Ground of Being

[Sherab]

if recognition is a phenomena, then failure to recognize is also a phenomena. The question is: are all phenomena of samsara and nirvana appearances of the basis? And if not, then what is there besides the basis and its appearances?

Following your logic:

If shoe is a phenomenon,
then no shoe is also a phenomenon.

If eating is a process that is a phenomenon,
then not eating is also a process that is a phenomenon.

a shoe is an object, recognition and non-recognition are not.

if you're not eating, then you're doing something else, both of which are processes.

The "not" in "not eating" is non-affirmative. If you can't see that, then there is no way I can make you see my logic.

[Sherab]

The question is: are all phenomena of samsara and nirvana appearances of the basis? And if not, then what is there besides the basis and its appearances?

All phenomena of samsara and nirvana are appearances of the basis.
With samsara, there is the absence of the phenomenon of recognition. With nirvana, there is the phenomenon of recognition.
This is why in the basis it is said that there is no ignorance. Heck, there is no basis to label the basis as a phenomenon even, let alone an absence of a phenomenon that we label as ignorance.

[gad rgyangs]

The "not" in "not eating" is non-affirmative. If you can't see that, then there is no way I can make you see my logic.

i see your logic, but it has nothing to do with the topic here. since recognizing would actually be the natural state, and non-recognizing an active distortion, your analogy is exactly backwards.

[gad rgyangs]

All phenomena of samsara and nirvana are appearances of the basis.

dont let Namdrol hear you talking like that: he'll bite your head off.

With samsara, there is the absence of the phenomenon of recognition. With nirvana, there is the phenomenon of recognition.
This is why in the basis it is said that there is no ignorance.

I think you mean to say "with the absence of the phenomena of recognition, there is samsara"..etc. No one is saying there is ignorance in the basis, we are discussing whether the non-recognition that gives rise to samsara is part of the display/appearances of the basis (gzhi snang).

Heck, there is no basis to label the basis as a phenomenon even, let alone an absence of a phenomenon that we label as ignorance.

No one is labeling the basis as a phenomenon, it is rather the potential for all phenomena to manifest.

[Sönam]

All phenomena of samsara and nirvana are appearances of the basis.

dont let Namdrol hear you talking like that: he'll bite your head off.

I've missed one step then ?

Ho!
Everything - appearance and existence, samsara and nirvana -
Has a single ground, yet two paths and two fruitions,
And magically dispays as awareness or unawareness

Through Samantabhadra's prayer, may all beings become buddhas,
completely perfected in
The abode of the dharmadhatu.

The ground of all is uncompounded,
And the self-arising great expanse, beyond expression,
Has neither the name "samsara" nor "nirvana".

Realizing just this, you are a buddha;
Not realizing this, you are a being wandering in samsara.


Sönam

[gad rgyangs]

All phenomena of samsara and nirvana are appearances of the basis.

dont let Namdrol hear you talking like that: he'll bite your head off.

I've missed one step then ?

maybe you've missed Namdrol's posts on pg 4 of this thread.

[Sherab]

The "not" in "not eating" is non-affirmative. If you can't see that, then there is no way I can make you see my logic.

i see your logic, but it has nothing to do with the topic here. since recognizing would actually be the natural state, and non-recognizing an active distortion, your analogy is exactly backwards.

You did not see the logic.
The natural state is the natural state regardless of recognition or non-recognition.
When there is recognition of the natural state, then there is the state of buddhahood.
When there is an absence of the recognition of the natural state, then there is the state of sentient being.

[Sherab]

All phenomena of samsara and nirvana are appearances of the basis.

dont let Namdrol hear you talking like that: he'll bite your head off.

I don't care.

With samsara, there is the absence of the phenomenon of recognition. With nirvana, there is the phenomenon of recognition.
This is why in the basis it is said that there is no ignorance.

I think you mean to say "with the absence of the phenomena of recognition, there is samsara"..etc. No one is saying there is ignorance in the basis, we are discussing whether the non-recognition that gives rise to samsara is part of the display/appearances of the basis (gzhi snang).

If you hold that there is no ignorance in the basis, then we are in agreement.

Heck, there is no basis to label the basis as a phenomenon even, let alone an absence of a phenomenon that we label as ignorance.

No one is labeling the basis as a phenomenon, it is rather the potential for all phenomena to manifest.

If you hold that the basis is not a phenomenon, then I have no problem here.

[Sönam]

I've missed one step then ?

maybe you've missed Namdrol's posts on pg 4 of this thread.

Then we do not share the same understanding, what I can see on that page is ...

if Namdrol refuses to acknowledge that "all phenomena of samsara and nirvana" are appearances of the basis

I did not refuse to acknowledge that. Pay attention to what I said-- "ignorance is not an appearance of the basis".

... and for ignorance being not an appearance of the basis, it's what I've tried to say on previous posts (and it seems that's also what Sherab is trying to say).

and I've also noticed that on the same page ... it may help!

But, as I said before, it is not appropriate to argue and debate about Dzogchen.

Sönam

[gad rgyangs]

first you post this quote (presumably from a tantra?):

Everything - appearance and existence, samsara and nirvana -
Has a single ground, yet two paths and two fruitions,
And magically dispays as awareness or unawareness

then you quote Namdrol, apparently approvingly:

"ignorance is not an appearance of the basis".

perhaps you'd like to explain how you do not see two as completely contradictory?

and I've also noticed that on the same page ... it may help!

But, as I said before, it is not appropriate to argue and debate about Dzogchen.

this attitude has no precedence in the tradition, and smacks of jonestown kool-aid if you ask me. It's also particularly hilarious coming from Namdrol, who has how-many-thousands of posts here, arguing and debating about everything under the sun, including Dzogchen?

[gad rgyangs]

The "not" in "not eating" is non-affirmative. If you can't see that, then there is no way I can make you see my logic.

i see your logic, but it has nothing to do with the topic here. since recognizing would actually be the natural state, and non-recognizing an active distortion, your analogy is exactly backwards.

You did not see the logic.
The natural state is the natural state regardless of recognition or non-recognition.
When there is recognition of the natural state, then there is the state of buddhahood.
When there is an absence of the recognition of the natural state, then there is the state of sentient being.

you keep arguing points that no one here is disagreeing with. why not address the original point:

my contention is that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including ignorance, are the display of the basis. If you agree with this, there is no dispute. If you don't agree with this, please explain how ignorance is not included in "all phenomena of samsara and nirvana"

[Sönam]

first you post this quote (presumably from a tantra?):

Everything - appearance and existence, samsara and nirvana -
Has a single ground, yet two paths and two fruitions,
And magically dispays as awareness or unawareness

This is the famous Prayer of Kuntuzangpo (here in the translation of Erik Pema Kuntzang that you can found in the "Quintessential Dzogchen")

then you quote Namdrol, apparently approvingly:

"ignorance is not an appearance of the basis".

perhaps you'd like to explain how you do not see two as completely contradictory?

nice try ... perhaps "you" can explain how you do see those two as completely contradictory

Namdrol has already answered to that, "ignorance is prior to the appearance of samsara and nirvana"

and I've also noticed that on the same page ... it may help!

But, as I said before, it is not appropriate to argue and debate about Dzogchen.

this attitude has no precedence in the tradition, and smacks of jonestown kool-aid if you ask me.

There is a reason why it is not appropriate ... and it's somehow underlying in this discussion ...

Sönam

[Pero]

Although this presencing process manifests thus within it, the Ground-presencing's own condition remains utterly devoid of straying and non-straying being established as such. From the Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra:

Since nothing can be imputed as "dimmed awareness"
Withing the great Ground-presencing,
It isn't the case that straying is established therein.
...

(FYI, Ground-presencing is Germano's translation of gzhi snang, straying='khrul pa (confusion), dimmed awareness=ma rig pa)

[gad rgyangs]

Although this presencing process manifests thus within it, the Ground-presencing's own condition remains utterly devoid of straying and non-straying being established as such. From the Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra:

Since nothing can be imputed as "dimmed awareness"
Withing the great Ground-presencing,
It isn't the case that straying is established therein.
...

(FYI, Ground-presencing is Germano's translation of gzhi snang, straying='khrul pa (confusion), dimmed awareness=ma rig pa)

the key word here is "established", which of course nothing in samsara or nirvana is. the dzogchen trope is "clearly appearing but not existent/established".

[Sherab]

you keep arguing points that no one here is disagreeing with. why not address the original point:

my contention is that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana, including ignorance, are the display of the basis. If you agree with this, there is no dispute. If you don't agree with this, please explain how ignorance is not included in "all phenomena of samsara and nirvana"

I did when I posted ...

My 2 cents:
Ignorance is not a phenomenon.
It is an absence of a phenomenon.
And that phenomenon is recognition of one's true state.

... and subsequent variation of the same point, such as

The natural state is the natural state regardless of recognition or non-recognition.
When there is recognition of the natural state, then there is the state of buddhahood.
When there is an absence of the recognition of the natural state, then there is the state of sentient being.

.... but apparently you seemed unable to see it.

One last try:
Using light as an analogy, recognition is light, non-recognition/ignorance is the mere absence of light. In the same way as there is no actual phenomenon of darkness, there is no actual phenomenon of ignorance/non-recognition. When appearances arise, the absence of the phenomenon of recognition allows phenomena of mistaken recognitions to arise such as the duality of self and other. If the phenomenon of recognition arises, then mistaken recognitions cannot arise. I hope that is clear enough.

[gad rgyangs]

Ignorance is not a phenomenon.

look around you.

the absence of the phenomenon of recognition allows phenomena of mistaken recognitions to arise

what do you think "phenomena of mistaken recognition" are? Ans: "ignorance"

[Sherab]

Ignorance is not a phenomenon.

look around you.

the absence of the phenomenon of recognition allows phenomena of mistaken recognitions to arise

what do you think "phenomena of mistaken recognition" are? Ans: "ignorance"

But there is no real single phenomenon call ignorance whereas there is that real single phenomenon of recognition. Mistaken recognitions are NOT ignorance, but they can arise because of the space presented by the absence of the phenomenon of recognition. When the phenomenon of recognition is present, there is no space for the arsing of mistaken recognitions.

In other words, the absence of the phenomenon of recognition allows the arising of mistaken recognitions. It is not the presence of the phenomenon of ignorance that allows the arising of mistaken recognitions.

Btw, why did you enclose the word ignorance in quotes?

[gad rgyangs]

Ignorance is not a phenomenon.

look around you.

the absence of the phenomenon of recognition allows phenomena of mistaken recognitions to arise

what do you think "phenomena of mistaken recognition" are? Ans: "ignorance"

But there is no real single phenomenon call ignorance whereas there is that real single phenomenon of recognition. Mistaken recognitions are NOT ignorance, but they can arise because of the space presented by the absence of the phenomenon of recognition. When the phenomenon of recognition is present, there is no space for the arsing of mistaken recognitions.

In other words, the absence of the phenomenon of recognition allows the arising of mistaken recognitions. It is not the presence of the phenomenon of ignorance that allows the arising of mistaken recognitions.

Btw, why did you enclose the word ignorance in quotes?

"ignorance" i take to be the entire process from non-recognition (straying, 'khrul pa) to all the phenomena of samsara. read all about it in chapter 2 of the tshig don mdzod. if you are instead translating some particular Dzogchen term as "ignorance", let me know.

[Sherab]

"ignorance" i take to be the entire process from non-recognition (straying, 'khrul pa) to all the phenomena of samsara. read all about it in chapter 2 of the tshig don mdzod. if you are instead translating some particular Dzogchen term as "ignorance", let me know.

I take marigpa (absence of knowledge, knowledge that is due to recognition) to be ignorance. Therefore in a real sense, there is no phenomenon of ignorance since ignorance is referring to a mere absence of knowledge/recognition, whereas that knowledge/recognition is a phenomenon in its own right.

Looks like there can be no agreement between us so I am going to let it rest.

[asunthatneversets]

The basis is a convention isn't it? It's only the basis from the perspective of non-recognition, because the "basis" is in fact is self-originated wisdom(emptiness). It's not as if there's some inherently existing ground or source called the basis. So ignorance comes prior to the basis because the basis (acting as a basis of "something else") is a result of imputed ignorance. If recognition that display is "self-originated wisdom's" own-display as self originated wisdom in-and-of-itself, the basis is no longer the basis but wisdom.

That's my stab at it... That being said isn't all of this basis talk irrelevant unless one is involved in certain practices? Mainly thogal? Seems like it's really attempting to capture something that linear thought and language can't properly represent except for a basic outline for those about to do said practices.