Dzogchen Teachings

[Mandrake]

It depends on the situation or context. In this case, how knowledgeable were your friends on the topic and how much experience do they have in completion stage practices?

 

What lineage do these lamas belong to and how knowledgeable were they? How much experience do they have in completion stage practices?

S_J:

Quite much. At least you seem to acknowledge now that lamas can have varying degrees of knowledge and experience. A three year retreat does not in any way imply that one emerges a saint.

 

 

All the best

Mandrake

[RongzomFan]

I read your reply, and I can't see how it answers what ralis pointed out.

 

 

We believe Dzogchen, and in general Buddhism, as special.

 

Not something to be dismissed as "any other teaching".

[RongzomFan]

I've always been able to acknowledge that there are varying degrees of knowledge and experience. I just would like you to elaborate as to why I should take you or your friends word of their experiences and/or knowledge.

 

I never implied that a 3 year retreat guarantees sainthood. Just that completion stage practices (i.e. 6 yogas of Naropa/Niguma) are engaged for a period of months in these retreat(s.)

 

Ignore the various straw man arguments.

[RongzomFan]

Simple_Jack:

 

May I pose a counterquestion: Do you recommend people to put their experience before idealized narratives of how things should be?

 

 

The whole point of Buddhism, from the Hinayana to the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, Madhyamaka etc. is to put a higher perspective before our own deluded experience.

[rex]

Rationalistic hubris is a significant challenge. Reason and logic are important but an unchecked, exalted rationalism which actively denigrates the very traditions that are the custodians, transmitters and source of this wisdom is corrosive.

 

Edit:tpyos

Edited March 19, 2013 by rex

[ralis]

Rationalistic hubris is a significant challenge. Reason and logic are important but an unchecked, exalted rationalism which actively denigrates the very traditions that are the custodians, transmitters and source of this wisdom is corrosive.

 

Edit:tpyos

 

Rationalistic hubris? Addressed to whom? It seems to me that the apologists here are positing absolute constructs or points of view, that if challenged by so called rational arguments, such challenges are viewed as heretical.

 

As I have stated on many occasions, semantic constructs that are based on rigid divisions of either/or, yes/no etc. divide and leave no alternative which creates two divisions of thought. Instead of choosing rational as opposed to subjective, which this argument of Dzogchen/Buddhism bases on, I propose being both rational and subjective at once thereby giving one many options. Being inclusive seems to me what Dzogchen teaches as opposed to divisiveness.

 

The Wiki article explaining a brief of overview of E-Prime is meant as an intro. to different ways of communicating.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

Edited March 19, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

The function of Dzogchen and Buddhism in general, is not an either/or affair nor is it about inclusiveness or exclusiveness (or both and/or neither,) but is about the ending of all views and proliferations.

 

Have you seriously failed to grasp that after all these years?

 

EDIT: I'm not necessarily justifying the current institution that is Tibetan Buddhism by the way. Let's face it though: Arguing about what we don't like or what we do or don't agree with in Tibetan Buddhism isn't going to change anything.

 

 

The ending of all views etc. may be the basic view of Dzogchen/Buddhism. However, the language constructs are divisive. If you examine the semantic constructs of how you frame this debate, then you may see the divisiveness of what you are presenting. Your post above extensively uses 'isness' as a way to frame the debate. Isness=absolute.

 

I suppose you didn't bother to read the E-Prime article. I rarely use 'is' in my posts. Usually when I am sloppy.

[ralis]

If all so called views are eliminated then how does one function?

Edited March 20, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

I'm not necessarily justifying the current institution that is Tibetan Buddhism by the way. Let's face it though: Arguing about what we don't like or what we do or don't agree with in Tibetan Buddhism isn't going to change anything.

 

Whats wrong with "the current institution that is Tibetan Buddhism"?

 

I am assuming you are speaking metaphorically, since there is no monolithic institution of Tibetan Buddhism.

 

The function of Dzogchen and Buddhism in general, is....

 

I would say the function is to eliminate delusion.

Edited March 20, 2013 by alwayson

[themiddleway]

There have been quite some strange offshoots in this thread. Somebody brough in communism, somebody chinese invasion of Tibet, exoneration of the old hierarchy since it succesfully preserved teachings (which the old catholic monasticism also did in a degree), others spoke about the value of gurus etc.

Are people so fainthearted that they confuse criticism with downright dismissal of the imperfect concepts? I think this does major damage in the long run since the people who are capable of finding solutions will cloak the pressing spiritual issues relevant to this point in time.

 

Nobody denies that we need realized people, high in virtue and with eminent pedagogical skills. Nobody denies that we need some kind of social institutions and framework for passing on both the skills and theories of cultivation as intact as possible. Nobody thinks that Tibet should be invaded etc. However, there should not be a naive reading and adaption of cultural ethos and behaviour, adopting an expression that was never natural for our own culture, and dismissing the sophistication and accomplishments of our own philosophies.

 

 

Mandrake

 

 

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.

[themiddleway]

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.

[themiddleway]

To treat Dzogchen or any other teaching as an absolute understanding of the cosmos is problematic.

 

 

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

[C T]

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.

If people were not so hung up on what they perceive to be lacking in Western culture, there would be no need for tertiary practices, let alone those which are felt to bring about mind/energy transformation. Maybe saying its needless sounds extreme... at least, the needs would not be deemed that immediate, following which, by relaxing one's gaze or view actually improves one's openness to see more.

[RongzomFan]

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.

 

 

Are they saying that a guru is not necessary in Vajrayana? Because that would make no sense.

 

You are free to take out the central component of Jesus out of evangelical Christianity, but then its not evangelical Christianity by definition.

[RongzomFan]

Rationalistic hubris is a significant challenge. Reason and logic are important but an unchecked, exalted rationalism which actively denigrates the very traditions that are the custodians, transmitters and source of this wisdom is corrosive.

 

Edit:tpyos

 

[RongzomFan]

I'm grouping each lineage under the umbrella term of 'institution of Tibetan Buddhism.' What I think is wrong with Tibetan Buddhism has already been covered by Malcolm over on DW. The short version of it is that I think that the lineages are decaying from the inside out and will continue to deteriorate as prophesied by Padmasambhava.

 

This is news to me. And where does Malcolm say this?

Edited March 20, 2013 by alwayson

[Simple_Jack]

This is news to me. And where does Malcolm say this?

It's one of the threads where he stated how he changed his views of "being a die-hard Buddhist," to just a Dzogchen practitioner. Not "Dzogchen and Buddhism," but another thread. It was in one of those long threads a few months before he left DW.

 

You might be able to find it in one of the threads on here; I might've linked it.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Depends how you want to look at this. For buddha's apparently, since all [karmic] traces for [sense] consciousness and the object of [sense] consciousness no longer exist, completely functioning from wisdom, they totally operate non-conceptually and spontaneously. This is impossible for people like us to imagine.

 

 

Does this functioning include computer programming, solving environmental problems, justice and so forth? Solving hunger and poverty? Just to name a few mundane activities.

Edited March 20, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

It's one of the threads where he stated how he changed his views of "being a die-hard Buddhist," to just a Dzogchen practitioner. Not "Dzogchen and Buddhism," but another thread. It was in one of those long threads a few months before he left DW.

 

 

Lineages do die out, especially because of the Chinese invasion.

 

Thats why Dilgo Khyentse tried to save them as much as possible.

 

There are some other lamas doing the same thing right now by travelling to Tibet.

[ralis]

Dude, I don't know. I'm not a buddha. This is pretty unfathomable to even be able to conceive. It doesn't make any rational sense, which is why it seems impossible.

 

All types of shit is claimed to be possible with buddhahood. For instance, it's stated in Yogacara that since buddhas are free from the karmic imprints of the alaya: They are able to switch the functioning of the sense consciousnesses (i.e. being able to smell with the sight consciousness, being able to see with the olifactory consciousness, etc.)

 

 

I must be a Buddha given I can feel space kinesthetically and visually. Also visually feel objects.

[asunthatneversets]

Jax is introducing rigpa in this thread. Yes, it is non verbal.

 

Jax isn't introducing rigpa, what Jax is describing is merely neutral undifferentiated cognizance.

[asunthatneversets]

Malcolm is wrong here. Everything does not arise from Ignorance. The Base as Zhi is Kadag, the display is always pure. But a consciousness arises that doesn't recognise the source of the arisings nor of itself, It then begins grasping and samsara develops. The ignorance is not in the Base, its a later stage. All arising are Kadag or pure in every case.

 

 

Malcolm is not wrong, all conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance. Arisings in any sense of the word are defiled. I like how Jax is trying to reconcile his view and sound like Malcolm now though.

[ralis]

Jax isn't introducing rigpa, what Jax is describing is merely neutral undifferentiated cognizance.

 

So you have posted a few times and are using terms as taught to you as opposed to actually defining what you mean. Why not describe how you live in a state of awareness if you can.

Edited March 20, 2013 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

 

So you have posted a few times and are using terms as taught to you as opposed to actually defining what you mean. Why not describe how you live in a state of awareness if you can.

I'm not sure what you mean by using terms as taught to me. Being that we're discussing ideas on a web forum and have to use language to communicate, we're all using terms as taught to us. If you'd like to specify what doesn't make sense I'll gladly elaborate, but the terminology I used seems fairly straight forward and defines what I mean pretty effectively.

 

Doesn't everyone live in a state of awareness? Being that we are alive, I feel being aware is naturally implied, no?

[C T]

I'm not sure what you mean by using terms as taught to me. Being that we're discussing ideas on a web forum and have to use language to communicate, we're all using terms as taught to us. If you'd like to specify what doesn't make sense I'll gladly elaborate, but the terminology I used seems fairly straight forward and defines what I mean pretty effectively.

 

Doesn't everyone live in a state of awareness? Being that we are alive, I feel being aware is naturally implied, no?

Does everyone live in a state of awareness? I suppose on some level this is true, but i am also supposing that not everyone knows this due to obscurations. As a result, i would assume that being aware is not naturally implied.

 

So, taking it upon myself to rephrase Ralis' question, to what level would you say that your obscurations have been removed to a point where you can confidently say the removal should be almost permanent? And, what would be some examples of these obscurations that you have managed to cut, and by what methods employed?

 

Thank you for the answers which i feel would be very helpful to students wanting to expand the scope of their investigation into Dzogpachenpo.