Namdrol's Apology and some insight on rising above Sectarianism

[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

 

We should be circumspect about criticizing others since that creates enemies in a concrete sense. I guess a large part of my present point of view has a lot to do with the sectarian arguments I have taken part in here on this board and E-sangha. Really, I feel very sad about that. We were all trying to do our best on E-Sangha -- but I myself, and we together, admins and mods, made many mistakes.

 

I feel a little sad about what happened with Jax. Oh, I don't agree with his approach or much of what he says, and I find it sad that he has positioned himself as a master when there are more qualified masters one can follow; but I feel a little sad that I was so harsh with him. It was unnecessary and disrespectful -- so since you are reading this, "Sorry Jax, my bad". That action of mine turned a person into an enemy. This is my fault. The same is true of the rest of what I have to say.

 

I also feel sad about my strong criticism of the Aro folks and Kirkpatrick. Of course that came about because I am a student of Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje (whose memory is dear to me-- I was with him at the very end of his life -- he showed me personally how a real yogi faces death). But in the end, given all the evil that is in the world today, what they are doing is not really harmful at all on any level. Actually, Kirkpatrick has a beautiful farm and tries to help people in Pemakod, etc. So this is a good thing. Chogyam has a ranch near Kalispell Montana and likes to dress up like a 1880's cowboy. I am sure they have a lot of fun. To be honest, while we were all groaning, pissing and moaning about the Aro thing, they were largely ignoring us and having a blast, so who really lost in that exchange?

 

I do feel sad for having criticized Lama Tsongkhapa's point of view. This is the sectarian side of the Sakya school that I find distasteful. I also find it distasteful that we in the West just pick up and carry Tibetan polemics as if they are our own. This is a mistake.

 

I feel sad for having allowed Theravada people think that I feel their practice is inferior.

 

I am sorry about the whole Zen thing, the Jundo Cohen episode. I tried to handle that skillfully, but it was Indo-Tibetan sectarian bullshit on my part, even though my motive was to try and bring clarity about who was a monk and who was not.

 

I also feel sad about having indulged in Sakya polemics about Kagyu Mahāmudra.

 

There are probably many other things I should feel sad about in my online relations with others. But I can't remember everything I said. So, my blanket apology is-- If I said something upsetting to you that came from narrow-mindedness on my part, I am sorry". So I have made a lot of mistakes. I am sorry that I hurt anyone.

 

I do not believe that anyone who is attached to a sectarian outlook, whether towards Buddhists or towards non-Buddhists can really be a fully integrated person. I do not beleive that such a person, be they a student of Dzgchen or "master", has integrated the meaning of their primordial state completely.

 

All the conflicts in the world come about because of religion and ideology, whether political or economic. But Dzogchen is not based on ideology or belief, it is based on personal experience that is introduced by a master, someone who has integrated that knowledge into their life completely.

 

My personal goal in this life is to be as integrated as I can be. I have still have a lot of work to do on that score, but I am trying. That for me is the main point, in case anyone cares.

 

As far as the ecumenical thing goes -- I have come to the conclusion that Dzogchen is for all who are interested. Not a "Dzogchen without Buddhism" if you will. But I see no good reason why interested Hindus, Christians, Moslems, and so on cannot receive Dzogchen teachings and practice them. Dzogchen may have come from Buddhism, but as we see in Bon, Dzogchen is not just for Buddhists.

 

Dzogchen is for everyone who is interested to learn about it and then practice it. When someone comes to my teacher to learn Dzogchen, he never says "Now you must nominally become a Buddhist in order to study Dzogchen". He says "In order to study and learn about Dzogchen you must receive direct introduction", that is all.

 

The Buddha never said anywhere in the sutras "In order to study the Dharma, first you must take refuge". The whole refuge thing has been turned into a game of religious politics. When people took refuge in the Buddha they did so merely out of their gradtitude for teachings they received. You can read about this in many places in the Pali canon.

 

These days, refuge has been turned into a badge, a tool for conversion. It has been turned into a ritual. But how many people change their name into something nice like Kunga Namdrol, or Padma Tsering, etc., etc., without changing anything in their hearts? Refuge ceremonies have just become an empty baptisms that people think are hugely important but actually change nothing. It is the same with bodhisattva vow ceremonies and also empowerments.

 

But in Dzogchen there is nothing to convert or change or alter. Buddhahood is an innate attribute of all sentient beings, so what is the point of "becoming a Buddhist?"

 

People like to say "Did you go for refuge? What is your Dharma name?", "How long have you been a Buddhist?", "Who is your refuge teacher?" , "Did you take bodhisattva vows?", "Did you receive initiation?", etc. None of this is the principle of Dzogchen teachings as I understand it. None of these things taken in and of themselves are bad, BTW,there is nothing wrong with having gone for refuge to the Three Jewels, created bodhicitta, taken initiation and so on. But it is better to penetrate to the essence of these things rather than just leave them as empty forms, which sadly today they mostly have become.

 

But the principle of entering Dzogchen teachings is none of the above. The principle of entering Dzogchen teachings is solely direct introduction. And my teacher, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, will give that to anyone who is interested in receiving the teachings of Dzogchen regardless of their race, color, creed, gender or gender orientation.

 

The principle of practicing Dzogchen teachings, according to my teacher, is integrating with your primordial state through Ati Guru Yoga and deepening your knowledge of that state through various kinds of practices. Anyone who is interested can do this without having to consider themselves a "Buddhist".

 

As far as being open to non-Buddhist practices -- it is the case that people who belong to other religions might become interested in Dzogchen teachings. I see no reason at all why they should give up those practices merely becauase they are interested in Dzogchen teachings. Granted, it is impossible to reconcile sacrificing animals with Dzogchen teachings, but apart from that, I do not see the problem. If some Christian is practicing Ati Guru Yoga, then they are practicing Dzogchen whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not.

 

 

A Dzogchen pracitioner's fundamental responsibility is to understand their own condition. They may use any and all useful methods from the nine-yānas, or even non-Buddhist traditons like hatha yoga to better integrate with their own state. There is no limitation on what a Dzogchen pracititioner can practice. We can study the Yoga Sutras for example, since they are interesting and have valuable advice on meditation practice. There are no limitations apart from those we impose on ourselves and others. The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them.

 

Buddhism has become in many respects an ossified missionary religion primarily concerned with gaining converts and worshipping in nice houses. Now, don't get me wrong, I like nice houses, but it seems to me that by and large nice houses have become more important than the Dharma they are supposed to house. All that is Buddhist is not necessarily Dharma. All that is Dharma is not necessarily Buddhist.

 

Of course I am a Buddhist. But where I used to be a Buddhist before I was a Dzogchen practitioner, now it is other way around. This is not because of some intellectual trip. This is based on my practice of Buddhism and Dzogchen for 20+ years now.

 

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.

 

In the end it honestly does not matter much whether we put our faith in Jesus, Krishna or Buddha. There is no perfect faith that leads to liberation. The only thing that leads to liberation is knowledge of our true condition. When we know that state, we don't have need of faith since now we have certainty.

 

When we have overcome our own limitations regarding religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe, then we can work with any circumstances. If one is attached to some limitation, there is no way one can work well with circumstances. One can only work with circumstances by seeing what one's limitations are.

 

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe then we are more free. We are more free to celebrate life, sorrow at death, wonder at creation, we are more free to enjoy our lives and the lives of others.

 

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe we are more free to celebrate the threatening "other", to celebrate the beauty of human diversity and difference, which is the strength of our species.

 

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe we are more free to act wisely, to cherish this beautiful planet we live on and all the richness of life, the plants, the animals, the rocks, minerals, oceans, mountains, rivers, and lakes it offers us.

 

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our own state through personal experience the universe and all the beings in it are revealed as an astonishing panoply of spheres of light and color, sound, lights and rays that has no boundary nor center.

 

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our own state just as it is, we have no need to ensure any creed, no need to confirm any ideology, no need to control anyone or anything -- we can let the free be free as they have been all along whether they know it or not.

 

When we overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe thorugh direct and perfect knowledge of our own state, then, if we have the capacity, we can introduce others to their own state without regard to religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe.

 

If, for example, Dzogchen teachings are only for Buddhists, how can we ever hope to overcome our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe? How can enforcing limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe ever be useful in the project of overcoming our limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe?

 

We must not consider the Dzogchen teachings as belonging to any religion, ideology, nation, class, race or tribe. Instead, as practitioners of Dzogchen, we should endeavor to overcome our personal limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe through knowing our real state just as it is. When we know our own state just as it is, we can engage with people wherever they are without ourselves throwing up any barriers of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. So I suggest it is very important for Dzogchen practitioners, including myself, to overcome any limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. We already have the means to do this -- we simply need to will to do it. If we ground ourselves in the deep natural transformation that comes from recognizing and integrating with our primordial potentiality, then we can go beyond the limitations of religion, ideology, nation, class, race and tribe. By going beyond these limitations (as well as the limitations of conceptuality, imputation, paths, stages, realizations, attainments, buddhas and sentient beings) through recognizing our own innate state that is originally pure and naturally formed, we can move freely through the world and meet everyone and everthing from the authentic space of recognition of great original purity of all that is.

[AdamantineClearLight]

So Namdrol have you realized your real condition?

 

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.

 

Many forms of Hinduism would qualify as "Buddhism" under this definition of "nang pa" because certainly, Hindu yogins all turn "inwards" to observe their consciousness, just as Kongtrul says: "We look at the source of discontent by turning our attention on our consciousness." Under this definition Hindu religious tradition such as Yoga, Samkhya, Advaita, Trika, etc., as well as Bon, Sufism, Mystical Christianity, Taoism and neo-Confucism, and Modern Psychology in its various forms all qualify under the this definition.

 

However in reality, the term "nang pa" is a sectarian term which distinguishes insiders (Buddhists) from outsiders (Non-Buddhists,including Bonpos, depending on which Tibetan author one reads and depending on the century).

 

So in the end we are left with the fact that this language should be abandoned. Buddhists should not call themselves "insiders" in contradistinction to "outsiders" as if Non-buddhists are not concerned with the same issues as freedom from suffering and liberation from the kleshas through turning their attention within for they very clearly are.

 

In fact the terms "insider" and "outsider" are just native sectarian Tibetan terms that Buddhists in Tibet used to distinguish themselves from Bonpos, Muslims, Christians, Taoists, and so on.

 

Dharma is for anyone who interested without preconditions. Buddhism is a religion.

 

One does not need to be grounded in and conditoned by "conventional" Dharma in order for Dzogchen to be introduced to a student who is interested.

 

I personally ceased being very interested in the intellectual study of tenet systems many years ago when I understood from a work by Gorampa Sonam Senge's that they are unnecessary for Vajrayāna practitioners in general. Since that time I have been primarily interested in the Yogic side of Buddhism once I understood finally that correct view is based on the personal experience of the introduction and not on any intellectual analysis and subsequent meditation.

 

Now then, if it makes you happy to consider me a Buddhist, I am fine with that. I have nominally been a Buddhist since I was too ignorant to understand that that meant 16 or so. I also have those Dharma lineages which I treasure since all Dharma is important as it was taught to benefit people. But I once received Guru Yoga transmission from Tenzin Wangyal many years ago, so some people might consider me a Bonpo too. I very much would like to receive the transmission of Zhang Zhung Nyan rGyud from Loppon Tenzin Namdak -- and if I can do that, some Buddhists will consider me a tainted Bonpo, just as people have complained for years about Chogyal Namkhai Norbu -- accusing him of being a Bonpo. For several years, I have wanted to study Hatha Yoga and the Yoga Sutras with a qualified brahmin master I know about, a disciple of Krishnamacarya -- I have not been able to make time to do that -- but if I do, some of you will feel certain that I have broken my vows of refuge by studying with this brahmin master, learning how to chant the Yoga Sutras in proper Sanskrit cadences and so on.

 

So what am I? like all of you, I am a human being, I use speech and I am able to make distinctions -- this is the basic definition of a human being according to Tibetan Medicine. Second, I am a man -- I have that gender mark. So this is the first place where we differentiate human beings. Third, I am middle aged. The next way we distinguish people is on the basis of their age. Fourth, I am an Anglophone (obviously). Fifth I am a caucasian. Sixth, I am Dzogchen practitioner. Seventh, I am a doctor of Tibetan Medicine. That's it. That is all I need to be and all I want to be. And I have no choices about the first five items.

[AdamantineClearLight]

[AdamantineClearLight]

[Jetsun]

I don't think the realisation that getting involved in Tibetan sectarian politics and changing your name and all that stuff that people try to do to become more Buddhist is bullshit is particularly high realisation, the average guy at your local bar could tell you that.

[AdamantineClearLight]

Pero wrote:Malcolm, do you now believe that achieving Buddhahood is possible outside of Buddhism and Bon (including Dzogchen)?

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.

 

What does it matter if you believe in Para-atma? What does it matter if you believe in tathāgatagarbha which is described in so many tathāgatagarbha texts as a self (though, perish the thought, not the SAME self as advocated by the Hindus -- actually, if someone is reallty, really honest with themselvs , they will admit it is impossible to differentiate the sat cit ananda of the Hindus from the atman, sukha, nitya, śuddha of the uttaratantra)? The Dzogchen view is not a view, it is the experience of a moment of uncontrived awareness aka instant presence (an Indian moment i.e. roughly about 5 miliseconds) based on direct introduction.

[AdamantineClearLight]

xabir wrote:It is impossible to continue holding on to a view of self and at the same time be liberated.

 

It is impossible to hold onto a view of self or non-self and at the same time be liberated.

 

xabir wrote: But I do not see how a person can awaken and then still hold on to their old beliefs and views or their religions, since they would have seen through the views of their old religions. In other words they can be a non-Buddhist up to the point of their awakening.

 

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".

 

gregkavarnos wrote:Now (and here I refer back to the original post) it seems that to experience the state of Great Perfection one does not need the theoretical framework (method) of Buddhism (or Bon, or even Dzogchenism), the only thing that is needed is know the state (have it pointed out to you). I believe though that without Buddhadharma (and by this I mean a system of practice that is based on the Four Dharma Seals, something that Dzogchenism is also) one would have no opportunity to abide in the true nature of their mind.

 

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.

[AdamantineClearLight]

I think it is possible to teach Mahāmudra and Dzogchen without insisting on the label "Buddhist". In India, the siddhas taught Mahāmudra to Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. Naropa had many non-Buddhist students, actually, just as one example. Gorkshanatha is a mahasiddha who practiced both Vajrayāna Buddhism and Shaivism side by side. If you read his texts he moves from Shunyatā to Shiva in one breath.

 

Some people think that what I am saying amounts to pissing on Buddhism, but that would be a wrong perception. What I am saying is that there is no happiness in these labels "Buddhist", "Christian", "Muslim", "Hindu", "Jew" and so on-- none at all. We all have the same nature, the same primordial state. It is time we recognised that in each other and put an end to the pretense of otherness. According Dzogchen doctrine, all sentient beings will realize their primordial state. I can't say if this is really true, but I hope it is. A Christian might say "We and everything else were all created for His (i.e. God's) enjoyment." This is very similar to the Shaivaite idea of all phenomena being the lila of Shiva. This is very similar to the idea of all phenomena being the rol pa, display of bodhicitta,in Dzogchen and Virupa's statement in his Doha:

 

All sentient beings are emanations of mahāmudrā,

the essence of those emanations is the forever non-arising dharmadhātu,

also all characteristics of dualistic appearances, happiness, suffering and so on,

are the play of mahāmudrā, the original dharmatā.

 

But I think that in general Tibetan Lamas are terribly ignorant of the subtleties and profundity of non-Buddhist systems such as Advaita, Trika, Samkhya and so on. They generally only read about them to refute them, and badly at that.

 

Proclaiming that Nisgardatta must have been a Buddhist Tulku can be seen as a kind of narrowness. This is a kind of narrowmindedness we see all the time among Buddhists -- everything good and interesting that we like in other religious schools must somehow be the activity of Buddhist tulkus, as if nothing good can come about in the world if it is not tied to some explicitly Buddhist institution or belief.

 

If you are a Dzogchen practitioner who is a Christian, presumably it means you still participate in your denomination, sing hymns, etc., because these things for you are meaningful. Perhaps your family is Christian and it is important for them that you continue to participate in the Church. I honestly do not know how it works for these people. But since ChNN has any number of sincere students who are followers of his who nevertheless continue to participate in other faiths besides Buddhism, all I know is that it must be possible to integrate this with Dzogchen teachings since people seem to manage to do it.

 

I am not in a position to judge them -- merely note that they do not see a conflict. Perhaps they see God, as ChNN suggested, as meaning their primordial potentiality -- I have no idea.

 

So I prefer to remain open.

Edited July 13, 2012 by AdamantineClearLight

[AdamantineClearLight]

I don't think the realisation that getting involved in Tibetan sectarian politics and changing your name and all that stuff that people try to do to become more Buddhist is bullshit is particularly high realisation, the average guy at your local bar could tell you that.

 

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.

Edited July 13, 2012 by AdamantineClearLight

[dwai]

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".

 

This is a sign of "growing up"...it is bound to happen if we are honest in our spiritual practice...go beyond syntax.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Cool. Where's Vajrahridaya?

[Jetsun]

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.

 

I don't think you need superhuman intelligence to understand this thread, for this guy Namdrol these are profound realisations and hugely beneficial to him and others who decided he was an authority, so it is a good thing, but I would be surprised if much of the actual content of these revelations are particularly revelatory to a large proportion of the people who have an interest in spiritual areas; it tends to be only the extremists who say things like Buddhism is the only path to liberation and Tibetan Lamas are perfect.

 

But it is always refreshing and encouraging to see people have a change of mind and give up divisive views for a more healthy perspective on life, especially in such a public way, so thanks for retelling the story.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Jetsun

[eye_of_the_storm]

Thanks for this... very good read.

 

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA!

 

OM MANI PADME HUM!

[Simple_Jack]

 

This is a sign of "growing up"...it is bound to happen if we are honest in our spiritual practice...go beyond syntax.

So then, how come you think dependent origination is a fallacy?

[Marblehead]

This is a sign of "growing up"...it is bound to happen if we are honest in our spiritual practice...go beyond syntax.

 

So then, how come you think dependent origination is a fallacy?

 

This might become interesting. I'll watch (for now).

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is a sign of "growing up"...it is bound to happen if we are honest in our spiritual practice...go beyond syntax.

 

So then, how come you think dependent origination is a fallacy?

 

The absolutist stance that it is the only way to describe reality is the fallacy.

 

Dependent Origination/Emptiness is primarily emphasized in Mahayana. It is so that the relative view is seen through in order to attain the ultimate view.

 

The Vajryana and Dzogchen view stress the state of primordial purity in which emptiness (voice) is understood in unity with infinite potential for manifestation (body). Awareness of this and abiding in that state is rig pa (mind).

[dwai]

This is a sign of "growing up"...it is bound to happen if we are honest in our spiritual practice...go beyond syntax.

 

So then, how come you think dependent origination is a fallacy?

This might become interesting. I'll watch (for now).

DO is not fallacy...the "clinging" to DO is.DO is simply the understanding that all phenomena are dependently co-rising. The eternal/absolute consciousness is not a phenomenon and therefore is outside the machinations of DO...

The buddhists tried an elaborate mental circus of epic proportions to fit their misundersanding of anatta with the experiential reality that constantly bring us face to face with the eternal "Self"...

[Simple_Jack]

Dependent Origination/Emptiness is primarily emphasized in Mahayana. It is so that the relative view is seen through in order to attain the ultimate view.

 

The Vajryana and Dzogchen view stress the state of primordial purity in which emptiness (voice) is understood in unity with infinite potential for manifestation (body). Awareness of this and abiding in that state is rig pa (mind).

Hey:

 

Not to be condescending, but emptiness and D.O in the dzogchen view are ka dag and lhun grub. Malcolm describes on dharmawheel about these two aspects of the basis.

 

My link:

 

"Namdrol wrote: As I have stated elsewhere, Dzogchen cosmology is just a minor variation on the standard abhidharma cosmology. In Abhidharmakośa, at the end of the eon, all sentient beings are reborn in the two upper form realms, where their minds are in a state of dharmatā. After twenty anatarakalpas, intermediate eons, because of traces of latent afflictions, the air mandala forms and so on, resulting in a container universe which is repopulated by sentient beings who take birth in it from top to bottom.

 

In Dzogchen, at the end of the previous mahākalpa, all sentient beings attain "buddhahood" after taking birth in the Kalavinkaloka. Then after twenty thousand eons while samsara and nirvana does not appear (this is called the bardo (antara) of samsara and nirvana in dzogchen texts), because of the lingering traces of affliction and action left over from the last eon, the basis becomes stirred, the five lights shine out and there is a chance for recognition or non-recognition by the neutral awareness(es) that is/are obscured by the innate ignorance of mere non-recognition while the basis is in a latent state. Depending on the fact of recognition or non-recognition, there is Samantabhadra and sentient beings.

 

Thus, we understand that the basis has two phases, active and latent. During the bardo of samsara and nirvana, it is in a latent phase."

 

gad rgyangs wrote: sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava.

 

Malcolm: No, since it is originally pure.

 

gad rgyangs: if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case?

 

Malcolm: No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)] but it is also not conditioned by afflictions.

 

However, since it is naturally formed, it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc.

 

gad rgyangs: how is this reconcilable with the standard Dzogchen trope that Dzogchen follows the view of Pransangika Madhayamaka and the MMK?

 

Malcolm: The basis is original purity. The Unwritten Tantra states:

 

“There is no object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Prajñā does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.”

 

However, Prasaga is an intellectual view. Dzogchen is not and that is the main difference between the two.

 

gad rgyangs: so wisdom (ye shes) is prior to vidya (rig pa), and is actually a synonym for the basis?

 

Malcolm: Yes.

 

gad rgyangs: when ye shes takes an object it becomes rig pa (or rather ye shes stirs and becomes a duality of rigpa and object)? what then is "resting in rig pa", what is the object then?

 

Awarenesses [shes pa rnams] in the basis are neutral, meaning they are not afflicted, but they possess innate ignorance since they not know themselves. When there is a stirring in the basis and the light of wisdom shines out, then these awarenesses either recognize it, in which case their shes pa becomes a shes rab and they know [vidyā] the basis as their own state; or they reify appearance of the five lights as an object through the imputing ignorance and this sets into motion I-making, dependent origination and all the rest of it, and their shes pa becomes rnam shes.

 

BTW, the texts themselves do not speak of the shes pas in the plural. They just use the the term shes pa lung ma bstan.

 

Malcolm: BTW, it is not a creation story. The basis refers to a time between universes. Also, as I have mentioned before, if you are not practicing thögal, this explanation is not relevant to your practice. This explanation is directly tied to tögal teachings and provides the basis for understanding the Nyinthig model of liberation. It is actually not really good that there is so much out there about this "cosmology" since people misunderstand its intent badly.

 

N

 

Malcolm: Things dont rise from the basis. They arise from non-recognition of the basis, i.e. the parikalpita- avidyā.

 

gad rgyangs: what is it that fails to recognize the basis?

 

 

 

I have explained this now several ways. So, I'll try again: there are no sentient beings at the time of the latent basis, because all sentient beings, theoretically, acheived some kind of buddhahood in the last eon. The notion of the basis in Dzogchen man ngag sde is very similar to the Hindu idea of Pralaya. [in fact, in the term kun gzhi, ālaya, kun = ā, gzhi = laya. The term kun gzhi is distinguished from the term gzhi in Dzogchen, as you can easily find out, but the fact that gzhi is desceribed as the bardo of samara and nirvana is nothing if not telling. If someone is taking a text critical approach, they will note that there is a movement in Buddhist tantric texts in India in the late 9th through the 10th century in such texts as the Samputa tantra and the Kalacakra to borrow and repurpose some Samkhya concepts. Hence Dzogchen use of the term prakriti, etc.]

 

After the collapse of the previous universe, there are no buddhas and sentient beings -- and this is called the bardo of samsara and nirvana. Present in the latent basis however is a neutral awareness which does not know itself.

 

Because of traces of action and affliction remain from previous universe, the basis is stirred, lights shine out, and they are either recognized or not, resulting in samasara and nirvana.

This neutral awareness is what happens when someone acheives an incomplete full awakening, for example an arhat or some other form of lesser iberation that can "return to the cause". This is why Dzogchen makes such a big deal about Dzogchen Buddhahood being one that "does not return to the cause".

 

have sentient beings existed since beginningless time alongside the basis, but not arising from it?

 

The Dzogchen answer is no. Sentient beings newly arise at the end of each bardo of samsara and nirvana.

 

How do they arise? They arise when neutral awarenesss in the basis makes the error of not recognizing the display of the a basis as its own display. The imputing ignorance results in self and other, the ālaya forms, the twelve links start up, samsara and nirvana divide. Etc.

As I mentioned above, Dzoghchen texts do not distinguish whether this neutral awareness in the basis is multiple or singular.

 

So this question is left for us to solve on our own: either the neutral awareness of basis is multiple, not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons, but this explains how there are individual mind streams from the start; or it is singular (not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons), but gets warped by the presence of trace afflictions into individuated sentient beings; or is it neither singular or multiple (not entirely satisfying for a number of reasons) and gets warped by the presence of trace afflictions into individuated sentient beings. In the last two scenarios, the inability of awakened people to completely eradicate all traces of afflictions leaves traces of affliction left over, where they act as seeds for new sentient beings. There is a passage in the Gongpa Zangthal that describes wisdom as "the accumulator of traces".

 

do the basis and sentient beings have a common origin?

 

No, the basis is self-originated wisdom; sentient beings arise from the condition of ignorance. The cause of their arising is the non-recognition of wisdom. Hence the term "buddhahood that returns to the cause".

 

N

 

What is the meaning of "returning to the cause".

Means returning to the state of the basis -- the basis is called the basis because it has not been realized. When it is realized, the basis is called the result. If it is realized imperfectly, then that is called a result that returns to the cause; when it is realized perfectly, then it is called "the result that does not return to the cause".

 

Please bear in mind that these things are theoretical, and they have very little if nothing at all to do with dailhy practice.

 

Mr. G wrote:

Hi Namdrol,

 

Am I inferring correctly that dependent origination from a Dzogchen POV is illusory?

Dependent origination from the Buddha's point of view is illusory.

 

How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis does not accord with dependent origination?

Lhun grub.

 

How would a Dzogchenpa address the concern that the Basis has been reified?

Ka dag

 

Malcolm: The definition of lhun grub is "not made by anyone". Lhun drub is dependent origination free of afflictive patterning, thus it is pure process and transformation.

 

Mr.G: Thanks Namdrol. I found some other posts you made that really brought it together for me:

 

First, one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory, stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part, Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent phenomena at all.

 

Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK.

 

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

 

Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa).

 

N

 

[Also, as Malcolm says the two truths model are irrelevant from the dzogchen POV.]

 

My link

 

Malcolm: But the fact remains is that the two truths and the two stages are not the system of Dzogchen and are irrelevant in Dzogchen.

 

[Also I want to bring this up, because I think this still applies to what dzogchen teaches.]

 

My link:

 

heart wrote: So rigpa is dependent originated awareness?

 

Malcolm: Not from a Dzogchen pov.

 

heart: If Rigpa is not dependently originated then what is emptiness in Dzogchen (since emptiness then can't be equated with DO, right)?

 

Malcolm: Emptiness is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in Dzogchen. Not because Nāgārjuna is wrong.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

I think it's safe to say that ka dag in dzogchen encompasses the teachings of twofold selflessness (of persons and phenomena) of the prajnaparamita sutras, Nagarjuna, etc. Lhun grub in dzogchen would be spontaneous presence and the inseparability of these two being the energy/compassion of the basis or as Thusness/Passerby puts it: Spontaneous arising. Which in this case would be an interdependent process of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and thoughts as spontaneous perfection - arising without ignorance, in each passing moment.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[Marblehead]

 

DO is not fallacy...the "clinging" to DO is.

Totally agree. I still like 'cause and effect'.

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Simple Jack

 

I think you misunderstood my post. I said Dzogchen does not emphasize dependent origination. I guess it was a bit confusing since I wrote Emptiness/Dependent origination. Dependent origination as a teaching is primarily within the sutrayana traditions. There's no need in Dzogchen to say appearances are dependently originated or distinguish between afflicted dependent origination vs. non-afflicted dependent origination. In fact, it just adds unnecessary complication since one can use the understanding of dependent origination to come to the understanding of emptiness, but become entrapped in a limited view of causation, i.e. causation of the material world. So it's said in Mahayana that dependent origination and causation themselves are empty which can be needlessly confusing since logically it doesn't make sense.

 

In Dzogchen the terms used put it as just the non-duality of emptiness and infinite potential.

 

Btw, all that cosmology stuff is bullshit. It's just from a book. No one knows their reality.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Totally agree. I still like 'cause and effect'.

At the risk of sounding trite, i find the human propensity to over-complicate things incredible!

 

Read the exchange between the individuals in the simplejack long post...so many words to explain a simple concept.and such hoops jumped through to stand apart as unique!

 

DO is simply the concept and realization that every phenomenon (anything that has a beginning and an end) is dependent upon something else to rise...the other is usually consciousness.so the phenomena and the consciousness that interacts with and creates these phenomena are considered sva-bhava shunya or empty of self-nature. But then there is consciousness that is self-aware and stands in its own lightless light...it has no beginning or end...as time has no meaning for this consciousness...it thefore not devoid of self-nature and not dependently originated.

[Marblehead]

...it thefore not devoid of self-nature and not dependently originated.

You went further than I will ever go. Hehehe.

[thelerner]

At the risk of sounding trite, i find the human propensity to over-complicate things incredible!

 

Read the exchange between the individuals in the simplejack long post...so many words to explain a simple concept.and such hoops jumped through to stand apart as unique!

 

oh yeah.

[Simple_Jack]

@ Simple Jack

 

I think you misunderstood my post. I said Dzogchen does not emphasize dependent origination. I guess it was a bit confusing since I wrote Emptiness/Dependent origination. Dependent origination as a teaching is primarily within the sutrayana traditions. There's no need in Dzogchen to say appearances are dependently originated or distinguish between afflicted dependent origination vs. non-afflicted dependent origination. In fact, it just adds unnecessary complication since one can use the understanding of dependent origination to come to the understanding of emptiness, but become entrapped in a limited view of causation, i.e. causation of the material world. So it's said in Mahayana that dependent origination and causation themselves are empty which can be needlessly confusing since logically it doesn't make sense.

 

In Dzogchen the terms used put it as just the non-duality of emptiness and infinite potential.

 

Btw, all that cosmology stuff is bullshit. It's just from a book. No one knows their reality.

I agree somewhat with the main paragraph. All the different sub-sects with their shastras describing emptiness/D.O is convoluted. Is it necessary to study all those different sutras and shastras? Yes and no. For someone of superior capacity they could very well skip all that, just focusing on dzogchen and they will have no problems. Though for those of us that are of inferior and middling capacities: It really just isn't that easy to realize. That's why I think for those types, it's best to at least study the foundational teachings from Theravada Buddhism and then after a solid grounding to move onto at least the more well known Mahayana sutras and shastras (IMO, also studying the modern works from Advaita Vedanta to experientially understand the insight of the "I AM" phase and Brahman is something I also highly recommend.)

 

Btw, all that cosmology stuff is bullshit. It's just from a book. No one knows their reality.

Personally, I think the last part of that sentence is quite limiting. In any case, I posted it for the sake of learning. It doesn't hurt to understand the 'basis' (no pun intended, har) of the dzogchen teachings for better understanding of this system. No one has to take it at face value, you know?

[Simple_Jack]

...it thefore not devoid of self-nature and not dependently originated.

It is exactly this independent, absolute, unchanging, ultimate "self/Self" that the lower yanas of Buddhism, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen say is devoid of self-nature and is dependently originated. Shakyamuni Buddha calls this "the conceit of I AM," throughout the Theravada and Mahayana suttas/sutras.

 

Modern recognized masters of dzogchen (both living and recently deceased) such as Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Dudjom Rinpoche, Garchen Rinpoche; going down the line of lineage masters such as Ju Mipham, Longchenpa, to Padmasambhava: All of them refuted and rejected an independent, absolute, unchanging "self/Self" (or an "Awareness" as Ultimate Subject) of Hinduism.

 

Blehhhh, I've gotta run to go watch the new Spider Man movie; So all I'm gonna say is.....Those who are serious who study and apply the teachings of Longchenpa, Mipham, and the Dzogchen tantras, etc. Anyone that is sincere about fully lifting away the veils that obscure the nature of mind and who has a connection to the lineage of the dzogchen teachings: Will (eventually) fully recognize their own nature (no matter how long it takes them.) Luckily for those of lower capacity there is the Semde (Clarity/Mind,) and Longde (Emptiness/Space,) series of teachings. So, in a sense: I agree with Malcolm, that it is a system unto itself; so if the individual chooses to eschew the lower yanas, I think they wouldn't have to worry and in the end will be alright.

 

Take care of yourself Dwai!! I Love You Longtime!!