Dzongsar Khyentse on the importance of Mahayana

[Motova]

Proof that Star Wars is real life.

[PuerAzaelis]

My theory (spoiler alert): Snoke is Jar Jar Binks.

[diamind]

That's the view. Maybe it's better you stick with the sutras.

No, that is not the view. That just some cultist bullshit. Instead, authentic sources like the Padmini commentary on the Hevajra Tantra composed in the mid-10th century state:

"Because of the power of the Kaliyuga, gurus have mixed qualities and faults,
there are none at all without misdeeds;
disciples should rely on those
whose qualities predominate, and who have been thoroughly investigated."

Nice quote. I always had the idea that gurus in Vajrayana have to be seen as infallible Buddhas in order for the practices to work.

Great quote but it's missing something don't you think?

[diamind]

Sakya Pandita states:

"Criticism" does not refer to criticizing the master out of some slight anger. "Criticism" refers to statements such as "This master is evil, with corrupted discipline, who does not act according to the Dharma, and so on. Such criticisms result in a downfall.

In other words, in order to commit this downfall, one has to make extremely negative statements about a qualified master from whom one has received teachings. Minor criticisms do not constitute a downfall.

Man, it seems to me that this type of thing should be more widely known.

There is a huge tendency in Vajrayāna to encourage sycophancy and dependence amongst disciples. Many people do not understand that there are limits to the guru's authority. For example, Sapan also states with great clarity:

If he does not teach according to the words of the Buddha,
even if he is one’s guru, one should remain indifferent.

This is not to say that we can get anywhere on our own in the Buddhist path, The Tattvāvatāra states:

The all-knowing one praises reliance on a guru,
not the independence of a disciple.
A blind person is not independent,
unable to climb a mountain.

Nevertheless, we must temper our understaing of the need to rely on a qualified master with common sense, so we do not wind up creating Buddhist cults which merely keep people imprisoned cages that seem like Dharma but are actually just clever prisons.

So some behaviour of the guru is unacceptable, while some is acceptable? But wouldn't that contradict the foundation of Buddha Dharma?

Vajrayana is extremely dangerous in that regard.

[dzogchungpa]

I loved when he handed Khenpo tsultrim lodro rinpoche a light saber when they were together and said "May the force be with you"

OK, I did a little poking around and I found the video:

[liuzg150181]

I loved when he handed Khenpo tsultrim lodro rinpoche a light saber when they were together and said "May the force be with you"

OK, I did a little poking around and I found the video:

"I find your lack of faith (in the guru and triple gem) disturbing."

[diamind]

There is a huge tendency in Vajrayāna to encourage sycophancy and dependence amongst disciples. Many people do not understand that there are limits to the guru's authority. For example, Sapan also states with great clarity:

If he does not teach according to the words of the Buddha,
even if he is one’s guru, one should remain indifferent.

This is not to say that we can get anywhere on our own in the Buddhist path, The Tattvāvatāra states:

The all-knowing one praises reliance on a guru,
not the independence of a disciple.
A blind person is not independent,
unable to climb a mountain.

Nevertheless, we must temper our understaing of the need to rely on a qualified master with common sense, so we do not wind up creating Buddhist cults which merely keep people imprisoned cages that seem like Dharma but are actually just clever prisons.

So some behaviour of the guru is unacceptable, while some is acceptable? But wouldn't that contradict the foundation of Buddha Dharma?

Vajrayana is extremely dangerous in that regard.

It does not contradict anything. And Vajrayāna is only dangerous for blind fools who leave their brains along with their shoes at the temple door.

Trouble is people don't have brains, therefore by default vajrayana is dangerous.

[dzogchungpa]

Well, there is that whole snake in a bamboo tube trope, after all.

[Malcolm]

So some behaviour of the guru is unacceptable, while some is acceptable? But wouldn't that contradict the foundation of Buddha Dharma?

Vajrayana is extremely dangerous in that regard.

It does not contradict anything. And Vajrayāna is only dangerous for blind fools who leave their brains along with their shoes at the temple door.

Trouble is people don't have brains, therefore by default vajrayana is dangerous.

Pretty grim view.

[PuerAzaelis]

Trouble is people don't have brains, therefore by default all people are dangerous.

You're welcome ...

[Tolya M]

Vajrayana was revealed for brahmanas, vaisnavas, saivas and other barbarians. They do not have a brain by default.
It is good that that person has a buddhist malas on the neck. There could be a necklace of ears actually.

[PuerAzaelis]

Vajrayana was revealed for brahmanas, vaisnavas, saivas and other barbarians. They do not have a brain by default.
It is good that that person has a buddhist malas on the neck. There could be a necklace of ears actually.

Chortle

I had a dream the other night, I was making the sound of a pig and meditating on it.

... so perhaps there is hope for me yet.

[PeterC]

You’re kidding I hope.

No, which kind of vajrayana are you practicing? The one that critics the guru? Sorry haven't heard of that one yet. Must be new. Good luck with that.

Sakya Pandita states:

"Criticism" does not refer to criticizing the master out of some slight anger. "Criticism" refers to statements such as "This master is evil, with corrupted discipline, who does not act according to the Dharma, and so on. Such criticisms result in a downfall.

In other words, in order to commit this downfall, one has to make extremely negative statements about a qualified master from whom one has received teachings. Minor criticisms do not constitute a downfall.

Malcolm - where can we find this passage - I was looking for it in clear differentiation of the three vows but couldn't locate it, suspect I'm looking in the wrong text. Thanks

[diamind]

I feel fortunate to have had multiple teachers (yep, within the Tibetan traditions) that explicitly and strongly encouraged people to be responsible for their own practice, while emphasizing the deep relationship with one's mentors and/or Gurus.

In fact don't think I could "go back" to a naive idea of following a Guru who did not grant me the right to my own autonomy spiritually, to me it is a part of the path, and it is the slavish adherence to replacement daddy-figure that should be the aberration, rather than the other way around. Not all devotion is healthy, and some forms are counter to the path.

Devotion is the key to vajrayana tho. If your guru is qualified then I think it's safe no matter how fanatical you get.

Do you mean to say when the guru is unqualified? things become unhealthy?

It's said over and over again in the scriptures how beneficial adherence to the guru is, and yes like a father figure. I don't see the disadvantage or a problem with this.

[diamind]

Vajrayana was revealed for brahmanas, vaisnavas, saivas and other barbarians. They do not have a brain by default.
It is good that that person has a buddhist malas on the neck. There could be a necklace of ears actually.

Chortle

I had a dream the other night, I was making the sound of a pig and meditating on it.

... so perhaps there is hope for me yet.

[diamind]

He cant seem to resist an opportunity to belittle the people who pay for his privileged lifestyle.

That's what we sign up for.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I feel fortunate to have had multiple teachers (yep, within the Tibetan traditions) that explicitly and strongly encouraged people to be responsible for their own practice, while emphasizing the deep relationship with one's mentors and/or Gurus.

In fact don't think I could "go back" to a naive idea of following a Guru who did not grant me the right to my own autonomy spiritually, to me it is a part of the path, and it is the slavish adherence to replacement daddy-figure that should be the aberration, rather than the other way around. Not all devotion is healthy, and some forms are counter to the path.

Devotion is the key to vajrayana tho. If your guru is qualified then I think it's safe no matter how fanatical you get.

Do you mean to say when the guru is unqualified? things become unhealthy?

It's said over and over again in the scriptures how beneficial adherence to the guru is, and yes like a father figure. I don't see the disadvantage or a problem with this.

My father encouraged me to be responsible for myself and learn to be independent of him...my teachers have done the same. From my point of view Gurus who foster dependence in disciples are questionable, period. That said, I realize I don't have the capacity to judge, I simply would never serve such a teacher, because I would never be able to develop devotion to someone who appeared outwardly so needy in the first place.

Neediness and dependency on either end of the relationship are not a prerequisite of devotion by any means.

[Punya]

I think I understand what you are trying to say JD, but your comments remind me of something CTR wrote:

At the vajrayana level, we begin with faith in the teachings and the teacher, because we have already experienced the truth and the work-ability of the teachings for ourselves. Then, with the discovery of vajra nature, faith begins to develop into devotion, which is mogii in Tibetan. Mo means "longing," and gU means "respect." We develop tremendous respect for the teacher and a longing for what he can impart because we see that he is the embodiment of vajra nature, the embodiment of wakeful mind. At this level, the teacher becomes the guru.

One's relationship with the vajra master involves surrendering one-self to the teacher as the final expression of egolessness. This allows the practitioner to develop fully the threefold vajra nature: vajra body, vajra speech, and vajra mind. The maturation of devotion into complete sur-rendering is called lote lingkyur in Tibetan. Lote means "trust," ling means "completely," and kyur means "abandoning" or "letting go." So lote ling-kyur means "to trust completely and let go"-to abandon one's ego completely. Without such surrender, there is no way to give up the last vestiges of ego; nor could the teacher introduce the yidam, the essence of egolessness. In fact. without such devotion to the teacher, one might attempt to use the vajrayana teachings to rebuild the fortress of ego.

(I'm sure Malcolm will have some issue or other with the language).

Being a sycophant is unhealthy, but on the other hand each of us needs to continually examine whether the autonomy we seek is actually driven by ego.

BTW mods, this conversation seems to have strayed quite a bit from the OP. Perhaps most of it ought to be a separate thread.

[Tolya M]

How can one be devoted to the man who speaks about "ego" and other strange things? There is no "ego" in buddhism. It is fiction. One can't rebuilt the "fortress of ego". For ex one can't rearrange horns of the rabbit. Vaisnavas are egoless in that respect because they are devoted. Nice. And that man without any mention of buddadharma speaks about devotion...poor TB. Half of it sinks completedly in proliferation.

[diamind]

I think I understand what you are trying to say JD, but your comments remind me of something CTR wrote:

At the vajrayana level, we begin with faith in the teachings and the teacher, because we have already experienced the truth and the work-ability of the teachings for ourselves. Then, with the discovery of vajra nature, faith begins to develop into devotion, which is mogii in Tibetan. Mo means "longing," and gU means "respect." We develop tremendous respect for the teacher and a longing for what he can impart because we see that he is the embodiment of vajra nature, the embodiment of wakeful mind. At this level, the teacher becomes the guru.

One's relationship with the vajra master involves surrendering one-self to the teacher as the final expression of egolessness. This allows the practitioner to develop fully the threefold vajra nature: vajra body, vajra speech, and vajra mind. The maturation of devotion into complete sur-rendering is called lote lingkyur in Tibetan. Lote means "trust," ling means "completely," and kyur means "abandoning" or "letting go." So lote ling-kyur means "to trust completely and let go"-to abandon one's ego completely. Without such surrender, there is no way to give up the last vestiges of ego; nor could the teacher introduce the yidam, the essence of egolessness. In fact. without such devotion to the teacher, one might attempt to use the vajrayana teachings to rebuild the fortress of ego.

(I'm sure Malcolm will have some issue or other with the language).

Being a sycophant is unhealthy, but on the other hand each of us needs to continually examine whether the autonomy we seek is actually driven by ego.

BTW mods, this conversation seems to have strayed quite a bit from the OP. Perhaps most of it ought to be a separate thread.

CTR is supreme!

"An example of Padmasambhva’s acting as a father figure for Tibet was the warning that he gave King Trisong Detsen. The New Years celebration was about to be held, which traditionally included horse racing and archery, among the other events. Padmasambhava said, “there shouldn’t be horse racing or archery this time.” But no one listened and the King was killed by the arrow of an unknown assassin at the of the horse racing and archery" CTR

So much for autonomy.