Yeshi's really back!

[Virgo]

Yeah, I can pretty much agree to this, but boy is it an area fraught with some danger, like I said, wrong step and you end up with a Dzogchen Frankenstein, which is what I think underlies people’s worries about him denying rebirth and such.

Part of my worries about Yeshi denying rebirth are:

1. Do new students who go to take refuge in the Three Jewels deserve to be told there is no rebirth?

2. Students who already believe in rebirth, after receiving transmission from him, will be in a quandry. Do they disagree with their teacher on this topic? What about their vajra sibs? If they do, this will only cause problems.

3. If he teaches this, it will cause people who are not his students to criticize ChNN, Yeshi, and the Dzogchen Community.

There are other concerns as well, but I only have so much time for this thread today.

I wish Yeshi the best, and I hope his motives are good, and I hope he teaches traditionally.

Virgo

[Adamantine]

Regarding this one statement of yours in particular, I have to admit I’m now even more confused. I certainly did notice you wrote “without the existential issue of birth in samsara”, I didn’t include that in the quote merely to be succinct. Actually, that was precisely what caused me to read it as referring to rebirth, since the term samsara refers of course to the harrowing continuity of cyclic existence..in which rebirth is naturally implicated.. there is no samsara without rebirth. To cite Rigpa wiki “Samsara (Skt. saṃsāra; Tib. འཁོར་བ་, khorwa, Wyl. ‘khor ba) is the cycle of conditioned existence, birth and death, which is characterized by suffering and in which one is continually reborn until attaining nirvana.”
But of course you know this quite well, …so?

Birth has the consequence of suffering, whether one accepts rebirth or not. Everyone who is born ages , grows ill, and dies.

Saṃsāra basically means to wander around. In the context of Indian Buddhist texts, it means punarbhāva, rebecoming. But the Buddha never asked people to accept rebirth uncritically, rather than Buddha's discourse into free inquiry, we can call the Kalama Sutta the Buddha's version of Pascal's wager:

"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."

"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, four solaces are found.

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

"The disciple of the Noble Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el008.html

Sure, Malcolm, that’s a rare example of provisional pith teachings to an audience that approached the Buddha with inherent skepticism and confusion about the variety of conflicting philosophies of various bombastic preachers that they encountered, so his skillful method was to approach them from that space of open inquiry. And that’s what some here are hypothesizing is Yeshi’s aim in the modern West. Yet we also know that we can find thousands of passages from Buddha referring to karma and rebirth from the 4 noble truths onwards, to every one like this. And that’s because it’s quintessentially integral to the enterprise of the Buddhist path.

At the level of what we ourselves actually experience in our lives it is clear where transmigration begins; it begins in any instant in which we enter into dualism just as it ends when we rediscover the primordial state...

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen (pp. 90-91). Kindle Edition.

Some people think Dzogchen is about realizing some awakened state. It isn't. It's about cessation. Dzogchen is the third truth of nobles Recognizing the basis is the method we use in Dzogchen, but it isn't the end goal.

It’s not clear why you present this after the prior sutra quote..though since you seem to be fitting them together I’ll reply accordingly. If birth was the only cause of suffering, and not rebirth, then the project of relieving oneself from the extremes of suffering in your version of a rebirth-free ‘samsara’, would be as simple as suicide. A gun to the head and voila! samsara is solved! Or, as DJKR pointed out in the Parting From the Four Attachments teaching we both attended at Walden, without believing in rebirth and the associated understanding of karma and interdependence, then why bother with all this dharma practice? We mine as well rob a bank, and retire to a tropical island. .. Of all people, I’d expect you to be precise about what cessation means (and you generally are when not playing devils advocate), to avoid misunderstandings that could result in actions like suicide, or reliance on drugs, etc.

And just to trade sutra passages:

“ "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipita ... .than.html

[Dechen Norbu]

Dechen Norbu,

There are too many points to address overall, and it will only clutter up the thread, but: If someone connects with a teacher or not, and a teaching or not, it has to do with their karma, merit, and dependent origination. One does not need to change the teachings to cater to someone. Teach and the rest will follow.

That's fatalism, not karma. You seem to assume this process is static. It's not. We can be karmic agents facilitating the fruition of diferent karmic potentials. I could have chose not to present more "digestible" presentations of Buddhism to my friends. Their opinion changed. Would they get to practice Dharma if I had chosen to let "karma" run its course? Dude, their impression about it was so bad that I very much doubt it. Yet, those who changed their minds are still practicing in their own pace to this day. Now, if you apply your idea to Yeshi, it wouldn't mind what he does. After all it's karma.
Now you referred dependent origination. That's right on the money. Another cause was introduced: a different presentation of Buddhadharma.
Maybe Yeshi is the cause that many people need to reach Dharma. You don't know.

As for science, I am not accusing people who seek science as a career of being "cold hearted bastards", those are your words, and it's not what I said.

I assumed you would understand it as a joke. I should have placed a smile laughing.

I said that an excessive focus on STEM leads too many people into becoming cold and sterile and unable to think outside the box. You were talking about "our best" and mentioned science for education, and I merely countered that I think there are at times too much of a focus on science, and perhaps it would be more useful for a lot of people to focus on the arts and the humanities instead. Anyways, off topic to some extent.

I don't know if it would be more useful or not, but that's not up to me to decide. People do whatever they like. If they want to become scientists, great. If tgey want to become poets, great. Vocation plays a great role, but so do many other factors, like the econony.
Although I think changes are needed, that's beside the point. Right now, the fact that we are filtering out a lot of great minds remains. We are creating our own bad karma by not having enough suitable presentations of Dharma for such people. We are not only filtering scientifically minded people. We are filtering critical thinkers in general by presenting them with inadequate introductions to Dharma. If you were brought up in the West and are really bright, you either have a VERY strong connection to Dharma or you won't look at it twice. But we can try to make weaker connections flourish. Goodness knows we need them. Preferably before we blow ourselves up.

Yes, that reason is called karma, merit, and dependent origination. If someone has twelve PhDs but isn't practicing the Dharma and has no connection with the Dharma, then they aren't sharp.

yes, my friend, you are very special.

The one who has that connection with the Dharma and is practicing it and understands it is the one who is sharp, even if they suffer from this or that mental illness or has no educati on whatsoever, etc.

Same as above. You have very dumb people actually practicing. This is marvelous.
You also have very sharp and intelligent people who were driven away because all they got when they approached Dharma was, like Yeshi seems to have put it, a bunch of Tibetan medieval superstitions, or what they considered as such. Karma is not fatalism.

My point is: EVERYONE IS WELCOME. So stop driving the smart away because of poor skills to introduce them to Dharma. This was admissible a few decades back. Now, it's just lazziness. There's a reason why HHDL speaks differently to varying audiences.

And no, secular buddhism is not the answer. There are better ways.

That wasn't about Yeshi though, it was just a general statement.

That according to the context you provided would apply to Yeshi.

Not that many actually. Mostly the same as what others have said here. I have nothing against him and I wish him and his students all the best.

You have a very original way of showing it, let me tell you.

I just think, like others, that there are many questions that aren't answered. After Rinpoche's passing, the IDC has been exceptionally opaque and not at all very informative.

Agree. But I was never very close to the DC. Distance and me being quite kept to myself had a role in that. I'm very grateful for all they done and are still doing, but the DC always had many problems. I can't fix them. I used to write directly to Chogyal Namkhai Norbu when I needed. He would always answer, so fast it was admirable. His advice was always spot on. I never had a doubt or an obstacle where he didn't help. That is what I miss. So I never really worried a lot about the DC. Probably that was very wrong of me. But there wasn't really much I could have helped with.

And Yeshi as has been mentioned, has said and done a number of things that has caused people to have many questions. Some people wants answers to those questions. Time will tell if he will answer them or not.

Yes, I'm also puzzled by what some people say. But I wasn't there, didn't listen to any of it and I know misunderstandings happen.
I always took the words of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu very seriously. If he said clearly his son can teach all he taught, I will at least listen to him with the best of my good will.

Personally I am happy with my situation regarding teachers and teachings so the idea of having Yeshi as a teacher is not for me, that's for others.

I'm happy for you.
Then this doesn't concern you in the slightest.

[Ayu]

Guys, this topic is difficult to moderate. We cannot interfere in so many disagreements and remove off topic and metaduscussion all the time,because we have lives in meatspace
This is just my personal opinion as moderator.
In my estimation you all are longterm members and you are able to post in a way that we don't need to remove and split all the time.
We're busy.

[Adamantine]

And no, secular buddhism is not the answer. There are better ways.

Wasn’t ChNN’s way working pretty well? A vast international sangha spanning the globe?

[Dechen Norbu]

And no, secular buddhism is not the answer. There are better ways.

Wasn’t ChNN’s way working pretty well? A vast international sangha spanning the globe?

Who knows, Adamantine?
The DC is big, like massive, or at least it was.
But Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche more than once asked if he was wasting his life teaching when even senior instructors screwed up.
What he taught and what people get are not always the same.
He was very profound. Not all that easy to understand the depth of his teachings unless you were really practicing them, studying them, etc. If anyone ever thought that his teachings were somehow Dzogchen lite, they couldn't have been more mistaken. But you actually had to practice, meet obstacles, overcome them, etc., to find that out. It was very, very practical. Just knowing his teachings intellectually wasn't nearly enough. As they were so direct and needed practical experience well... simplicity can be a problem for many.
So, my answer is I don't know. They were good stewards for the teachings. Some students seem really good.

[lelopa]

........

Nobody gets rich out of the DC, especially now. People who think that, are crazy. ChNN was one, if not the biggest contributor of the DC.
If Yeshi wanted to make money out of spirituality, this would be his worse choice, so whonever raises that point has no clue on how these things work.
........

Nobody raised this point afaik.
But also nobody said your are dying of hunger.

[Adamantine]

And no, secular buddhism is not the answer. There are better ways.

Wasn’t ChNN’s way working pretty well? A vast international sangha spanning the globe?

Who knows, Adamantine?
The DC is big, like massive, or at least it was.
But Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche more than once asked if he was wasting his life teaching when even senior instructors screwed up.
What he taught and what people get are not always the same.
He was very profound. Not all that easy to understand the depth of his teachings unless you were really practicing them, studying them, etc. If anyone ever thought that his teachings were somehow Dzogchen lite, they couldn't have been more mistaken. But you actually had to practice, meet obstacles, overcome them, etc., to find that out. It was very, very practical. Just knowing his teachings intellectually wasn't nearly enough. As they were so direct and needed practical experience well... simplicity can be a problem for many.
So, my answer is I don't know. They were good stewards for the teachings. Some students seem really good.

For what it’s worth, I have found the DC sangha to be generally a more kind, open, relatable group of folks than one generally encounters in usual Tibetan Buddhist scenes. So—putting sheer numbers aside—if I were to use that as metric, then it seems ChNN was doing something right in terms of the presentation and results. That might be regional though, not a universal experience.. and it doesn’t really apply to experiences here on DW

[Dechen Norbu]

Wasn’t ChNN’s way working pretty well? A vast international sangha spanning the globe?

Who knows, Adamantine?
The DC is big, like massive, or at least it was.
But Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche more than once asked if he was wasting his life teaching when even senior instructors screwed up.
What he taught and what people get are not always the same.
He was very profound. Not all that easy to understand the depth of his teachings unless you were really practicing them, studying them, etc. If anyone ever thought that his teachings were somehow Dzogchen lite, they couldn't have been more mistaken. But you actually had to practice, meet obstacles, overcome them, etc., to find that out. It was very, very practical. Just knowing his teachings intellectually wasn't nearly enough. As they were so direct and needed practical experience well... simplicity can be a problem for many.
So, my answer is I don't know. They were good stewards for the teachings. Some students seem really good.

For what it’s worth, I have found the DC sangha to be generally a more kind, open, relatable group of folks than one generally encounters in usual Tibetan Buddhist scenes. So—putting sheer numbers aside—if I were to use that as metric, then it seems ChNN was doing something right in terms of the presentation and results. That might be regional though, not a universal experience.. and it doesn’t really apply to experiences here on DW

Yes, they seem to be good folks.
They also keep working, making books out of compiled teachings, etc. For them, all I have is gratitude.
But you know... when ChNN died... well, I went ballistic (internally) for a while, like something had died inside of me. It was a terrible experience, but what student would I be if I wasn't able to overcome that? Took a while, but his teachings made their magic and I got back on track with my poor excuse for practice. However, the DC felt like some unfulfilled promise because of all the disorientation that followed. I never reach out either. Didn't want to add to their misery, perhaps.
Today I'm in pretty good shape. ChNN taught more than my needs demand and I can walk my path. Besides there's guys like Malcolm who are jewels when I have doubts. I couldn't be more grateful, but that feeling of an unfulfilled promised never really left. It's not for me, you see? I'm good. I have 25 years of this and a few good connections. I know where to look if I need guidance. But it's for the world in general and this goes beyond the DC. Buddhadharma in general is bleeding practitioners with each death. Old masters are dying. Our culture, now globalized, couldn't be more counter productive to Dharma practice. I don't feel depressed, but on occasion I feel sad. I think I was expecting a steady growth, for the DC and Buddhadharma in general. By now, I expected more. That's the problem of expectations...
This is one of the reasons I feel deeply happy, touched, humbled when I spot what I think to be a good teacher. It's heroic business, teaching Dharma properly and out of compassion. Truly.
Malcolm teaching makes me very happy. Erik teaching makes me very happy, Yeshi teaching (hopefully), makes me very happy, etc.
We need people from the West reaching enlightenment or, at least, some serious attainments. Old masters are dwindling. Unless Dharma produces enlightened people, it will become an empty shell. That's what the DC felt like when ChNN died.

[Malcolm]

Yet we also know that we can find thousands of passages from Buddha referring to karma and rebirth from the 4 noble truths onwards, to every one like this. And that’s because it’s quintessentially integral to the enterprise of the Buddhist path.

You are missing the point and creating a tempest in a teapot.

The Buddha never said to anyone, "If you don't accept rebirth, I won't teach you."

Buddha educated people about what he observed to be the principle existential issue facing human beings, suffering. He did not say first, "rebirth is suffering," he said first "Birth is suffering:"

"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .piya.html

He identified the cause as rebirth only in the second truth of nobles:

"The Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering is this: It is this craving (thirst) which produces re-becoming (rebirth) accompanied by passionate greed, and finding fresh delight now here, and now there, namely craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence and craving for non-existence (self-annihilation).

So you are putting the cart before the horse.

He also recommended that people not accept anything he taught without consideration or examination.

It’s not clear why you present this after the prior sutra quote..though since you seem to be fitting them together I’ll reply accordingly. If birth was the only cause of suffering, and not rebirth, then the project of relieving oneself from the extremes of suffering in your version of a rebirth-free ‘samsara’, would be as simple as suicide.

Suicide isn't simple. And that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we cannot expect people to operate from first principles, for example, rebirth, they don't even accept.

According to you, we should never teach Dzogchen teachings to anyone apart from card-carrying Buddhists. I don't agree with this point of view. I never said rebirth was not a part of Dzogchen teachings, because of course it is, I just said it was not necessary for people to believe it as a prerequisite for entering Dzogchen teachings, and frankly, neither did ChNN.

“ "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother...
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipita ... .than.html

The Buddha never expected anyone to take these assertions on faith, but only after reasoned consideration and investigation.

[Adamantine]

Yet we also know that we can find thousands of passages from Buddha referring to karma and rebirth from the 4 noble truths onwards, to every one like this. And that’s because it’s quintessentially integral to the enterprise of the Buddhist path.

You are missing the point and creating a tempest in a teapot.

The Buddha never said to anyone, "If you don't accept rebirth, I won't teach you."

Buddha educated people about what he observed to be the principle existential issue facing human beings, suffering. He did not say first, "rebirth is suffering," he said first "Birth is suffering:"

"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .piya.html

He identified the cause as rebirth only in the second truth of nobles:

"The Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering is this: It is this craving (thirst) which produces re-becoming (rebirth) accompanied by passionate greed, and finding fresh delight now here, and now there, namely craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence and craving for non-existence (self-annihilation).

So you are putting the cart before the horse.

He also recommended that people not accept anything he taught without consideration or examination.

It’s not clear why you present this after the prior sutra quote..though since you seem to be fitting them together I’ll reply accordingly. If birth was the only cause of suffering, and not rebirth, then the project of relieving oneself from the extremes of suffering in your version of a rebirth-free ‘samsara’, would be as simple as suicide.

Suicide isn't simple. And that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we cannot expect people to operate from first principles, for example, rebirth, they don't even accept.

According to you, we should never teach Dzogchen teachings to anyone apart from card-carrying Buddhists. I don't agree with this point of view. I never said rebirth was not a part of Dzogchen teachings, because of course it is, I just said it was not necessary for people to believe it as a prerequisite for entering Dzogchen teachings, and frankly, neither did ChNN.

“ "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother...
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipita ... .than.html

The Buddha never expected anyone to take these assertions on faith, but only after reasoned consideration and investigation.

The four noble truths were taught together in one sermon. It’s kinda missing the point to parse them out as if they weren’t presented together, and meant to be understood together, imho.

The origin of this discussion and this thread were not about the beliefs or conditioning that a newbie student has when they first show up. It was about what dharma teachers themselves believe, and present. Yeshi, you, Stephen Batchelor, or whomever. In his initial and quintessential sermon, Buddha did not stop at the first noble truth. That was just a set up for the second, third and fourth. He didn’t feel the need to shelter the students from the idea of rebirth, give them time to work with just the first truth for a few weeks, months or years before daring to propose the second.

According to you, we should never teach Dzogchen teachings to anyone apart from card-carrying Buddhists.

This is a straw man, as I never asserted this…

But just to share another 2012 vintage quote of yours
“ As far as Ray goes, I criticized him for saying that rebirth was not a necessary part of the Dharma taught by the Buddha. He was wrong to say that. So, not I am not sorry for making that observation. If someone claims that we can eject rebirth as so much Asian baggage, that person is not teaching the Dharma of the Buddha correctly. "

I’m not sure if we are really disagreeing about anything, tbh

[Malcolm]

The four noble truths were taught together in one sermon.
It’s kinda missing the point to parse them out as if they weren’t presented together, and meant to be understood together, imho.

The Buddha was presenting them because they were what he understood. He was not insisting that the five ascetics that he taught were required to agree.

That was just a set up for the second, third and fourth. He didn’t feel the need to shelter the students from the idea of rebirth, give them time to work with just the first for weeks, months or years before daring to propose the second.

Whoever implied we should shelter students from the idea of rebirth? You completely have not understood my point at all.

According to you, we should never teach Dzogchen teachings to anyone apart from card-carrying Buddhists.

This is a straw man, as I never asserted this…

Just as I never asserted that we should parse out the teaching of rebirth in Dzogchen. I just said, repeating the words of ChNN, we don't need to believe anything in Dzogchen. Beliefs come and go, change, get dropped, etc. What we need in the Dharma is knowledge, personal and direct knowledge, not beliefs, including belief in rebirth. If we come to that conclusion based on our own experience, great. But if not, that's ok too.

What tiny locust was trying to get at, is if we have real knowledge of the basis, then these questions don't matter. My reply to him was, "great, but this ignores the existential questions Dzogchen seeks to solve," which is why we have the idea of suffering, etc. to begin with.

You brought up some old posts because somehow you thought I needed to be reminded of how people can change ( ). I then pointed out one statement, emblematic of the whole, which is that people don't need to believe anything in Dzogchen. Dzogchen is beyond religion and philosophy, as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu famously stated. Most people still do not understand what that means. If Dzogchen is beyond religion and philosophy, then of what use are beliefs for a Dzogchen practitioner?, including the belief that consciousness perishes at death or continues at death? It's not that I don't personally accept rebirth, etc. I do. You know that. But just because I believe these things does not mean they are of value or even true. But one thing I do know is the meaning of Dzogchen teachings through my own experience. I don't need to believe it.

“ As far as Ray goes, I criticized him for saying that rebirth was not a necessary part of the Dharma taught by the Buddha. He was wrong to say that. So, not I am not sorry for making that observation. If someone claims that we can eject rebirth as so much Asian baggage, that person is not teaching the Dharma of the Buddha correctly. "

Correct, it is a necessary part of the Dharma. It is just not necessary to force beliefs on people.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Personally I think that today it would be nice if more people entered the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and so on, and focused on receiving an education which makes them warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way, rather than this exaggerated focus on STEM all the time, which leads too many people into becoming cold and sterile and unable to think outside the box.

Thank you for this Same feelings here, of course. It is a tragedy that in the dialogue between TB and "the West" the humanities have only a most marginal presence, as if the best and most valuable achievement of the European project was technoscience and its imperialist cravings.

I also listened to the Yeshe Lama teachings all these years ago, and was utterly baffled. Easily the most bewildering Dharmic (?) event in my life.

[Xango]

The DC is big, like massive, or at least it was.

One of the things that Yeshi explicitly criticized at the famous meeting. He said he was always against the expansion of the community. So no wonder he is now the "spiritual leader" of Merigar West, not of the IDC.

[Archie2009]

Personally I think that today it would be nice if more people entered the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and so on, and focused on receiving an education which makes them warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way, rather than this exaggerated focus on STEM all the time, which leads too many people into becoming cold and sterile and unable to think outside the box.

It is very naive to think people in the arts and humanities are warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way. I don't want to appear strident, but it's like the thought of a twenty something.

[Malcolm]

Personally I think that today it would be nice if more people entered the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and so on, and focused on receiving an education which makes them warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way, rather than this exaggerated focus on STEM all the time, which leads too many people into becoming cold and sterile and unable to think outside the box.

It is very naive to think people in the arts and humanities are warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way. I don't want to appear strident, but it's like the thought of a twenty something.

Maybe, but at least they can talk about things other than weed, video games, and Elon Musk.

[Archie2009]

Personally I think that today it would be nice if more people entered the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and so on, and focused on receiving an education which makes them warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way, rather than this exaggerated focus on STEM all the time, which leads too many people into becoming cold and sterile and unable to think outside the box.

It is very naive to think people in the arts and humanities are warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way. I don't want to appear strident, but it's like the thought of a twenty something.

Maybe, but at least they can talk about things other than weed, video games, and Elon Musk.

Sure, science nerds are often handicapped that way.

[Dechen Norbu]

Personally I think that today it would be nice if more people entered the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and so on, and focused on receiving an education which makes them warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way, rather than this exaggerated focus on STEM all the time, which leads too many people into becoming cold and sterile and unable to think outside the box.

It is very naive to think people in the arts and humanities are warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way. I don't want to appear strident, but it's like the thought of a twenty something.

Maybe, but at least they can talk about things other than weed, video games, and Elon Musk.

You really think people who choose science only talk about that? You need to get out more, Malcolm!

[Malcolm]

It is very naive to think people in the arts and humanities are warmer, kinder, and smarter in a compassionate way. I don't want to appear strident, but it's like the thought of a twenty something.

Maybe, but at least they can talk about things other than weed, video games, and Elon Musk.

You really think people who choose science only talk about that? You need to get out more, Malcolm!

Among people with higher educations in the US, those with STEM educations are the least educated and most poorly informed people I know. They rarely know anything about history, philosophy, etc.

[Adamantine]

Just as I never asserted that we should parse out the teaching of rebirth in Dzogchen. I just said, repeating the words of ChNN, we don't need to believe anything in Dzogchen. Beliefs come and go, change, get dropped, etc. What we need in the Dharma is knowledge, personal and direct knowledge, not beliefs, including belief in rebirth. If we come to that conclusion based on our own experience, great. But if not, that's ok too.

So then following through with this view, it shouldn’t be at all surprising, or controversial then, if Yeshi “definitely rejects rebirth, and…. went so far as to offer a course of “Dzogchen without rebirth” at one point.”

So why bring it up?

Also it still is difficult to reconcile the ease with which you promulgate this perspective right after writing:

"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 mean, you’ve gone to great lengths to try and explain how asserting both perspectives is compatible for you, or that they are really the same perspective, but admittedly I’m having a hard time following your logic on this one.

How could we have direct knowledge of death, the bardo, or rebirth until we actually die? Unless of course we have memories of a prior life or death, -but even the validity of those memories could be questioned as fantasy or delusion… So if we are to seriously apply ourselves to teachings and a path which has so much emphasis on birth, death, bardo and rebirth, then we should have some degree of confidence in these things, based on inference, not direct experience, imho.