Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby dakini_boi » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:03 pm

from Cascading Waterfall of Nectar, p.20:

Simultaneously born ignorance
Is the dispersion of mindless unawareness
All-naming ignorance
Is clinging to the duality of self and other.
These two, simultaneously born ignorance and all-naming ignorance,
Are the cause of delusion for all sentient beings.


Question:

"simultaneously born ignorance" = innate ignorance
"all-naming ignorance" = imputing ignorance
?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 17994
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:11 pm

dakini_boi wrote:from Cascading Waterfall of Nectar, p.20:

Simultaneously born ignorance
Is the dispersion of mindless unawareness
All-naming ignorance
Is clinging to the duality of self and other.
These two, simultaneously born ignorance and all-naming ignorance,
Are the cause of delusion for all sentient beings.


Question:

"simultaneously born ignorance" = innate ignorance
"all-naming ignorance" = imputing ignorance
?



Yes.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

MalaBeads
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby MalaBeads » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:14 pm

"Naming", whether imputed or spontaneous, is always an occasion of ignorance. If you look at the 12 links of interdependent origination, you will find "naming" as one of the links. When we 'name' something, we are imputing a kind of existence to it. We are saying there is "something" that can be named.

When it comes to Dharma, Thinley Norbu is pretty awesome. I would never try to dispute what he says. I would rather look for how it's the case.
I am well aware of my idiocy. I am also very aware that you too are an idiot. Therein lies our mutuality.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 17994
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby Malcolm » Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:40 pm

MalaBeads wrote: I would rather look for how it's the case.


His translations are overly literal.

lhan cig skyes translates sahaja, which just means innate; but it often literally translated out of Tibetan. Same thing with kun brtags, or parikalpita, a term borrowed from Yogacara in Dzogchen texts, which just means "imputed" or "imagined".

N
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

ngodrup
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby ngodrup » Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:11 pm

Yes, literal and poetic.
I think if one reads Tibetan, It would be very useful to compare his written Tibetan to his written English.
He is extraordinarily Fluent in English -- and in the ca of Waterfall-- he has written more in the English version.

dakini_boi
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby dakini_boi » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:47 pm

Are innate ignorance and imputing ignorance also sometimes translated as "cognitive obscurations" and "obscuration of afflicted emotions"?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 17994
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby Malcolm » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:15 pm

dakini_boi wrote:Are innate ignorance and imputing ignorance also sometimes translated as "cognitive obscurations" and "obscuration of afflicted emotions"?


Never.

However, there are two kinds of avidyā: one is non-afflictive and is a knowledge obscuration; the other is afflictive.

N
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

MalaBeads
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Thinley Norbu's terms for ignorance

Postby MalaBeads » Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:30 pm

dakini_boi wrote:Are innate ignorance and imputing ignorance also sometimes translated as "cognitive obscurations" and "obscuration of afflicted emotions"?


The problem as I see it is reification of appearances. The moment an appearance is reified, ie made into an object, into "something",' it becomes afflictive. If that process does not happen, then the appearance is allowed to self-liberate and there is not a "thing" which is obscuring. Lhun drub is not obscured any way. This only requires a slight shift in perception but that slight shift is contrary to our usual way of perceiving. Buddha's teaching is about the mistakes of perception that humans make.

It's a simple shift but not one that is easy to make.
I am well aware of my idiocy. I am also very aware that you too are an idiot. Therein lies our mutuality.


Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests