Pages: Previous12345
Current Page: 5 of 5
Re: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche Issues Public Statement on Recent Criticism of Sogyal Rinpoche
Posted by: ollaimh ()
Date: November 07, 2017 10:54AM

he is appointing tuklus now himself. he has done 180 turn and is mad that followers aren't comming along, at least western followers. however he has major following now in asia and major donors so he probably doesn't care.

here's a zinger when i was at the last lyn event in mexico with 700 people he was giving out peyote buttons. that turned me off right there. i said "this is turning into a trungpa shit show" and was not popular. i wonder if he's using too much peyote himself.(this is supposed to be a big secret btw but his disgusting posts recently lead me to believe he has become an ego monster and has broken all samayas with his students)

as i have said before he used to praise reason critical thinking and intellect as part of buddhism. i think he wants to be a crazy wisdom guy now

Options: ReplyQuote
From a 2008 DKR book 'What Makes You Not a Buddhist'
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: November 07, 2017 09:43PM

Quoted from 'What Makes You Not a Buddhist" 2008 by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche


[books.google.com]


Quote

There must be infinite ways to wake up from this sleep. Even substances like peyote and mescaline might give us a vague notion of the illusory aspect of "reality." But a drug cannot provide total awakening, if only because this awakening is dependent on an external substance and when the effect of the mescaline is gone, the experience is gone as well.

Suppose that you are having a really bad dream. All it takes is a flicker of realization that you are dreaming to wake you up. The spark can come from within a dream. When you do something anomalous within the dream, you may be jostled into realizing that you are asleep. Peyote and mescaline can spark a short-lived realization by revealing the power of the mind and the imagination. Hallucinations help us temporarily recognize how tangible and believable illusions can be. But such substances are not advisable because they provide only an artificial ...

Options: ReplyQuote
Compassion and Bodhichitta?
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: November 08, 2017 07:07AM

I have some citizen concern about the implications of Vajrayana teachings.

The concept of compassion as understood in Vajrayana is utterly different from how Westerners and Western culture conceptualizes and practices compassion.

These days, especially in America, many of us fear to feel basic empathy, others of us have disrupted parenting and grow up lacking opportunities for learning empathy. Or if we dare allow ourselves to notice someone's pain - or
notice our own pain, we may find ourselves unable to cope with an upsurge of
emotion.

My concern is that adding Vajrayana tantra to this might
for many of us become spiritual bypassing -- use of spirituality to sidestep painful emotions and experiences and worse, conceal crippled areas of our inner lives.

Tantra teachers taken as children from their mothers, sent away to live
in all male monasteries would themselves be lacking opportunities for emotional warmth -- and normal play. How can teachers raised in this manner recognize those of their western students who have impaired empathy?

How would tantra teachers taken early from their mothers, reared among adults in a monastery be able to advise students to either avoid entering the tantra path in this lifetime, or at the very least, postpone requesting initiation into tantra practices?

Rachmones - Hebrew for compassion
Caritas -- Latin for Christian love for all humanity
Compassion - from Latin "co-suffering, feeling-for, empathy" - concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

While doing some Google searches, I stumbled upon something entitled

"DHARMA Dzongsar Khyentse Longchen Nyingthig Practice Manual"

I wish to quote a small portion of this text so as to express my opinion -
and also my puzzlement.

DHARMA Dzongsar Khyentse Longchen Nyingthig Practice Manual

[www.scribd.com]

Google cache - text only

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

In
order to enhance the determination oI dwelling not only on the right path, but also on the
greater path, we practice the bodhicitta. We are now talking about the mahäyäna path,
which is a path oI dwelling neither in samsära or nirväna. The quintessence oI the
mahäyäna path is the bodhicitta so it is a much, much greater path.

Eor many oI us, we
have a vague idea the mahäyäna concept oI bodhicitta has something to do with kindness,
tolerance, and some sort oI humanitarianism, such as with providing a certain social
service. Although quite good, this understanding is really not good enough, as it is but one
small aspect oI bodhicitta. II your understanding oI the absolute bodhicitta is limited to the
notion oI kindness, compassion, tolerance, humanitarian charity work, or even the sacriIice
oI your own liIe Ior the sake oI others, you still do not have a complete picture oI the
I
Bodhicitta.

One of the Main Foundations
35
bodhicitta.

And to have a complete picture, one should not Iorget that there is a relative
and an ultimate bodhicitta.

OI course, at an inter-religious conIerence, we have little choice but to speak
diplomatically and say: 'Christians talk about love and compassion. Judaism talks about
love and compassion. We Buddhists talk about love and compassion. All religions talk
about love and compassion and thereIore, we all have the same goal, but diIIerent routes.¨
This is what inter-religious conIerences are Ior.

I am not trying to be chauvinistic. What I
am saying is Buddhist compassion and the mahäyäna concept oI compassion does not stop
there. There is something Iurther that is behind this compassion. II you don`t have that, the
Buddhist compassion, love and tolerance are exactly the same as Christian compassion,
Christian love and Christian tolerance. It can be the same as the very love, compassion and
tolerance that makes you co-dependent and eventually backIires on you. The tolerance or
compassion that does not have this something more` really victimises you in the end. You
need a complete picture oI the bodhicitta. And when we talk about the complete picture oI
bodhicitta` we are reIerring to the ultimate bodhicitta.


Corboy Questions and Opinions

It appears that the Judeo Christian definition of compassion is vastly different from how Vajrayana Mahayana Buddhism defines compassion.

In English, the root words for compassion are the Latin, 'suffer with' or 'co-suffer' -- to share pain with someone, which in turn leads to concern, accompaniment, and often some attempt at relief.

In an article on the meaning of compassion in the Buddhist tradition, compassion has an entirely different meaning from that of 'suffering with"

In the Judeo Christian traditions compassion is experienced by an individual. In these faiths, the individual is understood to be real in the sense of being a real entity with an actual separate existence. Compassion is that which
bridges the distinction, the distance between individuals leading to accompaniment, community, communion and love.

In Vajrayana Mahayana compassion is understood as not as a feeling or sensation but as something practiced by the person on the dharma path.

The practice of compassion is to dissolve the misleading perception of any distinction between oneself and other. By attaining this realization, compassion is realized.

There is no entity or person or self with inherent separate existence, thus there exists no separation, no estrangement, no loneliness no anguish.

Estrangement, loneliness, anguish arise only in a mind not yet awakened to\
the true nature of reality.

It appears that a mind which the Judeo Christian traditions would regard as a compassionate mind, a mind suffering with someone elses pain, would to the Vajaryanist be a deluded mind, not a compassionate mind.

For to the Vajrayanist, the compassionate mind is liberated from the types of mental reactions that produce the capacity, valued by Jews and Christians of suffering with.

What Jews and Christians regard as empathic compassion, a desirable condition
would actually be regarded as the product of a deluded mind, a mind not yet
awakened by Mahayana/Vajrayana practice.

Quote


[skydharma.com]

The meaning of compassion in the Buddhist tradition
by Lama Ivo

How does “compassion” work

"Compassion in the Buddhist context is the dissolution of the individual self, as reflected in the seemingly valid perception of “others”. The teachings on compassion use the logic of the dualistic mind and present methods which resolve a perceptual illusion. When we engage in the development of altruistic attitude and the subsequent compassionate actions, we gradually soften the solidity of the individual self. If we manage to dissolve completely the boundary between ourselves and others, our karmic perception will in turn dissolve. The teachings on compassion are the most direct route to this dissolution simply because our grasping of self and others is the center of the Samsaric mandala – it is the key focal point which holds the whole thing together....

Even if we understand all this conceptually, which is not easy to do, we often fail to apply it, because the karmic interdependencies are so complex and intricate, that we lose ourselves completely. Still, this understanding is vital, as it will counteract the tendency to practice compassion as charity, and also the tendency of the idiot compassion so aptly explained by Trungpa Rinpoche. Compassion as a Buddhist practice is not charity, nor indulgence, it involves working with our own perception in a much more direct way. The situation is very sophisticated – you are facing a magical show, created by none other than yourself, intended to deceive none other than yourself

Rachmones - Hebrew for compassion
Caritas -- Latin for Christian love for all humanity
Compassion - from Latin "co-suffering, feeling-for, empathy" - concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

Let us look at what DKR said above.

Quote

And to have a complete picture, one should not Iorget that there is a relative
and an ultimate bodhicitta.

OI course, at an inter-religious conIerence, we have little choice but to speak
diplomatically and say: 'Christians talk about love and compassion. Judaism talks about
love and compassion. We Buddhists talk about love and compassion. All religions talk
about love and compassion and thereIore, we all have the same goal, but diIIerent routes.¨
This is what inter-religious conIerences are Ior.

Corboy:


Why would it not be diplomatic for a Vajrayana/Mahayana Buddhist to go to an inter-religious conference and clearly state that
bohichitta compassion is very different from how how compassion is understood in Judaism, Christianity and discussions among secular Westerners.?

Friends, readers, here is what in Corboy's opinion distinguishes Vajrayana from Judaism, Christianity and western humanism.

This is it, folks. You're gonna read this right here, in public and for free.

* Human individual -- real or just a fiction?
* Nature of time
* How many lives one has to live - one or many

* Attitude toward suffering --

One: In Vajrayana/Mahayana Buddhism, the human person, the individual is regarded as unreal. There is no inherantly separately existing entity anywhere.

Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism: we are reborn, again and again, and the cycle of rebirth is the cycle of suffering and delusion. The only escape is to wake up
to the true nature of reality and then assist all beings to have that same realization. The incentive for doing Vajrayana practice and especially Vajrayana tantra is to attain maximum realization in one lifetime so one can
become enlightened as soon as possible and then help all others to become enlightened.

Ultimate compassion in Vajrayana is to teach suffering people to realize the true nature of reality - then they cease suffering.

In Judaism and Christianity, the main doctrine is, we have one life, history moves forward in a line, God works through history, through creation, and through art.

We have one life to live, so this gives an urgency to do justice in this lifetime. We have but one life to live, so this gives rise to the possibility of tragedy.

Unlike Vajrayana, Judaism and Christianity regard the human person as real-- and God takes an interest in each human person. Even those of us who identify as atheist or agnostic usually experience ourselves as bounded entities.

In Vajrayana/Mahayana, suffering originates from our minds, it orginates from our ignorance that reality is essentially empty, that there is nothing inherently separately existing.

Suffering and anguish mean you need to awaken to the true nature of reality.

By contrast, Judaism, Christianity and western humanism each regard suffering as part of being human, and the response is to do justice, relieve oppression, offer accompaniment, care for
the suffering body and care for the soul. Not ultimate healing, because that
may never be possible. But...at the very least, accompaniment.

Judaism:

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

To relieve human suffering today to pay forward with gratitude what
G-d did for us.

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Exodus 20:2

Remembering our past vulnerability empowers us do the same today

""Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt."

Christianity: God became a human -- and a human being reduced to the utter depths of physical and emotional suffering. To care for suffering human beings
and not turn aware from their suffering is to walk with God as Jesus.

Special wisdom and years of tantra are not needed to hear the Christian message.


Quote


Luke 10:21

In that same hour he(Jesus) rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

Matthew 25:35-40New King James Version (NKJV)

35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Christianity, unlike Vajrayana, calls itself a hospital for the sick, not
a society for the holy.

Western Humanism:

Viktor Frankl - Man's Search For Meaning

Quote

“But there was no need to be ashamed of tears, for tears bore witness that a man had the greatest of courage, the courage to suffer.”
? Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

Quote

“It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly.

Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.”
? Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

It is time for representatives of the different faith traditions to have
frank discussions in which they list exactly those features that distinguish
their doctrines from each other.

How can a Roman Catholic delegate make an informed decision to participate in a Vajrayana meditation event unless he or she knows just how differently the Vajranayanists regard bodhichitta as opposed to caritas?

Someone Jewish or Roman Catholic might, if given full disclosure, decide that he or she would rather preserve their own understanding of suffering as potentially having meaning, even dignity, and courteously refuse to go to the Vajrayana meditation retreat.

Some of us care about our faith commitment and want to avoid anything that
could conflict with it.

Here is another item Corboy wants to rant about.

Quote

What I
am saying is Buddhist compassion and the mahäyäna concept oI compassion does not stop
there. There is something Iurther that is behind this compassion. II you don`t have that, the
Buddhist compassion, love and tolerance are exactly the same as Christian compassion,
Christian love and Christian tolerance. It can be the same as the very love, compassion and
tolerance that makes you co-dependent and eventually backIires on you. The tolerance or
compassion that does not have this something more` really victimises you in the end. You
need a complete picture oI the bodhicitta.

Corboy: I disagree. No, Christian love and tolerance do not necessary victimize you in the end, and do not necessarily make you codependent and eventually backfire on you.

What an assumption to make.

There are plenty of Christian, Jewish and atheist or agnostic social workers out there who are caring for the world hands on, face to face with real, living breathing people -- and who know all about codependence, victimization and getting burned out.

And they do not see it as a sign that they're inferior or stupid because they
got soul seared or heart broken.

These days there is no shortage of training and literature available for people in counseling and social services work. You go to school to become a minister, a priest, a social worker and therapist and --- you have to take classes on how to love wisely and well and not get burned out.

You assemble and have staff conferences and you have supervisors and mentors who remind you to take breaks.

Still, the people who are out there, face to face with the pain of the world do get their hearts broken.

Their hearts heal, too. Prayer, meditation, going to a stupid movie with friends.

Being a Jew or a Christian does not automatically put a Kick Me sign on one's back, or condemn one to a life of co-dependency.

And, as we have seen in Chogyam Trungpa's own career, becoming tantra initiates
with profound understanding of relative and absolute bodhichitta appears to have backfired and led to co-dependency-- too many of Trungpa's tantra students excused his alcoholism, his keeping them waiting for hours, his social snobbery in demanding they learn to speak with Oxford accents when functioning as his servants -- accepting this as enlightened teaching--

They were tantra initiates and seem to have fallen into the same codependency trap that Kyentse Rinpoche fears that compassionate Christians fall into.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2017 01:05AM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
answering in public speaking to more selective group
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: November 20, 2017 10:09AM

Speaking of Sogyal Rinpoche, journalist Mick Brown and Stephen Batchelor, who practiced for years as a monk in the Dalai Lama's Gelukpa sect, put it this way:

Quote

Fundamental to this relationship between master and disciple is the bond of samaya, or trust, in which the pupil not only vows total obedience to the guru, but the guru vows to act only for the benefit of the pupil. Breaking samaya is held to have the most grave consequences, including banishment to “vajra hell” and an infinity of unfortunate rebirths.

“Once you enter into the hermetic world of Tibetan Buddhism, you somehow burn your bridges to Western ration­ality,” says Stephen Batchelor, a British Buddhist teacher and academic who was himself a Tibetan Buddhist monk for eight years. “You enter a world that appears to be entirely con­sistent internally; everything makes sense; the structures of power seem to be in the service of these high ideals of enlighten­ment, and the relationship with the guru is the key element in your capacity to follow this path in the most effective way.”

Quote

Ignoring the scandal altogether, in November 2016, Gaffney instead wrote to members of Rigpa, explaining that another lama, and close friend of Sogyal’s, Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche, believing that the next few years represented “a critical period in [Sogyal’s] life” had consulted “a unique clair­voyant master” in Tibet for advice on what should be done to avert “any obstacles to Rinpoche’s life, health and work”.

The “clairvoyant lama” had recommended a number of ritual practices to remove these obstacles. The most important was for Sogyal’s followers to “repair any impairments of the samaya” – their vow of trust between guru and student – by embarking on an intensive practice of reciting mantras. The goal, Gaffney wrote, was to accumulate 100 million 100 syllable mantras every year – a practice that would require 3,000 students chanting for 40 minutes a day.

“If the practices he recommends are done,” Gaffney went on, “then there is every chance that Rinpoche will live until at least the age of 85.”

Some saw it as a subtle way of dampening the growing scandal, and coercing doubting students back in line.

“It was shifting the responsibility for the consequences of Sogyal’s actions onto the students,” one former student says. “To turn your back on the guru is the worst thing you can do. No one wants to go to vajra hell.”

Now, let us go back to DKR and the practice manual and ask whether it is even possible to have interfaith dialogue if one of the participants has been taught by his or her tradition to say one thing, privately, to special select groups
and another thing diplomatically in public, at a interfaith conferances and media interviews and lectures to beginners.

If you are actually saying the same thing in public and in private, there is no need to even make a distinction, as DZK does, between speaking diplomatically
at religious conferences vs saying various things about social work to smaller more select groups -- which we are about to see below.


Does Dzongsar have genuine respect for the way other faith traditions understand compassion and how to put it into action?

The excerpt quoted below makes interesting reading -- especially for those of us who practice in faith traditions other than Vajrayana.

Do our Vajrayana friends actually respect our efforts at social justice?

Or do they regard our efforts as inferior to that of Vajrayana, eh?

ONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PRACTICE MANUAL

MANUAL
ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRACTICE CTICE CTICE CTICE
by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
Based on Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo`s
Short Preliminary Practice
Edited by Chanel Grubner
© 2004 by Khyentse Eoundation
All rights reserved. Distribution oI this text is restricted to those who have been

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Google cache text only

DHARMA Dzongsar Khyentse Longchen Nyingthig Practice Manual

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

he Highest Gift The Highest Gift The Highest Gift The Highest Gift

In generating the mind oI bodhicitta, we really have to train our minds. Eor this, the
relative bodhicitta is virtually the most crucial oI all. Now what is the bodhicitta mind?

Certainly, it is not simply a matter oI thinking, 'Those poor men need help.¨ Compared to
the bodhicitta, the humanitarian mind is oI a much lower class. Bodhicitta is literally the
wish to enlighten all sentient beings.
Dismantling the delusion oI sentient beings is the best giIt you could ever give.

What better giIt could you oIIer? Make sentient beings see their own true natures. Make
them see this endless net oI delusion. What could be better than seeing sentient beings
released Irom this endless cocoon that they themselves have Iormed? This is not a mere
mind oI wanting to sort oI help someone` with a temporal problem.

During big public gatherings, on many occasions I have been asked why Buddhists
are not doing things to contribute in the same way that Christians do. Why are there no
Buddhist Hospitals, or Buddhist hospices?


II answering in public, I would say, 'Because
Buddhists are lazy, and being lazy and selIish, Buddhists only talk about compassion.¨
Indeed, this is partially true. And then, in a more inner group, I would say: 'We should
really rejoice Ior those Christians, Muslims and Hindus. But even that we don`t do.¨

Then,
iI speaking to a smaller, more selective group, I might explain in the Iollowing way.
Suppose there is this religious group building thousands oI childcare Iacilities or
hospices. Again, this is a big generalisation, because perhaps among them there is a
bodhisattva as a Muslim, a Christian or Hindu. But let`s say that although these religious
workers are doing a lot oI caring work, there is no wish to enlighten sentient beings. Their
main aim is to provide Iood and education.

Now imagine there is one hermit living
somewhere in the mountains oI the Himalayas who is doing none oI this. In Iact, within
close range oI him, there are a lot oI babies dying, yet outwardly he is doing nothing about
this. Inwardly however, he is actually meditating, 'May all sentient beings be enlightened¨
and he continues to do this every day.

I would say, purely because oI the enlightenment
aspect, this person is worthier oI homage than the Iirst group. Why? Because it is so
diIIicult to truly and genuinely wish enlightenment Ior others. It is much easier to give
people Iood and educate them.

Most oI us don`t really appreciate this Iact. We have never beIore genuinely wished
Ior someone else to achieve enlightenment. Likewise, iI someone were to come over and
say to us: 'Here you go, you have a ticket Ior enlightenment. There is only one ticket.¨ I
don`t think we would even think about giving it to someone else! We`d grab it and go Ior
it. Enlightenment is such a valuable thing.

Here is another difference, an important difference between Vajrayana and the Abrahamic faith traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

In the Abrahamic traditions, the faithful accept that God is separate from creation, and that it is impossible for any creature, including ourselves to become God. God is worshipped in gratitude by those who accept they cannot become God.

Here is Dzongsar K's description of the Mahayana and Vajrayana understanding of taking refuge in Buddha.

Quote

It doesn`t matter how you take reIuge, the most
essential part oI the theory oI reIuge exists both within the mahäyäna and especially, in the
vajrayäna. When we say, I take reIuge to the Buddha, the ultimate meaning is 'I accept
that I can be enlightened and that I have the buddha nature
.¨ This is very important to
understand.

Without knowing the essential theory, iI you just Iollow the pith instructions,
you may be just like one oI the many vajrayäna practitioners who think the Buddha is
there,` and then prays. It is very theistic. II taking reIuge in this way, there is not such a
big distinction to be made between Christianity and Buddhism.

AIter all, apart Irom the
name diIIerentiation oI Buddha and Jesus Christ, what is the diIIerence? It is like treating
the Buddha as a god. This is why you need to know the theory oI reIuge. When we say, 'I
take reIuge to the Buddha,¨ we mean, 'I accept that I can be the Buddha,¨ that 'I am
Buddha,¨ actually.

Well, there is a diIIerence. 'I can be Buddha` is the mahäyäna attitude.
'I am Buddha¨ is the vajrayäna attitude. This example is one I have given many times, Ior
it is important.

Finally, some dialogue between DKR and a student.

Quote

Basically, if a social worker has this notion of destroying the ego, you are talking
about a social worker doing social work with bodhicitta. But let`s say a social worker is
doing a lot oI work to heal temporal pain, but has no bodhicitta. Then there is this man in a
cave, doing nothing, or at least, he is not helping in the physical sense. All he does is
aspiration bodhicitta. Strictly speaking, our man in the cave is more worthy oI homage.

Though of course, for the general audience this is not easy to accept because the general
audience does not understand the value of enlightenment. Shäntideva has actually taught
on this, in the first chapter where he says:

Could our fathers or our mothers
Ever have so generous a wish?
Do the very gods, the rishis, even Brahmã
Harbor such benevolence as this?

If there is someone healing your pain, which is temporal, while another is not doing
much temporal healing, but is genuinely planning on helping you permanently, it is that
person you need to appreciate more.

Student|: But many people are more ready to accept this temporal help, aren`t they?

Rinpoche|: Oh yes, oI course, this is what I am saying, the general audience wants all the
pain relieI and the painkillers; they cannot understand.
The view or the Action, Which is Higher?

Student|: But doing social work will destroy the ego kind of automatically, won`t it?


Rinpoche|: :: : Not necessarily. It can also create a lot of ego. In fact, for many social
workers, not only have they not destroyed their egos, but also they have ended up abusing
much of the funds being collected. It is a question of 'which has the greater value, the
view or the action?¨ I am saying the view has to be valued more.

Student|Isn`t the motivation more important than the action?


Rinpoche| Yes, but the motivation is usually triggered by the view. Depending on what
view you have, you then have the corresponding motivation.

Student Aren`t the motivation and the view almost completely the same?

|Rinpoche : Yes, but this depends on the view. Not many people have the right view.
Likewise, we think oI Muslim terrorists as terrorists and identify them as such, but they
consider themselves to be some kind oI social worker. They believe they have good reason
to think oI themselves as holy humanitarians. Actually, I cannot entirely reject their
reasons, simply due to their not being accepted by a massive legal system. This world is
often unfair. Each of us harbors a multitude of ideas, and yet these are our own views.

Who knows what is really happening? Bombarded with all this news of violence in the
Middle East, once while I was in retreat, these newspaper reports really stirred up my
emotion. But one can`t really respond in this way. It`s better to wish enlightenment for
both the victims and the oppressors.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2017 10:52PM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: answering in public speaking to more selective group
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: November 20, 2017 10:51PM

Here is something to look at. Our friend Dzongsar mentions one answer given in public vs. a different answer given to a smaller, more selective group.

How is it possible to do interfaith dialogue with people who say one thing in public gatherings and say something different when speaking to "smaller more selective" groups?

Those who hasten to say all religions are essential the same need to pay attention to this:

Some religions state clearly that there is one teaching for all, with no special teaching set aside for a select group of initiates -- a teaching
so special that one must regard one's master as utterly infallible, and abandoning one's practice or revealing it publicly entails punishment in Vajra Hell.

Let us ask again whether Dzongsar has genuine respect for the way other faith traditions understand compassion and how to put it into action?

For to the unenlightened outsider the excerpt quoted below makes interesting reading -- especially for those of us who practice in faith traditions other than Vajrayana.

I was once at a two day jamboree lovefest lecture given by the Dalai Lama. Will not forget a Franciscan priest who was also a professor at a Catholic college, who taught comparative religions. The DL had given a detailed lecture in which he stated that in Mahayana Buddhism there is nothing that inherently exists no God, no first principle.

However, the DL used Tskongkapa's text, Praise of Dependent Origination.

Here is the text.

[www.tibetanclassics.org]

Father X, wearing his clerical collar, had a happy smile. I asked him what he thought of the lecture. Father X, found the material difficult and unusual. He then said he was happy to enjoy the event. He showed no interest in the differences between his faith tradition and the entirely different doctrine as presented by the DL.

Father X though he probably did not agree with the DL's doctrine, clearly respected the DL and the DL's faith tradition.

So..do our Vajrayana friends reciprocate that respect toward us?

Look at the nastiness of DZK exhibited after decades of the different Vajrayana sects enjoying **tax exempt** status for their projects in Western nations.

And the torrents of money donated over decades from the West to the refugee Tibetan communities abroad, and for building monasteries abroad?

Despite this, for decades, the Vajrayanists keep calling us Westerners ego driven, materialistic. If we were that materialistic, we would have required
the Tibetan monks to pay taxes as a condition of setting up monasteries and sanghas in the USA.

So, Corboy makes a case that in the USA at least, we have not only been respectful, we have been financially generous and downright trustful of the Vajryanists.

So, friends and readers, are Vajrayanists like Chogyam Trungpa, Sogyal Rinpoche, Penor and Gyaltrul Rinpoche, and DZK -- have they reciprocated
any of our respect and material generosity, our trust?

Do our Vajrayana friends actually respect our efforts at social justice?

Or do they regard our efforts as inferior to that of Vajrayana, eh?

ONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PRACTICE MANUAL

MANUAL
ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRACTICE CTICE CTICE CTICE
by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
Based on Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo`s
Short Preliminary Practice
Edited by Chanel Grubner
© 2004 by Khyentse Eoundation
All rights reserved. Distribution oI this text is restricted to those who have been

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Google cache text only

DHARMA Dzongsar Khyentse Longchen Nyingthig Practice Manual

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

he Highest Gift The Highest Gift The Highest Gift The Highest Gift

In generating the mind oI bodhicitta, we really have to train our minds. Eor this, the
relative bodhicitta is virtually the most crucial oI all. Now what is the bodhicitta mind?

Certainly, it is not simply a matter oI thinking, 'Those poor men need help.¨ Compared to
the bodhicitta, the humanitarian mind is oI a much lower class. Bodhicitta is literally the
wish to enlighten all sentient beings.
Dismantling the delusion oI sentient beings is the best giIt you could ever give.

What better giIt could you oIIer? Make sentient beings see their own true natures. Make
them see this endless net oI delusion. What could be better than seeing sentient beings
released Irom this endless cocoon that they themselves have Iormed? This is not a mere
mind oI wanting to sort oI help someone` with a temporal problem.

During big public gatherings, on many occasions I have been asked why Buddhists
are not doing things to contribute in the same way that Christians do. Why are there no
Buddhist Hospitals, or Buddhist hospices?


II answering in public, I would say, 'Because
Buddhists are lazy, and being lazy and selIish, Buddhists only talk about compassion.¨
Indeed, this is partially true. And then, in a more inner group, I would say: 'We should
really rejoice Ior those Christians, Muslims and Hindus. But even that we don`t do.¨

Then,
iI speaking to a smaller, more selective group, I might explain in the Iollowing way.
Suppose there is this religious group building thousands oI childcare Iacilities or
hospices. Again, this is a big generalisation, because perhaps among them there is a
bodhisattva as a Muslim, a Christian or Hindu. But let`s say that although these religious
workers are doing a lot oI caring work, there is no wish to enlighten sentient beings. Their
main aim is to provide Iood and education.

Now imagine there is one hermit living
somewhere in the mountains oI the Himalayas who is doing none oI this. In Iact, within
close range oI him, there are a lot oI babies dying, yet outwardly he is doing nothing about
this. Inwardly however, he is actually meditating, 'May all sentient beings be enlightened¨
and he continues to do this every day.

I would say, purely because oI the enlightenment
aspect, this person is worthier oI homage than the Iirst group. Why? Because it is so
diIIicult to truly and genuinely wish enlightenment Ior others. It is much easier to give
people Iood and educate them.

Most oI us don`t really appreciate this Iact. We have never beIore genuinely wished
Ior someone else to achieve enlightenment. Likewise, iI someone were to come over and
say to us: 'Here you go, you have a ticket Ior enlightenment. There is only one ticket.¨ I
don`t think we would even think about giving it to someone else! We`d grab it and go Ior
it. Enlightenment is such a valuable thing.

Here is another difference, an important difference between Vajrayana and the Abrahamic faith traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

In the Abrahamic traditions, the faithful accept that God is separate from creation, and that it is impossible for any creature, including ourselves to become God. God is worshipped in gratitude by those who accept they cannot become God.

Here is Dzongsar K's description of the Mahayana and Vajrayana understanding of taking refuge in Buddha.

Quote

It doesn`t matter how you take reIuge, the most
essential part oI the theory oI reIuge exists both within the mahäyäna and especially, in the
vajrayäna. When we say, I take reIuge to the Buddha, the ultimate meaning is 'I accept
that I can be enlightened and that I have the buddha nature
.¨ This is very important to
understand.

Without knowing the essential theory, iI you just Iollow the pith instructions,
you may be just like one oI the many vajrayäna practitioners who think the Buddha is
there,` and then prays. It is very theistic. II taking reIuge in this way, there is not such a
big distinction to be made between Christianity and Buddhism.

AIter all, apart Irom the
name diIIerentiation oI Buddha and Jesus Christ, what is the diIIerence? It is like treating
the Buddha as a god. This is why you need to know the theory oI reIuge. When we say, 'I
take reIuge to the Buddha,¨ we mean, 'I accept that I can be the Buddha,¨ that 'I am
Buddha,¨ actually.

Well, there is a diIIerence. 'I can be Buddha` is the mahäyäna attitude.
'I am Buddha¨ is the vajrayäna attitude. This example is one I have given many times, Ior
it is important.

Finally, some dialogue between DKR and a student.

Quote

Basically, if a social worker has this notion of destroying the ego, you are talking
about a social worker doing social work with bodhicitta. But let`s say a social worker is
doing a lot oI work to heal temporal pain, but has no bodhicitta. Then there is this man in a
cave, doing nothing, or at least, he is not helping in the physical sense. All he does is
aspiration bodhicitta. Strictly speaking, our man in the cave is more worthy oI homage.

Though of course, for the general audience this is not easy to accept because the general
audience does not understand the value of enlightenment. Shäntideva has actually taught
on this, in the first chapter where he says:

Could our fathers or our mothers
Ever have so generous a wish?
Do the very gods, the rishis, even Brahmã
Harbor such benevolence as this?

If there is someone healing your pain, which is temporal, while another is not doing
much temporal healing, but is genuinely planning on helping you permanently, it is that
person you need to appreciate more.

Student|: But many people are more ready to accept this temporal help, aren`t they?

Rinpoche|: Oh yes, oI course, this is what I am saying, the general audience wants all the
pain relieI and the painkillers; they cannot understand.
The view or the Action, Which is Higher?

Student|: But doing social work will destroy the ego kind of automatically, won`t it?


Rinpoche|: :: : Not necessarily. It can also create a lot of ego. In fact, for many social
workers, not only have they not destroyed their egos, but also they have ended up abusing
much of the funds being collected. It is a question of 'which has the greater value, the
view or the action?¨ I am saying the view has to be valued more.

Student|Isn`t the motivation more important than the action?


Rinpoche| Yes, but the motivation is usually triggered by the view. Depending on what
view you have, you then have the corresponding motivation.

Student Aren`t the motivation and the view almost completely the same?

|Rinpoche : Yes, but this depends on the view. Not many people have the right view.
Likewise, we think oI Muslim terrorists as terrorists and identify them as such, but they
consider themselves to be some kind oI social worker. They believe they have good reason
to think oI themselves as holy humanitarians. Actually, I cannot entirely reject their
reasons, simply due to their not being accepted by a massive legal system. This world is
often unfair. Each of us harbors a multitude of ideas, and yet these are our own views.

Who knows what is really happening? Bombarded with all this news of violence in the
Middle East, once while I was in retreat, these newspaper reports really stirred up my
emotion. But one can`t really respond in this way. It`s better to wish enlightenment for
both the victims and the oppressors.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2017 07:10AM by corboy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: answering in public speaking to more selective group
Posted by: Misstyk ()
Date: November 21, 2017 01:00AM

I just wanted to add a piece of information. Patrick Gaffney is very invested in Sogyal and Rigpa's success. He co-authored with Andrew Harvey Soggy's book that put his career into overdrive and resulted in the birth of Rigpa. Unlike Harvey, who struck out on his own long ago, Gaffney remained at Soggy's side, as a teacher for Rigpa. He's still enmeshed, and obviously, still busy enabling Soggy. He must be making good money at it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Is a Guru, Tulku, Lama or Rinpoche 'Paltering?"
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: November 21, 2017 07:25AM

The Devious Art of Lying by Telling the Truth


[www.bbc.com]

Quote

It is no secret that politicians often lie, but consider this ­– they can do so simply by telling the truth. Confused?

That statement becomes clearer when you realise that we've probably all done it. A classic example might be if your mum asks if you've finished your homework and you respond: "I've written an essay on Tennessee Williams for my English class."

This may be true, but *it doesn't actually answer the question about whether your homework was done*. That essay could have been written long ago and you have misled your poor mother with a truthful statement. You might not have even started your homework yet.

Misleading by "telling the truth" is so pervasive in daily life that a new term has recently been coined to describe it: paltering.

Quote

When Todd Rogers and his colleagues were looking at how often politicians dodge questions during debates they realised something else was going on. By stating another truthful fact, they could get out of answering a question. They could even imply something was truthful when it was not.

Quote

even if we do spot misleading truths, social norms can prevent us from challenging whether or not they are deceptive. Take a now infamous interview in the UK, where journalist Jeremy Paxman interviewed the politician Michael Howard (pictured below). He repeatedly asks Howard whether he "threatened to overrule" the then prisons governor. Howard in turn, continues to evade the question with other facts in a bizarre exchange that becomes increasingly awkward to watch. Not many of us are comfortable challenging someone in that way.

Corboy, notice this? "Not many of us are comfortable challenging someone in that way".

Imagine how difficult is is to challenge an evasive answer from a guru or rinpoche when that person is adept at tricking the audience to laugh at you, or
get annoyed with you because you are disrupting the devotional mood.

Another example:


Quote

Consider the estate agent who tells a potential buyer that an unpopular property has had "lots of enquiries" when asked how many actual bids there have been. Or the used car salesman who says a car started up extremely well on a frosty morning, without disclosing that it broke down the week before. Both statements are true but mask the reality of the unpopular property and the dodgy car.

Options: ReplyQuote
Different Understandings of Compassion
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: November 23, 2017 01:12AM

Corboy wants to know if this is clearly and openly discussed at interfaith conferences in conversations with Jews, Christians and Vajrayanists.

All this is a portion of two earlier essays on this thread.

Quoted from above.

In English, the root words for compassion are the Latin, 'suffer with' or 'co-suffer' -- to share pain with someone, which in turn leads to concern, accompaniment, and often some attempt at relief.

In an article on the meaning of compassion in the Buddhist tradition, compassion has an entirely different meaning from that of 'suffering with"

In the Judeo Christian traditions compassion is experienced by an individual. In these faiths, the individual is understood to be real in the sense of being a real entity with an actual separate existence. Compassion is that which
bridges the distinction, the distance between individuals leading to accompaniment, community, communion and love.

In Vajrayana Mahayana compassion is understood as not as a feeling or sensation but as something practiced by the person on the dharma path.

The practice of compassion is to dissolve the misleading perception of any distinction between oneself and other. By attaining this realization, compassion is realized.

There is no entity or person or self with inherent separate existence, thus there exists no separation, no estrangement, no loneliness no anguish.

Estrangement, loneliness, anguish arise only in a mind not yet awakened to\
the true nature of reality.

It appears that a mind which the Judeo Christian traditions would regard as a compassionate mind, a mind suffering with someone elses pain, would to the Vajaryanist be a deluded mind, not a compassionate mind.

For to the Vajrayanist, the compassionate mind is liberated from the types of mental reactions that produce the capacity, valued by Jews and Christians of suffering with.

What Jews and Christians regard as empathic compassion, a desirable condition
would actually be regarded as the product of a deluded mind, a mind not yet
awakened by Mahayana/Vajrayana practice.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche Issues Public Statement on Recent Criticism of Sogyal Rinpoche
Posted by: Misstyk ()
Date: December 02, 2017 03:28AM

ollaimh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> he is appointing tuklus now himself. he has done
> 180 turn and is mad that followers aren't comming
> along, at least western followers. however he has
> major following now in asia and major donors so he
> probably doesn't care.
>
> here's a zinger when i was at the last lyn event
> in mexico with 700 people he was giving out peyote
> buttons. that turned me off right there.
i said
> "this is turning into a trungpa shit show" and was
> not popular. i wonder if he's using too much
> peyote himself.(this is supposed to be a big
> secret btw but his disgusting posts recently lead
> me to believe he has become an ego monster and has
> broken all samayas with his students)
>
> as i have said before he used to praise reason
> critical thinking and intellect as part of
> buddhism. i think he wants to be a crazy wisdom
> guy now

As well it should turn you off. Handing out mind-altering drugs violates one of the basic 5 precepts. This is not Dharma. This is DKR trying to win a popularity contest. He wants to be the "hip" Rinpoche. Just another example of how morally bankrupt TB is, with rare exception.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous12345
Current Page: 5 of 5


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.