The answer lies in the India/Nepal/Tibet Himalaya Regions afterall.. and definitely NOT in china/taiwan..

[ralis]

Dzogchen just means primordial awareness. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche still teaches Vajrayana/Dzogchen according to the Nyingmapa lineage. He has said, "I am a Buddhist and I teach Buddhism."

 

Norbu merely reflected all your ideas about everything, as everything is a mirror, the poor guy is innocent of your projections. Just as I am free and not confined by your projections. I doubt you read any of his books, really listened to any of his talks, I doubt you have even experienced Rigpa. Not that you don't have it, but that you didn't recognize it. Your understanding is far too lacking.

 

Why do you feel the need to put me down? As a matter of fact I have all his books and many unpublished works of his. I have read them all many times. Further, I never said anything about his taking on my projections.

 

What is the childish need to compete with me and my experiences with Norbu? What proof do you have that I am not in Rigpa at all times? Are you a mind reader?

[Vajrahridaya]

You used a perfect metaphor that illumined the foul nature of dogma. Of course you didn't consciously intend to cut the branch you sat on. But you cut it anyway because you are absentminded. You didn't reflect on the metaphor you used.

 

Ok, now your reverting to your prideful self arrogance again. The point was that if you let the horse see the peripheral of a track, with all the people cheering and hollering, all those distractions, the horse would run off, and hurt himself. Just like some people, they have to be focused, though humans are different, you don't blind them, you just give them some helpful concepts saying that this is what your loving lord god commanded, that you love god, love your neighbor, do not murder, do not covet things others have out of jealousy, etc. Do you even know what the Commandments are talking about? They are basically good. They have nothing to do with this whole extreme view you are coming up with, saying... "oh they are the cause of wars." That's just so uninsightful. It's like you didn't read a single thing I said, you just stick to your narrow minded interpretation and say I'm narrow minded. Your making an entirely different metaphor, you aren't using my metaphor, you are making one up yourself. Your very dogmatic and you can't even see it. I'm not dogmatic, so I can see dogmas from a non-dogmatic, non-restricted point of view that sees relativity. I can see their use as tools and not be caught up in them. You can't. You are caught up in them, otherwise you wouldn't be so effected by them, much like ralis is. You would just see that in general people are filled with a sense of lack and craving and use whatever excuse they can to justify it whims. Africans used their tribal gods, or just didn't even use that, just did what they did. Chinese justified their actions of war through other excuses, on and on... it has nothing to do with the commandments, nothing at all. It has to do with something far deeper, peoples sense of lack, and incompleteness.

 

You have extreme views.

 

The difference between voluntary training precepts aimed specifically and narrowly at Buddha's students, and compulsory commandments aimed at the whole of humanity is one staggering difference.

 

I can agree with this. But the Buddha was speaking in a particular time and place. I mean, there is a reason why he is the Muni of the first turning of the wheel of Buddhism. There is a reason why he took birth where he took birth. The people in the bible weren't Buddhas, they were caught up in the power hungry gods. I think the old testament is not even about one god, even though the gods keep saying, I am the one and only god, I think it was different gods communing with different people in the bible. People are just confused because they didn't have access to the Buddhadharma. It's just karma.

 

Then again, there were always the mystics, but even some of them were just caught up in powerful god realms, loving gods, high gods, but not Buddhas.

[goldisheavy]

Norbu merely reflected all your ideas about everything, as everything is a mirror, the poor guy is innocent of your projections.

 

So does Norbu do this mirror thing only with ralis or does he do it with everyone?

 

Just as I am free and not confined by your projections. I doubt you read any of his books, really listened to any of his talks, I doubt you have even experienced Rigpa. Not that you don't have it, but that you didn't recognize it. Your understanding is far too lacking.

 

So everyone who recognizes rigpa talks the same way? What did ralis say that gave him away?

[Vajrahridaya]

So does Norbu do this mirror thing only with ralis or does he do it with everyone?

 

The whole world is a mirror. Your personal world is your mirror just as much as mine is mine, our mirrors interact, some mirrors are clean and others are dirty to whatever degree. Norbu's is clean to whatever degree, so he has clarity. I don't feel that ralis does have clarity.

 

So everyone who recognizes rigpa talks the same way? What did ralis say that gave him away?

 

Nope, of course not, that would be an extreme view. Everything he has ever said gives him away.

[goldisheavy]

Ok, now your reverting to your prideful self arrogance again. The point was that if you let the horse see the peripheral of a track, with all the people cheering and hollering, all those distractions, the horse would run off, and hurt himself.

 

Who built the horse track? Who is exploiting the horse for profit? Will the horse hurt itself or will it just hurt those who exploit it for fun and for profit? Will the horse get hurt in the field, in its natural conditions?

 

So people created unnatural conditions for the horse. They lured the horse into those conditions for the purpose of exploiting it. Then they had to put the blinders on it in order for exploitation to proceed smoothly without scaring away paying customers, and yet you have the gall to say that this is all done for the benefit of the horse?

 

I can agree with this. But the Buddha was speaking in a particular time and place. I mean, there is a reason why he is the Muni of the first turning of the wheel of Buddhism. There is a reason why he took birth where he took birth. The people in the bible weren't Buddhas, they were caught up in the power hungry gods.

 

Yes, and there is a reason I appear now as I do, and I say, enough of this.

[goldisheavy]

Nope, of course not, that would be an extreme view. Everything he has ever said gives him away.

 

Everything? Shame on you.

[ralis]

The whole world is a mirror. Your personal world is your mirror just as much as mine is mine, our mirrors interact, some mirrors are clean and others are dirty to whatever degree. Norbu's is clean to whatever degree, so he has clarity. I don't feel that ralis does have clarity.

 

 

 

Nope, of course not, that would be an extreme view. Everything he has ever said gives him away.

 

I am not some puppet that parrots the Dzogchen party line or any other line of thought, which is the whole point of freedom, Rigpa or whatever. Terms are irrelevant and just create more authoritarian group dynamics.

 

For example, several years ago when Norbu was in Santa Fe, one woman wanted to burn some heavy duty incense. Several asked her not to given the fact there were people in the audience that are allergic to incense. The woman insisted that Norbu requires incense to be burned! That was outrageous behavior on her part and Norbu never proclaimed an incense commandment. If he is not attached, he could care less!

 

What I witnessed around Norbu were needy students clamoring for his attention and desperately wanting to please him in some way. It was disgusting! I am referring to adults that should know better.

 

Exactly, what is "clarity talk" and how does a low life with no capacity such as myself achieve such esteem?

Edited June 2, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Who built the horse track? Who is exploiting the horse for profit? Will the horse hurt itself or will it just hurt those who exploit it for fun and for profit? Will the horse get hurt in the field, in its natural conditions?

 

It was a metaphor silly. Yup, over critical. Missing the point.

 

So people created unnatural conditions for the horse. They lured the horse into those conditions for the purpose of exploiting it. Then they had to put the blinders on it in order for exploitation to proceed smoothly without scaring away paying customers, and yet you have the gall to say that this is all done for the benefit of the horse?

 

Stop horsing around.

I'll use another metaphor next time. You won't get the point I'm trying to make because you don't want to, so there's no use.

 

Yes, and there is a reason I appear now as I do, and I say, enough of this.

 

Generally people who have no lineage, are full of themselves because they have only themselves to rely on and they have no one of quality to bounce their theories off of. When there are genuine masters out there, it's egotistical to not want to be around them, that's my opinion. Even in Vajrayana, Masters enjoy the company of other Masters.

[Vajrahridaya]

Everything? Shame on you.

 

I meant everything he's said to me silly. If you look at the history it's all disparaging remarks. Insulting my writing, insulting Buddhism. Anyway... whatever... you guys might come from the same sandbox, I don't know?

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly, what is "clarity talk" and how does a low life with no capacity such as myself achieve such esteem?

 

Follow the online transmissions from a real Master, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche for instance. Read his texts, do the practices he transmitted to you. Since you said you qualify for the higher teachings, get the books related to those teachings and really read those teachings and practice them. You get it some day, it's inevitable.

 

Of course if you go around, still thinking you've got it already anyway, like you think right now, that you are so great you transcend Buddhism, like you said earlier in this thread, then you won't get it. You'll stay unevolved and erroneously proud of it.

[goldisheavy]

Generally people who have no lineage, are full of themselves because they have only themselves to rely on and they have no one of quality to bounce their theories off of. When there are genuine masters out there, it's egotistical to not want to be around them, that's my opinion. Even in Vajrayana, Masters enjoy the company of other Masters.

 

What do you mean by "full of themselves"? It sounds negative, but what do you actually object to, specifically?

 

Also, I am fully aware of how convention functions, you didn't have to describe it for me. Building consensus is essential for convention to function.

[goldisheavy]

I meant everything he's said to me silly. If you look at the history it's all disparaging remarks. Insulting my writing, insulting Buddhism. Anyway... whatever... you guys might come from the same sandbox, I don't know?

 

Did ralis insult your writing or criticize it? Did he insult Buddhism or criticize it? Also, do you know any Dzogchen tantras that criticize Buddhism?

 

ralis says a lot of things. If you say everything he says is indicative of rigpa non-recognition, that can only mean one thing -- you don't recognize your own rigpa. That's the conclusion I seem to be arriving at. Help me out. To come up with criticism so vague and so unspecific as to be critical of "everything" someone says, it's just beyond absurd.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[ralis]

Also, do you know any Dzogchen tantras that criticize Buddhism?

 

 

 

It is interesting that you mention this. Norbu on many occasions has criticized restrictive teachings that are designed to enslave and limit.

[Vajrahridaya]

Also, do you know any Dzogchen tantras that criticize Buddhism?

 

They criticize the precepts of lower yanas.

Dzogchen does not criticize Buddhism.

[Vajrahridaya]

It is interesting that you mention this. Norbu on many occasions has criticized restrictive teachings that are designed to enslave and limit.

 

That's your interpretation of what he said, he never said enslave. Children need limitations just as spiritual children need limitations and precepts.

 

Dzogchen is considered the highest yana, it's not for everyone, as exemplified by you and GIH. It's become this absolutist ideal where all others are absolutely wrong, they are only relatively wrong, it all depends upon the individuals. What you guys seem to see Dzogchen as is a kind of Subjective Monist Idealism.

 

Also, I hear your over critical self all the time ralis. I know why you don't follow the practices or teachings, because you think you are so great and so smart. You think oh, "Look at all these other stupid people, clamoring for love from the Rinpoche, I can see it on his face, he's disgusted, just like me, I'm so great, because we shook hands, like regular people, look at all these dim wits."

 

It's all your mirror ralis.

[goldisheavy]

It is interesting that you mention this. Norbu on many occasions has criticized restrictive teachings that are designed to enslave and limit.

 

That's not surprising considering Dzogchen cannon has tantras that flat out trash (I mean politely criticize) everything there is in Buddhism. I have one such tantra at my home.

 

What's also funny is that Norbu spends so much time in the beginning of some of his Dzogchen books by establishing the legitimacy of Dzogchen as a continuation of Buddhist lineage. It's all very clever and hilarious at the same time. Dzogchen people can use the legitimacy that the Buddhism brings, but at the same time, they have little use for all the limitations and deviations that Buddhism also brings. And frankly, I completely understand them.

 

This similar dynamic exists in other traditions as well.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

They criticize the precepts of lower yanas.

Dzogchen does not criticize Buddhism.

 

They criticize everything that's not Dzogchen, actually. This includes all of Buddhism and all of Tibetan tantrism as well. Those Dzogchen guys are real critical thinkers.

[Vajrahridaya]

They criticize everything that's not Dzogchen, actually. This includes all of Buddhism and all of Tibetan tantrism as well. Those Dzogchen guys are real critical thinkers.

 

Just as Vajrayana criticizes Mahayana view, and Mahayana criticizes Hinayana view. This is a relative thing, it's not so black and white as you are making it out to be. If you were a genuine scholar of Dzogchen you would understand more, like Lappon Namdrol for instance who reads the original Tibetan. Also, if you read Rinpoches Precious Vase you'll get a better idea of the intention for this. It's all a progression of evolution, even though each yana is based upon that of the previous, it transcends the view of it, and thus criticizes it as limited in scope. As you get higher up the mountain the view is wider.

[goldisheavy]

Just as Vajrayana criticizes Mahayana view, and Mahayana criticizes Hinayana view. This is a relative thing, it's not so black and white as you are making it out to be.

 

It's not all black or white. The point is that Dzogchen people had the maturity to criticize their pet favorite doctrine, unlike some people I know of. I think if asked, Dzogchen people (I mean the real ones, Vajra, not you) will have no problem criticizing even any Dzogchen text, and do so legitimately, cogently, intelligently and eloquently. Why is that? They are not really dogmatic. They don't subscribe to any -ism. They aren't groupies. They aren't dittoheads. They are dragons who freely roam beyond the four horizons.

 

If you were a genuine scholar of Dzogchen you would understand more, like Lappon Namdrol for instance who reads the original Tibetan.

 

Why don't you invite Namdrol here and see what he says about all this.

[C T]

They criticize everything that's not Dzogchen, actually. This includes all of Buddhism and all of Tibetan tantrism as well. Those Dzogchen guys are real critical thinkers.

This observation is totally out of character, Gold. It does not appear to have come from a level-headed platform, and i have almost always regarded you as one of the most level-headed member here. (what's another better term for level-headed btw?)

 

I just hope you are not being spiteful. I do not believe Dzogchen teachers criticize everything that is not dzogchen. This does not make much sense, because it counters the very meaning of the term, which is, 'everything is already perfected from the beginning', or to be more accurate, Dzog means 'the perfected state' and Chen means 'total'.

 

Its probably silly of me to even bring this up because i am almost certain this is old knowledge for you, which explains the slight astonishment.

[Vajrahridaya]

Why don't you invite Namdrol here and see what he says about all this.

 

I know him offline, he's one of my teachers. I have nothing to prove to you, as obviously this is just one of your ways of showing personal superiority. There is no use having this discussion with you.

 

I listen to and read from real Masters, not self proclaimed messiahs like yourself.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

This observation is totally out of character, Gold. It does not appear to have come from a level-headed platform, and i have almost always regarded you as one of the most level-headed member here. (what's another better term for level-headed btw?)

 

Bull-headed.

 

I just hope you are not being spiteful. I do not believe Dzogchen teachers criticize everything that is not dzogchen.

 

No, that would give too much credit to the teachers. It's only one tantra and possibly a few more.

 

This does not make much sense, because it counters the very meaning of the term, which is, 'everything is already perfected from the beginning', or to be more accurate, Dzog means 'the perfected state' and Chen means 'total'.

 

No, it makes perfect sense because all Buddhist teachings represent some kind of striving based on hope and fear. Without exception. This includes all Tibetan Buddhist tantrism possibly including, and possibly excluding ati yoga.

[goldisheavy]

I know him offline, he's one of my teachers. I have nothing to prove to you, as obviously this is just one of your ways of showing personal superiority. There is no use having this discussion with you.

 

I listen to and read from real Masters, not self proclaimed messiahs like yourself.

 

Don't go crazy man. I know Namdrol too. I just thought it would be interesting to hear what he'd say. You're reading too much into it. I consider Namdrol to be pretty sharp, but also somewhat dogmatic and unbending, by the way. I honestly don't know what he'd say, but I don't think he'd be in full support of what you're saying here if he read the argument we are having from the beginning (not the beginning of the thread, just the beginning of you arguing pro-dogma).

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

(not the beginning of the thread, just the beginning of you arguing pro-dogma).

 

You didn't get my points. I'm not dogmatic, I see relativity, thus I don't see dogmas as dogmas, as that arises in the mind of an individual who has rigid complex's, as it seems to me that you do. I can see their usefulness for certain people at certain times. I can see their relative application without thinking in absolutist good or bad terms. I can see that maybe the world as a whole is growing out of these childish tools, but I can also see that there are plenty that still need these rules, like a kid needs a play pen with imposed limitations so that no harm comes to the baby. Much like I can't let my cat out of the house because dog's out there in this neighborhood kill roaming cats, as just happened to my friends cat a month ago. I agree that the commandments seem rigid, but they are not to blame for all the Chaos that Europeans have brought upon themselves. It has nothing to do with the Bible, it has to do with power and resources. Just like the US attacking the middle East, our government says to the people, it's for the sake of Democracy, but really it's for power and resources. It's the NATO versus the SCO, that's it. It has nothing to do with doctrine, just like the Tibetans killing off Mongolians had nothing to do with Vajrayana, these things are just used as an excuse.

 

How many times does this have to be said? This is why I feel it's pointless to have this discussion because none of my points of getting through to you. You are not even understanding the position you are arguing against because of a rigid viewpoint that you have.

 

Everything I have said is supported by Namdrol as he is my main Buddhist teacher, and honestly, I learned most all of my Buddhism from him. Dzogchen I learn from my Rinpoche.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

You didn't get my points. I'm not dogmatic, I see relativity, thus I don't see dogmas as dogmas, as that arises in the mind of an individual who has rigid complex's, as it seems to me that you do. I can see their usefulness for certain people at certain times. I can see their relative application without thinking in absolutist good or bad terms. I can see that maybe the world as a whole is growing out of these childish tools, but I can also see that there are plenty that still need these rules,

 

Just because someone is attached to something, doesn't mean it's always necessary.

 

like a kid needs a play pen with imposed limitations so that no harm comes to the baby. Much like I can't let my cat out of the house because dog's out there in this neighborhood kill roaming cats, as just happened to my friends cat a month ago. I agree that the commandments seem rigid, but they are not to blame for all the Chaos that Europeans have brought upon themselves. It has nothing to do with the Bible, it has to do with power and resources. Just like the US attacking the middle East, our government says to the people, it's for the sake of Democracy, but really it's for power and resources. It's the NATO versus the SCO, that's it. It has nothing to do with doctrine,

 

No, not nothing. Remember that all actions have their effects? Doctrines are bundled beliefs. Many beliefs that are bundled in many popular religious doctrines are extremely harmful. To the extent people take these doctrines seriously, and many do, harm results because no action is free of its effect.

 

So don't be saying that the doctrines are completely ineffectual.

 

just like the Tibetans killing off Mongolians had nothing to do with Vajrayana, these things are just used as an excuse.

 

How many times does this have to be said? This is why I feel it's pointless to have this discussion because none of my points of getting through to you. You are not even understanding the position you are arguing against because of a rigid viewpoint that you have.

 

Everything I have said is supported by Namdrol as he is my main Buddhist teacher, and honestly, I learned most all of my Buddhism from him. Dzogchen I learn from my Rinpoche.

 

Your view leads you to take a stance of political neutrality. You think that being politically neutral is a stance that's most in accord with having a nuanced view of reality.

 

We need to help the world to grow out of its religious and dogmatic shackles. This means sometimes we have to wait and sometimes we have to at least speak, if nothing else. To choose neutrality is the coward's choice. It's the choice of he who is afraid to die, afraid to suffer from rocking the boat, afraid to become unpopular, basically an egoist of the highest degree.

 

The middle way is to promote gradual consensual change. Not too fast, not too slow. Not too much and not too little. It means you shouldn't just sit there and watch people slaughter each other because they don't understand the harm that the dogmatic doctrines and dogmatic attitudes cause.

 

It's thanks to the cowardly people like you that the caste system, for example, has persisted to this day in India. "But it's their karma and they have to work it out maaaannn.... Everything is fine... I am so nuanced and so subtle maaaaannnn...."

 

Vajrahridaya, I am holding you personally responsible.

Edited June 2, 2011 by goldisheavy