asunthatneversets

The same type of premise is applicable with receiving information about a city. Can you depend on the information of an individual who has only read about that city and is giving second hand information? Or would the information of someone who lives there and is familiar with that city, from first hand experience, be far more reliable? Any smart person would obviously go with the latter information and guidance. Why? Because that person is actually qualified to be giving that information.

I'm not talking about coarse petty qualifications and lineage shit. I'm talking about whether the individual has completed (or is near completion) the practice they are transmitting. Thögal for example, requires that the teacher transmitting to have at least accomplished third vision. If said teacher has not encountered the third vision, or exhaustion of dharmatā, they are unqualified to teach thögal. It is very simple. You're welcome to act like you're beyond such 'limitations' but that is something for you to work out.

That has nothing to do with whether an individual is qualified to transmit certain practices. Receiving teachings from an unqualified teacher means you might as well not receive the teaching at all, as there is no connection to the essence.

I disagree, scrutinizing and evaluating whether or not a teacher is qualified is an indispensable aspect of these teachings, and can very well be the difference between whether or not realization or liberation occurs.

Śākyamuni and Garab Dorje are held to be a nirmaṇakāya emanations of Vajradhāra, and Vajradhāra is in turn an emanation of the primordial buddha Samantabhadra.

You teach far more than you have realized.

You certainly teach far more than you've realized.

Norbu Rinpoche usually defines Sutra as the path of renunciation, Tantra as the path of transformation and Dzogchen as the path of self-liberation.

The fact that the Dzogchen scriptures are called 'tantras' doesn't mean Dzogchen is tantric per se. Sutric texts are called 'sutras' because they are regarded as records of the oral teachings of Buddha Śākyamuni, and therefore they are in the form of scriptural narratives and discourses between Śākyamuni and his disciples. The seventeen tantras are called 'tantras' because they are definitive texts found within the context of esoteric systems which pass down their exercises, practices, rituals and so on, directly from teacher to student via word of mouth. Those transmissions however were often given with the aid of materials such as booklets, leaflets, pictures and other symbolic implements., those manuals can be called 'tantras'. So the term in that context carries a different meaning than the body of teachings known as 'tantra'.

Right, but this is a common practice in texts, establishing so-called lower and higher views in order to allow for a separation of tenets and principles. How else can a particular system be defined other than in reference to related systems? It doesn't mean he forsakes sems sde, or klong sde. Nor does it mean he forsakes the pāramitāyāna or vajrayāna (which the system of dzogpa chenpo is a part of).

I'm well aware.

Dangerous, dangerous.

Yet he also states: "The sangha has two communities, the shaven-headed followers of the sutras and the long-haired mantrayana practitioners. These two groups were established by special decree when the light of the buddhist teachings was first shone in the dark land of Tibet by the abbot Shantarakshita, the master Padmasambhava and the king Trisong Detsen, giving us the well-known expression, “two sangha communities honoured by the king.” Down to the present day, they have continued to exist side by side. Although there are some slight differences between them in terms of outward appearance, dress and so on, based on the specific way in which the vows are taken, there is no difference in their practice of combining sutra and tantra and upholding the three sets of vows in order to develop inner qualities of realization. With regard to the way they practise, the great master Padmasambhava, who was like a second buddha, said this: 'Outwardly, practise according to the sutras, Be meticulous about cause and effect, and what you adopt or avoid. Inwardly, practise according to the unsurpassable secret mantra, It is important to combine generation and completion. Secretly, practise according to the great secret Atiyoga, And gain liberation in a body of light within a single lifetime.'" And... "Generally speaking, for those who have set out upon the path of Dharma, the source of all learning lies in reading and writing, so training in these disciplines is emphasized from an early age. Then one should go on to study something of the general sciences and put great effort into the study and contemplation of the uncommon principles of sutra and mantra and so on, until reaching a good understanding of the key points, regardless of how long it takes." And all of that was with minimal searching... there's no doubt he says much more than you are alluding to.

Madhyamaka never says causality is inherently true or ultimately real. Causal occurrences apply to conventional designations, as do causal relationships.

I don't think it can be said that dependent origination is truly paradoxical, it just appears that way when viewed at face value. 'The conditioned is the unconditioned' simply means the unconditioned is the non-arising of the conditioned. The 'conditioned' is product of an invalid cognition. The 'unconditioned' is a valid cognition of the so-called 'conditioned'. When a white conch shell appears yellow to a jaundiced eye; stating that the yellow is truly white may appear paradoxical, but the actual state of affairs isn't a paradox.

*Edit: double post

He isn't, you're just reading his post out of context. At any rate, the latter section that you addressed wasn't even the focal point of the post in the context I was using it, but that is okay. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14929&p=204909&hilit=interdependent#p204909

You aren't understanding. I quoted Malcolm. You read the quote and thought it was my writing. It was not my writing. You then proceeded to tell me I was wrong. All I did was quote Malcolm. Ergo, you are by default, stating that Malcolm is wrong. So take it up with him.

If you think Malcolm is wrong, take it up with him, the comment that there is nothing paradoxical about dependent origination was not mine. Also, you literally just linked a post which stated that dependent arising is non-arising, and then when I gave an example of Indra's net to show that dependent arising is non-arising, you disagreed. You either aren't reading what I wrote, or you do not understand. Either way, both of your critiques are unwarranted, as they are based on misconceptions on your part. That dependent origination is non-arising [emptiness], is Madhyamaka 101. Take it from the horses mouth itself: "'Who understands this?' one might wonder; It's those who see dependent origination. The supreme knower of reality has taught That dependent arising is unborn." - Yuktiṣāṣṭikakārikā "You have declared, O Master of words, that what originates dependently is unoriginated!" - Lokātītastava

Yes, conditioned arising is not arising, dependent origination is not origination. For something to be truly arisen or existent it would need to exist independently of causes and conditions.

That is Loppon Namdrol's post. Everything from "Malcolm wrote" on down, is what Malcolm wrote.

Also with the Indrajala [indras net], it's sometimes presented as a giant web of jewels (or reflective surfaces) which are all reflecting each other simultaneously; X reflects X which reflects X ad infinitum. However the true interpretation of this is that each reflection is simultaneously the cause and effect of every other reflection, so there is no established web of dependency, no jewels which are reflecting one another, each facet (or reflective occurrence) is the product and cause for every other facet, the entire web is thus totally illusory.

Loppon Malcolm has clarified that 'interdependent origination' is an incorrect translation, there is no 'inter-' in pratītyasamutpāda. Only 'dependent': smcj wrote: I personally think 'dependent arising' is better rendered as 'interdependent arising', which is even better rendered into simple language as 'paradox'. Malcolm wrote: There is no "inter" in pratītyasamutpada A more literal translation is "conditioned co-origination", where pratitya bears the sense of pratyaya, i.e. conditioned. The tibetan "rten cing 'brel bar 'byung ba" means something like " dependent and relational origination". There is however nothing "paradoxical" about dependent origination.

Not trying to promote gossip, but where did you read he is fervently repairing samaya?

My Drikung Kagyu Lama says that intellectual capacity is directly related to wisdom, and that those who are of high intellectual acumen (even in other areas such as science and so on) were most likely practitioners in another life. He says for this reason, refining our understanding of the teaching even in an intellectual way, is directly related to awakened wisdom and that a good understanding of the teachings is an imperative supplement to our practice. Jean-Luc Achard also says that an intellectual understanding of the teachings [bsam rig] is important, and that it is considered one type of rigpa (among 14 others) according to the Bön. He defines it here: "bSam-rig (Knowing Discernment) which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernement is developed);" Dudjom Rinpoche also states that a refined intellect in regards to the teaching is very important: "Generally speaking, for those who have set out upon the path of Dharma, the source of all learning lies in reading and writing, so training in these disciplines is emphasized from an early age. Then one should go on to study something of the general sciences and put great effort into the study and contemplation of the uncommon principles of sutra and mantra and so on, until reaching a good understanding of the key points, regardless of how long it takes."