A friend said something I thought was insightful that people should hear. He did not want to post this openly himself, though. Really says something about the level of intellectual honesty in contemporary Buddhist discourse, no? Anyway, posting because I think it's useful. 1/6
Dudjom Lingpa will do anything to help you accomplish this, even if it means supplying you with an oversimplified model of phenomena." [/Quote] 6/6
-
-
Bullshit! Dudjom Lingpa SAID what Dudjom Lingpa MEANT. Your Buddhist friend is just as deluded as 100 percent of Buddhists.
-
Did Dudjom Lingpa tell you that?
-
Look, it's better than trying to work angles like "he SAID that, but he musn't have REALLY MEANT THAT." Come on. Fucker said, fucker meant.
-
By the way, if you read the quote again, all he said was that he "found it useful" to consider the words as a teaching rather than a metaphysical assertion. I think this is where we got off the rails.
-
One can play Dzogchen philosophy without ever actually recognizing the nature of mind as practice. One doesn't need to play Dzogchen philosophy to recognize the nature of mind as practice. This makes no claim about what he did or didn't literally mean in a metaphysical sense.
-
There is a danger of people playing metaphysical language games, thinking they are practicing Dzogchen, but not gaining any insight. It is therefore more *useful* to take his words as teachings, if the goal is liberation.
-
This doesn't rule out the possibility that his statements were also literally metaphysical in nature. Maybe you're right about that. I would just posit that this is a separate inquiry.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.