Dzogchen cosmogeny
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:41 pm
Namdrol wrote: As I have stated elsewhere, Dzogchen cosmology is just a minor variation on the standard abhidharma cosmology. In Abhidharmakośa, at the end of the eon, all sentient beings are reborn in the two upper form realms, where their minds are in a state of dharmatā. After twenty anatarakalpas, intermediate eons, because of traces of latent afflictions, the air mandala forms and so on, resulting in a container universe which is repopulated by sentient beings who take birth in it from top to bottom.
In Dzogchen, at the end of the previous mahākalpa, all sentient beings attain "buddhahood" after taking birth in the Kalavinkaloka. Then after twenty thousand eons while samsara and nirvana does not appear (this is called the bardo (antara) of samsara and nirvana in dzogchen texts), because of the lingering traces of affliction and action left over from the last eon, the basis becomes stirred, the five lights shine out and there is a chance for recognition or non-recognition by the neutral awareness(es) that is/are obscured by the innate ignorance of mere non-recognition while the basis is in a latent state. Depending on the fact of recognition or non-recognition, there is Samantabhadra and sentient beings.
Thus, we understand that the basis has two phases, active and latent. During the bardo of samsara and nirvana, it is in a latent phase.
gad rgyangs wrote: sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava. if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case?
Namdrol wrote:No, since it is originally pure.gad rgyangs wrote: sounds good, but im not sure how this is really different from Vishnu dreaming the universe or other creation myths. this "basis" seems like a possesor of substance svabhava.
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)] but it is also not conditioned by afflictions.if you say no, its empty, then that means its dependently originated, in which case, the question becomes, what kind of "basis" is it that would be dependent on causes and conditions, and what would these causes and conditions be in this case?
However, since it is naturally formed, it can appear as dependently originated phenomena, for example, the five lights being reified as the five elements, etc.
gad rgyangs wrote:this is the actual definition of svabhava.Namdrol wrote:
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)]
Namdrol wrote:There is no diversity in a svābhāva. There is diversity in lhun grub. This is the reason why ka dag is termed ngo bo, or svabhāva; while lhun grub is termed prakriti or rang bzhin.gad rgyangs wrote:this is the actual definition of svabhava.Namdrol wrote:
No, since it is naturally formed [lhun grub] i.e. it is not made by anyone [sus ma byas, (the actual definition of lhun grub)]
N