SF, CA: Fri, 2/28 - "Bodhicitta in the Nine Yanas"
Tyree Hilkert
Friday, 2/28 at 7:30pm
San Francisco Shambhala Center
1630 Taraval St
SF, CA
Ngak'chang Chogyam Rinpoche will present an evening talk on
"Bodhicitta in the Nine Yanas." For more information, contact Joseph
at (510) 865-1394 or Marie (510) 864-0303.
Ngak'chang Chogyam Rinpoche is a Lama of the Nyingma School of Tibetan
Buddhism. We was born and educated in teh West and currently lives in
Wales. He is recognized as the incarnation of Aro Yeshe: the son of
early 20th century female gTerton, Khyungchen Aro Lingma. Rinpoche was
ordained as a member of the Ngakphang Sangha in 1978 and is dedicated
to the preservation of this non-celibate, non-monastic Tantric
tradition in the West.
Ngak'chang Rinpoche and his wife Khandro Dechen are the Lineage
Holders of the Aro gTer. They are the spiritual directors of a
confederacy of sanghas whose practice and Lineage is based on this
tradition. In North America, the community of practitioners is called
the Aro Gar.
Visit the Aro gTer web site: http://www.aroter.org
--
Vajrayana Foundation Homepage http://www.scruznet.com/~yeshenyi
Tyree Hilkert
On 4 Mar 1997 02:30:37 GMT, ab...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bernard D. Tremblay)
wrote:
> I appreciated the way Chris raised the question. The only
>derision I found was the reaction to his definition.
I interpret the use of quotes as being quite derisive, don't you?
>Just who recognized "Ngak'chang Chogyam" as a Nyingma lama an
>incarnation and a Rinpoche? I'm rather curious.
What if I said:
Just who made "Hickey" an archbishop and a cardinal? I'm rather
curious.
>: I do think it would be a good idea to get him to the keyboard to
>: exchange views with Chris Fynn and others. Why not give it a try?
Exchange views? Would you ask a Tibetan lama to do that?
Look at the way people interact with Lama Yeshe Wangmo on IRC #Tibet.
Is that an exchange of views? Should it be?
"Here, Rinpoche. Let ME tell you what *I* think..."
I'm very glad that we have kind Western lamas who encourage question
and answer, but that's very different from exchanging views or
debating.
Benefitting from a lama is not just a property of the lama as an
independent object. It seems to be a property of our relationship with
the lama. In fact, as in the story of the dog's tooth, it might be
completely independent of any qualities of the lama, the apparent
object.
When Dungtse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche was teaching last summer he
mentioned how important it is to be able to see your teacher as a
Buddha, because then you obtain the blessings of a Buddha. If you see
him or her as a regular guy, you obtain the blessings of a regular
guy.
If Chris and Mary are going to just argue with a regular guy, I don't
think that's of particular benefit to anyone, do you? So they should
just think whatever they want. The same glass of water is drink for
humans, a home for fish, slime and pus for pretas, molten lava for
hell beings, a weapon to the titans, and nectar to the gods.
Remember the three faults of the vessel:
- being upside down (not listening)
- having a hole in the bottom (not retaining)
- containing poison (mixing dharma with our emotional agenda)
If someone isn't attending to those three faults, is it worth a lama's
time to teach?
> I think it would be wonderful to get Ngakpa Chogyam on IRC #tibet
Normally I'd agree. But in this context...?
Tyree Hilkert
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 01:44:04 GMT, wbos...@pipeline.com (Bosco Ho)
wrote:
>...Take a cursory reading of great pandits like
>Aryadeva, of great practitioners like Jetsun Milarepa, or of Ch'an
>masters like Ma-Tzu. They accepted challenges for the benefits of both
>the challengers as well as the spectators.
What was challenged?
1. Their role as teacher?
2. Their lineage?
3. Philosophy?
4. Practice?
You're far better read than I am, Bosco, but I get the impression that
these debates focused on #3 and #4, philosophy and practice, didn't
they?
Aren't #1 and #2 the subject of faith and experience, rather than
debate? Since all the teachers I've met insist they have no qualities
whatsoever, I think they would probably just walk away from #1. I
haven't seen #2 happen, so I don't know.
>these are serious accusations among Dharma friends, but let's ignore
>it for a moment and assume it is mere magical displays
I was trying to remind us of the things we would do, such as looking
for the three faults of the vessel, if we really felt we were
listening to teachings from a lama, instead of feeling we're just
arguing with some guy.
Do you think I'm making "serious accusations" as though I never have
all three faults of the vessel when listening to teachings? I space
out, I forget what I'm taught, and I have all sorts of emotional
defilements. The three faults exist to help us listen better, not to
help us acheive a standard of perfection. So mentioning them is not an
accusation. It's a reminder.
Or maybe everyone else is perfect and I'm the only one who exhibits
these faults.
> a mahayanist
>qualified to teach has no better fulfillment than to give teaching.
>And the dispensation of teachings is based on the equanimity
>principle.
Teaching and being taught is a group activity requiring the
participation of both the listener and the teacher. If the listener
isn't willing to listen, or is limiting the discussion to topics that
won't be helpful for them, there's just no point, is there?
>Great lamas give great teachings; small lamas also give
>great teachings.
I think we have to say "great for whom" and "small for whom." I
probably would have thought Tilopa was an insane, abusive and annoying
vagrant. (I know - YOU all would have spotted his qualities.) On the
other hand, Naropa found his root guru.
Isn't there a quote, that if you are ready for a teaching, the rocks
and trees will give teachings? The dharma flows through the lama. The
lama, as the lama will continually TRY to tell you, has no qualities.
> It is dangerous for the handlers (no implication
>intended) to say what and to whom their teacher should teach - the
>teacher responds to the requesters.
First of all, I AM NOT A HANDLER. I'M NOT EVEN IN THEIR SANGHA.
I would be proud to be, but I'm in Vajrayana Foundation sangha, so I'm
not.
I think the teachings will spontaneously arise in a teacher to meet
the needs of beings regardless of what anyone does or doesn't do.
Reductio ad absurdum: Anyone have HHDL's phone number? He should drop
everything and come teach us right now. Let's not let his handlers get
in the way.
>emotion has taken an upper hand in the thread, may i suggest everyone
>back off a bit to give each other, and especially oneself, some space
Space is good. Thanks
Christopher Fynn
In article <332637e5....@nntp.best.com>
ty...@best.com "Tyree Hilkert" writes:
> Ngak'chang Chogyam Rinpoche is a Lama of the Nyingma School of Tibetan
> Buddhism. We was born and educated in teh West and currently lives in
> Wales. He is recognized as the incarnation of Aro Yeshe: the son of
> early 20th century female gTerton, Khyungchen Aro Lingma. Rinpoche was
> ordained as a member of the Ngakphang Sangha in 1978 and is dedicated
> to the preservation of this non-celibate, non-monastic Tantric
> tradition in the West.
Just who recognized "Ngak'chang Chogyam" as a Nyingma lama an
incarnation and a Rinpoche? I'm rather curious.
What relationship does "Aro Yeshe" and "Khyungchen [?] Aro
Lingma" have to the famous Aro Yeshe Jungney (a-ro ye-shes
'byung nas)?
- Chris
--
Christopher J Fynn <cf...@sahaja.demon.co.uk>
Tyree Hilkert
>Just who recognized "Ngak'chang Chogyam" as a Nyingma lama an
>incarnation and a Rinpoche? I'm rather curious.
"At the age of 22 he went to the Himalayas of India and Nepal where he
studied with Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoche, Kunzang Dorje
Rinpoche and many other Nyingma Lamas. He has completed the necessary
practises of a Nyingma Lama, and four years of solitary retreat in
caves. With the encouragement of his teachers, he began to teach in
the West in 1980. In 1989 he was awarded a Doctorate in Tibetan
Tantric Psychology.
"He was recognised as the incarnation of Aro Yeshé by Dilgo Khyentsé
Rinpoche. Aro Yeshé was the son of the extraordinary female visionary,
Khyungchen Aro Lingma - and now Ngak'chang Rinpoche, together with his
wife Khandro Déchen, are the holders of that lineage.
"He was also recognized as an incarnation of 'a-Shul Pema Legden
(yogi, visionary artist, gTér-scribe and spirtual son of the
mahasiddha and great gTértön Khalding Lingpa) by Khordong gTérchen
Tulku Chhi-'mčd Rig'dzin Rinpoche."
- http://www.aroter.org
As someone said in the previous thread, the best way to recognize a
teacher is by that teacher's qualities, not by his fame or tulku
pedigree. But I was in a hurry, so I just typed in the bio' from the
announcement I received.
Our head lama, Tharchin Rinpoche, 11th lineage holder of the Repkong
Ngakpas, considers him a vajra brother.
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that he's incredibly
articulate, funny, and kind and knows EXACTLY how to explain things to
Westerners, since he is one. He understands the baggage of Western
psychology and Judeo-Christianity that we bring to dharma. And he
radiates so much energy I could get a sunburn.
But that's my karmic vision, I suppose. Your mileage may vary.
Christopher Fynn
> Rinpoche was ordained as a member of the Ngakphang Sangha in 1978
> ...
How do you interpret the word "Ngakphang"? although on your web
site <www.aroter.org> it correctly says that Ngak (sngags)
means mantra it also sas that "Phang means 'wielding'. Phang
means 'having the power and authority to use something'". In
Tibetan Ngakphang (sngags phangs) in fact means "Mantra
looser" or one who throws away or forsakes mantras - which
would usually be interpreted as a samaya breaker. I have
certainly never heard it used to describe a sangha before.
Are you quite sure that some Tibetan lama wasn't pulling your
teacher's leg when he gave this name? (Some of them are fond of
this kind of thing.) Alak Zenkar Rinpoche (the author of the
tshig mdzod chen mo and a Nyingma lama) certainly found this
term highly amusing.
The usual term is simply Ngakpa (sngags pa).
> Ngak'chang Rinpoche and his wife Khandro Dechen are the Lineage
> Holders of the Aro gTer.
Ngakchang (sngags 'chang) "Mantra holder" does make sense.
I'm curious though about this A-ro gTer - Aro is a highly unusual
name and the only Aro who is at all well known in Tibetan
religious history is Aro Yeshe Jungney (a ro ye shes 'byung
gnas) the teacher of rBa gom bSod rnams rGyal mtshan who was in
turn the teacher of the famous Kha rag sGom chung. This A-ro
was so called because, as a child, he was found by a nun laying
like a corpse (ro) emitting the sound "A A". She took care of
him and called him Aro or "A corpse". He was the author of
Aro's Mahayana Yoga (a ro'i theg chen naljor) which was praised
by Atisha and of "Aro's Great System of Guidance" (a ro'i khrid
mo che don khor) also known as "The Esoteric Instructions of
the Great Perfection according to Aro" (rdzogs chen a ro'i man
ngag), "The Essential Spirituality of Aro" (a ro' thugs bcud)
or "The Seven Sessions of Aro" (a ro thun bdun) which is a
system of the mental class of Dzogchen (rdzogs chen sems sde)
known as the Khams lugs. Aro Yeshe Jungney held both the
Chinese and Indian traditions of the Mental Class of Dzogchen
during the seventh generation of their transmission.
It's really quite surprising to hear of another, apparently
unrelated, lama with the name A-ro Ye-shes, his mother
Khyungchen Aro Lingma (? Khyung-chen A-ro Gling-ma) and
something called "A-ro gTer". What is the origin of this name?
Could you also tell us where exactly this Terma and Terton
was previously prophesised and authorized by Padmasambhava or
Yeshe Tsogyal? This is an important requirement for all
authentic Terma and Terton.
As you probably know there were many people in Tibet who
falsely claimed to be treasure finders and there were many
false terma - so it is very important to authenticate these
things and there certain requirements and ways clearly set
out to do this finding out all we can about them.
Tyree Hilkert
>Ngakphang (sngags phangs) in fact means "Mantra
>looser" or one who throws away or forsakes mantras
Um, no. From the dictionary at http://www.nitartha.org
'phangs - to feel devastated; to shoot
I think "mantra shooters" is appropriate. (One of the articles in the
Autumn '96 issue of "Vision" was titled "Zen and the Art of Ballistics
- dBangs dBangs shoot shoot.") It does have the sense of throw, but
throw AT rather than throw away.
>What is the origin of this name?
A - the sound "A", as in the Dzogchen mantra
ro - from "ro-chig", the single taste
So A-ro means "the one taste of the primordial A."
>Could you also tell us where exactly this Terma and Terton
>was previously prophesised and authorized by Padmasambhava or
>Yeshe Tsogyal? This is an important requirement for all
>authentic Terma and Terton.
Lama Tharchin taught on gTer last summer, but I can't find my notes...
There's a distinction between kinds of gTer:
- sa gTer (earth treasure)
The lama physically gets it from the earth or water or wherever
- gongs gTer (mind treasure)
The treasure is revealed in the lama's mind
- dag nangs gTer (pure vision)
The treasure is received in a vision
Unlike the other two kinds, pure vision isn't predicted.
The first time Tulku Thubten Rinpoche taught me, he told us how the
Chinese government has this authenticity problem taken care of in
Tibet. They make it easy to find the "genuine" monks and lamas...
because they require them to get licenses from the government.
Hope that helps
- Ty
Mary Finnigan
Tyhi gives general information about this, but I do not think this is
what Chris Fynn had in mind. IMO, he is seeking information specific to
Ngakpa Chogyam and his sangha. As NC appears to be in California at the
moment, would it be possible to get him to your computer to explain it
personally?
Mary
Tyree Hilkert
>Tyhi gives general information about this, but I do not think this is
>what Chris Fynn had in mind. IMO, he is seeking information specific to
>Ngakpa Chogyam and his sangha.
The answers were specific to the Aro gTer. Shardrol, who edits their
magazine, "Vision: Magazine of the Non-Monastic Traditions of
Buddhism" (http://www.aroter.org/pubs.htm) gave them to me.
But since he chose not to dignify the question with a public answer, I
thought I should fashion my own reply and back it up with my own
sources. On rereading it, I prefer his explanation of Ngak'phang,
which I'll share:
>>Ngak'phang means
>>"mantra-hurling" not in the sense of throwing them away & breaking samaya
>>(what an idiotic idea), but in using them in a powerful way that can
>>involve acting on the phenomenal world (an example would be the famous
>>"weather-maker" the late Lama Yeshe Dorje of McLeod Ganj).
I thought it was important to reply because Chris's post SOUNDED so
authoritative, plausible, and derisive. I wouldn't want someone to be
misled by it.
When the last three year retreat ended, I think, Lama Tharchin talked
about how it's easy for people to think he has qualities (though of
course, he said, he doesn't) because he's exotic and Tibetan. But the
people who just came out of retreat have wonderful qualities, yet we
don't see them as easily because they're Americans and we think
they're just like us.
Christopher Fynn
> >Ngakphang (sngags phangs) in fact means "Mantra
> >looser" or one who throws away or forsakes mantras
>
> Um, no. From the dictionary at http://www.nitartha.org
> 'phangs - to feel devastated; to shoot
You've changed your spelling! Yes, 'phangs is the
_future_ root of 'phen which is one of the words for
shoot or throw.
> I think "mantra shooters" is appropriate. (One of the articles in the
> Autumn '96 issue of "Vision" was titled "Zen and the Art of Ballistics
> - dBangs dBangs shoot shoot.") It does have the sense of throw, but
> throw AT rather than throw away.
To throw is "'phen pa", "gyug pa" or "skyur ba" and to shoot is
usually either "'phen pa" or "brgyab pa".
Since you are using this like "to shoot an arrow", shouldn't it go:
mda'/(sngags) - 'phang bya, phen byed, 'phangs pa, phong shig?
& Wouldn't "ngags 'phen mkhan" be the way to write "mantra shooter"?
Even then, most people would prob. read it as one who throws away
mantras rather than as one who employs mantras.
Maybe your Tibetan is better than mine but I think most
Tibetans would understand it the way I did - though the
word "ngags 'phangs" is not in any dictionary.
As for "dBangs dBangs shoot shoot" shouldn't that be "dBang
dBang shoot shoot"?
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert writes
>
>
>I thought it was important to reply because Chris's post SOUNDED so
>authoritative, plausible, and derisive. I wouldn't want someone to be
>misled by it.
>
questions where they need to be asked -- pressing the buttons that feel
uncomfortable. He has an enquiring mind and a critical perspective --
just like me!
>When the last three year retreat ended, I think, Lama Tharchin talked
>about how it's easy for people to think he has qualities (though of
>course, he said, he doesn't) because he's exotic and Tibetan. But the
>people who just came out of retreat have wonderful qualities, yet we
>don't see them as easily because they're Americans and we think
>they're just like us.
I do think it would be a good idea to get him to the keyboard to
exchange views with Chris Fynn and others. Why not give it a try?
>
>
B Wong
In article <nWP$nRACSW...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ngakpa Chogyam (whom I have known for 20 years) is exotic and British!
>I do think it would be a good idea to get him to the keyboard to
>exchange views with Chris Fynn and others. Why not give it a try?
I agree it would be a good idea too. I have surfed through his web-site and
must confess that I found many of his ideas and teachings to be quite
different from those I know. It would be a refresing experience to actually
find out more about his views and lineage. Is that doable?
Brian Wong
bkw...@ix.netcom.com
Tyree Hilkert
>Chris is authoritative and I have never found him derisive. He asks
>questions where they need to be asked -- pressing the buttons that feel
>uncomfortable. He has an enquiring mind and a critical perspective --
>just like me!
I think you have a lot in common.
>Ngakpa Chogyam (whom I have known for 20 years) is exotic and British!
>I do think it would be a good idea to get him to the keyboard to
>exchange views with Chris Fynn and others. Why not give it a try?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. I certainly won't ask
Rinpoche to waste his.
Believe whatever you like and have a nice day.
- Ty
Mary Finnigan
In Tyree Hilkert writes in response to my suggestion that Ngakpa Chogyam
should be requested to share his views with denizens of this forum
>O
>
>I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. I certainly won't ask
>Rinpoche to waste his.
>
>B
morning? I am sure that Chogyam would not consider a request to talk
about Buddhism in this forum as a waste of time. He's a good natured
bloke and cares a great deal about helping people to appreciate dharma.
Love and sunbubbles
Mary
Tyree Hilkert
Jeez, Chris. You're totally over my head. I can barely read the
Tibetan alphabet.
But if it's making some sense for you, then I'm happy. Take care.
J
In baseball their are nine fielders. Their are nine batters. After three
outs both sides switch; the hitters becoming the fielders.
Is this not the answer to the original question?
Once agin I is just a baby lion-dog, allways barking at the demon/devils
:0***HO!!!***
Bernard D. Tremblay
Mary Finnigan (ma...@pema.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Tyree Hilkert writes
: >I thought it was important to reply because Chris's post SOUNDED so
: >authoritative, plausible, and derisive. I wouldn't want someone to be
: >misled by it.
I appreciated the way Chris raised the question. The only
derision I found was the reaction to his definition.
: >When the last three year retreat ended, I think, Lama Tharchin talked
: >about how it's easy for people to think he has qualities (though of
: >course, he said, he doesn't) because he's exotic and Tibetan.
: Ngakpa Chogyam (whom I have known for 20 years) is exotic and British!
Yes ... Tyree?
: I do think it would be a good idea to get him to the keyboard to
: exchange views with Chris Fynn and others. Why not give it a try?
I think it would be wonderful to get Ngakpa Chogyam on IRC #tibet
... and, just by way of personal introduction, you'll find his material
quite well placed on both of my pages ... greater praise I cannot
imagine! ;-)
http://chebucto.ns.ca/~ab006/web_buddhism.html
http://chebucto.ns.ca/~ab006/dharma.html
: Mary
ben
--
|---------------- -----------------|
| Bernard D. Tremblay (Ben) | Ben Tremblay & Associates |
http://chebucto.ns.ca/~ab006/ | ../~ab006/gff/gff.html
|------------- ----------------|
| Good and bad, |
| happy and sad; |
| All thoughts vanish, |
| Like the imprint of a bird in the sky. |
|--------------------- ---------------------|
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert writes about Ngakpa Chogyam
>
>
>If Chris and Mary are going to just argue with a regular guy, I don't
>think that's of particular benefit to anyone
I cannot speak for Chris of course, but in my case the tone of Tyhi's
responses to everything I have suggested in this strand so far appears
to me to be hyper-defensive and also jumping to conclusions on a grand
scale. Two people at least have endorsed my view that it would be
interesting to have NC on the newsgroup (or whatever this #Tibet thing
is). If NC considers it infra dig or you are making a judgement on this
on his behalf, IMO those factors are revealing in their own right. I
cvertainly regard NC as a *regular guy*. I have discussed this with him
several times and he has always known my position on this. He is not my
teacher. He is an old friend and I hope that we share some mutual
respect. Having said this, there is no reason why others should adopt
this posture. Others given the chance to ask questions of an experienced
teacher such as NC can relate to him how they like. Relevant to this
theme is a conversation over dinner the other night between myself and a
woman who works with the Internet in the field of sociology. We
discussed what she does and how I use the net -- then she leaned over to
me with a glint in her eye and said *do you think the net is the modern
version of the oral tradition?*
Mary
>
PS Just read the last bits of your message TH -- they are pompous,
pretentious and insulting.
Bosco Ho
at the risk of getting myself caught in a situation about which i ve
very little understanding, there are several points i ve tried to hold
off in the past 2 rounds...
In <33113ef8...@nntp.best.com>, On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 13:34:57 GMT,
ty...@best.com (Tyree Hilkert) wrote:
>On 4 Mar 1997 02:30:37 GMT, ab...@chebucto.ns.ca (Bernard D. Tremblay)
>wrote:
(snip much)
>If Chris and Mary are going to just argue with a regular guy, I don't
>think that's of particular benefit to anyone, do you?
(snip some)
in a way, it is indeed possible that there are benefits to both the
requesters and spectators. Since the advent of Mahayana Buddhism, many
genuine teachers, in India, in Tibet and in China, to name a few
places and traditions, accepted challenges from other buddhists as
well as nonbuddhists. Take a cursory reading of great pandits like
Aryadeva, of great practitioners like Jetsun Milarepa, or of Ch'an
masters like Ma-Tzu. They accepted challenges for the benefits of both
the challengers as well as the spectators.
>Remember the three faults of the vessel:
>- being upside down (not listening)
>- having a hole in the bottom (not retaining)
>- containing poison (mixing dharma with our emotional agenda)
>If someone isn't attending to those three faults, is it worth a lama's
>time to teach?
these are serious accusations among Dharma friends, but let's ignore
it for a moment and assume it is mere magical displays, a mahayanist
qualified to teach has no better fulfillment than to give teaching.
And the dispensation of teachings is based on the equanimity
principle. Great lamas give great teachings; small lamas also give
great teachings. It is dangerous for the handlers (no implication
intended) to say what and to whom their teacher should teach - the
teacher responds to the requesters.
>> I think it would be wonderful to get Ngakpa Chogyam on IRC #tibet
>Normally I'd agree. But in this context...?
emotion has taken an upper hand in the thread, may i suggest everyone
back off a bit to give each other, and especially oneself, some space
in Dharma
Bosco
Mary Finnigan
Bosco Ho writes with chacteristic sanity
>
> Since the advent of Mahayana Buddhism, many
>genuine teachers, in India, in Tibet and in China, to name a few
>places and traditions, accepted challenges from other buddhists as
>well as nonbuddhists.
up very often in this forum has puzzled me for some time. It would seem
appropriate for them to share their knowledge and experience here, as
well as in other media.
>
>>Remember the three faults of the vessel:
>>- being upside down (not listening)
>>- having a hole in the bottom (not retaining)
>>- containing poison (mixing dharma with our emotional agenda)
>
>>If someone isn't attending to those three faults, is it worth a lama's
>>time to teach?
>
that the writer assumed that I should regard NC as a Rinpoche in the
same way that he does. I am dubious about *all* westerners who call
themselves Rinpoche or even Lama, Jetsunma etc: I know several western
teachers who are highly effective who do not carry titles eg: Stephen
and Martine Batchelor, Yvonne Rand, Tsultrim Allione, Keith Dowman. I am
equally put off by the wholesale distribution of HH's to senior Tibetan
teachers. Self aggrandisement and/or aggrandisement of teachers by their
students is not attractive to me -- I wonder how others feel about this?
>
>emotion has taken an upper hand in the thread, may i suggest everyone
>back off a bit to give each other, and especially oneself, some space
>
driven by emotional responses on this thread. However I am sure this is
sound advice
Mary
Bosco Ho
In <3312df0b...@nntp.best.com>, On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 07:22:28 GMT,
ty...@best.com (Tyree Hilkert) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 01:44:04 GMT, wbos...@pipeline.com (Bosco Ho)
>wrote:
>>...Take a cursory reading of great pandits like
>>Aryadeva, of great practitioners like Jetsun Milarepa, or of Ch'an
>>masters like Ma-Tzu. They accepted challenges for the benefits of both
>>the challengers as well as the spectators.
>What was challenged?
>1. Their role as teacher?
>2. Their lineage?
>3. Philosophy?
>4. Practice?
>You're far better read than I am, Bosco, but I get the impression that
>these debates focused on #3 and #4, philosophy and practice, didn't
>they?
>Aren't #1 and #2 the subject of faith and experience, rather than
>debate? Since all the teachers I've met insist they have no qualities
>whatsoever, I think they would probably just walk away from #1. I
>haven't seen #2 happen, so I don't know.
the learned masters i ve cited seem to b able to convey to their
audience, past and present, the whole ball of wax. So i don't know i
can make sense of the interesting analytical decomposition of #1, 2, 3
and 4 (probably it is valid, but i m just too slow to comprehend the
subteties.) For example, Pandit Aryadeva's debated with Durdharsakara
(the tibetans in terms have identitied the latter as the preconverted
Asvaghosa.) Jetsun Milarepa has debated both bonpos of his days and
buddhists from the monasteries. Come to think of it, the example of
Jetsun Milarepa probably answer your question any way you look at it..
So, at least for argumentative buddhists like myself, faith in the
teachers as representation of the 3 Jewels is developed when these
teachers can withstand the questioning on Dharma grounds but to
lionroar back with fearlessness
(subsequent reply omitted since probably it is better for me to exit
this thread now than latter.)
in Dharma
Bosco
Bernard D. Tremblay
Mary Finnigan (ma...@pema.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I am dubious about *all* westerners who call
: themselves Rinpoche or even Lama, Jetsunma etc:
But what strikes me is that, in my own warped view, _Zen is the
exception_. I came onto the path fully through the teachings of Jiyu
Kennett Roshi, living in one of Shasta Abbey's _priories_ (hence my
interest in the ngakpa tradition, since I'm now Kgyu) [BTW, Roshi passed
away last fall ... news to me.] And Aitken Roshi "gets my vote" anyday.
But in the vajrayana? ... My own teacher is a reincarnate lama who's
father was Karmapa's secretary. I can't see quite what's going on in me here.
: I know several western
: teachers who are highly effective who do not carry titles eg: Stephen
: and Martine Batchelor, Yvonne Rand, Tsultrim Allione, Keith Dowman. I am
: equally put off by the wholesale distribution of HH's to senior Tibetan
: teachers. Self aggrandisement and/or aggrandisement of teachers by their
: students is not attractive to me -- I wonder how others feel about this?
... HHs, as you put it ... it certainly muddies the water, or
waters the milk ... I can't see the benefit to it. HE should be
well-neigh impossible. Venerable is difficult enough. Gratuitous HH
detracts from lineage, to my mind.
Konchog Norbu
Bernard D. Tremblay wrote:
>
> Mary Finnigan (ma...@pema.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : I am dubious about *all* westerners who call
> : themselves Rinpoche or even Lama, Jetsunma etc:
> Thanks for bringing this up, Mary. I have to admit the same bias.
Leaving aside how amusing it is for dharma practitioners feeling
they need to share their biases, I want to briefly answer this
as regards my teacher Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. She did not just
start "calling herself" this. This was the name given to her
by HH Penor Rinpoche, head of the Nyingmapa. When she meets
people, she introduces herself as Ahkon Lhamo. Her students
call her Jetsunma.
Many questions occur to me here. What's wrong with an honorific
if there is something to honor? Are we so thoroughly caught up
in pride and arrogance that such a humble position is that
abhorrent? Can we not see that expressions of respect and
devotion habituate us to honoring that which should be
honored, the appearance in our lives, in form, of our own true
nature? Are we so filled with collective self-loathing that
we cannot imagine an accomplished master ( male or female)
choosing rebirth in a Western body?
If someone spends 16 years in deep study, mastering that aspect
of the dharma as Michael Roach has, you're darn right I'll call
him Geshe. If someone has accomplished three year retreat, I
will respectfully call him/her Lama. If someone is recognized
by an authoritative source as the incarnation of Guru Rinpoche's
consort Mandarava, with deep devotion I will call her Jetsunma.
Let us not forget that sympathetic joy is a critical aspect of
the Bodhisattva path, not making a career out of pointing out the
supposed faults of others. As Shantideva says:
"Upon generating the Spirit of Awakening out of the desire for
the happiness of all sentient beings, why are you angry at
sentient beings now that they have found happiness themselves?
"If you desire sentient beings' Buddhahood, which is worshipped
in the three worlds, then why are you burned up when you see
them slightly honored?
"One who nurtures a person whom you should nurture is making
you a gift. Upon finding a person who supports your family,
are you not delighted, but angry?
"What does one who wishes Awakening for sentient beings not
wish for them? How can one who becomes angry at others'
prosperity have the Spirit of Awakening."
Konchog Norbu
http://www.tara.org
Bernard D. Tremblay
Konchog Norbu (kon...@radix.net) wrote:
: Bernard D. Tremblay wrote:
: > Mary Finnigan (ma...@pema.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : I am dubious about *all* westerners who call
: > : themselves Rinpoche or even Lama, Jetsunma etc:
: > Thanks for bringing this up, Mary. I have to admit the same bias.
: Leaving aside how amusing it is for dharma practitioners feeling
: they need to share their biases, I want to briefly answer this
: as regards my teacher Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo.
the gravy.
I can see how my personal experience might justify nothing more
than amusement, but I can't quite grasp how yours is more substantial, as
though inherently more valuable.
Is it that I labelled mine "bias" (which, lets face it, is merely
a euphemism for prejudice) whereas your expressions are more like "well
considered opinion"? Or perhaps you've established a sense of clarity and
confidence, compared to my case, which is (as I have written) "I can't quite
see into what's going on in me here."
That the sangha brings me to some awareness of the all-permeating
nature of preference is one of the many benefits of staying in touch.
That I have a teacher upon whom I want to shower praises and honorifics,
which gives me some empathy for others, is a source of inestimable
benefit. That you find this amusing is, ahh, bemusing. That you would
want to set this aside, though ... that (at risk in engaging in yet more
passive-agressive BS) gives rise to inquisitive mind.
"Simply cease to cherish opinion."
Karma Chopal
ngakpa wannabe
Richard Menninger
Mary Finnigan wrote:
> The fact that *teachers* in the broadest sense of the word do not crop
> up very often in this forum has puzzled me for some time. It would seem
> appropriate for them to share their knowledge and experience here, as
> well as in other media.
How do you know they haven't, except that they have not blatantly
identified themselves as such or even resist such labels? Also,
those in the West are spread very thin right now and do what is
best for the age and all sentient beings. The net and news groups
is not the best use of their time right now. They leave it to
serious practitioners like Chris and Kent and Konchog to handle
what is at best a potentially forming dharma study group in level.
It is good training for the serious practitioners.
> I am not proud of having risen to this bait. What annoyed me most was
> that the writer assumed that I should regard NC as a Rinpoche in the
> same way that he does. I am dubious about *all* westerners who call
> themselves Rinpoche or even Lama, Jetsunma etc:
If the top lineage holders identify them as such, you are literally
interfering with their relation with teachers and lineage holders by
refusing their acceptance of the pronouncement as part of their own
devotion to the lineage and the teachings to the point that you hurt
your connection to those very teachings!
I think having westerners be recognized hits too close to home
for you as you have not really accepted (at some deeper level)
that it really works that way. It works that way and it is very
ordinary. There are westerners who have not been recognized.
There are westerners who are known but not formally recognized.
The latter has to do with how this transition must unfold and
what their roles in that are, for the most part. If they did
not come back to do it again (though potentially more quickly since
they do not reset but just go through lesser obscuring transitions)
then the age would die out fast. Continual return is essential
for the continuation of the age and teachings. Lack of reverence
of that and of those who hold the precious lineages can be a
serious blockage that causes you to miss a full connection with
the teachings in this age. But I hope that does not happen
and you continue to be included in my practice. I do not mean any
of that as threat or condemnation. It is simply that for a full
connection reverence and devotion have dominant roles in much of
the advanced practice and that is where you are having problems.
At least that is what gets communicated. But devotion does not
mean that your brains fall out, either.
> I know several western
> teachers who are highly effective who do not carry titles eg: Stephen
> and Martine Batchelor, Yvonne Rand, Tsultrim Allione, Keith Dowman.
Well it IS supposed to work that way, you know. Milarepa was
a first-timer. That is the whole idea: why they all come back.
New people MUST develop thoroughly enough to be teachers! That
takes nothing away from those who come back to insure that happens.
Identifying those who come back also does not take anything away
from the new ones. Yet that seems to be what you are concerned about.
Also, coming back does not insure lack of problems for the one coming
back. They do put it on the line by doing it. Some even come back
knowing the problem will happen because that is what the age needs now.
You are putting tension where none exists. There is none between the
first-timers and those who come back.
> I am
> equally put off by the wholesale distribution of HH's to senior Tibetan
> teachers. Self aggrandisement and/or aggrandisement of teachers by their
> students is not attractive to me -- I wonder how others feel about this?
Most of those who get the labels do not care for them but they know
that it is essential, particularly during this transition. There are
several key lineages. You should be grateful for that. That diversity
is crucial to the health of the age. Identifying the backbones of
those lineages is crucial and they absolutely deserve reverence for
the transmission they are preserving.
> >emotion has taken an upper hand in the thread, may i suggest everyone
> >back off a bit to give each other, and especially oneself, some space
Actually, though the discussion is of inherently charged matters,
it seems to be much in accord with how healthy sangha discussions
do progress. There has been no real flaming here but reference to
dharmic issues that are thought to apply. Such discussion among
lower shangha are inherently imperfect in content, or we would not
be lower sangha! :-)
Take care of yourself
Dick
rmenn...@lucent.com
Richard Menninger
Tyree Hilkert wrote:
> Jeez, Chris. You're totally over my head. I can barely read the
> Tibetan alphabet.
> But if it's making some sense for you, then I'm happy. Take care.
Well adopting all of the Tibetan names for tulkus, particularly
in the unsimplified forms, may disappear as us westerners do
make such a hash of that stuff that it leads to inadvertant
disrespect. Even worse it turns our attempts at respect all
around. It becomes an interesting squeeze for practice!
[see the March Shambhala Sun, page 20 or so: Pema strikes
yet again with a very western way to zap us with teachings!]
Mary Finnigan
Richard Menninger writes
> I do not mean any
>of that as threat or condemnation. It is simply that for a full
>connection reverence and devotion have dominant roles in much of
>the advanced practice and that is where you are having problems.
>At least that is what gets communicated. But devotion does not
>mean that your brains fall out, either.
>
is patronising bullshit. You and one or two others who correspond here
really do need to get yourselves out of nappies (daipers) quickly. I can
already hear the howls of pious protests --ooh er that dreadful Mary
Finnigan has been using strong language again and saying all sorts of
provocative, grown up things about the holy dharma. What a bunch of
juvenile tossers you lot are. FYI, my inspiration for this post comes
from Professor Richard Hayes. Chris, Alex, Kent etc: also read him, so
they at least will know what bliss it is to be in touch with his
maturity, humour and common sense.
Mary
Richard Menninger
Mary Finnigan wrote:
> Richard Menninger writes
> > I do not mean any
> >of that as threat or condemnation. It is simply that for a full
> >connection reverence and devotion have dominant roles in much of
> >the advanced practice and that is where you are having problems.
> >At least that is what gets communicated. But devotion does not
> >mean that your brains fall out, either.
> Sorry Richard -- I am sure you are well-intenioned, but this entire post
> is patronising bullshit.
You do not understand devotion AT ALL, then.
The rebirth stuff and titles sure is a button for you.
> You and one or two others who correspond here
> really do need to get yourselves out of nappies (daipers) quickly.
Definitely was a BUTTON for you.
This will get interesting for you later on.
I will be interested to see your reaction at a certain
point in the future.
> I can
> already hear the howls of pious protests --ooh er that dreadful Mary
> Finnigan has been using strong language again and saying all sorts of
> provocative, grown up things about the holy dharma.
No, I do not see what you say as grown up at all. Rather, it is
at a rather neophyte stage of this stuff, quite frankly. Of course,
you may mean grown up in the samsaric sense which actually is very
childish in the bad senses of that.
> What a bunch of
> juvenile tossers you lot are. FYI, my inspiration for this post comes
> from Professor Richard Hayes.
I do not know the man or his writings. But for his sake,
I hope you have missed his points or mis-applied them.
> Chris, Alex, Kent etc: also read him, so
> they at least will know what bliss it is to be in touch with his
> maturity, humour and common sense.
I feel sad that you seem to equate maturity, humour,
and common sense with belittling what you do belittle.
I think you still have a rather bumpy road ahead,
but don't we all. Good luck on yours.
Mary Finnigan
Richard Menninger
>
>
>You do not understand devotion AT ALL, then.
>The rebirth stuff and titles sure is a button for you.
>
fantasy* is the one that gets me going....wittering on and on and on
about it as if it is a hot-line to Absolute Truth and anyone who
challenges or sees life, the universe and everything differently, is a
poor deluded soul who will eventually realise the error of their ways.
If any part of these repetitive ramblings were interesting, stimulating,
provocative, erudite or entertaining it would be a relief. Sadly,
however they are boring, as well as on the loopy side of eccentric. I am
happy to let you have the last word, because this is mine.
Mary
Don Martin
In article <3329B2...@winner.lc.lucent.com>,
r...@winner.lc.lucent.com (Richard Menninger) wrote:
> Mary Finnigan wrote:
>
> > Richard Menninger writes
> > > I do not mean any
> > >of that as threat or condemnation. It is simply that for a full
> > >connection reverence and devotion have dominant roles in much of
> > >the advanced practice and that is where you are having problems.
> > >At least that is what gets communicated. But devotion does not
> > >mean that your brains fall out, either.
>
> > Sorry Richard -- I am sure you are well-intenioned, but this entire post
> > is patronising bullshit.
>
> You do not understand devotion AT ALL, then.
> The rebirth stuff and titles sure is a button for you.
>>>>> If you think that *they* are buttons, try mentioning Sogyal
and see what happens. ;-)
--
Don, I live the life I love
The Born-Again Buddhist. & love the life I live
(....and again and again)
Mary Finnigan
, Don Martin writes
>
>
>>>>>> If you think that *they* are buttons, try mentioning Sogyal
> and see what happens. ;-)
Aaaaargh -- or whatever an ICBM sounds like at lift-off. FYI, just met
up with some more defectors from Rigpa and what I know about S now makes
the other stuff seem tame.
Mary
Tyree Hilkert
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:07:52 +0000, Mary Finnigan
<ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>...What annoyed me most was
>that the writer assumed that I should regard NC as a Rinpoche in the
>same way that he does.
I don't think you SHOULD regard him as anything. This isn't like
Christianity where we FORCE ourselves to believe odd things.
But, based on what I've heard and read, your view of any lama,
unfortunately, restricts your ability to benefit from his teaching. He
could be the Buddha in person and you wouldn't benefit:
"Lepke Karma had spent most of his life near Lord Buddha and during
that time had received an abundance of teachings. With his unfailing
memory he had learned by heart the whole of the Tripitaka. Yet,
because he lacked faith and had negative views toward Buddha
Sakyamuni, he believed that the Buddha's deeds and teachings were no
more than schemes designed to fool people. Because of this he cut
himself off from all blessings."
- The Wish-Fulfilling Jewel, p. 13
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
Since you don't feel this confidence and devotion toward NCR it limits
your ability to benefit from him. I hope you have a lama in whom you
are able to develop this confidence and devotion, because it seems to
be indispensible:
"Whether or not we achieve realization depends entirely upon our
devotion to the guru... If the disciple has the ring of faith and
devotion, then the hook of the guru's wisdom and compassion will pull
him swiftly to the land of liberation." (Ibid., p. 12)
>I am dubious about *all* westerners who call
>themselves Rinpoche or even Lama, Jetsunma etc: I know several western
>teachers who are highly effective who do not carry titles eg: Stephen
>and Martine Batchelor, Yvonne Rand, Tsultrim Allione, Keith Dowman.
"There are two kinds of teacher in the Buddhist systems of Tibet. The
first is called the spiritual friend (ge-wa'i she-nyen, kalyanamitra).
The spiritual friend is the teacher at the level of Sutra. In this
style of teaching, the Lama only makes suggestions and gives advice...
With the spiritual friend, the teaching is always more important than
the teacher...
"The Tantric Lama or vajra master (dorje lopon, vajracharya), however,
may seem to be very different. The vajra master is someone who can
appear very unreliable and very unsafe... Trunpga Rinpoche called the
Tantric Lama 'the dangerous friend'."
- Wearing the Body of Visions, p. 149-150
Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche
Perhaps it's because they are acting as spiritual friends giving
teachings that they don't carry titles. Their teachings are more
important than they are. What do you think?
>...Self aggrandisement and/or aggrandisement of teachers by their
>students is not attractive to me -- I wonder how others feel about this?
I don't think I've seen self aggrandisement, and it would put me off.
As for aggrandisement of teachers by their students, if it is the
spontaneous product of genuine devotion, it's quite wonderful and
inspiring. Listening to Lama Tharchin talk about His Holiness Dudjom
Rinpoche always has everyone in tears because his devotion is so
genuine.
But with ordinary practitioners, devotion can be competitive (my lama
is better than your lama), forced (everyone's smiling so much their
faces hurt), or blinkered (everyone's trying NOT to think about their
doubts). They're... We're... trying to develop genuine devotion, but
we get confused about how to deal with our emotions.
I think, instead of trying to "act" devoted, and covering up our
genuine feelings, we might do better to see, with compassion and
honesty, exactly what we think and feel, and to dare to be our whole
selves in front of our lama.
"When sleeping, when waking, when walking or working or engaging in
any kind of activity, we should invoke the guru, thinking, 'Lama, you
know. Please look on me with kindness. If we always maintain such
yearning and devotion, then our mind will become suitable for the
teacher's blessings."
- The Wish-Fulfilling Jewel, p. 90
Chris can correct me on this, but I believe that 'Lama, you know' is a
translation of 'Lama Khyen', which is in the first line of our
ngondro. Dungtse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche translated it differently:
'Lama, please know me.' So perhaps genuine devotion is more about
daring to open ourselves to the lama instead of covering ourselves in
Tibetan ettiquette.
But there still seems to be a subtle difference between:
"Rinpoche, please see me and my doubts"
and "I doubt you're a Rinpoche"
By the way, I'm sorry I was rude. Take care.
Don Martin
In article <mhTLqCAJ...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
ma...@pema.demon.co.uk (Mary Finnigan) wrote:
>>>>>> Q.E.D.
Mary Finnigan
> Tyree Hilkert writes
>
>
>>
>>By the way, I'm sorry I was rude. Take care.
>>
>
As usual in a rush, distracted, anwering the phone etc: while writing
original repy. Did not see this line. Thanks. No offence taken.
Mary
Richard Menninger
Mary Finnigan wrote:
> Tyree Hilkert writes
> >But, based on what I've heard and read, your view of any lama,
> >unfortunately, restricts your ability to benefit from his teaching. He
> >could be the Buddha in person and you wouldn't benefit:
> Ty - thanks for this post -- a masterpiece of moderation. Re: NC --
> believe me I admire his determination, talent, chutzpah and
> friendliness, but I am by no means alone in my reservations around his
> Rinpoche presentation.
Is it that you do not really buy into rebirth, particularly
including intentional rebirth by those more advanced on the
spiritual path (that is the blatant impression you create)
or is it that you doubt just a particular case? If you buy
into rebirth and concious choice by those who get that far
(not all that far beyond the preliminary tantric practices),
then is it that you have problems with anyone identifying such
people?
> There are two key factors in the way I relate to
> lamas -- discernment and accountability.
There is no problem with that as stated, but the rest
of the context you seem to create gives the impression
that you turn potentially excellent qualities into
neurotic ones by taking them to a paranoid level. Any
quality can have enlightened and neurotic manifestations.
> In the west we appear to leave
> the former at the temple door, the moment a person who calls him/herself
> a guru settles into position on the throne/platform/chair/floor.
Some beginners fall into that sort of trap, but I have
seen more skepticism than brains-falling-out theistic
stuff like that. But it was why Trungpa pushed so hard
on the cutting through of spiritual materialism and various
other forms of theistic styles of thought patterns and
behavior.
> As far
> as the latter is concerned, we expect, demand even, that authority
> figures in our western democracies are accountable, yet we do not ask
> this of gurus. IMO, awareness of the need to incorporate these elements
> are part of the development process that is going on in western Buddhism
> at the moment.
I think we do ask that of them, actually. Some few have
screwed up and they have been called on it by many. You
seem to be taking a "no chink in the armor" stance that
requires no mistakes whatsoever anywhere or it ruins all.
Well nothing works that way. Also, you expect how they
do things to adhere toyour conceptual judgements. You will
ultimately have to give that up if you get very far in Dogzchen.
> We should *not* abandon our critical awareness -- it is
> our birthright and one of the products of good food, good education and
> plenty of exercise. It is also fundamental to an understanding of
> Buddhism.
Just as long as you distinguish between paranoid criticism
and naked awareness, this might be a valid observation,
though it is not dependent on food, education or exercise.
> My teacher since 1979 is Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.
His written teachings are excellent.
> I accord him
> unqualified devotion in all aspects of Dzogchen teachings, but I do not
> agree with some decisions he has made in the relative domain.
Nobody knows all of the background behind decisions
that others make, but it is a basic trait of samsaric
mind to want to judge them. True devotion does not
particularly involve much of those except as they directly
pertain to your one-on-one teaching situation. In fact,
those that try to take "the holy shoelace tying" view of
their supposed teachers every little act are likely to
precipitate the "teacher" pulling their chain real hard
in that respect if the teacher has a more tantric style
of teaching (and we are talking tantric style here).
> IMO, lamas
> are human even if they are fully realised and they make mistakes just
> like everyone else.
More to the point, students exhibit all manner of
neuroses in relating to teachers. That relationship
shows what needs to be worked on very clearly.
> To idealise them to the point of deification is
> indicative of our own emotional-psychological imperfections.
There is between distinction of neurotic deification
and seeing the teacher as transmitting the teachings
and empowerments as a Buddha. Our preconceptions
are generally a mess, initially, on that, as western
cultures do not prepare us at all for it. We either
deify or are total skeptics (the theism/atheism dicotomy
in western culture).
> This does
> not happen among Tibetans.
Well, to some extent, that is true. They bring their
won set of cultural baggage to the relationship. But
some did much the same in effect by merely collecting
blessings instead of learning and practicing. That is
the cultural equivalent of asking for "god's" grace but
not working on yourself: a classic diefication pattern.
> In return for their support and devotion,
> they expect the highest possible moral and ethical conduct. Any lama who
> fails in this respect does not attract a following among Tibetans.
There were manifold mistakes in Tibet as well as in the
west. You are idealizing their foreign situation. Many
of the stories are about the teachers operating on students
to rectify the relationship. Those are the stories about
the successful cases. There were failures in Tibet, as well.
Why do you think the politics were so complicated? Tibetan
culture did not suspend human nature or eliminate neuroses,
it merely colored how they were expressed in a different style.
The point of these teachings is that they work in a fully
human context and devotion is a part of that on both sides.
> >Since you don't feel this confidence and devotion toward NCR it limits
> >your ability to benefit from him. I hope you have a lama in whom you
> >are able to develop this confidence and devotion, because it seems to
> >be indispensible:
> Er - no way could I be *devoted* to NC other than as a friend..ie: if he
> was in trouble and needed my help etc:
The role of tantric devotion does not say it has to
be to everyone who might be a teacher. Our comments
are reflecting back to you that you exude the impression
that you feel that way towards all.
> >Perhaps it's because they are acting as spiritual friends giving
> >teachings that they don't carry titles. Their teachings are more
> >important than they are. What do you think?
> Yes, this is certainly true. Andrew Harvey has written about the
> *spiritual friend* as a development in western approaches to oriental
> spirituality. It seems logical to me that we should move in this
> direction -- but there are many subtleties involved and it will not
> happen overnight. I see several people I have known for a long time
> moving into teaching roles. The *qualities* they display are much more
> convincing than titles, robes, words.
For western culture to begin to even understand the
"spiritual friend" level of relationship in an authentic
way would improve those cultures. But that does not
preclude the tantric levels of devotion being understood.
Both are part of the picture. But the tantric level of
devotion cannot be rushed.
> >I think, instead of trying to "act" devoted, and covering up our
> >genuine feelings, we might do better to see, with compassion and
> >honesty, exactly what we think and feel, and to dare to be our whole
> >selves in front of our lama.
> When this happens we are exposed and vulnerable, regardless of our
> sophistication.
Actually, that happens as much at the spiritual friend level.
Feeling exposed and vulnerable and tentative are part of the
early soup that early mahayana practice (pre-tantric) works on.
The issue is the importance placed on that in that you are
reticent about stepping out, taking the leap. Although you
are still exposed and vulnerable, at the tantric level, that
is an old friend in the background, just texture.
> This is why it is vitally important to take great care
> over who you choose to do this with.
Well, the trying all of the shoes stage seems to be part of
the earlier work. At tantric level, there seems to be less
intellectual choice and more choiceless "CLICK" that this is it.
Part of the problem in the west has been trying to force that
click either too soon or in a poor match. The "beyond concept"
underlying nature shines through more than you are ready to
acknowledge.
> In Tibetan culture this process
> would take years.
Well, the culture wound up partly taking the place
some early study and practice. That had both good
and bad aspects. In the west there is more need to
explicitly do the earlier practices as formal practice.
> The student would test the qualities of the lama as
> carefully as the lama would test the suitability of the prospective
> student.
Well there was a lot of mistakes made over there in Tibet,
as well. The stories are about the successes. But there
was more of a hunt for a proper match and there were more
possibilities, too. We are still early in the transition.
Ultimately, there will be more choices. But the hunt was
earlier practice, as well. The hunt was as much (and usually
more) the preparation of the student for the advanced
teachings and practice.
> In the west we are in too much of a hurry and are too eager to
> trust.
Well, very unprepared, so that we come in blinded by
our preconceptions and projections. This has happened
at a more basic stage than would be true if the culture
was steeped in this stuff. One of those projections is
often neurotic speed.
> Too naive. We really do need to grow up.
True devotion is part of that and it is not blind
in the way you seem to project at times.
> I have to keep saying
> this, because the more I read this ng, the more it becomes obvious that
> many people are in a state of blind devotion.
This is where perceptions part company. Any statement of
devotion seems to precipitate getting a label of blind
from you. That is what leads to all of this discussion.
> They are not using their
> brains or their common sense.
Well, we disagree about most of the stuff you label as
"blind devotion" actually being very accurately described
by that label. You seem to equate being adult with having
little or no true devotion. You will get comments every
time as that is a central issue in this news group.
> Mary
>
> >can correct me on this, but I believe that 'Lama, you know' is a
> >translation of 'Lama Khyen', which is in the first line of our
> >ngondro. Dungtse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche translated it differently:
> >'Lama, please know me.' So perhaps genuine devotion is more about
> >daring to open ourselves to the lama instead of covering ourselves in
> >Tibetan ettiquette.
Well any contact with the lama is about opening ourselves
both to ourselves and to the lama, at least to the extent
the lama is capable of creating a teaching situation. For
some, because of the particular style of neuroses they
currently have to work with, they need distinct teachers
to do the early preparation and later transmission.
> >But there still seems to be a subtle difference between:
> > "Rinpoche, please see me and my doubts"
> > and "I doubt you're a Rinpoche"
Yep. The "I doubt you're a Rinpoche" stance comes across
as a lot of misplaced projection on what a Rinpoche is.
A Rinpoche (if correctly identified as such) is someone
who consciously came back to do it again, and is not a
"perfect being" with nothing to work out. Only intermediate
tantric practices are needed for this. It is western
cultural baggage that makes that difficult to accept as
ordinary. But you will find plenty of Tibetans who relate
to all of this at a level of fairy tale similar to the way
many westerners relate to angels and such of western theism.
Having something as part of the culture does mean understanding.
> > By the way, I'm sorry I was rude. Take care.
> Mary Finnigan
--
Fred Little
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Richard Menninger wrote:
> Is it that you do not really buy into rebirth, particularly
> including intentional rebirth by those more advanced on the
> spiritual path (that is the blatant impression you create)
> or is it that you doubt just a particular case? If you buy
> into rebirth and concious choice by those who get that far
> (not all that far beyond the preliminary tantric practices),
> then is it that you have problems with anyone identifying such
> people?
>
> Take care of yourself
> Dick
> rmenn...@lucent.com
Dick--
I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
for the belief in rebirth. I've heard many anecdotes that arise from an
incident which created a strong feeling tone in the teller of the tale.
But there always seem to be gaping holes that leave room for utterly
"mundane" explanations.
The usual tests include a great deal of room for the operation of
"exceptional sensitivities" (which may be the point). That individuals
with "exceptional sensitivities" occur within any population is to be
expected. That means of identifiying such individuals would be developed
is to be expected. But there is no evidence that the explanation given in
this instance has anything to do with the efficacy of the process or the
validity of the result. When HHDL responds to questions about the rebirth
question with phrases like "I have no difficulty believing that I have a
spiritual connection to my predecessors," he's not necessarily saying
anything more (or less) significant than Wynton Marsalis assertion of a
"spiritual connection" to the founders of American jazz.
But doctrinaire assertions of the "reality" of rebirth and conscious
rebirth, in the absence of any compelling evidence for such assertions,
merely feed the commonly held view of Tibetan Buddhism -- and by
extension, all forms of Vajrayana -- as a devolved belief system which has
fallen prey to backwater ignorance and superstition. Surely that isn't
your intent...
Best regards,
Fred Little
B Wong
In article <332ED6...@winner.lc.lucent.com>,
Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
>Mary Finnigan wrote:
>
>
>> This is why it is vitally important to take great care
>> over who you choose to do this with.
>
>Well, the trying all of the shoes stage seems to be part of
>the earlier work. At tantric level, there seems to be less
>intellectual choice and more choiceless "CLICK" that this is it.
>Part of the problem in the west has been trying to force that
>click either too soon or in a poor match. The "beyond concept"
>underlying nature shines through more than you are ready to
>acknowledge.
>
>> In Tibetan culture this process
>> would take years.
>
>Well, the culture wound up partly taking the place
>some early study and practice. That had both good
>and bad aspects. In the west there is more need to
>explicitly do the earlier practices as formal practice.
>
If I remember correctly, the Tibetan custom is for the guru and the student
to "watch" each other for at least three years before committing to the
relationship. I wonder how many "Westerners" are doing that.
>> Too naive. We really do need to grow up.
>
>True devotion is part of that and it is not blind
>in the way you seem to project at times.
Once the relationship has been established though, the devotion should be
total. The guru is at the same time playing the role of your physician
(especially psychiatrist) and your navigator (or air traffic controller?).
Just like you would not argue with your doctor on what medicine to prescribe
to you, or with the navigator on what course to sail, one really should not
doubt the guru. Otherwise, the benefits would be limited - your ego/ self,
the very thing that you are trying to rid of, is still calling the shots.
>> >But there still seems to be a subtle difference between:
>> > "Rinpoche, please see me and my doubts"
>> > and "I doubt you're a Rinpoche"
>
>Yep. The "I doubt you're a Rinpoche" stance comes across
>as a lot of misplaced projection on what a Rinpoche is.
>A Rinpoche (if correctly identified as such) is someone
>who consciously came back to do it again, and is not a
>"perfect being" with nothing to work out. Only intermediate
>tantric practices are needed for this. It is western
>cultural baggage that makes that difficult to accept as
>ordinary. But you will find plenty of Tibetans who relate
>to all of this at a level of fairy tale similar to the way
>many westerners relate to angels and such of western theism.
>Having something as part of the culture does mean understanding.
Just because someone carries the title Rinpoche (and for that matter, Dalai
Lama, Panchen Lama, Karmapa, etc.) does not automatically mean the person is
any more enlightened or realized. He still has to learn, practice and
receive initiations, just like any one of us. Perhaps because of the karmic
action from past lives, he can accomplish these a little easier. If he is
part of the Sangha or an elder layman, one ought to give him the respect and
courtesy just like one would to other similar persons. Look past the title
(and put an end to this heated discussion?), please!
Take care!
Brian Wong
bkw...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Menninger
B Wong wrote:
> In article <332ED6...@winner.lc.lucent.com>,
> Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
> >Mary Finnigan wrote:
> >> This is why it is vitally important to take great care
> >> over who you choose to do this with.
> >Well, the trying all of the shoes stage seems to be part of
> >the earlier work. At tantric level, there seems to be less
> >intellectual choice and more choiceless "CLICK" that this is it.
> >Part of the problem in the west has been trying to force that
> >click either too soon or in a poor match. The "beyond concept"
> >underlying nature shines through more than you are ready to
> >acknowledge.
That click is the true preparation for samaya vows.
> >> In Tibetan culture this process
> >> would take years.
> >Well, the culture wound up partly taking the place
> >some early study and practice. That had both good
> >and bad aspects. In the west there is more need to
> >explicitly do the earlier practices as formal practice.
> If I remember correctly, the Tibetan custom is for the guru and the student
> to "watch" each other for at least three years before committing to the
> relationship. I wonder how many "Westerners" are doing that.
Well, If you join a western branch of a tradition, then
you will be doing its preliminary stuff. I sat a lot and
did some other stuff a little as the beginning of this stuff.
As you become ready for more, it hits home when you hear it.
At least that was my experience. That was true of the fuller
mahayana practice for me. You have to learn not to force it
and not to hold back either. But an arbitrary three years
does not prove or disprove anything. So I suspect that the
practice traditions will become stronger in the West or will
die out, possibly messily. But they have always had bumps.
What will die out is our fixed concepts about all of it.
If there is no tradition but that, nothing will be left.
> >> Too naive. We really do need to grow up.
> >True devotion is part of that and it is not blind
> >in the way you seem to project at times.
> Once the relationship has been established though, the devotion should be
> total. The guru is at the same time playing the role of your physician
> (especially psychiatrist) and your navigator (or air traffic controller?).
> Just like you would not argue with your doctor on what medicine to prescribe
> to you, or with the navigator on what course to sail, one really should not
> doubt the guru. Otherwise, the benefits would be limited - your ego/ self,
> the very thing that you are trying to rid of, is still calling the shots.
I assume that you mean once you have samaya bondage as that
is the tantric devotion glue that ups the ante way beyond the
"spiritual friend" level of the sutra teachings. There is as
much an issue of the teacher accepting the student as for the
student accepting the teacher. Both are in real danger at that
level. If it does not involve samaya, then we are at a lower
power form of relationship. As anyone should know, it is possible
to totally mess up any relationship at any level. For this stuff,
protection is synonomous with nothing happening. So if you want
relative safety, keep doing the beginning practices and never
form a deeper relationship. It will be a few eons that way.
> >> >But there still seems to be a subtle difference between:
> >> > "Rinpoche, please see me and my doubts"
> >> > and "I doubt you're a Rinpoche"
> >Yep. The "I doubt you're a Rinpoche" stance comes across
> >as a lot of misplaced projection on what a Rinpoche is.
> >A Rinpoche (if correctly identified as such) is someone
> >who consciously came back to do it again, and is not a
> >"perfect being" with nothing to work out. Only intermediate
> >tantric practices are needed for this. It is western
> >cultural baggage that makes that difficult to accept as
> >ordinary. But you will find plenty of Tibetans who relate
> >to all of this at a level of fairy tale similar to the way
> >many westerners relate to angels and such of western theism.
> >Having something as part of the culture does mean understanding.
> Just because someone carries the title Rinpoche (and for that matter, Dalai
> Lama, Panchen Lama, Karmapa, etc.) does not automatically mean the person is
> any more enlightened or realized. He still has to learn, practice and
> receive initiations, just like any one of us.
That is accurate. That is the genuine sacrifice that is made.
> Perhaps because of the karmic
> action from past lives, he can accomplish these a little easier.
Generally, that is true, particularly if there was a serious
dedication to practice that tamed much. But old karmic ties
can come up by coming into contact with ancient chums.
> If he is
> part of the Sangha or an elder layman, one ought to give him the respect and
> courtesy just like one would to other similar persons.
Those who have come back deserve some respect, yes.
But they have to actually do it again to become teachers.
That has never been the quarrel, at least from this end.
The issue has been attitude toward the label and what it
represents. The West seems rather short of respect in
almost any form. Yet it claims to be worried about all
of the cases of undeserved respect. That pattern happens
in many other contexts not involving respect, as well.
> Look past the title
> (and put an end to this heated discussion?), please!
Heat? That practice comes later! ;-)
I thought this was just a useful discussion. If you
feel a sense of heat in this, look at that and examine
what attachment is behind the heat. I have always found
some behind any feelings of the kind of heat you seem to
mean . That is why such discussions are valuable among
sangha members. They help each find such pockets to work
on. Avoiding such heat is becoming delayed.
From my side, it has been enjoyable, actually. I enjoy
discussing these things with other sangha. This is how
it really works!
> Take care!
B Wong
In article <332F04...@winner.lc.lucent.com>,
Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
>B Wong wrote:
>
>> In article <332ED6...@winner.lc.lucent.com>,
>> Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com> wrote:
>
Big Scissors at work here....
>
>I assume that you mean once you have samaya bondage as that
>is the tantric devotion glue that ups the ante way beyond the
>"spiritual friend" level of the sutra teachings. There is as
>much an issue of the teacher accepting the student as for the
>student accepting the teacher. Both are in real danger at that
>level. If it does not involve samaya, then we are at a lower
>power form of relationship. As anyone should know, it is possible
>to totally mess up any relationship at any level. For this stuff,
>protection is synonomous with nothing happening. So if you want
>relative safety, keep doing the beginning practices and never
>form a deeper relationship. It will be a few eons that way.
>
Or try a safer tradition? Vajrayana is not the only way to enlightenment,
right?
>Those who have come back deserve some respect, yes.
>
>But they have to actually do it again to become teachers.
>That has never been the quarrel, at least from this end.
>The issue has been attitude toward the label and what it
>represents. The West seems rather short of respect in
>almost any form. Yet it claims to be worried about all
>of the cases of undeserved respect. That pattern happens
>in many other contexts not involving respect, as well.
Not just the West - even in China and Tibet (as you also mentioned), many
people look at these rinpoches and lamas with an almost superstitious mind
set. I guess respect is good, but over-doing it may be dangerous.
>
>Heat? That practice comes later! ;-)
>
No! You mean not all rinpoches can fly and shoot powerful beams of light at
you? (:P
>I thought this was just a useful discussion. If you
>feel a sense of heat in this, look at that and examine
>what attachment is behind the heat. I have always found
>some behind any feelings of the kind of heat you seem to
>mean . That is why such discussions are valuable among
>sangha members. They help each find such pockets to work
>on. Avoiding such heat is becoming delayed.
>
>From my side, it has been enjoyable, actually. I enjoy
>discussing these things with other sangha. This is how
>it really works!
>
Richard: This thread has been around for almost a month now, at times filled
with some rather harsh words and loud screams from many sides. That's why I
called it "heated." I certainly find many of the discussion (including all
of your posts) beneficial; but, hey, let's cool it a bit...
Have fun!
Brian Wong
bkw...@ix.netcom.com
Tyree Hilkert
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:19:12 GMT, B Wong <bkw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Once the relationship has been established though, the devotion should be
>total. The guru is at the same time playing the role of your physician
>(especially psychiatrist) and your navigator (or air traffic controller?).
>Just like you would not argue with your doctor on what medicine to prescribe
>to you, or with the navigator on what course to sail, one really should not
>doubt the guru.
Have you ever been to a psychiatrist? Honesty is extremely important
for the relationship to work, so if you have doubts, they should be
expressed honestly, not repressed because you think you "shouldn't"
have them.
"Real initiation takes place in terms of 'the meeting of the two
minds.' It is a matter of being what you really are and of relating to
the spiritual friend as he or she is. This is the true situation in
which initiation might occur, because the idea of having an operation
and fundamentally changing yourself is completely unrealistic. No one
can really change your personality absolutely. No one can turn you
completely upside down and inside out. The existing material, that
which is already there, must be used. You must accept yourself as you
are, instead of as you would like to be, which means giving up
self-deception and wishful thinking."
- Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, p. 64
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
>Otherwise, the benefits would be limited - your ego/ self,
>the very thing that you are trying to rid of, is still calling the shots.
I'm not trying to get rid of my ego/self. That's impossible. I'm
trying to SEE and then SEE THROUGH my self-image, my conceptions and
beliefs about who I should be.
"Buddhist meditation is an attempt to break through and expose
narcissism in its every haunt. The Buddha sees us all as Narcissus,
gazing at and captivated by our own reflections, languishing in our
attempted self-sufficiency, desperately struggling against all that
would remind us of our own fleeting and relative natures...
"Freud recognized that the inability to tolerate unpleasant truths
about oneself was essential to narcissism. The Buddha's teachings make
this observation the cornerstone of his psychology... We do not want
to admit our lack of substance to ourselves and, instead, strive to
project and image of completeness, or self-sufficiency. The paradox is
that, to the extent that we succumb to this urge, we are estranged
from ourselves and are NOT REAL."
- Thoughts Without a Thinker, p. 48
Mark Epstein
Richard Menninger
Fred Little wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Richard Menninger wrote:
> > including intentional rebirth by those more advanced on the
> > spiritual path (that is the blatant impression you create)
> > or is it that you doubt just a particular case? If you buy
> > into rebirth and concious choice by those who get that far
> > (not all that far beyond the preliminary tantric practices),
> > then is it that you have problems with anyone identifying such
> > people?
> Dick--
> I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
> for the belief in rebirth.
There is no problem with that, as far as it goes. Each has to
work things out for themselves. You will notice that I was trying
to pin down a little more whether the problems were with the
possibility or just with the identification of them. If you
adopt it as blind faith, then it is a case that WILL come back at
you before long or will change to more genuine conviction, though
not necessarily in the pendantic logic sense. Some of this
path transcends that even while it uses it as a tool.
> I've heard many anecdotes that arise from an
> incident which created a strong feeling tone in the teller of the tale.
> But there always seem to be gaping holes that leave room for utterly
> "mundane" explanations.
We can rationalize away virtually anything, quite frankly.
We have all seen that happen and have done it on something
that then hits us in the face with our foolishness. In
practice, it should start as just another possible worldview,
though one that is rather well oiled in the face of experience.
For a long time, there is much more basic stuff to work on.
This is a big grain of salt for a while. The connection will
develop to it over time or it will not. That connection, if
it develops, will not necessarily be driven by the earlier
desparate (everything is rather desparate earlier) need for
ego's logic. Nor will you necessarily feel you need to defend
it as ground using logic.
> The usual tests include a great deal of room for the operation of
> "exceptional sensitivities" (which may be the point). That individuals
> with "exceptional sensitivities" occur within any population is to be
> expected. That means of identifiying such individuals would be developed
> is to be expected. But there is no evidence that the explanation given in
> this instance has anything to do with the efficacy of the process or the
> validity of the result. When HHDL responds to questions about the rebirth
> question with phrases like "I have no difficulty believing that I have a
> spiritual connection to my predecessors," he's not necessarily saying
> anything more (or less) significant than Wynton Marsalis assertion of a
> "spiritual connection" to the founders of American jazz.
The HHDL spends much of his time relating with people
who cannot be helped by any stronger statement than that.
His goal is to help, rather than to force a worldview.
His statements do not preclude more. Rather they clear
the wrong issue off the table. But this is a somewhat
different atmosphere and talking about this can be more
helpful here.
> But doctrinaire assertions of the "reality" of rebirth and conscious
> rebirth, in the absence of any compelling evidence for such assertions,
> merely feed the commonly held view of Tibetan Buddhism -- and by
> extension, all forms of Vajrayana -- as a devolved belief system which has
> fallen prey to backwater ignorance and superstition. Surely that isn't
> your intent...
If it is only doctrinal to you, then it should be
relegated to just being one possibility.
But it usually has a bit (often a lot) of irrational
charge in its rejection, a bit of heat. Helping other
sangha members recognize such heat and work with it
fully is part of what sangha do for each other in
vajrayana settings. Discussions such as this are the
bread and butter of vajrayana sangha-ness.
> Best regards,
> Fred Little
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert writes
>
>But, based on what I've heard and read, your view of any lama,
>unfortunately, restricts your ability to benefit from his teaching. He
>could be the Buddha in person and you wouldn't benefit:
>
Ty - thanks for this post -- a masterpiece of moderation. Re: NC --
believe me I admire his determination, talent, chutzpah and
friendliness, but I am by no means alone in my reservations around his
lamas -- discernment and accountability. In the west we appear to leave
the former at the temple door, the moment a person who calls him/herself
as the latter is concerned, we expect, demand even, that authority
figures in our western democracies are accountable, yet we do not ask
this of gurus. IMO, awareness of the need to incorporate these elements
are part of the development process that is going on in western Buddhism
our birthright and one of the products of good food, good education and
plenty of exercise. It is also fundamental to an understanding of
unqualified devotion in all aspects of Dzogchen teachings, but I do not
are human even if they are fully realised and they make mistakes just
indicative of our own emotional-psychological imperfections. This does
not happen among Tibetans. In return for their support and devotion,
they expect the highest possible moral and ethical conduct. Any lama who
fails in this respect does not attract a following among Tibetans.
>
>
>your ability to benefit from him. I hope you have a lama in whom you
>are able to develop this confidence and devotion, because it seems to
>be indispensible:
Er - no way could I be *devoted* to NC other than as a friend..ie: if he
was in trouble and needed my help etc:
>
>Perhaps it's because they are acting as spiritual friends giving
>teachings that they don't carry titles. Their teachings are more
>important than they are. What do you think?
Yes, this is certainly true. Andrew Harvey has written about the
*spiritual friend* as a development in western approaches to oriental
spirituality. It seems logical to me that we should move in this
direction -- but there are many subtleties involved and it will not
happen overnight. I see several people I have known for a long time
moving into teaching roles. The *qualities* they display are much more
convincing than titles, robes, words.
>
>I think, instead of trying to "act" devoted, and covering up our
>genuine feelings, we might do better to see, with compassion and
>honesty, exactly what we think and feel, and to dare to be our whole
>selves in front of our lama.
When this happens we are exposed and vulnerable, regardless of our
sophistication. This is why it is vitally important to take great care
over who you choose to do this with. In Tibetan culture this process
would take years. The student would test the qualities of the lama as
carefully as the lama would test the suitability of the prospective
student. In the west we are in too much of a hurry and are too eager to
trust. Too naive. We really do need to grow up. I have to keep saying
this, because the more I read this ng, the more it becomes obvious that
many people are in a state of blind devotion. They are not using their
brains or their common sense.
Mary
>can correct me on this, but I believe that 'Lama, you know' is a
>translation of 'Lama Khyen', which is in the first line of our
>ngondro. Dungtse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche translated it differently:
>'Lama, please know me.' So perhaps genuine devotion is more about
>daring to open ourselves to the lama instead of covering ourselves in
>Tibetan ettiquette.
>
>But there still seems to be a subtle difference between:
> "Rinpoche, please see me and my doubts"
> and "I doubt you're a Rinpoche"
>
>By the way, I'm sorry I was rude. Take care.
>
--
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:20:17 -0500, Fred Little <fa...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>...But doctrinaire assertions of the "reality" of rebirth and conscious
>rebirth, in the absence of any compelling evidence for such assertions,
>merely feed the commonly held view of Tibetan Buddhism -- and by
>extension, all forms of Vajrayana -- as a devolved belief system which has
>fallen prey to backwater ignorance and superstition. Surely that isn't
>your intent...
Amen. So many people think that we are supposed to chuck our
"confused" Western scientific notions and blindly accept the "real"
Tibetan worldview.
No. I think we're supposed to see any "reality" as an inadequate, yet
indispensible, conceptual model of the inexpressible.
Mary Finnigan
Fred Little writes
>
>
>I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
>incident which created a strong feeling tone in the teller of the tale.
>But there always seem to be gaping holes that leave room for utterly
>"mundane" explanations.
>
I am ambivalent about this and have been exploring various POVs
recently. HH the DL said "tulku system old-fashioned. Not necessary
nowadays. I think only heads of orders -- very top lamas perhaps still
do this -- not others." Stephen Batchelor said "I don't go for this at
all..it was 99 per cent political in Tibet, but I do think they
developed a good eye for spotting spiritually gifted children." Tim
Smith on BUDDHIST(where the discussion also flows) used metaphor of
waves arising from the ocean and crashing back into it again..but
confessed to being flummoxed by this in terms of *identity*. So where
does this leave me? Wondering for example, about the uncanny physical
resemblance to their predecessors of the alleged reincarnate Karmapa and
alleged reincarnate Dilgo Khentse... possible rational explanations for
this of course (see above) but I think in essence, the idea of post-
physical-death energy being finely tuned by yogic activity during
physical life appeals to me because I *want* to believe that there is
more to us than one fleeting flash through planet earth...and that we
have the capacity to do this energy tuning effectively. In retreat, it
seems possible. In daily life less so.
Mary
>
kunukia
: Fred Little writes
:>
:>
:>I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
:>for the belief in rebirth.
Odd. I've never had any problem believing in both 'modern science' *and*
rebirth. They don't seem to conflict, to me.
Of course, since my mother believed in rebirth, I took it in at an early
age, and never had a disbelief to overcome.
kunukia
Richard Menninger
kunukia wrote:
> : Fred Little writes
> :>I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
> :>for the belief in rebirth.
I have yet to see much basis for belief for the "one shot is it"
view either, particularly the theistic versions. The rebirth
view fits things much better, actually. So as a trained
theoretical physicist, I take the better explanation as a better
potential basis of looking at things.
> Odd. I've never had any problem believing in both 'modern science' *and*
> rebirth. They don't seem to conflict, to me.
They do not conflict.
> Of course, since my mother believed in rebirth, I took it in at an early
> age, and never had a disbelief to overcome.
Hearing it since birth is a way to get it as a default view.
That may make it harder to really look, though.
I came up through hardcore christianity. They first talked
me out of much stuff in spite of some heavy duty work to
force me in some directions. By itself the one shot theory
always seemed a very poor theory. But the rebirth view
still had to fight a LOT of conditioning including
conditioning to discredit eastern thought as something for
me to look at. Thomas Merton's stuff helped soften the
conditioning and I was able to connect with the practice
when someone I cared about wanted me to go to a Trungpa
introductory multi-day intensive with them. I went in with
no real expectations at all and took much of the "baggage"
(I included rebirth as baggage then) with a big grain of salt.
The practice had to prove its worth inch by inch and baggage
became more only very slowly. But a lot of practice while
still living a regular life is a good path it seems. A lot
of practice seems to be key to baggage proving itself. The
proof is not logic but more direct personal experience of the
teachings through practice.
Actually, I do not have a problem with Mary taking it all
with a grain of salt both as a theory and as usefulness of
the identification in the West. In fact I thought her most
recent post was quite good at covering it. But I will poke
at a somewhat disrespectful disparaging of it, which is how
some of the earlier stuff comes across. It is possible to
respectfully doubt this stuff. Disrespectful doubt means
there is a special charge there that needs investigation.
At least that is how things happen in virtually every other
case I have seen.
> kunukia
Fred Little
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Richard Menninger wrote:
> > : Fred Little writes
>
> > :>I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
> > :>for the belief in rebirth.
>
> I have yet to see much basis for belief for the "one shot is it"
> view either, particularly the theistic versions. The rebirth
> view fits things much better, actually. So as a trained
> theoretical physicist, I take the better explanation as a better
> potential basis of looking at things.
I am neither asserting that "one shot is it" nor asserting the view that
there is a phenomenon on the level of "relative truth" which can be
identified as rebirth. Empirically speaking, there is little or no
evidence to contradict the "one shot is it" view, and there is little or
no evidence to support the "rebirth" view. I understand enough about
various logics to know that "no evidence to support" is not equivalent to
proof of the negative case (i.e. "there is no such thing as rebirth").
> The practice had to prove its worth inch by inch and baggage
> became more only very slowly. But a lot of practice while
> still living a regular life is a good path it seems. A lot
> of practice seems to be key to baggage proving itself. The
> proof is not logic but more direct personal experience of the
> teachings through practice.
While the practice proves its worth inch by inch, that is very different
than the practice proving the baggage.
> But I will poke
> at a somewhat disrespectful disparaging of it, which is how
> some of the earlier stuff comes across. It is possible to
> respectfully doubt this stuff. Disrespectful doubt means
> there is a special charge there that needs investigation.
You're entitled to your opinion. But the doctrine of reincarnation
strikes me as a little than chrome spoke wheel covers on the
vehicle of liberation. If it draws someones attention to the road, that's
great, but I don't see that it has any significant functional relationship
with the mechanical operation of the vehicle.
The need to assert the truth of a proposition which has failed to be
proved or disproved for thousands of years, despite the best efforts of
the faithful on both sides of the argument, now there's "a special
charge that needs investigation."
You know, if you buy into the fully orthodox view of karma, you have to
accept the position that Tibetan Buddhism got what it had coming from the
Chinese. And before we import the whole package, we had damn well do a
good job of thinking about cause and effect: the long-term
effect of importing elements which may lead the unsuspecting into
fallacies of eternalism is something which bears careful consideration.
It is clear that mistakes have been made. It is a good bet that mistakes
will be made again. But they needn't be the same mistakes.
Best regards,
Fred Little
B Wong
In article <33321954...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
tyree-...@worldnet.att.net (Tyree Hilkert) wrote:
>
>Have you ever been to a psychiatrist? Honesty is extremely important
>for the relationship to work, so if you have doubts, they should be
>expressed honestly, not repressed because you think you "shouldn't"
>have them.
I think you are correct. But just to make sure I understand it clearly,
here is a follow-up: Say your guru tells you to do something rather
extraordinary and not totally logically (at least in your mind), you
certainly will be honest about it and ask him to explain why and so on.
Now, would you then accept the answer given and go do exactly as told? Or
would you still evaluate the answer in your mind and only would go ahead if
it matches with what you think is correct or your own world-view? I don't
really consider the first scenario as doubting; but the second probably is,
and wouldn't have happened if the correct relationship was entered into.
What do you think?
>
>>Otherwise, the benefits would be limited - your ego/ self,
>>the very thing that you are trying to rid of, is still calling the shots.
>
>I'm not trying to get rid of my ego/self. That's impossible. I'm
>trying to SEE and then SEE THROUGH my self-image, my conceptions and
>beliefs about who I should be.
>
"Rid of" was probably a poor choice of words. But when you see through all
that self-image, pre-conceptions and beliefs, wouldn't you also stop calling
the shots and just surrender to the guru?
Thanks for the discussion!
Brian Wong
bkw...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Menninger
Fred Little wrote:
> I am neither asserting that "one shot is it" nor asserting the view that
> there is a phenomenon on the level of "relative truth" which can be
> identified as rebirth. Empirically speaking, there is little or no
> evidence to contradict the "one shot is it" view, and there is little or
> no evidence to support the "rebirth" view.
I think we agree to the extent that we can say that
samsaric experience of ordinary individuals provides
at best only a rather poor, very fuzzy match to any
worldview. At that level, I felt that rebirth and
karma was a better, more believeable match for the
variety of the human condition than the views I was
force-fed by the catholic church. I could not buy
an arbitrary whim of some super-being. But I don't
buy the total political view of life (life as merely
a game of super celestial politics) at all either.
Yet I have always felt there was an inate source
of individual rights and personal responsibility.
Though I may not be able to fully defend that with
samsaric logic, at some point I seem to have also
dropped abdicating to others chains to pull to make
me doubt that.
> I understand enough about
> various logics to know that "no evidence to support" is not equivalent to
> proof of the negative case (i.e. "there is no such thing as rebirth").
We could quibble about the "no evidence" but it
will remain no evidence for you until you have
a different insight into it, if ever, in any case.
Also, at samsaric level, it would only change from
no evidence to lousy evidence.
All concepts and logic are dualistic, which means
they are samsaric. That does not make them bad,
except when they are obscurations. Unfortunately
that is almost always for us dumb blokes! ;-)
> > The practice had to prove its worth inch by inch and baggage
> > became more only very slowly. But a lot of practice while
> > still living a regular life is a good path it seems. A lot
> > of practice seems to be key to baggage proving itself. The
> > proof is not logic but more direct personal experience of the
> > teachings through practice.
> While the practice proves its worth inch by inch, that is very different
> than the practice proving the baggage.
I was using "baggage" to mean any of the teachings
that are not direct personal experience. The very
instructions for practice start as baggage until
things happen that fundamentally change your relation
with them. Also, I was using "proof" to mean a much
more visceral connection than logic, one that can
cover both samsara and nirvana. But is (and should be)
questionable baggage for you unless it hits home at some
point in the future.
> > But I will poke
> > at a somewhat disrespectful disparaging of it, which is how
> > some of the earlier stuff comes across. It is possible to
> > respectfully doubt this stuff. Disrespectful doubt means
> > there is a special charge there that needs investigation.
> You're entitled to your opinion. But the doctrine of reincarnation
> strikes me as a little than chrome spoke wheel covers on the
> vehicle of liberation. If it draws someones attention to the road, that's
> great, but I don't see that it has any significant functional relationship
> with the mechanical operation of the vehicle.
It is not necessary to buy into it point blank in the
early stages. In fact blindly buying in can be more
problematic, actually. That operation of the earlier
vehicles are rather basic and need to be.
> The need to assert the truth of a proposition which has failed to be
> proved or disproved for thousands of years,
It has been proved, but not with samsaric logic. You
prove it only to yourself and only through much practice.
> despite the best efforts of
> the faithful on both sides of the argument, now there's "a special
> charge that needs investigation."
Absolutely. Investigate it. That means practice.
Practice a lot. When you get to intermediate tantric
practice, you will find your world up-ended. You will
be practicing how to handle the various stages of the
bardo, among other things.
> You know, if you buy into the fully orthodox view of karma, you have to
> accept the position that Tibetan Buddhism got what it had coming from the
> Chinese.
In a sense, that is true. But it is as much
the combined karma of the world. It was becoming
time for renewal of the heart of the traditions.
Nothing is permanent. In fact, it was remarkable
that these teachings stayed in Tibet for so long
as a rather stable situation. But this will more
be a big bump in the road for Tibet and China than
for the (soon to be formerly?) Tibetan traditions
of Vajrayana Buddhism.
> And before we import the whole package, we had damn well do a
> good job of thinking about cause and effect: the long-term
> effect of importing elements which may lead the unsuspecting into
> fallacies of eternalism is something which bears careful consideration.
Eternalism? Hardly. That is taking a big bad detour
with your vehicle. This stuff warns strongly about that
in all study and practice. Study a lot more.
> It is clear that mistakes have been made.
Mistakes will ALWAYS be made. The stuff you got
to work with (your samsaric confusion) is very
mistake prone. No teachings provide a magic bullet.
You are completely responsible for yourself and
your mistakes and the consequences of those mistakes
for the whole world.
> It is a good bet that mistakes
> will be made again. But they needn't be the same mistakes.
They will be somewhat different and they will happen.
> Best regards,
Thank you and may some reflect back from this
still rather imperfect mirror.
> Fred Little
Sat Tara S. Khalsa
In article
<Pine.SUN.3.95L.97032...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu>, Fred
Little <fa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Richard Menninger wrote:
>
> > > : Fred Little writes
> >
> > > :>I can't speak for Mary or anyone else. But I have yet to see any basis
> > > :>for the belief in rebirth.
> >
> > I have yet to see much basis for belief for the "one shot is it"
> > view either, particularly the theistic versions. The rebirth
> > view fits things much better, actually. So as a trained
> > theoretical physicist, I take the better explanation as a better
> > potential basis of looking at things.
>
> I am neither asserting that "one shot is it" nor asserting the view that
> there is a phenomenon on the level of "relative truth" which can be
> identified as rebirth. Empirically speaking, there is little or no
> evidence to contradict the "one shot is it" view, and there is little or
> no evidence to support the "rebirth" view. I understand enough about
> various logics to know that "no evidence to support" is not equivalent to
> proof of the negative case (i.e. "there is no such thing as rebirth").
Fine, What's your point? There is equally sparse empirical evidence
supporting the four noble truths, or virtually any other aspect of the
Buddhist view. So what? This seems to be a really weak nihilistic
argument. If you're looking for empirical evidence and statistical
verification of the probability of your liberation, why bother? You're
going to have a really long wait. (or maybe not that long, if your thesis
that there is no "basis for the belief in rebirth" is correct.)
>
> > The practice had to prove its worth inch by inch and baggage
> > became more only very slowly. But a lot of practice while
> > still living a regular life is a good path it seems. A lot
> > of practice seems to be key to baggage proving itself. The
> > proof is not logic but more direct personal experience of the
> > teachings through practice.
>
> While the practice proves its worth inch by inch, that is very different
> than the practice proving the baggage.
>
> > But I will poke
> > at a somewhat disrespectful disparaging of it, which is how
> > some of the earlier stuff comes across. It is possible to
> > respectfully doubt this stuff. Disrespectful doubt means
> > there is a special charge there that needs investigation.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. But the doctrine of reincarnation
> strikes me as a little than chrome spoke wheel covers on the
> vehicle of liberation. If it draws someones attention to the road, that's
> great, but I don't see that it has any significant functional relationship
> with the mechanical operation of the vehicle.
Good for you. By the way, in Buddha Dharma, it's not "reincarnation", it's
rebirth. They're not the same. It is a teaching method that has been
intrisic to Buddha Dharma since Shakyamuni. If you believe you know what's
"functional" better than virtually every Lama in history, that's
wonderful. We're waiting for the evidence....
>
> The need to assert the truth of a proposition which has failed to be
> proved or disproved for thousands of years, despite the best efforts of
> the faithful on both sides of the argument, now there's "a special
> charge that needs investigation."
What's the standard of "proof"? Is it the statistical verification methods
common in the west, which are not measures of proof, but probability? Or
is it belief in the teaching methodology that is intrinsic to Dharma, and
in the teachings of stainless gurus.
>
> You know, if you buy into the fully orthodox view of karma, you have to
> accept the position that Tibetan Buddhism got what it had coming from the
> Chinese.
So what? You also have to accept the position that as a result we have a
wealth of Dharma in the west, and in the suffering of the Chinese
oppressors, and the prophecy of Guru Rinpoche concerning the invasion,
and....
And before we import the whole package, we had damn well do a
> good job of thinking about cause and effect: the long-term
> effect of importing elements which may lead the unsuspecting into
> fallacies of eternalism is something which bears careful consideration.
As does the short-term effect of the ubiquitous fallacy of knee-jerk nihilism.
>
> It is clear that mistakes have been made. It is a good bet that mistakes
> will be made again. But they needn't be the same mistakes.
Wonderful, do you get to make the choice for the rest of us? I'm betting
on the experience base. The two extremes are eternalism AND nihilism. The
teachings on rebirth which you seem to disparage don't fall in either one.
While I'm sure that there is cultural baggage in the "package", and the
Tibetan "talented and gifted children program" or tulku identification,
may certainly be an example, throwing out rebirth with the tulkus is
definitely doing the baby a disservice in discarding the bathwater. I
generally take the tulku stuff with a grain of salt, but rebirth is a
different story.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Fred Little
Ditto,
Kunzang Dorje
Tyree Hilkert
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:09:48 GMT, B Wong <bkw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Say your guru tells you to do something rather
>extraordinary and not totally logically (at least in your mind), you
>certainly will be honest about it and ask him to explain why and so on.
>Now, would you then accept the answer given and go do exactly as told?
I would try to do it, but if I was having doubts, then I would still
have doubts, regardless of what I happened to be doing.
>Or
>would you still evaluate the answer in your mind and only would go ahead if
>it matches with what you think is correct or your own world-view? I don't
>really consider the first scenario as doubting; but the second probably is,
>and wouldn't have happened if the correct relationship was entered into.
>What do you think?
It's hard to answer this in the abstract. Yes, I think there are
things my lama could ask me to do that I wouldn't do, I think. If that
ever happened, I would probably have to do what I thought was right. I
think that's ok.
>"Rid of" was probably a poor choice of words. But when you see through all
>that self-image, pre-conceptions and beliefs, wouldn't you also stop calling
>the shots and just surrender to the guru?
Is this really supposed to be about surrendering your will to another
human being, the outer guru, or do you suppose it has something to do
with the inner guru, your OWN wisdom mind?
I don't think becoming a dharma zombie would be terribly helpful.
That's probably sacrilege, isn't it?
Take care
- Ty
Richard Menninger
Tyree Hilkert wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:09:48 GMT, B Wong <bkw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Say your guru tells you to do something rather
> >extraordinary and not totally logically (at least in your mind), you
> >certainly will be honest about it and ask him to explain why and so on.
> >Now, would you then accept the answer given and go do exactly as told?
The answers to this and later parts depend very
strongly on where you are in the sequence of study
and practice of vajrayana teachings.
First, you try to find your behind and the teacher
has a limited role. You have to cut through enough
of your fog to have some connection to the moment
and your various qualities. You begin to see your
own hollowness in a way that stops being threatening.
Once you have some connection to the moment and have
made friends with yourself at a basic level, then the
role becomes "the spiritual friend" which is more
intrusive but in the form of advice on things you
need to relate to about yourself. You also start
working with other and that often requires advice.
You start working with other because you see your
own hollowness and are now looking at (your projection
of) other to see its qualities more to see the
hollowness of that.
As the hollowness of self, other and your concepts
become more blatantly obvious, you also become more
locked in the moment. But you still have much to
work through to remove all of the incidental
obscurations that keep us swirling in samsara.
But the point of being fundamentally locked in the
moment with fundamental grounding in the twofold
egolessness and a strong loving kindness for
self and other marks the transition to having
additional very upfront and personal methods as
effective ways to dispell those obscurations.
That is vajrayana where, being locked in the moment,
it becomes effective (after the binding enablers
of vows and such) for the teacher to directly
rub your nose in your stuff at times. This, I
think, is the area being questioned.
The point is that there is a special binding
involved. There is the point that special
rubbing of your nose in something should only
be to dispell a blocking obscuration, or it is
very unskillful action by the teacher. Further
the teacher should be rather sure it will help.
Some need little or none of such tailored action
beyond the systematized actions of the vajrayana
teachings. But many have sticking points that
need special nudges to help disolve. That is
what the wierd stuff that is valid action is about.
The questions about it here seem to have more
the flavor of looking from the earlier stages
at the stuff about root-gurus operating on
their direct students. They may also be about
some cases of the spiritual friend pointing
you at specific relations with other, situations
that you run away from. But this latter can
be mild compared with the direct operating on
your neuroses. One distinction is that we
nolonger run away from or ignore at the cruder
level when the heavy duty stuff is viable.
You are done with the easy stuff (even though
it did not seem easy at the time). You are
working on subtler stuff that was not reachable
with earlier methods (expect at a very residual
level: the eons of practice residual level).
When at the earlier level, we all speculate
about all of that wierd (but oddly neat) stuff,
much the way little kids speculate about the
curious things going on between older pairs.
But there is a change that seems to happen
that is much akin to going through puberty
for the kids that has to happen and changes
our perspective in striking ways.
Those who have been around traditions that
fully take you through the three basic practice
stages very thoroughly will recognize that
characterization. The beginning tantric students
often seem to have problems very analogous to
kids around puberty. You become very locked
into deep awareness of "sliding down the razorblade
of life" while experiencing a few bumps from
the changes of technique exposing additional
stuff related to what seemed to be done and gone.
It can be a rough road for a while. You are
also into the introductory steps that lead
to the full binding with your root-guru,
though you might not be too sure who that is yet.
Some more intense action with the teachers does
start here with the changes of technique, but
those are not yet the full throttle.
> I would try to do it, but if I was having doubts, then I would still
> have doubts, regardless of what I happened to be doing.
Assuming we are talking vajrayana stages:
doubts are not gone but they are either just
scenery instead of landslides blocking the road,
or they are the target of direct operation by
the teacher (the rub your nose in it aspect).
The locked in the moment quality makes this
an entirely different form of experience than
at earlier stages.
> >Or
> >would you still evaluate the answer in your mind and only would go ahead if
> >it matches with what you think is correct or your own world-view? I don't
> >really consider the first scenario as doubting; but the second probably is,
> >and wouldn't have happened if the correct relationship was entered into.
> >What do you think?
This sounds like one at an earlier stage
speculating about post-puberty. Your world-view
has had quite a few serious wounds (is rather
hollow) and has had some direct attacks in early
tantric study (you study a while before doing
most of the practice side).
> It's hard to answer this in the abstract. Yes, I think there are
> things my lama could ask me to do that I wouldn't do, I think. If that
> ever happened, I would probably have to do what I thought was right. I
> think that's ok.
One important thing to realize is, it has to be
possible for the teacher to screw up for there
to be a possibility to lead you through dispelling
your obscurations. Everyone wants a perfect
silver bullet world, but that inherently does not
work. Further, you have to feel that "on the line"
feeling of totally direct experience that can go
wrong. When you entered the vajrayana stages,
you really went and did it! You really put it
on the line with no safety net at all. If that
is not there, you are still back at earlier
stages working toward the vajrayana, which is OK.
Note that some traditions seem to have you
doing vajrayana early. But what you are doing
is study and preliminary practices that work on
specific cruder stuff to get ready. There are
different styles of working on the cruder stuff
that match different needs of students.
> >"Rid of" was probably a poor choice of words. But when you see through all
> >that self-image, pre-conceptions and beliefs, wouldn't you also stop calling
> >the shots and just surrender to the guru?
That is an incredibly dualistic view: YOU
surrendering to the guru. That will get cut
away in the early vajrayana practices. When
you get to the meeting of the minds, you have
removed the obscuration seeing a boundary
where none exists. What you are doing is
finding all such obscurations and surrendering
those, seeing through them thoroughly. The
guru is just doing a: now this one, here is another,
...
> Is this really supposed to be about surrendering your will to another
> human being, the outer guru, or do you suppose it has something to do
> with the inner guru, your OWN wisdom mind?
Very early in tantra, you still have that
dualistic baggage of purifying self for the
external guru and it is the primary target!
You have to get to realizing you are just
fully relating to qualities that are already
present in you and have ALWAYS been there.
Though there is talk of awakening, you are
just clearing off obscuring make-up and relating
blatantly to what is already there.
You are surrendering to what you are!
You are tired of pretending a lot of
silly gibberish.
> I don't think becoming a dharma zombie would be terribly helpful.
> That's probably sacrilege, isn't it?
It would be just another pretend game
rather than vajrayana.
I hope this made a little sense.
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert writes
>
>
>I don't think becoming a dharma zombie would be terribly helpful.
>That's probably sacrilege, isn't it?
they are dharma zombies, let alone question the validity or otherwise of
being one. In the UK we adjectivelise it -- *Tenzin and Dolma saved the
water they washed Rinpoche's socks in, they are more dharmatose every
time I see them* See research by Barbara Aziz (mentioned briefly in
Meeting the Shadow. Tarcher Putnam.) on contrasting attitudes to gurus
in Asia and the West.
Mary
Tyree Hilkert
>What's the standard of "proof"? Is it the statistical verification methods
>common in the west, which are not measures of proof, but probability? Or
>is it belief in the teaching methodology that is intrinsic to Dharma, and
>in the teachings of stainless gurus.
Ah, "teaching methodology" - exactly. If we mistake the teaching
methodology (the finger) for the moon, we will get ourselves in
trouble, right?
I'd say that rebirth is probably a teaching methodology to remind us
we are not as solid as we seem, that we have been in every possible
role with everyone else. It's very helpful.
Arguing that it is TRUE seems to be an attempt to get ground under our
feet again... it seems to be going in the wrong direction. So would
arguing that it is FALSE.
>Wonderful, do you get to make the choice for the rest of us? I'm betting
>on the experience base. The two extremes are eternalism AND nihilism. The
>teachings on rebirth which you seem to disparage don't fall in either one.
Sorry, I don't agree.
Tyree Hilkert
>Certainly not. There are far too many dharma zombies who don't even know
>they are dharma zombies, let alone question the validity or otherwise of
>being one.
Well, this happens in Xtianity, too. I was just watching "The Nun's
Story" on TV. Basically, they show this wonderful young woman being
abused and brainwashed by her order. Kind of sickening... Though I do
like those crisp, starch habits...
>In the UK we adjectivelise it -- *Tenzin and Dolma saved the
>water they washed Rinpoche's socks in, they are more dharmatose every
>time I see them*
NCR was explaining that devotion and appreciation can increase
someone's experience of emptiness, because in being devoted to the
guru or appreciating a sunset or a work of art, one can become quite
empty oneself. Or you can misuse it, I suppose. You can use devotion
to the guru to solidify your own identity: this is my guru, I belong
to my guru, I am worthwhile because I belong to my guru...
> See research by Barbara Aziz (mentioned briefly in
>Meeting the Shadow. Tarcher Putnam.) on contrasting attitudes to gurus
>in Asia and the West.
I'm sure there's differences, but I'd bet that transference is human
nature the world over.
robby roiter
Slightly off-topic, but you mentioned Guru Rinpoche's prophecy of China's
invasion of Tibet; I also remember references to similar prophecy by
Padmasambhava about environmental damage. Anyone have references to where
one could find these quotes? Thanks, Robby
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert writes in response to me about dharma zombieism
>
>
>Well, this happens in Xtianity, too. I was just watching "The Nun's
>Story" on TV. Basically, they show this wonderful young woman being
>abused and brainwashed by her order. Kind of sickening... Though I do
>like those crisp, starch habits...
and early to late 70's) it was mostly devout ex RCs who converted to
Tibh Budh and IMO brought many of their cultural habits :-) with them
(not so crisp though, more like west dishcloths). So one wonders -- did
the pioneer lamas (Trungpa, Kalu, Tarthang, Sogyal etc) pick up on this
input and adapt their process accordingly? So were the early western
students partially responsible for the excess of adulation which makes
hard nosed, anarchic but equally serious Budhs like me want to throw up?
Tail of dog and egg-chicken? In some cases I think the lamas really do
try to *please* their students by doing what they think we want and
need. Eg: I suspect that if June Campbell did have sex with Kalu R, it
was at least in part because he thought it would make her happy. Eg:
When Sogyal swaggers like an adolescent schoolboy, it is because he
thinks this will impress the girls. Sometimes it does of course, because
there is a transference/mirroring process underway.I could go on and on
about this, but enough.
>
>NCR was explaining that devotion and appreciation can increase
>someone's experience of emptiness, because in being devoted to the
>guru or appreciating a sunset or a work of art, one can become quite
>empty oneself.
guru yoga. I discussed it with Chogyam at the time I think, because as
usual I was questioning how you turn this level of devotion towards
another human being...I've never managed it so far, although there have
been times with NNR when I have come close. He kept insisting --
*integrate with me*, which is appropriate for my personality type and
worked much better than prostrations etc:
> Or you can misuse it, I suppose. You can use devotion
>to the guru to solidify your own identity: this is my guru, I belong
>to my guru, I am worthwhile because I belong to my guru...
Hmmm -- again there are several passages in Meeting The Shadow which
deal with dysfunctional guru-disciple relationships. Also Yvonne Rand
has excellent advice, based on her own experience and counselling role.
Mary
--
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert
On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 10:21:00 +0000, Mary Finnigan
<ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>...I was questioning how you turn this level of devotion towards
>another human being...I've never managed it so far, although there have
>been times with NNR when I have come close. He kept insisting --
>*integrate with me*...
"Kalu Rinpoche always used to say, 'See all teachers as emanations of
your root guru.' So there is no need to get confused. You can get
teachings from anyone, actually; even from the foolish. Eventually, it
is not just seeing your guru as Buddha and everybody else as a turd;
you come to see the Buddha, the light, the love in everyone. But at
first, the question is: Can we see _anybody_ as a Buddha? So let's
start with the Buddha or the guru. Then maybe we can extend it to
recognize the Buddha in everyone, even in yourself. That would be
radical! That is where the guru yoga and pure perception practice
leads. Not just obsessing about your gurus and how great they
are...like a proud grandmother with baby pictures.
"Devotion cuts through discursivity. The Third Karmapa says in the
Song of Mahamudra... 'In the moment of devotion, Rigpa (nondual
awareness) nakedly dawns.' Isn't that interesting? It's not about the
teacher. It is the luminosity of that totalness, that devotion when
you are beyond yourself, like you're lost in love... In the moment of
being lost in love, clear light dawns. That's the point. It's not
about the teacher. It's deeper than such an external object. It's
about spirit, about deeper connection or relationship; it's sort of a
homecoming, actually."
- Dancing With Life, p. 83, 91
Lama Surya Das
http://www.dzogchen.org
"Therefore I leave alone all those things about which I can think, and
choose for my love that about which I cannot think, because He may
well be loved but not thought about. By love He can be reached and
held, but by thought never. "
- Cloud of Unknowing, Chapter 6, translated by Robert Way
Robin Faichney
Fred Little wrote:
>
> ...the doctrine of reincarnation
> strikes me as a little than chrome spoke wheel covers on the
> vehicle of liberation. If it draws someones attention to the road, that's
> great, but I don't see that it has any significant functional relationship
> effect of importing elements which may lead the unsuspecting into
> fallacies of eternalism is something which bears careful consideration.
>
> will be made again. But they needn't be the same mistakes.
I just have to say, this is brilliant. "Liberation in the palm
of your hand," indeed. And it dovetails beautifully with my other
favourite recent read, Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs.
Thanks alot, Fred.
--
Robin Faichney
r.j.fa...@stirling.ac.uk (delete ".nospam" to reply to me)
http://www.stir.ac.uk/envsci/staff/rjf1/
Mary Finnigan
Tyree Hilkert writes beautifully about the universal guru..
and it seems that we differ only in our application of language.
Immensely reassured by this exchange.
See all teachers as emanations of your root guru.' So there is no need
Suggestions please (one para only) on what I/we can learn from Sogyal!
Love
Mary
PS Have you met Surya Das? He's a sweetie. Went to one of his teachings
in Boston last year -- palpably devotional GR prayers, but not
slushy/gooey. Very impressive.
Don Martin
In article <pwpeOAA4...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
ma...@pema.demon.co.uk (Mary Finnigan) wrote:
> Tyree Hilkert writes beautifully about the universal guru..
> and it seems that we differ only in our application of language.
> Immensely reassured by this exchange.
> >
> See all teachers as emanations of your root guru.' So there is no need
> to get confused. You can get teachings from anyone."
>
> Suggestions please (one para only) on what I/we can learn from Sogyal!
> Love
> Mary
>>>>>>> As we are limited to one paragraph only, I am happy to recall
that he was able to teach me how to read and write Tibetan,how to
recognise the different ways in which various texts are chanted
by different sects,how to practice certain meditations and other
practices, and an aweful lot of good solid Dharma teaching. I've
forgotten most of this over the years,but I blame the student
for that. Despite any shortcomings he may have, I can never
forget the time and effort he selflessly gave me and many other
students. It is perhaps worth noting that it is only Mary who
is trashing anything positive that others have to say about
Sogyal Rinpoche. He may well have done wrong, but that should
not be a good reason for forgetting his considerable contributions
to the spread of the Dharma. He still has a lot of white pebbles.
--
Don, I live the life I love
The Born-Again Buddhist. & love the life I live
(....and again and again)
Mary Finnigan
Don Martin writes:
>
>
>>>>>> It is perhaps worth noting that it is only Mary who
> is trashing anything positive that others have to say about
> Sogyal Rinpoche.
seek to do is maintain awareness that he has never apologised for his
mistakes and AFAIK is unchanged in the way he treats women.
Mary
Rogowdoc
"Follow the Law and not persons." (Nirvana Sutra)
Namu Myoho renge kyo
Mark
Robin Faichney
Tyree Hilkert wrote:
>
> I'd say that rebirth is probably a teaching methodology to remind us
> we are not as solid as we seem, that we have been in every possible
> role with everyone else. It's very helpful.
>
> Arguing that it is TRUE seems to be an attempt to get ground under our
> feet again... it seems to be going in the wrong direction. So would
> arguing that it is FALSE.
A very good point, well worth making. But it is still possible to
argue whether this means (teaching rebirth/reincarnation) is
necessarily skillful in the context of the modern West. Personally,
I find the concept of reincarnation to be almost wholly negative, in
that it seems intrinsically bound up with eternalism. Quite recently,
after much thought and even more meditation, I have begun to
appreciate the significance of rebirth. But the difference is quite
subtle, and it seems to me that to downplay the whole reincarnation/
rebirth thing in the introductory stages, in the West, would probably
do more good than harm, in effect allowing in those whose sceptical
turn of mind would otherwise be offended by what they'd be bound to
see as superstition. I think Western Buddhism as an institution
needs plenty of relatively hard heads! And rebirth can always be
introduced at a later stage, as an advanced teaching, when its
significance is more likely to be appreciated.
Actually, I think many teachers probably are already taking this sort
of route.
Richard Menninger
Mary, though only you can ever uncover your real
motivations in all of their aspects, the rest of
us sangha can reflect back to you how it seems.
You do seem to be attacking in a style that has
generally represented a strain of hate/aggression
in our other experiences. Whenever ANYTHING good
is said, it can always be counted on that Mary
will follow with her MESSAGE. That is what was
meant. We would be amiss in OUR commitments as
sangha if we were not as concerned about you.
Note that it is concern about you, not insensitivity
to women that drive such comments.
Most people have aspects of being total bozos.
Yet each usually has some nugget of unobscured
genuine value as well. This is even true of Soggy.
Konchog Norbu
Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> Fred Little wrote:
> >
> > ...the doctrine of reincarnation
> > strikes me as a little than chrome spoke wheel covers on the
> > vehicle of liberation. If it draws someones attention to the road, that's
> > great, but I don't see that it has any significant functional relationship
> > with the mechanical operation of the vehicle... the long-term
> > effect of importing elements which may lead the unsuspecting into
> > fallacies of eternalism is something which bears careful consideration.
> >
> > It is clear that mistakes have been made. It is a good bet that mistakes
> > will be made again. But they needn't be the same mistakes.
>
> I just have to say, this is brilliant. "Liberation in the palm
> of your hand," indeed. And it dovetails beautifully with my other
> favourite recent read, Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs.
> Thanks alot, Fred.
>
What, exactly, is "brilliant" about contradicting the Buddha? I've
said this many times in these newsgroups and I'll point it out
again: two-thirds of the Buddha's enlightenment experience, as
he described it, concerned the total awareness of the infinite
round of rebirths he and all sentient beings have taken in
samsara, but that this did not have to be so, that there was
a path to realization, dissolving the ignorance that led to
such experience. And as far as the danger of falling into
the extreme of eternalism, if we rely on the Buddha's teaching
there is no such problem. I mean, it's dharma 101 that he
gave the world a path between nihilism and eternalism, no?
The Dalai Lama's "The Meaning of Life" nicely elucidates the
12 interdependent links of causation that prove rebirth as
long as the condition of ignorance persists.
Konchog Norbu
http://www.tara.org
Richard Menninger
Mary Finnigan wrote:
> Tricky Dicky writes..
Now you are confusing me with another American. ;-)
I am much too straightforward and that is sometimes
irritating.
> >Most people have aspects of being total bozos.
> >Yet each usually has some nugget of unobscured
> >genuine value as well. This is even true of Soggy.
> I do so hope it is true of you too
> Mary
Do you mean:
Having aspects of being total bozos
or
some nugget of unobscured genuine value?
If you mean the first, then of course that
is true as I am NOT an incarnate Buddha!
As to the second, well all of us also have
that, as well. That is what allows us to
connect with the teachings in our various
clumsy ways.
Don Martin
In article <3336B2...@winner.lc.lucent.com>,
r...@winner.lc.lucent.com (Richard Menninger) wrote:
> Mary, though only you can ever uncover your real
> motivations in all of their aspects, the rest of
> us sangha can reflect back to you how it seems.
> You do seem to be attacking in a style that has
> generally represented a strain of hate/aggression
> in our other experiences. Whenever ANYTHING good
> is said, it can always be counted on that Mary
> will follow with her MESSAGE. That is what was
> meant.
**** Thank you for your input Dick.That is exactly what
I meant,but of-course you post is far more elequent
than mine.
>We would be amiss in OUR commitments as
> sangha if we were not as concerned about you.
> Note that it is concern about you, not insensitivity
> to women that drive such comments.
**** See I do love you Mary after all.
>
> Most people have aspects of being total bozos.
**** In my case the tendency is towards totality.
> Yet each usually has some nugget of unobscured
> genuine value as well.
**** Even me and Mary? :-)
Mary Finnigan
>
Tricky Dicky writes..
>Most people have aspects of being total bozos.
Tyree Hilkert
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:18:54 -0500, Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net>
wrote:
>What, exactly, is "brilliant" about contradicting the Buddha?
Oh, I dunno, how about this:
"There is no birth and no cessation... no ignorance, no end of
ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no
suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path,
no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment."
I think the Buddha musta liked it, 'cuz then he said, "Good, good, O
son of noble family, thus it is. One should practice the profound
prajnaparamita just as you have taught and all the tathagatas will
rejoice."
Or don't you _like_ the Heart Sutra... :-)
I think part of the problem might be that we understanding this from
different perspectives, different yanas. In sutrayana we have
suffering, the cause of suffering and the cessation of suffering, But
in the fruition vehicle, well, you just read the excerpt. It
contradicts it. Each yana is consistent in itself but might conflict
with the other yanas, so it's important to know which framework we're
talking about... or so I've heard, anyway...
Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche said something about sutra being very
difficult to do in the West. If its not done in a monastic setting it
can lead to repression. The ideal sutric practitioner is a monk or a
nun. It emphasizes cause and effect, the basis of what we've been
arguing about.
Maybe tantra and dzogchen fit our lives better. I think that's why
we're seeing these teachings more and more openly taught here. For
example, Chagdud Gompa's newsletter announced that not only are they
removing the restriction on Dudjom Lingpa's "Nang Jang: Buddhahood
Without Meditation" but they're going to be releasing it in paperback.
r.j.fa...@stirling.ac.uk
In article <3336C5...@radix.net>,> > > [...]
> >
> > I just have to say, this is brilliant. "Liberation in the palm
> > of your hand," indeed. And it dovetails beautifully with my other
> > favourite recent read, Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs.
> > Thanks alot, Fred.
> >
>
> What, exactly, is "brilliant" about contradicting the Buddha? I've
> said this many times in these newsgroups and I'll point it out
> again: two-thirds of the Buddha's enlightenment experience, as
> he described it, concerned the total awareness of the infinite
Between sending the post responded to here, and reading this
response, I sent another in this thread that more accurately
expresses my views on this, I think.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to ask one
question: several teachers I respect have written that the
Buddha never taught reincarnation as such. Could anyone
who says he did, please give references?
> The Dalai Lama's "The Meaning of Life" nicely elucidates the
> 12 interdependent links of causation that prove rebirth as
> long as the condition of ignorance persists.
BTW, just as a matter of interest, I see these links
as functioning within one lifespan, rebirth in this
context refering to that of the ego. Chogyam Trungpa,
among others, was very explicit on how this works in
*this* life.
--
Robin Faichney
r.j.fa...@stirling.ac.uk
http://www.stir.ac.uk/envsci/staff/rjf1/
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mary Finnigan
I Don Martin writes
>
>**** See I do love you Mary after all.
Seriously, I have no problem with you sticking up for any lama you
choose, inc: Sogyal. What does offend is:
a)People preaching at me in 'holier than thou' tones
b)Your suggestion that I trash other people's views. FYI, there are
people in the UK and the US who are urging me to be much more pro-active
in relation to Sogyal than I am already. I have to fend off these
approaches, because I wish to concentrate on my writing. I have lost two
'friends' on the feminist wing because of this. They see me as a
snivelling wimp!
Mary
Konchog Norbu
Tyree Hilkert wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:18:54 -0500, Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "There is no birth and no cessation... no ignorance, no end of
> ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no
> suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path,
> no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment."
>
> I think the Buddha musta liked it, 'cuz then he said, "Good, good, O
> son of noble family, thus it is. One should practice the profound
> prajnaparamita just as you have taught and all the tathagatas will
> rejoice."
>
> Or don't you _like_ the Heart Sutra... :-)
>
the ultimate reality of rebirth, but more cautioning against denying
its relative reality. And questioning the intimation brought up in
this discussion that rebirth is somehow "not for Westerners" as if
the experience of rebirth were somehow culturally Asian. Let us not
forget that the Buddha taught these twelve interdependent links
AND the Heart Sutra. The Nyingma, of which I think you and I are
a part, includes all nine vehicles. I hope and pray from my heart
that you truly possess the flawless view of the prajnaparamita.
You would be, as they say, as rare as a star in the day. But
people gotta be taught where they're at. And I hesitate to
agree with you that where most Americans are at is to whiz by
yanas 1-8 and simply awaken to the dzogchen view. There's
humongous room for misunderstanding and misapplication, much
more danger of nihilistic view, wouldn't you say?
> I think part of the problem might be that we understanding this from
> different perspectives, different yanas. In sutrayana we have
> suffering, the cause of suffering and the cessation of suffering, But
> in the fruition vehicle, well, you just read the excerpt. It
> contradicts it. Each yana is consistent in itself but might conflict
> with the other yanas, so it's important to know which framework we're
> talking about... or so I've heard, anyway...
>
> Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche said something about sutra being very
> difficult to do in the West. If its not done in a monastic setting it
> can lead to repression. The ideal sutric practitioner is a monk or a
> nun. It emphasizes cause and effect, the basis of what we've been
> arguing about.
>
Mmm, perhaps. Maybe my view's odd, being a monk. But you know? Some
things could stand to be repressed, at first, eg aggression, the
Shantideva "remain like a piece of wood" thing. Of course one
would not remain there, but hopefully go on thru study and
meditation to awaken to the pure view of one's emotions, but
before that it would do not to create any more nasty karma than
one has to. Also NCR's view of the ordained person is right if
they are only engaged in pratimoksha discipline. But for me, it's
different. My outer practice is monastic ethics, inner is my
bodhisattva vow, and secret my tantric samaya. All can coexist
and I'm the proof.
> Maybe tantra and dzogchen fit our lives better. I think that's why
> we're seeing these teachings more and more openly taught here. For
> example, Chagdud Gompa's newsletter announced that not only are they
> removing the restriction on Dudjom Lingpa's "Nang Jang: Buddhahood
> Without Meditation" but they're going to be releasing it in paperback.
Well, I fully trust Chagdud Rinpoche's judgment on such things--really
there's so much available now. The speed and expediency of tantra
definitely fits, but as all lamas will say, it's nowhere without
the basics accomplished first.
Konchog
Don Martin
In article <Mr$joFAjk...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
ma...@pema.demon.co.uk (Mary Finnigan) wrote:
> I Don Martin writes
> >
> >**** See I do love you Mary after all.
> Ah Don, it warms my heart to know that you care :-)
> Seriously,
****** You mean you wasn't serious in the previous line?
> I have no problem with you sticking up for any lama you
> choose, inc: Sogyal.
What does offend is:
> a)People preaching at me in 'holier than thou' tones
****** I am sorry if you interpret a holier-than-thou from my posts.
That was certainly not my intention. I consider myself as no
holier than an ant's bollocks.
> b)Your suggestion that I trash other people's views.
****** Not even mine or Sogyal's?
Tyree Hilkert
On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:13:32 -0500, Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net>
wrote:
>...questioning the intimation brought up in
>this discussion that rebirth is somehow "not for Westerners" as if
>the experience of rebirth were somehow culturally Asian.
The religion I grew up with was hideously linear, instead of circular
and infinite like Asian religions. You live, you die, you go to heaven
or hell, that's it. I preferred the agnostic or atheistic view: you
die, that's it, and the expression "life after death" is a
contradiction in terms. So I do think Westerners see things
differently. New Agers are perhaps enamored of reincarnation, but
they're the exception.
So just as Buddhism adapted to the Tibetan shamanistic environment,
perhaps it will adapt to our environment as well.
>Let us not
>forget that the Buddha taught these twelve interdependent links
>AND the Heart Sutra. The Nyingma, of which I think you and I are
>a part, includes all nine vehicles.
If we were all to be khenpos, we would study all of them. But if we're
not, then it might make sense to focus on the vehicles that make the
most sense to each of us.
> I hope and pray from my heart
>that you truly possess the flawless view of the prajnaparamita.
>You would be, as they say, as rare as a star in the day.
How do you think this works? That you don't understand it, you
gradually study and practice, and *poof* suddenly you do? Or maybe all
of us see it in flashes and glimpses and as we study and practice and
gain confidence those seem to lengthen?
As NCR says in the analogy of the strobe light in "Wearing the Body of
Visions" we are constantly blinking out our enlightenment. It's there
all the time, but we blink it out because we find it disorienting.
> But
>people gotta be taught where they're at. And I hesitate to
>agree with you that where most Americans are at is to whiz by
>yanas 1-8 and simply awaken to the dzogchen view. There's
>humongous room for misunderstanding and misapplication, much
>more danger of nihilistic view, wouldn't you say?
I just read this, which disagrees with the gradualist view of
Dzogchen, I think:
"Not Sutra, not Tantra, Dzogchen does not see itself as the high point
of any hierarchy of levels, and is not a gradual path. Dzogchen is the
Path of Self-Liberation, and not the Path of Tranformation, so it does
not use visualization as a principle practice; but it is beyond
limits, and practices of any of the other levels can be used as
secondary practices."
- The Crystal and the Way of Light, p. 34
Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
It could result in nihilism if misunderstood. But then, tantra can
result in eternalism. Don't you know people who become superstitious
about meditation deities and think they are separate beings outside
themselves?
>Mmm, perhaps. Maybe my view's odd, being a monk. But you know? Some
>things could stand to be repressed, at first, eg aggression, the
>Shantideva "remain like a piece of wood" thing.
I'm not talking about the sphere of action. I'm talking about
awareness of our agressive thoughts and emotions. It's
counterproductive to repress that awareness. Both acting out and
repressing increase our habitual tendencies.
>Also NCR's view of the ordained person is right if
>they are only engaged in pratimoksha discipline. But for me, it's
>different. My outer practice is monastic ethics, inner is my
>bodhisattva vow, and secret my tantric samaya. All can coexist
>and I'm the proof.
Wonderful. BTW, NCR would be quick to point out that "ordained" does
not mean monastic. We would not consider HH Dudjom Rinpoche a lay
person, for example. "Would you call HH Dudjom Rinpoche an _amateur_?"
is how I believe he put it.
>...but as all lamas will say, it's nowhere without
>the basics accomplished first.
I don't think it's one-size-fits-all.
Mary Finnigan
I cannot match Don Martin's cut and paste technique, but respond to what
he writes
> Ah Don, it warms my heart to know that you care :-)
>> Seriously,
>
>****** You mean you wasn't serious in the previous line?
ever so hard to be serious about anything...even grammatical errors
>
>****** I am sorry if you interpret a holier-than-thou from my posts.
> That was certainly not my intention. I consider myself as no
> holier than an ant's bollocks.
should be glaringly obvious who it is.
>
>> b)Your suggestion that I trash other people's views.
>
>****** Not even mine or Sogyal's?
menace and should not be teaching...and this is not to say that you have
to agree with me!
Love and sunbubbles,
Mary
>
>
--
Mary Finnigan
r.j.fa...@stirling.ac.uk
In article <pwpeOAA4...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Suggestions please (one para only) on what I/we can learn from Sogyal!
A classic Christian thing is to view all difficulties
as God testing one's faith. The Buddhist equivalent,
in my not so humble opinion, is to view all
difficulties as learning opportunities. So, what
Sogyal/whatever/whoever (makes no diff.) has to teach
all of us is how to maintain our equanimity, and
otherwise handle the situation appropriately, where a
widely respected teacher appears to have been
seriously misbehaving.
I really don't want to seem holier-than-thou, but it
seemed to me that point needed making. I hesitate to
go this far, but I think some respected Buddhists
would even say that we should be grateful for this
opportunity. Ultimately, after all, all obstacles
are in our own minds.
Konchog Norbu
Try in "Legend of the Great Stupa", GR's alarming description of
Kaliyuga. Quite graphic and detailed.
Konchog
http://www.tara.org
Mary Finnigan
Konchog Norbu writes
>
>Try in "Legend of the Great Stupa", GR's alarming description of
>Kaliyuga. Quite graphic and detailed.
>
Presume you you mean Keith D's version?
Mary
>
Konchog Norbu
> The religion I grew up with was hideously linear, instead of circular
> and infinite like Asian religions. You live, you die, you go to heaven
> or hell, that's it. I preferred the agnostic or atheistic view: you
> die, that's it, and the expression "life after death" is a
> contradiction in terms. So I do think Westerners see things
> differently. New Agers are perhaps enamored of reincarnation, but
> they're the exception.
>
> So just as Buddhism adapted to the Tibetan shamanistic environment,
> perhaps it will adapt to our environment as well.
>
particular religious upbringing, who was strongly persuaded by the
Buddha's logic explaining rebirth. It was the only cohesive and
thorough explanation I'd ever heard. The phrase "life after death"
may be a contradiction but I don't think that's what the Buddha
was explaining. He was explaining cause and result, that in the
same way the physical body cannot arise without the proper causes
and conditions, neither can consciousness which, as it arises, is
connected with the body but not the same. Consciousness must arise
from prior moments of consciousness. To say something arises from
nothing is a more critical contradiction, I think.
Further, as I understand it, the dharma was translated verbatim
from Sanskrit. Tibet's "shamanistic environment" did not preclude
the understanding of rebirth. Of course there was some cultural
bleed-in, but not philosophically. The basic teaching of the
Buddha has not changed, or even to my knowledge ever successfully
been refuted. I'm not persuaded at all that westerners are
specially resistant to the Buddha's teaching. In fact, the
hundreds who come through our center seem quite enamored of
it and willing to examine it and put it into practice.
> >Let us not
> >forget that the Buddha taught these twelve interdependent links
> >AND the Heart Sutra. The Nyingma, of which I think you and I are
> >a part, includes all nine vehicles.
>
> If we were all to be khenpos, we would study all of them. But if we're
> not, then it might make sense to focus on the vehicles that make the
> most sense to each of us.
>
If you're saying we as a people are too busy to deepen our ethical
stance and our bodhicitta, I strongly disagree.
> > I hope and pray from my heart
> >that you truly possess the flawless view of the prajnaparamita.
> >You would be, as they say, as rare as a star in the day.
>
> How do you think this works? That you don't understand it, you
> gradually study and practice, and *poof* suddenly you do? Or maybe all
> of us see it in flashes and glimpses and as we study and practice and
> gain confidence those seem to lengthen?
>
Of course, that's the paradox of the dharma. The reality of the
situation is there, but we're obscured from it by our mental habits.
We have to purify in order to realize there was nothing to purify. Why?
Because, if we're honest, we are currently trapped in dualistic mind.
So we skillfully use techniques involving this mind in order to
transcend it. Your NCR quote was good, I really respect him, I hope
his techniques work.
> > But
> >people gotta be taught where they're at. And I hesitate to
> >agree with you that where most Americans are at is to whiz by
> >yanas 1-8 and simply awaken to the dzogchen view. There's
> >humongous room for misunderstanding and misapplication, much
> >more danger of nihilistic view, wouldn't you say?
>
> I just read this, which disagrees with the gradualist view of
> Dzogchen, I think:
>
> "Not Sutra, not Tantra, Dzogchen does not see itself as the high point
> of any hierarchy of levels, and is not a gradual path. Dzogchen is the
> Path of Self-Liberation, and not the Path of Tranformation, so it does
> not use visualization as a principle practice; but it is beyond
> limits, and practices of any of the other levels can be used as
> secondary practices."
> - The Crystal and the Way of Light, p. 34
> Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
>
Yeah. How can I argue with this? And yet, I remember when Ngagpa
Yeshe Dorje was here, and he was saying Americans all wanted dzogchen
teachings (because we deserve the best, and want it right away) and
he wanted to give them, but he saw it was no use. Their minds had
to be softened first for such profundity to have any effect. So
he did not teach in that way, but gradually. Again, I really hope
the students of Namkai Norbu, NCR, Surya Das, Sogyal, et al, are
just right there on the brink and will become Buddhas through
their taking dzogchen as the sole path. But a lot of lamas teach
differently, so I think there must be (of course) all levels of
minds to teach. So maybe we need the whole of the dharma here
in America, not just the path for an elite few.
> It could result in nihilism if misunderstood. But then, tantra can
> result in eternalism. Don't you know people who become superstitious
> about meditation deities and think they are separate beings outside
> themselves?
>
Well, sure, but don't blame the dharma. That's not how they were taught.
> >Mmm, perhaps. Maybe my view's odd, being a monk. But you know? Some
> >things could stand to be repressed, at first, eg aggression, the
> >Shantideva "remain like a piece of wood" thing.
>
> I'm not talking about the sphere of action. I'm talking about
> awareness of our agressive thoughts and emotions. It's
> counterproductive to repress that awareness. Both acting out and
> repressing increase our habitual tendencies.
>
Yup, I agree, and retract what I said. What I meant was just as you say,
not repressing the emotion itself, but the acting out.
> >Also NCR's view of the ordained person is right if
> >they are only engaged in pratimoksha discipline. But for me, it's
> >different. My outer practice is monastic ethics, inner is my
> >bodhisattva vow, and secret my tantric samaya. All can coexist
> >and I'm the proof.
>
> Wonderful. BTW, NCR would be quick to point out that "ordained" does
> not mean monastic. We would not consider HH Dudjom Rinpoche a lay
> person, for example. "Would you call HH Dudjom Rinpoche an _amateur_?"
> is how I believe he put it.
>
Yeah, of course. I think it was in perfect conduct that Dudjom
Rinpoche himself said that entering the path of seeing was the
highest ordination. My own teacher is a layperson (who, interestingly
enough, guides the largest group of monks and nuns in N. America)
Just as a side note, I was really excited when I came across NCR's
website. A female terton! Eh ma ho! The teacher here, Jetsunma
Ahkon Lhamo, is a woman, said to be a tulku of other women ( now
don't you anti-tulku people come in and mess up a nice conversation!)
and the center here is quite female ( we don't have enough monks
for a softball team. The anis could have three). All of us found
his discussion of this family lineage delightful and inspiring, and
hope it just flourishes and flourishes.
OK that's it.
Konchog
Sat Tara S. Khalsa
Hi,
Having followed this thread from the beginning, I'm a little confused
about how Ty's initial presentation of the hagiography of Ngakpa Chogyam
which was highly Rebirth-justified has become transformed into an
anti-rebirth position. And I'm completely baffled about how it is somehow
easier (and presumably better) for Westerners to buy Dharma if it excludes
the doctrine of rebirth.
Konchog Norbu and Richard Menninger wrote lots of very good stuff which
I've snipped.
Ty Hilkert wrote the following, followed by Konchog Norbu and Richard and me:
> > > It could result in nihilism if misunderstood. But then, tantra can
> > > result in eternalism. Don't you know people who become superstitious
> > > about meditation deities and think they are separate beings outside
> > > themselves?
>
> > Well, sure, but don't blame the dharma. That's not how they were taught.
>
> This stuff is the recipe to dispell our
> incidental obscurations. But you, as cook,
> always can mess up and merely add to your
> obscurations. That is integral with the
> possibility of it working.
>
> ...
You know Ty, sometimes I become superstitious and think YOU are a separate
being outside myself, then I remember that ALL phenomena are "as
insubstantial as the dream fabric of the night", even you. The point of
visualizing the deity in tantric practice is not to create more concept.
It is self-defeating if in your identification with the deity you feel the
need to constantly remind yourself that this is just a mental phenomenon,
lacking inherent reality. This use of Dzogchen view is just piling another
construct on top of your existing ones, not the recognition of wisdom
display. The masters of Dzogchen, from at least two of whom (Lama Tharchin
Rinpoche and Dungse Thinley Norbu Rinpoche) you've been blessed with
receiving teachings, are all accomplished Tantricas. Why do you think they
still practice Vajrakilaya sadhana, Guru Rinpoche sadhanas other deity
yogas etc. Is it because they're not clear about the Dzogchen view?
Of course the deities don't exist as separate beings outside myself,
(particularly the self-visualized ones), but then, in that same sense,
NEITHER DO YOU.
Lama Tharchin Rinpoche told a wonderful story about one of the prior
lineage-holders in his Repkong Ngakpa lineage in which he was given a
refuge-tree visualization by his Lama, and then sent on a journey to a
neighboring valley. When he returned after only a short time, his Lama
asked him why he was back so soon. His reply was "You sent me on this
journey, but on the way was a narrow passage which was too small for my
refuge tree to fit through, so I returned!" His refuge tree visualization
was so "real" that it physically couldn't fit through the canyon! Is this
because of his inferior level of realization of Dzogchen? Or is it because
his conceptual self-clinging was eroded by the strength of his tantric
practice? Do you really think that nihilistic doubt in the doctrine of
rebirth is anything other than conceptual self-clinging, justified by a
category error?
Of course all phenomena, including this and every other birth, lack
inherent existence. That's a given. However, your existence, even in
cyberspace, inherently refutes this argument when applied to samsaric
phenomena. You lack inherent existence, but, as the Dalai Lama said, if
you don't believe you're there, stick a pin in your arm. The practice of
Dzogchen view, meditation and action is not a bullshit concept which
allows one to confuse samsara with realization, it is the RECOGNITION, not
the CONCEPT of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana.The practice of
deity yogas enables Dzogchen realization, if properly practiced. Dzogchen
does not in any way refute Tantric practice. And NEITHER have anything to
do with eternalism. Maybe you could ask Tulku Rinpoche for some
clarification.
Concerning rebirth more directly, the first time I met Lama Tharchin
Rinpoche was at a Lake-Born Vajra empowerment he was performing. As soon
as we saw each other, before the wang, there was this tremendous feeling
of recognition for both of us. During the empowerment my mind was blown
and I felt like I was finally "home". Afterward, as I was going outside to
put on my shoes, Rinpoche came over to me and said, "I remember you.", and
I remembered him too. We have always had an incredible heart-bond. This
experience was plenty of "proof" of the doctrine of rebirth for me. Could
it be explained in other ways? Sure. Would they be more parsimonious
explanations of the event? Not for me.
Experience is not realization, but it beats concept every time.
more good Konchog Norbu and Richard stuff snipped
> Take care of yourself
> Dick
> rmenn...@lucent.com
Best,
Kunzang Dorje
Richard Menninger
Konchog Norbu wrote:
This thread said a lot I basically agree with but wish
to comment on anyway. :-)
> > The religion I grew up with was hideously linear, instead of circular
> > and infinite like Asian religions. You live, you die, you go to heaven
> > or hell, that's it. I preferred the agnostic or atheistic view: you
> > die, that's it, and the expression "life after death" is a
> > contradiction in terms. So I do think Westerners see things
> > differently. New Agers are perhaps enamored of reincarnation, but
> > they're the exception.
Seeing this stuff as either conceptual entertainment or
as conditioned conceptual prejudice is just cataloging
the confusion, the conceptual neuroses that westerners
are bringing to the table to be the working basis.
> > So just as Buddhism adapted to the Tibetan shamanistic environment,
> > perhaps it will adapt to our environment as well.
It adapts in the sense that it works with whatever
collection of confusion is there as cultural and
individual bias. That stuff IS your basis for the path.
> I'm not quite down with your logic here. I'm an American, with no
> particular religious upbringing, who was strongly persuaded by the
> Buddha's logic explaining rebirth. It was the only cohesive and
> thorough explanation I'd ever heard. The phrase "life after death"
> may be a contradiction but I don't think that's what the Buddha
> was explaining. He was explaining cause and result, that in the
> same way the physical body cannot arise without the proper causes
> and conditions, neither can consciousness which, as it arises, is
> connected with the body but not the same. Consciousness must arise
> from prior moments of consciousness. To say something arises from
> nothing is a more critical contradiction, I think.
Relating to this conceptually as logic and as a sensible,
sound match with what goes on around us and what happens
to us is the start. Yes, this is a part of understanding
cause and effect as the underlying basis of the operation
of samsara. People often fall into the trap of wanting
to equate emptiness of samsara to it not having qualities
and rules. But samsaric existnece has always been described
by the qualities and rules it has.
But relating to this conceptually is only a conditioned start.
The role of the vajrayana teachings is to take you beyond such
a mere conditioned connection with this to having a direct,
visceral experience that samsara is that way. That is NOT
a matter of conceptual logic. In fact, much of vajrayana
study and practice is dealing with the serious bumps we
experience that directly confront our conceptual views
and with undoing the hardest fixations we have: concepts.
> Further, as I understand it, the dharma was translated verbatim
> from Sanskrit. Tibet's "shamanistic environment" did not preclude
> the understanding of rebirth. Of course there was some cultural
> bleed-in, but not philosophically. The basic teaching of the
> Buddha has not changed, or even to my knowledge ever successfully
> been refuted.
Since the full set of teachings and practice
are the recipe to bring you to find out directly,
the ultimate proof is that, not the early waffling
we all do. That proof is beyond mere concept.
> I'm not persuaded at all that westerners are
> specially resistant to the Buddha's teaching. In fact, the
> hundreds who come through our center seem quite enamored of
> it and willing to examine it and put it into practice.
Transplanting cannot be hurried. It has its
own timetable. Also, this transistion is a
time when some longstanding problems will come
to a head and be resolved. It will be either
a time or renewal or ending. Westerners have
no special resistence, just the run of the mill
cultural biases. In fact, people who connect
with it now have an easier time than earlier,
since clearer and much more accurate presentations
are available from people who have actually done
this thoroughly for a long time. The problems
caused early on by dabblers and non-practitioners
presenting mangled versions of these teachings
have been mostly counteracted. The seed stock
is growing and transition should begin in earnest
soon. I expect the opening stanzas of that to be
quite interesting. In other words, we are just
finishing up the preliminaries now.
> > >Let us not
> > >forget that the Buddha taught these twelve interdependent links
> > >AND the Heart Sutra. The Nyingma, of which I think you and I are
> > >a part, includes all nine vehicles.
> > If we were all to be khenpos, we would study all of them. But if we're
> > not, then it might make sense to focus on the vehicles that make the
> > most sense to each of us.
Actually, we wind up being at multiple levels
for different aspects of our relations to these
teachings. We can be at different levels for
what we study, what we do as formal practice,
what we do as practice in everyday life, and
what we teach others.
> If you're saying we as a people are too busy to deepen our ethical
> stance and our bodhicitta, I strongly disagree.
Actually, the best place to do those IS being
busy out in the world! "Busy out in the world"
is the opportunity of a lifetime! ;-)
...
To fully relate at the level of that quote means
means you have worn out the neuroses, the obscurations
of goals, progress, and hierarchy. Now some take that
to be simply adopting an additional obscuration that
they need not do anything. But if you avoid that pit,
then your neuroses are used as fuel two ways, both to
help drive you through some of the teachings and as
the target to be dispelled. It is the ultimate
Catch 22. But when you have dispelled most of the mess,
then you are ready to relate to what has always been
there. The earlier techniques use whatever is available
including manipulating mental contents via the illusory
body. For certain stages of dispelling, those have
been found to be very effective means, though they are
relative means. Ultimately you get back to directness.
Dzogchen is that directness.
> > It could result in nihilism if misunderstood. But then, tantra can
> > result in eternalism. Don't you know people who become superstitious
> > about meditation deities and think they are separate beings outside
> > themselves?
> Well, sure, but don't blame the dharma. That's not how they were taught.
This stuff is the recipe to dispell our
incidental obscurations. But you, as cook,
always can mess up and merely add to your
obscurations. That is integral with the
possibility of it working.
...
> Yeah, of course. I think it was in perfect conduct that Dudjom
> Rinpoche himself said that entering the path of seeing was the
> highest ordination. My own teacher is a layperson (who, interestingly
> enough, guides the largest group of monks and nuns in N. America)
This sets an excellent example of the teachings
transcending the incidental styles of approach
that best fit individuals at a given time. Any
have the potential of teaching any other. There
will be more such situations.
> Just as a side note, I was really excited when I came across NCR's
> website. A female terton! Eh ma ho! The teacher here, Jetsunma
> Ahkon Lhamo, is a woman, said to be a tulku of other women ( now
> don't you anti-tulku people come in and mess up a nice conversation!)
> and the center here is quite female ( we don't have enough monks
> for a softball team. The anis could have three). All of us found
> his discussion of this family lineage delightful and inspiring, and
> hope it just flourishes and flourishes.
A lot a guys are missing a good teacher, then.
I suspect it might change. But having more active
female teachers is likely to be a positive part of
this change of cultural venues that the teachings
are undertaking. It is a good change.
kunukia
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:15:05 -0500, we recieved this message from
Richard Menninger <r...@winner.lc.lucent.com>:
snip.
:> Of course, since my mother believed in rebirth, I took it in at an early
:> age, and never had a disbelief to overcome.
:
:Hearing it since birth is a way to get it as a default view.
:That may make it harder to really look, though.
It is not a 'default view'. I learned that first, but also spent many
hours reading different philosophies, religions, old wives tales, etc...
and many more hours struggling through my own thoughts on the
*Big Questions*
of life. Since Mom didn't push the typical western view on the subject,
when I got all that at school, TV etc.. I didn't just drink it all in,
without question.
Snip.
:The practice had to prove its worth inch by inch and baggage
:became more only very slowly. But a lot of practice while
:still living a regular life is a good path it seems. A lot
:of practice seems to be key to baggage proving itself. The
:proof is not logic but more direct personal experience of the
:teachings through practice.
This is true.
:Actually, I do not have a problem with Mary taking it all
:with a grain of salt both as a theory and as usefulness of
:the identification in the West. In fact I thought her most
:recent post was quite good at covering it. But I will poke
:at a somewhat disrespectful disparaging of it, which is how
:some of the earlier stuff comes across. It is possible to
:respectfully doubt this stuff. Disrespectful doubt means
:there is a special charge there that needs investigation.
:At least that is how things happen in virtually every other
:case I have seen.
k
Tyree Hilkert
>Having followed this thread from the beginning, I'm a little confused
>about how Ty's initial presentation of the hagiography of Ngakpa Chogyam
>which was highly Rebirth-justified has become transformed into an
>anti-rebirth position.
I quoted the bio from their brochure and it mentioned his past
incarnations. I like the bio. IMHO, rebirth is colorful, thought
provoking, and helpful to consider. That's different from saying it's
true.
If you want to have faith in rebirth be my guest. I haven't heard
anything that approximates proof of rebirth. I can't even imagine what
conclusive proof would look like. And, frankly, proving rebirth is
just not that interesting a question.
But if you want to require everyone to accept rebirth as an article of
faith, then you're being completely unreasonable. That drags Buddhism
down to the level of other religions. It drives reasonable people, who
want to make up their own minds, away from the dharma.
My personal view is that physical death isn't as interesting as the
small deaths we can observe in the present moment. Being reborn in
each present moment with karmic momentum is a far more interesting and
helpful than conjecturing about physical lifetimes.
I prefer to keep my articles of faith to a minimum. For example, I
like this teaching:
"Don't prolong the past,
Don't invite the future,
Don't alter your innate wakefulness --
Don't fear appearances...
Apart from that, there is not a damned thing!"
- Patrul Rinpoche, quoted in
Snow Lion's Turquoise Mane, p. 206
Lama Surya Das, http://www.dzogchen.org
>And I'm completely baffled about how it is somehow
>easier (and presumably better) for Westerners to buy Dharma if it excludes
>the doctrine of rebirth.
Do you _meet_ many non-Buddhist, non-New-Agers?
>...Why do you think they
>still practice Vajrakilaya sadhana, Guru Rinpoche sadhanas other deity
>yogas etc. Is it because they're not clear about the Dzogchen view?
Dzogchen neither requires nor precludes the use of other practices.
Dzogchen practitioners apply whatever practice they find appropriate
to the situation in which they find themselves.
>...His refuge tree visualization
>was so "real" that it physically couldn't fit through the canyon!
I'll be like Paul Harvey here and ask, "Have you heard the REST of the
story?" I can't find which book it's in, but I've seen that same story
used as a criticism. While the meditator demonstrates perfect skill at
visualization and stabilization, he has concretized his visualization.
Instead of being insubstantial and light, like a rainbow, it's become
so concrete to him that it has TRAPPED him.
That illustrates my point exactly. If you concretize your Buddhist
beliefs or practices they can turn into a trap.
>Do you really think that nihilistic doubt in the doctrine of
>rebirth is anything other than conceptual self-clinging, justified by a
>category error?
What? So you think if I become gullible and believe everything I'm
told then that removes my self clinging? Bullshit. Considering what
just happened in San Diego, it's very dangerous bullshit indeed.
>During the empowerment my mind was blown
>and I felt like I was finally "home". Afterward, as I was going outside to
>put on my shoes, Rinpoche came over to me and said, "I remember you.", and
>I remembered him too. We have always had an incredible heart-bond. This
>experience was plenty of "proof" of the doctrine of rebirth for me.
The fact that you put "proof" in quotes shows that you are aware that
this does NOT constitute proof, that althought it is a VERY important
experience for you, it is a subjective experience.
Xtians have very important subjective experiences, too. Why don't
those experiences convince you to become an xtian?
>Experience is not realization, but it beats concept every time.
"As the Great Perfection says: 'Theory is like a patch, it will come
away' and 'Experiences are like mist, they will vanish.'"
- Ri Cho, p. 26
HH Dudjom Rinpoche
They're both inadequate.
- Ty
Sat Tara S. Khalsa
In article <3344c8a0....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
tyree-...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:51:33 -0700, sat...@sattara.com (Sat Tara S.
> Khalsa) wrote:
>
> >Having followed this thread from the beginning, I'm a little confused
> >about how Ty's initial presentation of the hagiography of Ngakpa Chogyam
> >which was highly Rebirth-justified has become transformed into an
> >anti-rebirth position.
>
> I quoted the bio from their brochure and it mentioned his past
> incarnations. I like the bio. IMHO, rebirth is colorful, thought
> provoking, and helpful to consider. That's different from saying it's
> true.
Yeah, right. Maybe we should take another look at how you presented and
later defended it. As I recall, others used the term "defensive" to
describe your position on the validity of NC's tulkuhood. If memory serves
me correctly, the discussion became somewhat heated. "Colorful, thought
provoking and helpful to consider" indeed. This is called "switching
ground" in debate parlance.
>
> If you want to have faith in rebirth be my guest. I haven't heard
> anything that approximates proof of rebirth. I can't even imagine what
> conclusive proof would look like. And, frankly, proving rebirth is
> just not that interesting a question.
Bingo! Proving it, or disproving it isn't interesting. Other than in
mathematics, which is completely abstract, nothing is ultimately
"proveable". Heisenberg demonstrated quite well that the best you can do
is go for different levels of probability. This is completely irrelevant,
of course. What's interesting is what you accept and what you reject of
the teachings and how you rationalize those choices.
>
> But if you want to require everyone to accept rebirth as an article of
> faith, then you're being completely unreasonable. That drags Buddhism
> down to the level of other religions. It drives reasonable people, who
> want to make up their own minds, away from the dharma.
I don't require anything of anybody. There is certainly little basis for a
belief that it is inherently more "reasonable" to try to change a
successful recipe without knowing how to cook than to accept the
instructions of thousands of years of master chefs. Dharma is a method to
realization, a recipe. The point is basically this. When you take it upon
yourself to decide which of your teacher's teachings to accept and which
to reject without the clarity of realization you take a substantial risk
of just remaining caught in your conceptual fixations. If you take a look
at what's behind your "difficulty" with rebirth it could prove interesting
indeed. Nobody's talking about faith here, except faith in the three
jewels.
>
> My personal view is that physical death isn't as interesting as the
> small deaths we can observe in the present moment. Being reborn in
> each present moment with karmic momentum is a far more interesting and
> helpful than conjecturing about physical lifetimes.
Yeah, all those poor superstitious Tibetans, going on and on about Bardo
teachings etc. Must be great to be superior to virtually all those
outmoded Lamas. And their "conjecturing".
>
> I prefer to keep my articles of faith to a minimum. For example, I
> like this teaching:
>
> "Don't prolong the past,
> Don't invite the future,
> Don't alter your innate wakefulness --
> Don't fear appearances...
> Apart from that, there is not a damned thing!"
> - Patrul Rinpoche, quoted in
> Snow Lion's Turquoise Mane, p. 206
> Lama Surya Das, http://www.dzogchen.org
Yeah, I like it too. But I like this one even more:
"Wrong views include the view that actions cause no karmic effect, and the
views of eternalism and nihilism....Nihilists believe that all things just
arise by themselves and that there ARE NO PAST AND FUTURE LIVES, no karma
and no liberation. ....
To consider the texts of such doctrines true and to follow them, or
even without doing so, to think that the Buddha's words, YOUR TEACHER"S
INSTRUCTIONS or the texts of learned commentators are in error and to
doubt and criticize them, are all included in what is meant by wrong
views.
There is no worse action than taking another's life:
Of the ten unvirtuous acts, wrong view is the heaviest."
Patrul Rinpoche, his own self, not quoted by anybody else, in
Words of my Perfect Teacher p 111
>
> >And I'm completely baffled about how it is somehow
> >easier (and presumably better) for Westerners to buy Dharma if it excludes
> >the doctrine of rebirth.
>
> Do you _meet_ many non-Buddhist, non-New-Agers?
>
Jeez, no. In my career as an entrepreneur and management consultant I
guess I don't. Do you meet many Buddhists? Or is it that you just don't
listen to them if they're Tibetan?
> >...Why do you think they
> >still practice Vajrakilaya sadhana, Guru Rinpoche sadhanas other deity
> >yogas etc. Is it because they're not clear about the Dzogchen view?
>
> Dzogchen neither requires nor precludes the use of other practices.
> Dzogchen practitioners apply whatever practice they find appropriate
> to the situation in which they find themselves.
Fine, why do you suppose that they're ALL Tantricas? Why do they ALL hold
the doctrine of rebirth?
>
> >...His refuge tree visualization
> >was so "real" that it physically couldn't fit through the canyon!
>
> I'll be like Paul Harvey here and ask, "Have you heard the REST of the
> story?" I can't find which book it's in, but I've seen that same story
> used as a criticism. While the meditator demonstrates perfect skill at
> visualization and stabilization, he has concretized his visualization.
> Instead of being insubstantial and light, like a rainbow, it's become
> so concrete to him that it has TRAPPED him.
Actually I heard it from Lama Tharchin Rinpoche his own self, not in a
book. It's also on a tape, available from the POL bookstore, called "An
evening of Stories with Lama Tharchin" Why don't you ask him if it was
meant as a criticism? Any bets? The Yogi in question attained incredible
realization and was quite famous. Or is LTR's view just one of those
quaint Tibetan cultural artifacts that you are so far above?
>
> That illustrates my point exactly. If you concretize your Buddhist
> beliefs or practices they can turn into a trap.
Sure, but it's even more of a trap to be stuck in your world-view to the
extent that you think you're superior to your teachers and can't even see
your own conceptual clinging.
>
> >Do you really think that nihilistic doubt in the doctrine of
> >rebirth is anything other than conceptual self-clinging, justified by a
> >category error?
>
> What? So you think if I become gullible and believe everything I'm
> told then that removes my self clinging? Bullshit. Considering what
> just happened in San Diego, it's very dangerous bullshit indeed.
A category error occurs when you apply principles germane to one category
(like absolute truth) to problems in another. (like relative truth). Using
Dzogchen view of absolute truth to attempt to refute the doctrine of
rebirth is such an error.
Unfortunately, holding wrong view is not an antidote to gullibility. It's
just demonstration of gullibility of a more insidious sort. I can't for
the life of me remember anyone suggesting that you "become gullible and
believe everything" you're told. The point of discriminating wisdom is the
ability to accept things that you're told that lead to liberation, such as
the Dharma, and reject things that lead to wasted precious lives, like
nihilism. Even more unfortunate is to misuse Dharma (like misinterpreting
Dzogchen) to justify nihilistic wrong view. Considering what just happened
over the past few thousand years in the Kali Yuga, one could do worse than
relying on the Dharma.
>
> >During the empowerment my mind was blown
> >and I felt like I was finally "home". Afterward, as I was going outside to
> >put on my shoes, Rinpoche came over to me and said, "I remember you.", and
> >I remembered him too. We have always had an incredible heart-bond. This
> >experience was plenty of "proof" of the doctrine of rebirth for me.
>
> The fact that you put "proof" in quotes shows that you are aware that
> this does NOT constitute proof, that althought it is a VERY important
> experience for you, it is a subjective experience.
Wow, blinding flash of the obvious.
>
> Xtians have very important subjective experiences, too. Why don't
> those experiences convince you to become an xtian?
Because, after being exposed to it for a very long time, and exploring its
limits, I found it to not be helpful in attaining liberation, unlike, in
my BELIEF, Buddha Dharma. I used my discriminating faculty to make a
choice, that is, to take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, having done
that, I used my discriminating faculty to take my Lama's instruction to
heart, and to reject wrong view.
>
> >Experience is not realization, but it beats concept every time.
>
> "As the Great Perfection says: 'Theory is like a patch, it will come
> away' and 'Experiences are like mist, they will vanish.'"
> - Ri Cho, p. 26
> HH Dudjom Rinpoche
>
> They're both inadequate.
>
> - Ty
Couldn't agree more, but I still prefer experience until realization happens by.
Sarva Mangle 'em, ;-)
Kunzang Dorje
Konchog Norbu
Yeah, it's the only one I'm aware of. Don't know if it's still in
print, though. Crime if it wasn't.
.
.
.
.
Mary Finnigan
Konchog Norbu writes re: legend of the Great Stupa trans: Keith Dowman
>
>
>Yeah, it's the only one I'm aware of. Don't know if it's still in
>print, though. Crime if it wasn't.
>.
that had not been valued by commercial publishers. Keith has spent most
od his adult life translating from Tibetan with unsurpassed insight and
expertise and has had numerous works published, but not sold in volume
that would make re-prints viable. This is a fundamental flaw of special
interest publications. I believe Wisdom try to get round this by getting
their books like Gyurme Dorje's translation of HH Dudjom's magnum opus
sponsored prior to publication.
Mary
Konchog Norbu
OK, let's throw this into the mix, from the Dalai Lama's
"Meaning of Life":
Q: What do you think of a Buddhist who does not believe in
karma or rebirth?
A: This indeed needs to be considered. Generally, whether or
not one is a Buddhist is determined by whether or not one
asserts the three jewels--Buddha, his doctrine, and the
spiritual community--as pure sources of refuge. However, there
are persons who do this without much thought on complicated
matters such as former and later births, karma, and so forth.
On the other hand, some Western people who think along these
lines cannot immediately accept the three jewels and remain
skeptical, but nevertheless have a high regard for Buddha, his
teaching, and the spiritual community. The latter, it might
be said, are persons who are about to become Buddhists. Also,
although Buddhists would not assert a permanent, unitary,
independent self, there could be Buddhists who would not
immediately accept selflessness.
Konchog Norbu
http://www.tara.org
Tyree Hilkert
>There is certainly little basis for a
>belief that it is inherently more "reasonable" to try to change a
>successful recipe without knowing how to cook than to accept the
>instructions of thousands of years of master chefs. Dharma is a method to
>realization, a recipe.
If you follow the recipe blindly without understanding it, you won't
be able to tell the difference between the garnish and the main
course.
Also, your lama, looking at YOUR particular kitchen, may have told YOU
to use Crisco instead of butter. I don't think you can take that to
mean that EVERYONE should use Crisco. And of course, isn't it possible
that maybe you misinterpreted what he said?
>When you take it upon
>yourself to decide which of your teacher's teachings to accept and which
>to reject without the clarity of realization you take a substantial risk
>of just remaining caught in your conceptual fixations.
Do you believe that Mount Meru is at the center of the universe? Is
that central to the teaching or not? When you make choices like that
with any of the teachings you are INTERPRETING them. When you find the
meaning in teachings you are interpreting them. That is, you already
are deciding which teachings to accept and which to reject. So don't
pretend it's avoidable.
If you're trying to stop fixating on concepts, if you're trying to
stop mistaking the map from the territory, there's a real danger that
you'll just confuse yourself when you blindly swap your Western "map"
for the "better" and more holy Tibetan "map." You'll think that by
believing in Mount Meru, the six realms, and rebirth you have
abandoned concepts.
No!!! You're still stuck with concepts, you've only traded (your
interpretation of) Tibetan concepts for Western ones. But worse, since
you think they're so holy and correct you make them even more concrete
than the Western concepts were, and you'll refuse to see through them.
I think Rinpoche is pointing his finger at the moon, but instead of
looking at the moon you're trying to make sure we all have Tibetan
fingers just like his.
>If you take a look at what's behind your "difficulty" with rebirth
>it could prove interesting indeed.
Discussing rebirth at the end of physical life is an excursion into
conceptual thinking that I don't find particularly helpful. I think it
brings us into the New Age realm of fakes and flakes.
As I said, I don't think it's helpful to try to swap conceptual
systems. I think it's more productive to learn to see through whatever
conceptual system you already have.
>"...Of the ten unvirtuous acts, wrong view is the heaviest."
> Patrul Rinpoche, his own self, not quoted by anybody else, in
> Words of my Perfect Teacher p 111
Yeah, I do sound heretical, don't I? Thanks for your concern, but I
have discussed my views with my lama. By the way, Patrul Rinpoche
didn't say that, his teacher did:
"Jig-me Gyal-wai Nyu-gu... gave an oral instruction... and his
disciple Dza Pal-trul Rinpoche transcribed it, giving it the title:
KUNSANG LA-MAI ZHALUNG."
HH Dalai Lama, in
Words of My Perfect Teacher, p. xxvii
>Actually I heard it from Lama Tharchin Rinpoche his own self, not in a
>book. It's also on a tape, available from the POL bookstore, called "An
>evening of Stories with Lama Tharchin" Why don't you ask him if it was
>meant as a criticism? Any bets?
I've heard him tell that story admiringly, too, and I didn't claim he
was being critical. But then how do you reconcile that with this:
"We don't visualize deities as if they were inert statues or ordinary
flesh and blood beings. We are careful to visualize them as the
quality of rainbow light, substanceless light, magical-like light that
is completely pure, yet vibrant with color, shape, energy, and so
forth..."
"Right away reality becomes less solid to you; it becomes light, less
heavy, more like a rainbow. For example, when you are visualizing, the
deity pervades the entire universe, and also the entire universe is
within the deity. The deity and the universe are inseparable. There is
no time, form, size, or separation. One moment can be an eon of time,
an eon of time can be one moment. It is dualistic mind that makes up
time: past, present, and future."
- "Visualization"
Lama Tharchin Rinpoche
Seattle, November 1993
http://www.scruznet.com/~yeshenyi
If your visualization is substanceness light and pervades the entire
universe, how could it ever get you stuck in a canyon?
Richard Menninger
Sat Tara S. Khalsa wrote:
...
> > I prefer to keep my articles of faith to a minimum. For example, I
> > like this teaching:
> > "Don't prolong the past,
> > Don't invite the future,
> > Don't alter your innate wakefulness --
> > Don't fear appearances...
> > Apart from that, there is not a damned thing!"
> > - Patrul Rinpoche, quoted in
> > Snow Lion's Turquoise Mane, p. 206
> > Lama Surya Das, http://www.dzogchen.org
> Yeah, I like it too.
All I can say is: Sit. Sit a lot. Do other
basic practices as well. Reread stuff like these
quotes on handling the three times every so often.
At some point they combine with other basic teachings
about not embelishing what comes up at a whole other
level of sensitivity and meaning that does not even
require any real explanation by teachers. Then you
begin to start to realize the extent that these teachings
are recipies for dealing with what happens if you do
throw yourself totally into the practice without much
expectation. Before that, it is mostly conceptual games
that have a strong spiritual materialistic conponent.
When the teachings are describing exactly what you
have going on and they do that very viscerally,
you drop the "proof" bull munchies. ;-)
You realize directly that the teachings are describing
YOU, and are not external at all. You also see how
much conceptual "proof" has been a shell game all along.
Further, until you make that level of connection, you
should take teachings and "proofs" with a grain of salt.
Of course, I may have had an easier time with de-solidifying
proofs because of the training I received in theoretical
physics and how to think about it from people like
Boris Podolsky (my all-time favorite professor).
He definitely debunked trying to make physical theories
too solid a view. Being able to treat all conceptualization
that way was a natural step in lightening up, at least for
me and working with my own stuff.