DO and Emptiness

[booker]

Thanks Namdrol.

However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty (...)

I heard basis is empty, however it is also said it is beyond causes and conditions, beyond time and space. What causality you mean by "causality in the basis"?

[Malcolm]

However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty (...)

I heard basis is empty, however it is also said it is beyond causes and conditions, beyond time and space. What causality you mean here?

The causality that causes the lights to shine out of the basis, which when recognized (rig pa) results in nirvana and when not recognized (ma rig pa) results in samsara.

[booker]

Okay, but then, in causality, a certain effect can not be own cause, is that correct?

You were saying basis arises from (or out of) basis so that would mean it is own cause?

Also, typically what is illusion is "within" causes and conditions. In Dzogchen it is often said about out true condition, or true state (which I believe is equivalent terms to basis or kunzhi) which is beyond causes and conditions. Meaning basis does not depend on causes and conditions. How then you say base is illusory?

Or is simply basis name for shunyata, which means not "a thing", and means rather "how" everything works, like say a law. And in this way obviously a law has no condition, because it's just how we express the way of how stuff works. So in this case Dzogchen would not say anything above what is taught in Mahayana. Right?

But then again no, because Dzogchen speaks of rays, light and so on. And AFAIK these are beyond causes and conditions, but how they work is they manifest samsara if one has marigpa or they manifest nirvana when one has rigpa, right? But since they are esssence of those, they're not conditioned by those (by samsara/nirvana).

So what happens here we have say five rays, but they're not phenomenas right? (since all phenomenas arise from causes and conditions, and they "exists" in samsara/nirvana).

Not sure what is precisely about Advaita and I do not really care, however if we say basis is empty, that would mean rays for example would arise from causes and conditions - but this doesn't make sense, since they don't, right? They're essence of elements, so they can't be conditioned by elements, or anything. No?

[Malcolm]

Okay, but then, in causality, a certain effect can not be own cause, is that correct?

You were saying basis arises from (or out of) basis so that would mean it is own cause?

Also, typically what is illusion is "within" causes and conditions. In Dzogchen it is often said about out true condition, or true state (which I believe is equivalent terms to basis or kunzhi) which is beyond causes and conditions. Meaning basis does not depend on causes and conditions. How then you say base is illusory?

Or is simply basis name for shunyata, which means not "a thing", and means rather "how" everything works, like say a law. And in this way obviously a law has no condition, because it's just how we express the way of how stuff works. So in this case Dzogchen would not say anything above what is taught in Mahayana. Right?

But then again no, because Dzogchen speaks of rays, light and so on. And AFAIK these are beyond causes and conditions, but how they work is they manifest samsara if one has marigpa or they manifest nirvana when one has rigpa, right? But since they are esssence of those, they're not conditioned by those (by samsara/nirvana).

So what happens here we have say five rays, but they're not phenomenas right? (since all phenomenas arise from causes and conditions, and they "exists" in samsara/nirvana).

Not sure what is precisely about Advaita and I do not really care, however if we say basis is empty, that would mean rays for example would arise from causes and conditions - but this doesn't make sense, since they don't, right? They're essence of elements, so they can't be conditioned by elements, or anything. No?

You need to study this in a systematic way. It would take me days and days to fully answer these questions -- I am sorry, but I do not have the time. Perhaps one of our resident dzogchen masters is up to the task.

[Acchantika]

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

Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

[booker]

You need to study this in a systematic way. It would take me days and days to fully answer these questions -- I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

No worries, thanks.

Perhaps one of our resident dzogchen masters is up to the task.

?

[heart]

You need to study this in a systematic way. It would take me days and days to fully answer these questions -- I am sorry, but I do not have the time. Perhaps one of our resident dzogchen masters is up to the task.

/magnus

[Sönam]

Perhaps one of our resident dzogchen masters is up to the task.

?

I would recommand you "The Practice of Dzogchen" By Longchen Rabjam (presented, translated, etc ... by Lama Thondup), and specially part II where Longchen Rabjam will directely answer to all the question you've asked ... you can even found a copy for free on the net, if you are not afraid for your karma.

Sönam

[booker]

Thx Sönam!

/edit./ ouch, the book looks wise, although the explanations are really heavy

[deepbluehum]

This explanation by Namdrol is very good. I myself appreciate it. I am certainly no dzogchen expert, but I will try to give the basic understanding that essence, nature and energy are in a sense interdependent. The energy is spontaneous compassion, thugs rje. Nothing arises without a cause';, the compassion arises from the clarity-emptiness-compassion, interdependent. Therefore, the form bodies of a buddha naturally appear to benefit sentient being and bodhisattvas in the manner naturally suited to each of them. Because there are sentient beings and bodhisattvas, the form bodies appear. Otherwise, nothing appears. After the fourth stage of Thogal, there is exhaustion of appearances, which is to say, the exhaustion of dependencies. And it is basically stated that if there are sentient beings to benefit countless form bodies, including the rainbow body, will appear for their benefit until the end of samsara. Otherwise, there is resultant dharmakaya in the manner of the youthful vase body. The term "beyond cause and effect," means the manner of dzogchen practice is spontaneous, and "action" is "spontaneity" which is another name for "non-action." Because there is no "action" there is no "effect." So it is "beyond cause and effect." This is in contrast to the path of sutra and tantra of two-yogas that the samsaric being or bodhisattva must conduct him or herself in accord with precepts, etc. I hope this is somewhat correct. I'm also struggling with some of these ideas myself and I hope I can begin to make better sense of it soon.

[treehuggingoctopus]

You need to study this in a systematic way. It would take me days and days to fully answer these questions -- I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

No worries, thanks.

Booker,

Have you considered taking up SMS training? Rinpoche's 'Precious Vase' is precious indeed, and may well provide you with pretty systematic and detailed answers to at least some of the questions you ask.

[booker]

Ye. I was looking at that. One needs much karma yoga for this and a quite stability in the state of contemplation - and I'm too new to the community yet. But perchaps in the future, who knows

[treehuggingoctopus]

Ye. I was looking at that. One needs much karma yoga for this and a quite stability in the state of contemplation - and I'm too new to the community yet.

I'm certainly not trying to convince you to give it a go. However, I'd like to point out that in order to start the training the 'stability in the state of contemplation' is certainly not a requirement - you have it, great, you don't, well, don't worry too much and get down to work; and if you don't have any time for karma yoga whatsoever right now, you surely can postpone it for some time - no-one will mind that.

(Again, the above 'you' is general and impersonal - I'm not attempting to persuade you to anything.)

[booker]

I got you point mate, no worries

[booker]

Hmmmm, Namrdol ofen says emptiness in Madhyamaka and Dzogchen has the same meaning, however currently I'm reading "Undbounded Wholeness" by Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and there's a part called "Core Philosophical Issues" where it's stated "Dzogchen and Madhyamaka speak of emptiness, they differ in their actual understandings of this".

Interesting.

/edit/
Nice quote: "a vital point: only if wisdom and delusion do not exclude each other can wisdom be primordial."

Yay

/edit2/ and more nicer quite "Wisdom's status as primordial has to do with its being spontaneously arisen from the base and thus not dependent on causes."

Tadaa

Definitelly nice reading this

/edit3/ whoops: "Sound, rays, and light are thus neither dependent on the base nor dependency arisen from the base. They are spontaneously present to it. This is not understood as a relationship of cause and effect."

[Malcolm]

Hmmmm, Namrdol ofen says emptiness in Madhyamaka and Dzogchen has the same meaning, however currently I'm reading "Undbounded Wholeness" by Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and there's a part called "Core Philosophical Issues" where it's stated "Dzogchen and Madhyamaka speak of emptiness, they differ in their actual understandings of this".

Bon Dzogchen and Buddhist Dzogchen are slightly different.

What we say is that the main difference between Dzogchen view and Madhyamaka view is that the former is experiential and the latter is intellectual. But their content, their meaning, is the same as Jigme Lingpa writes:

“ I myself argue ‘To comprehend the meaning of the non-arising baseless, rootless dharmakāya, although reaching and the way of reaching this present conclusion “Since I have no thesis, I alone am without a fault”, as in the Prasanga Madhyamaka system, is not established by an intellectual consideration such as a belief to which one adheres, but is reached by seeing the meaning of ultimate reality of the natural great completion.

Norbu Rinpoche states in his Questions and Answers on the Great Perfection:

That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that.

What the Bonpos say is that Dzogchen view of emptiness and the Madhyamaka view of emptiness are different. We Buddhists definitely disagree.

"a vital point: only if wisdom and delusion do not exclude each other can wisdom be primordial."

That does not match well with this statement in the String of Pearls Tantra:

The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.

"Wisdom's status as primordial has to do with its being spontaneously arisen from the base and thus not dependent on causes."

The Unwritten Tantra states:

There is not object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.

If it arose, that means that even in wisdom there are processes. Wisdom is the basis, BTW.

"Sound, rays, and light are thus neither dependent on the base nor dependency arisen from the base. They are spontaneously present to it. This is not understood as a relationship of cause and effect."

The basis possess three wisdoms, essence, nature and compassion. They manifest as sound, lights and rays. However, the Bonpos place much more emphasis on this doctrine than Buddhist Dzogchen does (where it mainly appears as an explanation of the experience of the bardo).

My point was that the there are processess in the basis, whether you want to call them "causal" or not is really quite irrelevant.

And actually Buddhist Dzogchen disagrees with this Bon assessment above. Padmasambhava states:

"Though the trio of essence, nature and compassion exist in reality, they occur as cause, condition and result because of ignorance."

But this is partly why I did not want to get into this. This topic is very complex, and is just a bunch of intellectual proliferation if you are not a practitioner of tögal. Just understand that there are processes in the basis. You can call them spontanous if you want.

Padmasambhava again states:

The luminous part of vidyā in the basis stirs as the five lights. The karmic winds, the condition of vidyā, cause the colors to appear as a house of light. Since that is not understood as wisdom, delusion cognizing the part of dualistic appearances produces delusion about the duality of subject and object.

Garab Dorje explains the reason why there is stirring in the basis in his commentary on The Single Son of the All the Buddhas Tantra:

At that time, from the naturally occurring blessings of the personal experience of the realization of the heart essence (snying thig), having recognized one's own state, in one lifetime, everyone will attain the result of Buddhahood. From now on, the emptied pit of samsara will not appear as the six kinds of living beings. For twenty thousand eons, sentient beings will not appear possessing a bodily form having severed the stream of samsara. After that, from the arising of the subtle latent defilements of different actions, samsara and nirvana will arise in the same way as before.

Why is this possible? Again, the String of Pearls clarifies:

Luminosity itself stores traces.

Luminosity ['od gsal], the nature [rang bzhin], which is the naturally formed [lhun grub] aspect of the basis, stores traces.

As I said, these issues are subtle, difficult and would take a long time to properly flesh out. Since these things take a long to time to flesh out, and since the explanation of the basis and the arising of the basis and so on and forth is really only relevant to tögal practice and is meant to provide a basis for understanding the result of that practice, delving into explorations of that topic prior to understanding the context of that explanation causes people to become trapped in a lot of useless conceptual proliferation.

Incidentally, I do not appreciate the tone of your comments.


N

[booker]

Norbu Rinpoche states in his Questions and Answers on the Great Perfection:

That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that.

What the Bonpos say is that Dzogchen view of emptiness and the Madhyamaka view of emptiness are different. We Buddhists definitely disagree.

Yep, in the book I mentioned (which I feel need to study) says Madhyamaka fails to say about origin and only says about how phenomenas relate.
(right also says that is a point of modern debate with mentioned Gelukpas).

And actually Buddhist Dzogchen disagrees with this Bon assessment above.

Thanks, didn't yet know Buddhists Dzogchen and Bon Dzogchen are different Dzogchen to degree of disagreement on (a seem to be) one of essential points.

About what you said on processes: whether they are casual or not - actually from the point of DO this is very important as DO is not beyond causes and conditions, that is, it relates to dependent phenomenas only. If someone says rays, light, and sound has nothing to do with causes and conditions means they has nothing to do with processes which DO is about. And how they actually possibly could, being beyond time and space? Process needs time and space, this trio is not in time and space.

How this is not relevant?

Incidentally, I do not appreciate the tone of your comments.

Not sure why, but ok, in any case you read them wrong then.

[Malcolm]

Thanks, didn't yet know Buddhists Dzogchen and Bon Dzogchen are different Dzogchen to degree of disagreement on (a seem to be) one of essential points.

About what you said on processes: whether they are casual or not - actually from the point of DO this is very important as DO is not beyond causes and conditions, that is, it relates to dependent phenomenas only. If someone says rays, light, and sound has nothing to do with causes and conditions means they has nothing to do with processes which DO is about. And how they actually possibly could, being beyond time and space? Process needs time and space, this trio is not in time and space.

How this is not relevant?

From a Madhyamaka pov there no phenomena which do not dependently orginate. From a Buddhist Dzogchen pov, the basis is not established as something real.

If you think there is something real that exists outside of time, you are deluded beyond hope of recovery.

The reason we say that the basis is "outside of time" is that from the perspective of the basis itself there are no objects, and time depends on objects. If no objects or entities can be established, how can we talk about dependencies or time? But that does not mean there are no processes, because if there were no processes, the basis could never arise from the basis, and so on.

There are a lot of differences between Bon and Buddhist Dzogchen. Since Bon Dzogchen is not fully grounded in Buddhism, it is a somewhat eternalistic in its presentation of these issues.

N

[booker]

But that does not mean there are no processes, because if there were no processes, the basis could never arise from the basis, and so on.

Ok however typically a process is never outside cause and effect. Does then you mean basis arise out of basis by the law of causality?

Also if basis arise out of basis isn't this mean it's a noumen, something Buddhism used to deny?

If you think there is something real that exists outside of time, you are deluded beyond hope of recovery.

Can we say it's undeluded when seeing things exist real within time and space?

Also, what you say seem to be asserting there's nothing which is not conditioned by time and space, by causes and conditions but in this way then also liberation (that is releasing from the cycle of rebirth) is not possible, since it would be just another conditioned state.

I'm just trying to understand some terminology here.

Please, what you mean by things like "a condition beyond time, beyond dualism, pure and perfect"? Is that simply an experiential absence of perception of time, space and dualism?

What does it mean when it's said a particular tantra has been written beyond time therefore it can't be answered when someone is asking when it was written?

Since Bon Dzogchen is not fully grounded in Buddhism, it is a somewhat eternalistic in its presentation of these issues.

Well... in the book they say they're not.

In Madhyamika treastises and oral traditions, dependent arising is often
said to be synonymous with emptiness. The term "dependent arising" never
appears in Authenticity, and in any case, it does not sufficiently characterize
how things occur. They are more significantly seen to arise from wholeness
through a manifestation process that gradually splits into apparent subject and
object, hardening and coarsening until they become solid materiality.20 To call
these phenomena "dependent arisings" is not wrong in this view but fails to
indicate their final nature.21 "Dynamic display" (rtsal) is a more precise term
ontologically for Dzogchen because it indicates this connection with the base;
it acknowledges the table as a spontaneous occurrence through the sound, rays,
and light that move forth from the base. As the process coarsens, thought
begins to designate it in certain ways. Thus, it is both spontaneous and reified
due to thought processes of designating it as such.

Whereas to understand dependent arising is to understand the emptiness
of Madhyamaka, such an understanding does not lead to the Dzogchen view.
From a Dzogchen perspective, the same table that Madhyamaka describes as
a dependent arising and therefore empty is, in addition, the dynamic display
of the base (gzhi'i rtsal). The main difference between spontaneous presence
and dependent arising comes not in connection with ordinary objects like
tables, however, but in relation to the base itself, especially in its aspect as
ultimate subject and in the way that phenomena, including thoughts, emerge
from that base. A classic Dzogchen example of spontaneous presence is the
emergence of thoughts unbidden, coming "without any planning"23 when you
try to look into your nature. For the philosopher-practitioner reading Authenticity,
there is neither ontological need for nor soteriological benefit in establishing
or negating such thoughts.
In a cause-and-effect relationship, the sense of separation is strong—a
cause ceases when its effect arises. For Dzogchen, the base is always unified
with sound, rays, and light, as well as with whatever further manifestation they
take on. Sound, rays, and light are thus neither dependent on the base nor
dependency arisen from the base. They are spontaneously present to it. This
is not understood as a relationship of cause and effect.
In Madhyamaka, dependent arising is a "middle way" between the unacceptable
extremes of inherent existence and nonexistence. In Authenticity,
spontaneous presence is a touchstone for its understanding of the middle way.
We noted earlier a passage concerning the principle of indefiniteness in relation
to the middle way. Let us revisit the passage with a focus on its significance
for spontaneity:

OBJECTION: In your view, is the base definitive (ngespa) or
not?24 If definite, it is sure to be either existent or nonexistent. If definitively
existent, there would be the fault of eternalism. Why? Because
it is definitively existent. If definitively nonexistent, there
would be the fault of an extreme of annihilation. Why? Because it
would not exist. If the base is not definitive, there would be the faults of saying
it is undefined (lung ma bstan) and of contradicting the cause and
effect of actions. There would be no definiteness which could match
the understanding (dgongs) [of a Buddha]. Why? Because the base26
is not definite. Thus there would be the fault of having no kernel
of a method,28 that is to say, no definiteness regarding the bonnature.
Obviously, you cannot agree; it would be false and deceptive [if
you did]. Why? Because [in that case] you have neither definiteness
nor the kernel of a method.

RESPONSE: It is not like that. In the heart essence of all bonphenomena
of cyclic existence and nirvana is the very essence of
spontaneous occurrence; therefore, this is not an extreme of eternalism.
Nor is this an extreme of annihilation because the clarity of
the enlightenment mind, open, conscious awareness is unceasing


This is, according to Authenticity, Dzogchen's own middle way. To call the
unceasing clarity itself an open, conscious awareness is like saying there is
light in the sun because the sun is light. From the Dzogchen perspective,
Madhyamaka fails to adequately emphasize the presence and indivisibility of
clarity and emptiness. Further, especially in the Geluk commentarial tradition
patterned after Tsongkhapa, emptiness is an object of the wisdom consciousness,
meaning that wisdom itself cannot be emptiness. This is a theme that
continues into contemporary debates between Dzogchen and, especially, Geluk
discussions of Madhyamaka.

Thanks.

[Malcolm]

Also, what you say seem to be asserting there's nothing which is not conditioned by time and space, by causes and conditions but in this way then also liberation (that is releasing from the cycle of rebirth) is not possible, since it would be just another conditioned state.

Liberation in Dzoghen, like all Buddhist schools, is predicated on the cessation of afflictions, and that is predicated on the eradiction of ignorance (avidyā), which is the obscuration of knowledge. Therefore, liberation is not a conditioned state in any Buddhist school.

Please, what you mean by things like "a condition beyond time, beyond dualism, pure and perfect"? Is that simply an experiential absence of perception of time, space and dualism?

Yes.

What does it mean when it's said a particular tantra has been written beyond time therefore it can't be can answer when someone is asking when it was written?

It means the tantra in question arises directly out of someone's experience of being liberated. That experience of liberation may exist in time [x was liberated on y date], conventionally speaking, but it's content is not dependent on time, since it is not dependent on really existing objects and so on, upon which time itself depends. Therefore, asking when a tantra was written is a text critical question, rather than a question of ultimate authorship.

In Madhyamika treastises and oral traditions, dependent arising is often
said to be synonymous with emptiness. The term "dependent arising" never
appears in Authenticity, and in any case, it does not sufficiently characterize
how things occur. They are more significantly seen to arise from wholeness
through a manifestation process that gradually splits into apparent subject and
object, hardening and coarsening until they become solid materiality.20 To call
these phenomena "dependent arisings" is not wrong in this view but fails to
indicate their final nature.21 "Dynamic display" (rtsal) is a more precise term
ontologically for Dzogchen because it indicates this connection with the base;
it acknowledges the table as a spontaneous occurrence through the sound, rays,
and light that move forth from the base. As the process coarsens, thought
begins to designate it in certain ways. Thus, it is both spontaneous and reified
due to thought processes of designating it as such.

Whereas to understand dependent arising is to understand the emptiness
of Madhyamaka, such an understanding does not lead to the Dzogchen view.
From a Dzogchen perspective, the same table that Madhyamaka describes as
a dependent arising and therefore empty is, in addition, the dynamic display
of the base (gzhi'i rtsal). The main difference between spontaneous presence
and dependent arising comes not in connection with ordinary objects like
tables, however, but in relation to the base itself, especially in its aspect as
ultimate subject and in the way that phenomena, including thoughts, emerge
from that base.

Bonpos can say all they like there are no processes in the basis, but then they render their whole explanation unintellgiable.

N