Is Dzogchen Compatible with the Madhyamika Prasangika POV ?

[Caz]

?

[Malcolm]

?

Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.

[Caz]

?

Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.

Good to know thanks Malcolm.

[cloudburst]

?

Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.

If understood correctly, the Prasangika view is experiential, no difference there.

[cloudburst]

?

Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.

Good to know thanks Malcolm.

In his Gelug/Kagyu Mahamura text the Dalai Lama advises Dzochen pratitioners to study Je Tsongkhapa's prasangika presentation of emptiness, saying that it would be "very beneficial."

[Sherlock]

Mipham would be better IMO.

[Malcolm]

In his Gelug/Kagyu Mahamura text the Dalai Lama advises Dzochen pratitioners to study Je Tsongkhapa's prasangika presentation of emptiness, saying that it would be "very beneficial."

While Jigme Lingpa in general gives Tsongkhapa's presentation of Prasanga in his Yon tan mdzod; later, in the Dzoghen section he criticizes Madhaymaka in general for failing to be able to exceed intellectual analysis.

Longchenpa, half a century before Tsongkhapa, writes in his autocommentary to the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu in chapter 8:

This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on.

However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis.

So in terms of freedom from extremes and so on, Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are identical. Where they differ is what is considered the basis [gzhi, sthana]-- the basis in Madhyamaka is emptiness, whereas the basis in Dzogchen is considered to be rigpa.

M

[cloudburst]

In his Gelug/Kagyu Mahamura text the Dalai Lama advises Dzochen pratitioners to study Je Tsongkhapa's prasangika presentation of emptiness, saying that it would be "very beneficial."

While Jigme Lingpa in general gives Tsongkhapa's presentation of Prasanga in his Yon tan mdzod; later, in the Dzoghen section he criticizes Madhaymaka in general for failing to be able to exceed intellectual analysis.

This simply reflects his approach. Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.

Longchenpa, half a century before Tsongkhapa, writes in his autocommentary to the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu in chapter 8:

This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on.

However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis.

So in terms of freedom from extremes and so on, Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are identical. Where they differ is what is considered the basis [gzhi, sthana]-- the basis in Madhyamaka is emptiness, whereas the basis in Dzogchen is considered to be rigpa.

M

This has nothing to do with whether the Madhyamaka pov is experiential. Just becasue the basis is not rigpa for sutra madhyamaka in no way means that it is not an experiential path. Then there is always Madhayamaka from a tantric pov.

[Malcolm]

Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.

Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

So basically Madhyamaka shows everything is illusory through logic i.e. vajra sliver reasoning.

While Dzogchen shows everything is illusory through personal experience.

This is my understanding.

[deepbluehum]

Madhyamaka is supposed to lead to experience too.

[cloudburst]

Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.

Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.

[Caz]

Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.

Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.

I would say so yes if you didn't develop the correct view of emptiness it would be difficult to apprehend the object correctly.

[Blue Garuda]

One is a View, the other is a State.

The View may help some people contextualise the practice but the State itself does not rely in any way on a View - other than understanding that this is so, which is an aspect of the experiential fruit.

[Andrew108]

In Madhyamaka there is a subtle game of acceptance and rejection going on. In Dzogchen/Ati it's not like this.

[Malcolm]

Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.

Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.

After an eon of meditating perhaps. But while one is below the path of seeing one's "insight" is conceptual, and not experiential.

[cloudburst]

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.

After an eon of meditating perhaps. But while one is below the path of seeing one's "insight" is conceptual, and not experiential.

The point of view is either conceptual or not depending upon the meditator.

How long it takes to become the type of meditator for whom it is non-conceptual depends upon the meditator, the methods, the guru etc. Could be aeons could a few years , or months .....days.... really it depends.

You have moved from saying that Madhyamaka is "just an intellectual analysis" to saying that conceptual is not experiential. I would say that for a yogi on the path of preparation meditating with ultimate example clear light, the point of view is technically speaking conceptual, but this means something very very different from "just intellectual analysis," doesn't it? This discussion is about the prasangika point of VIEW, and a view is necessarily experiential, as it is a view.

meditating on a generic image of ultimate truth with a mind of clear light is certainly experiential.

[Andrew108]

Just for the sake of clarification Prasangika doesn't make any claims about the ultimate. They posit that they have no position regarding the ultimate. In other words they make no assertion about the ultimate. They do however say a lot about the relative and this is the sticking point because they implicitly accept a split between relative and ultimate. In so doing they imply that even though the ultimate is beyond concepts it is still something of a future achievement or goal. So in this way their view is different from those schools who posit that relative and ultimate are in union and that the wisdom of emptiness is self-arisen (arising from itself rather than causes).

[Blue Garuda]

and a view is necessarily experiential, as it is a view.

Really? Necessarily?

A person may form a view about swimming through reading a book - that is nothing to do with experiencing swimming, it is vicarious at best.

Is it any different for people reading a book about theories of emptiness and forming a view ? Did the Madhyamika need to 'experience' Madhyamaka or just experience the teachings about it.

Dzogchen is a state, not a theory, hence it is only ever experiential. The existence of a state does not depend upon a theory or faith in it.

[Malcolm]

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.

After an eon of meditating perhaps. But while one is below the path of seeing one's "insight" is conceptual, and not experiential.

The point of view is either conceptual or not depending upon the meditator.

How long it takes to become the type of meditator for whom it is non-conceptual depends upon the meditator, the methods, the guru etc. Could be aeons could a few years , or months .....days.... really it depends.

You have moved from saying that Madhyamaka is "just an intellectual analysis" to saying that conceptual is not experiential. I would say that for a yogi on the path of preparation meditating with ultimate example clear light, the point of view is technically speaking conceptual, but this means something very very different from "just intellectual analysis," doesn't it? This discussion is about the prasangika point of VIEW, and a view is necessarily experiential, as it is a view.

meditating on a generic image of ultimate truth with a mind of clear light is certainly experiential.

From a Dzogchen point of view, such a samanyārtha (spyi don) is an intellectual analysis, an conceptual contrivance.

Of course, you can play with words if you like, and argue that concepts are experiences, but that is not the distinction that is being drawn here.

The experience of vidyā Longchenpa is referring to is not a samanyārtha, a generic image, even for a commoner. It is also never a result of conceptual analysis of any kind.

In other words, to tease it out for you further, as you admit, the object for a commoner meditating emptiness according to any system of Madhyamaka is a conceptual object which in truth is conceptual abstraction based on an intellectual analysis.

The "object", for a commoner meditating according to the system of Dzogchen, is always a non-abstract non-conceptual pratyakṣa [mngon gsum] of dharmatā.

The ultimate meaning of both systems is the same, but the means and praxis are quite different -- thus providing the reason why Madhyamaka, being a sutrayāna path, requires three incalculable eons to traverse the paths and stages; whereas the path of atiyoga possesses only a single stage, traversable immediately.

M