Yeshi's really back!

[Adamantine]

Malcolm, just for the sake of examples, here’s some quotes taken from the aforementioned series of threads you started here in the Dzogchen Forum circa 2012… from some of these, one could even construct a defense of Yeshi’s controversial statements I would imagine, no?


"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

"Granted, it is impossible to reconcile sacrificing animals with Dzogchen teachings, but apart from that, I do not see the problem. If some Christian is practicing Ati Guru Yoga, then they are practicing Dzogchen whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not. "

"But if you can put yourself at the feet of qualified master who teaches Dzogchen from their own experience then there is no limit of benefit and you will receive transmission whether you are a Buddhist, an Catholic or an Alien. Transmission is beyond mind. Dzogchen is beyond mind, a personal experience beyond reckoning, calculation, something within the reach of everyone who is interested to discover their own nature. So yes, Dzogchen is an aqua regia, a royal water capable of dissolving all limitations whatsoever if one just puts it into sincere practice.

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

In fact if you closely examine Dzogchen language you see that it uses non-Buddhist examples all the time. For example. the notion of the peacock feather's colors being naturally formed is actually drawn from the Carvaka India materalist school -- they use that example to prove there is no creator, and so do we. A peacocks feather has eyes just because it is the nature of a peacock's feather to have eyes. Wisdom exists in the heart of each and every sentient beings just because it is the nature of a sentient being to have wisdom in each and everyone's heart. We don't have to do anything to create that wisdom. We don't have to do anything at all to develop that wisdom. We cannot improve that wisdom or harm it in anyway. It is as integral to our state as the five elements from which we are made (since they are made from it, anyway)."

[Malcolm]

I recall the phase when you were promoting Dzogchen...entirely outside of Buddhism, or any religious container, in a quite absolute way.

The state of Dzogchen is absolutely outside of Buddhism or any religious container. Dzogchen tantras say so quite explicitly, such as the Sound Tantra:

Since [dharmatā] is beyond the intellect, analysis, and words...
the common vehicles will not accomplish the meaning
since dharmatā cannot be seen through words.

"The common yānas" refers to the nine yānas.

Now as a public teacher of Dzogchen, your presentation is much more traditional.

Only in the sense that I base myself on actual Dzogchen texts, which are not my own idea.

[Dechen Norbu]

Malcolm, just for the sake of examples, here’s some quotes taken from the aforementioned series of threads you started here in the Dzogchen Forum circa 2012… from some of these, one could even construct a defense of Yeshi’s controversial statements I would imagine, no?


"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

"Granted, it is impossible to reconcile sacrificing animals with Dzogchen teachings, but apart from that, I do not see the problem. If some Christian is practicing Ati Guru Yoga, then they are practicing Dzogchen whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not. "

"But if you can put yourself at the feet of qualified master who teaches Dzogchen from their own experience then there is no limit of benefit and you will receive transmission whether you are a Buddhist, an Catholic or an Alien. Transmission is beyond mind. Dzogchen is beyond mind, a personal experience beyond reckoning, calculation, something within the reach of everyone who is interested to discover their own nature. So yes, Dzogchen is an aqua regia, a royal water capable of dissolving all limitations whatsoever if one just puts it into sincere practice.

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

In fact if you closely examine Dzogchen language you see that it uses non-Buddhist examples all the time. For example. the notion of the peacock feather's colors being naturally formed is actually drawn from the Carvaka India materalist school -- they use that example to prove there is no creator, and so do we. A peacocks feather has eyes just because it is the nature of a peacock's feather to have eyes. Wisdom exists in the heart of each and every sentient beings just because it is the nature of a sentient being to have wisdom in each and everyone's heart. We don't have to do anything to create that wisdom. We don't have to do anything at all to develop that wisdom. We cannot improve that wisdom or harm it in anyway. It is as integral to our state as the five elements from which we are made (since they are made from it, anyway)."

I love all he said and it still holds true.

[Malcolm]

"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

Correct. I stand by all these statements. "Beliefs" belong to lower vehicles.

However, Dzogchen sets out to resolve the existential predicament the Buddha pointed out, but without intellectual beliefs. If someone shows up at my teaching, I don't tell them they have to believe anything, or change what they do believe. My job is to teach them what they need to understand about their own nature, not condition them into adopting a new set of beliefs. Eventually, we can even drop the idea of karma if and when we can really be in our own nature.

However, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen if one does not take the four truths of nobles as a basis. If someone does not have the idea that there is rebirth caused by the three afflictions, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen, other than to have a more relaxed attitude in this life. Certainly all the teachings of rushan, etc., won't make any sense to someone like this. And as for relaxation, you can get that with the Calm app.

In the end, Dzogchen is about ending afflicted existence in samsara.

[Dechen Norbu]

The thing is, if you start practicing Dzogchen, and keep at it, you are a Buddhadharma practitioner whether you like it or not. Even if you're a Bonpo.
This doesn't mean you need to become a Buddhist first. You don't. But you'll get there eventually.

[ThreeVows]

"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

Correct. I stand by all these statements. "Beliefs" belong to lower vehicles.

However, Dzogchen sets out to resolve the existential predicament the Buddha pointed out, but without intellectual beliefs. There is no point in practicing Dzogchen if one does not take the four truths of nobles as a basis.

It comes to mind, FWIW, to mention something about the 4 Noble Truths - there is the aspect of words that are used in the doctrine when it comes to the 4 Noble Truths, but actually what the 4 Noble Truths are the truths that are realized by the noble ones or aryas. This isn't a matter of some adherence to a doctrine really as much as direct insight into how things are. That is to say, the truth of dukkha is realized in that all 'existence' that arises secondary to fundamental ignorance is realized as dukkha. The truth of the cause of dukkha is directly realized in that one discerns the very root of the arising of samsara. The truth of cessation is directly realized in that when ignorance is overcome, there is cessation of the mind that arises secondary to ignorance, and cessation of 'the world' that arises secondary to ignorance, as the two are one and the same. And then the path is directly realized as well, which basically circles around Noble Right View or the discernment of the Arya.

If one does not actually realize these things properly, then one does not actually properly realize the meaning of the 4 Noble Truths, as one is not an arya. One can parrot words and have some amount of incomplete intellectual understanding but this is not the full meaning.

Perhaps this is not relevant, however, to the discussion at hand, and if so I apologize for the digression. I just have felt that many people do not realize that proper understanding of the 4 noble truths is not a matter of ideas or concepts, but rather direct insight by aryas alone.

[Adamantine]

"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

Correct. I stand by all these statements. "Beliefs" belong to lower vehicles.

However, Dzogchen sets out to resolve the existential predicament the Buddha pointed out, but without intellectual beliefs. If someone shows up at my teaching, I don't tell them they have to believe anything, or change what they do believe. My job is to teach them what they need to understand about their own nature, not condition them into adopting a new set of beliefs. Eventually, we can even drop the idea of karma if and when we can really be in our own nature.

However, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen if one does not take the four truths of nobles as a basis. If someone does not have the idea that there is rebirth caused by the three afflictions, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen, other than to have a more relaxed attitude in this life. Certainly all the teachings of rushan, etc., won't make any sense to someone like this. And as for relaxation, you can get that with the Calm app.

If you need the following conditional exception to amend your prior one-liner, then the prior one liner "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen" was both inaccurate and misleading. To avoid that, it would have to read something like "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen, except for the belief in reincarnation, which is absolutely indispensable." .. or something similar. [I think it’s splitting hairs to differentiate between an intellectual belief and ‘having an idea of’, in this context they amount to the same thing imho]

Now, a decade later, you’re re-explaining what you purportedly really meant with the incomplete one liner. Well, let’s at least give Yeshi a chance to recontextualize, or explain or retract his earlier statements. Who knows, he may surprise us.

[Dechen Norbu]

"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

Correct. I stand by all these statements. "Beliefs" belong to lower vehicles.

However, Dzogchen sets out to resolve the existential predicament the Buddha pointed out, but without intellectual beliefs. If someone shows up at my teaching, I don't tell them they have to believe anything, or change what they do believe. My job is to teach them what they need to understand about their own nature, not condition them into adopting a new set of beliefs. Eventually, we can even drop the idea of karma if and when we can really be in our own nature.

However, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen if one does not take the four truths of nobles as a basis. If someone does not have the idea that there is rebirth caused by the three afflictions, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen, other than to have a more relaxed attitude in this life. Certainly all the teachings of rushan, etc., won't make any sense to someone like this. And as for relaxation, you can get that with the Calm app.

If you need the following conditional exception to amend your prior one-liner, then the prior one liner "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen" was both inaccurate and misleading. To avoid that, it would have to read something like "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen, except for the belief in reincarnation, which is absolutely indispensable." .. or something similar.

Now, a decade later, you’re re-explaining what you purportedly really meant with the incomplete one liner. Well, let’s at least give Yeshi a chance to recontextualize, or explain or retract his earlier statements. Who knows, he may surprise us.

I would say you need to consider it a working hypothesis at least. Belief means you accept it to be true. How many Buddhists can claim such certainty at the beginning of the path?
That said, if you outright reject it, there's little point in ANY spiritual practice.
That's why I find unbelievable that Yeshi rejects rebirth.
I couldn't agree more with your statement. Let us wait for him to clarify.
It's really been a decade since Malcolm wrote that? Time does fly...

[Sādhaka]

The thing is, if you start practicing Dzogchen, and keep at it, you are a Buddhadharma practitioner whether you like it or not. Even if you're a Bonpo.

The word Bön has the same meaning as the word Dharma, and Tönpa Shenrab Miwoche is a Buddha; therefore if you're follow the Dzogchen path for Buddhahood, it doesn't matter which word you use.

Anyhow, the idea of "secular Buddhism" is silly, and I highly doubt that Advaita, Vedanta, etc. have the same meaning as Dzogchen, as some D.C. members seem to believe.

Theoretically though, the type of Dharma that the Nath Siddhas practice could get to Buddhahood, due to its Yoga practice that's based on its lineage transmission, and, that its Yogic praxis could be beyond intellectual concepts; however that does not mean that you can just say that Advaita, Vedanta, etc. views as explained in their texts & traditions could lead to Dzogchen.

[Sādhaka]

DzKR says that we should stop visualising deities Indian- or TIbetan-style, and go boldly for what is attractive to us, as long as all the general features and the symbolic implements are there

What does that even mean?

Whatever it means, it sounds like something that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu would say is not respecting the Lineage Transmission.

[Adamantine]

Correct. I stand by all these statements. "Beliefs" belong to lower vehicles.

However, Dzogchen sets out to resolve the existential predicament the Buddha pointed out, but without intellectual beliefs. If someone shows up at my teaching, I don't tell them they have to believe anything, or change what they do believe. My job is to teach them what they need to understand about their own nature, not condition them into adopting a new set of beliefs. Eventually, we can even drop the idea of karma if and when we can really be in our own nature.

However, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen if one does not take the four truths of nobles as a basis. If someone does not have the idea that there is rebirth caused by the three afflictions, there is no point in practicing Dzogchen, other than to have a more relaxed attitude in this life. Certainly all the teachings of rushan, etc., won't make any sense to someone like this. And as for relaxation, you can get that with the Calm app.

If you need the following conditional exception to amend your prior one-liner, then the prior one liner "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen" was both inaccurate and misleading. To avoid that, it would have to read something like "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen, except for the belief in reincarnation, which is absolutely indispensable." .. or something similar.

Now, a decade later, you’re re-explaining what you purportedly really meant with the incomplete one liner. Well, let’s at least give Yeshi a chance to recontextualize, or explain or retract his earlier statements. Who knows, he may surprise us.

I would say you need to consider it a working hypothesis at least. Belief means you accept it to be true. How many Buddhists can claim such certainty at the beginning of the path?
That said, if you outright reject it, there's little point in ANY spiritual practice.
That's why I find unbelievable that Yeshi rejects rebirth.
I couldn't agree more with your statement. Let us wait for him to clarify.
It's really been a decade since Malcolm wrote that? Time does fly...

I’d say all beliefs are working hypothesis that we have confidence in, and beyond that they become faith, until they are proven, at which point they become certainty, fact, etc.

[Dechen Norbu]

The thing is, if you start practicing Dzogchen, and keep at it, you are a Buddhadharma practitioner whether you like it or not. Even if you're a Bonpo.

The word Bön has the same meaning as the word Dharma, and Tönpa Shenrab Miwoche is a Buddha; therefore if you're follow the Dzogchen path for Buddhahood, it doesn't matter which word you use.

Anyhow, the idea of "secular Buddhism" is silly, and I highly doubt that Advaita, Vedanta, etc. have the same meaning as Dzogchen, as some D.C. members seem to believe.

Theoretically though, the type of Dharma that the Nath Siddhas practice could get to Buddhahood, due to its Yoga practice that's based on its lineage transmission, and, that its Yogic praxis could be beyond intellectual concepts; however that does not mean that you can just say that Advaita, Vedanta, etc. views as explained in their texts & traditions could lead to Dzogchen.

You won't find any disagreement here.
I was kind of joking about Bonpos, but that was exactly the meaning I had in mind when I made the joke.

[Malcolm]

If you need the following conditional exception to amend your prior one-liner, then the prior one liner "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen" was both inaccurate and misleading.

It is perfectly accurate and not misleading.

To avoid that, it would have to read something like "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen, except for the belief in reincarnation, which is absolutely indispensable." .. or something similar.

No. For example, we do not need to believe we are suffering. When we are suffering, there is nothing to believe. It is a fact. When we discover we are suffering, we are already entering into the existential quandary the Buddha pointed out, "We are suffering, but why are we suffering?" This requires some investigation, some diagnosis so we can get at the cause. But we do not have to have any beliefs at all to enter Dzogchen teachings. Along the way, it will become evident to us that we need to understand the cause of the three poisons, and so on. Along the way we will discover that the eight-fold path has right view, and right view entails not rejecting karma and dependent origination and so on. But one is not required to have any beliefs at all. All one has to understand, in order to enter Dzogchen teachings, is that one is suffering.

Well, let’s at least give Yeshi a chance to recontextualize, or explain or retract his earlier statements. Who knows, he may surprise us.

Frankly, I am not that interested in what YN believes or does not believe. It does not concern me. I have no interest in conditioning him or anyone else.

What concerned me was a statement by tinylocust here:

https://www.dharmawheel.net/posting.php ... e&p=653459

I don't think you need to have any beliefs to be a Dzogchen practitioner. But if one is sincere about Dzogchen, one has to recognize that the solution posed to ones suffering involves the idea of the cause of suffering, karma and affliction. That one has to investigate for oneself. Being unsure of rebirth, which is something ordinary people simply take on faith, is normal. It is not disqualifying.

If however, someone claims that the teaching of rebirth is unnecessary, this is obviously false and attempts to remove rebirth, karma, and dependent origination, etc., as being key parts of the solution to suffering offered by Dzogchen teachings is incorrect. I have always maintained this, I maintained it then, maintain it now, and will always maintain it. I will also always maintain that one does not have to believe anything to practice Dzogchen teachings, because Dzogchen teaching is not based on intellectual analysis, reasoning, or words. If you find it dissonant that I have these two perspectives that are seemingly in opposition, I am sorry. But nothing has changed. You are only looking at one thing I wrote in 2012, not everything. You will never find one word where I negate rebirth, karma, dependent origination.

[tinylocusta]

Ending rebirth in the three realms is not a secondary consideration in Dzogchen, like all teachings of the Buddha, it’s the main point. That’s why it is mentioned over and over again in the 17 tantras, etc.

Further, in Buddhadharma, there is no idea of some entity traveling through dimensions, but there is an idea of serial continuity between this life and the next.

In fact, most Dzogchen practitioners attain their awakening in the bardo, after mind and body separate. It is for this reason such extensive teachings exist on the signs of death, and so on, and what the experience of the death and bardo process entails.

In fact, without the existential issue of birth in samsara, Dzogchen teachings are of no consequence at all, and completely lose meaning and relevance. This kind of “Ati lite (tm)” is just an empty lifestyle choice.

I agree with what you say but we are talking on two different levels. What you say is the normal POV of sentient beings: there are Buddhas in pure dimensions, sentient beings in six lokas, life, death, bardo etc. However, as a Dzogchen practitioner, you need to make a crucial discovery. The meaning of this discovery is not separate from the conclusion of the Heart Sutra, and there is a good reason why Rinpoche was reciting this sutra with His father in the famous dream of meeting Changchub Dorje.

[Dechen Norbu]

If you need the following conditional exception to amend your prior one-liner, then the prior one liner "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen" was both inaccurate and misleading. To avoid that, it would have to read something like "One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen, except for the belief in reincarnation, which is absolutely indispensable." .. or something similar.

Now, a decade later, you’re re-explaining what you purportedly really meant with the incomplete one liner. Well, let’s at least give Yeshi a chance to recontextualize, or explain or retract his earlier statements. Who knows, he may surprise us.

I would say you need to consider it a working hypothesis at least. Belief means you accept it to be true. How many Buddhists can claim such certainty at the beginning of the path?
That said, if you outright reject it, there's little point in ANY spiritual practice.
That's why I find unbelievable that Yeshi rejects rebirth.
I couldn't agree more with your statement. Let us wait for him to clarify.
It's really been a decade since Malcolm wrote that? Time does fly...

I’d say all beliefs are working hypothesis that we have confidence in, and beyond that they become faith, until they are proven, at which point they become certainty, fact, etc.

My thoughts exactly.
I add that Dzogchen practice will bring about experiences and this fact by itself imples that we will need guidance so we don't go astray, something that makes it a little more demanding. That will mean you'll nead a theoretical framework to use as a reference and a qualified teacher to answer your very practical doubts. How complex that framework needs to be is a case by case situation, depending both on the teacher and the student, but I would say that being familiarized with the doctrine as Buddhist masters explained is of great assistance.
I find very hard for someone to practice while rejecting karma and rebirth, not so much by the rejection of something one can't know at the start, but because of the reason one might be doing it, usually tied to hidden beliefs in metaphysical systems incompatible with the view of Buddhadharma. One example is the belief in the true existence of self and objects. If that is deeply ingrained in one's mind, something very common in westerners because of all the cultural influences that shaped most of us while growing up, it will be very hard to practice. Everything surrounding us in the West, language included, reifies both self and object. If we let those hidden assumptions infiltrate our view to the point of outright rejecting rebirth, karma, etc., things might become messy and, worse, scary, if there's consistency in practice and some experiences come about. We are incredibly skillful holding on to what we know, to what gives us safety and comfort. We built our lives around it, spirituality included, when there is one. If this tight grip to references isn't identified and softened slowly, things can get out of hand. This is just an example among many. We are also addicted to making things happen and we have a terribly hard time letting something that is already present manifest. So we keep soldiering on and can't realy drop the method and relax, this also being a usual source of problems. So many examples... I hope Yeshi knows what he is getting into. When someone is really a Dzogchen master, these things are irrelevant. They know what to do, spontaneously. Maybe the time for him to teach has come. Trying to do it before that is a heroic task with very mixed results. When things go wrong,
a Dzogchen master won't be swept by his feet. He won't. It's expected. But if a teacher still isn't there, his group of students can easily become his downfall. The DC is very complicated business and I can understand why he didn't want to touch it with a 10" pole. Maybe now he reached enough maturity to do it. If so, these would be wonderful news.

[treehuggingoctopus]

DzKR says that we should stop visualising deities Indian- or TIbetan-style, and go boldly for what is attractive to us, as long as all the general features and the symbolic implements are there

What does that even mean?

Whatever it means, it sounds like something that Chögyal Namkhai Norbu would say is not respecting the Lineage Transmission.

To see what he means, check out the 21 Taras he comissioned, or the melodies to the practice he or his senior students came up with.

I think it is as respectful towards the tradition, let alone the transmission, as anything, but YMWV.

[Malcolm]

However, as a Dzogchen practitioner, you need to make a crucial discovery.

This does not mitigate anything. Dzogchen practitioners also experience death, etc. Discovering instant presence is just the first step. It's not enough.

[laowhining]

I have some faith in Khyentse Yeshi, due to personal experience and Norbu Rinpoche's vote of confidence, but the cult-like way in which some of his followers insist that everyone else shut up about him kinda puts me off.

[Dechen Norbu]

"One does not need beliefs for Dzogchen. Just personal experience. "

Correct. I stand by all these statements. "Beliefs" belong to lower vehicles.

However, Dzogchen sets out to resolve the existential predicament the Buddha pointed out, but without intellectual beliefs. There is no point in practicing Dzogchen if one does not take the four truths of nobles as a basis.

It comes to mind, FWIW, to mention something about the 4 Noble Truths - there is the aspect of words that are used in the doctrine when it comes to the 4 Noble Truths, but actually what the 4 Noble Truths are the truths that are realized by the noble ones or aryas. This isn't a matter of some adherence to a doctrine really as much as direct insight into how things are. That is to say, the truth of dukkha is realized in that all 'existence' that arises secondary to fundamental ignorance is realized as dukkha. The truth of the cause of dukkha is directly realized in that one discerns the very root of the arising of samsara. The truth of cessation is directly realized in that when ignorance is overcome, there is cessation of the mind that arises secondary to ignorance, and cessation of 'the world' that arises secondary to ignorance, as the two are one and the same. And then the path is directly realized as well, which basically circles around Noble Right View or the discernment of the Arya.

If one does not actually realize these things properly, then one does not actually properly realize the meaning of the 4 Noble Truths, as one is not an arya. One can parrot words and have some amount of incomplete intellectual understanding but this is not the full meaning.

Perhaps this is not relevant, however, to the discussion at hand, and if so I apologize for the digression. I just have felt that many people do not realize that proper understanding of the 4 noble truths is not a matter of ideas or concepts, but rather direct insight by aryas alone.

I, for one, loved your post and it is obviously relevant.
The 4NT are both the beginning and the end of the path. But so is refuge, if you think about it.
You take refuge until you become a source of refuge, a Buddha.
That's what I meant when I said a few posts ago that view, conduct and practice work in a positive feeding loop.
The fact that the finger pointing to the moon isn't the moon itself doesn't mean any finger pointing who knows where is equally valid, just because no finger, wherever it is pointing, is the moon. Some fingers point to dead ends.
This is why getting some instruction is important. We don't need to have realized the 4NT for their intellectual knowledge to be relevant, by the contrary. Their intellectual knowledge is relevant if we ever aim to realize them. I know you didn't state otherwise, but considering what you are commenting, I found pertinent making this addendum. But I did enjoy your post a lot and think it was a great contribution to the topic.

[tinylocusta]

This does not mitigate anything. Dzogchen practitioners also experience death, etc. Discovering instant presence is just the first step. It's not enough.

Of course. You need to remain in it. However, it completely changes the perspective. That's the very point. You still experience the shift of vision but don't experience it like an ordinary being.