Hua Tou and Dzogchen

[Fa Dao]

For those who have had experience in both Chan and Dzogchen:
When one shatters the "Great Doubt" as in Hua Tou practice from the Chan lineage how would the resultant state be viewed according to Dzogchen?

[kalden yungdrung]

For those who have had experience in both Chan and Dzogchen:
When one shatters the "Great Doubt" as in Hua Tou practice from the Chan lineage how would the resultant state be viewed according to Dzogchen?

Tashi delek,

If shatters does mean here to cut the great doubt, then this state could be the state of Trekchod.
Here one does abide in non-duality that is the cut with duality.

But i am not sure which doubt is cutten here in Chan"an Buddhism.
Maybe explain this first (shattering the Great Doubt according the point of view in Zen) to the non-Zen people. Then we can start with comparisons etc.

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Malcolm]

For those who have had experience in both Chan and Dzogchen:
When one shatters the "Great Doubt" as in Hua Tou practice from the Chan lineage how would the resultant state be viewed according to Dzogchen?

What does shattering great doubt mean?

N

[Fa Dao]

In the hua tou method one is given a meditation topic/question. For example, "Who is dragging this corpse around?" or "Who is chanting Buddhas name?" You are instructed to continually ask this question until one pointedness is achieved. Great doubt is developed from asking a question that does not have an answer that the logical/rational/thinking mind can answer. One keeps pushing and pushing to come up with an answer nonetheless. Eventually one breaks through and the separateness of mind, body and world drops away leaving one with a deep understanding of shunyata.

[Malcolm]

In the hua tou method one is given a meditation topic/question. For example, "Who is dragging this corpse around?" or "Who is chanting Buddhas name?" You are instructed to continually ask this question until one pointedness is achieved. Great doubt is developed from asking a question that does not have an answer that the logical/rational/thinking mind can answer. One keeps pushing and pushing to come up with an answer nonetheless. Eventually one breaks through and the separateness of mind, body and world drops away leaving one with a deep understanding of shunyata.

Tregcho is based on recognizing the nature of mind directly, and staying in that state.

N

[Fa Dao]

From my limited understanding of chan realizing the nature of mind is realizing emtiness. So then in your estimation you would say it is similar to Tragcho?

[Malcolm]

From my limited understanding of chan realizing the nature of mind is realizing emtiness. So then in your estimation you would say it is similar to Tragcho?

The nature of the mind is not just emptiness, it is clarity and emptiness inseparable. The emphasis in tregchö is on this.

[Inge]

From my limited understanding of chan realizing the nature of mind is realizing emtiness. So then in your estimation you would say it is similar to Tragcho?

The nature of the mind is not just emptiness, it is clarity and emptiness inseparable. The emphasis in tregchö is on this.

This reminds me of a quote attributed to Hsuan Hua:

"If you understand the Zero, you know it to be the True Emptiness, which contains Wonderful Existence, and the Wonderful Existence, which contains True Emptiness. True Emptiness does not obstruct Wonderful Existence and Wonderful Existence does not obstruct True Emptiness. True Emptiness is not empty and so it is called Wonderful Existence; Wonderful Existence is non-existent and is therefore called True Emptiness--empty and non-empty, existing and not existing."

Are you talking about the same thing?

[Malcolm]

From my limited understanding of chan realizing the nature of mind is realizing emtiness. So then in your estimation you would say it is similar to Tragcho?

The nature of the mind is not just emptiness, it is clarity and emptiness inseparable. The emphasis in tregchö is on this.

This reminds me of a quote attributed to Hsuan Hua:

"If you understand the Zero, you know it to be the True Emptiness, which contains Wonderful Existence, and the Wonderful Existence, which contains True Emptiness. True Emptiness does not obstruct Wonderful Existence and Wonderful Existence does not obstruct True Emptiness. True Emptiness is not empty and so it is called Wonderful Existence; Wonderful Existence is non-existent and is therefore called True Emptiness--empty and non-empty, existing and not existing."

Are you talking about the same thing?

This is referring to appearance and emptiness, object side.

N

[Inge]

This is referring to appearance and emptiness, object side.

N

I see. Could you explain a little what is meant by clarity?

[Malcolm]

This is referring to appearance and emptiness, object side.

N

I see. Could you explain a little what is meant by clarity?

"Clarity" means the fundamental aspect of the mind that illuminates objects for the mind separate from the content of the mind. That clarity is very difficult to discover.

[Inge]

This is referring to appearance and emptiness, object side.

N

I see. Could you explain a little what is meant by clarity?

"Clarity" means the fundamental aspect of the mind that illuminates objects for the mind separate from the content of the mind. That clarity is very difficult to discover.

How does it illuminate objects? Are there any synonymous words for this, as I find that hard to understand. Does the clarity illuminate objects in order for the mind to be able to see those objects?

And what does it mean to discover this clarity? Can this clarity be seen, or is it experienced like some kind of state, or something else entirely?

[Malcolm]

And what does it mean to discover this clarity? Can this clarity be seen, or is it experienced like some kind of state, or something else entirely?

Clarity is the cognitive aspect of the mind that knows objects. So in sense, what one is trying to see is the knowing knower itself, apart from what it knows.

[Inge]

And what does it mean to discover this clarity? Can this clarity be seen, or is it experienced like some kind of state, or something else entirely?

Clarity is the cognitive aspect of the mind that knows objects. So in sense, what one is trying to see is the knowing knower itself, apart from what it knows.

Ok, that is more easy to understand. To see the knowing knower itself, is this the same as knowing the knower? Or seeing the seer, experiencing the experiencor, being aware of awareness ...?

[Jinzang]

Realization is realization, no matter how you get it. There are various descriptions of levels and stages of realization, but it's difficult to know what level someone has reached. They may just be expressing themselves poorly.

[Malcolm]

And what does it mean to discover this clarity? Can this clarity be seen, or is it experienced like some kind of state, or something else entirely?

Clarity is the cognitive aspect of the mind that knows objects. So in sense, what one is trying to see is the knowing knower itself, apart from what it knows.

Ok, that is more easy to understand. To see the knowing knower itself, is this the same as knowing the knower? Or seeing the seer, experiencing the experiencor, being aware of awareness ...?

The difficulty is that a knower is conditioned. This clarity is unconditoned.

[Fa Dao]

Is it even possible to have an experience of emptiness without clarity? and if so, how?

[Inge]

The difficulty is that a knower is conditioned. This clarity is unconditoned.

In what way is a knower conditioned?
Does conditioned mean that it depends on something? I only know the term "condition" as in causes and condition, but I'm not certain about the distinction between the two.

Must the cognitive aspect recognize itself?

[ngodrup]

The thing to appreciate, it seems to my mind, is that recognition
according to trekchod would be essentially equivalent to the seeing
of an Arya Being on the Path of Seeing or a first bhumi Bodhisattva.
I very much doubt that all these facile comparisons of Dzogchen to
Chan or Zen bear much resemblance to the actual seeing of an Arya.
... but I may be mistaken.

[Inge]

The thing to appreciate, it seems to my mind, is that recognition
according to trekchod would be essentially equivalent to the seeing
of an Arya Being on the Path of Seeing or a first bhumi Bodhisattva.
I very much doubt that all these facile comparisons of Dzogchen to
Chan or Zen bear much resemblance to the actual seeing of an Arya.
... but I may be mistaken.

Regarding first bhumi Bodhisattvas, I was once told that Nagarjuna was one of those. Does anybody know if that is correct?