I found your site accidentally. Even though I am not familiar with ARO , seems contemplating I've "caught up" so much of the same teaching. I do not believe in justice, considering humans as 90% (at least) robots. IF I AM RULED BY THE BELIEFS, DISBELIEFS AND WORLDLY SAYINGS - then WHO AM I AND HOW CAN I BE RESPONSIBLE?
I am pretty sure we were originated by a dangerously sick (deeply schizophrenic) intelligence, who can't be better to humans than to ITSELF (OK, Himself/Herself). If my native could be English, I'd probably be braver to share some of my experiences with something what considers itself a GALACTIC ARBITRATION (seems we are approaching change of some of the basic laws). Being "subjected" to that ARBITRATION , OMG!!!!!!!!!!! I have learned enough to CONSIDER MYSELF A GIANT for still loving life :)))).
Also I MORE THAN AGREE WITH YOU : NO HOLINESS - VASTNESS!
Thanks for sharing those beautiful things. You made my day (and more :)).
Branka Babic, Belgrade, Serbia (former Yugoslavia)
(1) Controversy additions
You should add the below to your list on Dzogchen controversies.
Dzogchen explicitly rejects the Law of Karma [not "orthodox" Buddhism].
(2) Heart Sutra Orthodoxy
Isn't the heart Sutra considered a typical Mahayana text and would not be embraced by some Theravada groups who would also not agree with its implications?
(3) Atheism
Interesting that you said you have been a long-term atheist. I have not. But ironically, opposed to you, cosmic justice was what took me out of Christianity. I guess I was always a mystic Christian only to discover that other Christians were into it for the rationality, the certainty and the morality -- none of which drew me. It just goes to show the varieties of temperaments. Thus my Atheist temperament is different from many atheists -- thus I started my site. Seeing how our temperaments often create our philosophies is the first step toward wisdom (IMHO), the second may be seeing the emptiness of our own temperaments.
(2) I don't know enough about Theravada to say. I think the Pali scriptures have substantially equivalent statements about certainty, eternity, and so forth, although expressed in slightly different terms.
(3) I think your point about temperaments is a very good one.
Is it possible that Dzogchen does not really reject karma, but simply sees it from a higher perspective? I.e., to say that the universe reflects our mental orientation because it is a mirror of mind, or mind itself, isn't really that different from saying that positive thoughts generate positive experiences and vice versa is it? Or is it? Are there any books discussing the Dzogchen view of karma at greater length? I also find it perplexing to read that the law of karma violates the Buddhist view that all existents are essentially changeable, since the very exception given - space/emptiness - shows that in fact this is only true of existents, and karma, like space/emptiness, is not an existent. It is a universal principle ultimately identical with space/emptiness itself.
Since Buddhist ontology posits karma as the universal primum mobile of becoming, rejecting karma begs the question of what causes phenomena? I also don't see how the theory of karma necessarily posits a creation and therefore a creator? Why can't the universe run forever, as in Nietzsche's eternal recurrence for example?
This page has confused a number of readers, and revising it is on my to-do queue.
Key phrases in it, apparently is easily overlooked, are that "Dzogchen does not deny karma altogether" and "the Dzogchen view is that karma is a matter of habit".
The context for the page is that many Tibetan Buddhist leaders have opposed Dzogchen and tried to ban it. I'm trying to explain why that is. One of the standard reasons they give is that Dzogchen denies karma. This is not actually true, but it is true that Dzogchen makes it difficult or impossible to make an ethical theory out of karma. (That is not their only reason for rejecting Dzogchen; I will go into the politics soon in my Wordpress blog.)
For Dzogchen, liberation (enlightenment) is synonymous with "rigpa", which literally means "vision", but in context means "accurate perception". Because rigpa is perfectly accurate, it is not conditioned by karma (i.e. previous actions). It simply reflects reality.
The thing is, rigpa is potentially available to everyone at all times, regardless of karma. If you are a mass murderer and you can maintain rigpa, then your karma is irrelevant.
Dzogchen is called "the path of instantaneous liberation" because the moment you hold rigpa, you are a fully realized Buddha. There is nothing more to be done. In particular, there is absolutely no need to purify past karma.
Within Dzogchen, there is a doctrine called "grol lugs bzhi", which means "the four aspects of liberation". (To understand this, it helps to remember that "liberation" in Tantra and Dzogchen is synonymous with "destruction" of samsara.) The four modes are:
Shar grol (liberation in arising): karma evaporates instantly as it arises.
Rang grol (self liberation): it destroys itself; you don't have to do anything.
gCer grol (direct liberation): it is released as soon as it is perceived.
Ye grol (primordial liberation): liberation is timeless; with rigpa, karma doesn't need to be worn away gradually; it always was an illusion, and once liberated it is gone forever.
Some readers have somehow misread this page as denying rebirth, which it certainly doesn't. The Tibetan bardo teachings, which are the most detailed Buddhist account of rebirth, are part of Dzogchen. According to those teachings, the circumstances in which you are reborn depend only on how you perceive phenomena in the between-lives realms. If you perceive them accurately, then you can choose to be reborn however you like.
Ordinary perception is muddied by perceptual habits, which accumulate as a consequence of habitual actions (karma). Tendencies of misperception are what cause involuntary rebirth. Particular patterns of misperception tend to produce particular kinds of rebirth; anger will lead you to the hell realms, and so on.
The point is that this isn't a "Law" imposed by some sort of external cosmic force. It's just a matter of psychological tendency. The "Law" can be violated at will, and utterly obviated at any moment, by remembering your true nature, i.e. rigpa.
Regarding your second question, Dzogchen has its own cosmogony and ontology, in terms of the trikaya. Briefly, the dharmakaya primordially self-manifests as the sambhogakaya, which self-manifests as the nirmanakaya. This is prior to any karma, which only arises late in the game as nirmanakaya misperceives itself. It's acausal; there's no "why" about it.
I'm not sure where you got "the theory of karma necessarily posits a creation and therefore a creator". I didn't intend to say that, and I can't find it in what I wrote...
Regarding sources. I don't recall an extensive discussion of this; and so, for the time being, I've removed the word "explicitly" from the page text. When I do the revision, I'll hunt through my books and see what I come up with. If anyone else wants to do some research, I'd suggest three possible starting points. One would be Nyingma defenses against the sectarian polemics that wrongly claim that Dzogchen denies karma altogether. Second would be the Bardo Thodol, explaining how rigpa liberates one from karma in the between-lives. Third would be Mipham's Beacon of Certainty, which explains the Dzogchen view of emptiness and liberation.
Thank you very much for your clarification. In fact, I have come to exactly the same view: after ten years of Buddhist study I had come to the same view of Buddhism as that of Dzogchen, which I accepted immediately. With respect to my reference to karma and creation, I conflated your article with a discussion of the same topic on Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyDaznDqjhc. Hence your confusion.
David.I see that the latest thread you started on Dharma Wheel has been closed.
My suggestion would be to contact David H Snyder who is actually the owner of both Dharma and Dhamma Wheels.
He has no time at all for the any form of Vajrayana including Dzogchen...which might mean ironically that he will respond in an even handed way..
He is interested in fairness I believe. And I suspect that he is sensitive to charges of exclusivism..
He may of course want to leave severely alone..but it might be worth a try.
For anyone lacking context: Dharma Wheel is a Buddhist forum. There was some discussion of the Aro Ter there a few months ago, which referenced this page about karma and Dzogchen.
The moderators of the Dzogchen subforum of Dharma Wheel include some of the same people who used to run the e-Sangha Buddhist forum. Some of them were, and apparently still are, hostile to Aro, for reasons that remain mainly unclear.
Discussion on Dharma Wheel was twice cut off by moderators. In both cases, my impression was that this was to prevent me from continuing to respond factually and neutrally to inflammatory misinformation. That certainly was the explicit policy on e-Sangha at one time.
My impression was that the Dharma Wheel moderators felt they had to be somewhat less one-sided than they had been on e-Sangha, probably because they had full control of that forum, but are essentially guests of the owner on Dharma Wheel.
I would have liked to post a reply to the final round of hostile, factually incorrect comments in the Dharma Wheel thread. However, my feeling was that the moderators knew they were on very thin ice, and that another round of Aro-bashing was unlikely to occur there.
If it does erupt again, I will appeal for fairness up the chain of moderators and eventually to David Snyder. Thank you very much indeed for the suggestion.
I think your reading of the situation is correct.
Namdrol was very much the prime mover and shaker on E Sangha. He is, as you say, just another guest on Dharma Wheel.
Given a more balanced overview of things than was possible on E Sangha for the reasons you imply, David Snyder is likely to have no reason to favor one Dzogchen group ( as he would see it ) over another. Although as I said he might be wary of the politics...
It looks like it was locked more because it the thread sputtered into nonsense for two days. If you have something more to add, I think you would not have a problem getting it unlocked again.
Well, your post seems to be okay until some point. I believe there exists evil in the world and evil men. To those, I would like to, yes, call upon justice on them. There are horrible things in this world happening all the time. Your way of just "this is just hipocrisy" is just another nonsense. Without justice there´s no ethics. You claim ethics is selfish, but what to make of true evil that, yes, exists ALL AROUND US?
I agree with what you have to say. My view is that Cosmic Justice is another name for cause and effect. something that is constant and is universal . Cause and effect are the motivation for ethical law to be developed. It is simply knowing that an action can have far reaching consequences .
I do not believe there is divine Cosmic Justice that is another thing altogether . That is an egocentric way to force behavioral compliance. Taoism has a very simple philosophy based on taking responsibility for all actions and knowing there will be consequences according to the action. It emphasizes preserving harmony within the world and universe.
I do not see the need for fairness or consider that a benevolent action will reap another benevolent action. That may be true often, however that is just looking at one and one's own and not the big picture. For example, the planet has been struck by asteroids which caused entire species to disappear in less time than it took them to evolve into complex lifeforms. Was that fair? Does it matter if anything is fair. Fairness is a perspective based idea. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.
Something in space sent those asteroids on their destruction path. It would be tough to have to live through that. I would not ask "Why me?" . who to ask ?
Cosmic Justice sometimes seems coincidental. Like when someone wrongs you and then you find out they were wronged by someone else. It is not about legal or religious justice. It is Cosmic because all our actions affect someone or something else like a domino effect. It is similar to Karma only because of the existence of consequences in that philosophy . It is to encourage good behavior. But why should people have to be rewarded for something they should do because it benefits all ?
Everyone should be taught to be responsible for their own actions. No free pass. They don't have to wait to die to pay back what they took from the universe.
Comments
In resonance
Hello David,
I found your site accidentally. Even though I am not familiar with ARO , seems contemplating I've "caught up" so much of the same teaching. I do not believe in justice, considering humans as 90% (at least) robots. IF I AM RULED BY THE BELIEFS, DISBELIEFS AND WORLDLY SAYINGS - then WHO AM I AND HOW CAN I BE RESPONSIBLE?
I am pretty sure we were originated by a dangerously sick (deeply schizophrenic) intelligence, who can't be better to humans than to ITSELF (OK, Himself/Herself). If my native could be English, I'd probably be braver to share some of my experiences with something what considers itself a GALACTIC ARBITRATION (seems we are approaching change of some of the basic laws). Being "subjected" to that ARBITRATION , OMG!!!!!!!!!!! I have learned enough to CONSIDER MYSELF A GIANT for still loving life :)))).
Also I MORE THAN AGREE WITH YOU : NO HOLINESS - VASTNESS!
Thanks for sharing those beautiful things. You made my day (and more :)).
Branka Babic, Belgrade, Serbia (former Yugoslavia)
Orthodoxy & Temperaments
(1) Controversy additions
You should add the below to your list on Dzogchen controversies.
(2) Heart Sutra Orthodoxy
Isn't the heart Sutra considered a typical Mahayana text and would not be embraced by some Theravada groups who would also not agree with its implications?
(3) Atheism
Interesting that you said you have been a long-term atheist. I have not. But ironically, opposed to you, cosmic justice was what took me out of Christianity. I guess I was always a mystic Christian only to discover that other Christians were into it for the rationality, the certainty and the morality -- none of which drew me. It just goes to show the varieties of temperaments. Thus my Atheist temperament is different from many atheists -- thus I started my site. Seeing how our temperaments often create our philosophies is the first step toward wisdom (IMHO), the second may be seeing the emptiness of our own temperaments.
1-2-3
(1) Done, thanks!
(2) I don't know enough about Theravada to say. I think the Pali scriptures have substantially equivalent statements about certainty, eternity, and so forth, although expressed in slightly different terms.
(3) I think your point about temperaments is a very good one.
Dzogchen and Karma
Is it possible that Dzogchen does not really reject karma, but simply sees it from a higher perspective? I.e., to say that the universe reflects our mental orientation because it is a mirror of mind, or mind itself, isn't really that different from saying that positive thoughts generate positive experiences and vice versa is it? Or is it? Are there any books discussing the Dzogchen view of karma at greater length? I also find it perplexing to read that the law of karma violates the Buddhist view that all existents are essentially changeable, since the very exception given - space/emptiness - shows that in fact this is only true of existents, and karma, like space/emptiness, is not an existent. It is a universal principle ultimately identical with space/emptiness itself.
Yes David I've never read
Yes David I've never read that Dzogchen rejects the law of karma. Sources?
Karma
Since Buddhist ontology posits karma as the universal primum mobile of becoming, rejecting karma begs the question of what causes phenomena? I also don't see how the theory of karma necessarily posits a creation and therefore a creator? Why can't the universe run forever, as in Nietzsche's eternal recurrence for example?
Dzogchen and karma
Hi, Alexander, thanks for your comments!
This page has confused a number of readers, and revising it is on my to-do queue.
Key phrases in it, apparently is easily overlooked, are that "Dzogchen does not deny karma altogether" and "the Dzogchen view is that karma is a matter of habit".
The context for the page is that many Tibetan Buddhist leaders have opposed Dzogchen and tried to ban it. I'm trying to explain why that is. One of the standard reasons they give is that Dzogchen denies karma. This is not actually true, but it is true that Dzogchen makes it difficult or impossible to make an ethical theory out of karma. (That is not their only reason for rejecting Dzogchen; I will go into the politics soon in my Wordpress blog.)
For Dzogchen, liberation (enlightenment) is synonymous with "rigpa", which literally means "vision", but in context means "accurate perception". Because rigpa is perfectly accurate, it is not conditioned by karma (i.e. previous actions). It simply reflects reality.
The thing is, rigpa is potentially available to everyone at all times, regardless of karma. If you are a mass murderer and you can maintain rigpa, then your karma is irrelevant.
Dzogchen is called "the path of instantaneous liberation" because the moment you hold rigpa, you are a fully realized Buddha. There is nothing more to be done. In particular, there is absolutely no need to purify past karma.
Within Dzogchen, there is a doctrine called "grol lugs bzhi", which means "the four aspects of liberation". (To understand this, it helps to remember that "liberation" in Tantra and Dzogchen is synonymous with "destruction" of samsara.) The four modes are:
Some readers have somehow misread this page as denying rebirth, which it certainly doesn't. The Tibetan bardo teachings, which are the most detailed Buddhist account of rebirth, are part of Dzogchen. According to those teachings, the circumstances in which you are reborn depend only on how you perceive phenomena in the between-lives realms. If you perceive them accurately, then you can choose to be reborn however you like.
Ordinary perception is muddied by perceptual habits, which accumulate as a consequence of habitual actions (karma). Tendencies of misperception are what cause involuntary rebirth. Particular patterns of misperception tend to produce particular kinds of rebirth; anger will lead you to the hell realms, and so on.
The point is that this isn't a "Law" imposed by some sort of external cosmic force. It's just a matter of psychological tendency. The "Law" can be violated at will, and utterly obviated at any moment, by remembering your true nature, i.e. rigpa.
Regarding your second question, Dzogchen has its own cosmogony and ontology, in terms of the trikaya. Briefly, the dharmakaya primordially self-manifests as the sambhogakaya, which self-manifests as the nirmanakaya. This is prior to any karma, which only arises late in the game as nirmanakaya misperceives itself. It's acausal; there's no "why" about it.
I'm not sure where you got "the theory of karma necessarily posits a creation and therefore a creator". I didn't intend to say that, and I can't find it in what I wrote...
Regarding sources. I don't recall an extensive discussion of this; and so, for the time being, I've removed the word "explicitly" from the page text. When I do the revision, I'll hunt through my books and see what I come up with. If anyone else wants to do some research, I'd suggest three possible starting points. One would be Nyingma defenses against the sectarian polemics that wrongly claim that Dzogchen denies karma altogether. Second would be the Bardo Thodol, explaining how rigpa liberates one from karma in the between-lives. Third would be Mipham's Beacon of Certainty, which explains the Dzogchen view of emptiness and liberation.
Best wishes,
David
Thank you
Thank you very much for your clarification. In fact, I have come to exactly the same view: after ten years of Buddhist study I had come to the same view of Buddhism as that of Dzogchen, which I accepted immediately. With respect to my reference to karma and creation, I conflated your article with a discussion of the same topic on Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyDaznDqjhc. Hence your confusion.
Revision needed
I'm glad I make sense sometimes!
I wrote this page four years ago, and re-reading it now, I can see that it's confusing. Really does need a re-write.
Dharma wheel
David.I see that the latest thread you started on Dharma Wheel has been closed.
My suggestion would be to contact David H Snyder who is actually the owner of both Dharma and Dhamma Wheels.
He has no time at all for the any form of Vajrayana including Dzogchen...which might mean ironically that he will respond in an even handed way..
He is interested in fairness I believe. And I suspect that he is sensitive to charges of exclusivism..
He may of course want to leave severely alone..but it might be worth a try.
What was the thread? Link
What was the thread? Link please.
Dharma Wheel
"The ArogTer Some Answers And Questions" In The Dzogchen subforum.
Dharma Wheel
Hello Anonymous,
Thank you very much for this!
For anyone lacking context: Dharma Wheel is a Buddhist forum. There was some discussion of the Aro Ter there a few months ago, which referenced this page about karma and Dzogchen.
The moderators of the Dzogchen subforum of Dharma Wheel include some of the same people who used to run the e-Sangha Buddhist forum. Some of them were, and apparently still are, hostile to Aro, for reasons that remain mainly unclear.
Discussion on Dharma Wheel was twice cut off by moderators. In both cases, my impression was that this was to prevent me from continuing to respond factually and neutrally to inflammatory misinformation. That certainly was the explicit policy on e-Sangha at one time.
My impression was that the Dharma Wheel moderators felt they had to be somewhat less one-sided than they had been on e-Sangha, probably because they had full control of that forum, but are essentially guests of the owner on Dharma Wheel.
I would have liked to post a reply to the final round of hostile, factually incorrect comments in the Dharma Wheel thread. However, my feeling was that the moderators knew they were on very thin ice, and that another round of Aro-bashing was unlikely to occur there.
If it does erupt again, I will appeal for fairness up the chain of moderators and eventually to David Snyder. Thank you very much indeed for the suggestion.
David
Dhamma Wheel
I think your reading of the situation is correct.
Namdrol was very much the prime mover and shaker on E Sangha. He is, as you say, just another guest on Dharma Wheel.
Given a more balanced overview of things than was possible on E Sangha for the reasons you imply, David Snyder is likely to have no reason to favor one Dzogchen group ( as he would see it ) over another. Although as I said he might be wary of the politics...
It looks like it was locked
It looks like it was locked more because it the thread sputtered into nonsense for two days. If you have something more to add, I think you would not have a problem getting it unlocked again.
Fail.
Well, your post seems to be okay until some point. I believe there exists evil in the world and evil men. To those, I would like to, yes, call upon justice on them. There are horrible things in this world happening all the time. Your way of just "this is just hipocrisy" is just another nonsense. Without justice there´s no ethics. You claim ethics is selfish, but what to make of true evil that, yes, exists ALL AROUND US?
To me, your text is fail. Sorry.
Cosmic Justice
I agree with what you have to say. My view is that Cosmic Justice is another name for cause and effect. something that is constant and is universal . Cause and effect are the motivation for ethical law to be developed. It is simply knowing that an action can have far reaching consequences .
I do not believe there is divine Cosmic Justice that is another thing altogether . That is an egocentric way to force behavioral compliance. Taoism has a very simple philosophy based on taking responsibility for all actions and knowing there will be consequences according to the action. It emphasizes preserving harmony within the world and universe.
I do not see the need for fairness or consider that a benevolent action will reap another benevolent action. That may be true often, however that is just looking at one and one's own and not the big picture. For example, the planet has been struck by asteroids which caused entire species to disappear in less time than it took them to evolve into complex lifeforms. Was that fair? Does it matter if anything is fair. Fairness is a perspective based idea. It has nothing to do with cause and effect.
Something in space sent those asteroids on their destruction path. It would be tough to have to live through that. I would not ask "Why me?" . who to ask ?
Cosmic Justice sometimes seems coincidental. Like when someone wrongs you and then you find out they were wronged by someone else. It is not about legal or religious justice. It is Cosmic because all our actions affect someone or something else like a domino effect. It is similar to Karma only because of the existence of consequences in that philosophy . It is to encourage good behavior. But why should people have to be rewarded for something they should do because it benefits all ?
Everyone should be taught to be responsible for their own actions. No free pass. They don't have to wait to die to pay back what they took from the universe.
Add new comment