Gurus For Hire Enlightenment For Sale

[treehuggingoctopus]

And if you recommend listening to a great Dzogchen teachers webcast to a friend you are being religious? Some of the ways religion is defined by science, there is no universally accepted definition so far, would without doubt cover the DC for example. Saying "I don't believe in religion, it is evil" could very easy qualify as a religion also.

Yes, but what's exactly your point?

I've got an impression that you're trying to tell us that our talk about religion is both meaningless and wrong at the same time.

Yes, 'religion' is an abstract noun, i.e., a perfectly empty signifier which, as we know in those po-mo times of ours, can be used to point towards anything, everything and nothing. That doesn't mean, however, that the sentence 'spirituality doesn't equal religion' is both meaningless and wrong. It is meaningless if you don't disambiguate it. To state that it's wrong (or right) you must not only at least provisionally disambiguate it first, but also be convinced that the disambiguation effort was successful.

Also, Malcolm, underthetree and me, we've all trimmed down the scope of the word 'religion' here; if you think of my usage of 'religion' for instance, mere 'saying "I don't believe in religion, it is evil"' could not 'very easily qualify as a religion also'. So it's not that we're relying of an unspecified concept in order to prove our point - and if you want to understand what your interlocutor is trying to say, I guess you ought to provisionally accept her or his understanding of the keyword. Another route would be to persuade them to drop that understanding, of course.

Some of the ways religion is defined... would without doubt cover the DC for example.

Which was what Malcolm was implying, wasn't it? It's practitioners who transform the Dharma into a religion, after all. The DC people can, and certainly at times do, mess things up - and why wouldn't they? They're just sentient beings, after all. Every sangha has a potential to become just a religious institution.

More than that, I'm quite convinced that most if not all of us will at least at times be greatly tempted to replace the plain real thing with a baroque fake. Ah, the comfort that religious identities promise...

[Astus]

At the end what matters seems to be if the practitioner goes beyond religion instead of getting stuck at it. When one clings to a religion, one clings to a belief system, nothing more. Dzogchen, Vajrayana, Buddhism, you choose the name. As long as it is a matter of belief it will simply fall short of what is Dharma. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche tries to avoid a religious attitude from his students, always stressing the importance of experience, not tenets, not beliefs, not artificial codes and what have you. This is a good thing, I think.

Let's look at the popular group of Namkhai Norbu here then. He is the Guru for Hire here, and there is Enlightenment for Sale of course.

It has a complex set of doctrines and practices aimed at mystical experience. It has its own mythology and tradition it originates itself from. There is a basic initiatory ritual in order to join the community and participate in regular practices. There are groups organised and programmes given. There is a primary teacher and those who are authorised to explain the teachings is restricted. There are teachings restricted only to members. There are retreats, i.e. longer community events. There are also fixed dates for celebration and commemorating. Therefore, it has all the common attributes of an organised religion.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Therefore, it has all the common attributes of an organised religion

... as you choose to define it. Not as DN or Malcolm do.

[muni]

Treehuggingoctopus, oops, "threehuggingoctopus" so I was reading your name: subject, object, action all three melted in the hug. Emaho! I hope you don't mind.



There is teaching "for hire" by Guru Rinpoche, about labeling habitual tendencies.
No opinion playstation is to another opinion in the game when nondual is understood, then beyond religion needs no any explanations, nothing to prove so or so is me told.

"Attachment is not cut by trying to avoid it." "By rejection, samsara is not left behind, it is freed within itself by letting be". Guru Rinpoche

Is that not the Gurus' transmission: Nondual nature. "There exist no phenomena other than what arises from mind. Guru Rinpoche". Then beyond religion.

[heart]

And if you recommend listening to a great Dzogchen teachers webcast to a friend you are being religious? Some of the ways religion is defined by science, there is no universally accepted definition so far, would without doubt cover the DC for example. Saying "I don't believe in religion, it is evil" could very easy qualify as a religion also. You got a belief, could be anything, and a few people that agrees and that are ready to defend that belief and there you are. You can not easily separate teaching and the necessary organization that is carrying the teaching. Isn't it so that the Buddhas Dharma carried by the Sangha is defined as religion by others?

/magnus

And by any chance do you doubt that there's also a religious phenomenon when it comes to the DC? Do you by any chance think the DC is somehow free of religion? However that doesn't make Dzogchen a religion. Some understand this, some live this, some don't. Our teacher, however, stresses this aspect often. We need to go beyond belief. Dzogchen is only Dzogchen with experience of the real nature. Until then it's a fantasy.

The same probably can be applied to Buddha's Dharma in general. It didn't start as a religion but it became one. It became one because unenlightened beings have this fantastic propensity to cling to things in order to feel in control, to feel safe,to feel oriented and so on and so forth.

One of the biggest obstacles to any Buddhist is actually practicing Dharma. Do you know that line from Dromtonpa"oh... that's good, but even better is practicing Dharma!" in that story of the old man circumbulating the stupa, reading texts and meditating? The base for giving up concerns for this worldy life, that is nothing more than realizing through experience the dream nature of our samsaric experience, is something that goes beyond religion. Religion may be the package for the set of illusions that will help you get there. However, if you get stuck there, stuck at the finger instead of reaching the moon, kaput, you cut your own legs.

At the end what matters seems to be if the practitioner goes beyond religion instead of getting stuck at it. When one clings to a religion, one clings to a belief system, nothing more. Dzogchen, Vajrayana, Buddhism, you choose the name. As long as it is a matter of belief it will simply fall short of what is Dharma. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche tries to avoid a religious attitude from his students, always stressing the importance of experience, not tenets, not beliefs, not artificial codes and what have you. This is a good thing, I think.

Welcome back Dechen. My point in this discussion is that the word religion isn't defined in a way that Malcolm use it. This is the first thing you learn when you study comparative religion. So looking at the various existing definition of the word religion they are so general that even DC would qualify as a religion and that makes his statement very strange, don't you agree? I like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche a lot but I don't have any personal experience from his community. So I really don't know if it works well or not. But in general I think that what we discuss here on dharmawheel are mostly tenets and not so much experience, to tell you the truth.

/magnus

[heart]

Therefore, it has all the common attributes of an organised religion

... as you choose to define it. Not as DN or Malcolm do.

Actually, it seems he is trying to apply some of the general accepted definitions of religion.

/magnus

[heart]

And if you recommend listening to a great Dzogchen teachers webcast to a friend you are being religious? Some of the ways religion is defined by science, there is no universally accepted definition so far, would without doubt cover the DC for example. Saying "I don't believe in religion, it is evil" could very easy qualify as a religion also.

Yes, but what's exactly your point?

Malcolm is using the word religion in a faulty way. Probably because he, like most people, never to a closer look at what is meant with it.

/magnus

[muni]

Hop, ones more on the box, I got the teaching text by Guru Rinpoche in case of interest, then I share:


"All what appaers and exists, the phenomena of samsara and nirvana, arise from the solidified habitual tendencies of labeling. There are three types of labeling: mental labels, cognitive labels and verbalized labels.
Mental labels make thoughts move; cognetive labels build up habitual tendencies and verbalized labels manifest the manifold objects. It should therefore be better if you stop labeling".

Then the so called 84000 Dharma doors are all in Dharmata's great ease. Whatever words we use to name the dharmas, whatever truth we give them, they are tools and just like all phenomena arise/dissolve by themselves in the unchanging dharmata. All embracing sky grasps no clouds.

*May we all find peace in the Guru's boundless compassion*

[Dechen Norbu]

Let's look at the popular group of Namkhai Norbu here then. He is the Guru for Hire here, and there is Enlightenment for Sale of course.

It has a complex set of doctrines and practices aimed at mystical experience. It has its own mythology and tradition it originates itself from. There is a basic initiatory ritual in order to join the community and participate in regular practices. There are groups organised and programmes given. There is a primary teacher and those who are authorised to explain the teachings is restricted. There are teachings restricted only to members. There are retreats, i.e. longer community events. There are also fixed dates for celebration and commemorating. Therefore, it has all the common attributes of an organised religion.

It can be seen that way, sure. But let's take a closer look. I'll go point by point:

"It has a complex set of doctrines and practices aimed at mystical experience."
Indeed, which are secondary to the actual experience. If you want to know the theories, fine, but by far that's hardly the purpose. They are not necessary. But sure, these exist, like crutches that must be abandoned as soon as possible. The aim is not your acceptance of the theories by faith. Instead, it's having them checked by experience.

"It has its own mythology and tradition it originates itself from.". No doubt. But your practice of Dzogchen is pretty much unrelated with this. You don't need any sort of cosmogony or what have you to practice successfully.

"There is a basic initiatory ritual in order to join the community and participate in regular practices." Actually there isn't. You just decide to become a DC member, pay the fee and that's it. It's up to you to decide what to do next, according to you possibilities, circumstances, desires and so on. You're free to leave at any time also.

"There are groups organised and programmes given." Yes, that's correct. It has a life of its own at some extent, with all the good and bad that comes with such.

"There is a primary teacher and those who are authorised to explain the teachings is restricted. " To a point. Senior students often help newcomers, even not being recognized instructors. But there are recognized instructors of this and that, sure. However the same happens at a college and it is not a religious organization. There's a headmaster and the professors. Not everyone teaches. This is natural in any organization that aims to teach something.

"There are retreats, i.e. longer community events. There are also fixed dates for celebration and commemorating." Right.

"Therefore, it has all the common attributes of an organised religion." Indeed. But so a robot can have very close attributes of a simple living being, although not being alive. The point is, it has all these attributes, yet the aim is not to make of its practitioners religious people. A lot of organizations share attributes like the above and are not religious.

So I see it mostly as a matter of aim. The aim of the DC is not religion, although its naturally subjected to religious phenomena of all sorts.
Dzogchen is not a religion, but people can bend and twist a deteriorated form of it so that it fits a religious mindset. Dzogchen itself is not to blame, but our misguided conceptions and tendencies are, perhaps. It's very good that we are alerted to this fact so that we don't go astray finding comfort in a religious take of Dzogchen practice.

[Dechen Norbu]

Welcome back Dechen. My point in this discussion is that the word religion isn't defined in a way that Malcolm use it. This is the first thing you learn when you study comparative religion. So looking at the various existing definition of the word religion they are so general that even DC would qualify as a religion and that makes his statement very strange, don't you agree? I like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche a lot but I don't have any personal experience from his community. So I really don't know if it works well or not. But in general I think that what we discuss here on dharmawheel are mostly tenets and not so much experience, to tell you the truth.

/magnus

Thak you Magnus I hope everything's alright with you.
The DC is not a homogenous bunch. Some centers probably work better than others. Some follow more closely what the teacher says. Som probably mix more their own thing. In the end it's of utmost importance really listening to Rinpoche. When in doubt, ask him directly. He does answer, usually fast and clearly.
By reading the post above you get my take on this matter, I guess.
But I don't think this subject is of great importance. Not if we debate semantics instead of ideas. I think you get the idea Malcom wants to convey. I'm also prone to believe you mostly agree with the idea, but perhaps not with his choice of words, I don't know.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

ON THE FLIP SIDE
Old students and the inner circles of a particular lama are not always welcoming to newcomers. They can be quite unfriendly and downright cold. Correcting people in a very uncaring manner for not knowing Tibetan customs they would have never come across before.
As my mother mentioned to me after a visit to a teaching at a centre "I would become a Buddhist, dear, if the people were nicer. To be honest some of them are more uptight than the church women I grew up around as a girl".

This is precisely why I gave up going to a certain sangha I will not mention.

EDIT: Hm, after reading all of the thread looks like others here beat me to it.

[Dechen Norbu]

Yup, it's a drag when one finds people like that. But also a good opportunity for practice, if we know how to use it, I guess.
Buddhists can be very mean among themselves. More than with people belonging to other groups I would say, but this is not exclusive to Dharma centers. Social Psychology has this more or less figured out in terms of group dynamics.

[Steveyboy]

Hi Steveyboy,
I hope you are well. I know years ago Tsem Tulku was presented as a young man by Kensur Jampa Yeshe Rinpoche to His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. I am genuinely interested to know if he ever had a meeting with HHDL and if so when was it? Maybe you can ask him for me? I would be grateful. Thanks.

Hi username,

Yes, I have seen that picture and I did a search on Rinpoche's blog and I have pasted it here for your perusal. Rinpoche was recognized as a Tulku and was presented to the Dalai Lama as well by the abbot of the monastery, Khen Rinpoche Jampa Yeshe. So, here's the picture and the caption that went along with it. I think this is what you are referring to.


Kensur Rinpoche (on the right) and myself (on the left) having audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama (center).

My Guru Kensur Jampa Yeshe Rinpoche introduced me as the reincarnation of the 72nd Abbot of Gaden Shartse to H.H. the Dalai Lama here. H.H. confirmed my recognition as a Tulku (Rinpoche) and then this picture was taken on top of Gaden Lachi Prayer Hall. I offered His Holiness a Vajrapani statue with other items pictured here…

(This is extracted from Tsem Rinpoche's personal blog ~ http://blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/great-lamas-masters/h-e-kensur-rinpoche-jetsun-jampa-yeshe-1928-2011.html)

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Yup, it's a drag when one finds people like that. But also a good opportunity for practice, if we know how to use it, I guess.

Sure. Everything is. But carrot and stick is a fine balance especially if you're supposed to be a Mahayana practitioner. Last time I checked refuge and bodhicitta were in the thun book.

If dzogchenpas say they're Buddhist practitioners then they should act like it. Or at least act like their teacher.

[Sheila]

I would have to disagree that going to teachings, group or otherwise, is simply about partaking in religious tradition, and not about personal spirituality. The primary reason for attending teachings is to learn in the way humans generally learn any skill best--by studying with a good teacher.

Of course as social animals, then, social issues come into play--our relationship with the teacher and with any other students who may also be taking teachings. But the purpose of teachings, of studying with a teacher, is not simply to go through some mindless ritual for the sake of preserving that ritual.

We somehow think that spiritual knowledge and skill is different from all other knowledge and skillsets--that, unlike the steps one takes to become a physician or musician, in spirituality one needn't study from a teacher. It's true--one needn't study anything at all from a teacher. However, the level of learning that takes place will be different.

I find it sad and odd, seeing this oft-repeated message in Buddhist (online) circles, "Don't worry about any tradition or teacher--just read books and contemplate your own spirituality." I certainly love reading books and contemplating; in fact, it's one of my favorite activities. I totally dig the relaxed, noncomittal, zero-pressure aspect of that approach, not to mention the convenience of not having to drive anywhere early on Sunday mornings But to encourage others not to partake, at all, of the irreplaceable experience that is studying with a great teacher--especially, encouraging them to think that somehow self-study is more beneficial than studying from a teacher--that's really sad, and not truly different from encouraging a budding doctor or musician to "avoid teachers and classes."

I see people suggesting one should avoid classes and teachers because such things are just "Tibetan traditions" and that environment is full of predators and charlatans--in general, that's a load of poppycock. This scene that is painted doesn't look anything like the reality I experience in Buddhism in the West. Of course there are exceptions, but again, it would be like taking true examples of medical or musical professors who have behaved unethically, and using those exceptions as a reason to tell all prospective doctors and musicians to "avoid teachers and classes" for this reason. Some kind of pedagogical agoraphobia, perhaps.

It would certainly be effective advice, though, if one wanted to reduce the number of physicians and musicians in the world.

Most teachers--of music, medicine or Buddhism--are great, or if they're not great for you personally, in our fortunate world we can move on to another until we find one who is great for us. And if one doesn't want a teacher, that's also fine; it just doesn't make sense, though, to discourage others to shy away from the great, information-rich human tradition of person-to-person learning.

[Malcolm]

You keep attacking the Buddhist religion and go even further as we see above to tell people here we all have to end (destroy) ALL religions as you stated on this page.

For proof of the toxicity of religion infecting Dharma one need look no further than present day Shri Lanka. In Tibetan history, we need look no further than the attempt of Pabhongkha to annihilate his "competitors" in Chamdo and elsewhere.

One can observe the religious civil wars that were waged in Japan, Thailand, etc., for proof that Dharma is easily corrupted by religion.

The religious impulse in human beings may have been adapative at the tribal, city, and national level, but this impulse is clearly toxic at the global level. As HH Dalai Lama states:

"Any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics,"

Human beings need to evolve beyond religion. Dharma can assist this -- but I am afraid that Buddhism cannot.

M

[treehuggingoctopus]

And if you recommend listening to a great Dzogchen teachers webcast to a friend you are being religious? Some of the ways religion is defined by science, there is no universally accepted definition so far, would without doubt cover the DC for example. Saying "I don't believe in religion, it is evil" could very easy qualify as a religion also.

Yes, but what's exactly your point?

Malcolm is using the word religion in a faulty way.

It seems to me that Malcolm's use of the word is hardly idiosyncratic - and certainly not more faulty than any other popular use of it.

[Dechen Norbu]

Yup, it's a drag when one finds people like that. But also a good opportunity for practice, if we know how to use it, I guess.

Sure. Everything is. But carrot and stick is a fine balance especially if you're supposed to be a Mahayana practitioner. Last time I checked refuge and bodhicitta were in the thun book.

If dzogchenpas say they're Buddhist practitioners then they should act like it. Or at least act like their teacher.

Well, not all Dzogchenpas claim to be Buddhist and perhaps great Dzogchenpas don't even make claims. But they don't need to act like Buddhists. They need to act like good people and their moral preferably should come from wisdom instead of rules.
Some of the nicest people I met in my life weren't Buddhists. Empathy is a good start. Dzogchenpas are subjected to karma, as everyone else, until enlightenment. But fear of nasty effects shouldn't be the reason to make one a nicer person. Compassion should. Compassion is best when it comes from insight. Otherwise it can turn easily into hypocrisy. That's a real problem, if you ask me. But best is always checking oneself to start. All that bothers us personally does so because it has a "nest inside". It's much better to be concerned with the harm that can be delivered to others. It makes our life much easier. When we face nasty people we, at least I know I do, have a tendency to react in the wrong way. That's when all problems start. Trying to change that through insight, not just external rules or even reasoning, helps a lot I think. Gotta do some more of that.

[Astus]

DN,

"Indeed, which are secondary to the actual experience. If you want to know the theories, fine, but by far that's hardly the purpose. They are not necessary."

We can usually say the same thing about any theory. Theories exist for practical purposes. Using again a Christian example - because people generally accept that as a religion - while the Bible is the Holy Scriptures, the important thing is not the collection of papers and ink but the message in it. However, just as the good news, so the teaching has to be conveyed somehow.

"You don't need any sort of cosmogony or what have you to practice successfully."

Agreed. But as with all myths and traditions, they are meant to establish the legitimacy of the current teacher and teaching. And that's what they do.

"Actually there isn't. You just decide to become a DC member, pay the fee and that's it."

Are you saying that people can participate in activities without taking any of the regular pointing out instructions?

"There's a headmaster and the professors. Not everyone teaches."

The difference is there here are religious authorities legitimised by traditional and subjective criteria, and their role is in spiritual guidance and not just relaying information.

"The point is, it has all these attributes, yet the aim is not to make of its practitioners religious people. A lot of organizations share attributes like the above and are not religious."

By "religious people" do you mean simply followers of a set of doctrines? The difference between a Hegelian philosopher and a Calvinist theologian is not in that they apply rational thinking in their works following an existing system of thought, but that what that system is based on is in the first case a rationally established method (can be questioned and modified) and in the second one it is based on revelation from a higher source (cannot be questioned or modified). All Buddhist traditions are founded upon the teachings of the Buddha and they have to be followed to achieve liberation. Devotion to the guru further emphasises that.

[username]

Hi Steveyboy,
I hope you are well. I know years ago Tsem Tulku was presented as a young man by Kensur Jampa Yeshe Rinpoche to His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. I am genuinely interested to know if he ever had a meeting with HHDL and if so when was it? Maybe you can ask him for me? I would be grateful. Thanks.

Hi username,

Yes, I have seen that picture and I did a search on Rinpoche's blog and I have pasted it here for your perusal. Rinpoche was recognized as a Tulku and was presented to the Dalai Lama as well by the abbot of the monastery, Khen Rinpoche Jampa Yeshe. So, here's the picture and the caption that went along with it. I think this is what you are referring to.


Kensur Rinpoche (on the right) and myself (on the left) having audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama (center).

My Guru Kensur Jampa Yeshe Rinpoche introduced me as the reincarnation of the 72nd Abbot of Gaden Shartse to H.H. the Dalai Lama here. H.H. confirmed my recognition as a Tulku (Rinpoche) and then this picture was taken on top of Gaden Lachi Prayer Hall. I offered His Holiness a Vajrapani statue with other items pictured here…

(This is extracted from Tsem Rinpoche's personal blog ~ http://blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/great-lamas-masters/h-e-kensur-rinpoche-jetsun-jampa-yeshe-1928-2011.html)

Hi Steveyboy,

Thank you for your kind post. Rinpoche gave a Vajrapani statue to Tsem Tulku to present to HHDL. It was a mere presentation of the young tulku to HHDL. That photo is what I said myself. Not my question to you. If you look at the time stamp on the video it says (19)95. From what I remember HHDL has said Tsem Tulku has to make a certain precise announcement before the glorious Dalai Lama will accept a personal private one on one meeting with Tsem Tulku. To my knowledge Tsem Tulku has made a general announcement but not what HHDL exactly wants Tsem Tulku to say. Tsem Tulku so far has refused to make that very specific announcement and has refused the HHDL.

I think it is time Tsem Tulku made that precise announcement HHDL has kindly waited so long for and went to Dharamsala to pay his respects to HHDL. If he is waiting for HHDL to die, then I have to say things will only get much more difficult not easier and beyond salvage. Then he will always regret it. I will be grateful if you can ask Tsem Tulku if he has any plans to do the right thing and arrange a personal meeting with the historic HHDL the 14th any time soon? I am sure this question of mine will be brought to his attention as he is on the web often. In case of no answer I assume his reply is still negative in refusing HHDL in which case it will be the greatest mistake of his life. Also in case you misunderstand my questions to him, not you, I will state it again, in an expanded form into two:

Q1: When was the last time Tsem Tulku had a personal private one on one meeting with HHDL if ever?

Q2: When is his next scheduled private meeting with HHDL for?

I am sure HHDL will quickly make time to see him privately in Dharamsala if Tsem Tulku satisfies the basic condition. As things stand, this is not acceptable anymore despite the kindness of HHDL.

Best wishes to you and Tsem Tulku and thank you again for your kindness in passing on my questions to him. I await Tsem Tulku's response.