Lama Glenn Mullin: Ordinary People Cannot Practice Dzogchen

Lama Glenn Mullin: Ordinary People Cannot Practice Dzogchen

”Mahamudra I think is easier for the West. Just sitting in meditation and noticing the natural flow of the body and how it has natural joyful quality, play of the universe. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, sitting between those two, can be a way of generating great bliss and so forth. These four mudras (samayamudra, karmamudra, mahamudra, and dharmamudra) often are put in reverse order in terms of who is qualified to practice successfully. In other words, ordinary people don't get much success from, much benefit from mahamudra or dzogchen practice because they're not wangpo rab (have maturity from previous lives). They can't sit between form is emptiness, emptiness is form in a way in a very stable way or conscious way. Once they go into very deep meditation everything just sort of flows into nothingness... like a sleeping marmot. So it's very difficult I think for ordinary people, meaning those who don't come with full trunk of good karmic forces from previous lives to have much success in mahamudra or dzogchen, in my opinion.” 
- Lama Glenn Mullin, Guru Viking Interview, Ep 19, 56:00.

I agree with Lama Glenn that people who might have sincerity, devotion and effort in trying to remain in the natural state, are unable to do that. I've seen it so many times how practitioners and lamas who try to practice dzogchen meditation, are actually unable to remain in the natural flow. Karma plays a part in this but as Open Heart teacher, my view of this is also different to Lama Glenn's. Eleven shifts in perception or bhumi openings, as we call them, enable anyone not only to have a brief recognition of the natural state but to rest in it without time restriction. We accomplish this mainly through Two-Part Formula and Dynamic Concentration, combined with tantra. 30-40% of our sangha has reached this stage. On some retreats where the majority of participants have reached this stage, group practice is like being in Pure Land of buddhas. I have not seen anything like this in any other sangha that I have trained with or visited. I would be curious to see a traditional lama witness our group meditations.



-Kim, 10.10.2019

Unmasking the Guru by Brad Warner

Brilliant message from Brad Warner. 

See his video: Unmasking the Guru.

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.

Ken McLeod & The Meaning of Scriptures

Ken McLeod

& The Meaning of Scriptures

Ken: there is a huge amount of mystification. If you read the mahayana sutras, they’re wonderful. They’re beautiful. They’re elaborate, and they leave you the impression that you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being really awake. [Laughter] Right?

Student: The Heart Sutra.

Ken: The Heart Sutra is relatively innocuous, try the Avatamsaka Sutra. It goes on and on and on. Even the Diamond Sutras are intimidating that way.

But when you get to the core experiences they describe, the picture is different. For instance, how many of you know the four stages of arhatship? Stream winner, once returner, no returner and arhat. Right?

Student: Very intimidating. [Laughing]

Ken: Yeah, except that what in the blazes does this mean? Okay. What’s a stream winner? Now it’s someone who—and if you read the formal descriptions—and you feel like “well you know, maybe twenty-five lifetimes if I work absolutely consistently. I don’t do anything else. I never earn a cent in my life. I just meditate all the time maybe I’ll just get there.” Like that, right?

Well, those wonderful descriptions are a poetic expression of how much people valued these things, so they, they blew it up tremendously. So what is a stream winner? A stream winner is a person who has had a sufficiently powerful or strong experience of emptiness that they can’t go back to being the same way. It’s something which screws up the system so you can’t go back. Now you’re on the path. You are in the stream. No? So when you’ve developed a level of attention, you have that experience. Then you’re a stream winner.

What’s a once returner? A once returner is a person whose level of attention is sufficiently high so that when a reactive process comes up, they are caught by it for a moment (one life) [snaps fingers] and then they return to wakefulness.
When a reactive process arises in a no returner, it just comes and goes. They aren’t caught by it. They don’t have to return. They stay in wakefulness.
Buried in this highly metaphorical language you have simple and accessible experiences expressed in code. These experiences are very accessible to all of us. The fact that they are seen as way out there, well, that’s poetry.

Student: But they are taken literally by some. [Chuckles] Some of my teachers anyway!

Ken: Actually some in the group here. [Laughter] Well, there was this student of Zen who had a very, very deep experience at one point. And the circumstances were such that he couldn’t go to any teacher and recount his experience and have it reflected back, which is actually a important aspect. So in lieu of that, I think he picked up the Diamond Sutra. And said to himself, “If I can read this and understand it without having a single thought then I think I am probably on the right track.” And that’s what he did. It was all completely clear to him. 
 
So when you have had certain experiences then you see what the poetry is actually pointing to. Now eastern teachers––many of them, almost all of them––they learned and were trained in this highly metaphorical way of expression. At the same time because they are in traditional societies, they don’t take it literally. They understand and know it as metaphor. Though they don’t talk about it as metaphor. It’s not the way one does things in a traditional society.

We’re in and have been brought up in a modern society. Modern society is characterized by the use of rational processes, particularly at times, in which you take everything literally. When you’re reading an account of a scientific experiment you’re paying attention to every word that’s being very clearly expressed because you want to reconstruct that experiment to see if you can do it yourself. So you take everything absolutely literally. But when we bring that literalness to this highly metaphorical thing the result is disastrous!

I’ll give you an example. I ran into this with a psychologist one time in a conversation. And it’s exactly this conversation. And he said “Well give me an example.” I said, “In Tibetan Buddhism you regard your teacher as buddha.” And he immediately said, “Oh, so he’s infallible.” So I said, “No.” That’s a perfect example of modern literal rational processes being applied to metaphorical imagery or mythic language really.

When you say you regard your teacher as a buddha, as Buddha, it describes the way that you regard a teacher as how you experience awakening mind; how you would want to live that way. It doesn’t say anything about being [unclear], but it says a great deal about, is your relationship with that person. And the role of that relationship in your spiritual process. It’s a huge difference in talking about a person as being [unclear]. Not the same thing at all. And those kinds of mistakes are being made all over the place.

Copied from http://unfetteredmind.org/five-elements-five-dakinis/

Chatral Rinpoche: "We Are All Shiva Bhaktas"

Chatral Rinpoche: 
"We Are All Shiva Bhaktas"

"One instance of the manner in which Rinpoche could be unconventional, and which most people would not have been aware, prior to his passing away, caused many some surprise. This only emerged when the family compound in Parping (Nepal) was opened to the public. On the walls of the Lhakhang, which had been built inside the compound, were painted the Hindu deities of Shiva with his consort Parvati. On the left side of the shrine; Krishna with his consort Radha and their entourages along with various other representations of this kind. Directly in front of the temple entrance, and housed in its own separate building, a Shiva lingam (hindu symbol) of generous proportions.

To some traditional Buddhists, this would seem like a grave eccentricity in the Lama and something quite inexplicable.

However, Rinpoche had gone beyond the narrowness of needing to confine himself solely to the accepted and traditional Tibetan Buddhist pantheon. He saw no conflict of interests. What these images represent is an expression of ‘energy’ in its many and varied forms and this ‘energy’ is universal."

Account by Lyse Lauren, close disciple of Chatral Rinpoche

Copied from http://levekunst.com/a-life-well-lived-2/
 
According to Mr. Ian A Baker (click to Guru Viking interview), Chatral Rinpoche was said to have participated in a hindu festival on Shivaratri at Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu and to have had great interest towards hindu yogic practices of the Shaiva tradition. On other occasion he is said to have said, 

"We are all Shiva bhaktas".  

What Does it Mean to Be a Terton?

What Does it Mean to Be a Terton?

It is widely believed, especially within the Nyingma school of Tibetan buddhism, that only few chosen ones can receive dharma teachings mystically, non-physically, and be "dharma treasure revealers", or tertons. I asked my good friend and student Karl Eikrem to write down his initial account of receiving his first nonphysical teaching, or terma as they are traditionally called. In this video he reads his account (follow the link to read it) and then guides the actual practice that he learned. At the end of the video I read a couple of related quotes and expound the matter a bit more. I hope this sheds light on this matter and makes people think a bit more open mindedly about it all.

To conclude I would like to present a quote from Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, as stated by his close student Acharya Malcolm Smith:

”My late teacher, an important terton, said if you want to be a terton, the only real requirement is faith in Guru Rinpoche. If you supplicate him strongly enough with genuine compassion for sentient beings, then you might be able to reveal terma.”

Link to text: http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.com/2018/06/receiving-teaching-from-sakya-sri.html

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMbgSRNSBZw

Receiving a Practice from Sakya Sri

Receiving a Practice from Sakya Sri

by Lama Karl Eikrem

Hidden treasures, or mind treasures (tib. terma) are teaching that are concealed by a mahasiddha, such as Guru Rinpoche, for later discovery by yogins with karmic connection to the master. The reason for this is to make sure that authentic teachings, suitable to particular cultures are available for generations to come.

As impermanence also applies to the physical forms of dharma, teachings that have been in circulation for a long time, for example in old lineages, have a tendency to loose their efficiency because they get (1) outdated; that is their form is no longer suitable to a particular culture, mind set, paradigm etc., or (2) they get modified by teachers lacking in sufficient understanding of the underlying principles of dharma, rendering the teachings impotent or less effective.

Sakya Sri.

Hiding termas to be revealed within future cultures is a brilliant way of avoiding this.

In this text I would like to write about my own experiences with receiving termas, particularly the first teaching I received from the wonderful 19th century mahasiddha Sakya Sri. 
 

To conclude I would like to present a quote from Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, as stated by his close student Acharya Malcolm Smith:

”My late teacher, an important terton, said if you want to be a terton, the only real requirement is faith in Guru Rinpoche. If you supplicate him strongly enough with genuine compassion for sentient beings, then you might be able to reveal terma.” 

Find out more about Sakya Sri here. This text can be viewed as a video lecture by Karl Eikrem with additional notes by Kim Katami here. 

***

In September 2017, my teacher Kim Katami and I did a short casual retreat at a cabin in Eastern Finland. One evening, as we were about to meditate, Kim showed me a picture of Sakya Sri on his phone. As soon as I saw the picture, my being was flushed with a warm presence and the room lit up with powerful blessings that clarified our minds. After a while of sitting and taking in the blessings of Sakya Sri, Kim said to me:

”If you now ask for a teaching, advice or an instruction, you will get it.”

Being unfamiliar with the experience of receiving teachings from non-physical masters, I asked the mahasiddha to make sure to remove my doubts by making it obvious that this was not a product of my own imagination. 

 

A moment after passing the request, my body started feeling very hot. In my mind's eye I saw a fireball, a bright burning star forming above the crown of my head. At first I was taken back a little by the sudden change of the inner environment, but I kept watching the ball as it took on a life on its own.

First it slowly descended from above the crown, through the skull and down the central channel within the spine stopping at the perineum. As it was moving, the ball of light was illuminating the central channel. I could see and feel it very clearly.

After sitting at the base of the spine for a few moments, the fireball started slowly going back up again, but this time it stopped at the crown inside the skull. Then the light started expanding upwards, splitting my skull open to form a sort of upside down cone of light emanating from the top of the skull. It felt like a volcano eruption from the top of my head. After that the whole central channel, still glowing, expanded to cover my entire aura, or energy field, an area of approximately 3 meters in diameter around my body. After a while the intensity slowly faded, until there was nothing but spacious awareness left. I remember experiencing an afterglow that lasted the entire rest of the evening, as well as a feeling of euphoria due to not having purified all karmic patterns.

***

During the time that has passed since this evening , I have received a few teachings from different masters, all of which have been less intense experiences. I actually realized that I have received teachings before the one described here, but because I had no framework with which to understand and make sense of the experience, there was no way for me to interpret it and make use of it.

Although some tertons, such as Dudjom Lingpa, seem to have been gifted with the ability of unlocking termas from childhood, it seems to me that most people need a framework to do so. This idea has lead to believe that receiving termas isn't necessarily that rare an experience, it's just that most people and cultures don't have this framework. Because of this, very few people are able to making use of these universal experiences.

I hope that the writing and publication of this short text, will be a small contribution to the general acceptance of the fact that human beings have the ability to communicate and receive teachings from non-physical beings, and that this again will help us move towards a more mature culture, one that embrace all the principles of dharma.

May all beings be free!

Dharma Sun Visualization of Shakya Shri

1. Sit down, relax and recognize the basic space.
2. Ask Sakya Sri to give a blessing for yourself, for it to benefit of all sentient beings. Receive it and feel it for few moments.
3. Then visualize a bright sun above the head. See the bright light, feel the warmth of it. Bring the sun down the central channel, through the top of the skull and down to the base of the spine. Notice that it illuminates the central channel as it moves. Then, feel the light erupt from the base of the spine, shooting upwards through crown, like a fountain of light. See that, along with this eruption, the central channel expands to a diameter of 2½ to 3 meters so that it covers the whole aura. Feel it in your whole being.
4. Leave the active visualization and enjoy the natural state for as long as you wish, at least 10-15 minutes.
5. Give thanks to the master and dedicate the merit of the practice session to all sentient beings. 
    
   Lama Karl instructs this practice on this video:
    
   
    

Controversy about Open Heart

Controversy about Open Heart

This letter was composed as a note to Open Heart Sangha members but is posted in this blog as well.

Dear Sangha members.

I'd like to have a public discussion on two matters concerning Open Heart. The first one is the constant negativity projected on Open Heart by buddhist traditionalists. The second one is critique expressed by those who left Open Heart Sangha. I wish to discuss these matters openly with our practitioners so that when you hear about these things, you are already aware of these matters. Everyone is free to form your own opinion and think for yourself.

Talk

I used to be an active writer on a number of buddhist bulletin boards (discussion forums) online. These include DharmaOverground, DharmaWheel, BuddhaDharma.info (Finnish) and Zen Forum International (no longer exists). As you know, I have often asked questions that too rarely get asked. Talking of taboos, together with what the traditionalists see as outrageous claims of my own attainments (they have missed the crucial point of the difference between opening and perfecting bhumis), while myself being as they say a ”self-proclaimed” teacher, is why orthodox buddhists on the mentioned forums as well as on Facebook, have very negative view about myself and Open Heart.

When I was still active writing on forums, before 2017, I tried to express my views while trying to understand those of others. After I had started to use the buddhist view (theory) in my teachings, along with being a ”self-proclaimed” teacher ”who claims to communicate with gurus long dead”, on part of the opponents these discussions started to end up being about my persona, rather than the topic that was originally discussed. Many times the opponents could not get over the fact that I had no lineage to back up my claims. Me not having a lineage is something that I have always openly and publicly acknowledged. One of the first questions buddhists ask is whether someone has a lineage and if they don't that pretty much ends the fruitful discussion, at least in my case it has. This is especially the case in tantric buddhism and dzogchen, where one having a guru is the most important principle.

Some Tibetan buddhists online, many with decades of practice and some even lamas or translators of buddhist texts, have simply branded me as a ”fake”, ”charlatan”, ”hoax” or more recklessly as a ”crazy” or as an ”idiot”. On forums such as the DharmaWheel this seems to be a standard way of treating teachers without lineages, no matter who they are or what they teach. Without having the kinds of documents they want to see, they don't want to hear about it. End of the story.

I am not into pleasing everyone but I am quite sad that some traditionalists have taken such negative standpoints. Until some point I tried my best to discuss and shed light on matters, on my views and thoughts that have evolved in the guidance of my gurus but eventually I figured out it was all in vain. I admit that my way of presenting some of the mostly highly regarded lamas of the present and past as similar samsaric human beings as the rest of us, without all the posh and pomp, probably didn't help. On the other I'd say that, looking at all the sex, power and abuse scandals happening in all schools of buddhism to some of the most highly authenticated teachers* together with all the external signs of dharma turned into deteriorated religion and the unhealthy hierarchical system of monks and priests, should make people ask questions(!). Anyway, this is why I stopped writing on forums (except wearedharma.org which is our own forum).

It is worthy to mention that as far as I am aware none of the harsh criticisers out there have really looked into what the Open Heart teachings are. I have always welcomed educated criticism but these people have made up their mind and quite foolishly keep up the bashing. It has become a bit of a phenomena since it keeps continuing on it's own. Of course, saying harmful things, even among those who have the fortune of dharma, is nothing new. If there is something human beings know, it is how to cause harm. But hey, each to his own as everyone reaps the crops of one's own actions (karma).

I am pretty sure that as long as I keep teaching and Open Heart exists this negative talk keeps happening. For this reason, I wanted to tell you about it myself, before negative rumours enter into our sangha from outside. I have heard that such rumours circulate in Finland as well. For example, I was recently denied to rent a certain buddhist center for a zen-calligraphy exhibition (I own a notable collection of buddhist art and calligraphy) because "your activities are not clear and can be confusing to people who seek a valid spiritual path". They continue that "If one teaches according to one's own whims and mixes buddhist and hindu teachings it can be harmful to peoples mental health".

I always say that it is the inights and experiences what matter because they give us confidence of our path but even then Open Heart-practitioners hearing something strongly negative like this can cause some confusion. It simply happens to be the case that I do not have any formal recognitions from any buddhist authorities which is the main reason why this problem goes on. For some time I tried to reach to some buddhist lamas but the problem is that they dont want to give much attention, not to even mention authorisation to anyone they don't know. They are pretty self-sufficient and don't think it's their problem that I or OH has no traditional validation.

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo and a couple of other lamas who I am friends with have encouraged me to continue what I do and let those who want to talk, talk how they wish. On the other hand I wouldn't want people to take up Open Heart-practices just because I had a formal recognition from any buddhist authority. I hope, like I always have, that people come to Open Heart because it makes sense and gives them insights and experiences. That is the most healthy way to start on the path of dharma.

Those who left

As in all sanghas, also in Open Heart there have been those who have left the sangha. Some have left in good terms, while some have left with what seemed to me a bitter taste in their mouth. Even if the criticism of those who left hasn't seemed lucid thinking to me I have wished well to all who left.

I would like to bring up a couple of things that those who left said.

”I am not buying into the Open Heart Bhumi Model”.

”Opening bhumis seems like a competition among practitioners”.

”Opening bhumis is too goal oriented for me. I just want clarity of mind and compassion”.

”The teacher rewards those who are successful in their practice, like in cults”.

A small number of people (4) who left during 2016-2017 all told me the first three points. Common to all these people was that for sometime before they left and expressed their criticism, they didn't regularly practice Open Heart-teachings anymore. Not practicing, OH-techniques or something else, of course leads into the mind becoming clouded with self-based emotions. The same wold happen to me if I stopped practicing now. In each case I have adressed their concerns through email correspondence because if I hadn't it might be taken as self-ingulgence on my part, and yet adressing criticism that as far as I see it is mainly caused by them not practicing, has felt sheer waste of my time. One of the reasons I wish to speak about this here, among sangha members is because when someone in the future wants to leave and say these same points to me, they already have my answer and I don't need to go through the whole thing again.

Until today I have seen perhaps a couple of hundred bhumi openings in OH-practitioners. Some students have opened few of them, some have opened all of them. I have also verified over 100 awakenings (opening of the 1^st bhumi) and not once, have I heard that any of these people had zero positive effect of any of their bhumi openings. This includes those who eventually left. There has been a small number of openings (1^st or otherwise) that didn't have that much difference but it always had some change, brought some* increased clarity of mind. Those who have kept practicing know perfectly well how great is the difference from having no bhumis open at all compared to having them all open. So, if someone is not practicing while ”not buying” into the OHBM, its not really something anyone can credibly critisize about.

As I have often said OHBM is a map of insight. Maps of insight are abound in buddhism. All schools from hinayana to mahayana to vajrayana have them. OHBM is ours. As said, having first and following awakenings (bhumi openings) makes us actually shift from the deluded state to the liberated state, bit by bit. It is a pity if some see this as a competition between practitioners but that is just their own projection. I always felt that openings of others are an encouragement and motivates my own practice. But if I don't practice while others go through the map of insight and I develop an issue about it, it's a problem in my mind, not in the minds of others. In that situation it is faulty to blame the method or the teacher for it.

Awakenings (whether first or consecutive) are known in most schools of buddhism by different names such as kensho, shinjin, semngo tropa and sotapanna or stream entry. In OH we speak of ”bhumi openings”. Its all the same, same kind of openings, same kinds of gradual clarification of the mind. Getting these openings will automatically make one's mind clear and compassionate because we are tapping into the natural state, buddhanature, more and more. If you don't practice and in consequence don't get insights, how will you ever come to know this?

It has been the custom in some zen buddhist sanghas for the teacher to publicly name and congratulate those who have had kensho on a retreat. I have done the same at our Facebook sangha, naming the person and congratulating on a bhumi opening in question. I have done this from 1^st to 13^th bhumi openings *equally to all* who have had bhumi openings (unless I have forgotten which I apologise). It has brought much joy and liveliness into our online sangha since many people like to congratulate others on their succesful practice. Having seen this positive effect on many in the group is the reason why have kept doing it.

I have always encouraged open discussion on anything. Everyone is also free to come and go as they please. No one is in any way tied to me or the group. Everyone is welcome to disagree with me and have their own opinions. I have also repeatedly discouraged all not to merely believe what I say but to do your own practice to find out these things for yourself. For these reasons mentioning ”cults” has no actual basis whatsoever.

OH sangha members, as always, please feel free to speak your mind openly.

Have a nice day.

Kim

Redefining Bodhisattvas

Redefining Bodhisattvas

A few years ago I read the following quote from Yasutani Hakuun Roshi, a famous Japanese zen buddhist master of the 20^th century:

”In the deepest sense, even the Bodhisattva Kannon (Avalokiteshvara) might be said to be attached to compassion, otherwise he would be a buddha, free of all attachments.*”

*quote from The Three Pillars of Zen, Philip Kapleau

Wikipedia gives the following definition of bodhisattva plus categorises three kinds of them:

”In Buddhism, bodhisattva is the Sanskrit term for anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish and a compassionate mind to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.”

1. king-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to become buddha as soon as possible and then help sentient beings in full fledge;
   
2. boatman-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to achieve buddhahood along with other sentient beings;
   
3. shepherd-like bodhisattva - one who aspires to delay buddhahood until all other sentient beings achieve buddhahood. Bodhisattvas like Avalokiteśvara and Śāntideva are believed to fall in this category.
   

Bodhisattvas going up the hill

By bodhisattvas who are on their way towards the top of the hill, I mean samsaric beings who are still bound by their dualistic vision but who have the motivation and make efforts to become fully realised buddhas for the benefit of all beings, in this, past or future lives.

Bodhisattvas coming down the hill

As Yasutani Roshi and the third category of mahayana bodhisattvas in the Wikipedia article describe, some bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara are said to not have attained buddhahood but are still making their way up the hill towards it while simultaneously answering to the cries of those who suffer below them. This would mean that bodhisattvas like Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Mahasthamaprapta, Akasagarbha, Ksitigarbha and so on, are still subtly deluded with an impaired vision,. This would make them samsaric beings.

It has always made sense to me to turn for example towards Avalokiteshvara, the embodiment of compassion, to receive his blessings and assiatance but it never made sense to me that he would still be a deluded being, more or less like me. At some point I started feeling that there must be some misunderstandings in this view. I would never take refuge in samsaric beings, regardless how subtle their delusion was. Neither would I recommend it to anyone.

One of my criticisms towards Tibetan buddhism and it's high lamas, who extremely rarely actually are living buddhas, is that their followers should not take refuge to lamas who aren't buddhas for certain. Doing this keeps the wheel of samsara spinning and is an impediment for actualisation of the buddhist teaching. If we don't know whether or not one's guru is a buddha or not, we need to find out to be sure. If we don't have ways of finding out, we have to start from the beginning and start thinking about it constructively. This matter cannot be left on faith. I encourage people to study the dharma and to revere and respect their teachers but not taking refuge in samsaric beings. The Open Heart Bhumi Model and it's analytical application reveals what the actual level of anyone's attainment is.

If bodhisattvas were buddhas in the making, they would also have to take refuge in buddhas and mahasiddha gurus, just like us ordinary samsaric beings. This doesn't make much sense.

My understanding is that sambhogakaya bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas of the energetic realms (deities), are fully enlightened buddhas who have gone up the hill to the top and then returned back down to reside on certain areas of the mind (ref. to Bodhisattva Bhumis) to help those who are trapped in the wheel of confusion and ignorance. For this reason bodhisattva deities are actually buddhas who have chosen to do their work from the bodhisattva bhumis (1-10), relating to the vast range of energy centers, that is, the mind of man (sem) and the various realms that can be accessed from each of these centers.

Thank you for reading.

Bows to the Five Jewels.

- Kim, 8.6.2017

Pedagogy of Dharma

Pedagogy of Dharma

In many of my posts I have discussed problems related to the teaching methods of dharma. In constructive spirit, I am here continuing on dharma pedagogy in a casual manner.

Room for improvement

I often wonder how it is possible that there is very low pedagogical standards in transmitting of the dharma. When seeing how poorly teachings and practice instructions are delivered, anyone with some exposure to pedagogical studies probably wonders the same. If we think of any field of study, there are explicit requirements what the students are excepted to learn but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case in buddhism. Fortunately there are some exceptions to this rule but in general it can be said that dharma teachers would have a lot to improve in their skills. 

Practical example of poor pedagogy are extensive yet vague theoretical expositions with little or no relation at all to actual practice. Students listen to their teachers talk hour after hour, year after year and yet their understanding does not grow. I have joined many dharma events where teachers speak extensively yet never explain properly how the given theory is supposed to relate to the practice and have an effect on the minds of the students. I have seen people with over 20 years of diligent study inquire their teachers about the meaning of emptiness to which they were answered the same jargon of emptiness and compassion that is too symbolic to understand, just like it was 20 years before, and every year since.

If students weren't learning, that would make the bells go off in the head of an educated teacher of any other field of study but this doesn't seem to be the case in buddhism. Traditional teachers rarely seem to be able to think outside the box which is a great shame.

If the old ways and methods are not making practitioners (in plural) fully enlightened, or even making a notable number of practitioners evolved, then there is a need for comprehensive re-evaluation. If the old ways worked we would surely see a very different culture of dharma than we are seeing now. 

Like all old religions, buddhism also has the problem of having imbibed much cultural influences from the ancient cultures of the East. While these external influences give each tradition their distinctive outlook through ways, forms, rituals and religious and institutionalised features, this evolution of the outlook can make the core of dharma very unclear and murky. For many Westerners it is easy to see this in their native religion of Christianity but difficult in their chosen form of Eastern buddhism. 

While vagueness of instructions in buddhist meditation is common, at the same time teachers emphasize that the training deals with the mind. That is a valid point but at the same time is not helpful if the instructions actually are vague. Observing these two factors have lead me to think whether various teachers are able to comprehend the profundity of the teachings of the past masters, for example emptiness or the nature of mind which both are the bedrock of buddhist meditation. Vagueness of instructions indicates lack of first hand experience. If one has first hand eperience, one should be able to describe what theoretically seems complex, in a simple and straightforward language without any vagueness whatsoever. Scholarly jargon and excessive theoretical details only get in the way of direct understanding and experience.

Another example of bad teaching habits is talking voluminously yet not addressing the actual topic. It is amazing how some teachers give extensive series's of talks lasting days or even weeks and manage not to talk about anything that would actually be useful. Here the teacher only wastes the time of the students.

Some years ago I bought a set of DVD's on analytical meditation by a famous Tibetan buddhist teacher. The recordings contained 7 hours of talks. However, in all five discs, the actual topic was discussed for only 15 minutes. On average, the teacher, adressed the topic for one minute about every half and hour. What did he talk about then? Praise and hype about the tradition, exciting and illustrative stories of past masters and their great efforts, and loads of silly jokes. Imagine if a school teacher did that. He would get kicked out in weeks or months because there are certain and strict standards.

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche states: ”When I went to the United States for the first time, I was in New York and over that period Dudjom Rinpoche was also there giving a teaching. In the newspaper, there was an announcement saying, 

”Dudjom Rinpoche is giving the supreme teaching of Dzogchen”. Then some of my students went to receive the teaching and we discovered that Dudjom Rinpoche was actually giving a teaching about Refuge, Bodhicitta and other such things. He was teaching on the Four Teachings of Gampopa. He taught (the first) three, but he didn't give the fourth one. The fourth one shows how illusion is tranformed into wisdom. This kind of teaching is more commonly applied in Tantra but it is not necessary in Dzogchen. Many teachers give this teaching, and it is an example of how something can misleadingly be given the title of Dzogchen. It is not so difficult to understand. When you give the title of Dzogchen to something and then teach some technique of practice, how to do Puja, or how to do different kinds of visualisation and transformation, then it is not Dzogchen.”

Giving hasty and poorly defined practice instructions is another common problem. Especially in Tibetan buddhism teachers deliver long talks about the theory. These talks can last hours but when they get to practice instructions, they are too hasty and without the needed detail. I don't mean pithy or concise. After hours or even days of explanation, the teacher can explain the technique in few short sentences and never repeat what he said. I've seen geshes (doctors) and high lamas do this. This causes the students problems because they don't exactly know what they are supposed to do and how. I have met people who practiced for years on the basis of such instructions doing the practice wrong and without getting much benefits. Also, in ”guided sessions” teacher's verbal instructions can be of no use whatsoever again due to vagueness and carelessness. The teacher should always put himself in the place of the listeners, considering what they need to know in order to do the practice correctly. The position of a teacher is a highly responsible one because others rely on his or her instructions. For this reason, a teacher cannot assume that everyone knows what he is talking about, without asking them. The teacher should always make sure the students understand what is taught.

Another common problem is to use too little (or too much) time for the actual practice during dharma events. I've seen both examples. I recently joined a weekend dzogchen seminar of a famous Tibetan lama where literally 1 minute of a 90 minute session was used for practice that was hastily described the previous evening and was never reviewed. After I had survived my dumbfoundedness it was hard for me to comprehend what had just happened because it was both a pedagogical and practical disaster. How is it possible that a lama with decades of exposure to dharma would use his time for travelling to another country and then as a teacher do so poorly in making the crowd interested in the actual practice? I question this because after all that is said, it is the practice that matters, right? How can anyone practice correctly after one single minute of practice based on poor instructions? 

Ngak'chang Rinpoche: "I think that people who are associated with Shambhala center, may not know that Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was the first lama ever to teach silent sitting as a group practice in the Tibetan tradition. This was really quite a radical move. It doesn't seem so radical from the perspective of theravada or zen but certainly from the Tibetan buddhist perspective. Khandro Dechen and I are always very happy if there are zen students who attend our retreats because they know how to sit. The Tibetan students tend to fidget because they are not used to silent sitting. So the reason why Trungpa Rinpoche introduced silent sitting as a group practice is because he wanted to establish a solid foundation for what came afterwards. In the dzogchen tradition we don't have group silent sitting because in the dzogchen tradition there are these ancillary practices. So for example when you sit and come across some obstacle then there are things you can do to that obstacle. There are certain syllables that are enunciated forcefully. Now as you can imagine if there is a whole room full of people who are all occasionally uttering forceful syllables its somewhat distracting. There are also changes in physical posture and there are also exercises that are sometimes quite athletic. However we have taken on this practice of group silent sitting because its extremely valuable in a supportive way as a sangha." from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SthFvUtEp0

Some years ago I heard that there are no group meditations in Tibetan monasteries. For someone with a zen training history, this was a shock and I still don't understand how the Tibetans reasoned that sitting meditation was to be done alone at retreats, or by each person himself in the monastery. Surely sitting together with the sangha for a few hours a day would be (is) highly beneficial.

When teaching dzogchen, the teacher needs to be very careful and skillful in communicating, demonstrating and transmitting the natural state to the students. Ample time in practice together is an absolute requirement for that is the core of it all. All else is just support to this. This is the only way to properly pass the lamp of dharma, the lamp of the natural state. When this is achieved it is the recognition of the natural state that motivates the student, instead of secondary motives like the popularity of the teacher or his lineage.

Starting to do other things immediately after prayer recitation or mantras, without even a moment of conscious recognition, is another common fault. I have seen how teachers and students recite long prayers, from 10-60 minutes, but the moment they are done reading they stand up and get busy with other things. This  indicates a very poor understanding of the energetic side of dharma practice. If the blessings of the guru, The Three Jewels, Bodhisattva Vows, the deities (yidam, ishtadevata) or the energies of prayers are not well recognised by experiencing them in one's own body, heart and mind, then one is not really receiving the blessings, connecting to the lineage and therefore cannot get the proper benefit of the practice. The blessings and energetic charges, that do come about in all kinds of dharma practice from theravada, to mahayana and vajrayana, should be recognised and connected with with one's own body. Not doing this is like wanting to listen to a special radio show and carefully tuning to the right channel but then after tuning in, instead of listening to the special broadcast, beginning to do other things. I have seen dorje lopons (skt. vajracharya) with over 40 years of history do this. I think it is extremely unfortunate because this energetic aspect is the foundation of all dharma, and it is always there regardless of tradition or the vehicle.

Keeping it real

Dharma is about the mind, and mind is an abstract thing. But despite of its abstractness it is possible to speak, transmit and understand it in simple and common terms. If I look at buddhism, more specifically tantric buddhism and dzogchen, in the world today, there are many obvious issues there that would be easy to fix.

I do not claim to be omniscient but here I have discussed some problems that would be easy to fix, if the teachers wanted to. We cannot be too self-sufficient and merely rely on ancient ways. If we are willing to see and can admit, buddhism is not doing too well in terms of releasing suffering. 

We must always question fearlessly and analyse our ways so that we can see our faults. We also should listen and learn from others. Answering questions in a proper manner leads to more thorough understanding, real experiential knowledge. That is the only way to keep dharma alive.

- Kim Katami, 1.6.2017

Open Heart, www.openheart.fi

Open Heart Bhumi-model and other bhumi-models

Open Heart Bhumi-model 

and other bhumi-models

This text is related to this: http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.fi/…/stages-of-spiritual…

Does our bhumi model have resemblance to Tibetan bhumis? Maybe. Probably. Difficult to say based on quite vague descriptions that are usually available, as that at Wikipedia. It's the same kind of thing with the descriptions of paths in theravada which was critisized by Daniel Ingram in his book.

The Open Heart-bhumi model is based on the chakra system of man, which therefore is universal: bhumis 1-6 inside the head between the level of the eyes until the top of the head, and bhumis 7-13 above the crown, related to the 7 chakra system there. I have explained this in the Stages of spiritual attainment-text linked above all parts of Bhumi Study Series. That is also how all these lamas and teachers have been ranked. It is an in-depth study. One really has to study empiripically what this study says and shows in pictures in order to understand it.

I once had a chat with a man (who shall go nameless here) who was asked to teach dzogchen by his Tibetan master and who also is fluent in Tibetan language. I was able to squeeze him enough for him to say that,

"However, there is a correspondence between between levels of realization [the thirteen bhumis] and the location at which the prāṇa vāyu remains stably within the central channel. But this is attendant with the realization of emptiness through completion stage practice and is not purely a function of vāyu's ascent and descent in the central channel."

Other than that I have no experience or knowledge from the orthodox Tibetan tantra or dzogchen camp. But based on this it is likely that there are great similarities. Study the pictures (of the Bhumi Study Series found from this blog). Put people of the same bhumi right next to each other and try to figure out what is identical.

How to check your own bhumi? Or that of others?

I think it would be very useful to discuss how this bhumi-spotting skill can be developed. It's not difficult but it requires detailed study. After this study one can see directly who is who or who is not. This study may come with surprises as in some cases of the study series.

Basicly: There are 6 small chakras inside the head between the level of the eyes and the crown. These centers are in even intervals. Just observe from which level, corresponding to a number of the concerned bhumi, do you observe the external (or internal) world? Where does it open from? Check where it is open and where it is closed. With stream entry, the first bhumi is open, that's where your ground (bhumi) is right after awakening. And the open spot keeps climbing higher, pops up regularly with further mind purification/progress of vipashyana.

The same method of inspection applies with the higher bhumis but then one really has to have good skills to find out the exact one. The higher bhumis can, however, be divided into two main categories: bodhisattva bhumis and mahasiddha bhumis. When you study it and compare the subtle energy of the masters, it becomes evident that there is a significant difference between a bodhisattva and a mahasiddha. And that mahasiddhas, spiritual masters, are actually very rare in physical form.

I am very happy to present this type of mapping of spiritual attainments and offer it to anyone who is interested. If one has the skills, it is applicable to anyone. It doesn't matter which tradition, teacher or practitioner is concerned. This bhumi model transcends the differences in traditions and their respective terms and often difficult or even impossible to understand-descriptions. It gives a different spin on the whole thing. I feel, it is also a big step towards a more complete presentation of pragmatic dharma. But this is just me talking. It is others who have to learn it, apply it and either dump it or use it.

- In most buddhist traditions bhumi openings are talked about. They don't use that name for them but they speak of awakenings, insights, kensho, satori, shinjin, semngo tropa and so on. They all speak of the same openings but as far as I know only in Open Heart these openings are correlated to the energetic body and that is because they do directly correlate to the energy body. I often speak of zen master Hakuin who like his Chinese predecessor spoke of 18 kenshos and many smaller ones. It is logical to think that he didn't have the same awakening again and again as the definition of a kensho is that it is irreversible so therefore it cannot be going through the same door again and again. This indicates that the subsequent awakenings are further awakenings within the awakened state. So if Ta Hui and Hakuin, for example, spoke of having a certain number of kenshos, I am sure many others from many other traditions have also had them. A question arises: Are or could awakenings from the first one onwards be related to the energy body? The answer is of course because it is the karmic energy stored in the energy body, in the energy centers and channels (nadi) which is the cause for having awakenings. If there was nothing there, we would already be fully enlightened buddhas and we could not have any insights. 

Vajrayana and dzogchen teacher Malcolm Smith said:

"However, there is a correspondence between between levels of realization [the thirteen bhumis] and the location at which the prāṇa vāyu remains stably within the central channel. But this is attendant with the realization of emptiness through completion stage practice and is not purely a function of vāyu's ascent and descent in the central channel."

I find that this correlation between the consecutive openings, their perfection and the energy body, specifically, subtle centers (chakras, wheels of energy) is very helpful in mapping where we are because it is sort of like watching the temperature from the thermometer where the mercury at certain locations indicates a certain temperature. So this bhumi model is like measuring tool. I believe that at some point in history the knowledge of mapping bhumis has been existent but then, as often happens, it disappeared. Currently I am going through an extensive body of traditional buddhist materials and articles on bhumis, or grounds, that explain Open Heart Bhumi Model further.

- Kim Katami

Open Heart,
www.openheart.fi