Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

[Virgo]

Maybe we should put this one to rest?

Kevin...

[Kunzang Tobgyal]

Maybe we should put this one to rest?

Kevin...

Please do.

[Virgo]

Maybe we should put this one to rest?

Kevin...

Please do.

I am no longer a moderator.

Kevin

[krodha]

PS: I was going with the entry from the RY Wiki, the part that I've marked blue:

alaya - all-ground. Literally, the 'foundation of all things.' The basis of mind and both pure and impure phenomena. This word has different meanings in different contexts and should be understood accordingly. Sometimes it is synonymous with buddha nature or dharmakaya, the recognition of which is the basis for all pure phenomena; other times, as in the case of the 'ignorant all-ground,' it refers to a neutral state of dualistic mind that has not been embraced by innate wakefulness and thus is the basis for samsaric experience [RY]

http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/kun_gzhi

I wasn't aware that ChNN uses this term in the sense of the green part. Thanks for explaining.

The blue and green sections are part and parcel to one another. If there is a basis for pure and impure phenomena then is afflicted.

[Spelare]

It should not be in the least surprising if high-aptitude individuals in the non-Buddhist world stumbled upon the ground or basis, in spite of the surrounding theistic mainstream that misconstrued it as a God who is a separate, transcendent being (in three persons in its Christian flavor). This rather confirms that what we are dealing with is not merely a cultural construct.

Also, if we complain that Eckhart, John of the Cross, etc, do not speak for the Christian mainstream, we must also admit that Vajrayāna practitioners are a small percentage of Buddhists and Dzogchenpas are a minority of that minority.

We also shouldn't immediately assume that such non-Buddhists adhered to the extreme view of eternalism. To assert that would require giving them a fair reading, and understanding what the terms they use mean in the linguistic context in which they use them. Even if our goal is merely to refute their view, we should be clear about what that view is without introducing our own distortions based on a caricatured theism.

[jet.urgyen]

To me, "God" is just a stupid idea... and a waste of time.

ChNN talks mostly to westeners, so he "must" say something to reach those with that "god" paradigma.

[Spelare]

To me, "God" is just a stupid idea... and a waste of time.

ChNN talks mostly to westeners, so he "must" say something to reach those with that "god" paradigma.

I agree that the commonly presented concept of God is absurd and impossible to verify. However, it is unfair to contrast the sophistication of esoteric Buddhism with an impoverished exoteric Christianity. Imagine if you met someone who thought Buddhism = the Pali Canon, interpreted in exactly one way that is definitive forever (or at least until Maitreya comes), and not acknowledging the distinction between provisional and definitive teachings. We usually only engage with the Christian equivalent of those Buddhists.

In the same way, Christians dismiss Buddhism as "atheist nihilism" and "pessimism" based on their misreading of the Pali Canon and their ignorance of Mahayāna, let alone Vajrayāna. I'm suggesting we not fall into the same cognitive trap.

[dzogchungpa]

It should not be in the least surprising if high-aptitude individuals in the non-Buddhist world stumbled upon the ground or basis, in spite of the surrounding theistic mainstream that misconstrued it as a God who is a separate, transcendent being (in three persons in its Christian flavor).

Jesus himself may have been one such individual, or at least ChNN seems to think so.

[Vasana]

To me, "God" is just a stupid idea... and a waste of time.

ChNN talks mostly to westeners, so he "must" say something to reach those with that "god" paradigma.

I agree that the commonly presented concept of God is absurd and impossible to verify. However, it is unfair to contrast the sophistication of esoteric Buddhism with an impoverished exoteric Christianity. Imagine if you met someone who thought Buddhism = the Pali Canon, interpreted in exactly one way that is definitive forever (or at least until Maitreya comes), and not acknowledging the distinction between provisional and definitive teachings. We usually only engage with the Christian equivalent of those Buddhists.

In the same way, Christians dismiss Buddhism as "atheist nihilism" and "pessimism" based on their misreading of the Pali Canon and their ignorance of Mahayāna, let alone Vajrayāna. I'm suggesting we not fall into the same cognitive trap.

[krodha]

Advaita Vedanta is more refined than Christian Gnosticism, and even it is not commensurate with Dzogchen or Buddhist teachings in general.

The nonsense that Christianity has spun into this day in age is very far removed from its gnostic branches and is now little more than a platform to enslave the minds of the spiritually less fortunate.

When Norbu Rinpoche makes comparisons to Christianity he is using skillful means, as no one is becoming liberated through Christianity.

[Malcolm]

It should not be in the least surprising if high-aptitude individuals in the non-Buddhist world stumbled upon the ground or basis

It would be very surprising, since there is no evidence anyone in the non-buddhist world has correctly realized the nature of their own minds. Any assertion to the contrary is mere speculation, which cannot be confirmed.

[Malcolm]

It should not be in the least surprising if high-aptitude individuals in the non-Buddhist world stumbled upon the ground or basis, in spite of the surrounding theistic mainstream that misconstrued it as a God who is a separate, transcendent being (in three persons in its Christian flavor).

Jesus himself may have been one such individual

We have already established you will believe anything.

[Spelare]

Advaita Vedanta is more refined than Christian Gnosticism

Really? I think it depends on the particular Christian and the particular Advaitin. The members of a school may agree on some things, but they are not identical; this applies whether we consider theoretical depth, writing style, or level of realization (which we must infer from their writings and oral or written accounts of their behavior). Also, gnosticism is not the correct term, though gnosis would be the nearest equivalent to rigpa in a Western language.

and even it is not commensurate with Dzogchen

Nobody said it was.

or Buddhist teachings in general.

It depends on how you are measuring and for what. Arguably, the greatest mystics of the Christian East and West have more in common with Dzogchen masters than they do with the Christian "fundamentalists" you use below as a strawman.

Of those mystics, who are to be found among the Desert Fathers and later monastics as well as lay practitioners, the spiritual lineages of Evagrius Ponticus and Dionysius the Areopagite merit special attention. They used what they had received from Jewish esoterism and Greek Neoplatonic philosophy, arriving at a new synthesis through ascetic praxis.

The nonsense that Christianity has spun into this day in age is very far removed from its gnostic branches and is now little more than a platform to enslave the minds of the spiritually less fortunate.

Very broad brushstrokes. Yes, much of mainstream Christianity is inadequate from the view of a practitioner of Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna, or any other tradition that involves cultivation of attention and recognition. But when it is not manifestly dysfunctional, as it often can be, it gives a moral foundation analogous to the outer teachings of Buddhism. With additional unnecessary baggage, arguably. But I have heard respected lamas say that an ethical foundation and relative relief of suffering are not to be belittled, even when they are not ultimately liberating.

When Norbu Rinpoche makes comparisons to Christianity he is using skillful means, as no one is becoming liberated through Christianity.

Really? Isn't that your own reading of what he was doing? In my reading, certain masters in the Eastern and Western Christian worlds were using skillful means in their employment of established doctrine, theology, and ascetic practice to communicate a realization beyond the understanding of most Christians. That is clearly what Evagrius, Eckhart, and Gregory Palamas were doing, to name only a few bright luminaries.

[dzogchungpa]

It should not be in the least surprising if high-aptitude individuals in the non-Buddhist world stumbled upon the ground or basis, in spite of the surrounding theistic mainstream that misconstrued it as a God who is a separate, transcendent being (in three persons in its Christian flavor).

Jesus himself may have been one such individual, or at least ChNN seems to think so.

We have already established you will believe anything.

Indeed. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

[Vasana]

The nonsense that Christianity has spun into this day in age is very far removed from its gnostic branches and is now little more than a platform to enslave the minds of the spiritually less fortunate.

I would add that the orthodox Christian traditions are less flakey in comparison and at times some of the writings sound as if they could have easily come from the mouths of Buddhist renunciates (on particular topics). Chatral Rinpoche was also very fond of the Catholic Thomas Merton.

I also think it's better that theistically inclined followers are encouraged to practice virtue and accumulate the causes for heaven and the human realm through their tradition rather than the causes of the lower realms. I would guess that nihilistic, hedonist atheists and those who place no value on ethics are worse off than any Christians waiting for their easy ticket to a particular heaven.

[Spelare]

Here is an example of what I am talking about. If you read this, don't only scan for specific words that prove this author didn't realize the nature of mind (though you are, of course, free to do that). Try to get a sense of what state he might be trying to communicate to his audience through the skillful means of the Biblical and Greco-Roman philosophical literature they would have been familiar with:

I have sometimes spoken of a light that is in the soul, which is uncreated and uncreatable. I continually touch on this light in my sermons: it is the light which lays straight hold of God, unveiled and bare, as He is in Himself, that is, it catches Him in the act of begetting. So I can truly say that this light is far more at one with God than it is with any of the powers with which it has unity of being. For you should know, this light is no nobler in my soul's essence than the humblest, or the grossest of my powers, such as hearing or sight or any other power which is subject to hunger or thirst, cold or heat, and that is because being is indivisible. And so, if we consider the powers of the soul in their being, they are all one and equally noble: but if we take them in their functions, one is much higher and nobler than the other.

Therefore I say, if a man turns away from self and from all created things, then—to the extent that you do this—you will attain to oneness and blessedness in your soul's spark, which time and place never touched. This spark is opposed to all creatures: it wants nothing but God, naked, just as He is. It is not satisfied with the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost, or all three Persons so far as they preserve their several properties. I declare in truth, this light would not be satisfied with the unity of the whole fertility of the divine nature. In fact I will say still more, which sounds even stranger: I declare in all truth, by the eternal and everlasting truth, that this light is not content with the simple changeless divine being which neither gives nor takes:

rather it seeks to know whence this being comes, it wants to get into its simple ground, into the silent desert into which no distinction ever peeped, of Father, Son or Holy Ghost. In the inmost part, where none is at home, there that light finds satisfaction, and there it is more one than it is in itself: for this ground is an impartible stillness, motionless in itself, and by this immobility all things are moved, and all those receive life that live of themselves, being endowed with reason. That we may thus live rationally, may the eternal truth of which I have spoken help us. Amen.

In this passage, he is not using the words "God," "soul," "reason," "eternity," or even "truth" according to the commonly understood definitions of his own time (or ours). They seem to have been the nearest approximations he hoped would be intelligible to his audience. And often they still didn't understand, as he often comments in his writings! Eckhart sought the ground prior to God, prior to being, and he sought it in himself, not in a distant separate entity above the sky. Clearly, he had some recognition, even if we cannot be certain how to classify it. Of course, that might be an interesting exercise, but I think his poetic evocation was intended to awaken his listeners.

[Losal Samten]

Clearly, he had some recognition, even if we cannot be certain how to classify it.

'Vijñāna' would be the standard Buddhist response.

Divine light, uncreated, nonconceptual, etc. is standard talk regards to tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms. These kinds of things are most detailed in Samkhya and its spin-offs.


To trot out the Trungpa quote again:

"Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual pleasures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concentration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely mental pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limitless space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is completely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the boundary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain".

[dzogchungpa]

To trot out the Trungpa quote again ...

Speaking of one of my favorite tertons, here's another quote from the man:

Father Thomas Merton, the prominent Catholic mystic, who was a great friend of mine, was also going in the nontheistic direction. In private we agreed on everything, and he understood nontheism completely We met over a few gin and tonics in a hotel in Calcutta, India, and he was in complete agreement with me, and not just because he was influenced by the gin and tonics. He was very good, and we understood one another. But even at that point, his last words were that he was concerned about whether he would be quoted by me for what he had said. There was a little panic about that on his part.

A similar thing happened when I gave a meditation workshop in a nunnery at Stanbrook Abbey in England. I met with the abbess and the rest of the senior nuns, divided from them by an iron grill. The hall for public talks was divided into two sections: outsiders sat outside the grill, and the nuns sat inside. We discussed meditation and the existence of God, and the nuns went along completely with the nontheistic view. They understood fully. But then one little nun in the corner of the room panicked, and suddenly distance set in.

The point of these stories is that in the theistic mystical traditions, people do understand the concept of the nonexistence of the divinity principle outside of one's existence. They understand fully and completely. But in order to stay in the church, in order to make the appropriate confessions, they are still very shy about the whole nontheistic approach.

[Losal Samten]

The point of these stories is that in the theistic mystical traditions, people do understand the concept of the nonexistence of the divinity principle outside of one s existence. They understand fully and completely. But in order to stay in the church, in order to make the appropriate confessions, they are still very shy about the whole nontheistic approach.

Yes, again, standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.

[krodha]

It depends on how you are measuring and for what. Arguably, the greatest mystics of the Christian East and West have more in common with Dzogchen masters than they do with the Christian "fundamentalists" you use below as a strawman. Of those mystics, who are to be found among the Desert Fathers and later monastics as well as lay practitioners, the spiritual lineages of Evagrius Ponticus and Dionysius the Areopagite merit special attention. They used what they had received from Jewish esoterism and Greek Neoplatonic philosophy, arriving at a new synthesis through ascetic praxis.

Although take Dionysius for example, his writings are replete with descriptions such as "the darkness," "unknowing," which was a staple of his teachings that his magnum opus was titled after, not to mention his affinity for the apophatic approach. None of this resembles Dzogchen or Buddhism in general in any way.

Very broad brushstrokes.

Yet accurate.

But when it is not manifestly dysfunctional, as it often can be, it gives a moral foundation analogous to the outer teachings of Buddhism. With additional unnecessary baggage, arguably. But I have heard respected lamas say that an ethical foundation and relative relief of suffering are not to be belittled, even when they are not ultimately liberating.

Perhaps, yet the intention behind the so-called moral foundations of each are worlds apart.

Really? Isn't that your own reading of what he was doing? In my reading, certain masters in the Eastern and Western Christian worlds were using skillful means in their employment of established doctrine, theology, and ascetic practice to communicate a realization beyond the understanding of most Christians. That is clearly what Evagrius, Eckhart, and Gregory Palamas were doing, to name only a few bright luminaries.

Any and all esoteric, shamanic, mystic, gnostic traditions explore so-called "altered states" of consciousness. This coarse observation does not mean esoteric Christianity and Dzogchen have anything in common apart from that.