Esoteric vs Non-Esoteric Meditation Traditions

[Robin]

Dzogchen requires guru yoga, from what I've been taught, and the direct transmission of the enlightened state.

 

Other Buddhist traditions simply give a method which we can follow.

 

I'm confused. I have received Dzogchen teachings and am generally impressed with the teacher, although they make some pretty outlandish claims, viewed from a western viewpoint (transmutation of beans left in the back of a cave for a year from one type to another as an experiment in loosening a retreatant's fixed beliefs, for example. Or references to dragons.)

So Dzogchen is this "high" teaching, very much steeped in Tibetan cultural beliefs. It's often glorified as the ultimate or best teaching by its practitioners.

 

What am I to make of other traditions where there is no guru yoga, and no telepathic transmission? Are they inferior? Do they offer a lesser kind of enlightenment?

 

Is the Tibetan tradition somehow elitist ("mahayana" implies assumed superiority, perhaps?) Do we need to hold our teachers in the kind of regard required by guru yoga?

 

I've heard it said that these higher teachings were somehow given by Guatama Buddha as a kind of "silent aside" to those ready to receive them.

 

I'm torn. On the one hand I've been "sold" dzogchen by a couple of people I kinda sorta trust on these matters. On the other, there are a great many people practicing outside of this tradition with methods which require less "suspension of disbelief" or which I can more easily empirically validate, while at the same time recognizing that things beyond my current ability to comprehend or perceive may require a certain amount of faith to remain open to.

 

Does anyone here "feel me" on all this?

Edited November 22, 2023 by Robin

[Maddie]

11 minutes ago, Robin said:

What am I to make of other traditions where there is no guru yoga, and no telepathic transmission? Are they inferior? Do they offer a lesser kind of enlightenment?

 

Typically when faced these kind of questions I look at what did the Buddha himself teach? He said nothing about this.

[silent thunder]

Always run all i encounter through the filter of my own awareness.  People say all sorts of things.

Though from what I've encountered of Dzogchen, it more often that not has passed my personal sniff test and in some instances has reached inspiring levels.

 

The potency of the Bon tradition underlying the Tibetan take on what Buddha shared seems potent in a manner that few other buddhist sects can match for me.

Edited November 22, 2023 by silent thunder

[Neirong]

34 minutes ago, Robin said:

What am I to make of other traditions where there is no guru yoga, and no telepathic transmission? Are they inferior? Do they offer a lesser kind of enlightenment?

The vast majority of esoteric teachings have transmissions even if it is not publicly stated or advertised.
 

35 minutes ago, Robin said:

I've heard it said that these higher teachings were somehow given by Guatama Buddha as a kind of "silent aside" to those ready to receive them.

But it does not matter how many transmissions there are and how "powerful"; the key ingredient that has to cultivate himself is the truth seeker - the student. There is no such path where you can do nothing, eat a magic pill, sit at a seminar, receive blessings, and advance forward.
 

Being swollen with Ego or Pride of having special teachings and exclusive spiritual transmissions is a sure way to be stuck in the dirt for the rest of incarnation.

 

35 minutes ago, Robin said:

Tibetan tradition somehow elitist ("mahayana" implies assumed superiority, perhaps?) Do we need to hold our teachers in the kind of regard required by guru yoga?

Spiritual teachings are there for people to develop spiritually. Whatever belief systems or ego impressions are, those are mundane terms having no relation to spirituality.
 

If you think that anything here is important, just look above your head in the Vast Cosmos.

 

43 minutes ago, Robin said:

I kinda sorta trust on these matters. On the other, there are a great many people practicing outside of this tradition with methods which require less "suspension of disbelief" or which I can more easily empirically validate, while at the same time recognizing that things beyond my current ability to comprehend or perceive may require a certain amount of faith to remain open to.

If you cannot verify anything through the practice, then it is likely a cult. You should be able to grow your level to verify and gain those experiences firsthand. That is cultivation. Not talk about terms read in books or taken from lectures, but discuss terms from personal practical experience.
 

Of course, people with higher levels of development can see deeper into the nature of reality and multidimensional world. Thus, things they say cannot be verified easily but can serve as a guiding beacon for the rest. So, in any working system, there will be a step-by-step progression from simple to more advanced levels.

[tao.te.kat]

> It's often glorified as the ultimate or best teaching by its practitioners.

 

Usually Zen people will say the same.

 

And Mahamudra.

 

And Theravada...

 

And...

 

So...

 

Take the path you find good for you and forget about silly supremacisms

 

Also esoteric buddhism is not superior to non esoteric, it's just that some teachings are kept only to adepts because they can do some harm to non initited if done wrong. So they keep it private.

 

Said that, I found surprising how popular is Dzogchen in the internet community, In Tibet Mahamudra is probably more practiced than Dzogchen. Both are great.

 

I found Mahamudra to be better for me, but that's a personal choice,

Edited November 23, 2023 by tao.te.kat

[stirling]

18 hours ago, Robin said:

Dzogchen requires guru yoga, from what I've been taught, and the direct transmission of the enlightened state.

 

It doesn't require the guru yoga, only the direct pointing ('transmission), regular practice AND a relationship with a teacher. You may not realize it but the "state" you have been shown is not a state at all... it is what underlies ALL experience. It IS enlightened mind, though you don't yet see it for what it is. Resting in it with the mind quiet and spacious is "actualizing enlightenment" as Dogen (Soto Zen founder) would say. It will bring up everything that is between you and complete understanding and slowly align you with the deeper understanding and living with things as they are. This is the same practice Zen recommends in most of the traditions 

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

Other Buddhist traditions simply give a method which we can follow.

 

Resting in Rigpa IS the method. 

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

I'm confused. I have received Dzogchen teachings and am generally impressed with the teacher, although they make some pretty outlandish claims, viewed from a western viewpoint (transmutation of beans left in the back of a cave for a year from one type to another as an experiment in loosening a retreatant's fixed beliefs, for example. Or references to dragons.)

 

I would forget about that. The transformation that matters happens in your belief and day to day experience of suffering. 

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

So Dzogchen is this "high" teaching, very much steeped in Tibetan cultural beliefs. It's often glorified as the ultimate or best teaching by its practitioners.

 

It is the "highest" teaching yes. It isn't being glorified. Having said that, it may not mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean it is the "best" teaching for you, or that you will continue to get an emphasis in it as your teacher gets to know you. 

 

Almost all Nyingma students get pointing out instructions in the case that they might just instantly awaken, but it is usually followed by much more mundane concerns and practices. There is almost always work to be done with your attachments to your "self" The stronger your attachments and aversions, and the stronger your grasping to "self" the more you probably need some much more worldly teachings as well. Lojong is a great cycle to work with, I teach it to my students so that they have some skills to untangle their own karma. 

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

What am I to make of other traditions where there is no guru yoga, and no telepathic transmission? Are they inferior? Do they offer a lesser kind of enlightenment?

 

It isn't a telepathic transmission (despite what some might say), but it IS something very difficult to describe with words. It requires guiding the student to a direct personal experience. Other traditions lead to the same place, but may have more territory in between here and there, which doesn't necessarily mean that they are shorter or longer in the end. Those paths are perfect for those that find them. Not everyone will feel drawn to Dzogchen practice. The path that is right for you is always available IF you are sick enough of your life to want to change it. Be careful not to inflate your ego because you have been shown a very direct path. It is your largest obstacle, and can easily stop you from ever having realization.

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

Is the Tibetan tradition somehow elitist ("mahayana" implies assumed superiority, perhaps?) Do we need to hold our teachers in the kind of regard required by guru yoga?

 

Yes you should respect your teacher. Your teacher is your direct connection to the teachings and the lineage of Buddhist teachers. How many of those do you have? It doesn't mean that it is elitist, but it IS necessary to be respectful. If your teacher is wearing a robe, they are qualified to teach you. Ask yourself - what would qualify them to teach you? Still, the Tibetans have a saying:

 

Quote

Think of all sentient beings as Buddha, but keep your hand on your wallet.

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

I've heard it said that these higher teachings were somehow given by Guatama Buddha as a kind of "silent aside" to those ready to receive them.

 

Not sure about that, but I will mention that the claim that Dzogchen teachers make, that Dzogchen is the "practice of Buddhas" is correct. Resting in stillness is what is left when the practices have come to their natural conclusion. Every enlightened teacher I have met would say that just resting in enlightened mind is their primary "practice", which is no practice at all. 

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

I'm torn. On the one hand I've been "sold" dzogchen by a couple of people I kinda sorta trust on these matters. On the other, there are a great many people practicing outside of this tradition with methods which require less "suspension of disbelief" or which I can more easily empirically validate, while at the same time recognizing that things beyond my current ability to comprehend or perceive may require a certain amount of faith to remain open to.

 

All Buddhism will eventually require the suspension of your belief system. It is intended to train you to trust your EXPERIENCE instead of your carefully constructed story about the world. Dzogchen (and Zen/Cha'n) START there instead of finishing there. It is ALL ABOUT empirical validation, not beliefs. The faith you will employ will be based on your experience of how the practices and tradition create a change in you, and is therefore dependent on how carefully you employ what you have been taught. Even if you forget Buddhism entirely and just meditate resting in Rigpa as much as possible for a month for 20 minutes a day you should see changes in your behavior. 

 

18 hours ago, Robin said:

Does anyone here "feel me" on all this?

 

I have thought, and learned for myself, about all of these questions, yes.

[Sahaja]

Lately in thinking about the subject of teachers, gurus etc the importance of accountability has come to mind.
 

In my experience, without some external accountability or some external check,  teachers/gurus can easily go off in the wrong direction and abuses/delusion arise. This is particularly insidious if the teacher is getting lots of accolades from their students with no counterbalancing feedback on their own behavior/teaching from some authoritative figure,  such as their own teacher  or organization or spiritual lineage. Quality of the practice lineage is obviously very important but accountability of the teacher is pretty important as well.

 

some thing to consider when both choosing a teacher and assessing the teaching you are receiving.

[EFreethought]

21 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Typically when faced these kind of questions I look at what did the Buddha himself teach? He said nothing about this.

 

I read some where that "Tibetan Buddhism" is at least as much Tibetan as it is Buddhist.

 

[Apech]

21 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Typically when faced these kind of questions I look at what did the Buddha himself teach? He said nothing about this.

 

 

Do you mean the Pali Canon says nothing?  

[Apech]

53 minutes ago, EFreethought said:

 

I read some where that "Tibetan Buddhism" is at least as much Tibetan as it is Buddhist.

 

 

That is culturally true and the same could be said for Chinese Buddhism or Japanese Buddhism ... or even Sri Lankan Buddhism.  However if you study the subject in terms of the content and consistency of teachings great efforts were made by great masters like Sakya Pandita and many others so that the lineages were preserved and the essence of the Dharma remained.

 

 

[Maddie]

47 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Do you mean the Pali Canon says nothing?  

 

I've never seen anything personally in the Pali canon about guru transmissions.

[Salvijus]

43 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I've never seen anything personally in the Pali canon about guru transmissions.

 

That's because every word in that book is a transmission. Reading Buddha's words contain the power to invoke his presence and receive his blessings on the path. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

23 hours ago, Robin said:

Other Buddhist traditions simply give a method which we can follow.

I think they have their own little rituals or initiations going on. 

 

Personally I think you can get some places without the help of grace or energetic support. But if you get an opportunity to receive such things, it a huge benediction for a spiritual seeker as it will propel you on a spiritual path much faster. 

 

A path without grace is not a path at all for me. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Salvijus

[Maddie]

11 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 

That's because every word in that book is a transmittion. Reading Buddha's words contain the power to invoke his presence and receive his blessings on the path. 

 

Okay admittedly an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered before.

[Salvijus]

Ho ho ho (belly laugh) 

[Salvijus]

@Apech  don't ask me why. Must be the Christmas mood. 

[Apech]

4 hours ago, Salvijus said:

@Apech  don't ask me why. Must be the Christmas mood. 

Hold your reindeer Santa there’s still a month to go.

[Vajra Mind]

Unlike you I was not initiated into Dzogchen or any Buddhist system. My understanding of Buddhism comes from comparing Buddhism with outsider systems which I have been initiated into. So I can share my humble opinion only:

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

Dzogchen requires guru yoga, from what I've been taught, and the direct transmission of the enlightened state.

 

Enlightened state of Dzogchen or natural state of mind can not be transmitted because it is beyond ordinary mind yet it is in every sentient being.

 

In Dzogchen, Rigpa is introduced (special feature in Dzogchen) not transmitted. 

 

During the introduction ceremony you either recognize this Rigpa, then being always mindful of this Rigpa is your daily practice. This practice is called "Treckcho". Not recognizing Rigpa , then the guru needs to introduce you to other mind based practices to increase receptive/perception faculty to explore your natural state.

 

It is only true Treckcho/Dzogchen practice if you recognize Rigpa on the spot and integrate it in your daily life. Most Dzogchen practitioners are practicing mind based meditations to discover their natural state that is not true Treckcho/Dzogchen. 

 

What is transmitted through these initiations and magical mantras are mind based qualities such as siddhis and capacity/perception/receptive faculty. 

 

What is Rigpa? I can only give a conceptual example of it. You are lost in a dark network of tunnels and outside this complex tunnels is sunlight. If you recognize the very subtle sunlight ray (Rigpa) passing through the tunnels and make it your guide (path) to the outside sunlight (natural state) then by observing it and following it you eventually reach sunlight, otherwise if you dont recognize this then you need to walk in the darkness of the tunnels bumping here and there (mind based practices) till your reach the end of the tunnel where is the sunlight of your natural state. So this is one of the reason why Dzogchen is unique because ground, path and result has always been the same since the begining of the practice which is this sunlight in this example. 

 

Disadvantages of Dzogchen:

Out of thousands people introduced to Rigpa, how many did recognized it? 

How can you tell if your guru has realized his own natural state and is able to introduce you to Rigpa? 

Dzogchen might be a highly advanced teaching which requires building capacity to be successful at it.

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

Other Buddhist traditions simply give a method which we can follow.

 

Theravada teachings can offer you great foundation to build capacity for themselves or for Dzogchen such as practicing morality (including compassion), concentration (four Jhanas) to realize wisdom/insight. 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

I'm confused. I have received Dzogchen teachings and am generally impressed with the teacher, although they make some pretty outlandish claims, viewed from a western viewpoint (transmutation of beans left in the back of a cave for a year from one type to another as an experiment in loosening a retreatant's fixed beliefs, for example. Or references to dragons.)

 

I dont understand what you mean by this. Are you saying he has siddhis? If yes this could be a good sign, he has some realization. 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

So Dzogchen is this "high" teaching, very much steeped in Tibetan cultural beliefs. It's often glorified as the ultimate or best teaching by its practitioners.

 

What am I to make of other traditions where there is no guru yoga, and no telepathic transmission? Are they inferior? Do they offer a lesser kind of enlightenment?

 

Is the Tibetan tradition somehow elitist ("mahayana" implies assumed superiority, perhaps?) Do we need to hold our teachers in the kind of regard required by guru yoga?

 

I have learned to make my own judgments rather than believing what others think of themselves. 

 

But regarding Guru Yoga. If you are lucky enough to find a truly realized compassionate master who accept you and then doing genuine Guru Yoga with his permission means you will acquire many of his faculties which facilitate recognizing natural state of mind. 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

I've heard it said that these higher teachings were somehow given by Guatama Buddha as a kind of "silent aside" to those ready to receive them.

 

We can not be certain of that. 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

I'm torn. On the one hand I've been "sold" dzogchen by a couple of people I kinda sorta trust on these matters. On the other, there are a great many people practicing outside of this tradition with methods which require less "suspension of disbelief" or which I can more easily empirically validate, while at the same time recognizing that things beyond my current ability to comprehend or perceive may require a certain amount of faith to remain open to.

 

Scholars like Dr. Allan Wallace emphasize importance of Shamata for dzogchen. In my humble opinion try to blend in more practices if you have got time as I mentioned earlier Theravada practices of morality and Jhanas are great. 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 11:12 PM, Robin said:

Does anyone here "feel me" on all this?

 

I know many people including me are struggling. 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

In my humble opinion try to blend in more practices if you have got time as I mentioned earlier Theravada practices of morality and Jhanas are great. 

 

The Tibetan Lojong teachings (and Tonglen, specifically) ARE actually moral teachings once you understand what they work on. It isn't a set of moral rules, granted, but what it does is shift the mind toward absolute and relative boddhicitta (Eightfold Path) which ARE ultimately the most moral perspective possible - prajna. 

 

Having said that, nothing wrong with metta, etc.

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

Unlike you I was not initiated into Dzogchen or any Buddhist system. My understanding of Buddhism comes from comparing Buddhism with outsider systems which I have been initiated into. So I can share my humble opinion only:

 

Excellent post over all, thank you.

 

2 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

 

Enlightened state of Dzogchen or natural state of mind can not be transmitted because it is beyond ordinary mind yet it is in every sentient being.

 

In Dzogchen, Rigpa is introduced (special feature in Dzogchen) not transmitted. 

 

During the introduction ceremony you either recognize this Rigpa, then being always mindful of this Rigpa is your daily practice. This practice is called "Treckcho". Not recognizing Rigpa , then the guru needs to introduce you to other mind based practices to increase receptive/perception faculty to explore your natural state.

 

It is only true Treckcho/Dzogchen practice if you recognize Rigpa on the spot and integrate it in your daily life. Most Dzogchen practitioners are practicing mind based meditations to discover their natural state that is not true Treckcho/Dzogchen. 

 

What is transmitted through these initiations and magical mantras are mind based qualities such as siddhis and capacity/perception/receptive faculty. 

 

What is Rigpa? I can only give a conceptual example of it. You are lost in a dark network of tunnels and outside this complex tunnels is sunlight. If you recognize the very subtle sunlight ray (Rigpa) passing through the tunnels and make it your guide (path) to the outside sunlight (natural state) then by observing it and following it you eventually reach sunlight, otherwise if you dont recognize this then you need to walk in the darkness of the tunnels bumping here and there (mind based practices) till your reach the end of the tunnel where is the sunlight of your natural state. So this is one of the reason why Dzogchen is unique because ground, path and result has always been the same since the begining of the practice which is this sunlight in this example. 

 

Disadvantages of Dzogchen:

Out of thousands people introduced to Rigpa, how many did recognized it? 

How can you tell if your guru has realized his own natural state and is able to introduce you to Rigpa? 

Dzogchen might be a highly advanced teaching which requires building capacity to be successful at it.

 

 

Theravada teachings can offer you great foundation to build capacity for themselves or for Dzogchen such as practicing morality (including compassion), concentration (four Jhanas) to realize wisdom/insight. 

 

Theravada would not recognise Dzogchen as legit as far as I know.  My experience is of Mahamudra teachings which do blend hinayana, mahayana, vajrayana and then Mahamudra into one continuum of teachings.  The distinction being not the truth of each stage but more the breadth of what is being taught.  For instance the importance of keeping vows increases with tantra and does not diminish as some suggest (ignoring the crazy wisdom mish mash which is sometimes introduced to confuse).

 

2 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

 

I dont understand what you mean by this. Are you saying he has siddhis? If yes this could be a good sign, he has some realization. 

 

 

I have learned to make my own judgments rather than believing what others think of themselves. 

 

But regarding Guru Yoga. If you are lucky enough to find a truly realized compassionate master who accept you and then doing genuine Guru Yoga with his permission means you will acquire many of his faculties which facilitate recognizing natural state of mind. 

 

I think that Guru Yoga is misunderstood.  It is true that you are told to regard your Lama as a Buddha - because if you do then you can receive a Buddha's blessing while if you regard him/her as an ordinary person then you will receive an ordinary persons blessings (which are more or less worthless).  Obviously there have been notable cases where this kind of thing went drastically wrong - so it has to be treated with care.  There's a couple of things I say about it from a practitioner point of view.

 

1.  We are encouraged to put maximum effort into practice (one of the paramitas in fact) and so this is important.  However there are limitations, natural ones, on how far one's will or intellect can penetrate.  In a sense effort becomes a block as it is inevitably egoic.  Like someone who say 'I will destroy my ego-mind' ... well 'I' can't do this technically.  So there is a need as some stage to recognise that the basis. path and fruit is not mind based effort but actually is buddha-nature itself.  Buddha-nature perfect in itself needs nothing to be added or taken away.  Seeing your guru as the personification of buddha-nature allows you to open to receiving blessings from them.  Replacing effort with devotion if you like.  

 

2.  Is Guru Yoga necessary?  No.  Because it is a yana below rigpa, if you like.  Is Guru Yoga helpful? Yes.  Does you actual teacher have to be a realised Buddha to do it.  No.  Ultimately you could regard anyone as a Buddha (or potential one).  But if you have a Lama in whom you have confidence because they have demonstrated wisdom and ability - with whom you have a relationship based on Dharma - then it is 'easier' to practice Guru Yoga with them.

 

2 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

 

We can not be certain of that. 

 

 

Scholars like Dr. Allan Wallace emphasize importance of Shamata for dzogchen. In my humble opinion try to blend in more practices if you have got time as I mentioned earlier Theravada practices of morality and Jhanas are great. 

 

Shamatha and vipassyana are helpful.  I have never been very convinced by Allan Wallace but that might just be me.

 

2 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

 

I know many people including me are struggling. 

 

Me too

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

Most Dzogchen practitioners are practicing mind based meditations to discover their natural state that is not true Treckcho/Dzogchen. 

 

Very true, they are also engaging in body and energy based practices such as tsa lung, trul khor, and tummo. 

 

3 hours ago, Vajra Mind said:

But regarding Guru Yoga. If you are lucky enough to find a truly realized compassionate master who accept you and then doing genuine Guru Yoga with his permission means you will acquire many of his faculties which facilitate recognizing natural state of mind. 

 

29 minutes ago, Apech said:

Is Guru Yoga necessary?  No.  Because it is a yana below rigpa, if you like.  Is Guru Yoga helpful? Yes.  Does you actual teacher have to be a realised Buddha to do it.  No.  Ultimately you could regard anyone as a Buddha (or potential one).  But if you have a Lama in whom you have confidence because they have demonstrated wisdom and ability - with whom you have a relationship based on Dharma - then it is 'easier' to practice Guru Yoga with them.

 

Something I'd like to add in an attempt to clarify what may be a bit misleading for some. 

Not that the comments above necessarily indicate any lack of understanding but their interpretation could be misleading for some.

 

In the Bön dzogchen teachings I've received that relate to Guru Yoga it is consistently emphasized that I, as the practitioner, am NOT visualizing my human teacher as the guru when practicing Guru Yoga. Perhaps it is different among the Nyingmapas? I am not receiving anything from my human teacher in the context of Guru Yoga - not his/her realization, not their faculties that support realization, nothing. Yes, I hopefully will receive, recognize, and embrace these qualities by virtue of every other aspect of my long-standing relationship with my teacher through observation and interaction; this is an important part of "transmission" of the teachings. But when it comes to the practice of Guru Yoga I am instructed NOT to visualize or imagine my teacher or any other human being as the guru. 

 

In Bön dzogchen we practice Guru Yoga with a historical 8th century figure named Tapihritsa. We visualize Tapihritsa as the guru but it goes far beyond that. Tapihritsa is taken to represent all of the enlightened masters of the lineage. He also represents every teacher we've encountered in this life who has helped us along the spiritual path, including our own human teacher. Most importantly, Tapihritsa represents the very Nature of Mind itself, so called Buddha Nature, the ultimate teacher. As a representation of the Nature of Mind, he is always portrayed as naked, without any ornaments, and crystal clear, surrounded by rainbow lights "radiating light in all directions.

 

 

The essence of Guru Yoga is to effortlessly release all obscurations in order that I recognize and abide as my purest essence, the Nature of Mind, fully open and crystal clear, holding on to nothing yet open to everything. We are not joining or merging or receiving something from any other living person, no matter how deeply realized they may be. On the other hand we recognize that we are receiving everything from the fullness of potential of our own fundamental essence, we are that. The process of visualization, purification, and empowerment (elements of the practice of Guru Yoga) are simply a meditative support to help us connect to our own innate enlightened qualities. Note that it is also true that the essence of my human teacher is the Nature of Mind, or Buddha Nature, as is the case in these teachings for ALL sentient beings. And one cannot say there are multiple Natures of Mind or Buddha Natures, nor is it accurate to say that the Nature of Mind or Buddha Nature is One, both of these views can be demonstrated by those well-versed in Buddhist debate to be in error, hence the term "non-dual." 

 

Our fundamental essence of being is often described by mentioning three characteristics in the Bön teachings. It is "like space" because it is unbounded, un-imputable, undefined, lacking corners, edges, or center, and has an indestructible, unborn, and undying character. Like space it is pervasive and completely without bias or preference. The very specific and unique qualities of "space" make for an especially useful simile or metaphor, whether we use the word space in terms of 'outer space' around us, the 'inner space' of our mind, or in terms of the space that we and all physical things occupy. Secondly, our fundamental essence is often described as "clear and unobscured" because it is the basis of recognition, knowing, and awareness and is primordially perfected, meaning that all enlightened qualities are always present and available, provided our realization is unobstructed. "Clarity" or "clear" is a useful and widely used metaphor because, unlike awareness and even knowledge/knowing, it does not necessarily imply subject/object duality. Finally, there is the aspect that is often referred to as blissful or Great Bliss, dewa chenpo in Tibetan (my teacher likes to use the word "warmth" as it feels a bit less emotionally charged and out of reach or unfamiliar) because the enlightened qualities are always present and available. We can feel these qualities directly and express them when needed as living conduits in service to others, provided we are unobstructed.

 

Anyway, if you read this far thanks for indulging me. My comments here are often helpful for me as a way of working through and examining my own understanding. I can never be sure if they're helpful for anyone else. It is wonderful when others gets something out of my rants and sometimes a little painful when others disagree with my understanding, especially those who know more than I do, and all of that is the beauty of being a part of this community.

[Apech]

3 hours ago, steve said:

 

 

Anyway, if you read this far thanks for indulging me. My comments here are often helpful for me as a way of working through and examining my own understanding. I can never be sure if they're helpful for anyone else. It is wonderful when others gets something out of my rants and sometimes a little painful when others disagree with my understanding, especially those who know more than I do, and all of that is the beauty of being a part of this community.

 

Thanks @steve ... I think there are some similarities in the approach of Buddhism and Bon but maybe some differences also.  In the practice of Guru Yoga (which I think is tricky for Westerners to grasp or accept (see below)) the great Jamgon Kongtrul stresses that it is important that the practitioner has 'an unshakable conviction that his guru really is the Buddha'. (This is from a book called the Torch of Certainty the subject of which is the ngondro.)  Guru Yoga is the fourth and final stage of ngondro.

 

Similarly to what you wrote all gurus are understood to be Vajradhara - a deified form of Buddhahood itself - and Vajradhara is seen as the head or origin of the lineage of teachings and as the present teacher of the lineage.  All teachers in that they are teaching are Vajradhara.  And it is from Vajradhara that you receive the four empowerments or transmissions.  This is in the Kagyu school, in other schools this figure would be replaced by Guru Rinpoche perhaps or Samantabhadra.

 

But to say that the source of blessings is solely a disembodied eternal buddha image, rather than the living master, would be a kind of watering down of the key idea.  And would side step the difficulty of this practice - which is very challenging and also dangerous.  It's really in this 'zone' of teacher / lama relationship which great conceptual and actual difficulties arise.  As all teachers without exception are also humans with faults - how on earth are you to see them as living Buddhas? and if you don't see them as living Buddhas how do you receive the blessings of same?

 

I don't present myself as an expert in this field or pretend to understand it properly.  But I thought it important to make this point in the light of what you posted.

 

 

[stirling]

5 hours ago, steve said:

In the Bön dzogchen teachings I've received that relate to Guru Yoga it is consistently emphasized that I, as the practitioner, am NOT visualizing my human teacher as the guru when practicing Guru Yoga. Perhaps it is different among the Nyingmapas?

 

Speaking solely from the perspective of MY training (DudjomTersar Lineage through Dudjom Ripoche) the human teacher is considered the embodiment of all past teachers. I think I remember an individual Guru Yoga that would go through a lineage of teachers that would include your own, but can't remember its specific name. 

 

We are led to imagine (and then hopefully see as reality) is that the entirety of the dharmakaya is enlightened, in which case I don't feel I can really omit my late teacher, who is said to have attained rainbow body and had a nice paranirvana to go with it.  

 

One practice I have taken with me on the travels is to see ALL appearances as Buddha, which indeed they are. For the same reasons it wouldn't make any sense to me to omit a trusted teacher in any practice of this ilk. 

 

Quote

But when it comes to the practice of Guru Yoga I am instructed NOT to visualize or imagine my teacher or any other human being as the guru. 

 

I wonder what the difference here is? Perhaps some philosophical difference about how Buddha/enlightenment/emptiness are expressed? I have read and enjoyed a few Bon books (mostly Daniel Brown stuff), but don't remember seeing anything too different from my training.

 

Quote

In Bön dzogchen we practice Guru Yoga with a historical 8th century figure named Tapihritsa. We visualize Tapihritsa as the guru but it goes far beyond that. Tapihritsa is taken to represent all of the enlightened masters of the lineage. He also represents every teacher we've encountered in this life who has helped us along the spiritual path, including our own human teacher. Most importantly, Tapihritsa represents the very Nature of Mind itself, so called Buddha Nature, the ultimate teacher. As a representation of the Nature of Mind, he is always portrayed as naked, without any ornaments, and crystal clear, surrounded by rainbow lights "radiating light in all directions.

 

In my training we worked specifically with a number of gurus, including the usual suspects and some not so usual. 

 

Quote

 

 

The essence of Guru Yoga is to effortlessly release all obscurations in order that I recognize and abide as my purest essence, the Nature of Mind, fully open and crystal clear, holding on to nothing yet open to everything. We are not joining or merging or receiving something from any other living person, no matter how deeply realized they may be. On the other hand we recognize that we are receiving everything from the fullness of potential of our own fundamental essence, we are that. The process of visualization, purification, and empowerment (elements of the practice of Guru Yoga) are simply a meditative support to help us connect to our own innate enlightened qualities. Note that it is also true that the essence of my human teacher is the Nature of Mind, or Buddha Nature, as is the case in these teachings for ALL sentient beings. And one cannot say there are multiple Natures of Mind or Buddha Natures, nor is it accurate to say that the Nature of Mind or Buddha Nature is One, both of these views can be demonstrated by those well-versed in Buddhist debate to be in error, hence the term "non-dual." 

 

Just looking Daily Practice book, acquired when I began the ngondro years ago, we are definitely working with support, merging/union, etc. with guru yoga.

 

What you describe sounds like a sort of support to me, honestly, if expressed in a slightly different way. 

 

Quote

Our fundamental essence of being is often described by mentioning three characteristics in the Bön teachings. It is "like space" because it is unbounded, un-imputable, undefined, lacking corners, edges, or center, and has an indestructible, unborn, and undying character. Like space it is pervasive and completely without bias or preference. The very specific and unique qualities of "space" make for an especially useful simile or metaphor, whether we use the word space in terms of 'outer space' around us, the 'inner space' of our mind, or in terms of the space that we and all physical things occupy. Secondly, our fundamental essence is often described as "clear and unobscured" because it is the basis of recognition, knowing, and awareness and is primordially perfected, meaning that all enlightened qualities are always present and available, provided our realization is unobstructed. "Clarity" or "clear" is a useful and widely used metaphor because, unlike awareness and even knowledge/knowing, it does not necessarily imply subject/object duality. Finally, there is the aspect that is often referred to as blissful or Great Bliss, dewa chenpo in Tibetan (my teacher likes to use the word "warmth" as it feels a bit less emotionally charged and out of reach or unfamiliar) because the enlightened qualities are always present and available. We can feel these qualities directly and express them when needed as living conduits in service to others, provided we are unobstructed.

 

Throw "primordial" in there, and I think you have Rigpa. In Nyingma we might say the characteristics are: primordially pure, empty, and luminous. This sounds the same to me. It is also close enough to what I think most Mahayana teachers would tell you. Words in these cases are really tough to use, as you know. Speaking from my Soto Zen perspective, while the description might vary, I think this is recognizable to any realized teacher of my tradition.

 

Nicely put, Steve... thanks for sharing your perspective. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by stirling

[doc benway]

2 minutes ago, stirling said:

What you describe sounds like a sort of support to me, honestly, if expressed in a slightly different way

 

You are correct, my comments were incomplete and a bit misleading in retrospect. Difficult for me to put into words.

[doc benway]

3 minutes ago, stirling said:

Throw "primordial" in there, and I think you have Rigpa.

 

I did and edited it out somewhere along the line, either before or after it hit the page…