Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators
Dharma Wheel volunteer staff will have the right amend or delete any post which they judge may lead to disharmony.
JKhedrup wrote:Tsongkhapa fan, don't take my word for it. Take the word of Lord Tsongkhapa:(Lam Rim Chenmo, Snow Lion edition, pg.50)
There are those who conclude that any classic text should be considered only an explanatory teaching, therefore lacking the key points for practice. They hold that there are separate personal instructions that teach the core meanings that are the heart of practice. They then imagine that there are two forms of the excellent teaching- a teaching that is explained to you and a teaching that is practiced. Know that this attitude precludes development of great respect for the stainless sutras and tantras as well as the flawless treatises that comment on their intent....
Therefore, for those who desire liberation, the supreme and authentic instructions are indeed the classic texts.However, due to your limited intelligence and so forth, you may be unable to recognize those supreme texts as the supreme instructions through depending on them alone. Thus, you must seek out personal instructions, thinking "I will seek certain knowledge of those texts based on the personal instructions of an excellent being. But do not think "The texts are without substance, since they merely promote a superficial knowledge and eliminate others' misconceptions; yet the personal instructions, since they reveal the deep meaning, are supreme.
Lama Tzongkhapa is very clear- the emphasis should be on the original sutras, tantras and shastras. In the case of Tantra, this means the root tantras and commentaries of 13 Deity Yamantaka, Guyasamaja and Chakrasamvara, on which Lord Tsongkhapa commented extensively.
The Kadam Emanation scripture- as precious as its teachings are- cannot be held above the great Sutras, Tantras and Shastras. It can be cultivated on the basis of a scrutinizing study of the Great Classic texts. To set emphasis on those texts aside in favour of emphasizing a "Whispered Lineage" does not seem to be in the spirit of what Lama Tsongkhapa is stating here. They are teachings that supplement and enhance what we gain from the great texts of the Indian Pandits and the vast commentaries on those instructions from Lama Tzongkhapa and his two sons.
Originally, you were aging that its possible for Dzokchen to be a Gelug practice since there is precedent such that Vajrayoini, Ganden Chod, Hayagriva are not in Tsongkhapa's Sumbum
Then, when it is suggested that these are really auxiliary practices for Gelug (whose primary practice, Yamantaka, Guyasamaja and Chakrasamvara) you commented that actually HHDL said that Vajryogini was the suggested practice for Westerners with not much time.
There does seem to be a difference in emphasis. While some consider the whispered lineage as heart instructions, others such as HHDL considers them secondary practices. But no one really suggests that the whispered lineage should be studied at the expense of the Indian masters.
Sure, but my point is regarding the initial assertion that because LTK "did not include Dzogchen within his formulation" , it is not "officially" in the tradition.
But then that would mean Chittamani Tara, Vajrayogini, Ganden Chod, Hayagriva are not "officially in the tradition". Many lamas would balk at this suggestion, and argue many reasons about how they have become part of the tradition as it was passed down from generation to generation.
So, why is this not possible with the Dzogchen teachings of the Fifth Dalai Lama, for example? They have been passed down for generations.
If we are to stick strictly to the formulation of LTK, we should practice as Yidams Yamantaka, Chakrasamvara, Guyasamaja and nothing else. We should practice as protectors Kalarupa, Mahakala, Vaishravana and nothing else.
Yes, absolutely. But I was making the point that if we only follow LTK's curriculum strictly it would involve practicing these three. HHDL says that the practice of these must be upheld as the core curriculum of the tantric colleges, and I am in complete agreement. Especially the emphasis on Guyasamaja must be maintained, because many of the tantric commentaries of LTK and his disciples were written on the basis of this system.
We also see how a practice of Sang De Jig Sum would be very difficult for the average householder and this is why HHDL has said during a previous Gelug conference that for those with a connection to the practice and limited time, Vajrayogini is suitable.
But, I am not aware that anyone really suggests that the whispered lineage should be studied at the expense of the Indian masters.
JKhedrup wrote:Dear Tom,
I was actually responding to several comments that were removed because they violated the ToS, so maybe the context was a bit confused. And also, I would be the first to admit that my understanding and views are changing all the time as I learn more and hear different opinions all the time. Still, let me reply to a few of your points.Originally, you were aging that its possible for Dzokchen to be a Gelug practice since there is precedent such that Vajrayoini, Ganden Chod, Hayagriva are not in Tsongkhapa's Sumbum
Yes, they are Gelug practices in that they are practiced by Gelugpas. My argument was that Dzogchen if practiced by high teachers in the Gelug lineage, could be considered part of the lineage. On that point I do not waver, it is a question of emphasis.Then, when it is suggested that these are really auxiliary practices for Gelug (whose primary practice, Yamantaka, Guyasamaja and Chakrasamvara) you commented that actually HHDL said that Vajryogini was the suggested practice for Westerners with not much time.
In fact I stated myself in that very thread, and in other places on the board, that the main thrust of Gelug tantra is the three of Vajrabhairava (Yamantaka), Guyasamaja and Chakrasamvara, with Guyasamaja being the basis for many of the commentaries Lama Tzongkhapa wrote on tantra.There does seem to be a difference in emphasis. While some consider the whispered lineage as heart instructions, others such as HHDL considers them secondary practices. But no one really suggests that the whispered lineage should be studied at the expense of the Indian masters.
The lineage holders of the Ganden Ear Whispered lineage, like Trijiang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche etc. all spend periods of many years studying the monastic curriculum of the great Indian texts in their monasteries. So it is clear that they did the work as Tsongkhapa outlined. The quote that was mentioned was that HHDL was somehow changing the Gelug tradition by questioning placing primary emphasis on practices like Chod and VY.
JKhedrup wrote:Several of the neo-Gelug movements in the West do not have any source material from the Indian treatises as part of their courses, even though such material is widely available. One does not even encourage its students to read the works of Tsongkhapa, but only of their particular master.
JKhedrup wrote:My initial point seems quite clear to me.
JKhedrup wrote: Not really circular.
To me the very strange thing is that the most conservative Gelugpas who decry "mixing" are in fact practicing teachings borrowed from other sources themselves. They speak of "practicing purely Tsongkhapa's tradition".
A comment was made that HHDL did not know what Gelug was since he didn't seem to know the Kadam Emanation Scripture.
JKhedrup wrote:People said that Dzogchen was not in LTK's Collected Works so it wasn't Gelugpa- well, neither were Chittamani Tara or Chod.
We can understand that the basis of the practice is what Tsongkhapa taught and that the primary sources are his works and the Indian treatises,while at the same time practicing essential instructions received from our teachers.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests