Subtle Ignorance in Zen Buddhism

>>I saw you post about how many Zen folks sit in a very cursory level of Shamatha and call it a day. I thought it was hilarious. There are ALOT of unqualified Zen teachers out there for sure.

--I trained in rinzai zen where there is great emphasis on shamatha/samadhi. Then when a rinzai student has a meeting with roshi, the roshi shouts or hits the student with a stick and bang, it breaks the samadhi... to make the natural state appear, and this makes the student have kensho, proper recognition of the natural state. In dzogchen, they figured out that you don't need to develop samadhi by countless hours of concentration practice. You can just shout syllables yourself and have the same benefit. This means that by shouting or what we call Dynamic Concentration in Pemako Sangha, anyone can have instant release of the samsaric body and instant access to their buddhanature. This is why I do not teach shamatha at all because why would you want to put your time in something that is not it?

But yeah most zen groups I've seen over the past 20 years, just cultivate shamatha and a lot of them confuse that for the natural state or as they say shikantaza, or how I like to call it buddha nature sitting. They waste their time for years and years, even decades and think that that's it. Sometimes they might get lucky and have a glimpse or even a shift but then it doesn't ring their bells to make them question their views and methods. They think that that's how it is supposed to be, that you sit for ten thousand hours, have a moment of kensho, then you sit another ten thousand and have a kensho and so on... It is incredible waste of time. Again, this is something that dzogchen masters such as Longchenpa have made clear for centuries, that one should not confuse shamatha or samadhi with rigpa or the natural state. According to masters, this actually creates a karma that is very detrimental to real dharma practice. I actually have story about this but will save it for later. This is not what dharma professionals do.

Yes, there are many zen teachers with papers in order, all right. Unfortunately, most suffer of these basic problems and since they have so much faith for their tradition, I don't see it will change any time soon. The greatest masters like Hakuin or Linchi make it perfectly clear that kensho is the way and that there is no other way. Ugi sent me a message yesterday and said, "Not of lineage holders, not of Lamas, not of Tibetans, but of liberated beings." I think that there are very few people who really wish to know themselves fully, wish to become buddhas, because so many practitioners are so attached to the external paraphernalia of traditions. It is an awful trap to be in... Anyway, having said that, this problem of subtle ignorance is very very common at all places.

-Kim Katami

Pemako Buddhism, 

www.pemakobuddhism.com

Reflections on Retreats and Dharma Culture by Lama Karl Eikrem

Reflections on Retreats and

Dharma Culture 
 

by Lama Karl Eikrem, Tiia and Kim Rinpoche

From time to time I like attend retreats and events held by other spiritual traditions than that of my own. I find it healthy and beneficial to compare my own practice with that of other schools, as it gives me an understanding of the differences and similarities between different forms of practice. Besides it is always nice to connect with other serious practitioners.

Last year I attended two 4-day retreats taught by well-known Western teachers from traditional Tibetan Dzogchen lineages. Although I did enjoy the retreats, there were several points that struck me as problematic about the way they were conducted. In this text I will elaborate on these issues.

Before I get into it I want to make it clear that this text does not represent an attack on anyone's dharma practice, on any particular sangha or tradition etc. Rather the purpose is to highlight some problematic areas of the culture of spiritual training as was reflected in these particular retreats.

It could be argued that two Dzogchen retreats hardly represent the present culture of Tibetan Buddhism, which is true. Nevertheless, the problems highlighted in this text I have found to be common to many of the orthodox Tibetan Buddhist events and teachings I have participated in. Thus, it is my sincere belief that highlighting them can be of benefit to many dharma practitioners. 
 

Lack of Practice Time

The first thing that struck me about these retreats was the lack of actual practice time. To me, the whole purpose of retreats seem to be to take time off from daily obligations in order to practice the dharma intensively. Through increased practice in a conducive environment, retreats can offer us yogins an actual taste of what the dharma is all about. This again leads to increased clarity, motivation and confidence channelled directly into our daily practice.

Despite this, at both of the retreats I attended there was hardly any practice time at all. Instead participants were given long talks about the dharma and the importance of practicing it(!). At one of the retreats I estimated that for every 3 hour session 20-30 minutes was spent practicing, 30 minutes was spent drinking tea and going to the toilet, and the remaining 2 hours was spent listening to talks given by the teacher.

The other retreat did have about two 60 minute sessions dedicated entirely for practice, but these sessions were poorly instructed. In fact, the teacher did not attend himself, and as a result the sessions were somewhat unattended by the retreatants as well.

Whereas I am used to retreats where people, including the teacher, show up on time and take the practice seriously, here participants seemed to walk in out as they wished, not really certain what to do with the time. It seemed to me that the reason for this was not due to laziness etc. on the part of the practitioners, but because the retreat culture itself deemed the practice sessions subordinate to the lectures.

It is widely acknowledged that Dzogchen teachings represents the pinnacle of Buddhist teachings. Nevertheless, my experience from a Theravadin retreat some years ago, was that it was vastly superior in terms of experiential insight compared to the Dzogchen retreats. So while the Dzogchen view may essentially represent a higher realisation than that of the Theravadin traditions, due to the lack of practice time this was not at all reflected in these retreats. 
 

Lack of Guidance

The second thing that struck me at these retreats was the lack of actual involvement of the teachers towards the practice of the students. When time eventually did come to practice, the sessions would usually be preceded by a short and often very general introduction of the technique. Then when the bell rang for practice to begin, the teachers would retreat into their own practice for the duration of the session. In other words, during the meditation there was no guidance or supervision whatsoever.

As an apprentice teacher in my own tradition, I would be scolded by my teacher if I showed such little commitment and sense of responsibility towards students during sessions. Glancing around the meditation halls from time to time, I could tell that people were not really practicing what had been taught. Some were dosing off, most were just sitting in a murky state of mind, and yet the teachers did nothing at all to clear things up. Being so occupied with their own practice, I would be surprised if they were even aware of what was going on in the room.

I cannot think of any other are of human endeavour where those in charge are openly allowed to show such negligence. If a medical professor at the university would show the same lack of responsibility for their students, I find it likely that something would be done about it. Yet, my own experience shows me that when it comes to dharma, a lack of standards has become the standard. This brings me to the next observation.

Lack of Clarity and Relevance

Throughout the retreats the teachers seldom mentioned anything concrete about the spiritual path. Yes, they talked about the human condition, emptiness and bodhicitta and so on, but in response to a question regarding initial awakening from identification with the subject-I, or "me-ness" presented by one student, for example, the teacher at one of the retreats told the student that he did not need to bother his mind with such things.

Excuse me...?

As anyone with first-hand insight into the path of realising the true nature of mind will be able to attest to, the relative spiritual path passes through several more or less concrete stages. Shakyamuni Buddha himself taught about these stages, and so did many other masters of old. Yet modern teachers, except for a few shimmers of light here and there, seem to avoid the whole subject. And in avoiding it, the practices specific to each stage are also left out. As a result the dharma becomes vague and irrelevant to people's particular life situations.

After the teacher had given his answer to the student, I asked him directly if he knew of any methods that would lead to initial awakening. He said that he would get to that in the next session. As I have never come across any orthodox Dzogchen teachings on this, I eagerly waited to receive these teachings, but what was presented to us was a meditation on love.

Now, there is nothing wrong with meditating on love. In fact I consider it an essential practice. Nevertheless, meditation on love or the awakened heart is not intended to bring about the first permanent insight, that of initial awakening. Thus, presenting it as such was just another example of what happens when teachers do not understand the underlying principles of dharma in relation to the mechanics of existential confusion.

When taught by someone with comprehensive experiential knowledge of cyclic existence and the antidote to it, the dharma becomes very concrete and clear. Then when we practice it, we can see results quickly. When taught by someone who, despite perhaps having broad intellectual knowledge, lacks the experiential insight, the dharma becomes abstract, irrelevant and vague. Practiced vaguely, we can not expect to see much result of our efforts. In this way it is easy to see the importance of a clear and pragmatic approach to spiritual training.

Conclusion 
 

It should be noted that since I am focusing on the problematic areas here, I might come across as overly negative. This is not my intention. The basis for writing this text is the fact that the dharma is the most important aspect of human existence, and thus I feel it is only right that it should be treated as such.

I believe it should be a minimum requirement that practitioners are given the teachings in a manner that leads to actual experiential insight. First and foremost, this means that practice has to take the centre stage over long intellectual lectures.

Furthermore, spiritual teachers need to take their jobs seriously and teach from a space of actual experience and a genuine care for their student's progression on the path. Approached in such a manner, the inherent clarity and concrete nature of the teachings is allowed to shine forth. Only then can the dharma blossom in our culture. 
 

May all beings be free,

-Lama Karl Eikrem,

Pemako Buddhist Sangha, www.pemakobuddhism.com

Tiia, teacher in training: My exp is very similar to the blog text. I've taken part in a few dzogchen teachings, both live and online, and had big expectations of pointing out instructions and actual practice, but unfortunately got disappointed. Eg. the latest retreat on last spring lasted on Fri-Sun, and it was all about lecturing, for several hours, including one 10 minutes Ati session on Saturday. Ati was without any guiding or pointing out to the natural state.
During the weekend there was a lot of talk about emptiness, clarity, clear light, and several pointers to the sense of self by saying "return attention back to the seer", but no meditation on it. Only talk. I doubt anyone in the audience got that.
Somehow I sensed that the lama had genuine insight and knowledge, fresh bodhicitta and enthusiasm, and I appreciate him very much, but why only read the texts and talk. I can't help thinking that Western people are sometimes underestimated by Tibetan buddhist lamas. Many people in West have already done their preliminaries through emotional and mental suffering and existential crisis, and they want to know HOW to get rid of it, so why not to offer real tools, experiences, that blow up their minds on a new level.

Kim: There is and has been a handful of lamas who have and do point out the nature of mind at every chance they get, so there are also exceptions, fortunately. I don't wish to blame lamas who say they teach dzogchen but then don't or can't deliver for the simple reason that the fault is in their methods and pedagogy, rather than in them. If you don't have effortless recognition yourself, how could you have confidence telling about it to others? You can't but then you are involved with a lineage that has its system of training, position in the organisation and people ask you to teach dzogchen because they've read about it. So all these geshes, khenpos and lamas end up in this tricky position... Some lamas are asked by big publishing houses to produce dzogchen courses and they do that because apparently they can't refuse and falsely have confidence to teach dzogchen because their lama has told them they can teach it. Then you end up having silent recorded pointing out sessions recorded because the lama doesn't know what to say becaus he doesn't know... It's a one big mess but what's new in samsara? :) Since when there were people (in plural) walking here and there who you could ask about the nature of mind and they could answer right away without tricks? Maybe they had something like it during mahasiddha era over thousand years ago, when yoginis and yogis shared their experiences beyond their chosen religions, brainstormed and practiced properly but for a long time now there has been so many faults disturbing the process. Irrelevant practices, dogmatic beliefs and poor pedagogy are the strongly beating heart of this problem.

Authenticity of a Buddhist Teacher

Authenticity of a Buddhist Teacher

Unfortunately being an "official dharma descendant" in far too many cases seems not to be a quarantee of someone being a good teacher. Formal authorisation is often the first thing a buddhist wants to know of a teacher in question. People often seem to think that teachers are somehow very special or ”out of this world” in some way. It is silly how far this sometimes goes. But buddhism is not actually ”other wordly” or ”amazing” in some mystical way. Buddhism is about human suffering, the confusion that we all experience. A teacher should be an honest person who has something useful to share with others, whether it is something very basic for beginners, something more advanced or very advanced. Sometimes it seems that buddhist teachers are expected to be special or great in some miraculous way but honestly, the vast majority of all buddhist teachers out there are more or less samsaric beings. This should affect the way we view our teachers. Just because someone is a specialist in some ancient dharma method might not mean much in understanding how to eliminate existential suffering (dukkha) or even how to be a good human being.



Just like in all other religions it happens in all schools of buddhism that "lineage holders" cause suffering to people close to them because they are momentarily blinded by their self-delusion. Horrible things happen when a samsaric being is given too much attention and power. I don't know that many teachers who without formal authorisation say they are buddhist teachers but the few cases I know are saying useful things due to thinking "outside the box" of traditional buddhist education. Of course there are also those who claim big things but are actually small in their understanding and cannot help people out of samsara. However, what is interesting is that I've seen students of both greatly honoured teachers as well as "fakes" who are not making much progress. Why?

How do we know a teacher is authentic if authorisation is not a quarantee of quality teachings and the student's progress? What are quality teachings in the first place?

Quality dharma

Buddhism is about 1. recognising and illuminating suffering through becoming aware of it and through that 2. recognising the natural state, one's own buddhahood. As a functionable spiritual path, buddhism comes down to both sudden awakenings and gradual practice. To enter the Way, like Shakyamuni and numerous others before and after him, we need to get insights, awakenings (kensho, shinjin), and through regular practice grow in awareness, buddhanature, until none is left.

Although I have never met a person who practiced and followed authentic or inauthentic teacher and didn't make any progress (purification of mind) I've seen numerous people who practiced with top teachers and even after decades of practice didn't get awakened, didn't have any irreversible insights, although might have had other impressive experiences. I think this is a problem and also an indication of the concerned teacher's and lineage's (lack of) knowhow. The only way to buddhahood is through insight.



Honestly, I think that if this bit is missing the whole path becomes questionable. It is the irreversible insights that matter the most because with each recognition of the natural state a chunk of self-delusion drops off. If practitioners are not having insights it is an indication that something about the teacher or the method is not right, although the teacher might be a nice person and his tradition might somehow be very impressive.

I am certainly not saying that one single kensho or even a few of them is everything there is to buddhist path, of course not. All I am saying is that regardless of the particular philosophical view and a practical method of any buddhist path, it is the insights into the selfless nature of mind that matters the most to anyone out there because havings insights means growing in true existential freedom, devoid of suffering (dukkha).



But like I said above I've seen so many people who have done years of practices, numerous retreats and have been instructed by their teachers on regular basis and yet are not having initial or consecutive insights. This I consider to be an indication of inauthenticity of the teacher and the lineage whatever the teachings are. This is what I understand when the Dalai Lama says that genuine disciples make genuine teachers.



In buddha's grace.

Pema.

My Life with The Masters

My Life with The Masters

When I was a small boy, living in an environment of great unease, I would go sit on my bed to pray for the happiness of all beings and do certain breathing practices. When I prayed the room would light up as if someone switched on the lights. It was as if I would enter a different realm, that of peace and subtle happiness. I would sit there for some time not thinking or doing anything being swept by the power of mere presence. Nobody had taught me this. Ever since I can remember I would do this about few times a week. This kept continuing for many years. At some point when I became a teenager I stopped doing these spontaneous sessions but nevertheless I would often be swept by the same feeling that made my mind utterly brilliant and peaceful. I would also often think of honesty and death. Also from my early teens I started to experience certain kind of blackouts* among ordinary actitivities, a few times a week. For many years I didn't know what they were.



*after several years of meditation I realised these blackouts were brief cessations (skt. nirodha).



At 28, after having started tantric guru yoga, I realised that those moments in childhood and youth were largely caused by visitations of mahasiddhas (masters) in their nonphysical form. This understanding struck me one day like a lightning bolt from a clear sky when I was repeating a mantra of a certain mahasiddha. Today I understand that all this happened because of my connection with the masters. They helped and guided me throughout those years of great distress.



I know some people who have experienced similar things in their lives. I also know people who have never experienced anything like that who for that reason have hard time understanding what all this means and whether it is even real. Personally to me such things are part of my everyday life. To me it is as common as having a breakfast every morning. Even though the apparent barrier of the physical world and non-physical world is transcended in this event, to me there is nothing strange, unusual or extra-ordinary in that. I have experienced it thousands of times in my life so to me it's normal.



In 2007, very soon after I realised the cause behind those events I started to receive yogic teachings and instructions from nonphysical mahasiddhas. Since then I have had a line open to them. The reason for this is in shared past lives with them. Sivakami, my teacher, also had such connections.

The Gift of Tantric Guru Yoga

”By Great Transference we mean that the material body is integrated with the substance of the elements and disappears into the light. Those who have the capacity can continue to see it, but for those who are limited to a common vision it is as if it disappears. In short, those who manifest the Great Transference continue to live in light, give teachings and work for the benefit of all beings who have the capacity to get in contact with them”

- Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche

”Guru Rinpoche is a field of awakened energy 

that took form in Tibet in the 8th century but 

continues to be active in the universe”. 

- Lama Tsultrim Allione

In Pemako buddhism the foundation of our practice is tantric guru yoga, being present with the gurus our hearts and minds open. This is just what the above quote speaks about. During the last decade when I have been teaching, I have seen hundreds of people who've had momentary (because of practice session) or life-changing (repeated practice) experiences because of the way guru yoga is taught in Open Heart. Our way is very simple and straightforward.



I have actually met people who before the session have told me that they don't believe anything important could happen through chanting the names of the masters, who an hour later have come to me in utter amazement telling me that they have never experienced anything like that, even during many years of meditation. I've seen masters do their thing on people numerous times.



I do not think one can become a living buddha without a tantric guru who is a mahasiddha him- or herself. One of the problems of the buddhist tradition is that it has mostly been passed down by teachers who are more or less samsaric beings. The Open Heart Bhumi Model is a way to find out whether some teacher is a living buddha or not. Many teachers have shifts and glimpses of their buddha nature but are not fully enlightened. Buddhas in the physical body are extremely rare even though they do exist. If one hasn't found such a master, in my opinion it is certain that one cannot attain buddhahood in this life. It is extremely rare that a piece of wood starts to burn alone by itself. It is much easier to get it burning by sticking a burning match to it. It is exactly like that with tantric guru yoga. That's the gift any of the mahasiddhas are willing to give to us, you included, at any time or place. You don't need initiations for that, only the name and/or picture of the master, and off you go.



The main benefit of tantric guru yoga, is that once you tune into his presence, your bodymind comes into contact with his. This means that the attainment of the guru meets with your present samsaric condition with the outcome that 1. your own buddhamind becomes evident while 2. your karmic body becomes flushed with his purifying blessings. No matter where you are you can be in living connection with Guru Rinpoche or any of the masters. Essentially there is no difference in meeting a master with a body or without a body because it is not the physical body that makes the master a living buddha.
Ahead I implied that in Open Heart we have a certain way of practicing guru yoga that is different from other ways of practicing it. The main differences to other forms of guru yoga are that

1. there is no need for an empowerment,
   
2. our techniques are short, simple and direct, and
   
3. after the technique has been applied there is a thorough recognition of the experience in one's own bodymind, that is, a period of meditation.
   

Like I always say, and what Sivakami always emphasized, the main value of guru yoga is not in discussing or receiving instructions from the gurus. For some people who have strong karmic connection with them and there is a specific reason for that, this can happen but the main point is in energetic transmission and revealing of one's own natural state. That's it. This point strikes at the core of buddhism itself. 
 

About recognition

Even though it took a long time for me to get information of what had been happening to me all my life, I feel I have been lucky to have met several people who have had similar experiences like I have. In that respect Sivakami helped me the most. She had amazing skills in this regard. I have also discussed this in private with tantric teachers, some of who are famous gurus with large followings, from both the hindu and buddhist camps. Several hindu saints and adepts with their own connections to masters beyond the physical have confirmed my connection. I have been called a terton (dharma treasure revealer) and a tulku (reincarnation) by teachers inside the Tibetan buddhist tradition but this has been among casual conversation between friends and nothing authoritative. For years I felt it was a big problem because I had no formal recognition. As a friend of mine who is a Tibetan buddhist lama says, ”Many people are like dogs. The first thing they do is to sniff your ass”.



While it is my responsibility to teach and spread the immensely valuable Pemako buddhist teachings, it hasn't been easy partly because some people are quick to draw their conclucions without any formal proofs. It is true that I don't have the kind of proofs people are used to seeing but if one starts to look into the materials that I have provided, there is plenty of proof.



In the case of those who have already made up their minds about me and my work, the two-way exchange is over. When the barriers go up, people simply don't want to hear anything I say. I have been called by nasty names because I do not fit the norm and didn't graduate through the usual channels. None of the sceptics out there have come to meet me in person, or invited me over. It would have saved a lot of my time and energy, and in some cases the karmic backflow caused by the ill words of others, if I had a formal recognition. A formal recognition as a tulku alone is not a quarantee of anything but it would have helped. But there are more important aspects to this than just assuring sceptics.

Being who I am, doing what I do

Everyone has had past lives. Some remember them, some don't. I clearly remember many of my past lives, though not all of them. I distinctly remember having lived as a yogi in many traditions, both in and out of buddhism. I remember lives when I have done same or similar work that I do now, bringing buddha dharma to new people and new areas of the world, shaping it according to the needs and abilities of the people, often with the help of the masters. I also remember lives with several mahasiddhas, living and studying with them closely. All these things are as common as my own hands to me. Saying this does not feel special in any way. That's just my history and my personal memories.



If I analyse my own life, I can admit that I am not a perfect tulku. Before I took this body in my mother's womb, I agreed to take this job and be born in a country that had no culture of dharma at all. On the other hand Finland is a wealthy and peaceful country which is a good thing. Before I took this body I knew that my memory was going to be cut off and that it was going to get samsaric, proper samsaric, like it did. Looking back to my childhood and youth I am absolutely certain that I couldn't have survived without the active help of my gurus. Because of the difficult conditions I had to learn to use my common sense.



The good side of all that suffering was that it lead me to seek my way back to dharma and motivated me to practice. This burning kept me on the cushion for 8 hours everyday for the first 8½ years of my practice. If I had had an easier life there is no way my motivation would have carried me but because I suffered, I had no other choice than to sit and try to figure out what the hell was wrong with everything.

Padmasambhava's Pure Land Buddhism

Today I have been practicing for about 15 years and teaching full time for almost a decade, with a unique expression of buddha dharma that bears the name of Pemako buddhism. I say it is unique because as far as I know no other system of buddhism has same or similar expression, even though every system is based on the same universal principles. I couldn't have done any of this without my masters, nor would I have wanted to. As a samsaric being I certainly couldn't have created a training method like Open Heart and guided the sangha the way Guru Padmasambhava and others throughout the years have. Words cannot describe my gratitude to them.



Our practitioners know what I am talking about because they have gained experiences. They have read my introductions, tried the practices, experienced the effects and chosen to follow Pemako buddhism as their path. The excellent news is that they didn't start to follow this path because of my title, name or reputation as a famous teacher. Had I been formally recognised as a child by some high lama as a reincarnation of someone I might have ended up like many tulkus, being viewed a someone very special, lecturing from books with no first hand knowledge whatsoever, touring the fancy dharma halls of the world, being completely spoiled. No, thank you.



Like I said in my recent post, Introducing Pemako Buddhism, after a careful consideration I started to use a name and title given to me by my guru, Padmasambhava. I know that my title or Pemako buddhism for that matter, will never be accepted by orthodox buddhists at large. I did express my concern about this to my guru but it didn't change his mind.



I won't try to change the opinions of the orthodox buddhist mass but I would like to ask the sceptics to consider if they themselves would accept a dharma name and an honorary title from their gurus. I am absolutely certain that no one who respects one's guru and upholds his teachings would refuse it.



The main reason that makes me and my work unorthodox is that my guru doesn't have a physical body. For this reason I do not have his written certificate of me being his dharma heir. I do not have a paper which says that,



”I, Padmasambhava am the founder of Pemako buddhism and have asked Orgyen Pema Rinpoche to do this work”.



Even though that is the case I don't have a document like that.



Meeting with doubt is not unusual in my position. In history, there has been many founders of new schools of buddhism who were critisized or even abused by the orthodox camp.



Whether a teacher is authentic or not, the only way to understand buddha dharma is through one's own experience. Because I have lived all my life, 38 years to date, with my masters I am confident that what they have taught me and what I pass to others is buddha dharma par excellence.



Thank you for reading.


- Orgyen Pema, 22.6.2017