"...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby tobes » Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:35 pm

Simon E. wrote:What interests me about DW is the possibility of a mutually supportive exchange concerning the experential.
I have no interest in cognitions around that.
But please feel free to address those who are so interested.


You are asking for an impossible thing. There can be no mutually supportive exchange concerning the experiential without cognitions.

We are not sitting in meditation with each other, we are writing to each other. Your expressed lack of interest is also a cognition, as is your consistent refrain that other people are suffering from papanca. One thing I cannot grasp: how is that you are free from cognitions and concepts whilst writing on an internet forum?? And if you are not free, then why do you think others ought to be free??

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby ConradTree » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:18 am

Malcolm wrote:
ConradTree wrote:
But Rongzom says Dzogchen rejects any relative truth.

Dzogchen only subscribes to 1 truth.


Well, we were talking about sutra.

Further, Dzogchen rejects the two truths, because relative "truth" is not true, being a deluded cognition. But Dzogchen does not reject appearances which appear to ignorance (ma rig pa).

Dzogchen substitutes vidyā and āvidyā (rig pa and ma rig pa) for the term "pāramārtha satya" and "samvṛitti satya".

Also one will discover that Dzogchen, in rejecting the two truths, also rejects ultimate truth, as it states in The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra:

    Since there is no ultimate, also the name “relative” does not exist.

And as it says in Soaring Great Garuda:

    Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
    there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate.

M


Is there a published source on these quotes?

It would really help me out.
ConradTree
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:22 pm

ConradTree wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
ConradTree wrote:
But Rongzom says Dzogchen rejects any relative truth.

Dzogchen only subscribes to 1 truth.


Well, we were talking about sutra.

Further, Dzogchen rejects the two truths, because relative "truth" is not true, being a deluded cognition. But Dzogchen does not reject appearances which appear to ignorance (ma rig pa).

Dzogchen substitutes vidyā and āvidyā (rig pa and ma rig pa) for the term "pāramārtha satya" and "samvṛitti satya".

Also one will discover that Dzogchen, in rejecting the two truths, also rejects ultimate truth, as it states in The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra:

    Since there is no ultimate, also the name “relative” does not exist.

And as it says in Soaring Great Garuda:

    Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
    there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate.

M


Is there a published source on these quotes?

It would really help me out.


Well, not these exact translations, for they are mine, but you can find them in the Supreme Source, or Dowman's Original Dzogchen.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:30 pm

Malcolm wrote:
So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate.

M


This sounds like nihilism, can you please explain what is affirmed by Dzogchen? Anything?

Thank you :smile:
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:48 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate.

M


This sounds like nihilism, can you please explain what is affirmed by Dzogchen? Anything?

Thank you :smile:


Self-originated wisdom, rang byung ye shes, svayambhujñāna, the three kāyas, everything thing else is false, thus there is no basis for establishing an ultimate since the relative is merely a delusion (and the ultimate of Madhyamaka can only be established relatively). Dzogchen texts frequently state there is only one stage, buddhahood.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dzogchungpa » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:31 pm

Malcolm wrote:...the ultimate of Madhyamaka can only be established relatively ...

Can you expalin that a little more?
Note that, in the higher tantras, there is talk of a self and an I, even though in the lower teachings the absence of self and the absence of I is what is always proclaimed. - Tony Duff
To educate the educated is notoriously difficult. - Jacques Barzun
སརྦ་དྷརྨ་དྷཱ་ཏུ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:38 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:...the ultimate of Madhyamaka can only be established relatively ...

Can you expalin that a little more?



It means that according to Madhyamaka there are two so called ultimates, one is nominal, the other is the direct perception of emptiness.

But from a Dzogchen point of view, since all relative truths are objects of false cognitions, even the cognition of the nominal ultimate is faulty. The only thing that is true is the cognition of dharmatā. That most certainly requires some kind of direct introduction which is lacking in Sutra teachings. The main advantage to Vajrayāna teachings is that dharmatā or the example wisdom, is introduced during the time of empowerment. In the case of gsar ma, it is the introduction of bliss and emptiness at the time of the third and fourth empowerments; in the case of the Dzogchen it is the introduction of the potentiality of vidyā during anyone of the four styles of empowerment, elaborate, unelaborate and so on.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby dzogchungpa » Mon Feb 03, 2014 7:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:The only thing that is true is the cognition of dharmatā. That most certainly requires some kind of direct introduction ...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it supposed to be obvious that this requires some kind of direct introduction?
Note that, in the higher tantras, there is talk of a self and an I, even though in the lower teachings the absence of self and the absence of I is what is always proclaimed. - Tony Duff
To educate the educated is notoriously difficult. - Jacques Barzun
སརྦ་དྷརྨ་དྷཱ་ཏུ་ཨཱཏྨ་ཀོ་྅ཧཾ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."

Postby Malcolm » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:19 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The only thing that is true is the cognition of dharmatā. That most certainly requires some kind of direct introduction ...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it supposed to be obvious that this requires some kind of direct introduction?


It is not obvious at all, hence the reason one is considered fortunate to meet secret mantra.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Previous

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], heart, Longigon and 24 guests

>