AdamantineClearLight

Most people familiar with Buddhism, esp Tibetan Buddhism know the famous (or infamous Namdrol). He wrote an interesting post -- link -- and rendered an apology. Anyone who knows Malcolm, this is a complete and welcome change in attitude. He is a deep scholar and an accomplished Buddhist, so his words stem from years of study and practice, that probably resulted in his current reflection...some excerpts below that I found valuable

Don't jump to conclusion so soon. Even if I attribute a superhuman intelligence to you and assume for minute that you read and understood this large thread, it is simple to see this is not simply about sectarian Tibetan politics. There are several points Namdrol makes: 1. The non-sectarian nature of Dzogchen 2. The lack of need (may not be completely but for the most part) of intellectual debates and semantics or even their usefulness in Realization as opposed to Yogic practice followed by direct instruction 3. Tibetan Buddhism and its Lamas, and even Buddhism is not perfect 4. Those without a Buddhist view can have similar realizations and get liberated 5. God and Self are not catastrophic, or any more necessary/unnecessary than no-self. 6. Most Tibetan Lamas have not understood other systems well enough, so don't blindly accept everything they say That all this comes from a Hardcore Buddhist is interesting. After about 20 years, he has changed his view quite drastically and he attributes this to Dzogchen practice. One sees very less Buddhist-exclusiveness in him now, and a near Universalism (not exactly, but to a great degree). These are, IMO profound realizations, especially for a Buddhist like Namdrol who would have rejected even a possibility of such notions a few days ago. Read again, may be even the entire thread linked here, and then come back and make a smartass knee jerk comment if you still find no value in his very honest expression. That said, what one finds profound or useful also has to do with oneself, can't change that. Some are skillful, others are simply not without some effort and merit.

It is impossible to hold onto a view of self or non-self and at the same time be liberated. You still have not grasped the principle of "not changing anything". That means you integrate with wheverever you find yourself. If you recognize your real condition while belonging to the Christian religion, you do not suddenly have to stop going to church. Maybe you like going to church. Maybe, being a Dzogchen practitioner makes a _better_ Christian. Maybe being a Dzogchen practitioner can make Buddhists better Buddhists because Buddhists quite frankly are really grumpy and narrow minded, just like anyone else caught in the grip of grasping one-sided views. I can say this because I have more experience of Buddhists. Maybe, being a Dzogchen practitioner can make a Dzogchenpa a better Dzogchenpa. An example of using old beleifs and views while still awakening is Bon. Bon did not throw anything out. They still teach their egg cosmology along with another more modern, "Buddhist" cosmology. They divide all that "non-Buddhist stuff" and call it all "The causal vehicle". What are the four seals? All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. All afflicted phenomena are suffering All phenomena lack identity Nirvana is bliss. You can find these four seals in Advaita Vedanta as well. Just substitute brahman for nirvana and you have a perfect match. It is very hard to differentiate brahman from nirvana. Really, go ahead and try. I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view. His only response was a sectarian polemic "But there is no buddhahood in Vedanta!" Now, mind you, I am not saying that there is such a thing. But when you study these texts, you come to realize, even as Bhavaviveka and Shantaraksita both observed, that language of Advaita and the language of Madhyamaka are more or less identical. Shantaraksita complains in his Tattvasiddhi to the effect "If you accept the nature of things is non-arising, why do you not become Buddhist!?" Now, again, I am not saying that if you practice Advaita you will become a buddha -- I honestly do not know. But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka. The main difference between them is that Hindus accept the Vedas as self-originated and Buddhists do not. But in Dzogchen we accept that Dzogchen tantras are self-originated, that they arise directly out of the sound of dharmatā. So, this is not really very different than what the Vedic scholars believe.

Acheiving Buddhahood has always been possible outside of "Buddhism". There was no Buddhism when appeared. or when Tonpa Shenrab appeared. Or when Ngon Dzog Gyalpo, appeared. Etc. In fact, Ngondzog Gyalpo left no Buddhist sangha behind. Nor when Zhonnu Pawo Tobden appeared, or Nangwa Dampa, etc. Then there are pratyekabuddhas. They in fact often appear in the garb of so called non-Buddhist ascetics. Nagarjuna has said that even if there are no Buddhas in the world, it is always possible to for there to be liberation anyway since the reality of phenomena is always present. So yes I think it is possible. I do not think any longer that liberation is the sole province of Buddhists.

That depends on what you mean by "realize". if you mean experientially understand, than yes. If you mean am I prepared to go rainbow, not anytime soon, probably not in this lifetime unless I stop writing posts and translating texts, gardening, and everything else I do.

Hello Tao Bumms