Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby Malcolm » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:21 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa), dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both.

I believe they would accept all of that with regards to citta.



But not cit. That was the point.
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: 12146
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby dzogchungpa » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:24 pm

Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:Go tell an Advaitan that cit is conditioned by certain factors of mentality (nama) and materiality (rupa), dependent on contact to give rise to the 6 sense media and to practice by being mindful of the arising and passing of each. You will either get a confused look, be laughed at or both.

I believe they would accept all of that with regards to citta.

But not cit. That was the point.

Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:37 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby dzogchungpa » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:48 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:19 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.

If they agreed they would be a proponent of the dharma. This is the defining principle which separates the two traditions.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby Lotus_Bitch » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:56 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:Yes, I know. I was just pointing out that that kind of thinking would not be unfamililar to them.

It would be unfamiliar to them though, because for the Advaitin, cit is inherently existent and is therefore independent of causes and conditions.

I think it would be familiar to them, they would just disagree with the Buddhists.


You should contemplate why the Advaitans would disagree on this point: since this actually exposes a fundamental divergence in view and practice. Don't be too hasty in concluding that both are the same because of superficial commonality of terminology.
Lotus_Bitch
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby dzogchungpa » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:03 am

Lotus_Bitch wrote:You should contemplate why the Advaitans would disagree on this point: since this actually exposes a fundamental divergence in view and practice. Don't be too hasty in concluding that both are the same because of superficial commonality of terminology.

Thanks for the advice, Lotus_Bitch.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby futerko » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:36 am

It seems that although the difference in view may be seen to be slight, and not knowing much about Advaitin practice maybe someone can either conform or deny this, but it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:32 am

futerko wrote:...It seems that although the difference it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby tobes » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:08 am

asunthatneversets wrote:
futerko wrote:...It seems that although the difference it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.


Surely this lapses into the view that 'the other team' has the wrong view.

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

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:57 am

tobes wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
futerko wrote:...It seems that although the difference it seems to me that the implications for practice are quite far reaching.

The Self [Brahman] of Advaita essentially fortifies and reinforces the personal self, and so (according to the buddhadharma) it fails to transcend samsara. Shakyamuni realized Brahman and found that it did not match the 'liberation free of birth and death' he had heard of, so he pressed on and actualized dharmakāya.


Surely this lapses into the view that 'the other team' has the wrong view.

:anjali:

The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.

It surely isn't as petty as 'lapsing into a view that the other team has it wrong', but the distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby tobes » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:37 am

asunthatneversets wrote:The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.

It surely isn't as petty as 'lapsing into a view that the other team has it wrong', but the distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted.


I'm not interested in defending Vedanta, but if you read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta carefully you could not conclude that Shakyamuni was directly responding to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta. The discursive context is quite particular and sensitive to the problem of duḥkha. This is not to say that it is divorced from an Upaniṣadic context......but clearly a lot of philosophical disputes (i.e. Buddhist vs Orthodox Indian schools) about the nature of the self etc come later.

I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

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

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:38 am

asunthatneversets wrote: The Dzogchen tantras refute Advaita by name. Shakyamuni's doctrine of anātman is a direct response to the ātman/Brahman of Vedanta.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html

"Form, O monks, is not-self;
if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction
O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

The Buddha taught us anatta(not self) to show us what was not nirvana.The teaching wasnt a direct response against Brahma who actually begged the Buddha to teach Dharma after his Enlightenment.
As you can see from this quote anatta(not self) leads to suffering and the reason form leads to suffering is because it is not self(anatta)
If form were self then it would not lead to suffering.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:44 am

Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:17 am

Son of Buddha wrote:Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:30 am

Image
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9784
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:35 am

asunthatneversets wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.


you sure about that?

SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."

P.S. take the Buddhas word for it.
"Sn 22.59 O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

the reason why form leads to suffering is because it is not self.
BUT if form were self then............... please finish that sentence with what the Buddha actually said.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:21 am

tobes wrote:I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

 :anjali:

Views are unavoidable and implied in dualistic interaction. There is no way for the mind to escape views, the mind is a point of reference by definition. Discursive thought proliferates and feeds off its own momentum, and our reality unfolds.

Our expressed views are merely conventional fabrication, both accurate and inaccurate depending on context... no harm can come from discursive proliferation if you understand the nature of your relative condition. 

The cessation of views is accomplished by recognizing the unreality of the mind that suggests them, but departing from views is not something the mind can execute from its own relative vantage point. A cessation of views is impossible in the absence of the wisdom which directly apperceives the emptiness of mind. And so views simply appear, they're extrapolated, and are useful tools. The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view. 

The negation of (and desire to go beyond) views [acceptance and rejection] is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

So express your views loud and proud, and if you lapse into a view then so be it.

"All discursive thoughts are emptiness, and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought. Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought, and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:29 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Wow Tobes we posted the same exact sutta at the same exact time......weird.

Also the Samyutta Nikaya is filled with like 30 suttas where the Buddha is teaching that Anatta(not self) is suffering,that which leads to suffering,and it goes as far in one sutta to say that whatever is without a self belongs to mara.

Actually, the Buddha never once taught that not-self is suffering, and xabir thoroughly refuted this erroneous claim of yours various times due to your inability to traverse your own confirmation biases. Apparently all for naught.

You continue to blatantly misinterpret the sūtras you post as alleged evidence to substantiate your deluded eternalist notions.


you sure about that?

SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."

P.S. take the Buddhas word for it.
"Sn 22.59 O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction."

the reason why form leads to suffering is because it is not self.
BUT if form were self then............... please finish that sentence with what the Buddha actually said.

You are misinterpreting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding these quotes, but if you didn't benefit from the lucid explanation xabir gave you before, then there's no sense in revisiting and readdressing these points now. I enjoy many activities, but repeatedly beating my head against a wall is not one of them.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchen

Postby tobes » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:21 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:
tobes wrote:I agree that distinction and discrimination is necessary and warranted. But what could that possibly be, if not lapsing into a view?

 :anjali:

Views are unavoidable and implied in dualistic interaction. There is no way for the mind to escape views, the mind is a point of reference by definition. Discursive thought proliferates and feeds off its own momentum, and our reality unfolds.

Our expressed views are merely conventional fabrication, both accurate and inaccurate depending on context... no harm can come from discursive proliferation if you understand the nature of your relative condition. 

The cessation of views is accomplished by recognizing the unreality of the mind that suggests them, but departing from views is not something the mind can execute from its own relative vantage point. A cessation of views is impossible in the absence of the wisdom which directly apperceives the emptiness of mind. And so views simply appear, they're extrapolated, and are useful tools. The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view. 

The negation of (and desire to go beyond) views [acceptance and rejection] is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

So express your views loud and proud, and if you lapse into a view then so be it.

"All discursive thoughts are emptiness, and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought. Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought, and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche


I agree with all of this.

Except: a/ For you are clearly rejecting views and accepting what you consider to be apart from (or beyond) views, which is itself a view. This is inescapable. The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection [attachment and aversion], are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional.

I'm simply not doing/advocating that.

All I'm saying is that taking down the Vedanta via Buddhist critique produces, in your words: The mind which seeks to reject views has merely adopted a new view.

If we both agree that there's no real issue with that, then let's move on.

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

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mutsuk, SuryaMitra and 18 guests

>