Shugden and other schools of Buddhsim

[lightning]

Hi guys, it has been nice exchanging views with you guys. Maybe my main intentions may be mislead people thinking that I seem to command people to follow prasangika madhyamaka view. My main intention is to reccomend the best dish to everyone. Somehow, I have came cross on HHDL book mentioning that there are many dishes including noodles, rice, beef etc. Everyone have different taste and will go different dishes that suits them at the end of the day. Buddha also taught both Hinayana and Mahayana teachings and at the end of the day people will choose the views that are suitable to their preference and level of understanding.

If a mother who borne a son and the son grows up and have high scool education and of course would encourage him to carry on with education in university. And also in order to self-generate tuteriaty deity, one needs to have correct and clear understanding of emptiness, if not generation of tuteriaty deity is not possible. Manjushri also told Je TsongKhaPa that here are four conditions neccesary for realising emptiness:
1) Relinace upon a qualified and experienced Spiritual Guide who can explain emptiness clearly.
2) Purification of negativity
3) Accunulation of merit
4) Frequent meditation on emptiness

[Alexis]

All four schools of tibetan buddhism accept Madhyamaka-Prasangika view as supreme. Madhyamaka-Prasangika is not a gelug thing, its accepted everywhere. Just like your Visa card!

[beggar]

Dear Lightning,
this is all well known and i happily agree - my point was 'how do you get there'? Like you quote - guru devotion, purification, tons and tons of merit and meditation. How many people have you met who have ATTAINED this view? Most people completely shut off even at the mention of the word Emptiness; most people who don't have a tiny tiny partial understanding of it (if it were easy, why would Je Tsongkhapa's teaching be so special?). So in the meantime, refuge, impermanence, cause and effect etc etc apply very much. True teachers are very compassionate - most people they meet will not even get a glimpse of Madhyamaka in this life, so they give them 'lesser' meritorious practices that will point them in the right direction. Believe me, most lamas would LOVE to speak of subjects entirely different than what comes out of their mouths, but it's not about what they know or like, but what benefits their students.
yours, beggar

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Hi I was wondering if someone could advise me. I feel a very strong link to Dorje Shugden. However I am interested in spending some time in other schools of Buddhism. I have a particular interested in Nyingma. Would this be detrimental to my practice or to any future practice I wish to undertake with Dorje Shugden?

Well, I can't answer your question in any "theological/theoretical" way, but I can tell you about my personal experience, and I think we might be able to generalize a little from that.

I practice according to the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa. I'm also a follower of Je Pabongkhapa, and therefore am a DS practitioner. I have received the blessing empowerment of DS from GKG. DS has been part of my general practice for years. Apart from that tradition, I have also received teachings and empowerments from one Nyingma tradition (which is a "heavy Dzogchen-variant") and from Karma-Kagyu tradition. And I also relish and partake on Theravada teachings, pujas, rituals, and so forth, on a regular basis. In addition, I'm a pure-land "practitioner", relying on the Vow of Amitabha, on a deeply heart-felt level. I have practised in this ecumenical way all my buddhist life.

But still, I'm very clear on what is my main practice (Lamrim), so all the different practices and approaches from the different traditions fall naturally into that one scheme. No confusion for me. And I think that just that is the whole point of "not mixing"; namely, "not being confused about the different approaches and presentations". In short, all Dharma I receive from whatever tradition or system, is therefore, just the same - being either the trunk or the branches of Lamrim. I have no confusion about my Root (Guru), I know what is the Main Trunk of Dharma (Lamrim), and all the rest, well, they are simply the branches, supports, leaves and flowers of my slowly growing bodhi-tree. Easy and clear.

So, I feel that if one knows what one practices, if one has a good command of any one system, then there is no longer any confusion when approaching different practices, presentations or systemizations of Dharma.

So in my view, this is what happens at the practical level when people find Dharma: (1) At the beginning, one needs to "shop around", trying to find "the right one". (This is like dating. That dating should be of course honest, intending towards the possible commitment to "the one".) (2) After finding that, one commits to the "one system". At this point, one can actually be very confused because of the apparent differences between the Dharma-traditions and -lineages. At this point one should generally "not mix". Really. I know this because I have seen it happen too often. If one does not have the leisure and time, or the intellectual capacity, or the inclination to stydy hard, and therefore cannot think things through and through, one perhaps should avoid other presentations of Dharma for a time being, and just stick with that one, whatever it is. (During the honey moon, one should concentrate on one's spouse and not pay too much attention towards others of that same sex. ) (3) But after one gets a good general view of that one chosen system of presentation, things change dramatically. At this point one can "see the forest from the trees", and therefore one cannot be confused anymore by all the different "dharma trees" one meets, no matter how exotic or different they are. At this point, "anything goes".

If you read the classical topic called The Benefits of Lamrim, you can see that this works just so! (Of course this should work with other Dharma-presentations as well, so "the one" does not have to be Lamrim.)

So, in summary, I personally have not felt any need to "avoid" anything. I see by my experience that I can practice anything and not be confused in any way whatsoever. (Boast boast...) But still, not everybody has the same freedom and inclination as I do. So draw your own conclusions about what fits you! For me, DS and Dzogchen work well together, for it is the Lamrim anyway that "rules them all"!   My preciousss...

Furthermore, I know some wonderful and pure Nyingmapas, who have taken DS empowerment, so I guess I'm not alone in my approach.

[Alexis]

Dear Zhalmed Pawo,

I'm curious as to how you can combine and practice doctrinal opposites?

Dzogchen rejects karma and causality (dependent origination) which is the foundation of the entire path of sutra and tantra. It labels sutra and tantra as not being the final intention of the buddha (that being Dzogchen) and rejects boddhisasttva levels (bhumis).

So how can you practice a path that rejects the validity of the enlightenent experience of, says, Lama Tsongkhapa, who said that, appart from union of the two truth (mahamudra), there is no attainment of buddhahood?

How can you, in the morning, ask for blessings of Shakyamuni buddha and the Ganden lineage, and in the evening, engage in a practice that takes you miles away from the path expounded by them?

In the end, how can you ever arrive at a place where you will engage in a practice that will contradict every single syllable that ever came out of the buddha mouth? Isn't it a bit risky?

Sincerly,

Alexis

[emptymountains]

Dear Alexis,

In my naive understanding, I pretty much equate Nyingma practice with Dzogchen. In a previous reply, you said that all four schools accept the Madhyamika-Prasangika as supreme, but then later said that this is rejected in their Dzogchen practice. Can you please clarify?

With metta,

MJ

[Alexis]

Dear Empty Mountains,

I guess this is the heart of the matter. I might be mistaken in my views so I invite anyone including Zhalmed Pawo to correct me if I'm wrong.

The great nyingma tradition takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. They accept the Buddhist cannon with the tripitaka (Vinaya, Sutra & Abhidharma). Within the Abhidharma, they accept the madhyamaka-Prasangika view as supreme. This is what I should have made more clear in my previous post, that madhymaka is supreme 'only within the context of sutra and tantra'.

Dzogchen, however, places itself above sutra and tantra. Dzogchen states that it does not belong to any particuliar tradition (like mahamudra). It is mostly practiced in Nyingma, but has adherants in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism. So you cannot, and should not, automatically link dzogchen with nyingma, I think.

Also, since nyingma is a buddhist tradition that seeks buddhahood, it should not be critizised as a tradition. Dzogchen, however, is a philosophy, an idea, and as such can be questionned, debated and critizised in the same manner as mahamudra. The most well know of such debates is the famous Samye debate held in 780 AD between proponents of spontaneous (dzogchen) approach and progressive (mahamudra) approach. The proponent of the spontaneous approach, Hashang Mahayana, lost the debate to Kamashila and got cast out of Tibet by the King Trisong Detsen along with his doctrine and his adherants. Dzogchen, somehow, krept back into Tibet.

The problem with dzogchen is that it not only places itself above sutra and tantra, but invalidates the foundations of both systems. I will give you some examples of this citing from Namkhai Norbu's Dzogchen (1996):

'Garab Dorje's teaching, said to be "beyond the karmic law of cause and effect", turned the traditionalist views of his first disciples, who were famous buddhist pandits, completely upside down.' p.14
- No comment on this one, a whole book could be written on this single sentence alone. However, I would like to know what were the names of these pandits and I would like to know how you can achieve any result (such as dzogchen) without creating its cause (such as listenning and putting it into practice).

'All the philosophical theories that exist have been created by mistaken dualistic minds of human beings. In the realm of philosophy (abhidharma), that which today is considered true, may tomorrow be proven false. No one can guarantee a philosophy's validity'. p.30
- So basically, it is useless to follow the words of the Buddha and Nagarjuna because we cannot be sure of their validity. Why then, should we ever follow Garab Dorje's views?

'But in Dzogchen, right from the beginning the concept of the two truths does not exist, and the non-dual state is introduced as the foundation of both the way of seeing and practicing' p.93
-If the two truths does not exist, then it is useless to practice either Lam Rim in particuliar or Mahayana in general. Also, Tsongkhapa and Chadrakirti clearly stated that ouside of the two truths there is no view leading to liberation.

Also:

'If we take a vow, this means that we do not have the capacity to govern ourselves'. p.111
-What about this one? I guess this one is my favorite! It cast a whole new light on Buddhism in general (since Sila is the foundation of the buddhist path) and the whole lineage lamas of the merit field in particuliar, doesn't it?

In fact I could go on and on like this, citing endlessly from dzogchen material. It's just packed with contradictions and baseless affirmations which contradict no only what the great masters of the past have said and written but the very words of the Buddha himself. The whole point of the Lam Rim is to avoid such pitfalls of nothingness and everything Nagarjuna, Chadrakirti and Tsongkhapa have ever written completely contradicts this supposed 'Great Perfection' (dzogchen). These great master have all warned us against such mistaken views and path. I just cannot understant how anyone can successfully make 'dzogchen' an integral part of their 'Lam Rim practice' since these are completely opposing views. One completely invalidates the other and vice versa. One draws on the word of the Buddha, the other one invalidates completely the words of the Buddha!

So in the end, I will not critizise a fellow buddhist traditions that take refuge in the Three Jewels. But I think it's important to debate doctrines and views. This was the tradition of our lineage lamas, no? Tsongkhapa had nyingma gurus but, in the end, without loosing faith or respect in them, he wrote against nothingness, in favor of vows, on dependant arising, the two truths, etc.

I think this is where the distinction lies between nyingma and dzogchen.

Hopes this clarifies my contradictory posts a bit.

Alexis

[emptymountains]

Thank you, Alexis. It did clarify a lot for me. I was wondering though, from the perspective of the middle way, which extreme does Dzogchen fall into? In his article Letting Daylight into Magic: the Life and Times of Dorje Shugden, Stephen Batchelor explains:

The Nyingma teaching of Dzogchen regards awareness (Tib. rig pa) as the innate self-cognizant foundation of both samsara and nirvana. Rig pa is the intrinsic, uncontrived nature of mind, which a Dzogchen master is capable of directly pointing out to his students. For the Nyingmapa, Dzogchen represents the very apogee of what the Buddha taught, whereas Tsongkhapa's view of emptiness as just a negation of inherent existence, implying no transcendent reality, verges on nihilism.

For the Gelugpas, Dzogchen succumbs to the opposite extreme: that of delusively clinging to something permanent and self-existent as the basis of reality. They see Dzogchen as a return to the Hindu ideas that Buddhists resisted in India, and a residue of the Ch'an (Zen) doctrine of Hva-shang Mahayana, proscribed at the time of the early kings...

For the followers of Shugden this is not an obscure metaphysical disagreement, but a life-and-death struggle for truth in which the destiny of all sentient beings is at stake. The bodhisattva vow, taken by every Tibetan Buddhist, is a commitment to lead all beings to the end of anguish and the realization of Buddhahood. Following Tsongkhapa, the Gelugpas maintain that the only way to achieve this is to understand nonconceptually that nothing whatsoever inherently exists. Any residue, however subtle, of an attachment to inherent existence works against the bodhisattva's aim and perpetuates the very anguish he or she seeks to dispel.

From the above quote, it seems that Dzogchen does not accept ultimate truth without exception like Madhyamika-Prasangika does; and from your last post, it seems that neither does it accept conventional truths such as karma and dependent relationship. If, like you said, it does not accept either of the two truths, then it is still left with both extremes. Holding 'both extremes' at the same time is hardly the middle way.

[Zhalmed Pawo]

Hmmm... this could escalate into a huge topic (which I hope it doesn't), but nevertheless, here are my thoughts about this.

Firstly, to the question that "how can one practice both basic Sutra and Dzogchen?", the answer is: "The same way one can burn a candle from both ends - one just needs a good grip and a thick skin!"  This is not any different from, say, asking "how can one practice both Hinayana and Anuttarayogatantra?" One simply can, if one can. If one cannot, then one cannot.

Dzogchen can be expresed as indentical to the highest of the Nine Yanas of Nyingma-classification. In this sense it corresponds neatly to Vajrayana Mahamudra of Gelukpa-classification. So no problem there.

If on the other hand, Dzogchen is expressed as a system outside and above of Sutra and Tantra, then it can be difficult to understand. Thats why it is not usually expressed that way. I think nowadays only Namkhai Norbu teaches in that manner. But still, it does not negate other teachings, it is just harder to swallow.

In the Root Text of Vajrayana Mahamudra of Ganden Oral Lineage Panchen Lama says expressedly, that Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Madhyamika, etc have the same intent. So no problem. (This is the same Panchen who took Lama Chopa out of Kadam Emanation Scripture, so I think we can rely on his view. He if anyone should know.)

A Buddha is free of karma, and free of dualistic appearances. To a Buddha, the two truths are "not-two". Je Tsongkhapa explains this wery well in his writings. He of course uses gradual method in the explanation of practice: first emptiness, then conventional truths, then their non-duality. Dzogchen, on the other hand, goes straight to the point, without any steps (and hence, it might appear to be "too outrageous"). And just as Nagarjuna said: "There is not a slightest difference between samsara and nirvana". So while the expressions and methods of these different traditions might be different, the intention remains just the same.

So, in short, I don't see any problem here. Same view, different methods.

(The only "problem" with Dzogchen is that if the practitioner is not on the level of continuing in rigpa, then the whole thing collapses. Instead of being a Buddha, the practitioner is just a sentient being, and in the worst case scenario is deluded enough to think that he/she is a Buddha. The result could be hell. Of course, the same can be said of all Tantra. Thats why Dzogchen employs also preparatory methods that take the practitioner to that level of realization. So in a practical sense, Dzogchen too is a gradual path.)

[Zhalmed Pawo]

The Nyingma teaching of Dzogchen regards awareness (Tib. rig pa) as the innate self-cognizant foundation of both samsara and nirvana. Rig pa is the intrinsic, uncontrived nature of mind, which a Dzogchen master is capable of directly pointing out to his students. For the Nyingmapa, Dzogchen represents the very apogee of what the Buddha taught, whereas Tsongkhapa's view of emptiness as just a negation of inherent existence, implying no transcendent reality, verges on nihilism.

For the Gelugpas, Dzogchen succumbs to the opposite extreme: that of delusively clinging to something permanent and self-existent as the basis of reality. They see Dzogchen as a return to the Hindu ideas that Buddhists resisted in India, and a residue of the Ch'an (Zen) doctrine of Hva-shang Mahayana, proscribed at the time of the early kings...

For the followers of Shugden this is not an obscure metaphysical disagreement, but a life-and-death struggle for truth in which the destiny of all sentient beings is at stake. The bodhisattva vow, taken by every Tibetan Buddhist, is a commitment to lead all beings to the end of anguish and the realization of Buddhahood. Following Tsongkhapa, the Gelugpas maintain that the only way to achieve this is to understand nonconceptually that nothing whatsoever inherently exists. Any residue, however subtle, of an attachment to inherent existence works against the bodhisattva's aim and perpetuates the very anguish he or she seeks to dispel.

On all this, I must disagree. That is pure nonsense and inflammatory propaganda. Divisive speech, in fact.

According to Je Tsongkhapa, realizing emptiness does not bring enlightenment. It brings maximally only the liberation from samsara, or in other words the status of an Arhat, or a Foe Destroyer. To become a completely enlightened Buddha, one needs to realize the union of the two truths. Concerning that, there is no difference between the view of Je Tsongkhapa and the dzogchen-view. Or as GKG said it when explaining Mahamudra: "Know that everything is the nature of mind, and mind is empty of inherent existence." One could as well "regard the awareness as the innate self-cognizant foundation of both samsara and nirvana." Difference of language does not equal difference of view.

[Alexis]

Zhalmed Pawo,

I congratulate you for courageously defending you point (no arrogance intended here).

It is true that this topic could escalate uncontrollably so I, for my part, will simply follow the advice of the great Ensapa. Quoting his words from his namtar in Enligthnend Beings (Willis 1995):

'Moreover, anyone who claims to study the Dharma without thoroughly investigating all the traditions of the Mahayana, and who likes to bicker over the slightest points of language, saying " you say this, but I say this", completely misses te point.' p.62

Keeping his heart instructions to mind I say: if this practice (dzogchen) is beneficial for you, then that's good indeed.

This topic reminds me of a story of the Buddha when a group of brahmins travelled to meet him and ask him what he thought of the Vedic Truth (Veda as the only truth). The Buddha replied with a question (as usual). He asked the brahmins if there was anyone they knew up to seven generations who could see clearly and say 'this alone is the Truth, and everything else is false' ?. The brahmins relplied honestly and said 'no'. Then the Buddha said that the brahmins were like a line of blind men, each holding to the preceding one, no one really seeing. The Buddha then gave them advice, he said: 'It is not proper for a wise man who maintains the truth to come to the conclusion: "this alone is the Truth, and everything else is false".' The Buddha went on and said: 'A man has faith. If he says "this is my faith", so far he maintains the truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion:"This alone is the Truth, and everything else is false".'...'To be attached to one thing (to a certain view) and to look down upon other things (views) as inferior: this, the wise man call a fetter'.

Taken from Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, 1959. p.10

[emptymountains]

Dear Alexis,

Ooh, I love that quote from What the Buddha Taught!   

Are we talking about the same thing when, according to Chandrakirti's tradition, there is a rejection of self-cognizers and when the Dzogchen faith posits an innate self-cognizant awareness? And also, I've always wondered: Does this discussion have anything to do with the doctrinal differences the Kagyu Lama quoted below is mentioning?

However, there is still a problem here because not all the different schools of Buddhism agree upon which teachings are interpretive and which teachings are definitive. There is some kind of disagreement in Tibetan Buddhism, for example. The Kagyu and Nyingma traditions of Tibetan Buddhism understand the tathagatagarbha—which were presented in the third turning of the Wheel of Dharma—as the ultimate meaning. However, the Gelugpas would say that these teachings on Buddha-nature are not definite in meaning. For them, the tathagatagarbha teachings were only given so that people would not freak out at the thought that they do not have a substantial ego. Therefore, the tathagatagarbha has only an interpretive meaning in their system. (Traleg Kyabgon, The Essence of Buddhism, pp. 132-133)

[Alexis]

Happy New Year everyone!

I am not certain I understand the first question.

As per the second Question, I havn't read the tathagatagarbha sutra so I cannot really comment with assurance. Also, I am not familiar with the positions of each schools of Tibetan Buddhism about it.

However, from a personal standpoint, I cannot understand how someone remotely familiar with the teachings of the Buddha can come to the conclusion that any of his teachings could mean or imply a substantial soul or something similar. The principal teaching of the Buddha (what all his teachings can be sumarized unto) is anatman (pali. anatta), selflesness or egolessness. This concept is pervasive in all traditions of buddhism, including theravada. The idea of a 'subtantial self' is the ignorance at the root of samsara. This has been repeated over and over on a number of occasions by the Buddha and later masters. The move away from atman, the soul, or any other substance of the self is what distinguishes buddhism from other religious traditions. So to hold that the meaning of the buddha-nature or buddha-essence is a fundamental, irreductible substantial self seem to contradict the Buddha's entire life of advices and teachings.

In any case, in order to give a deeper answer we would have to read the sutra to check if the buddha litterally ascribes substance to the self by this concept of buddha-nature, as the quoted kagyu lama seems to imply. Maybe Geshe Lobsang Phuntsok could throw a line on this one since he is from Shartse's youngest and brightest.

[Alexis]

I forgot to answer your question!

Yes, for me this has everything to do with this topic for obvious reasons. Again, this is in the category of the 'heart of the matter' in buddhism, wether the stream of consciousness has an irreductible substance or not. I have a fairly good idea as to where I stand on this issue although there are many grey areas in my understanding.

Also, I'm quite sure the substantialist view presented by this kagyu lama are not shared by all kagyu lineages...I hope!

[Zhalmed Pawo]

The Tathagatagarbha doctrine is interesting and strange - mainly because different Mahayana Sutras treat it differently, sometimes contradicting each other, and because some Indian commentators (like Asanga) have then been forced to treat it in a way that necessarily contradict some Sutra! And as for Tibetan scholars, well, they seldom read Sutras, but just commentaries, and sometimes commentaries commenting commentaries. So it is not easy to know what people are talking about when they talk about Tathagatagarbha. They might mean very different things.

So I don't wish to comment on this topic.

But in any case, I see no reason to treat the tathagatagarbha as being any more "substantial" or "soulful" than the mental continuum. They both have temporal extension and are unceasing, but are still empty of inherent existence.