Two approaches.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Dronma » Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:31 pm

Namdrol wrote:"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
--Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig

Something did go wrong, the basis was not recognized. This is why there is, as stated in the dgongs pa zang thal teachings, one basis, two paths and two results. If something did not go wrong there would be no need at all for Dzogchen texts to spend thousands of words explaining how delusion and sentient beings arose.

N



It is clear that gad rgyangs (for his own reasons) is stuck with the basis in a Monistic way, and insists on ignoring stubbornly that ONE basis goes together with TWO paths and TWO results.
Well, for everyone who likes to study further, I suggest the chapter: "The Invocation of Samantabhadra" from the book: "DZOGCHEN INVOCATIONS" - Shang Shung Editioni - Lotsawa Series 221E.


HO!
All that appears and exists, samsara and nirvana,
Have the same base but two paths and two fruits
Due to the miracle of knowledge and ignorance.
Through the invocation of Samantabhadra
May all achieve perfect enlightenment
In the abode of the ultimate dimension of phenomena!

:namaste:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Two approaches.

Postby purple rose » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:35 pm

Temporarily locked, cleaning in progress.

Regards,

*Topic unlocked*

Several posts written by someone who has been banned several times have been removed (not deleted). Unfortunately this has meant removing posts by others who responded and quoted the person in question. Apologies to everyone for any inconvenience.

Regards,
purple rose
 
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Jinzang » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:35 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
Jinzang wrote:They are listed in the abhidharma.


then surely you know that among the 51 mental factors of the samskara skandha is "erroneous views" (lta-ba nyon-mongs can). These are considered dharmas, or "phenomena".


Holding erroneous views is a mental phenomenon, but the view itself is not. If we accept that views are mental phenomena, all sorts of difficulties arise, such as two people cannot hold the same view, views perish with the person who holds them, etc.

gad rgyangs wrote:can we get back to the topic now?


Okay, it seems we have come full circle. You began by saying everything is pure and perfect and nothing is mistaken. Now you are saying mistaken views are a mental phenomenon, Which is it?
Lamrim, lojong, and mahamudra are the unmistaken path.
Jinzang
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:14 am

Jinzang wrote:
Holding erroneous views is a mental phenomenon, but the view itself is not. If we accept that views are mental phenomena, all sorts of difficulties arise, such as two people cannot hold the same view, views perish with the person who holds them, etc.


kosa says:

23a Mind and its mental states are necessarily generated together.

The mind and it mental states cannot be independently generated.


Okay, it seems we have come full circle. You began by saying everything is pure and perfect and nothing is mistaken. Now you are saying mistaken views are a mental phenomenon, Which is it?


both. question was: "is the arisal of marigpa "on top of" the appearances of the basis a 'mistake'". I say no, Namdrol says yes. by extension, all that follows from that inital marigpa is either a mistake or not. Namdrol says mistake, I say no.

yes, mistaken views are a mental phenomena. what else would they be?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:05 am

But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:17 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?


Namdrol and his mistaken view are not a mistake in the sense that he and his mistaken view should never have arisen in the first place, for yes, him and his mistaken view are just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be? even if his view was not mistaken, he and his view would still be just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be?

so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:12 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?


Namdrol and his mistaken view are not a mistake in the sense that he and his mistaken view should never have arisen in the first place, for yes, him and his mistaken view are just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be? even if his view was not mistaken, he and his view would still be just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be?

so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.


So lemme get this straight. For you, misapprehending the appearances of the basis and thus straying into a samsaric experience is neither more nor less desirable than correctly apprehending the basis and realizing buddhahood? There's nothing to do but just keep naturally cycling through samsara by the force of karma because it's all the appearances of the primordially pure basis? Why even bother with Dzogchen, then? Or any kind of spiritual practice for that matter? Why not a life of hedonism?
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:59 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?


Namdrol and his mistaken view are not a mistake in the sense that he and his mistaken view should never have arisen in the first place, for yes, him and his mistaken view are just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be? even if his view was not mistaken, he and his view would still be just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be?

so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.


So lemme get this straight. For you, misapprehending the appearances of the basis and thus straying into a samsaric experience is neither more nor less desirable than correctly apprehending the basis and realizing buddhahood? There's nothing to do but just keep naturally cycling through samsara by the force of karma because it's all the appearances of the primordially pure basis? Why even bother with Dzogchen, then? Or any kind of spiritual practice for that matter? Why not a life of hedonism?


What would be the fun in that? :smile:

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3142
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:19 am

gad rgyangs wrote:both. question was: "is the arisal of marigpa "on top of" the appearances of the basis a 'mistake'". I say no, Namdrol says yes. by extension, all that follows from that inital marigpa is either a mistake or not. Namdrol says mistake, I say no.


Marigpa is not something arising. It is like the classic parable about the snake/rope. Dzogchen is not at all like the Theistic views of origination. Our minds are not created by the basis, our minds are created by our own ignorance. For this reason Kuntuzangpo don't have a mind, only rigpa.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3142
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Sönam » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:40 am

in French we have an expression which says : "to pedal in the sauerkraut" ...

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Mariusz » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:14 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?


Namdrol and his mistaken view are not a mistake in the sense that he and his mistaken view should never have arisen in the first place, for yes, him and his mistaken view are just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be? even if his view was not mistaken, he and his view would still be just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be?

so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.


So lemme get this straight. For you, misapprehending the appearances of the basis and thus straying into a samsaric experience is neither more nor less desirable than correctly apprehending the basis and realizing buddhahood? There's nothing to do but just keep naturally cycling through samsara by the force of karma because it's all the appearances of the primordially pure basis? Why even bother with Dzogchen, then? Or any kind of spiritual practice for that matter? Why not a life of hedonism?


Concerning Dzogchen, let's just practice properly the instructions of Rushen and you realize. This topic unnecessary.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:40 am

Mariusz wrote:
Concerning Dzogchen, let's just practice properly the instructions of Rushen and you realize.


Not sure why you quoted my post to make this comment, but yes, that has been my experience too.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Two approaches.

Postby alpha » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:55 am

ATTST-Awakening to buddhahood--Longchen Rabjam

Ordinary beings are truly buddhas,
but this fact is obscured by adventitious distortions
once these are removed ,truly there is buddhahood.

The basis becomes obscured by the display that arises due to its own dynamic energy:
"The essence is like the sun ,shining clearly in the expanse of the basic space of phenomena
Everything arises without bias due to its dynamic energy,which is like the sun's rays.
They suffuse the earth and bodies of water with warmth,so that a display of clouds arises,formed from water vapor.
This obscures the essence itself and even its dynamic energy.
Similarly due to the impure display of natural dynamic energy deriving from the essence itself,
One's perception of suchness ,the heart essence is obscured.
The universe of appearances and possibilities consists of an inconceivable range of perceptions based on confusion."

The fact that the sun is obscured by clouds is fundamentally due to the dynamic energy of the sun itself.As the dynamic energy of the sun's rays touches the earth and bodies of water,the warming effect causes water vapor to rise as mist into the sky,where it forms clouds,and these obscure the sun itself.Similarly the natural dynamic energy of awareness stirs,so that the ground of being manifests as sensory appearances.
When this is not known to be awareness itself,things are misconstrued in terms of self and other,so the display-of ordinary mind and the confused perception of manifesting to the mind-arises as the universe of appearances and possibilities.

AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:But wait, I thought there were no mistaken views because it's all the manifestations of the basis?

And thus how can Namdrol be mistaken, since his view is a manifestation of the basis?


Namdrol and his mistaken view are not a mistake in the sense that he and his mistaken view should never have arisen in the first place, for yes, him and his mistaken view are just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be? even if his view was not mistaken, he and his view would still be just an appearance of the basis. what else could they be?

so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.


You're mistaken in assuming that there is no error -- the proof of that is contained within your own statement.

There is a difference between the appearance of the basis, and the error and non-error regarding that apperance. It leads to different movies, just as you say. But the erroneous perception of basis leads to a movie that is desirable to avoid, as Longchenpa states, and the non-erronenous perception leads to a movie that is desirable to see.

Basically, your point of view entails that for you liberation is meaningless. Which is fine, but that is not the point of view of Dzogchen, nor Buddhism as a whole. It may be the point of view of various neo-advaita, pseudo-zen, new age gurus, but not Dzogchen.

You might be able to post this or that citation that you feels defends your perspective, but so can I -- so that is rather pointless. Nevertheless the String of Pearls states:

Having been gripped by the apprehender and apprehended
in the aggregates, elements and gateways,
one remains in samsara itself for a long while,
within the belly of the three realms
one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]
bound by the chains of ignorance,
covered with dense black darkness of samsara,
attached to the spicy taste of passion,
one is bound by the noose of confusion,
tormented by the hot fire of hatred,
one’s head is covered by pride,
the gates of jealously are locked,
surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,
tied about the neck with the noose of apprehender and apprehended,
stuck in the swamp of past traces,
one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,
the mother of karma is joined with her child,
one following the other just like a water wheel,
alternating between good and bad bodies,
born in different forms,
and through heightening one’s self-grasping
one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering,
one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies,
one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions.
Fire appears as water to hell beings,
as hunger and thirst to hungry ghosts,
as fog to animals.
the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,
those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,
as weapons and armor to asuras,
and as desirable things to gods.
For example, just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel
one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.
Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope
since what isn’t there is held to be there,
both the outer and inner container and contents form,
and if that is investigated, it is a rope,
i.e. the container and contents are already empty
the ultimate with the form of the relative."


The mistake then is seeing as there what isn't there, which is why this tantra, among others uses the rope/snake example. What this tantra is stating is that deluded appearances we see that are predicated in the basis do not exist in the basis and are not appearances of the basis, but rather misapprehensions of the appearance of the basis.

You on the other hand seem to be saying that the basis manifests as sentient beings and the six realms. If this is what you are saying, then you are very far away from the point of view of the great perfection.

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: Two approaches.

Postby Fa Dao » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:51 pm

The mistake then is seeing as there what isn't there, which is why this tantra, among others uses the rope/snake example. What this tantra is stating is that deluded appearances we see that are predicated in the basis do not exist in the basis and are not appearances of the basis, but rather misapprehensions of the appearance of the basis.

You on the other hand seem to be saying that the basis manifests as sentient beings and the six realms. If this is what you are saying, then you are very far away from the point of view of the great perfection.

N


Namdrol, my gut is telling me this is a very important distinction that needs to be understood or one can possibly go very wrong in ones understanding of Dzogchen. Unfortunately when I try to wrap my head around it my brains start oozing out my ears. Would you mind elaborating a bit? i.e dumbing it down a bit for those of who are a little more simple minded.
"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

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:08 pm

Namdrol wrote:
You on the other hand seem to be saying that the basis manifests as sentient beings and the six realms. If this is what you are saying, then you are very far away from the point of view of the great perfection.

N


Yes, I think that is his general idea.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3142
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:57 pm

Namdrol wrote:There is a difference between the appearance of the basis, and the error and non-error regarding that apperance. It leads to different movies, just as you say. But the erroneous perception of basis leads to a movie that is desirable to avoid, as Longchenpa states, and the non-erronenous perception leads to a movie that is desirable to see.


yes, thats how we see it, obviously "desirable to see" and "desirable to avoid" are examples of attachments and aversions, however seemingly justifiable from our perspective.

Basically, your point of view entails that for you liberation is meaningless.


not meaningless to us, but illusory. you know very well that all the texts say there is no one to be liberated and nothing to be liberated from.

You might be able to post this or that citation that you feels defends your perspective, but so can I -- so that is rather pointless.


I was thinking about this too. what conclusion can be drawn from this fact? some possibilites are: the corpus is inconsistent, or the view operates on many levels which have different descriptions. certainly we must distinguish texts written "from the point of view of the basis" from those written from the point of view of sentient beings. they may appear contradictory because of this difference of perspective.

You on the other hand seem to be saying that the basis manifests as sentient beings and the six realms. If this is what you are saying, then you are very far away from the point of view of the great perfection.


the basis manifests as all phenomena of samsara and nirvana. even if you break it down as

basis--->five lights--->recognition&nonrecognition---->samsara&nirvana

its not like what counts as the display stops at some point and then you get something that is ontologically different.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:06 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:I was thinking about this too. what conclusion can be drawn from this fact? some possibilites are: the corpus is inconsistent, or the view operates on many levels which have different descriptions. certainly we must distinguish texts written "from the point of view of the basis" from those written from the point of view of sentient beings. they may appear contradictory because of this difference of perspective.


In Man ngag sde there are texts which are aimed at explicating tregchö and texts aimed at explicating thögal. The texts explicating the former are almost exclusively about the basis and the view. The text explicating the latter are almost exclusively about the path and meditation. Sems sde for example is also almost exclusively about the basis i.e. the view. klong sde and man ngag sde are more concerned with the path.
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: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:21 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
the basis manifests as all phenomena of samsara and nirvana. even if you break it down as

basis--->five lights--->recognition&nonrecognition---->samsara&nirvana

its not like what counts as the display stops at some point and then you get something that is ontologically different.


The basis only displays one way. That display is either properly recognized or not, leading to samsara and nirvana. Neither samsara nor nirvana exist in the basis. But the basis is made up of three wisdoms. Since there is no ignorance in that state to begin with, there can be no ignorance in that state later. This is why we disagree about whether ignorance is a display of the basis or not. The reason why samsaric phenomena are consider originally pure is that they are simply a result of a misapprehensions of the originally pure naturally formed display of the basis. We do not need to manipulate these phenomena in anyway. But we do need to recognize their actual state, both as delusions (the way they are appearing to us (snang lugs)) and the way these apparent phenomena are present in and of themselves (gnas lugs).
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: Two approaches.

Postby Dronma » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:14 pm

May I ask the administrators what happened to the posts which had been removed because of the latest attack from Jax?
There were some interesting posts in there and I suggest to be published separately somewhere in a different thread.
Thanks! :smile:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

>