- Forum
- Sanghas
- Dharma Forum Refugees Camp
- Dharma Refugees Forum Topics
- Reading, Listening and Viewing Recommendations
- Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
- Kate Gowen
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 2340
11 years 5 months ago #19518
by Shargrol
Replied by Shargrol on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Kate, in your honest opinion... is it worth my overcoming my moderate aversion to Alan Wallace to watch this? I'll do it if you think it will put hair on my chest. (Is that even a spiritually appropiate metaphore???
)

- Kate Gowen
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 2340
11 years 5 months ago #19520
by Kate Gowen
Replied by Kate Gowen on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
I'll get back to you on that! And perhaps you could be more explicit about the composition of the aversion? In the interest of giving a good assessment.
11 years 5 months ago - 11 years 5 months ago #19522
by Shargrol
Replied by Shargrol on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Well... I like dzogchen so its not that... I guess I've had the feeling that AW is often trying to promote monastic experience as being the final authority and finding ways of promoting himself in his talks. Different flavors of that.
But I'm willing to suffer for the good stuff
But I'm willing to suffer for the good stuff

Last edit: 11 years 5 months ago by Shargrol.
- Kate Gowen
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 2340
11 years 5 months ago - 11 years 5 months ago #19534
by Kate Gowen
Replied by Kate Gowen on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Oh, why suffer-- this from Reggie Ray is so perfect! (7 minutes or so in: "Being human is as good as it gets.")
Last edit: 11 years 5 months ago by Kate Gowen. Reason: added text
11 years 5 months ago #19539
by Shargrol
Replied by Shargrol on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Thanks Kate! (For other's, it's 12 minutes in.) I've really been liking Reggie's vibe lately. Seems like a few decades ago he was kinda gritty, but now he has a softness that... Well, let's just say that it's really neat when men start losing some of their testosterone because you get another look into the human in there. You can feel a bit of his teddy bear heart.

- Kate Gowen
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less
More
- Posts: 2340
11 years 5 months ago #19541
by Kate Gowen
Replied by Kate Gowen on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen-- and Reggie Ray
He said a number of things on a range of topics that really struck me: his account of the obligation of the students to do more than venerate the teacher in perpetuity; the emphasis of simplicity, ordinariness, and ever-presentness as the essence of practice; what Vajrayana owes to China, rather than India, for its evolution; about being unclear about being "Buddhist" but clear about being a meditator.
Less
More
- Posts: 606
11 years 5 months ago #19550
by Femtosecond
Replied by Femtosecond on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Wallace sounds like he likes to listen to himself talk
11 years 3 months ago - 11 years 3 months ago #20086
by Shargrol
Replied by Shargrol on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Reviving this thread to post a very concise article that pretty much articulates my "problem" with Alan Wallace. It was linked to on David Chapman's twitter feed:
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/b-...nd-buddhist-dualism/
to cut to the chase, the author's conclusion:
Conclusion
I find Wallace’s position similar to the famous “kettle defense” – he seems to be marshaling whatever arguments he thinks he can use to defend his beliefs, but he is not articulating a coherent position. The reason is clear enough – he is making the classic mistake of starting with a desired conclusion (merging Buddhist mysticism with modern science) and then working backwards. To achieve these ends he tries but fails to make scientific arguments for dualism and he simultaneously tries to fudge the rules of science to sneak in mysticism as evidence to support his side.
Also he utterly mangles quantum mechanics theory in an attempt to argue that – science says the world is weird, and my beliefs are weird, therefore science supports my views. The logic of this argument fails, but it doesn’t matter because the premise if (NOTE: I think this is a typo, should be "is" not "if") wrong – quantum weirdness disappears at the macroscopic level.
In the end Wallace does no better than anyone who tries to subvert science to support any ideology.
theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/b-...nd-buddhist-dualism/
to cut to the chase, the author's conclusion:
Conclusion
I find Wallace’s position similar to the famous “kettle defense” – he seems to be marshaling whatever arguments he thinks he can use to defend his beliefs, but he is not articulating a coherent position. The reason is clear enough – he is making the classic mistake of starting with a desired conclusion (merging Buddhist mysticism with modern science) and then working backwards. To achieve these ends he tries but fails to make scientific arguments for dualism and he simultaneously tries to fudge the rules of science to sneak in mysticism as evidence to support his side.
Also he utterly mangles quantum mechanics theory in an attempt to argue that – science says the world is weird, and my beliefs are weird, therefore science supports my views. The logic of this argument fails, but it doesn’t matter because the premise if (NOTE: I think this is a typo, should be "is" not "if") wrong – quantum weirdness disappears at the macroscopic level.
In the end Wallace does no better than anyone who tries to subvert science to support any ideology.
Last edit: 11 years 3 months ago by Shargrol.
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
11 years 3 months ago #20087
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
I would assert that the world IS weird, and that our understanding of it is incomplete and may always be incomplete. For me, from a common sense perspective, it makes more sense to say, "I don't know" than to take either side in an absolutist way, which is what science actually does anyway.
11 years 3 months ago #20092
by Ona Kiser
Replied by Ona Kiser on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
There seems to be a fairly broad impetus in some spiritual circles to try to embrace scientific vocabulary or ideas in order to bridge the presumed gap for those who find spirituality "weird" but might find it approachable if the words were changed. It's perhaps a bit of an impulse to say "look, I know you think this is irrelevant and bizarre, but let me try to use words you like, and concepts you feel confident in, and restate it that way." Sometimes this is helpful, sometimes it's just awkward.
I went to a Tibetan monk's talk here in Brazil once, and I remember nothing of it except that he made some weird attempt to parallel something he was saying with Christianity, assuming that might make it more helpful to an audience who didn't know much about Tibetan Buddhism. His analogy was really wacky, and made no sense (he clearly had only the vaguest notions about Christianity), but I understood what he was trying to get at.
I find myself in odd places with ecumenical efforts, sometimes, as my personal tendency has always been to prefer to engage with traditions on their own terms, and in a rather hardcore way. Thus when I've gone to "Catholic" retreats where things were made gentle and squishy to be more welcoming to those who might otherwise find it all too challenging, I was always a bit frustrated. On the other hand, when I teach people, I throw vocabulary around like wet noodles, using whatever language, analogies, stories or exercises seem to work to help them work through the issues they are struggling with.
So I suppose that which is intended as skillful means can sometimes end up just being a pile of wet noodles.
But sometimes it helps someone get it, who otherwise might be baffled. And sometimes it baffles those who otherwise might have gotten it. Big ole messy world.
I went to a Tibetan monk's talk here in Brazil once, and I remember nothing of it except that he made some weird attempt to parallel something he was saying with Christianity, assuming that might make it more helpful to an audience who didn't know much about Tibetan Buddhism. His analogy was really wacky, and made no sense (he clearly had only the vaguest notions about Christianity), but I understood what he was trying to get at.
I find myself in odd places with ecumenical efforts, sometimes, as my personal tendency has always been to prefer to engage with traditions on their own terms, and in a rather hardcore way. Thus when I've gone to "Catholic" retreats where things were made gentle and squishy to be more welcoming to those who might otherwise find it all too challenging, I was always a bit frustrated. On the other hand, when I teach people, I throw vocabulary around like wet noodles, using whatever language, analogies, stories or exercises seem to work to help them work through the issues they are struggling with.
So I suppose that which is intended as skillful means can sometimes end up just being a pile of wet noodles.

11 years 3 months ago - 11 years 3 months ago #20094
by Shargrol
Replied by Shargrol on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Right. It's one thing to try to bridge the gap between people and fail with good intentions.
EDIT: And it is very interested when someone "tries" to do this, but basically in doing so, they reveal how they are "talking down" to others rather than actually trying to meet in the middle.
The AW thing is a little sideways to that, where he is critiquing the limited scope of science... but then saying all will be right if science investigates what he is interested in. He even says, oh this might not hold water, but at least -- you must admit kind listener -- that it is worthy of investigation. Basically playing both sides.
So... In the end, it feels a bit slick. I'll even go so far as saying that when I've listened to his "argument" it sounds much more like a "pitch". I hear it as we should be supporting people financially who have access to these experiences -- at least for a while, you know, in the name of science. Some of this is tainted, perhaps, by one role I have in being on a panel that gives out grants... but perhaps that also makes me sensitive to "pitching" ideas.
Just as a final note. I totally think there are many many things that present a psychic, intuitive, magical, etc. etc. etc. So no worries there.
Well, anyway. I'm actually looking forward to getting his vibe in person at BG 2014. I'm totally willing to be completely wrong.
EDIT: And it is very interested when someone "tries" to do this, but basically in doing so, they reveal how they are "talking down" to others rather than actually trying to meet in the middle.
The AW thing is a little sideways to that, where he is critiquing the limited scope of science... but then saying all will be right if science investigates what he is interested in. He even says, oh this might not hold water, but at least -- you must admit kind listener -- that it is worthy of investigation. Basically playing both sides.
So... In the end, it feels a bit slick. I'll even go so far as saying that when I've listened to his "argument" it sounds much more like a "pitch". I hear it as we should be supporting people financially who have access to these experiences -- at least for a while, you know, in the name of science. Some of this is tainted, perhaps, by one role I have in being on a panel that gives out grants... but perhaps that also makes me sensitive to "pitching" ideas.
Just as a final note. I totally think there are many many things that present a psychic, intuitive, magical, etc. etc. etc. So no worries there.
Well, anyway. I'm actually looking forward to getting his vibe in person at BG 2014. I'm totally willing to be completely wrong.
Last edit: 11 years 3 months ago by Shargrol.
Less
More
- Posts: 1139
11 years 3 months ago #20095
by every3rdthought
Replied by every3rdthought on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
I know I've said this before, but I really recommend anyone interested in this question read Donald Lopez's The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Basically, in the modern age (since the 17th/18th C) the basic paradigm of value in the West is 'the scientific method' - rationalism, empiricism, etc (there are lots of counter-trends to this, and the Western view of Buddhism itself plays out the conflict between Enlightenment rationalism, and Romanticism, but that's too long a conversation to go into). 'Science' is also the set of stories we currently tell ourselves to explain who we are, how the world started, what the universe is, and so on. Basically, that paradigm is what gives anything truth and value. So if we hold that paradigm, but we also hold Buddhism to be true and valuable, then we need to somehow reconcile them, which is an endeavour that's been going on since Westerners started studying Buddhism seriously in the 19th century.
I very often see teachers doing this, and to me it's not necessary (and often, frankly, a bad fit, as you point out above) because personally it's not useful to me to want to reconcile those two things - I'm quite happy for something to be true and valuable without fitting a 'scientific' paradigm. But I can see how this can be a good and useful path for others, and it's what's always happened when Buddhism (and not only Buddhism, that's just what we happen to be talking about here) meets another culture with another deep set of values and myths - for example, its encounter with Daoism in China and Japan, which can be seen so deeply in Zen/Ch'an.
Lopez has two other books which address this issue more specifically - Buddhism and Science, and The Scientific Buddha - which I want to read.
I very often see teachers doing this, and to me it's not necessary (and often, frankly, a bad fit, as you point out above) because personally it's not useful to me to want to reconcile those two things - I'm quite happy for something to be true and valuable without fitting a 'scientific' paradigm. But I can see how this can be a good and useful path for others, and it's what's always happened when Buddhism (and not only Buddhism, that's just what we happen to be talking about here) meets another culture with another deep set of values and myths - for example, its encounter with Daoism in China and Japan, which can be seen so deeply in Zen/Ch'an.
Lopez has two other books which address this issue more specifically - Buddhism and Science, and The Scientific Buddha - which I want to read.
Less
More
- Posts: 6503
- Karma: 2
11 years 3 months ago #20098
by Chris Marti
Replied by Chris Marti on topic Alan Wallace intro to Dzogchen
Maybe I'm crazy but I don't see a problem with holding Buddhism as a great practice and science as a great practice, with no conflicts. What is ultimately "true" seems to be an ever evolving reality for both my meditation practice and for science. Maybe the apparent conflicts are caused by dogmatism on both sides
