Theravada, Dzogchen, Arahants, and Bodhisattvas

[Grindles Grindis]

I'm back in the U.S. after spending a few months at a forest Wat in Thailand, and I'm hoping there are some people knowledgeable in both Theravada and Dzogchen and how they might or might not fit. Or at least maybe someone will simply read this and appreciate it...

 

The fact is, I don't see much of a difference between Theravada and Dzogchen, when it comes right down to the important things (wisdom and compassion). For instance, from what I understand of Dzogchen (which at this point is only from reading Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's literature), is that wisdom is naturally-arising, and that Awareness is self-liberating. Now granted Theravada is a vehicle that teaches of cause-and-effect. But the masters whose teaching I studied (Ajahn Mun and Luangta Maha Boowa), both of whom are reputed Arahants, talked about "maha-sati_ and "maha-panna". After someone has presumably "entered the stream" (which would include a glimpse of the "Absolute"), and developed proper mindfulness and wisdom, this maha-sati and maha-panna takes effect, whereby (according to their language), the kilesas are continually being removed from the heart at all times WITHOUT THE EFFORT of the practitioner. This happens by itself until the ultimate final destruction of avijja (ignorance). This wisdom, in effect, is naturally arising. Now, even though they may say "kilesas are being removed", which is different language and from a seemingly different view than is talked about in Dzogchen, I see this maha-sati and maha-panna basically as the same thing as when Dzogchen talks about self-arising wisdom. Though there is the extra-step of saying there are kilesas are being removed, in effect the same thing is happening: the practitioner has seen the Nature of Mind, and whatever arises is naturally liberated without effort. Here I am equating maha-sati and maha-panna with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's "remaining undistracted".

 

But here's where I start to wonder what the hell is going on... Vajrayana and Mahayana talk about bodhicitta as the goal (desire?) of attaining enlightenment for the benefit of all beings. I'm sure this has been discussed a billion times, but starting right there, how can one become enlightened when they are still harboring desires, no matter how altruistic? In Dzogchen, "bodhicitta" takes on a different meaning. Bodhicitta, in Dzogchen, from what I understand, is simply the mind remaining in its naturally self-liberating state. And in it's natural state there is no effort needing to be made to help others--it happens naturally. The very state of bodhicitta in Dzogchen naturally brings benefit to all. And this is again where I see what I saw from the Arahant monks in Thailand accorded much more to what I've read about Dzogchen masters...

 

For this to work, we'll have to go with the presumption that the monks whose Wats I stayed at are indeed the Arahants they are reputed to be. Of course I have no way of proving this, but I must admit that when I saw the relics of the other monks in Ajahn Mun's lineage who are said to be Arahants, I was quite astounded at the beautiful multicolored relics their bones had turned into. Again, this isn't proof, but it's the best I can offer outside of saying go there and meet these monks and practice in their vicinity and see those relics for yourself.

 

So, if these monks are Arahants, it means they have destroyed all selfishness, all desire and hatred and ignorance from their hearts. I find it quite ironic that they are seen as being somehow less by some people for having sought a way out of suffering for themselves, when in fact as Arahants they have completely destroyed any selfish desires... I can see that point of view if upon "realization" these Arahants up and disappeared from the face of the earth never to be seen again. But in fact the Arahants I saw worked effortless and tirelessly for the benefit for all the lay people and their monks. Whether it be receiving the offerings of the people so they could dedicate the immeasurable merit of offering to an Arahant, or using those offerings to open hospitals for the poor, the absolute untainted goodness of these supposedly selfishly-motivated Arahants was the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Not to mention that just meditating in their presence was like being around a dynamo.

 

I hope this wasn't too annoyingly long-winded. I just figured to share some observances of similarity about two vehicles that I suspect are often seen as very different. I've read that upon realizations, all differences, all views and opinions are seen through, anyhow, so why shouldn't realized masters of Theravada and Dzogchen, both having seen the absolute, have very similar things going on. I guess that's the best point I can make from this over-long musing. The whole thing was very inspiring to me, both in how I see Dzogchen and Theravada. In the end for me it again simply goes to show how great and transcendent the teachings of the Buddha are. Best of luck to everyone!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'm back in the U.S. after spending a few months at a forest Wat in Thailand, and I'm hoping there are some people knowledgeable in both Theravada and Dzogchen and how they might or might not fit. Or at least maybe someone will simply read this and appreciate it...

 

The fact is, I don't see much of a difference between Theravada and Dzogchen, when it comes right down to the important things (wisdom and compassion). For instance, from what I understand of Dzogchen (which at this point is only from reading Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's literature), is that wisdom is naturally-arising, and that Awareness is self-liberating. Now granted Theravada is a vehicle that teaches of cause-and-effect. But the masters whose teaching I studied (Ajahn Mun and Luangta Maha Boowa), both of whom are reputed Arahants, talked about "maha-sati_ and "maha-panna". After someone has presumably "entered the stream" (which would include a glimpse of the "Absolute"), and developed proper mindfulness and wisdom, this maha-sati and maha-panna takes effect, whereby (according to their language), the kilesas are continually being removed from the heart at all times WITHOUT THE EFFORT of the practitioner. This happens by itself until the ultimate final destruction of avijja (ignorance). This wisdom, in effect, is naturally arising. Now, even though they may say "kilesas are being removed", which is different language and from a seemingly different view than is talked about in Dzogchen, I see this maha-sati and maha-panna basically as the same thing as when Dzogchen talks about self-arising wisdom. Though there is the extra-step of saying there are kilesas are being removed, in effect the same thing is happening: the practitioner has seen the Nature of Mind, and whatever arises is naturally liberated without effort. Here I am equating maha-sati and maha-panna with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's "remaining undistracted".

 

But here's where I start to wonder what the hell is going on... Vajrayana and Mahayana talk about bodhicitta as the goal (desire?) of attaining enlightenment for the benefit of all beings. I'm sure this has been discussed a billion times, but starting right there, how can one become enlightened when they are still harboring desires, no matter how altruistic? In Dzogchen, "bodhicitta" takes on a different meaning. Bodhicitta, in Dzogchen, from what I understand, is simply the mind remaining in its naturally self-liberating state. And in it's natural state there is no effort needing to be made to help others--it happens naturally. The very state of bodhicitta in Dzogchen naturally brings benefit to all. And this is again where I see what I saw from the Arahant monks in Thailand accorded much more to what I've read about Dzogchen masters...

 

For this to work, we'll have to go with the presumption that the monks whose Wats I stayed at are indeed the Arahants they are reputed to be. Of course I have no way of proving this, but I must admit that when I saw the relics of the other monks in Ajahn Mun's lineage who are said to be Arahants, I was quite astounded at the beautiful multicolored relics their bones had turned into. Again, this isn't proof, but it's the best I can offer outside of saying go there and meet these monks and practice in their vicinity and see those relics for yourself.

 

So, if these monks are Arahants, it means they have destroyed all selfishness, all desire and hatred and ignorance from their hearts. I find it quite ironic that they are seen as being somehow less by some people for having sought a way out of suffering for themselves, when in fact as Arahants they have completely destroyed any selfish desires... I can see that point of view if upon "realization" these Arahants up and disappeared from the face of the earth never to be seen again. But in fact the Arahants I saw worked effortless and tirelessly for the benefit for all the lay people and their monks. Whether it be receiving the offerings of the people so they could dedicate the immeasurable merit of offering to an Arahant, or using those offerings to open hospitals for the poor, the absolute untainted goodness of these supposedly selfishly-motivated Arahants was the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Not to mention that just meditating in their presence was like being around a dynamo.

 

I hope this wasn't too annoyingly long-winded. I just figured to share some observances of similarity about two vehicles that I suspect are often seen as very different. I've read that upon realizations, all differences, all views and opinions are seen through, anyhow, so why shouldn't realized masters of Theravada and Dzogchen, both having seen the absolute, have very similar things going on. I guess that's the best point I can make from this over-long musing. The whole thing was very inspiring to me, both in how I see Dzogchen and Theravada. In the end for me it again simply goes to show how great and transcendent the teachings of the Buddha are. Best of luck to everyone!

Amazing post. Thank you!

 

My opinion is that a cultivator is a cultivator. If his intentions are well, and is for genuine search for freedom and to be in a state of compassion and love, whatever the Path is doesn't matter. There were epic arguments on this forum between Buddhists, Taoists, and Hindus on the nature of existence, God, and liberation, but I now see that it's much more efficient to cultivate this intent, and find your own truth. See existence as you experience it now, do not rely on faith.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[forestofclarity]

Grindles,

 

You might find this interesting reading:

Small Boat, Great Mountain

[squib]

Very interesting and useful experience, no doubt, I am not a Buddhist, so my reply is that of one looking from the outside, I have only a shallow knowledge of Theravada and Dzogchen, but "dilemmas" in general, I know more about.

 

What would an(apparent) Arahant say about a (apparent)Dzogchen Master? Would he/she say their Realization is the same? Would they even know ? Would a Thai Buddhist know what Dzogchen teaches, or Realizes (real question)?

 

You would hope the ultimate Realization of all Buddhist practice is the same, right? Otherwise Buddhism would be a patchwork of different realizations and levels of Realisation (which it may well be, in common with other religions, perhaps)held together by Tradition and culture.

 

My personal opinion is that this is more correct. Some things are held in common, to make it "Buddhism" but the difference between say the Mahayana Way, Zen and Theravada and there various Realizations, do not "seem" to amount to any cohesion in actual Realization.

 

Some may argue the true difference is in the description, language, local culture, local emphasis or emphasis taught by a specific sect or culture.

 

One thing I do think is correct is that Theravada is closest to the original teaching, and debate over Bodhisattva v present Realisation is no concern.

[Grindles Grindis]

Grindles,

 

You might find this interesting reading:

Small Boat, Great Mountain

 

Much obliged!