Triyik Yeshe Lama.

[Sönam]

Tantric generation stage is exactly imagining that all beings and the world are the mandala. It is an exercise in creative imagination. If you think, if you really think that where you are is pure and everyone you meet is a buddha deity, then you cannot possibly have any problems.

N

I don't' think it is humanly possible to envision Michele Bachmann as a Buddhist deity.

Why not, there is no concept of pure and impure

Sönam

[heart]

Hi Magnus:

Actually, in gsar ma schools that is exactly what creation stage means -- if you imagine it is a mandala, it becomes a mandala. This is why it is called "path of transformation". We are transforming our impure vision into a pure vision. We do this to undermine our tendency to engage in afflictive attachments. If we see everything as pure, we will have less grasping. The creation stage is conceptual, not non-coneotual. The completion stage is used to cut attachment to conceptuality of the creation stage. Eventually, we are supposed to unify creation and completion so that we are in the state of the union of illusory body and luminosity aka mahāmudra.

This is partially why one finds criticisms of the two stages approach even in Mahāmudra upadeshas.

Guhyagarbha contains the view of Dzogchen, this is why the thirteenth chapter of Guhyagarbha emphasizes that the mandala has always been naturally formed [ye nas lhun grub] . So it is a very different approach. It is not really the approach of the two stages.

You are so conditioned by Anuyoga, you have a hard time relating to mahāyoga in and of itself.

N

Well that could well be, I can just say how I been taught to practice. I am currently reading the Guhyagarbha Tantra and, at least to me, it seem to support the understanding my Guru given me about these matters. Guhyagarbha Tantra is classified as a Mahayoga Tantra. The fact that it contains the view of Dzogchen seems to support what I say.

I can't say I been taught much Anuyoga.

/magnus

It supports what you say solely from a Nyingma POV. But Nyingma is not the end all and be all of Vajrayāna. Sarma schools have a different POV, especially Sakya and Gelug. So you need to qualify your statements.

As to Anuyoga, what you practice is mostly anuyoga. Most termas are anuyoga.

You need to be able to differentiate what you have been taught from the approach of other schools. Your reading is top down. Since your teachers are all Dzogchen practitioners, it is natural that Dzogchen colors everything they teach.

Guhyagarbha is classified as ati of mahāyoga, actually.

N

Yes, I think you are right that I read from the top down. I never did anything except Ngondro in the Kagyu so I actually know very little about Sarma Tantra. I think ati of mahayoga sounds just great to me and in a way only the name makes a point I been trying to make many times here.

About Anuyoga I am not so sure. This is what I been taught about Anuyoga;

"Anuyoga focuses mainly on the completion stage (Tib. རྫོགས་རིམ་, dzogrim), and emphasizes the inner yoga of channels, winds-energies and essences" (Tib. རྩ་རླུང་ཐིག་ལེ་, tsa lung tiklé). Visualization of the deities is generated instantly, rather than through a gradual process as in Mahayoga.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Anuyoga

I thought the focus in Anuyoga was on "tsa-lung"?

/magnus

[Malcolm]

Yes, I think you are right that I read from the top down. I never did anything except Ngondro in the Kagyu so I actually know very little about Sarma Tantra. I think ati of mahayoga sounds just great to me and in a way only the name makes a point I been trying to make many times here.

About Anuyoga I am not so sure. This is what I been taught about Anuyoga;

"Anuyoga focuses mainly on the completion stage (Tib. རྫོགས་རིམ་, dzogrim), and emphasizes the inner yoga of channels, winds-energies and essences" (Tib. རྩ་རླུང་ཐིག་ལེ་, tsa lung tiklé). Visualization of the deities is generated instantly, rather than through a gradual process as in Mahayoga.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Anuyoga

I thought the focus in Anuyoga was on "tsa-lung"?

/magnus

The main point of anuyoga is not rtsa rlung, since mahāyoga also possesses rtsa rlung as part of the completion stage.

The main point of difference between anuyoga and mahāyoga is view; the view ofthe basis in anuyoga dzogchen, from the beginning. For this reason there is no summoning of the wisdom being, or if there is, it is stated as a something like the commitment being and wisdom being have always been inseparable. Second, based on this, the method of creation is instant rather than gradual. That latter point is the most important difference between mahā and anu.

[Yontan]

Anyway, no hard feelings. Like the other fellow, I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

Sorry, I haven't kept up with this thread. PN, Duff would not retranslate a text he didn't think needed it, just to see his name on the cover. I'm not sure anyone else here is interested in this, but if you want to discuss our points further, feel free to PM me.

[alwayson]

Duff's Yeshe Lama, titled Wisdom Guru, is the only English translation that is correct.

You need to be given it personally by Lama Duff.

[Pema Rigdzin]

Duff's Yeshe Lama, titled Wisdom Guru, is the only English translation that is correct.

You need to be given it personally by Lama Duff.

Exactly what is incorrect in Sangye Khandro and Lama Chonam's most recent translation? I haven't found a single mistake. This must just be something you've heard from someone partial to Duff's work or something.

[Jnana]

This must just be something you've heard from someone partial to Duff's work or something.

Tony Duff seems to like to make a big deal about how other translators are often mistaken and his translations are better. However, having read some of his translations, and knowing a bit about the issues involved, I've noticed occurrences of terminology and interpretive choices which he favors that are just as open to criticism as those of any other translator. And some of his interpretations are quite controversial. For example, he wants to read Maitripa and Milarepa as being proponents of gzhan stong.

[Pema Rigdzin]

Tony Duff seems to like to make a big deal about how other translators are often mistaken and his translations are better. However, having read some of his translations, and knowing a bit about the issues involved, I've noticed occurrences of terminology and interpretive choices which he favors that are just as open to criticism as those of any other translator. And some of his interpretations are quite controversial. For example, he wants to read Maitripa and Milarepa as being proponents of gzhan stong.

I seem to remember hearing this from someone else. Personally, I have only so much as heard of Duff's name. But I was thinking that "Wisdom Guru" sounds a bit too literal for a translation of Yeshe Lama in this context; since the aim of the text is (ideally) enabling one to attain the unexcelled stage of Dzogchen realization called "yeshe lama," translating it as "Unexcelled Wisdom" or "Highest Wisdom" would seem to make more sense to me... even if the guru, the state of Dzogchen, and the realization of that state are all one in the same ultimately.

As far as reliable vs. unreliable translations of Yeshe Lama, I was present at Tashi Choling once when Sangye Khandro & Lama Chonam asked us not to rely on their first translation of the text because they felt it somehow wasn't up to snuff, and they asked us to wait until their revised translation comes out (which of has since happened). I think maybe people who are saying their translation has some flaws are mistaking this latest version for the original.

[heart]

As far as reliable vs. unreliable translations of Yeshe Lama, I was present at Tashi Choling once when Sangye Khandro & Lama Chonam asked us not to rely on their first translation of the text because they felt it somehow wasn't up to snuff, and they asked us to wait until their revised translation comes out (which of course has since happened). I think maybe people who are saying their translation has some flaws are mistaking this latest version for the original.

Yes, I think you are quite right.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

I seem to remember hearing this from someone else. Personally, I have only so much as heard of Duff's name. But I was thinking that "Wisdom Guru" sounds a bit too literal for a translation of Yeshe Lama in this context; since the aim of the text is (ideally) enabling one to attain the unexcelled stage of Dzogchen realization called "yeshe lama," translating it as "Unexcelled Wisdom" or "Highest Wisdom" would seem to make more sense to me... even if the guru, the state of Dzogchen, and the realization of that state are all one in the same ultimately.

It means "highest wisdom", uttarajñāna, not jñānaguru. It is a reference to the sixteenth bhumi.

[Malcolm]

For example, he wants to read Maitripa and Milarepa as being proponents of gzhan stong.

Yes, this is completely incorrect.

[alwayson]

Exactly what is incorrect in Sangye Khandro and Lama Chonam's most recent translation? I haven't found a single mistake. This must just be something you've heard from someone partial to Duff's work or something.

Duff's version is even more recent than this.

In the intro he trashes the latest Snow Lion Yeshe Lama on multiple grounds including even the source texts used.

Someone gave me a copy when they shouldn't have. I have since deleted it, since I didn't feel right about having it.

[Malcolm]

Exactly what is incorrect in Sangye Khandro and Lama Chonam's most recent translation? I haven't found a single mistake. This must just be something you've heard from someone partial to Duff's work or something.

Duff's version is even more recent than this.

In the intro he trashes the Snow Lion Yeshe Lama on multiple grounds including even the source texts used.

Someone gave me a copy when they shouldn't have. I have since deleted it, since I didn't feel right about having it.

There is no such a thing as a perfect translation.

N

[alwayson]

Of course.

[Malcolm]

Of course.

In any case Yeshe Lama is kind of a beginners text. It is not that deep.

N

[alwayson]

Of course.

In any case Yeshe Lama is kind of a beginners text. It is not that deep.

N

I noticed that LOL

The relevent material is very very short, and most of the "Yeshe Lama" is filler like Jigme Lingpa criticizing Gelugpas.

[Clarence]

Of course.

In any case Yeshe Lama is kind of a beginners text. It is not that deep.

N

Are there (m)any deeper Dzogchen texts available in English?

[heart]

Exactly what is incorrect in Sangye Khandro and Lama Chonam's most recent translation? I haven't found a single mistake. This must just be something you've heard from someone partial to Duff's work or something.

Duff's version is even more recent than this.

In the intro he trashes the latest Snow Lion Yeshe Lama on multiple grounds including even the source texts used.

Someone gave me a copy when they shouldn't have. I have since deleted it, since I didn't feel right about having it.

Tony Duff is a nice and generous man in many ways but I have never heard him speak good about any other translator.

/magnus

[heart]

Of course.

In any case Yeshe Lama is kind of a beginners text. It is not that deep.

N

I don't agree, I found it very special. But some parts are very short short and some seem to be missing.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

Of course.

In any case Yeshe Lama is kind of a beginners text. It is not that deep.

N

I don't agree, I found it very special. But some parts are very short short and some seem to be missing.

/magnus

There is a reason why there is an oral instruction lineage connected with TYL, and that is because the text itself is not complete.

N