Why do only very few Dzogchen practitioners attain rainbow body?

[GrandmasterP]

 

Zoom is Dorian Black.

 

After he came back from suspension he effected a name change.

 

Let's move on...

Well you can take the monkey out of the jungle but..........

 

 

((((Dons Tinfoil Hat))))

Edited July 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[BaguaKicksAss]

Is it possible to delete user account here?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0G1Ucw5HDg

 

Sorry.

[BaguaKicksAss]

OK so I just learned from some *other* forum that there is such thing as a rainbow body empowerment.

 

Why doesn't it work?

 

Is the empowerment er not very powerful?

Are the empowerment ees slackers?

Weren't they meant to manage it in this life anyways?

[dawei]

No. Once a member, you are bound to this forum for the duration of your incarnation.

 

yea, but for some it is a cycle of reincarnation...

[GrandmasterP]

OK so I just learned from some *other* forum that there is such thing as a rainbow body empowerment.

 

Why doesn't it work?

 

Is the empowerment er not very powerful?

Are the empowerment ees slackers?

Weren't they meant to manage it in this life anyways?

 

Odd times I've been on that forum I come away needing a shower.

Brave you BKA for venturing into that Twilight Zone.

It's where the usual-suspect socks hang out when they're not ersing about on here.

[ralis]

There are many misconceptions in regards to Tibetan Buddhism. It is important to remember that Tibet was a theocratic feudalistic culture. The teachings are still based on that authoritarian view. Most of the teachers with few exceptions sit on a throne with everyone below. That in itself should be a reminder of how things really are.

 

Most of the Lama's that are teaching in the West do it for money which supports their monasteries.

 

Donald Lopez clears up many mistaken ideas about Tibet. http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Shangri--Tibetan-Buddhism-West/dp/0226493113/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1405878413&sr=1-5&keywords=donald+lopez

Edited July 20, 2014 by ralis

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

I want to add that Tibetan Buddhism or to be more precise, Lamaism, is a patriarchal i.e, top down religion. The venerated/worshiped Padmasambhava is responsible for destroying Shamanism i.e, Bon in ancient Tibet.

Edited July 20, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

So we've basically established that ralis just really doesn't like Tibetan Buddhism... or that he's a pessimist... one of the two, or both.

[ralis]

So we've basically established that ralis just really doesn't like Tibetan Buddhism... or that he's a pessimist... one of the two, or both.

 

The teachings are fine. Remove the authoritarianism, patriarchy, thrones, robes, secret teachings and other unnecessary exotic bullshit! I hope that is clear enough.

[GrandmasterP]

 

The teachings are fine. Remove the authoritarianism, patriarchy, thrones, robes, secret teachings and other unnecessary exotic bullshit! I hope that is clear enough.

+1

Same goes for most religions.

Trouble is that the shysters at the top wearing silly hats and robes have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Turkeys not voting for Christmas and all.

Five-minute Buddhism here...

http://www.tricycle.com/sites/default/files/images/blog/Page%20of%205-Minute-Buddhist.pdf

 

That covers all the bases without any extraneous BS.

Edited July 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[asunthatneversets]

The teachings are fine. Remove the authoritarianism, patriarchy, thrones, robes, secret teachings and other unnecessary exotic bullshit! I hope that is clear enough.

 

Tibetan culture in general has always been quite patriarchal and that is of course reflected in the way Tibetan Buddhism is structured in certain ways. However the extravagance expressed in the use of thrones, robes and everything else which is allegedly 'unnecessary' is not really an image of authority in the way you seem to be interpreting it as. You really would have to look at Tibetan life and culture as a whole to put that extravagance into perspective.

 

It is of course hard to intuit the reasoning for that apparent display of excess coming from a culture where luxury and so on is commonplace, however that was not the case in Tibet. People lived very simple lives, and their lives were obviously steeped in the culture they lived in, which was founded upon Buddhism and Bön. So while they lived simple lives themselves they demonstrated and depicted their deep reverence and admiration for Buddhism (and Bön) by building incredible temples and monasteries. Clearly when you look at a very simple culture like theirs, and then see these magnificent and massive structures with ornate and exotic decor which is incredibly detailed, it is obvious that they respect that facet of their culture, and it plays a vital role in their lives.

 

In the same way, when you had great yogis who were highly realized, reverence was shown towards them as well. While you are inclined to interpret the 'show of authority' as these individuals enacting positions of power over groveling subjects, the reality of the matter is that the people revered these individuals as teachers who could bring them to liberation and free them from samsara. So adorning those masters with robes and having them sit on a throne etc., is really a way to show respect.

 

Now was everyone who lived in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, India etc., involved in these institutions? Of course not. Some chose to pursue these paths in a solitary environment. Yogis and mahasiddas living in caves and staying away from these societies. However at the same time those yogis would be able to come and give teachings at times, and even play the role of an authority, wearing a crown, sitting on a throne and so on. Did they take that seriously? Surely not, but they were also able to play with that conventionality and see it for what it is. Even though they did not sit around in robes and on thrones in their daily lives, they felt no need to reject those cultural expressions in their conventional contexts. They could relate to them freely because they saw them for what they were.

Edited July 20, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

Some people get very caught up in those cultural appearances, and some don't. However I personally believe that the need to reject those conventions outright comes from a place which is lacking maturity in some aspects. Like the child who acts out in school against authorities or the teenager running around with a can of spray paint writing "F#ck the cops!" on city walls. In my opinion, there are those who get suckered into the whole show (which appears to be how you interpret those who advocate for these conventions), and then there are those who act out against those conventions, rejecting them and so on. That need to reject those expressions presents itself as a position which is apparently free of the influence of those cultural constructs, but it actually isn't. That type of attitude is still seeing inherency in those conventions, and therefore sees something which must be dismissed or downplayed. It is a point of view which is still giving those structures the power it believes it is taking away from them through the rejection displayed towards them. This is still falling victim to a perception of inherency.

 

In my opinion, the sign of maturity which trumps the attitude of rejection, is the one which can play the game without taking it seriously. Because that is the view which sees through the game, sees through the inherency. From that standpoint one can treat conventions as conventions and can relate to authorities, discipline, structure, bells and whistles, commitments, practice and so on in a way which is free and without rigidity. That type of person can lay their pride down and can take responsibilities, follow rules, uphold precepts, etc., because they don't see a difference between the conventional and the ultimate.

Edited July 20, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[GrandmasterP]

That's an interesting point you make there asunthatneversets and it has some resonance for this Brit reader for one.

To an extent here in Blighty we are still governed by hereditary coves who wear silly hats ( crown-shaped ones).

The 'crowned heads' are supported by the 'Lords' ( more silly hats and robes), the judiciary ( silly wigs and robes) , Parliament ( some silly robes but mainly 'ritual' lounge suits or twin-set power-dress ladieswear).

Step out of line and there's the Police ( extremely silly hats on some of those folks) and the army ( silly metal hats) as a last resort for 'maintaining the status quo.

Winston Churchill being the last Minister of State to send in armed troops to shoot down striking British workers on Mainland British soil. ( In Tonypandy, Wales in 1910 and again in 1911).

Now taking your point, all that is OK, we should accept it, buckle down and carry on regardless.

It's a valid point you make but one that I don't personally subscribe to.

I'd maybe believe differently if I was one of those dudes wearing a crown or amongst their supporters.

But I'm not, so I don't agree.

Edited July 20, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[ralis]

Some people get very caught up in those cultural appearances, and some don't. However I personally believe that the need to reject those conventions outright comes from a place which is lacking maturity in some aspects. Like the child who acts out in school against authorities or the teenager running around with a can of spray paint writing "F#ck the cops!" on city walls. In my opinion, there are those who get suckered into the whole show (which appears to be how you interpret those who advocate for these conventions), and then there are those who act out against those conventions, rejecting them and so on. That need to reject those expressions presents itself as a position which is apparently free of the influence of those cultural constructs, but it actually isn't. That type of attitude is still seeing inherency in those conventions, and therefore sees something which must be dismissed or downplayed. It is a point of view which is still giving those structures the power it believes it is taking away from them through the rejection displayed towards them. This is still falling victim to a perception of inherency.

 

In my opinion, the sign of maturity which trumps the attitude of rejection, is the one which can play the game without taking it seriously. Because that is the view which sees through the game, sees through the inherency. From that standpoint one can treat conventions as conventions and can relate to authorities, discipline, structure, bells and whistles, commitments, practice and so on in a way which is free and without rigidity. That type of person can lay their pride down and can take responsibilities, follow rules, uphold precepts, etc., because they don't see a difference between the conventional and the ultimate.

 

 

The above is nothing but a lengthy ad hominem attack on anyone who questions authority. Further, to accuse one of lacking maturity for questioning religious authority is preposterous. To deny that the Dharma King Lama's are not authoritarian is equally preposterous. Prostrating before some dude with a special hat sitting on a throne has nothing to do with enlightenment.

 

It is a known fact that the Tibetan peasantry were not allowed any formal education, but the monastics were supposedly well educated and kept the masses superstitious and ignorant. The same attitude prevails outside of Tibet.

Edited July 20, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Some people get very caught up in those cultural appearances, and some don't. However I personally believe that the need to reject those conventions outright comes from a place which is lacking maturity in some aspects. Like the child who acts out in school against authorities or the teenager running around with a can of spray paint writing "F#ck the cops!" on city walls. In my opinion, there are those who get suckered into the whole show (which appears to be how you interpret those who advocate for these conventions), and then there are those who act out against those conventions, rejecting them and so on. That need to reject those expressions presents itself as a position which is apparently free of the influence of those cultural constructs, but it actually isn't. That type of attitude is still seeing inherency in those conventions, and therefore sees something which must be dismissed or downplayed. It is a point of view which is still giving those structures the power it believes it is taking away from them through the rejection displayed towards them. This is still falling victim to a perception of inherency.

 

In my opinion, the sign of maturity which trumps the attitude of rejection, is the one which can play the game without taking it seriously. Because that is the view which sees through the game, sees through the inherency. From that standpoint one can treat conventions as conventions and can relate to authorities, discipline, structure, bells and whistles, commitments, practice and so on in a way which is free and without rigidity. That type of person can lay their pride down and can take responsibilities, follow rules, uphold precepts, etc., because they don't see a difference between the conventional and the ultimate.

 

 

There are times when I think you may have been on this site a few years ago under a different name and we had the same discussions.

[asunthatneversets]

The above is nothing but a lengthy ad hominem attack on anyone who questions authority. Further, to accuse one of lacking maturity for questioning religious authority is preposterous. To deny that the Dharma King Lama's are not authoritarian is equally preposterous. Prostrating before some dude with a special hat sitting on a throne has nothing to do with enlightenment.

 

It is a known fact that the Tibetan peasantry were not allowed any formal education, but the monastics were supposedly well educated and kept the masses superstitious and ignorant.

 

I'm not saying don't question authority, it is good to question authority. I grew up questioning authority and being a little punk rock kid. I'm also not saying that questioning religious authority is a sign of immaturity, I am saying that the inability to relate to the conventions as being mere conventions is a sign that one is still seeing those conventions as inherently real. One is still giving them power because one cannot truly reject something, meaning; one cannot hold to a position of rejection, unless one is seeing something inherent which requires rejection.

 

The robes and thrones, bells and whistles, are just cultural conventions. Do some people get caught up in that game? Yes. Do some people who partake in the game, wearing the robes and sitting on thrones get caught up in that game? Definitely. However the difference with genuinely realized teachers who are wearing those robes is that they see through the game, they understand it is just a show.

 

That isn't to say there aren't some who grasp at authority, identify with it and abuse those positions. That certainly occurs, a lot, and will happen anytime hierarchical structures are set in place. We see this throughout history and in the world today... but that is simply one possible outcome. The authentically realized vidyādharas, bodhisattvas and Buddhas who are playing the game by wearing those robes are realized individuals, they are not abusing power. Sentient beings who are put in ruling positions are the ones who end up abusing power, and of course there are cases where (allegedly realized) teachers have been involved in scandals, but that is a very small percentage and really speaks to the fact that just because you throw a robe and a crown on a lama, doesn't mean they are authentic or genuine. But this is why those who are interested in these teachings must exercise discrimination with teachers... and the teachings themselves state this.

 

For example Padmasambhava said; Having an unexamined teacher is like jumping into an abyss; Having an unexamined student is like drinking poison.

 

And the tantras define a "genuine teacher", listing various characteristics they should have, which are followed with this statement: One with the complete set of these qualities is said to be necessary. If, on the other hand, he is merely an effigy of whom it is said "This one is a wonderful source of miracles," "This one holds an unsurpassable rank," and "This one is a sacred object of worship and harmony with worldly people," then he is not [a genuine teacher].

 

also saying: The unexamined master is a demon of a master

 

So it is partly one's own responsibility to weed out charlatans and power hungry individuals wearing robes, even in the context of Buddhism. And in that sense we need to separate kings, rulers or fools (who don robes and sit on thrones) and authentically realized vidyādharas, bodhisattvas and Buddhas who are teaching the buddhadharma or Bön, the two are not the same. You appear to be lumping anyone and everyone who wears robes into the same pool, however that is not the case when it comes to the vast majority of truly realized masters.

 

I also never said prostrating before someone sitting on a throne with a special hat has anything to do with liberation. Though if that is your teacher, and they are simply playing that role in accordance with their culture, why not show them respect and reverence and understand that they are merely upholding certain cultural conventions? Who cares?

 

Again, the Tibetan peasants and the monastics is getting into the usual power plays that go on whenever hierarchy is introduced... but that does not mean that all lamas are abusing power. It does not mean that we must outright reject everyone who wears a robe or sits on a throne in the context of Buddhism. If you want to do that, that is your choice and by all means reject them all, but again, this is akin to saying all dogs are dangerous due to the fact that a small percentage are. Or that all apples are rotten because a small few may be.

Edited July 20, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

There are times when I think you may have been on this site a few years ago under a different name and we had the same discussions.

 

Not me, my current time here began when I signed up last year, or earlier this year, whenever that was.

[ralis]

 

I'm not saying don't question authority, it is good to question authority. I grew up questioning authority and being a little punk rock kid. I'm also not saying that questioning religious authority is a sign of immaturity, I am saying that the inability to relate to the conventions as being mere conventions is a sign that one is still seeing those conventions as inherently real. One is still giving them power because one cannot truly reject something, meaning; one cannot hold to a position of rejection, unless one is seeing something inherent which requires rejection.

 

The robes and thrones, bells and whistles, are just cultural conventions. Do some people get caught up in that game? Yes. Do some people who partake in the game, wearing the robes and sitting on thrones get caught up in that game? Definitely. However the difference with genuinely realized teachers who are wearing those robes is that they see through the game, they understand it is just a show.

 

That isn't to say there aren't some who grasp at authority, identify with it and abuse those positions. That certainly occurs, a lot, and will happen anytime hierarchical structures are set in place. We see this throughout history and in the world today... but that is simply one possible outcome. The authentically realized vidyādharas, bodhisattvas and Buddhas who are playing the game by wearing those robes are realized individuals, they are not abusing power. Sentient beings who are put in ruling positions are the ones who end up abusing power, and of course there are cases where (allegedly realized) teachers have been involved in scandals, but that is a very small percentage and really speaks to the fact that just because you throw a robe and a crown on a lama, doesn't mean they are authentic or genuine. But this is why those who are interested in these teachings must exercise discrimination with teachers... and the teachings themselves state this.

 

For example Padmasambhava said; Having an unexamined teacher is like jumping into an abyss; Having an unexamined student is like drinking poison.

 

And the tantras define a "genuine teacher", listing various characteristics they should have, which are followed with this statement: One with the complete set of these qualities is said to be necessary. If, on the other hand, he is merely an effigy of whom it is said "This one is a wonderful source of miracles," "This one holds an unsurpassable rank," and "This one is a sacred object of worship and harmony with worldly people," then he is not [a genuine teacher].

 

also saying: The unexamined master is a demon of a master

 

So it is partly one's own responsibility to weed out charlatans and power hungry individuals wearing robes, even in the context of Buddhism. And in that sense we need to separate kings, rulers or fools (who don robes and sit on thrones) and authentically realized vidyādharas, bodhisattvas and Buddhas who are teaching the buddhadharma or Bön, the two are not the same. You appear to be lumping anyone and everyone who wears robes into the same pool, however that is not the case when it comes to the vast majority of truly realized masters.

 

I also never said prostrating before someone sitting on a throne with a special hat has anything to do with liberation. Though if that is your teacher, and they are simply playing that role in accordance with their culture, why not show them respect and reverence and understand that they are merely upholding certain cultural conventions? Who cares?

 

Again, the Tibetan peasants and the monastics is getting into the usual power plays that go on whenever hierarchy is introduced... but that does not mean that all lamas are abusing power. It does not mean that we must outright reject everyone who wears a robe or sits on a throne in the context of Buddhism. If you want to do that, that is your choice and by all means reject them all, but again, this is akin to saying all dogs are dangerous due to the fact that a small percentage are. Or that all apples are rotten because a small few may be.

 

You claim that some of these Lamas are highly realized. I question that assertion. Why? If one is truly realized, then all the unnecessary conventions fall by the wayside. Further, there seems to be a great deal of attachment to these cultural conventions by these so called realized beings. To me, these realized beings should get real and have serious conversations with persons such as myself as opposed to giving teachings/empowerments with no time for questions/debate afterwards.

Edited July 20, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Some here may find this article worth reading.

 

 

http://www.american-buddha.com/dzong.khentse.htm

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[ralis]

There is much on this site if anyone cares to read. Some of the articles expand on what I have stated here.

 

http://www.american-buddha.com/skinny.auth.htm#A%20TEST%20FOR%20AUTHORITARIANISM

 

http://www.american-buddha.com/auth.buddhism.htm

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

You claim that some of these Lamas are highly realized. I question that assertion. Why? If one is truly realized, then all the unnecessary conventions fall by the wayside. Further, there seems to be a great deal of attachment to these cultural conventions by these so called realized beings. To me, these realized beings should get real and have serious conversations with persons such as myself as opposed to giving teachings/empowerments with no time for questions/debate afterwards.

On the contrary, conventions are still allowed to be conventions and serve the purposes they always have. Likewise appearances are still appearances. The only difference in the realized person is the presence of a valid cognition, whereas the unrealized person's cognition is afflicted. So conventions and appearances are still just as they were, the only difference in the realized individual is that they are known correctly. No need for them to fall by the wayside, that sounds like a recipe for a nice mix of nihilism and essentialism all wrapped up together.

 

As for the cultural conventions, they too are just conventions. It's one thing if ralis wants to run around swinging at mirages with a stick, but don't hold it against others when they don't care to join in.

 

Not sure what teachings you're going to but any that I've ever attended involved the possibility to ask questions afterwards, whether privately or in a collective setting.

[asunthatneversets]

There is much on this site if anyone cares to read. Some of the articles expand on what I have stated here.

http://www.american-buddha.com/skinny.auth.htm#A%20TEST%20FOR%20AUTHORITARIANISM

 

http://www.american-buddha.com/auth.buddhism.htm

That site seems perfect for the ralis point of view.