Do Nyingma and Bon Dzogchen share the same origin?

[James Sealy]

Nonsense, the history of humanity belongs to all humans, not just a specific small group of individuals. If the mere view or opinions of a tiny group of humans can become history, then what is stopping any races or religions in the current world from claiming that their ancestors or founders were first or most ancient source for all religions and humanity?

Like it or not, history has a proven methodology to it. Thats why stuffs like adam and eve remains a myth, not historical fact.

Well , here ends my discussion with you. Bön seems to be a 16000 years old tradition and that can never be in agreement with the general view here aboard.

Go ahead. To be frank, if this is a private conservation not a public forum where information or misinformation is widely shared and spread, I won't even bother discussing history with you because it would be simply a waste of time.

Bon is 16000 years old? Big deal. Buddhism is eons years old if you include all the past Buddhas but we don't force those narratives down the throats of historians and treat them casually almost like bedtimes stories.

"I" am not here to get some rights from you, for that i am not present here. Reason this is a "pure" Tibetan "Buddhist" forum and Bön is "tollerated" for some reasons.

And no one here is interested to do anything with regards to your rights. If anyone see unproven narratives pretending to be history, they have the rights to challenge and speak out.

"I" am here to represent Yungdrung Bön topics, and that for 100%.
"I" never add water to the wine, if i deal with Bön Dharma, that should also be very clear for you all.

Yeah but history is not dharma. Its simply events that have occurred before.

So we leave it like that, Bön = Bön and Dorje Thekpa is Dorje Thekpa with all its roots in Hinayana and Mahayana and the rest.
Sometimes we can agree and sometimes not, that is reality.

You are sounding like those young or old earthers that used to come to science forums to challenge all science nerds over there.

Again , read my earlier post, i am not here to get the right on my side from you all.
You can have your deep rooted convictions and i have my way of understanding.
Like explained earlier, i never add water to the wine.
I never would leave the conviction of my Bön Masters. So i do not exchange gold for copper.

[James Sealy]

This is a buddhist forum, as should be very clear from the name of the forum, the names of the subforums, etc.

Since you seem to have a problem with that, this may not be the right forum for you.

Maybe you are right.
This forum is not the right place for Bönpos and other outsiders.
I guess the Bön forum is there only for fun.

But this is not the Bön forum.

Yes, you see it very clear, this is a Vajrayana forum with all logic and related customs.
Bönpos are here in the minority, and can be seen as "accepted" by the majority.
If they make "stupid" comments, then they are immediately corrected by the herd with their shepherd.

[Aryjna]

Maybe you are right.
This forum is not the right place for Bönpos and other outsiders.
I guess the Bön forum is there only for fun.

But this is not the Bön forum.

Yes, you see it very clear, this is a Vajrayana forum with all logic and related customs.
Bönpos are here in the minority, and can be seen as "accepted" by the majority.
If they make "stupid" comments, then they are immediately corrected by the herd with their shepherd.

The point is that it doesn't make sense to be posting in a buddhist forum, if you intend to be aggressively arguing over perceived differences with your own school in matters of mythology/history, and trying to convince others that your school is correct and the buddhist schools are wrong.

Unless of course you are trolling or generally enjoy getting into arguments.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Well everybody has so his/her Tsawe Lama and all Bönpos have as Dzogchen Yongdzin , Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche.
That are a lot of Bönpos, i would say so.

But everything, which is based on Tibetan "Buddhism" is valid here, and everything which smells suspicious is wrong.
That is what is going round here, isn´t it ?
Yes, this is a Buddhist forum, and on a Bön forum we would have other valid statements, of course...........

Further, the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche, has an excellent knowledge about Dharma matters and exceeds here, regarding quality, some prominent "Guru´s" here. He is the highest authority, when i may state that. What Rinpoche states is for all Bönpos a fact, except for non-Bönpos like you are.
Maybe you should listen to your higher inherent Wisdom and do not make discriminations, with the backing of your friends here.

Matters of history do not depend on the opinions of this or that respected person, rather, they depend on empirical evidence.

For Bönpos, they are dependent on the view of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche, for non-Bönpos, on the views of their lineage and adherents, like for instance, your dominant view. Both are venerated by their adherents, a normal case in Tibetan "Buddhism".

This is BS. Bön is not monolithic and Bön teachers have various opinions, Lopon is not the Bön Pope. Do you think we don’t know other Bönpos or something? Stop putting Buddhism in quotes, you’re just stirring animosity.

[James Sealy]

Back to the topic.

Seen the explanation of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche, Nyingma has roots in Bön Dzogchen.
They have very similar texts and explanations.

If you do not agree here, well that can be tolerated, no problem.

And if there are clever persons who like to go into discussion with the author of this conviction, that would be then Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche.
You can visit him and prove your statements there at his Monastery in Kathmandu.

I can make an appointment for you at his monastery Triten Norbutse.

Until then i can keep my statement as a Bön valid view.

[Sādhaka]

.

[James Sealy]

Matters of history do not depend on the opinions of this or that respected person, rather, they depend on empirical evidence.

For Bönpos, they are dependent on the view of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche, for non-Bönpos, on the views of their lineage and adherents, like for instance, your dominant view. Both are venerated by their adherents, a normal case in Tibetan "Buddhism".

This is BS. Bön is not monolithic and Bön teachers have various opinions, Lopon is not the Bön Pope. Do you think we don’t know other Bönpos or something? Stop putting Buddhism in quotes, you’re just stirring animosity.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche has the TITLE Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche and that means he is the Master of all Bönpo Geshes etc.
In every Bön monastery his photo is placed on their shrine. Until now i did not see that his photo was missing somewhere in a Bön monastery.
But it seems to be that you are better informed.

Yes , he is indeed the "Pope" in Bön and that is a fact for Bönpos of course.

[James Sealy]

For Bönpos, they are dependent on the view of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche, for non-Bönpos, on the views of their lineage and adherents, like for instance, your dominant view. Both are venerated by their adherents, a normal case in Tibetan "Buddhism".

This is BS. Bön is not monolithic and Bön teachers have various opinions, Lopon is not the Bön Pope. Do you think we don’t know other Bönpos or something? Stop putting Buddhism in quotes, you’re just stirring animosity.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche has the TITLE Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche and that means he is the Master of all Bönpo Geshes etc.
In every Bön monastery his photo is placed on their shrine. Until now i did not see that his photo was missing somewhere in a Bön monastery.
But it seems to be that you are better informed.

Yes , he is indeed the "Pope" in Bön and that is a fact for Bönpos of course.

Also for you count, you can visit him and state that Lopon la, is not the Yongdzin Rinpoche in Bön

[Johnny Dangerous]

This is BS. Bön is not monolithic and Bön teachers have various opinions, Lopon is not the Bön Pope. Do you think we don’t know other Bönpos or something? Stop putting Buddhism in quotes, you’re just stirring animosity.

Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche has the TITLE Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche and that means he is the Master of all Bönpo Geshes etc.
In every Bön monastery his photo is placed on their shrine. Until now i did not see that his photo was missing somewhere in a Bön monastery.
But it seems to be that you are better informed.

Yes , he is indeed the "Pope" in Bön and that is a fact for Bönpos of course.

Also for you count, you can visit him and state that Lopon la, is not the Yongdzin Rinpoche in Bön

That isn’t what I said. You need to drop the attitude. Lashing out any time people bring up the historical record,!calling Vajrayana “Buddhism” in quotes etc. doesn’t do anything for your arguments, and will run you afoul of the TOS.

[Johnny Dangerous]

We all know there is no way to square Bön and Buddhist narratives, and there is little point in doing so. I’m going to suggest that the remainder of this thread be based empirical study, rather than competing traditional narratives. There is really no point at all in a thread that pits those against one another.

[Malcolm]

Nyingma has roots in Bön Dzogchen.

Historically speaking, this is a false statement. There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Nor is there any evidence that Bon is a sixteen thousand year old tradition, or even a sixteen hundred year old tradition. At best, it began in the 10th century as a systematic religion.

[Archie2009]

If you do not agree here, well that can be tolerated, no problem.

You're a funny clown.

[Norwegian]

Nyingma has roots in Bön Dzogchen.
They have very similar texts and explanations.

If you do not agree here, well that can be tolerated, no problem.

Is this a joke? If Buddhists disagree about how the Nyingma school supposedly originates from and has roots in Bön (it does not), it can be "tolerated"?

You mean like how you "tolerated" a Buddhist origin story of the tigress of Dorje Drollö, posted in a Buddhist thread, on a Buddhist forum, by throwing a fit, completely misunderstanding what was said, and flat out refusing to understand the context as presented, despite being explained this carefully in detail several times? That kind of tolerance?

You are in no position to speak like this on a Buddhist forum.

[Sādhaka]

Basically Bönpos (not to speak for all Bönpos of course) see Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as the actual Uttamanirmanakaya; and say that the Buddha Shakyamuni—although a totally Enlightened being himself—was commissioned by Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche to appear in India and play the role of a Uttamanirmanakaya, as to spread Dharma in India. If I follow this correctly:

https://yungdrungbon.co.uk/2022/05/03/t ... -rinpoche/

In any case, even if the Buddha Shakyamuni was only pretending be the Uttamanirmanakaya of this eon, it doesn't take away from him being a fully Enlightened Buddha and Dzogchen Master; nor does it take away from there having been Buddhas before Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche who taught Dzogchen.

As I'd posted earlier...^

I personally have no problem considering Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as the Uttamanirmamakya of the current eon; because like I said it doesn't take anything away from the Buddha Shakyamuni being a fully enlightened being, nor does it take away from the past Buddhas mentioned in the Seventeen Tantras, that is the Twelve Primordial Dzogchen Masters, etc.

Most Buddhists probably don't like the idea of the Buddha Shakyamuni only pretending to be the Uttamanirmanakaya to convert Indians to Buddhadharma/Bön; and that would be understandable. Some Buddhists may not even care, and see it all as myths and so on. For me, I can agree with the Yongdzin Rinpoche of Yungdrung Bön's view on the issue, without feeling like I could be slighting the Buddha Shakyamuni or the Twelve Primordial Dzogchen Masters.

[Archie2009]

I do not care where exactly Buddhist history disappears into myth, etc. I do have a general aversion to bullshit and do not like to pay lip service to it.

[Kai lord]

Well , here ends my discussion with you. Bön seems to be a 16000 years old tradition and that can never be in agreement with the general view here aboard.

Go ahead. To be frank, if this is a private conservation not a public forum where information or misinformation is widely shared and spread, I won't even bother discussing history with you because it would be simply a waste of time.

Bon is 16000 years old? Big deal. Buddhism is eons years old if you include all the past Buddhas but we don't force those narratives down the throats of historians and treat them casually almost like bedtimes stories.

"I" am not here to get some rights from you, for that i am not present here. Reason this is a "pure" Tibetan "Buddhist" forum and Bön is "tollerated" for some reasons.

And no one here is interested to do anything with regards to your rights. If anyone see unproven narratives pretending to be history, they have the rights to challenge and speak out.

"I" am here to represent Yungdrung Bön topics, and that for 100%.
"I" never add water to the wine, if i deal with Bön Dharma, that should also be very clear for you all.

Yeah but history is not dharma. Its simply events that have occurred before.

So we leave it like that, Bön = Bön and Dorje Thekpa is Dorje Thekpa with all its roots in Hinayana and Mahayana and the rest.


Sometimes we can agree and sometimes not, that is reality.

You are sounding like those young or old earthers that used to come to science forums to challenge all science nerds over there.

Again , read my earlier post, i am not here to get the right on my side from you all.
You can have your deep rooted convictions and i have my way of understanding.
Like explained earlier, i never add water to the wine.
I never would leave the conviction of my Bön Masters. So i do not exchange gold for copper.

Read again. We are not here to right you. No point. We are here to ensure that no one else will take your narrative as real history or take your mirage as the real oasis.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Basically Bönpos (not to speak for all Bönpos of course) see Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as the actual Uttamanirmanakaya; and say that the Buddha Shakyamuni—although a totally Enlightened being himself—was commissioned by Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche to appear in India and play the role of a Uttamanirmanakaya, as to spread Dharma in India. If I follow this correctly:

https://yungdrungbon.co.uk/2022/05/03/t ... -rinpoche/

In any case, even if the Buddha Shakyamuni was only pretending be the Uttamanirmanakaya of this eon, it doesn't take away from him being a fully Enlightened Buddha and Dzogchen Master; nor does it take away from there having been Buddhas before Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche who taught Dzogchen.

As I'd posted earlier...^

I personally have no problem considering Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as the Uttamanirmamakya of the current eon; because like I said it doesn't take anything away from the Buddha Shakyamuni being a fully enlightened being, nor does it take away from the past Buddhas mentioned in the Seventeen Tantras, that is the Twelve Primordial Dzogchen Masters, etc.

Most Buddhists probably don't like the idea of the Buddha Shakyamuni only pretending to be the Uttamanirmanakaya to convert Indians to Buddhadharma/Bön; and that would be understandable. Some Buddhists may not even care, and see it all as myths and so on. For me, I can agree with the Yongdzin Rinpoche of Yungdrung Bön's view on the issue, without feeling like I could be slighting the Buddha Shakyamuni or the Twelve Primordial Dzogchen Masters.

II have been at teachings on the Buddhist side with teachers trying to argue for the Indian origin of Lungta, Sur etc. , practitioners insisting Virupa stopped the sun and whatever, honestly it’s the same sort of thing. I can’t take it that seriously though, any more than I can claims about the Buddhist vinaya coming from Bön, as one example.

Especially if Westerners take teachings from both lineages one has to be able to accept a regular dissonance between historical evidence and hagiography, etc. otherwise they usually have to resort to some form of fundamentalism, which tends to be exactly what happens.

In Vajrayana there are also lots of narratives not backed up by anything but faith, and contradicted by the historical record. It’s all fine, but when people try to mix and match - switch back and forth between historical and hagiographical claims, its an endless, mostly nonsensical debate. It’s just about winning. The desire to win the debate exists on and individual and a social level with Bön vs Buddhism, but there is no winning, and the value of the claims is entirely provisional. Beyond that the debate itself (well, such as there is one) can quickly draw one into the eight worldly Dharmas.

For me it’s enough to have faith that both (well, and Dzogchen is Dzogchen frankly) are valid paths to liberation in this life, and leave all the mental contortion required to make them line up alone.

[Kai lord]

Back to the topic.

Seen the explanation of the Bön Yongdzin Rinpoche, Nyingma has roots in Bön Dzogchen.
They have very similar texts and explanations.

If you do not agree here, well that can be tolerated, no problem.

And if there are clever persons who like to go into discussion with the author of this conviction, that would be then Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche.
You can visit him and prove your statements there at his Monastery in Kathmandu.

I can make an appointment for you at his monastery Triten Norbutse.

Until then i can keep my statement as a Bön valid view.

If the evidence for your claims is based on authority, then you have no arguments, period.

Funny that you bring in the pope earlier. The church under various popes denied that the sun is at the center of our solar system for centuries until the 20th century where they hastily reverse their positions. Why so? Because those popes knew nothing about science.

See what authority does for big claims.

[Terma]

There are many great and qualified lamas in the Bon tradition and in my experience I have never once heard any animosity towards those following the lineage of Shakyamuni. As I said before, they seem comfortable with their own historical narrative. More importantly, the teachers I have been fortunate enough to come in contact with only care about helping to free sentient beings from suffering, and by teaching Dzogchen they hope to accomplish this as best they can. To this end, I really don't think they concern themselves with all these difference if opinions.

As for myself, it is not really all that important to me either. For me the importance lies in proper lineage transmission of authentic teachings that if practiced sincerely can yeild great benefit and results. This is the main point.

The Bon Dzogchen lineages have some wonderful teachings and It is such a rare thing to have an interest in Dzogchen. It would be a great shame if there were those who knew little about the tradition and upon reading the views of people like James Sealy were deterred from seeking out Dzogchen teachings.

That would be a great pity indeed.

[Malcolm]

Basically Bönpos (not to speak for all Bönpos of course) see Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as the actual Uttamanirmanakaya; and say that the Buddha Shakyamuni—although a totally Enlightened being himself—was commissioned by Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche to appear in India and play the role of a Uttamanirmanakaya, as to spread Dharma in India. If I follow this correctly:

https://yungdrungbon.co.uk/2022/05/03/t ... -rinpoche/

In any case, even if the Buddha Shakyamuni was only pretending be the Uttamanirmanakaya of this eon, it doesn't take away from him being a fully Enlightened Buddha and Dzogchen Master; nor does it take away from there having been Buddhas before Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche who taught Dzogchen.

As I'd posted earlier...^

I personally have no problem considering Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche as the Uttamanirmamakya of the current eon;

It’s a completely silly idea.