eh? how about the lodjongs in the Vima Nyinthig? that is real meaning of renunciation.Malcolm wrote:Not in Dzogchen.kirtu wrote:we have to embrace renunciation
/magnus
eh? how about the lodjongs in the Vima Nyinthig? that is real meaning of renunciation.Malcolm wrote:Not in Dzogchen.kirtu wrote:we have to embrace renunciation
I see the first fout more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.heart wrote:eh? how about the lodjongs in the Vima Nyinthig? that is real meaning of renunciation.Malcolm wrote:Not in Dzogchen.kirtu wrote:we have to embrace renunciation
/magnus
What is not useless besides practicing?Malcolm wrote: I see the first fout more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.
But if they didn't have the connection with ChNN, then time would be passing until they found their karmic Guru, even if they stayed with ChNN out of fear that time was passing... or isn't it? Anyway, I would have imagined you'd be of the opinion that the 4 thoughts was a trivial sutra approach for a Dzogchenpa!Malcolm wrote:Sure, but we don't have a lot of time, and time is passing.Adamantine wrote:However, I do believe there are quite a few more than the one you are promoting. . .
Sure, but that's not what you said at first.Malcolm wrote:The onus is on the teacher's side to be honest. Conceptually deciding that Dipshit Rinpoche and Geshe Unctuous is a Buddha when all his actions indicate the contrary is just plain stupid and deluded. When Dipshit Rinpoche and Geshe Unctuous encourage their students into such beliefs, it just creates cults.Pero wrote: This was said by Padmasambhava and Norbu Rinpoche mentions it often, it's an important practice. So you guys should be careful in what you say...
M
Malcolm wrote: I see the first four (lojongs of vima nyigthig) more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.
Such a person would be like a man who did not like the shape the gold nugget he has found, and discards it to look for another, more attractive one.Adamantine wrote:But if they didn't have the connection with ChNN, then time would be passing until they found their karmic Guru, even if they stayed with ChNN out of fear that time was passing... or isn't it?Malcolm wrote:Sure, but we don't have a lot of time, and time is passing.Adamantine wrote:However, I do believe there are quite a few more than the one you are promoting. . .
Pero wrote:Sure, but that's not what you said at first.Malcolm wrote:The onus is on the teacher's side to be honest. Conceptually deciding that Dipshit Rinpoche and Geshe Unctuous is a Buddha when all his actions indicate the contrary is just plain stupid and deluded. When Dipshit Rinpoche and Geshe Unctuous encourage their students into such beliefs, it just creates cults.Pero wrote: This was said by Padmasambhava and Norbu Rinpoche mentions it often, it's an important practice. So you guys should be careful in what you say...
M
Pero wrote: This was said by Padmasambhava and Norbu Rinpoche mentions it often, it's an important practice. So you guys should be careful in what you say...
Not really xylem-- the motive is really quite different. In Sutrayāna teachings, desire for example is regarded as poison, etc. Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, as you know. Suggesting that in order to understand Dzogchen you must engage in path of renunciation practices is, my opinion, just not so.xylem wrote:"encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things" is the pith essence of renunciation even in the sutra tradition.
i'm starting to think people just want to fight here.
there is really only one dharma.
-xy
Malcolm wrote: I see the first four (lojongs of vima nyigthig) more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.
Clarence wrote:What is not useless besides practicing?Malcolm wrote: I see the first fout more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.
Thanks. I will try to start understanding how that works in the paradigm of practicing Dzogchen. Still a little ways away from that.Malcolm wrote:Clarence wrote:What is not useless besides practicing?Malcolm wrote: I see the first fout more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.
Enjoying your life, having a nice glass of wine, a juicy steak, a good woman (or man) at your side, nice music, flowers, herbs, etc.
All these things are important and necessary (depending on your preferences and health, etc.)
M
Malcolm wrote:Not really xylem-- the motive is really quite different. In Sutrayāna teachings, desire for example is regarded as poison, etc. Dzogchen is not a path of renunciation, as you know. Suggesting that in order to understand Dzogchen you must engage in path of renunciation practices is, my opinion, just not so.xylem wrote:"encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things" is the pith essence of renunciation even in the sutra tradition.
i'm starting to think people just want to fight here.
there is really only one dharma.
-xy
Malcolm wrote: I see the first four (lojongs of vima nyigthig) more as an encouragement not to waste time or energy on useless things. But I don't see them as a encouraging a path of renunciation.
As to your other observation, yes it is true, people really mostly want to have arguments here. Hence my decreasing participation.
really? very linear concept. I guess we only have this one life then the flame goes out forever.Malcolm wrote:
Sure, but we don't have a lot of time, and time is passing.
uan wrote:really? very linear concept. I guess we only have this one life then the flame goes out forever.Malcolm wrote:
Sure, but we don't have a lot of time, and time is passing.
All concepts are linear.uan wrote:
really? very linear concept. I guess we only have this one life then the flame goes out forever.
asunthatneversets wrote:All concepts are linear.uan wrote:
really? very linear concept. I guess we only have this one life then the flame goes out forever.
That's not the same thing. Above that you say that when the teacher's actions indicate the contrary. Below you say in all cases if they aren't realized. That would be wrong.Malcolm wrote:Pero wrote:Sure, but that's not what you said at first.Malcolm wrote: The onus is on the teacher's side to be honest. Conceptually deciding that Dipshit Rinpoche and Geshe Unctuous is a Buddha when all his actions indicate the contrary is just plain stupid and deluded. When Dipshit Rinpoche and Geshe Unctuous encourage their students into such beliefs, it just creates cults.
M
Sure it is. I was saying that teachers who recognize that they are not realized should completely discourage their students from perceiving them as Buddhas.
Ok, though it's not like I don't get where you're coming from. But I still wonder what you think of the saying that "if you view the teacher as a realized being..." then?Malcolm wrote:Hi Pero:
I think it is a total joke for unrealized teachers to permit their students to perceive them as Buddhas. This is encouraging people to believe in fantasies.
You can think it wrong all you like. That is what I think. So we will agree to disagree.