group A or B.

/magnus


I don't believe it too ...

:group:
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: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:36 pm

heart wrote:
Sönam wrote:
heart wrote:But since Malcolm stopped posting the rest of group A have some problem getting their arguments together and so discussion is dwindling.

/magnus


This is provocative and wrong ... arguments of all sorts have been provided, and Malcom has not been the only one to post on the subject. Anyone can consult them in previous threads. It is just than there is no positive reasons in looping again and again in the same circle.
Also, having been understood, I have been asked not to come again and again on the same subject ... so I considere it right and I stop posting.
But now that some of us have decided not to continue this looping discussion, what you call group B is coming strongly and say "you see they don't post anymore ... it's because they have nothing to say, ah, ah, ah"

Be happy.
Sönam


I am always wrong Sönam, but it wasn't meant as a provocation. I only noticed that very little happened since Malcolm stopped posting (probably my fault) in these threads. My sincere apologize for the provocative way I formulated that sentence my only excuse is that I really don't believe there is any homogenous group A or B.

/magnus


I have not added anything new to these threads because I haven't anything new to say.

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

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Adamantine » Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:09 pm

xylem wrote:so, i'm yet even more puzzled...


Well, once again , I do find many of Malcolm's posts in these threads to ring true, and I appreciate his intent.. however, some things just started to become unbearably contradictory (seemed so to me at least), which is why I chimed in. For instance, I do agree with this post of his:
Dzogchen is the heart of all paths, whether of samsara or nirvana, and is the truth that everyone is trying to discover. What is Dzogchen? We all know the answer to that question -- it is our real condition.

Everyone, no matter what religion they belong to, is trying to discover the truth. That truth exists in the heart of every single sentient being. So when you discover that truth, there is no need to remain locked in the limitations of "Buddhist" and "non-Buddhist".

Limitations are what cause all the suffering in the world.

We cannot change the world for others, but we can change the world for ourselves. The only way to do this is to evolve beyond the limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race, and tribe. If we go beyond these limitations through discovering our primordial potentiality, then we are participating in changing the world.

As we have seen, for example, the six liberations are not just for Buddhists -- you don't have to make someone a Buddhist in order to sing Song of the Vajra for them, for example, or recite the Aspiration of Samantabhadra -- any sentient being who hears these sung or recited will have a seed of future liberation planted in their continuum, thos grol (liberation through hearing). You don't have to make someone a Buddhist to give them some myong grol (liberation through taste), or give them a btags grol (liberation through wearing), or show them some image that is a mthong grol (liberation through sight), or give them some incense which is a specially formulated dri grol (liberation through smell), etc.

Of course I am a Buddhist. But where I used to be a Buddhist before I was a Dzogchen practitioner, now it is other way around. This is not because of some intellectual trip. This is based on my practice of Buddhism and Dzogchen for 20+ years now.

I can see really clearly that we need to go beyond Buddhist provincialism. We even complain about sectarianism among Buddhists. We also war with each other about such things whose Karmapa is the real one; which is better, gzhan stong or rang stong; is yogacara as high as madhayamaka or not; is Theravada Hinayāna or not; is Mahāyāna or the tantras the real teaching of the Buddha or not. If we do not go beyond these kinds of petty intellectual differences, we will never survive as a species and we will continue to destroy ourselves.

In the end it honestly does not matter much whether we put our faith in Jesus, Krishna or Buddha. There is no perfect faith that leads to liberation. The only thing that leads to liberation is knowledge of our true condition. When we know that state, we don't have need of faith since now we have certainty.

We do not need to ecumenically pretend that all paths lead to the same place. All we need to understand is that everyone is searching for the same thing, the peace and happiness that springs from freedom. We can overcome all our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe just by maintaining presence and awareness of this fact.

When we have overcome our own limitations regarding religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe, then we can work with any circumstances. If one is attached to some limitation, there is no way one can work well with circumstances. One can only work with circumstances by seeing what one's limitations are.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe then we are more free. We are more free to celebrate life, sorrow at death, wonder at creation, we are more free to enjoy our lives and the lives of others.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe we are more free to celebrate the threatening "other", to celebrate the beauty of human diversity and difference, which is the strength of our species.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe we are more free to act wisely, to cherish this beautiful planet we live on and all the richness of life, the plants, the animals, the rocks, minerals, oceans, mountains, rivers, and lakes it offers us.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our own state through personal experience the universe and all the beings in it are revealed as an astonishing panoply of spheres of light and color, sound, lights and rays that has no boundary nor center.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our own state just as it is, we have no need to ensure any creed, no need to confirm any ideology, no need to control anyone or anything -- we can let the free be free as they have been all along whether they know it or not.

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe thorugh direct and perfect knowledge of our own state, then, if we have the capacity, we can introduce others to their own state without regard to religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe.

If, for example, Dzogchen teachings are only for Buddhists, how can we ever hope to overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe? How can enforcing limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe ever be useful in the project of overcoming our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe?

Dzogchen teachings are for all who are interested. Because the ancient peoples of Zhang Zhung and Tibet were interested in Dzogchen, Dzogchen spread there before the formal advent of Buddhism in that country. Originally Dzogchen was not a formal part of Buddhism. It spread through a very small lineage of practitioners. This group of practitioners, beginning with Mañjuśrīmitra, saw that Dzogchen was the essence of what the Buddha was trying to communicate. So they spread it slowly. Later, because Padmasambhava, Vairocana and Vimalamitra brought it to Tibet and some Tibetans too understood it was the essence of the Buddha's teaching, they kept it in secret and it slowly spread among Tibetans. Then, in the 11-12th century, when the Nyingmapas gained self-awareness as an independent school, they adopted Dzogchen as their official "position" in competition with the new translation trends and incorporated it into their school. But by this time, Dzogchen had completely died out in India. But Dzogchen, as is proven by its presence in Bon, is not strictly the provence of Buddhism. Though the Bonpos revised their teachings to bring them into line with Buddhist teachings, Zhang Zhung Nyengyud is an authentic line of Dzogchen intimate instruction that do not depend on Garab Dorje. Therefore, in the same way that early masters of Dzogchen were free from limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe and taught Dzogchen to whoever came to them, we should also endeavor to overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe.

We must not consider the Dzogchen teachings as belonging to any religion, ideology, nation, class, race or tribe. Instead, as practitioners of Dzogchen, we should endeavor to overcome our personal limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our real state just as it is. When we know our own state just as it is, we can engage with people wherever they are without ourselves throwing up any barriers of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. So I suggest it is very important for Dzogchen practitioners, including myself, to overcome any limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. We already have the means to do this -- we simply need to will to do it. If we ground ourselves in the deep natural transformation that comes from recognizing and integrating with our primordial potentiality, then we can go beyond the limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. By going beyond these limitations (as well as the limitations of conceptuality, imputation, paths, stages, realizations, attainments, buddhas and sentient beings) through recognizing our own innate state that is originally pure and naturally formed, we can move freely through the world and meet everyone and everthing from the authentic space of recognition of great original purity of all that is.


But then, he posts something just before that, and at other points, along with other people's posts...which clearly ring of a tribal sensibility:
I don't know how many people I have sent to ChNN. Then I see them later, "how is your practice going" . They reply, oh, I am studying with someone else. I am like, that is nice. People always cry about wanting to have realized teachers, and when there is one in the world, who really teaches Dzogchen just as it is, I am constantly amazed at people who just do not see the incredible value of ChNN in this day and age. I have come to the conclusion that people like limitations, it makes them feel comfortable.


Now, ChNN is one of my own teachers.. but I have other teachers who I am closer to who I consider to be at least equally realized, as do many people here.. but Malcolm's above post clearly makes it sound like if someone is studying with someone other than ChNN, then they "like limitations, it makes them feel comfortable" This clearly contradicts a great amount of what he said in the other post. dismissing other people's teachers, Dzogchen teachers or otherwise in this way, is to me certainly a type of tribalism. So are all of the generalized denunciations of Buddhism in contrast to Dzogchenism.. when they are both just labels we give to methods aiming at achieving the same end, and when many Buddhist masters are ultimately Dzogchen masters and teachers...There really is no good reason to create all these false dichotomies, imho.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Karma Dorje » Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:02 pm

I can see how that can be taken that way as it does swing the axe rather widely-- but I too have met people who practice Dharma much like others practice philately or lepidopterology. They are always off stalking the wild empowerment rather than appreciating when they have met a real master and putting his or her teachings in practice.

This is much more of a problem in Tibetan Buddhism than any other religion I have encountered. There is a certain element of it that really appeals to the spiritual materialist. Of course getting people chasing empowerments is a definite step up from chasing tail or lucre, though they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:01 am

Adamantine wrote:
Now, ChNN is one of my own teachers.. but I have other teachers who I am closer to who I consider to be at least equally realized, as do many people here.. but Malcolm's above post clearly makes it sound like if someone is studying with someone other than ChNN, then they "like limitations, it makes them feel comfortable" This clearly contradicts a great amount of what he said in the other post. dismissing other people's teachers, Dzogchen teachers or otherwise in this way, is to me certainly a type of tribalism.


This is not a criticism of anyone's _teachers_.
M
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby xylem » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:07 am

malcolm...

if not a criticism of those individuals' teachers-- then who/what... or are you being completely misconstrued as criticizing anyone/anything?

-xy

Malcolm wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
Now, ChNN is one of my own teachers.. but I have other teachers who I am closer to who I consider to be at least equally realized, as do many people here.. but Malcolm's above post clearly makes it sound like if someone is studying with someone other than ChNN, then they "like limitations, it makes them feel comfortable" This clearly contradicts a great amount of what he said in the other post. dismissing other people's teachers, Dzogchen teachers or otherwise in this way, is to me certainly a type of tribalism.


This is not a criticism of anyone's _teachers_.
User avatar
xylem
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:53 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Adamantine » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:24 am

Karma Dorje wrote:I can see how that can be taken that way as it does swing the axe rather widely--


Indeed!

but I too have met people who practice Dharma much like others practice philately or lepidopterology. They are always off stalking the wild empowerment rather than appreciating when they have met a real master and putting his or her teachings in practice.
I know the type too! As in the other thread, where I mentioned spiritual dilettantes. . . I just did not get from this post that this was what was being criticized. If it was, then it could have been a great deal clearer.

This is much more of a problem in Tibetan Buddhism than any other religion I have encountered. There is a certain element of it that really appeals to the spiritual materialist. Of course getting people chasing empowerments is a definite step up from chasing tail or lucre, though they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Well, from a Vajrayana POV, as the old Namdrol pointed out many times, receiving wangs itself is it's own form of practice. And there are very recent words on just this from Lama Tharchin;

Generally, I received the same wangs (empowerments) from Dudjom Rinpoche maybe hundreds of times. One of the benefits of receiving a wang is to purify samaya. When we receive a wang, afterwards do we keep pure samaya?

Each time we receive a wang we pacify broken samaya, increase its power and refresh its blessings. It is always beneficial to receive a wang. When there's something important, we do repeat wangs. For example, when people are very ill, they'll repeat a long life wang a hundred times. When people are dying we do a Zhitro (hundred deities) wang a hundred times. It's only beneficial and can never hurt to receive empowerment.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:32 am

xylem wrote:malcolm...

if not a criticism of those individuals' teachers-- then who/what... or are you being completely misconstrued as criticizing anyone/anything?

-xy

Malcolm wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
Now, ChNN is one of my own teachers.. but I have other teachers who I am closer to who I consider to be at least equally realized, as do many people here.. but Malcolm's above post clearly makes it sound like if someone is studying with someone other than ChNN, then they "like limitations, it makes them feel comfortable" This clearly contradicts a great amount of what he said in the other post. dismissing other people's teachers, Dzogchen teachers or otherwise in this way, is to me certainly a type of tribalism.



This is not a criticism of anyone's _teachers_.


It was an observation made about people's trip about having awakened teachers, who then fail to follow through on that aspiration and follow other teachers for various reasons.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby xylem » Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:41 am

malcolm-la

that's an entirely reasonable observation and criticism. seen that. done it myself.

-xy



Malcolm wrote:
if not a criticism of those individuals' teachers-- then who/what... or are you being completely misconstrued as criticizing anyone/anything?

User avatar
xylem
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:53 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Adamantine » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:40 am

Malcolm wrote:
It was an observation made about people's trip about having awakened teachers, who then fail to follow through on that aspiration and follow other teachers for various reasons.


But you aren't intending to imply that these people's other teachers are not awakened? Because if you do not mean that, than the whole statement starts to lose sense. . .
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby xylem » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:55 am

i think his point is:

oh! my teacher! he's a buddha!.... ***OOH SHINEY***... yea yea, my teacher's pretty great... *OOH SHINEY*....

Adamantine wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
It was an observation made about people's trip about having awakened teachers, who then fail to follow through on that aspiration and follow other teachers for various reasons.


But you aren't intending to imply that these people's other teachers are not awakened? Because if you do not mean that, than the whole statement starts to lose sense. . .
User avatar
xylem
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:53 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:56 am

Adamantine wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
It was an observation made about people's trip about having awakened teachers, who then fail to follow through on that aspiration and follow other teachers for various reasons.


But you aren't intending to imply that these people's other teachers are not awakened? Because if you do not mean that, than the whole statement starts to lose sense. . .


There are almost no awakened teachers. I am not commenting on any specific teacher, however.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Adamantine » Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:06 am

Malcolm wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
It was an observation made about people's trip about having awakened teachers, who then fail to follow through on that aspiration and follow other teachers for various reasons.


But you aren't intending to imply that these people's other teachers are not awakened? Because if you do not mean that, than the whole statement starts to lose sense. . .


There are almost no awakened teachers.


Well, you may be right. However, I do believe there are quite a few more than the one you are promoting. . . And I really try to have an open mind that an awakened teacher may not appear as such to many from outer appearances or activities. . .and just like ChNN said about his uncle and other great masters.. he received the pointing out from them but didn't "get" it until he met his root teacher Changchub Dorje. It wasn't because these others were not realized, but due to the interdependent connection to his root teacher. So keep that in mind, some people may not have that connection with ChNN but they may have it with another teacher.

But, as I said before many times, I think ChNN is great.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Institutional Buddhism

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:09 am

Adamantine wrote:However, I do believe there are quite a few more than the one you are promoting. . .


Sure, but we don't have a lot of time, and time is passing.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Inge, Johnny Dangerous, pemachophel and 20 guests

>