'Non-duality' and 'neutrality'

[alpha]

can you actually see something?
because mind can only see things other than itself.

and if this is so that somehow means that when looking at itself it cannot see anything....

if it were to see anything that would be something different from itself.

[Malcolm]

can you actually see something?
because mind can only see things other than itself.

The Yogacara Madhyamakas like Santarakshita accept that mind is self-knowing (svasaṃvedana).

N

[Yontan]

If you are a Hindu, sure. But not if you are a Buddhist.

That's not fair. Suffering happens, Grandma happens. They don't have a static basis for independent ontological status, but you must allow that there is a symantic conundrum involved in they are not here.

As for the original topic, I don't think this is particularly a Dzogchen issue. Any effort toward rights and wrongs — especially righting wrongs — is best framed in the bodhisattva context, which as mentioned is similarly not beyond the four extremes.

[aside: I want to know who is using the term "non-dual" for anything other than nyime.]

[gregkavarnos]

Like all these discussions it comes down to not so much as whether they exist or not, but HOW they exist!

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

The point is that none of us are realized and none of us can maintain rigpa all the time. Since this is so when this occurs we must be in the habit of developing the rupakaya via the accumulation of merit.

In Ati Dzogpa Chenpo, vows are substituted by the continuity of the state of rigpa; however, when this state is interrupted, we must avoid manifesting selfish conduct, and to this end we must keep the presence or mindfulness of responsible awareness. Furthermore, when we are unable to keep the Dzogchen state of rigpa, we will have to keep the immediately lower precepts; when we cannot keep these, we must keep the immediately lower ones—and if we cannot keep any of the other sets of precepts or conform to any of the other principles, we will have to keep the vows of the Hinayana if we have them, or otherwise at least avoid the ten nonvirtuous actions and so on.
Elias Capriles

[Pema Rigdzin]

If you are a Hindu, sure. But not if you are a Buddhist.

That's not fair. Suffering happens, Grandma happens. They don't have a static basis for independent ontological status, but you must allow that there is a symantic conundrum involved in they are not here.

As for the original topic, I don't think this is particularly a Dzogchen issue. Any effort toward rights and wrongs — especially righting wrongs — is best framed in the bodhisattva context, which as mentioned is similarly not beyond the four extremes.

[aside: I want to know who is using the term "non-dual" for anything other than nyime.]

Not sure why you think Namdrol's statement is not fair. If someone holds an ontological view that is expressly negated by the Buddhist teachings, but we concede to continue to call such a person a "Buddhist", then the label "Buddhist" loses all meaning. Where does it stop? Is there some greater limit to the disparate notions one can hold and still be considered a Buddhist so that one's view falls within that limit? Or can one believe, say, and do any manner of contradictory things and still be considered to be an "adherent" to the Buddhist teachings?

[muni]

The nature of phenomena is nondual,

but each one, in its own state, is beyond the limits of the mind.

There is no concept that can define the condition of "what is"

but vision nevertheless manifests:

all is good.

Everything has already been accomplished, and so, having overcome the sickness of effort,

one finds oneself in the self-perfected state:

this is contemplation. (six vajra verses.)


'Although apparent phenomena manifest as diversity ---
yet this diversity is non-dual.
And of all the multiplicity
of individual things that exist,
none can be confined in a limited concept.
Staying free from the trap of any attempt
to say 'it's like this', or 'like that',
it becomes clear that all manifested forms are
aspects of the infinite formless,
and, indivisible from it,
are self-perfected.
Seeing that everything is self-perfected
from the very beginning,
the disease of striving for any achievement
is surrendered,
and just remaining in the natural state
as it is,
the presence of non-dual contemplation
continuously spontaneously arises." Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche about. _/\_

[White Lotus]

you can assume that neither existence nor non existence is a buddhist position, likewise you can assume that neither being nor non being is a buddhist position. actually the buddist has no position within the tetralemma and yet all positions.

if you assert neither nor, that is no different from asserting either or, either existence or non existence, you are still confined within the tetralemma.

in my view, any position within the tetralemma can be taken with integrity. this is since what you seek is what you find. you create your own reality.

give me a statement that is not within the tetralemma and so is not attached/abiding in a certain postion.

existence is far more complex than neither nor. it is emptiness. since it is emptiness it is not rigidly fixed in any one stance or position.

it is nice that someone defends me with ''it is not fair'', but respect to Namdrol for taking an orthodox, though illogical position. neither nor is no different from either or, both are simply empty.

free your minds.

best wishes, Tom.

[Pema Rigdzin]

Tom,

The 4 possible views dismantled by the tetralemma are (1)existent, (2)nonexistent, (3)both existent and nonexistent, and (4)neither existent nor nonexistent. Now, realistically, no one really holds the belief in the last two options. We either believe something exists or it doesn't. Therefore it makes perfect sense that if in conversation you destroy those two views, you don't have to then destroy the last two because they were never an option in an ordinary person's mind to begin with.

And what is truly illogical is to say that one can hold any view in the tetralemma can be "taken with integrity." First, all of Madhyamaka is aimed at destroying any possible view, so this means all four views in the tetralemma. The point is not to hold an ultimate view because whatever it is, it's a distortion. Ultimate truth is beyond all 4 possible extremes. Even with emptiness... Ultimately one must go beyond the extreme of objectifying emptiness.

[White Lotus]

i argue Pema, that any approach is valid from the perspective of he who holds it. any of the four tetralemma may be held as valid. all true, like wise from the perspective of madhyamaka all positions in the tetralemma may be taken as false. one likes to talk a lot, the other doesnt have much to say. as you seek, so you find, what you want is what you look for, what you look for becomes your position.

madhyamaka's non position is actually a position.

free your mind!

best wishes, Tom.

[Yontan]

PR, what's contested here is a semantic issue, not an ontological one.
English has a number of verbs [to be, to exist, to happen, to manifest, to abide, to affect, etc.] that are not directly back-translatable into Tibetan or Snskrt without some serious over-glossing of subtleties. Tom's point seems to be that the ontological status of things can be shoo'ed away by realizing that there is no non-thing to be seen. Yes, you drank coffee this morning. No, it did not non-exist.
What makes you a Buddhist is an earnest attempt to comprehend the Four Seals, and taking refuge in the Three Jewels.
That things "have no inherent existence" does not preclude the above-mentioned subtleties and their linguistically challenging assertions.There have been and always will be certifiably Buddhist Buddhists with some very wrong views. To some extent that's all of us until we completely ripen our knowledge.

[White Lotus]

if we keep an open mind, and put up no walls...

of the coffee we had this morning:

it can be said to exist, to not exist, both to exist and not exist at the same time, to neither exist nor not exist at the same time, all of these positions, or none of them. all or none, at the same time. free!

keeping an open mind we are aware of the possibilites in all of these positions.

Pema Rigdzin, in certain sutras the buddha speaks in terms of neither nor. this does not mean that he is attached to that position.

the humble statement ''i exist'', being no less true than ''who or what is there to exist?'' and who or what is speaking of existing... not a thing.

just trying to say that keeping an open and free mind is important to my practice, it may not be for you, but it makes life a lot easier for me... and no doubt complicates things for some others.

best wishes, Tom.

[Yontan]

Well said. It seems Namdrol was stressing the point between Dharma and Advaita, and there is definitely confusion there these days, at least in the West. Hopefully that point was not lost.

[Pema Rigdzin]

White Lotus and Yontan,

You are both apparently missing the point that masters like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, etc went to such lengths to explain. Any ultimate view at all is a wrong view. The point is to drop all views and truly be free rather than painting oneself into a corner with any of the 4 extreme views. Of course, since in order to teach or communicate this, language is generally necessary, it is pretty well universally considered acceptable to make skillful statements like "phenomena are free of the four extremes" and that "they are empty while nonetheless merely appearing", etc. (while having an understanding of the actual condition of phenomena). But to take hold of any ontological extreme such as "it exists" or "it doesn't exist" and to think that taking such a stance is not flawed would be naive.

[muni]

'Although apparent phenomena manifest as diversity ---
yet this diversity is non-dual.
And of all the multiplicity
of individual things that exist,
none can be confined in a limited concept.
Staying free from the trap of any attempt
to say 'it's like this', or 'like that',

IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ALL MANIFESTED FORMS ARE
ASPECTS OF THE INFINITE FORMLESS,
AND, INDIVISABLE FROM IT,
ARE SELF-PERFECTED.

Seeing that everything is self-perfected
from the very beginning,
the disease of striving for any achievement
is surrendered,
and just remaining in the natural state
as it is,

THE PRESENCE OF NON-DUAL CONTEMPLATION.

continuously spontaneously arises." Chögyal Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche.

"THIS IS DZOGCHEN PRACTICE. Sharing among Sangha okay, still discursive-analytical discussions ABOUT is running away from our naturally state, which one already can have recognized but runs in debates ABOUT, away from how it is. Can be harmful to get lost in the fabrications. There is no conventional-absolute truth in Dzogchen. There is not "a bit pregnant and a lot pregnant" and so in Dzogchen is no sharpening "each others mind", but the faith in ones own nature = TRUST in the vital force of devotion (letting go devoted trust in ideas) in the DHARMAKAYA-Dzogchen masters' pointing the nature out ONLY".

Joke: may all your dreams come true.

edit: For clarity for all of us the words of Namkhay Norbu Rinpoche La:

"The goal of Tantra is non-duality. Dzogchen takes non-duality as its starting point, path, and result..."
_/\_

[White Lotus]

thank you muni, yontan and pema... its hard not to take a position Pema. contra Nagarjuna, i would say that true freedom is to see that taking a position is no different from not taking a position. both are empty, both are the natural state. emptiness.

muni, i would say that you cant get away from the fundamental. its everywhere you look, everything you do and think. naturally so. fabrications cannot deceive, the fundamental cannot be stained. You cannot run away from the natural state, but you can see that the natural state is emptiness, this is it, that is it, within without, the same flavour. it always has been, this normal sensation we experience in our daily lives.

non duality is emptiness.

best wishes, Tom.

[Yontan]

I'm not at all taking a position in this argument, except to note that there's room for "Buddhists" who do not subscribe to Nagarjuna, Dzogchen, etc., etc.

[heart]

thank you muni, yontan and pema... its hard not to take a position Pema. contra Nagarjuna, i would say that true freedom is to see that taking a position is no different from not taking a position. both are empty, both are the natural state. emptiness.

So drinking a glass of water is the same as not drinking a glass of water? Both are empty.

/magnus

[Sönam]

thank you muni, yontan and pema... its hard not to take a position Pema. contra Nagarjuna, i would say that true freedom is to see that taking a position is no different from not taking a position. both are empty, both are the natural state. emptiness.

So drinking a glass of water is the same as not drinking a glass of water? Both are empty.

/magnus

or ... drinking a glass of water is the same than drinking a glass of wine let's drink a couple of what ever glasses!

Sönam

[muni]

Dzogchen is not "one who merely understands emptiness and tells about". Awareness-emptiness=nonduality.

One looking to the sky and talking about the nonsubstantiality of the appaerance cloud in that sky, or standing near the lake staring to how is the moon in it, is not our nature. There is no viewer staring to a view and analyse it.
In awareness-emptiness is no discussion HOW it is, possible.

All Dharma discussions leading to understanding are jewels. Discussing about HOW is Dzogchen, is fooling all the precious teachings; Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana-studies as just game, remaining in suffering.

Having no knowledge at all, only sharing what wisdom whispers, pointing to NO DEBATE possible IN DZOGCHEN other than MA RIGPA. (in last one, I am great).

ps. "let's drink a couple of what ever glasses": whatever...freed...