Bernadette Roberts: Christian Contemplative View On Buddhism

[Simple_Jack]

@ Apech

 

Dzogchen, including Bon Dzogchen, is essentially a Mahayana path, because the result of the path is buddhahood. As asunthatneversets shown above, particularly the latter two of bodhicitta and dedication of merit, are defining features of the Mahayana path.

[Simple_Jack]

I believe its the apotheosis of all vehicles. There is the myth of Atiyoga been taught in other world systems and the lineage founder himself is mythic but these things are outside my concern and understanding.

 

I would defer to the knowledge of Malcolm a translator of Dzogchen tantras http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8565&start=0

Thank you for the excellent description. To often Dzogchen is implied as Buddhist and often taught that way. Many traditions, have such a "primordial" approach.

 

During that period when Malcolm was circumventing 'Institutionalized Buddhism' he also said this in another thread:

 

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8318&hilit=smarty

 

"This is a very good question. I have been moving slowly toward the pov of view that for most people studying these lower yānas is a complete waste of time. Oh, it can be useful to study a bit of Abhidharma because it helps contextualize mandala practice, and Madhyamaka does help cut through intellectual proliferation, properly studied and absorbed. Studying a bit of Madhyamaka helps one avoid the pitfall of crypto-advaita.

 

Also places where Dzogchen differs from sutra and tantra will not be readily understood if one does not have at least some superficial familiarity with them.

 

You don't really need to study all this sutra stuff to understand Dzogchen, and as far as Tantra goes, anuyoga is sufficient. On the other hand, also a practitioner needs to understand that nothing really limits their practice to so called "Dzogchen practice" -- anything at all whether from Buddhist or non-Buddhist sources like Yoga, etc., can be incorporated into a Dzogchen practitioner's life. One can even participate in a non-Buddhist religion, if for some reason that is necessary.

 

I personally think one will understand Dzogchen much better if one is grounded in sutra and tantra, but no, it is not completely necessary to learn these things. Understanding the five elements, three gates, emptiness, and bodhicitta are about all one needs at bare minimum. That, and a realized Guru -- and those are in rather short supply.

...

 

 

Some people who've read these posts ran with it, using his posts as a banner for the emancipation of Dzogchen from the confines of 'Institutional Buddhism', but people sometimes forget that Malcolm's views may not be as black and white as some of his posts present it to be. From some recent posts of his:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/page-24

 

Malcolm wrote:

I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

 

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.

 

Malcolm wrote:

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...15425&start=600

 

They are the same thing.

 

And no, I was slightly mistaken before.

 

The reason people see the five lights everywhere they look is that they no longer have traces to reify the five elements as the five elements because their consciousness has become free of all traces of the two obscurations, i.e. with those removed, what remains is wisdom.

 

Of course, there is nothing substantial that is ever removed, from such a mind.

 

Then we gave this from the Rig pa rang shar:

 

Son of a good family, one must recognize the awareness [shes pa] free from grasping as one’s own state.

 

Or the Rang grol:

 

A vidyā that performs actions does not exist

in the essence of pure awareness.

 

Or the Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra has an interlinear note:

 

The nature of one’s vidyā is light. Since kāyas are the gathered in the sphere of wisdom, the meaning of the view of Samantabhadra is realized. Further, there is vidyā and the wisdom that arises from vidyā. Further, vidyā that is free from extremes and beyond multiplicity does not transcend awareness (shes pa) and knowing (rig), endowed with a core of empty wisdom free from the extremes of things.

 

The Sun and Moon Tantra states:

 

At that time, that fortunate one

when the appearances are self-evident,

the non-abiding awareness is called “natural”.

 

Anyway, there are too many references in various Dzogchen texts which state quite clearly that the basis is just one's mind. This is consistent with Buddhadharma. Other explanations are not.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...15425&start=620

 

The basis is not the five lights. The five lights are expressions of wisdom.

 

Those all just exist in one's mind, as Shabkar points out.

 

The basis is not something separate from you the person, and it is not some uniform transpersonal field. It is just your own mind and it's essence.

 

By the way, I never thought the basis was a transpersonal field. But have become aware that many people interpret it as such, and therefore, I'm writing to correct this misapprehension.

 

In other words, Dzogchen teachings about the basis are actually "disappointingly" Buddhist and not so radical after all.

 

Of course, Dzogchen is its own yana, with its own set of tantras, its own methods, and a mythology that is not dependent on the historical Buddha as the progenitor of these teachings. So I agree, that it's not necessary to study the lower yanas or for that matter to engage in the methodical application of the lower yanas preliminaries (ngondro), 2-stages, etc. Dzogchen, on its own, is sufficient for progress.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

 

[Apech]

@gatito

 

...no idea why you have posted two videos in the middle of this discussion ... what were you trying to say?

 

 

@ simple jack

 

I know I am probably confused and senile or something but I find it distracting to try to read long block quotes from another conversation ... is there any chance you could extract the message and just tell us what you want to say?

 

Sorry to be grumpy.

 

 

I am beginning to feel relief that I practice a different tradition to Dzogchen as I feel it's message is confused. Its quite clear to me that the so called 'lower' yanas and the highest teachings are a spectrum. The difference being that the understanding in the lower yanas is narrower and while still 'true' is limited to a particular attitude or mind-set. The outlook broadens as you progress. So its a bit as if you start looking through a microscope, then a telescope and then ... well I can't think of an analogy. There is a natural progression to it all and it fits with the various capacities of the human mind and so on. Its not that when you get to the highest practice you throw the rest away but that you reassess them in the context of a more direct view or understanding. And its all dharma.

[Simple_Jack]

@ simple jack

 

I know I am probably confused and senile or something but I find it distracting to try to read long block quotes from another conversation ... is there any chance you could extract the message and just tell us what you want to say?

 

Dzogchen is buddhardharma.

[gatito]

@gatito

 

...no idea why you have posted two videos in the middle of this discussion ... what were you trying to say?

 

<snip>

 

In fact, I actually posted both videos at the end of this discussion.

 

Did you watch them both and reflect on them in order to try to understand what I was trying to say said?

[Apech]

In fact, I actually posted both videos at the end of this discussion.

 

Did you watch them both and reflect on them in order to try to understand what I was trying to say said?

 

 

No my internet connection is slow so watching them would probably take until April1.

 

Its the end of the discussion when people stop discussing.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Apech

[Apech]

Dzogchen is buddhardharma.

 

 

Thank you.

[gatito]

No my internet connection is slow so watching them would probably take until April1.

 

Perhaps that would be a good day to pick up the discussion again?

 

Its the end of the discussion when people stop discussing.

 

I can't really disagree with that, although, at the time that I posted - it actually was at the end of the discussion

 

I can hardly be held responsible for failing to predict that someone would want to restart it - can I?

[asunthatneversets]

So I agree, that it's not necessary to study the lower yanas or for that matter to engage in the methodical application of the lower yanas preliminaries (ngondro), 2-stages, etc. Dzogchen, on its own, is sufficient for progress.

 

I also agree, yet at the same time it can't hurt to study the pāramitāyāna and so on, it certainly helped to deepen my understanding of the system of Dzogchen, and deterred any proclivities of possibly deviating into eternalist dogma.

[Apech]

I also agree, yet at the same time it can't hurt to study the pāramitāyāna and so on, it certainly helped to deepen my understanding of the system of Dzogchen, and deterred any proclivities of possibly deviating into eternalist dogma.

 

 

Nothing is necessary except resting the mind in its natural state (or pick your alternate expression) ... so then why don't we just do that?

[C T]

Are there any notes or teachers' advice (not just 1 or 2) saying that Ngondro is not essential for those entering the Dzogchen path? I'm really interested because the few Dzogchen teachers and senior students i have listened to, and read from, like Tulku Urgyen, Khenpo Choga, Jamgon Kongtrul, Chagdud Tulku, Sogyal Rinpoche, Dzogchen Rinpoche, they all point out otherwise.

 

I cannot fathom how the Guru/disciple relationship (guru yoga, which is fundamental to Dzogchen) can be cemented, and devotion aroused gradually, without first establishing a long practice in the preliminaries. More so in the West ~ its almost impossible for a Western student to be able to immediately form a strong bond upon entering the path, and be able to generate the necessary devotion to Guru, Yidam and Khandro without undertaking the practices of Ngondro. He or she wouldn't have a clue what all the fuss is about, general observation has shown.

[Jeff]

 

 

 

I cannot fathom how the Guru/disciple relationship (guru yoga, which is fundamental to Dzogchen) can be cemented, and devotion aroused gradually, without first establishing a long practice in the preliminaries. More so in the West ~ its almost impossible for a Western student to be able to immediately form a strong bond upon entering the path, and be able to generate the necessary devotion to Guru, Yidam and Khandro without undertaking the practices of Ngondro. He or she wouldn't have a clue what all the fuss is about, general observation has shown.

 

Your statement makes a lot of sense. To form such a bond, once must have a very meaningful level of clarity (and an open heart).

[asunthatneversets]

Nothing is necessary except resting the mind in its natural state (or pick your alternate expression) ... so then why don't we just do that?

 

That is true, however easier said than done, and that isn't to say that studying any teachings are going to help with discovering and resting in your nature, however again, it cannot hurt.

 

But I agree, ultimately prajñā is the means to loosen those bonds. Though prajñā is only one of the two accumulations considered to be the definitive means. The other is upāya, which includes right view acquired from the qualified guru and learning the teachings and associated philosophical systems.

 

Dudjom Lingpa actually explores this point in his gnas lugs rang byung. Specifically the claim that studying or learning the correct view is a hindrance. He attests that it is not, and uses the analogy of an ear which has water trapped in it (a nuisance we can all relate to), citing that one of the most effective ways of removing that trapped water is actually pouring more water into the ear, which will successfully wash out the water which is initially trapped leaving the ear free of water. He says that in the same way, the use of concepts and learning (within the context of the dharma), serves the same purpose.

 

In Bönpo Dzogchen, the studying of the teachings and the wisdom gained from doing so is held to be one of the many modalities of rig pa [skt. vidyā], called bsam rig. The more refined ones bsam rig is, the clearer ones view becomes.

 

My Drikung Kagyu lama also states that a refined intellectual knowledge of the teachings is very important (though practice is more important). He stated that ones intellectual knowledge of the teachings is directly related to prajñā. The former being a direct expression of the latter, and so while intellectual knowledge should not be treated as a substitute for non-conceptual wisdom, it also should not be rejected either. It is a helpful and effective practice when applied skillfully, and the clearer your knowledge is conceptually, the easier it will be to recognize non-conceptual wisdom. He said this goes for any type of learning, not just dharma.

Edited February 28, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[C T]

Your statement makes a lot of sense. To form such a bond, once must have a very meaningful level of clarity (and an open heart).

And without the crucial grounding in the preliminary practices, those who dive headlong into the "I am beyond distraction" meme are only playing make-believe. (not everyone, but safe to say 999 out of a thousand).

[Jeff]

And without the crucial grounding in the preliminary practices, those who dive headlong into the "I am beyond distraction" meme are only playing make-believe. (not everyone, but safe to say 999 out of a thousand).

 

Completely agree. Also, when one truly forms a bond with a guru, it is not a simple "I kind of like and respect this person" kind of feeling. It is a powerful energetic bond and connection, love and devotion as words do not really do it justice.

[C T]

Completely agree. Also, when one truly forms a bond with a guru, it is not a simple "I kind of like and respect this person" kind of feeling. It is a powerful energetic bond and connection, love and devotion as words do not really do it justice.

Well said, Jeff. Thats why in all the Ngondro practices among the different schools, they all have one thing in common, which is paying Homage to the Guru as the opening.

Edited February 28, 2014 by C T

[Jeff]

Well said, Jeff. Thats why in all the Ngondro practices among the different schools, they all have one thing in common, which is paying Homage to the Guru as the opening.

 

Yes, with such a path... the guru is the path/way.

[themiddleway]

Yes, with such a path... the guru is the path/way.

This is the most important point.

[Apech]

Just a word for the ngondro practice. I think because it is described as preliminary this can be a bit misleading. In all stages of the ngondro the root guru variously as vajradhara, samantabhadra and so on is the centre of the practice and the practice ends with dissolving the root guru into yourself and sitting in the natural state. So the ngondro as a whole is less like a set of things you have to get out of the way before doing 'real' practice - and more like a circumambulation of the mandala with always reference to the centre. It is as if you are always doing the complete practice but just emphasising one aspect - beginning with prostrations/refuge and bodhicitta. I think it is true that there are people who do not need to do this - its not automatic that everybody does - but I think that if say, you were to jump straight to the end so to speak then most of us would find that we would have to later go back to embed some aspect of the mandala. If you see what I mean.

[Yascra]

Well said, Jeff. Thats why in all the Ngondro practices among the different schools, they all have one thing in common, which is paying Homage to the Guru as the opening.

 

To be honest, to me that is, or has been, one of the most confusing part.

As I don't have such a bond to any of those buddhist guys, and especially not to some buddhist human being, so pretending to regard such beings or persons as my guru is kind of one of the worst lies you can speak, right? Creating an obstacle as you try to find the guru "somewhere outside", while actually you should look for him/her in yourself. The higher part of yourself, to be clear about that, not some non-virtuous emotions or things like this.

 

It's really tricky as a practice for beginners, somehow. You need a lot of merit or wisdom from the beginning on, or a good teacher - but good teachers are not so common. And it's a dangerous road if you don't do it correctly.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Yascra

[Apech]

To be honest, to me that is, or has been, one of the most confusing part.

As I don't have such a bond to any of those buddhist guys, and especially not to some buddhist human being, so pretending to regard such beings or persons as my guru is kind of one of the worst lies you can speak, right? Creating an obstacle as you try to find the guru "somewhere outside", while actually you should look for him/her in yourself. The higher part of yourself, to be clear about that, not some non-virtuous emotions or things like this.

 

It's really tricky as a practice for beginners, somehow. You need a lot of merit or wisdom from the beginning on, or a good teacher - but good teachers are not so common. And it's a dangerous road if you don't do it correctly.

 

 

the problem is, I think that people read about guru yoga and so on and then try to force themselves into the position of reverence. Buddhists talk not so much about faith but confidence - that is over a period of time you practice and study and feel the benefit of dharma so it is a genuine feeling of appreciation and so on - and not a contrived feeling of this how you ought to feel. I think its a problem of westerners. Tibetans seem to just naturally love their teachers while westerners fall in love with the idea of being like Tibetans - so its contrived. For this reason being around western dharma practitioners can be very difficult I find. Some teachers unfortunately take advantage of this. Keep away from them. Follow your own heart and instincts in all things and beware cultural entanglement

[C T]

To be honest, to me that is, or has been, one of the most confusing part.

As I don't have such a bond to any of those buddhist guys, and especially not to some buddhist human being, so pretending to regard such beings or persons as my guru is kind of one of the worst lies you can speak, right? Creating an obstacle as you try to find the guru "somewhere outside", while actually you should look for him/her in yourself. The higher part of yourself, to be clear about that, not some non-virtuous emotions or things like this.

 

It's really tricky as a practice for beginners, somehow. You need a lot of merit or wisdom from the beginning on, or a good teacher - but good teachers are not so common. And it's a dangerous road if you don't do it correctly.

If there is a struggle to form a bond with a human Guru, we have the option of choosing a symbolic root Guru. Some people use photos, holy objects, etc. Human gurus are not 'must haves'. You are right, the Guru is just a representation of the enlightened principle of inherent buddha nature, which, as Apech mentioned, is something we train in by using the generation, completion and dedication of merit practices which is the Ngondro path.

[C T]

Just a word for the ngondro practice. I think because it is described as preliminary this can be a bit misleading. In all stages of the ngondro the root guru variously as vajradhara, samantabhadra and so on is the centre of the practice and the practice ends with dissolving the root guru into yourself and sitting in the natural state. So the ngondro as a whole is less like a set of things you have to get out of the way before doing 'real' practice - and more like a circumambulation of the mandala with always reference to the centre. It is as if you are always doing the complete practice but just emphasising one aspect - beginning with prostrations/refuge and bodhicitta. I think it is true that there are people who do not need to do this - its not automatic that everybody does - but I think that if say, you were to jump straight to the end so to speak then most of us would find that we would have to later go back to embed some aspect of the mandala. If you see what I mean.

Its exactly as you said, Apech. In fact, Sogyal Rinpoche says it all the time that the Ngondro is a complete practice in itself, capable of leading to the fruition of Buddhahood without any other auxiliary support being required. I think if there is any confusion around this, it stems from the mistaken view that 'preliminary' means 'lesser/basic/beginner stuff' and those that take a shine to the 'higher, more advanced practices of atiyoga/great perfection' (which sounds pretty exotic and captivating) tend to allow for a slight misunderstanding to arise as a result.

 

It baffles me how some teachers (presumably in the US) actually tell their students to forget about Ngondro. New initiates at that. Strange advice if you ask me. Never heard similar encouragement being given here in Europe. If anyone has, i'd be interested to hear.

 

Enough said, i guess we have deviated far enough from the OP.

 

Apologies, all my fault.

 

 

 

Kind words of encouragement from Teacher:

 

[Apech]

Its exactly as you said, Apech. In fact, Sogyal Rinpoche says it all the time that the Ngondro is a complete practice in itself, capable of leading to the fruition of Buddhahood without any other auxiliary support being required. I think if there is any confusion around this, it stems from the mistaken view that 'preliminary' means 'lesser/basic/beginner stuff' and those that take a shine to the 'higher, more advanced practices of atiyoga/great perfection' (which sounds pretty exotic and captivating) tend to allow for a slight misunderstanding to arise as a result.

 

It baffles me how some teachers (presumably in the US) actually tell their students to forget about Ngondro. New initiates at that. Strange advice if you ask me. Never heard similar encouragement being given here in Europe. If anyone has, i'd be interested to hear.

 

Enough said, i guess we have deviated far enough from the OP.

 

Apologies, all my fault.

 

 

 

Kind words of encouragement from Teacher:

 

[snip]

 

I found this book helpful and also well written as a guide to the ngondro

 

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Happiness-So-Called-Preliminary-Practices/dp/1611800307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393681408&sr=8-1&keywords=not+for+happiness

 

Not for Happiness? by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse ... who is the Bhutanese Rinpoche who is also a film maker ....the Cup, Travellers and Magicians and so on.