Dharma Wheel

Malcolm wrote: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

Hi Malcom, are you including Shentong Madhyamaka in this?

futerko wrote:
Hi Malcom, are you including Shentong Madhyamaka in this?

The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.

Malcolm wrote:

futerko wrote:
Hi Malcom, are you including Shentong Madhyamaka in this?

The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.

Earlier you said, "the basis in Madhyamaka is emptiness, whereas the basis in Dzogchen is considered to be rigpa."
Presentations that I have seen tend to contrast the rang stong basis of emptiness with the gzhan stong basis of radiance, or the light of the clear light nature of mind which can only be realized non-conceptually and non-dualistically by the clear light nature of mind itself.

Is it only that the mode of meditation is different from Rdzogs chen, or are you also suggesting that this formulation of gzhan stong is still somehow conceptual?

futerko wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

futerko wrote:
Hi Malcom, are you including Shentong Madhyamaka in this?

The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.

Earlier you said, "the basis in Madhyamaka is emptiness, whereas the basis in Dzogchen is considered to be rigpa."
Presentations that I have seen tend to contrast the rang stong basis of emptiness with the gzhan stong basis of radiance, or the light of the clear light nature of mind which can only be realized non-conceptually and non-dualistically by the clear light nature of mind itself.

Is it only that the mode of meditation is different from Rdzogs chen, or are you also suggesting that this formulation of gzhan stong is still somehow conceptual?

The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considere extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise.

The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view.

As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference.

The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness.

The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces.

M

Malcolm wrote:As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference.

R & S, here, being Rangtong & Shentong, I assume.

Malcolm wrote:The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the former grasping to existence as emptiness.

Malcolm, could you please correct the typo, here... There cannot be two 'formers', and I do not want to put words in your speech...

Malcolm wrote:The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme...

Well put.

I think it's more correct to say that the basis in gzhan stong (Shentong) is "Buddha Nature," which is not EXACTLY equivalent with emptiness, at least according to Dolpopa's presentation. The etymology itself indicates that there is "something" which is itself "not empty"--or, that Buddha Nature is empty of all that which is not "of itself." "Qualities" are understood to be imbued in Buddha Nature, but merely as conceptual "appearances" in post-equipoise, as Malcolm says.

As for what this "Buddha Nature" is, the word "Luminosity" is tossed around.....as well as other terms, like "clear light nature of mind," etc. It clearly transcends conceptuality, and analysis, however-it is not an object of analysis, but an object of direct experience. In this sense, I think Shentong and Dzokchen are similar. The question is whether this luminosity is "beyond mind," as Dzokchenpas like to assert of the Basis. I don't have a position either way, on this issue, FWIW.

I also want to say that, though it's true that the "true meditation" of both Rangtong and Shentong would be the same, in theory, and perhaps in praxis amongst a select few, I think that, in reality, both of these so-called "views" are conceptual frameworks in the end. Abiding in luminosity, or clear light nature of mind, while in equipoise, should be the same as abiding in "Emptiness which is freedom from extremes," Or that which is a "non-affirming negation" for my Gelukpa friends. I will say this: Shentong does have a transmission of "pointing out," though it's quite rare. It's easy to conceptualize or reify discursive mental consciousness as some sort of "Ultimate," perhaps easier than creating a so-called "generic image of emptiness" which is an approximate, and an object of meditation for beginners.

conebeckham wrote:I think it's more correct to say that the basis in gzhan stong (Shentong) is "Buddha Nature," which is not EXACTLY equivalent with emptiness, at least according to Dolpopa's presentation.

It is exactly emptiness precisely in the fashion that I described it, even in Dolbuwa's presentation.

Nothing wrong with the way Malcolm has presented these two views. However in what sense can their views be said to be 'extreme'? Both Rangtong and Shentong are said to be extremes if the views of both schools are held and applied analytically. Much the same can be said about Dzogchen.
There really isn't a difference between all views as long as the views are not held onto with an analytic mind. When grasped at, none of these views take the practitioner beyond ordinary dualism.
Dzogchen criticism of 'sutric' views centers on the fact that holding on to the view will create a constructed realization. This criticism can also be applied to those who follow the Dzogchen view, but do so in a contrived way or who think it's enough to reason the view into practice.
The focus of all Dzogchen methods and practice is to be able to see past the constructions of thinking mind. And it is very very effective at this. There is nothing wrong with Sutric views except that it is so so easy to use them analytically and therefore they obscure. Personally I think if one has a fine understanding and experience of the the Shentong view then one gets a glimpse at Dzogchen. But others may disagree.

views are so last century.

Kevin

Right labeled comparisions in the unfabricated nature.

Dzoghchen view is just Madyamika Prasingka view.

The difference is only the style of language they are using.

If both are understood properly, no difference at all in experience.

In my opinion, these 2 actually needs to be studied.

They are people who think they know Dzoghchen, but when they study Madyamika, they get confused. In this case, their Dzoghchen view is questionable.

And vice versa.

They are useful for cross checking as well.

DarwidHalim wrote:Dzoghchen view is just Madyamika Prasingka view.

The difference is only the style of language they are using.

If both are understood properly, no difference at all in experience.

In my opinion, these 2 actually needs to be studied.

They are people who think they know Dzoghchen, but when they study Madyamika, they get confused. In this case, their Dzoghchen view is questionable.

And vice versa.

They are useful for cross checking as well.

Here's an idea. Why not do an analysis of the nature of color from all of the different views. So what do all the different views say about color? Then after the analysis the differences between the views would be really clear.

Malcolm wrote:
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

Thank you for your informed and helpful answer.
I have many arguments with it, but don't see the benefit of debating it at the moment, especially as the gang here seems to be "of a view." Perhaps I'll be feeling more argumentative in the future, but for now, I hope you enjoy your summer!

cloudburst wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
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

Thank you for your informed and helpful answer.
I have many arguments with it, but don't see the benefit of debating it at the moment, especially as the gang here seems to be "of a view." Perhaps I'll be feeling more argumentative in the future, but for now, I hope you enjoy your summer!

Sure, enjoy your summer as well.

Actually in Dzogchen you don't have a view. You have an experience. You go beyond the mind. For a Dzogchen practitioner, the practice part has nothing to do with thoughts.

deepbluehum wrote:Actually in Dzogchen you don't have a view. You have an experience. You go beyond the mind. For a Dzogchen practitioner, the practice part has nothing to do with thoughts.

There is a "view", the experience to which you refer is the "view".

Malcolm wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:Actually in Dzogchen you don't have a view. You have an experience. You go beyond the mind. For a Dzogchen practitioner, the practice part has nothing to do with thoughts.

There is a "view", the experience to which you refer is the "view".

It's not a sentence is the point.

deepbluehum wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:Actually in Dzogchen you don't have a view. You have an experience. You go beyond the mind. For a Dzogchen practitioner, the practice part has nothing to do with thoughts.

There is a "view", the experience to which you refer is the "view".

It's not a sentence is the point.

Gaining mastery of the obvious, are you?

Malcolm wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
There is a "view", the experience to which you refer is the "view".

It's not a sentence is the point.

Gaining mastery of the obvious, are you?

It's hard to master.

Malcolm wrote:

conebeckham wrote:I think it's more correct to say that the basis in gzhan stong (Shentong) is "Buddha Nature," which is not EXACTLY equivalent with emptiness, at least according to Dolpopa's presentation.

It is exactly emptiness precisely in the fashion that I described it, even in Dolbuwa's presentation.

I think there's a subtle point here. Shentong does say Buddha Nature is "Emptiness," but also discusses a basis beyond conceptual mind. This is from the POV of post-equipoise dialectics, though--I agree that the meditation is the same. "Prasangikas," that Tibetan invention, do not discuss a "basis" at all.

Yes?