themiddleway

This is the most important point.

Peru. Cut out of hard andesite bedrock.

I believe its the apotheosis of all vehicles. There is the myth of Atiyoga been taught in other world systems and the lineage founder himself is mythic but these things are outside my concern and understanding. I would defer to the knowledge of Malcolm a translator of Dzogchen tantras http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8565&start=0 Dzogchen includes the meaning of all Buddhadharma, so one cannot say that by practicing Dzogchen as an independent path, one is dismissing Buddhadharma as unnecessary. One can dismiss the organized religion that has accreted around Buddhadharma i.e. "Buddhism", the corresponding socio/political/economic institutions, as unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners. 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. If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

Personally, with respect to no-self vis a vis self, I can not confirm either. I like this summation from Jayarava:'The realisation of self qua contingent experience is liberating because it allows us to become sober with respect to sense experience'. Simple and to the point. The moment Buddhism strays into ontology is begins to sound like flatulence. The question/problem of moral agency,personal continuity in rebirth and no-self have created some abstruse discource in Buddhism. I've abandoned the lot since discovering Dzogchen.

I believe that -the much quoted- Loppon Namdrol came to the same conclusion. From Namdrol : "I can see really clearly that we need to go beyond Buddhist provincialism. We even complain about sectarianism among Buddhists. We also war with each other about such things whose Karmapa is the real one; which is better, gzhan stong or rang stong; is yogacara as high as madhayamaka or not; is Theravada Hinayāna or not; is Mahāyāna or the tantras the real teaching of the Buddha or not. If we do not go beyond these kinds of petty intellectual differences, we will never survive as a species and we will continue to destroy ourselves.'

'that practice, not knowledge, is what counts. He said one should not trust those who have dharma only in their mouths, but rather should trust one's own commitment and the words of one's lama.' An antidote to legalism.

Another point of view from http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/dharma-as-mental-event.html Dharma as mental event The earliest strands of Buddhism seem to avoid any ontological speculation, and dharma - in the sense of the object of manas - has no particular status viz a viz reality. Indeed I'm not convinced that they even thought in terms of 'reality'. However over the years dharma did take on an ontological cast. So much so that Nāgārjuna spends much of his important work the Mūlamadhyamaka Kārikā(MMK) demolishing the idea. In this essay I attempt to show the progress of this change. Dharma as mental object is the most important and characteristically Buddhist use of the word dharma, but it perhaps the most difficult to translate. Some of the definitions of the philosophical term 'qualia' might fit, and 'noeta' has been suggested though choosing Latin terms is not always helpful to an English speaker. To render it 'things' is misleading in my view, and 'mental objects' is inelegant. In fact many authors leave dharma untranslated in this case. Why should the word find an application in this sense? To answer this we need to take a step back and reconsider the Buddhist view of consciousness (Sanskrit vijñāna; Pāli viññāṇa). Consciousness is always 'consciousness of ', the Buddha did not allow for a free floating entity called consciousness that was waiting to be aware of something (see JR: What is Consciousness?) - consciousness is dependently arisen, and this is the most important application of the principle of conditionality. In particular consciousness arises in dependence on contact between a sense organ and a sense object. Particularly with reference to the mental sense (manas) the object is called 'a dharma' - and this specifically includes the information garnered from the other five senses. So a sight object gives rise to sight consciousness, but this sight consciousness in turns becomes the object of the mind sense, it is itself a dharma. As we've seen over the past two weeks the primary meaning of dharma is foundation. Here the dharma acts as a 'foundation' to vijñāna since vijñāna arises in dependence (in part at least) on sense objects. We can see, then, that dharma in this sense is related to words for cause (hetu, paccaya) and condition (nidāna, upanisa, bandhu). Now the main interest in the early suttas is on vijñāṇa not on dharmas; that is, on the subjective pole of experience rather than the objective. So for instance the processes which enable us to have experiences - the five skandha (P. khandha) - are mentioned frequently and treated quite exhaustively. The nature of dharmas is only given cursory attention if any. The reasons for focusing on the mind are pragmatic because it is the insights into the functioning of mind that are liberate us. However, the lack of definite statements about dharmas in the suttas left a lacuna that became very attractive to a certain type of mind - and unfortunately they were frequently the same people who preserved the texts and were the chief textual authorities and exegetes. The first step was the abhidharma. Abhidharma is an interesting word. PED gives 'special dhamma' as it's chief sense, but under abhi- they say the primary meaning is "that of taking possession and mastering" which suggests that its meaning would be impossible to guess from the etymology (which is not uncommon). What the abhidhamma is, is an analysis of the Buddhadharma and in particular of the dharmas themselves in the sense I am exploring now. The abhidharmikas were concerned with identifying the types and categories of dharmas both mental and physical, and the interactions between them in creating consciousness. I must confess at this point that I have never really studied abhidharma, and don't have much interest in it. Presumably the original intent grew out of injunctions in meditation texts such as the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta to observe the arising and passing and away of dharmas. However the subtle shift of the attention from the moon to the finger meant that the dharmas themselves, rather than their contingency per se moved into focus, and this seems to me to be a fundamental error. Another issue which has plagued Buddhism presumably from the moment the Buddha died is whether it is possible for any of us to have the experience he had. While he was alive to say yes he seems to have inspired huge confidence. I presume that the shift to the view (exemplified in Peter Masefield's flawed work Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism [1]) which says that without the physical presence of a Buddha awakening is not possible was a gradual giving way to pessimism, rather than a sudden collapse of confidence. However one of the motivations, as I understand it, behind the abhidharmika's efforts was to understand awakening - to intellectually keep the possibility of liberation alive. In the abhidharma the idea of what a dharma is begins to take on form. Scholars are quick to point out that they do not see a definite ontology here. [2] It is not that the abhidharmika's set out to establish the nature of a dhamma, but in creating their lists of dharmas they provided an opening for those with a more ontological bent. What they do is create finitelists which they present as exhaustive - there are these kinds of dharmas and no more. That the different abhidharmikas came up with overlapping but often quite different list tells us much in retrospect. The definiteness of these lists was problematic. By the time of the commentarial tradition in 5th century Sri Lanka a dharma has become a thing - which may well be why this is the favoured translation of dhamma in contemporary times. The various early schools of Buddhism (the tradition records eighteen names) each had their own collections of suttas, their own vinaya, and their own abhidharma. Since the sutta collections vary mostly in how they are arranged it is presumed that these stem from a common stock [3]. Each surviving vinaya shows a little more variation - especially in the number of pratimokṣa rules and in how elaborated is their account of the Buddha's life. Each abhidharma however has a significantly different take on the subject - though of course all shared a method and aimed at the same goal. The Sarvāstivādin abhidharmikas seem to have gone further down the ontological road than any other Buddhist groups. Their very name means 'everything exists' (sarva asti). They held dharmas to be substantially existing elements of reality. Just how far they gave strayed from the Buddha's teaching is brought into focus when one considers that Nāgārjuna is thought by some scholars to have written his stark and decisive polemic, Mālamadhyamika Kārikā (MMK), in response to the Sarvāstivādins. [4] Amongst other aims Nāgārjuna comprehensively dismantles the twin notions of existence and non-existence. Neither apply. If Nāgārjuna appears nihilistic it is perhaps because he was writing against a pernicious form of eternalism. In any case we can read MMK as an attempt to wrestle Buddhism back on track - away from any interest in the nature of reality, and back to an interest in the nature of experience. It is terms of experience, not in terms of mysticism or paradox, that we need to understand that 'things' neither exist nor non-exist, because those 'things' are our mental processes which have no ontological status, no substantial being. Indeed in what sense canany process be said to 'exist'?

It's a shame that so many online Buddhists discussions turn into sectarian pissing contests.

Anyone read this guy ..? http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/not-two-truths.html

Hi all. Quick question, I thought that Hinayana refers to an extinct form of Buddhism ? My understanding was that the earlier schools of Buddhism misunderstood the teachings on emptiness, the earlier model of Samsara and Nirvana is dualism no..?

True but no one is guiltier of absolutism than the Western scientific intelligentsia.

Are you implying that the authority of a Guru is a, ‘adaption of cultural behaviour’? It was the absolute authority of the Guru that allowed Vajrayana teachings to be preserved in Tibet. The Tibetans revered their Indian teachers as Buddha’s, not as a friendly PC therapist. What about the dangers of the Vajrayana path? There is very little room for error and syncretism in Vajrayana. I think that rampant individualism could be very dangerous not only for the student but also the teacher. Or is Vajra hell just more cultural baggage? There is no Western religion or philosophy that will lead to the realization transmitted in the Vajrayana lineages of Tibet. I love Western culture but it falls short when comes to deeply transformative practises. The vacuum of myopic materialism has created a hunger for practises like Dzogchen.

In the strictest Dzogchen sense, you have to have an existing karmaric connection with the lineage. Settling on a teacher could mean anything from being a student in a past life, being eaten in a puja or the other unfathomable methods that Buddha’s use to tame beings. Only an awakened teacher can awaken students. The activities of Lamas like CHNN in spreading teachings are an example of bodhicitta or a bodhisattva churning the lower worlds to liberate beings. Long life to the masters!

I agree that there are very few realized Lamas. CHNN has said beware of false reincarnations, stating that within Tibet most of the Tulkus were recognized to perpetuate the power monopoly of the monasteries. The Dalai Lama and Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche have both been critical of the politics within Tibetan Buddhism. So its not like Lamas are ignoring the problems within their own system. I think most people are educated enough about pre-modern Tibet and understand it wasn’t a spiritual paradise, CHNN has openly said that he was beaten in his monastery. But Tibetans still preserved these teachings and produced realised beings right up to the occupation of Tibet by China. The Chinese actively tried to murder Dzogchen yogis, some of whom couldn’t be killed. You can argue all you want about the conditions in pre-modern Tibet but if the Chinese had their way the Dzogchen lineage would have been destroyed. Tibetan Lamas like CHNN are very rare, if you want Dzogchen teachings you go to people who have realized it, can teach it and have generously shared it with the West. There is no guarantee that meeting one on one with a teacher will work. But there is a guarantee that if you make contact with a realized being you will eventually liberate. Individuals who have quickly understood Rigpa should be teaching within CHNN organisation and benefiting other practitioners. I think it’s really dangerous and arrogant to start your own pseudo- Dzogchen club. If Rinpoche introduced you to the natural state through oral transmission the least you could do is GIVE BACK and help with the transmission of Dzogchen around the world. Picking holes in Lamas, Tibet and other cultures is ignoring their generosity in blessing our mind streams. Its inevitable that Dzogchen will take on a Western form but its not inevitable that Dzogchen will be preserved if we attack the core of the teaching; who is the Guru and who are the students.

Exactly. Super secret teachings can become fodder for the ego and not about integrating with the state of the Guru. If people start blending Dzogchen methods with other systems, we could have our own Western version of Dorje Shugden.

Lamaism is a misnomer. The importance of the Guru has its origin in the mahasiddas of India who shared the Vajrayana teachings with the Tibetans. The ‘Lama hierarchy’ faithfully preserved the teachings down into the modern era, so they do have authority when it comes to these teachings. This living lineage is available for anyone who has an interest in the Dzogchen teachings. You are free to practice Dzogchen regardless of your faith, or lack of, but it requires transmission from a qualified Guru. There are other spheres of knowledge that require a qualified teacher in the West/ East; I don’t get what the big deal is? What you are proposing is blind egalitarianism, which is a sickness of the New Age school and neo-Advaita. It’s a brutal world full of ignorant people; true spiritual teachers should be treasured.

The reliance and necessity of a teacher in Vajrayana is difficult for Westerners to accept but it is indicative of how Buddhist view the world, namely, that we are not all equal. The trend to do away with spiritual lineage ignores that hierarchies are an inevitable part of life. If this core feature of Dzogchen is not present, it ceases to exist as a teaching. We are not all one.

My main concern is people claiming to be teachers who are not authorised to do so and disinformation spread about Dzogchen. I am not a teacher. The discussing of cosmogony and how it relates to thogel is something best left off the Internet. It all begins with guru yoga; there really is not any ‘higher practice’. An authentic guru has already achieved total realization; just being in their presence can be liberating and corrective. I sorry to harp on about Guru this Guru that but its been mistakenly targeted as cultural baggage. The importance of the Guru cannot be emphasised enough, otherwise there is real danger of the teachings becoming diluted. I am aware that Rinpoche is teaching from his own terma, we are very fortunate. I argued that his sharing of Dzogchen was a break from tradition, to counter the claims that the Tibetans are holding on to the teachings for them selves. To paraphrase Rinpoche: if someone has knowledge of Dzogchen, it is far more beneficial for that individual to practice and teach within the organisation that he is overseeing. "There I am by the grace..' etc As for card games and day trading, who cares.

Hi I believe that the presentation of Dzogchen teachings will evolve in the West. The assimilation of Vajrayana in Tibet did not happen over night, so we should expect some teething problems with how these teachings are integrated into Western cultures. According to the Tibetan hagiography Guru Padmasambhava had to ‘subdue the demonic forces of pre-Buddhist Tibet’ before the Vajrayana teachings could take root there. The Western demon is Wall-mart and dogmatic materialism. As practitioners we have to be careful about bringing our own cultural biases to Dzogchen and how the teachings should be preserved and transmitted. What often gets overlooked in the verbal wank over semantics is that Dzogchen is a teaching based on relationships. Principally between you, the Guru and the sangha. Its no secret that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu’s organisation is called the ‘Dzogchen Community’. I would recommend before anyone jumps into any syllabus to read Norbu’s 'The Crystal and the Way of Light'. Rinpoche has already broken from tradition by presenting these teachings so openly.

Hi every one its good to be here.

Hello everyone, id like to offer my thoughts on Dzogchen. Dzogchen as it was originally taught transcended the classification of gradual or non-gradual ,the essential 'it' to get was instantly known or as Garab Dorje said: through direct introduction one has knowledge; one remains without any doubt; one continues with confidence in liberation. The above statement is Norbu's justification for sharing the Dzogchen teachings with out any preliminaries. Rinpoche has been criticized by other lama's for being so open in sharing the teachings but as he has pointed out, he is remaining faithful to Garab Dorje's testament. These three precepts are considered to summarise the whole of the Dzogchen teachings, this is all there is know, this is pure Dzogchen. However, the majority of people today do not have the capacity to practice Dzogchen as an inderpendent vehicle, which would be fine if it wasn't for the tend to throw away any need for any maps in the rush for sudden enlightenment. Instant recognition is extremely rare, it actually indicates a connection to the teaching from previous lives. So where dose that leave ordinary mortals ? Dzogchen dose not come with maps, you either get it or you don't, within the Indo-Tibetan tradition there are other schools better suited to the gradual pursuit of gnosis. Daniel.Brown's book "Pointing out the great way: the stages of meditation in the Mahamudra tradition," is an example of an excellant map. Internet forums do much to perpetuate the notion that Dzogchen is for every one, unfortunately it isn't. Dzogchen is not sky gazing or any other diluted yogic method that is now discussed on internet forums, it is a transmission from a qualified master to disciple. There is a saying in Vajrayana : 'the guru is more important than the Buddha.' If you are interested in Dzogchen, you need a qualified guru. This is not a dated tradition, it is the ONLY way the teachings are preserved and transmitted. Once you have had a transmission you are free to explore other teachings but it all begins with the guru. Peace.