Guest guest Posted October 8, 2000 Report Share Posted October 8, 2000 Ngak'chang Rinpoche interviewed by Ngakpa Rig'dzin Dorje and Ngakma Shardröl Wangmo on the subject of Dzogchen 6th of June 1994 in Llanilltud Fawr. http://www.aroter.org/articles/dzog.htm Quotes from above site: "... It really is very sad, but then that happens in every religious system. It happens wherever people are involved. I feel it is very important to emphasize kindness, especially to people interested in Tantra or the teachings of Dzogchen. If a person cannot really connect to a sense of kindness toward others, then the teachings that stress the non-dual approach can simply be distorted into a method of cultivating some form of sanctified misanthropy." "Other" is an 'aphasic' version of self, which is viewed not backwards, like a mirror, but actually 'inside out' in every way. What is seen as outside (walls of box) is actually what is inside the one doing the viewing (you, awareness). Properly, this 'aphasic' version of self is called 'inversion', a term used almost exclusively in Buddhism. It is difficult to understand, but can be found in the Avatamsaka Sutra. ---------------------- Q My experience is that Tibetan Lamas are highly delighted to meet Western people who are humble and don't pretend to be doing the highest practices. R Yes... But on the other hand I don't really like to encourage people to be too humble either. To be too humble or to be arrogant are both problematic. Maybe it's just fine to say: "I'm a Nyingmapa". I was asked once, if there were students with whom I couldn't work. I answered: "People who want to be enlightened. And the more intensely they want to be enlightened, the less I can work with them. People with whom I can work are people who want to be Nyingmapas - people who obviously want to cultivate their experience but who are not hung up about some sort of rapid advancement". I feel that's really very important at the level of how these teachings can actually be integrated into Western society. If we become a group of people who are obsessed with achieving exalted states, then Tibetan Buddhism will always be a cult. That's actually one of the hallmarks of a cult: that one group of people have special experience that other people don't have. Q You mentioned the value of being a member of a religion earlier; could you say a little more about that? R Being a member of a religion has aspects that are very healthy. It can also have aspects that could be very unhealthy, but I don't think I need to say much about that, do I? Q No, Rinpoche, I think most people reading this interview would have a clear idea about that. R Good... well... maybe good, who knows. Anyhow, being within a religious framework gives you purpose in your existence. It demarcates times of day, times of the week, times of the month, and times of the year. It gives you a name which has meaning. It gives you a history to which you can relate, and which gives you perspective in terms of where you are and how you fit into the picture. It provides you with meaningful and fulfilling activities with which to engage yourself according to your interests, skills, and abilities. These are all aspects of spiritual culture that promote emotional well-being in people. These are all aspects of spiritual culture that promote a sense of belonging. Now obviously [laughs] these things are not ultimate - not Dzogchen [Rinpoche accentuates the word in a peculiar way]. Obviously these things may be derided by some people. But they do have a function - and what's important is that one is able to take advantage such functions in terms of one's own existence. I've found that people who insist on attempting to adhere to some ultimate view tend to get depressed. You could say: "Everything's the same, there's no need for symbol, there's no need for outer form". Of course that's true: there is no need for symbol - unless, of course, there is a need for symbol. Ultimately there's no need for symbolic practice. But if you're not actually experiencing in terms of the ultimate state then you must be experiencing at the level of symbol; in terms of being a symbol of yourself. If you are unenlightened, if you are living at the level of dualism, then you're a symbol of yourself... in which case... there is a need for symbolic practice. -------------------------- Q So oral transmission is the largest window? R Yes... or the longest in duration. Q I get the feeling that it's not the case that large windows are better, but it would seem preferable to have more oportunity for transmission... There seems to be some kind of contradiction in how I am understnding this. R Yes [laughs]. There's a space in which you can receive transmission, and that space is created by the Lama. The Dzogchen master provides the possibility for a tear to occur in the fabric of dualistic perception. He or she provides that simply through being there. Although longer opportunities, or larger windows, provide greater openings for transmission to be recognised; they somehow contain the transmission. With direct transmission the opening for transmission to be recognised does not contain the transmission - the transmission is uncontained, and vastly more powerful. Let's look at each of the forms of transmission and elaborate on them a little. In the case of oral transmission, the space in which transmission might occur could last for the length of an explanation - like the gradual appearance of a window. If it's formal symbolic transmission, the space in which transmission might occur could last for less than a minute - like a momentary window that lasts until the moment in which you observe it. If it's symbolic informal transmission, the space in which transmission might occur is just a flash that happens in relation to a specific event - like some kind of flickering window that appears and disappears unpredictably. If it's direct transmission... then it's a windowless window. Or, you could say, the concept of 'window' simply ceases to apply. It becomes a question of 'window' being vast expanse, or limitless window. When everything is window there is no need of windows. When you realise that everything is window then there is no more need for transmission - the vast expanse of everything as window becomes continuous transmission of itself. Q That's the perennial Western argument: 'Why do we have to do all this stuff?' I've heard that very often. R Yes... And the answer is: "Ultimately you don't... but relatively... you do". It's simply whether or not you are actually in the ultimate position. If you're not, then you need the relative practices that correspond to your relative condition. The proof of this can be found just by looking at people who tell you that they only practise Dzogchen... I mean how are such people with each other? How are such people in their lives? Are they cheerful, easy-going, happy, interpersonally functional, well-adjusted people? Or... are they people who may be in need of therapy? If someone says, "I'm a Dzogchenpa" and you see a person who's in need of therapy; what sense does that make? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. If you keep a flowering branch in your heart, surely the singing bird will come. ~Chinese Saying http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/gloria1.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2000 Report Share Posted October 9, 2000 Dear Gloria, Have we lost one another somewhere in cyberspace? Your posting below is beautiful. Thank you for that. Love, Moller. Gloria Lee <glee HS 09 October 2000 04:07 Dzogchen interview Ngak'chang Rinpoche interviewed by Ngakpa Rig'dzin Dorje and Ngakma Shardröl Wangmo on the subject of Dzogchen 6th of June 1994 in Llanilltud Fawr. http://www.aroter.org/articles/dzog.htm Quotes from above site: "... It really is very sad, but then that happens in every religious system. It happens wherever people are involved. I feel it is very important to emphasize kindness, especially to people interested in Tantra or the teachings of Dzogchen. If a person cannot really connect to a sense of kindness toward others, then the teachings that stress the non-dual approach can simply be distorted into a method of cultivating some form of sanctified misanthropy." "Other" is an 'aphasic' version of self, which is viewed not backwards, like a mirror, but actually 'inside out' in every way. What is seen as outside (walls of box) is actually what is inside the one doing the viewing (you, awareness). Properly, this 'aphasic' version of self is called 'inversion', a term used almost exclusively in Buddhism. It is difficult to understand, but can be found in the Avatamsaka Sutra. ---------------------- Q My experience is that Tibetan Lamas are highly delighted to meet Western people who are humble and don't pretend to be doing the highest practices. R Yes... But on the other hand I don't really like to encourage people to be too humble either. To be too humble or to be arrogant are both problematic. Maybe it's just fine to say: "I'm a Nyingmapa". I was asked once, if there were students with whom I couldn't work. I answered: "People who want to be enlightened. And the more intensely they want to be enlightened, the less I can work with them. People with whom I can work are people who want to be Nyingmapas - people who obviously want to cultivate their experience but who are not hung up about some sort of rapid advancement". I feel that's really very important at the level of how these teachings can actually be integrated into Western society. If we become a group of people who are obsessed with achieving exalted states, then Tibetan Buddhism will always be a cult. That's actually one of the hallmarks of a cult: that one group of people have special experience that other people don't have. Q You mentioned the value of being a member of a religion earlier; could you say a little more about that? R Being a member of a religion has aspects that are very healthy. It can also have aspects that could be very unhealthy, but I don't think I need to say much about that, do I? Q No, Rinpoche, I think most people reading this interview would have a clear idea about that. R Good... well... maybe good, who knows. Anyhow, being within a religious framework gives you purpose in your existence. It demarcates times of day, times of the week, times of the month, and times of the year. It gives you a name which has meaning. It gives you a history to which you can relate, and which gives you perspective in terms of where you are and how you fit into the picture. It provides you with meaningful and fulfilling activities with which to engage yourself according to your interests, skills, and abilities. These are all aspects of spiritual culture that promote emotional well-being in people. These are all aspects of spiritual culture that promote a sense of belonging. Now obviously [laughs] these things are not ultimate - not Dzogchen [Rinpoche accentuates the word in a peculiar way]. Obviously these things may be derided by some people. But they do have a function - and what's important is that one is able to take advantage such functions in terms of one's own existence. I've found that people who insist on attempting to adhere to some ultimate view tend to get depressed. You could say: "Everything's the same, there's no need for symbol, there's no need for outer form". Of course that's true: there is no need for symbol - unless, of course, there is a need for symbol. Ultimately there's no need for symbolic practice. But if you're not actually experiencing in terms of the ultimate state then you must be experiencing at the level of symbol; in terms of being a symbol of yourself. If you are unenlightened, if you are living at the level of dualism, then you're a symbol of yourself... in which case... there is a need for symbolic practice. -------------------------- Q So oral transmission is the largest window? R Yes... or the longest in duration. Q I get the feeling that it's not the case that large windows are better, but it would seem preferable to have more oportunity for transmission... There seems to be some kind of contradiction in how I am understnding this. R Yes [laughs]. There's a space in which you can receive transmission, and that space is created by the Lama. The Dzogchen master provides the possibility for a tear to occur in the fabric of dualistic perception. He or she provides that simply through being there. Although longer opportunities, or larger windows, provide greater openings for transmission to be recognised; they somehow contain the transmission. With direct transmission the opening for transmission to be recognised does not contain the transmission - the transmission is uncontained, and vastly more powerful. Let's look at each of the forms of transmission and elaborate on them a little. In the case of oral transmission, the space in which transmission might occur could last for the length of an explanation - like the gradual appearance of a window. If it's formal symbolic transmission, the space in which transmission might occur could last for less than a minute - like a momentary window that lasts until the moment in which you observe it. If it's symbolic informal transmission, the space in which transmission might occur is just a flash that happens in relation to a specific event - like some kind of flickering window that appears and disappears unpredictably. If it's direct transmission... then it's a windowless window. Or, you could say, the concept of 'window' simply ceases to apply. It becomes a question of 'window' being vast expanse, or limitless window. When everything is window there is no need of windows. When you realise that everything is window then there is no more need for transmission - the vast expanse of everything as window becomes continuous transmission of itself. Q That's the perennial Western argument: 'Why do we have to do all this stuff?' I've heard that very often. R Yes... And the answer is: "Ultimately you don't... but relatively... you do". It's simply whether or not you are actually in the ultimate position. If you're not, then you need the relative practices that correspond to your relative condition. The proof of this can be found just by looking at people who tell you that they only practise Dzogchen... I mean how are such people with each other? How are such people in their lives? Are they cheerful, easy-going, happy, interpersonally functional, well-adjusted people? Or... are they people who may be in need of therapy? If someone says, "I'm a Dzogchenpa" and you see a person who's in need of therapy; what sense does that make? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. If you keep a flowering branch in your heart, surely the singing bird will come. ~Chinese Saying http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/gloria1.htm -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> Beliefnet- Religion and spirituality from A to Z. http://click./1/9039/9/_/520931/_/971057225/ ---_ -> // All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at www., and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription between digest and normal mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2000 Report Share Posted October 9, 2000 Thanks Gloria!!! It's a keeper! Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.