Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Postby dakini_boi » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:28 pm

Namdrol wrote:
The nature of appearances is empty, that is correct. But then you have to ask the question: do appearances arise? They seem to , but do they? Do appearances remain, they seem to, but do they? Appearances seem to vanish. They seem to, but do they? When you understand that appearances do not arise, remain, or vanish, then you understand the emptiness of appearances. If appearances do not in reality arise, remain or vanish, how could their emptiness arise, remain or vanish?

N


Namdrol,

How is this view different from nihilism?
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:46 pm

dakini_boi wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
The nature of appearances is empty, that is correct. But then you have to ask the question: do appearances arise? They seem to , but do they? Do appearances remain, they seem to, but do they? Appearances seem to vanish. They seem to, but do they? When you understand that appearances do not arise, remain, or vanish, then you understand the emptiness of appearances. If appearances do not in reality arise, remain or vanish, how could their emptiness arise, remain or vanish?

N


Namdrol,

How is this view different from nihilism?


Annihilationism is the assertion that something existent becomes non-existent.

To discover whether the view above is annihilationism, we have examine how appearances arise. First, if an appearance is an existent, can it arise from another existent? Or does it arise from a non-existent? As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms; and the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible. To address this, Nāḡrjuna writes:

An existent does not arise from an existent;
an existent does not arise from a non-existent;
a non-existent does arise from an existent;
a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent —
where then can there be an instance of arising?


If the arising of existents is not established, the arising of appearances is not established. If arising is not established, remaining is not established, and likewise, perishing is not established. If the three, arising, remaining and perishing, are not established, then there is no reason to accept the charge of annihilationism since I never suggested that there was an existent entity that could perish.

All we are left with is empty appearances: they are not real because no existence, etc., can be ascertained regarding them; they are not unreal since they appear. All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence.


N
N
Last edited by Malcolm on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Postby conebeckham » Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:49 pm

Ya, Baby!










Sorry, just feeling a bit silly today. But that was a great post. :smile:
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Postby dakini_boi » Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:19 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Annihilationism is the assertion that something existent becomes non-existent.



Thank you, Namdrol. I'm still a bit confused - I thought nihilism was defined as the view that nothing exists. (which ignores the fact that things do appear) But I gather from your posting, this is an imprecise definition?
dakini_boi
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am

Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:43 pm

dakini_boi wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Annihilationism is the assertion that something existent becomes non-existent.



Thank you, Namdrol. I'm still a bit confused - I thought nihilism was defined as the view that nothing exists. (which ignores the fact that things do appear) But I gather from your posting, this is an imprecise definition?



Ucchedavada (literally "advocating cutting off") is the view that an entity which exists (such as a self) becomes non-existent (thus negating rebirth, karma and so on).

If you cannot find any existent there is no reason to propose non-existence.

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

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12735
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?

Postby Fa Dao » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:03 pm

Namdrol...love it!!..mind blowing stuff...if I was younger I would probably roll up a fatty and contemplate that for 6 hours or so and completely blow my mind.
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Fa Dao
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Previous

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests

>