DO and Emptiness

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby heart » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:16 pm

Namdrol wrote:
heart wrote:So rigpa is dependent originated awareness?

/magnus



Not from a Dzogchen pov.

It would be considered something relative from a Madhyamaka POV.

Different systems, different terms, different understanding. It is good to understand these differences and not conflate the terms of one system with another.


So you are saying that emptiness and DO is not synonyms in Dzogchen? Then I would like to make everyone notice that this is the Dzogchen forum.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby booker » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:20 pm

Namdrol wrote:
heart wrote:So rigpa is dependent originated awareness?

/magnus



Not from a Dzogchen pov.

If Rigpa is not dependently originated then what is emptiness in Dzogchen (since emptiness then can't be equated with DO, right)?
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"
User avatar
booker
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Kai » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:22 pm

Namdrol wrote:Different systems, different terms, different understanding. It is good to understand these differences and not conflate the terms of one system with another.


Agree with you.....Actually, thats what I'm trying to tell you when we discussed about "16 Bhumis and the five paths" thingy not long ago....
Kai
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:28 pm

heart wrote:
So you are saying that emptiness and DO is not synonyms in Dzogchen?

/magnus


Of course not.

They are synonymous in Madhyamaka.

N
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:29 pm

Kai wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Different systems, different terms, different understanding. It is good to understand these differences and not conflate the terms of one system with another.


Agree with you.....Actually, thats what I'm trying to tell you when we discussed about "16 Bhumis and the five paths" thingy not long ago....


Right, but in Dzogchen, the sixteen path thing both encopasses the ten and thirteen bhumi system, as well as it is also used to describe thogal visions. It has both readings.
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Kai » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:34 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Kai wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Different systems, different terms, different understanding. It is good to understand these differences and not conflate the terms of one system with another.


Agree with you.....Actually, thats what I'm trying to tell you when we discussed about "16 Bhumis and the five paths" thingy not long ago....


Right, but in Dzogchen, the sixteen path thing both encopasses the ten and thirteen bhumi system, as well as it is also used to describe thogal visions. It has both readings.


Like I said before, I haven't read about or come across the former POV yet. But I'm keeping a rather open mind about it....Of course, if you want, we can discuss about it again in that thread.

:focus:
Kai
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:17 pm

booker wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
heart wrote:So rigpa is dependent originated awareness?

/magnus



Not from a Dzogchen pov.

If Rigpa is not dependently originated then what is emptiness in Dzogchen (since emptiness then can't be equated with DO, right)?



Emptiness is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in Dzogchen. Not because Nāgārjuna is wrong.
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby deepbluehum » Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:34 pm

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Sure it does.


In your dreams. ;)



Whatever arises dependently,
just that you hold to be emptiness

Lokātītastava

That is dependent orgination,
that you hold as emptiness...
Emptiness is not different than things,
there is also no thing without it;
therefore, you have shown dependently originated
phenomena are empty.

Acintyastava`

I could go on in many other treatises not by Nagarjuan, but these suffice to make my point.

Dependent origination = emptiness. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

N


Whatever is dependently originated
That is explained to be emptiness.


I get you can quote this verse. But why stop there?
Next verse same stanza.

That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.


You need this second part of the formulation to avoid students who will otherwise think that emptiness, like a Buddha, does not exist. Even the mode of knowledge is emptiness!

It is not that dependent origination is emptiness, therefore everything in samsara and nirvana is dependently originated. It is that everything is emptiness, including dependent origination (samsara) and nirvana (not originated). DO and emptiness are just dependent designations in the realm of consciousness. The Tathagata is not originated but the non-origination of error. See Nagarjuna's chapters on the Tathagata, Nirvana and Error.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby deepbluehum » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:03 pm

Namdrol wrote:
heart wrote:
So you are saying that emptiness and DO is not synonyms in Dzogchen?

/magnus


Of course not.

They are synonymous in Madhyamaka.

N


Not synonymous in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka. The Tathagata's emptiness is not DO'd in Nagarjuna's world, and ignorance never never came into being. I think this complies quite nicely with Dzogchen's understanding of gzhi.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:51 pm

It is that everything is emptiness, including dependent origination (samsara) and nirvana (not originated).


There are no other phenomena apart from dependently originated phenomena. Space and the two cessations are not real.

As Buddhapalita explains. "If there is something which exists, it must originate dependently and be designated dependently. Why? There are no phenomena at all that are not dependently originated, therefore, a non-empty phenomena does not exist."
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:03 pm

deepbluehum wrote:The Tathagata's emptiness is not DO'd in Nagarjuna's world, and ignorance never never came into being. I think this complies quite nicely with Dzogchen's understanding of gzhi.


What do you think a tathāgata's emptiness is?
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby deepbluehum » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:32 pm

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:The Tathagata's emptiness is not DO'd in Nagarjuna's world, and ignorance never never came into being. I think this complies quite nicely with Dzogchen's understanding of gzhi.


What do you think a tathāgata's emptiness is?


Unafflicted so no arising, dependent or independent.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby deepbluehum » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:33 pm

Namdrol wrote:
It is that everything is emptiness, including dependent origination (samsara) and nirvana (not originated).


There are no other phenomena apart from dependently originated phenomena. Space and the two cessations are not real.

As Buddhapalita explains. "If there is something which exists, it must originate dependently and be designated dependently. Why? There are no phenomena at all that are not dependently originated, therefore, a non-empty phenomena does not exist."


Yes. Yes.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby deepbluehum » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:48 am

Namdrol wrote:If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other.


This denies a conventional usage based on valid relative cognition. Everyone knows what is meant by the term "mind." Everyone has one. When describing conventionally "what is this mind like?", then we use the term "nature of mind" to describe a valid object of negation for the purpose of either analysis or meditative investigation.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:29 am

deepbluehum wrote:
Namdrol wrote:If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other.


This denies a conventional usage based on valid relative cognition. Everyone knows what is meant by the term "mind." Everyone has one. When describing conventionally "what is this mind like?", then we use the term "nature of mind" to describe a valid object of negation for the purpose of either analysis or meditative investigation.



Now you are just uttering refutations for the hell of it -- without bothering to read context.

It was queried whether the nature of the mind could exist whether there was a mind or not -- but such an assertion has obvious flaws, like asserting wetness without water, or heat without fire.

N
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:31 am

deepbluehum wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:The Tathagata's emptiness is not DO'd in Nagarjuna's world, and ignorance never never came into being. I think this complies quite nicely with Dzogchen's understanding of gzhi.


What do you think a tathāgata's emptiness is?


Unafflicted so no arising, dependent or independent.


You are asserting that dependent origination has afflicted emptiness? How can emptiness be afflicted?
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby deepbluehum » Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:59 am

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
What do you think a tathāgata's emptiness is?


Unafflicted so no arising, dependent or independent.


You are asserting that dependent origination has afflicted emptiness? How can emptiness be afflicted?


Sentient beings are afflicted, Tathagatas are not.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby booker » Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:49 am

Namdrol wrote:Emptiness is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in Dzogchen. Not because Nāgārjuna is wrong.

Thanks.

You answered Rigpa is not dependent originated awareness, but you say it's empty. Obviously this is a contradiction, but you say in Dzogchen dependent origination means something else. Can you please clarify?

Also, in Dzogchen there is said "emptiness" is our real nature, but also there's term "base", then base is explained in terms of essence, nature and energy. How this is the same as Dependent Origination from Madhyamaka? Is Madhyamaka DO different to traditional Pali DO (12 links, starting with ignorance, from it fabrications, from it consciousness, from it name-and-form... and so on).

Cheers.
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"
User avatar
booker
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby muni » Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:40 am

Describing wave separates from ocean,
the bright ocean cannot describe.
muni
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: DO and Emptiness

Postby Malcolm » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:03 pm

booker wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Emptiness is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in Dzogchen. Not because Nāgārjuna is wrong.

Thanks.

You answered Rigpa is not dependent originated awareness, but you say it's empty. Obviously this is a contradiction, but you say in Dzogchen dependent origination means something else. Can you please clarify?

Also, in Dzogchen there is said "emptiness" is our real nature, but also there's term "base", then base is explained in terms of essence, nature and energy. How this is the same as Dependent Origination from Madhyamaka? Is Madhyamaka DO different to traditional Pali DO (12 links, starting with ignorance, from it fabrications, from it consciousness, from it name-and-form... and so on).

Cheers.



First, one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory, stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part, Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent phenomena at all.

Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK.

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa).

N
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: 12326
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

>