Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness

[Archie2009]

Are you saying you require an emptiness handicap system since the forum is mainly populated with amateur players and one scratch golfer?

[stoneinfocus]

I think there are situations when such closing off of conversational space is useful. I cannot for the world see the shentong talk at DW as being one of them.

I am not shutting down gzhan stong pas. They are free to say whatever they like. I have no power to control them, so stop acting like I do.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation. You do not need to literally mute someone to ensure that they no longer feel like talking. Of course you are silencing them, by asserting that they cannot defend it here, are unable to do so, and that their position is risible. I mean, cannot you really see that such adversarial stance is a massive put off to most people? You have a great (and very well-deserved) authority here. You do not even have to speak, people will consider what you will say or think of what they will say before you even open your mouth. If you do speak, and speak in as agonistic fashion as you have in this thread, guess what will happen to your interlocutors. Extremely few people enjoy direct confrontations like this with someone whose expertise and position is vastly superior to theirs.

This should really be patently obvious to all of us here, should have been for years.

Damn, do y'all talk to any other Dharma teachers this way?

I know Malcolm is somewhat unique in terms of how available he is and how blunt he can be, but the way some people talk to him is pretty wild to me.

[krodha]

I am not shutting down gzhan stong pas. They are free to say whatever they like. I have no power to control them, so stop acting like I do.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation. You do not need to literally mute someone to ensure that they no longer feel like talking. Of course you are silencing them, by asserting that they cannot defend it here, are unable to do so, and that their position is risible. I mean, cannot you really see that such adversarial stance is a massive put off to most people? You have a great (and very well-deserved) authority here. You do not even have to speak, people will consider what you will say or think of what they will say before you even open your mouth. If you do speak, and speak in as agonistic fashion as you have in this thread, guess what will happen to your interlocutors. Extremely few people enjoy direct confrontations like this with someone whose expertise and position is vastly superior to theirs.

This should really be patently obvious to all of us here, should have been for years.

Damn, do y'all talk to any other Dharma teachers this way?

I know Malcolm is somewhat unique in terms of how available he is and how blunt he can be, but the way some people talk to him is pretty wild to me.

Indeed. Palpable aggression in this thread.

[Könchok Thrinley]

As mahayana practitioners we should treat evwry being as a buddha and precious do we do that dzogchen teachers included?

Come on guys, stop turning a blind eye on your teachers behavior and if so then expect better from all.

[Könchok Thrinley]

Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice. If Grigoris was here you'd clutch your pearls so hard they'd break.

[krodha]

Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

A polite aggression.

[Könchok Thrinley]

Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

A polite aggression.

Lets call it bluntness. Malcom can be blunt and he is a teacher so he should have morals in check, no? Or are morals just concepts andcwe shouldn't expect teachers to follow them?

[Lingpupa]

Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

A polite aggression.

Or a calm, reasonable disagreement.
Unless criticising the Big Cheese is automatically aggressive is his followers eyes. He - the BC - knows a lot, obviously, and is, I'm sure, often right, but sometimes he talks as much tosh as the rest of us. Also obviously, if I may say so.

[natusake]

I do not think we have seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that qualifies as immoral.

[treehuggingoctopus]

If by aggression one means behaviour that means harm, there was absolutely no aggression, not on my part in any case.

No, I do not talk like that to other teachers of mine. Malcolm is the only one who debates things online, and the only one who engages in, and often opens up, such debates as this one. And the terms of the debate here are not established by me -- I enter the fray which is already going on, and the way it is is to a great extent because of how Malcolm tends to engage in such debates. The terms are set by those who dominate the debate. i certainly do not. Let's face it: the DW is Malcolm's place. He is the king here.

But this is the DW and not Zangthal. When I suggested two years ago that a poster receive teachings from Malcolm, I was sent a PM in which I was told that Malcolm does not post here as a teacher -- that according to how he would like it to be, Zangthal is where he is the teacher, here he is just a senior experienced practitioner, a lotsawa and a loppon, but does not engage with us as a teacher. I have never entered, and would not enter, such a fray at Zangthal.

Anyway, I have defended Malcolm here dozens of times over the years, explicitly taking his side in some of the dirtiest knifefights, when he was being attacked. I have also repeatedly said that I deeply respect him as a teacher, loppon and translator, and consider him a friend. I have benefited greatly from his advice and knowledge over the years, and I have consistently spoken of it here and elsewhere. How could anyone accuse me of disrespect or actual aggression here is beyond me -- unless one conflates disagreement with disrespect, something which Malcolm himself would never do.

This is my last post in the thread. in the future I am not going to enter any debates with Malcolm -- not because I feel it is, or I have done here something that would be, improper, but because of how people react to it. I have no desire to sow discord in the sangha.

[krodha]

Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

A polite aggression.

Lets call it bluntness. Malcom can be blunt and he is a teacher so he should have morals in check, no? Or are morals just concepts andcwe shouldn't expect teachers to follow them?

It is definitely a different than bluntness.

[krodha]

Not to mention that Treehuggingoctopus was still very nice.

A polite aggression.

Or a calm, reasonable disagreement.

The vibe is overt, as much as you two are attempting to conceal it with “calm, reasonable disagreement.” But whatever you want to tell yourself.

You and treehuggingoctopus come off like you’re white knuckling it through the politest external display of an internal “frak you” you’re capable of conjuring.

[Sherab Rigdrol]

If by aggression one means behaviour that means harm, there was absolutely no aggression, not on my part in any case.

No, I do not talk like that to other teachers of mine. Malcolm is the only one who debates things online, and the only one who engages in, and often opens up, such debates as this one. And the terms of the debate here are not established by me -- I enter the fray which is already going on, and the way it is is to a great extent because of how Malcolm tends to engage in such debates. The terms are set by those who dominate the debate. i certainly do not. Let's face it: the DW is Malcolm's place. He is the king here.

But this is the DW and not Zangthal. When I suggested two years ago that a poster receive teachings from Malcolm, I was sent a PM in which I was told that Malcolm does not post here as a teacher -- that according to how he would like it to be, Zangthal is where he is the teacher, here he is just a senior experienced practitioner, a lotsawa and a loppon, but does not engage with us as a teacher. I have never entered, and would not enter, such a fray at Zangthal.

Anyway, I have defended Malcolm here dozens of times over the years, explicitly taking his side in some of the dirtiest knifefights, when he was being attacked. I have also repeatedly said that I deeply respect him as a teacher, loppon and translator, and consider him a friend. I have benefited greatly from his advice and knowledge over the years, and I have consistently spoken of it here and elsewhere. How could anyone accuse me of disrespect or actual aggression here is beyond me -- unless one conflates disagreement with disrespect, something which Malcolm himself would never do.

This is my last post in the thread. in the future I am not going to enter any debates with Malcolm -- not because I feel it is, or I have done here something that would be, improper, but because of how people react to it. I have no desire to sow discord in the sangha.

You have a history of playing both sides of the fence.

[krodha]

I do not think we have seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that qualifies as immoral.

Being immoral isn’t the issue. I’m sure you’ve been in a social situation involving someone who is very polite while simultaneously exuding the vibe that they do not like you or someone you’re with.

Communication is also expressed in what isn’t said. In person this is much easier to detect, body language, subtle facial expressions, vocal tone or inflection, backhanded remarks, or just the overall energy. Harder to detect online, but same principle applies.

That is all I am pointing out.

[natusake]

I do not think we have seen anything in this thread or elsewhere that qualifies as immoral.

Being immoral isn’t the issue. I’m sure you’ve been in a social situation involving someone who is very polite while simultaneously exuding the vibe that they do not like you or someone you’re with.

Communication is also expressed in what isn’t said. In person this is much easier to detect, body language, subtle facial expressions, vocal tone or inflection, backhanded remarks, or just the overall energy. Harder to detect online, but same principle applies.

That is all I am pointing out.

This was meant to reply to what Könchok Thrinley said, where they implied Malcolm has issue of keeping "morals in check". As in:

Malcom can be blunt and he is a teacher so he should have morals in check, no? Or are morals just concepts andcwe shouldn't expect teachers to follow them?

They appear to be implying that Malcolm has been or could be acting immorally with what they perceive as aggressive argumentation, which is completely ridiculous in my eyes and goes to your point. An accusation without accusing, if you will.

The whole line of discussion seems completely beside the point and off topic, besides being rhetorically bankrupt.

[Malcolm]

But there is one thing that I must say here: ChNN spoke of shentong in different ways at different times, to different people. The transcripts of his SMS1 teachings show that yes, there have been situations when he not only defended it (in Taranatha's version) but defended it explicitly as being something akin to Dzogchen, and something people practising Dzogchen should not disparage.

Care to quote me a book and page number? Because in fact ChNN stated that they were incompatible over the point of whether or not qualities were fully formed in the basis or not. In Dzogchen, those qualities are not fully formed in the basis.

Further, Dzogchen does not make use of three own natures. So, I’ll be waiting on those references.

[Malcolm]

face it: the DW is Malcolm's place. He is the king here.

Nonsense.

However, when people wish to discuss tenets, they have to do better than just quote some passage from some past scholar and expect the conversation is over, and they have to admit when they have been caught in classical contradictions which have been pointed out by other past scholars. I personally don’t care about theses debates, but if someone asserts, incorrectly, that gzhan stong view is compatible with Dzogchen, I will reject this because it is a false statement. Not only this, but I have heard ChNN state this point will absolute clarity on many occasions with my own ears. The only Madhyamaka view ChNN stated, and even written about, that was absolutely compatible with Dzogchen is the prasanga view, echoing Longchenpa.

[sherabpa]

Malcolm, if Longchenpa (and Gorampa) accept the Uttaratantrashastra as definitive meaning, then do they not accept the famous and central claim there that the element is empty of adventitious stains but not empty of unsurpassable qualities? And if they accept that statement as definitive, is that compatible with prasangika?

Perhaps you will say that it is provisional and taught to overcome the five faults, as opposed to the zhentong view that it is definitive and nevertheless overcomes the five faults. In which case, what in the Uttaratantrashastra is actually definitive, according to Longchenpa? Thanks.

[Malcolm]

Malcolm, if Longchenpa (and Gorampa) accept the Uttaratantrashastra as definitive meaning, then do they not accept the famous and central claim there that the element is empty of adventitious stains but not empty of unsurpassable qualities? And if they accept that statement as definitive, is that compatible with prasangika?

The nine examples have both a definitive understanding, compatible with prasanga, and an understanding that is an atmavada at worst, and false aspectarian yogacara at best.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Care to quote me a book and page number?

Naturally. SMS1 Trainings, July 1994 to June 2001. Volume 1, pages 279-281 (the section of Ati Dzogchen view, the transcript of Namgyalgar SMS 1, April 1997 teachings).