Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post Reply
JKhedrup
Posts: 2328
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am

Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by JKhedrup »

phpBB [video]
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by dzogchungpa »

There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
ngodrup
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by ngodrup »

Beautifully put. Lama Tsogkhapa's thinking is very different.
Not right or wrong. Worth exploring, debating, contemplating,
but not accepting *only* on face value.
User avatar
Thomas Amundsen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Helena, MT
Contact:

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Thomas Amundsen »

Is there a specific section that pertains to this discussion?
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by dzogchungpa »

tomamundsen wrote:Is there a specific section that pertains to this discussion?
It's just to show more of DJKR's appreciation of Tsongkhapa. I haven't actually read it yet. :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Simon E. »

Also Tibetans and westerners differ in their response to dissonance.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
User avatar
mandala
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:51 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by mandala »

Thanks JKhedrup, and Dzogchungpa for the interesting read - I love his sense of humour.

Here's a bit that stood out to me, regarding renunciation and depression:
This is important one. EVEN THOUGH you have renunciation mind,if your renunciation mind is not accompanied by bodhicitta - your renunciation, not only is not a path to the enlightenment, it will only become a cause of depression!
I had a long conversation with my, one of my teachers, Nyoshul Khenpo, NyoshulKhen Rinpoche, one of the great Dzogchen masters. The conversation was actually quite interesting. But it can be, you know like it can almost like really mmm, veryeasy to be misunderstood.

Once we were having tea and ...... we were talking about because I was reading a Japanese novel..... Anyway like him so our conversation you know led to many Japanese authors like, there‟s another one called Yasunari Kawabata. Anyway they all committed suicide; right, you all know that.
So Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche was saying, kind of like shocking he said - he said the mind-state of those who wish to commit suicide is very admirable. That was the thing he said. It was kind of like shocking for me to hear.

He said something very profound, I think. He said if you really think deep, every one of us would like to commit suicide. Because life is just SO SHALLOW AND MEANINGLESS; it‟s just, just completely what do you call it? Pointless and empty. But most of us we don‟t even think of committing suicide because we‟re completely blissed out by the fact that tomorrow, you know, it will be fixed.

People who are completely depressed and really wishing to, you know end their lives they have thought and thought and thought; and they have reached to this level where they are completely desperate. So that much fault of the samsara, so tospeak, they know. But what went wrong with them, this is Nyoshul Khen Rinpochesaying, is because they have no way out. So they‟re completely dead-end. And we,this is how he ended the conversation, we, the follower of Shakyamuni, we are blessed by a way out - so there is no reason to commit suicide.
Alfredo
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Alfredo »

That last quote is quite disturbing.

I admire DJKNR's openness to Tsongkhapa. However, it seems that Tibetan tradition discourages the notion that Tsongkhapa (or any other great figure) might have been wrong about anything--even when he disagrees with himself! I wish it were possible to say (for example) that Tsongkhapa's systemization of Indian Buddhist philosophy is too procrustean by half, but obviously very fruitful in reinvigorating Tibetan Buddhist thought.
(no longer participating on this board)
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by dzogchungpa »

Alfredo wrote:That last quote is quite disturbing.
Why do you find it disturbing?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Alfredo
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Alfredo »

Khen Rinpoche is quoted as saying that "the mind-state of those who wish to commit suicide is very admirable." This strikes me as psychologically unhealthy.
(no longer participating on this board)
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by dzogchungpa »

Alfredo wrote:Khen Rinpoche is quoted as saying that "the mind-state of those who wish to commit suicide is very admirable." This strikes me as psychologically unhealthy.
Maybe you don't understand why he thought it was admirable.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Alfredo
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Alfredo »

Oh, I realize that for him it was probably an expression of spiritual devotion (disgust with samsara, etc.), but this kind of talk can be dangerous. (I mean that it is unhealthy for other people.)
(no longer participating on this board)
emaho
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:33 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by emaho »

Alfredo wrote:However, it seems that Tibetan tradition discourages the notion that Tsongkhapa (or any other great figure) might have been wrong about anything--even when he disagrees with himself!
Yes, I also often wish Tibetans were a bit more decisive. Especially since I'm German and we Germans are extremely anal about truth and logic and deciding whether theses and theories are either true! or not!.

I try to explain this to myself not only with the cultural background of Asian diplomacy, but also with some inherent features of Buddhist philosophy: Since the experience of emptiness is beyond all concepts, every attempt to philosophize about the true nature is, strictly speaking, necessarily wrong. The Buddha's first reaction after reaching enlightenment was to remain silent because he knew this realization was beyond the scope of conceptualization. Therefore every attempt to conceptualize Buddhist philosophy is in itself necessarily wrong and "only" a stumbling attempt to help sentient beings. From this point of view it seems only natural to take up a bit of a relativistic account and view Buddhist schools as different medicines who help different types of people.

But can I really convince myself of this? :thinking:
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
JKhedrup
Posts: 2328
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by JKhedrup »

I actually like the "Asian diplomacy", it makes for smoother relationships in many cases (though in others it becomes a stumbling block).

I also think that post-Occupation we are beginning to see a new era in Tibetan religious discourse. An understanding that a respect for scholars outside one's own tradition leads to greater co-operation and better chances of survival for all the Tibetan Buddhist traditions. Thankfully the fundamentalism that sometimes expressed itself in the form of violence in the past seems to have fallen out of favour for all but a few remaining die hard groups (who seem generally to be more entrenched in Western countries than in the Tibetan diaspora).
dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by dakini_boi »

ReasonAndRhyme wrote:
I try to explain this to myself not only with the cultural background of Asian diplomacy, but also with some inherent features of Buddhist philosophy: Since the experience of emptiness is beyond all concepts, every attempt to philosophize about the true nature is, strictly speaking, necessarily wrong. The Buddha's first reaction after reaching enlightenment was to remain silent because he knew this realization was beyond the scope of conceptualization. Therefore every attempt to conceptualize Buddhist philosophy is in itself necessarily wrong and "only" a stumbling attempt to help sentient beings. From this point of view it seems only natural to take up a bit of a relativistic account and view Buddhist schools as different medicines who help different types of people.
Yes, this is very well-put. I don't think it's Khyentse is being diplomatic, I think he truly appreciates the diversity of Buddha's teachings. If you look at all the views and precepts across all the yanas in any school of Tibetan Buddhism, there is ample opportunity to find contradictions - but that is what makes Buddha Dharma so rich and sophisticated, IMO.
Alfredo
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Alfredo »

I'm sure that DJKNR does appreciate the diversity of Buddhist teachings. People in his Dharma Das or Dharma Gar courses can expect to be assigned readings from well outside of the Tibetan Buddhist orbit. The downside to this is that even though he has had some Western education, and is aware of critical scholarly approaches to Buddhism (I have heard him criticize them back), his version of ris med engages in more or less the same sort of special pleading as other sectarian movements, and cannot withstand scholarly criticism.
(no longer participating on this board)
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by heart »

Alfredo wrote:I'm sure that DJKNR does appreciate the diversity of Buddhist teachings. People in his Dharma Das or Dharma Gar courses can expect to be assigned readings from well outside of the Tibetan Buddhist orbit. The downside to this is that even though he has had some Western education, and is aware of critical scholarly approaches to Buddhism (I have heard him criticize them back), his version of ris med engages in more or less the same sort of special pleading as other sectarian movements, and cannot withstand scholarly criticism.
Why don't you give us an example of this "special pleading" Alfredo? I have no idea what you are talking about.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Alfredo
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Alfredo »

Here's the quote I was thinking of:
[...] I've been talking with a lot of--a few, a few scholars in Oxford. They're very good, really good! Very good. There are many so-called Buddhist professors, or Buddhist experts, and they strongly oppose reincarnation. They don't believe that nonduality is taught by the Buddha, and stuff like that. Very good. It's a very educational for me. [smiles, audience laughs] I would just yesterday talked about--someone I had actually only heard the name, but never really learned anything about...him. Um, Karl...Karl Popper. Karl Popper? So... Also, in Oxford I was told that they're studying Buddhism "objectively." That's very interesting. [smiles, audience laughs] So this is all disorienting for me because [stammers] I had to switch my mind back to the Buddhist mind, so to speak, in order to talk about...this.

Anyway this is very important subject. [long pause] If we don't talk about nonduality, then I don't think we can really talk about Buddhism at all. And nonduality's not so easy. Recently I was talking to...Indians, just Indian intellectuals. And I was even kind of...worried...that how much we Tibetans actually manage to conceive the idea of nonduality thoroughly, as much as these Indians seems to have done. It's not that easy, this nonduality, to really conceive this. Especially if are, you think like, I think, like Karl Popper's way. And if you really think that something can be observed and valued objectively, nonduality's difficult. [shifts on seat] About a year ago I met a professor in America--Berkeley University--and he told me something very interesting. He said actually, it's very important that the Tibetan lamas know the history of Buddhism, and especially the history of Buddhism in the West. And he said especially in America because, he said, that the emergence of Buddhism in the West may be, may have...it started, you know, it started with a very Descartes-like Buddhism. So it's a very dualistic Buddhism, so to speak. I can understand him, because even the most seasoned dharma practitioner in the West sometimes I do have doubt, how much they are really understanding. Of course we are not talking about actual realization of nonduality, but we are talking about intellectual understanding of nonduality. Because the concept is just not proveable. Because every logic, language, method of measurement, is dualistic. So dualistic method cannot measure and value something nondualistic. Always! And anything that cannot be proved, or anything that does not have a "manufacturing date," so to speak, I think in the materialistic world, modern world, it's all not really...it's a [struggle?], it's like a [struggle?], it really doesn't have much value in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRyAny ... xvzM9778se (start from 4 minutes in)
(no longer participating on this board)
User avatar
heart
Posts: 6279
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by heart »

Alfredo wrote:Here's the quote I was thinking of:
[...] I've been talking with a lot of--a few, a few scholars in Oxford. They're very good, really good! Very good. There are many so-called Buddhist professors, or Buddhist experts, and they strongly oppose reincarnation. They don't believe that nonduality is taught by the Buddha, and stuff like that. Very good. It's a very educational for me. [smiles, audience laughs] I would just yesterday talked about--someone I had actually only heard the name, but never really learned anything about...him. Um, Karl...Karl Popper. Karl Popper? So... Also, in Oxford I was told that they're studying Buddhism "objectively." That's very interesting. [smiles, audience laughs] So this is all disorienting for me because [stammers] I had to switch my mind back to the Buddhist mind, so to speak, in order to talk about...this.

Anyway this is very important subject. [long pause] If we don't talk about nonduality, then I don't think we can really talk about Buddhism at all. And nonduality's not so easy. Recently I was talking to...Indians, just Indian intellectuals. And I was even kind of...worried...that how much we Tibetans actually manage to conceive the idea of nonduality thoroughly, as much as these Indians seems to have done. It's not that easy, this nonduality, to really conceive this. Especially if are, you think like, I think, like Karl Popper's way. And if you really think that something can be observed and valued objectively, nonduality's difficult. [shifts on seat] About a year ago I met a professor in America--Berkeley University--and he told me something very interesting. He said actually, it's very important that the Tibetan lamas know the history of Buddhism, and especially the history of Buddhism in the West. And he said especially in America because, he said, that the emergence of Buddhism in the West may be, may have...it started, you know, it started with a very Descartes-like Buddhism. So it's a very dualistic Buddhism, so to speak. I can understand him, because even the most seasoned dharma practitioner in the West sometimes I do have doubt, how much they are really understanding. Of course we are not talking about actual realization of nonduality, but we are talking about intellectual understanding of nonduality. Because the concept is just not proveable. Because every logic, language, method of measurement, is dualistic. So dualistic method cannot measure and value something nondualistic. Always! And anything that cannot be proved, or anything that does not have a "manufacturing date," so to speak, I think in the materialistic world, modern world, it's all not really...it's a [struggle?], it's like a [struggle?], it really doesn't have much value in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRyAny ... xvzM9778se (start from 4 minutes in)

I must be stupid, I don't get what you mean. What he says make perfect sense to me.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche brief comment on Je Tsongkhapa

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

I think Alfredo is using the quote to try to say that R. is anti-intellectual/anti academic:
Alfredo wrote:...even though he has had some Western education, and is aware of critical scholarly approaches to Buddhism (I have heard him criticize them back), his version of ris med engages in more or less the same sort of special pleading as other sectarian movements, and cannot withstand scholarly criticism.
(formatting mine)
Supported by R. saying that the non-dual cannot be intellectualized:
...even the most seasoned dharma practitioner in the West sometimes I do have doubt, how much they are really understanding. Of course we are not talking about actual realization of nonduality, but we are talking about intellectual understanding of nonduality. Because the concept is just not proveable. Because every logic, language, method of measurement, is dualistic. So dualistic method cannot measure and value something nondualistic. Always! And anything that cannot be proved, or anything that does not have a "manufacturing date," so to speak, I think in the materialistic world, modern world, it's all not really...it's a [struggle?], it's like a [struggle?], it really doesn't have much value in it
(formatting mine)
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Post Reply

Return to “Gelug”