Dzochenpa Census

[heart]

Jnana, what views do you think differ from the Dzogchen tantras?

For what it's worth, I generally either agree with much of what Malcolm has to say on dzogchen or have no opinion on it one way or another. But to assert that he is "speaking from the point of view of the Dzogchen tantras and this is the caveat" implies that his opinions are more valid and authoritative than those of dzogchen teachers who present dzogchen within the terma framework of ngöndro, three root practices, and so on. I don't see any good reason to accept his opinions as more valid than those of others, and it seems to me that many of the tangents that have been argued at length on the Dzogchen sub-forum lately are hypotheticals with little or no substance.

Jnana, what do you mean exactly with "that many of the tangents that have been argued at length on the Dzogchen sub-forum lately are hypotheticals with little or no substance" ?

/magnus

[dharmagoat]

Example:
If you say: "In Dzogchen view we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "That's interesting, do you mind explaining exactly how Dzogchenpas...?"

BUT

If you say: "The Buddhist view of the two truths is irelevant and of no value, because in Dzogchen we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "*^%^$%#$%$&^&*^* you and your Dzogchen view buddy, who are you to judge..."

Can you see the difference?

Greg, it might be naïve of me to point out the obvious, but I see a third possibility:

Example:
If you say: "The Buddhist view of the two truths is irelevant and of no value, because in Dzogchen we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "That's interesting, do you mind explaining exactly how Dzogchenpas...?"

Or could this be considered copping out?

[Jnana]

Jnana, what do you mean exactly with "that many of the tangents that have been argued at length on the Dzogchen sub-forum lately are hypotheticals with little or no substance" ?

Well, for example, the tangent about whether or not there can be a Dzogchen lineage outside of Buddhism or Bön....

[heart]

Jnana, what do you mean exactly with "that many of the tangents that have been argued at length on the Dzogchen sub-forum lately are hypotheticals with little or no substance" ?

Well, for example, the tangent about whether or not there can be a Dzogchen lineage outside of Buddhism or Bön....

Yes, I agree completely, I regret given that idea anything but a "good luck with that!".

/magnus

[Andrew108]

....But to assert that he is "speaking from the point of view of the Dzogchen tantras and this is the caveat" implies that his opinions are more valid and authoritative than those of dzogchen teachers who present dzogchen within the terma framework of ngöndro, three root practices, and so on. I don't see any good reason to accept his opinions as more valid than those of others....

Wow is that what I implied? How interesting.

[Jnana]

Wow is that what I implied? How interesting.

It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth Andrew but given the recent controversies on the Dzogchen sub-forum it's a reasonable inference to draw.

[Andrew108]

No problem Jnana. I'm glad you are posting here.

[muni]

An awakened nature-master and a bit a experienced understanding of misguiding ego and profound wish to be freed of the suffering-creating-fool (ego's body-mind) helps, this is outed in deep devotion to egoless compassionate master and so deep devotion in nondual unlimited nature. Our nature 'arising' from itself is through faith/devotion.

Just to say like you learned ones know very well, our nature is not merely in books/pechas but it is possible to learn Uche in order to help translations.
Also a master can in his guidance point to a particullar text the student can read.

[Andrew108]

Hi Magnus,
If possible try to get hold of the Valby translations. Really wonderful.

I have the first volume but I find it difficult to read.

/magnus

Hi Magnus,
If you read p110 to page 113 of Vol 1 then you will be amazed at the simplicity and beauty of the text. It's may be the key passage.

[heart]

Hi Magnus,
If possible try to get hold of the Valby translations. Really wonderful.

I have the first volume but I find it difficult to read.

/magnus

Hi Magnus,
If you read p110 to page 113 of Vol 1 then you will be amazed at the simplicity and beauty of the text. It's may be the key passage.

I give it a try

/magnus

[gregkavarnos]

Example:
If you say: "In Dzogchen view we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "That's interesting, do you mind explaining exactly how Dzogchenpas...?"

BUT

If you say: "The Buddhist view of the two truths is irelevant and of no value, because in Dzogchen we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "*^%^$%#$%$&^&*^* you and your Dzogchen view buddy, who are you to judge..."

Can you see the difference?

Greg, it might be naïve of me to point out the obvious, but I see a third possibility:

Example:
If you say: "The Buddhist view of the two truths is irelevant and of no value, because in Dzogchen we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "That's interesting, do you mind explaining exactly how Dzogchenpas...?"

Or could this be considered copping out?

What about the fourth option:
If you say: "In Dzogchen view we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "*^%^$%#$%$&^&*^* you and your Dzogchen view buddy, who are you to judge..."

Actually we can keep playing this game ad nauseum, but then we would lose sight of the point I was trying to make: MUTUAL respect. And let us not forget the fact that Dharma Wheel is a Buddhist forum...

What exactly do you mean by "copping out"? I know what the term means but what exactly are you asking/proposing to me?

[heart]

Hi Magnus,
If possible try to get hold of the Valby translations. Really wonderful.

I have the first volume but I find it difficult to read.

/magnus

Hi Magnus,
If you read p110 to page 113 of Vol 1 then you will be amazed at the simplicity and beauty of the text. It's may be the key passage.

Hmm, that passage have the exact same meaning as the quote in my signature.

/magnus

[dharmagoat]

What exactly do you mean by "copping out"? I know what the term means but what exactly are you asking/proposing to me?

It is a genuine enquiry as to why you would automatically reject criticism of buddhism and condemn the critic. Is it necessary to defend the dharma so absolutely? I ask because I value your point of view and I am interested to hear your explanation as to why such a response is required.

What about the fourth option:
If you say: "In Dzogchen view we consider the two truths to actually be one."
I would reply: "*^%^$%#$%$&^&*^* you and your Dzogchen view buddy, who are you to judge..."

Er, I thought I had better not mention this one.

[gregkavarnos]

It is a genuine enquiry as to why you would automatically reject criticism of buddhism and condemn the critic. Is it necessary to defend the dharma so absolutely?

I don't automatically reject criticism of Buddhism. I think many times you will see me criticising aspects of Buddhism. The Dharma on the other hand does not need defending. Does the sun need to be defended from clouds? The ocean defended from waves? What I object to is people attacking one -ism and validating their attack based on the perceived superiority of another -ism. Everybody always considers their -ism superior to the -ism of the other. But to convince me people have to come up with something a lot better than "my -ism is bigger than your -ism". Anybody that resorts to this sort of logic merely betrays their lack of penetration into realising the view. (yes, of course that goes for me as well, I am under no delusion about my capactities).

Malcolm tried to express this realisation, but unfortunately his expression generated more dualism rather than reduced it. Why? Did the medium fail him? I mean the interent is very two dimensional, it makes communication very difficult. Not exactly the best medium for expressing the subtlety and nuance of realisation. Are people (on both sides of the fence) too entrenched in their dualism to understand what he was trying to say? Maybe his realisation was not as deep and stable as he thought it was? etc... I am sure it is a combination of all these and other factors that lead us to where we are now. That is why I am still defending Buddhism as a viable means to realisation of ones true nature, because, for all its flaws, it still is. The diamond is still buried there in the muck. For those that are willing to dig the rewards for their effort will materialise.

[Tilopa]

Nicely put GK.

[Andrew108]

Maybe his realisation was not as deep and stable as he thought it was? etc... I am sure it is a combination of all these and other factors that lead us to where we are now. That is why I am still defending Buddhism as a viable means to realisation of ones true nature, because, for all its flaws, it still is.

You question a persons realization. You insist that realization is possible. You don't know when it will come to you. A lot of practitioners are in this bind.

[gregkavarnos]

You question a persons realization.

Did you notice the question mark at the end of my sentence? Anyway I made it quite clear that I was questioning the quality of the realisation, not the realisation per se. I have no doubt that Malcolm experienced something that may be called realisation.

You insist that realization is possible.

The Buddha insists that it is possible. Countless practitioners have shown that it is possible. Who am I to question them? Actually, it comes down to simple trust that the Buddha was not bull sh*t*ng me

You don't know when it will come to you. A lot of practitioners are in this bind.

You can say that again!

[Simon E.]

A great wave breaks down the sea wall , the lagoon flows into the ocean.
Worried folk, after the shock has passed, repair the wall again, but the lagoon has gone...

[gregkavarnos]

A great wave breaks down the sea wall , the lagoon flows into the ocean.
Worried folk, after the shock has passed, repair the wall again, but the lagoon has gone...

Only until the next rainy season!

[Simon E.]

That particular body of water will not be back as a discrete entity I suspect.