Yogacara and dzogchen

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Sherlock » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm

I typed out the sections of Primordial Experience concerning Manjushrimitra's refutation of Cittamatra

Since perception, moreover, seizes on different identifiable
qualities out of the spectru of conditioned events,
It appears as eightfold due to these specific activities,
although it is not manifold in its essential function.

Therefore, in the first moment of experience, one's body
and all configurations of events and meanings are present.
On account of thinking about and becoming obsessed with something,
in a later (moment) the (thought) that has arisen (in accord
with the earlier moment) makes itself felt.

Nothing exists for ordinary people and Noble Ones apart from
the continuum of their own experiencing,
This variety (of experience) that exists for the six types
of sentient beings (appears) through their habitual mode of vision.
Since this continuum of experiencing is also without any boundaries,
(to call it) "one" is (also) without foundation.
Since that has no boundaries, all the limitless Buddhafields are
one's own body.
In that one's own body appears as the body of living beings and as limitless
Buddha-fields, it is also difficult to postulate that the potential for
experiencing ann the habituatin tendencies are either one or diverse.

...

The momentary site (i.e., the fundamental structuring) is never separate
(from the habituating tendencies). They are really the same phenomenon
and (if one) does not exist, (the other) does not exist.
Since they are produced by trying to gras experience with though, which is completely mistaken,
the habituating tendencies do not exist and,
Since there then does not exist a sphere of operation (for the fundamental structuring),
the fundamental structuring of all experience as well as perceptual and cognitive activities do not exist.
Since boundaries do not exist (in experience), an objective support or a site (for its operation) do not exist.
How then can perceptual and cognitive activities arise?
Therefore, experiencing is beyond the limiting conceptons of existence and nonexistence, and is neither a unity or a plurality.


Also read David Germano's article.

Actually I think a lot of Jyoti's misunderstandings arise from linguistic barriers. When she come across something that might be phrased differently in English, she looks to her interpretations of Chinese translations which lead to other problems.
Sherlock
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby MalaBeads » Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:08 pm

I'm glad someone started this thread.

I've only recently become aware of this book and am wondering if anyone has read it and/or understands it?

I have not read it and am pretty sure I wouldn't understand it if I had. Nonetheless, from the Amazon review, it seems like a pretty significant publication and may contribute to the conversation here.

The only thing I seem to understand from reading the original thread (that promoted this one) is that Mahayana as practiced today in China is not Mahayana as practiced today in the west. For me anyway, that is the starting point for any meaningful dialogue.


http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F% ... tGPKItFezw
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:59 am

mutsuk wrote:You apparently don't understand the notion of "door of arising" ('char gzhi). If you think the visions
of Thogel are the objects of the eye consciousness, then you are simply ignorant of Thogel. There are
two channels reaching the Water-Lamp, the pure and the impure one. The pure is the one through
which the rtsal of rig-pa arises, it is not linked to eye consciousness at all. If you had done dark
retreats you would have witnessed that easily.


Simple know the name of the channels, does not make a difference if there is no perception of the
vision through them. When there is perception of the vision through them, that is the eye
consciousness, this is the meaning. When one's intellect (jnana) is present, the integration of the eye
consciousness does not exclude either the pure or impure channel's vision, but due to the the intellect
corresponds to the pure vision, the pure vision is enhanced even without knowledge of the channels.
On the other hand, in the dark retreat where the impure vision is isolated by force, if the intellect is
not present, it only served the basis of delusion that is present, and the cause of the development of
the vision will be absence.

You have not supported or demonstrated anything. You have put forward your own fantasy. I can
quote you the passage on the Theg-mchog-mdzod which shows that your idea about atomic body is
not what the Dzogchen texts discuss.


It is your duty to quote the passage since you are the one who bring it up.


Then all the Dzogchen Tantras demonstrating the superiority of the 9th yanas are wrong? Is that
what you are implying? Only Chan and Yogacara are right? That's it ?


It is wrong starting from performance yoga, it does not entitle to the fourth position, because the mahayana which they put in the third position comprised the view of middle path, consciousness-only and ch'an which easily surpassed it. Then from fifth to ninth yana, their view do not surpassed mahayana either.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby purple rose » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:51 am

Admin note

When using quotes from a different topic please indicate which topic the quote is from so as to avoid confusion. Not everyone reads every topic.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby mutsuk » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:45 pm

Jyoti wrote:Simple know the name of the channels, does not make a difference if there is no perception of the vision through them.

The visions of Thogel are not objects of the eye consciousness. They are contemplated within the state of Rigpa. If they were objects of the eye consciousness then a third party, not practicing Thogel, could see them. This is not the case.

When there is perception of the vision through them, that is the eye consciousness, this is the meaning.

Wrong, this means you don’t understand the nature of these visions. They are the rtsal of Rigpa, not object likely to be grasped by a sensory consciousness.

When one's intellect (jnana) is present, the integration of the eye
consciousness does not exclude either the pure or impure channel's vision, but due to the the intellect corresponds to the pure vision, the pure vision is enhanced even without knowledge of the channels.

You don’t understand how Thogel works. This discussion is a waste of time. You refuse to learn anything, and you are simply adding sentences which do not make very much sense to me... Doesn’t it ring a bell to realize that most of what you said about Dzogchen is in contradiction with what Dzogchen texts teach ?

On the other hand, in the dark retreat where the impure vision is isolated by force, if the intellect is not present,

You most obviously have difficulties with the lexicon. You say above that intellect is jnana. That sounds pretty weird to me. Jnana is ye-shes in tibetan, that is wisdom. Wisdom is independent from the intellect.

it only served the basis of delusion that is present, and the cause of the development of the vision will be absence.

Sorry but these sentences do not mean anything to me. During dark retreats, the process of visions is boosted, I don’t understand what you mean by “absence” here. You seem to be quite unaware of what experientially happens during dark retreats.

It is your duty to quote the passage since you are the one who bring it up.

I hope you’ll show relevant quotes to back up your claims too. The passage from the Theg-mchog-mdzod is as follows (II, p. 277, more or less rendition from JL’s french translation) :
« well then, it is explained that even if one trains in Trekchö, the visions do not reach their ultimate measure but one still liberates from the aggregates ; what is the difference ? — There is a big difference : by training in Trekchö, except for partless atoms, the body does not turn into lights. Since it does not turn into lights, the Diamond Body will not be accomplished », etc.
You have the same example and nearly same wording in the Yeshe Lama which is “translated” into chinese. Trekchö results in rdul-lus, the rdul-lus does not manifest light. Then you have to understand that there are four further modalities to the rainbow bodies, 3 of them without remains, and one with remains. Since you claim to know Dudjom Lingpa’s works on thogal this should be clear to you then (if your sources in chinese are not flawed...).

It is wrong starting from performance yoga, it does not entitle to the fourth position, because the mahayana which they put in the third position comprised the view of middle path, consciousness-only and ch'an which easily surpassed it. Then from fifth to ninth yana, their view do not surpassed mahayana either.

This is clearly what I thought. You have cultural bias and don’t even realize it. Mahayana is a path of renunciation. Then above that you have the path of transformation (tantras) and above that you have the path of self-liberation (Dzogchen). How can you expect anyone believe you in your claim stating that the Chan/yogacara system is the highest ? Compared to Dzogchen its view is dualistic, its means are limited and does not have DI. The fact is clear that Chinese had no Dzogchen prior to the translations of Fahai Lama and others of the same period and that they did since then all they could to show that Chan was still higher than Dzogchen. Did you ever read the bSam-gtan mig-sgron by Nubchen ? You should read that carefully because Nubchen goes on carefully showing how Sutra is limited compared to tantra and how both are limited compared to Dzogchen. If you think Chan/yogacara can compare to Dzogchen in terms of Base, Path, and Fruit, it means you don’t understand Dzogchen. Your description of the visionary process of Thogel clearly demonstrates that.
mutsuk
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby username » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:56 pm

I disagree with many points Jyoti states regarding Dzogchen & Yogacara & other buddhist vehicles but we have to distinguish two groups of people. Firstly those who mix Dzogchen with other doctrines, including non Buddhist ones, to create a new ideology to set up as a business and as a self appointed guru fishing for disciples mainly for financial reasons as we have even seen them declare so openly on various web forums for many years. These are what Trungpa Rinpoche often warned against as Spiritual Materialists & they are a danger to themselves & others. Such people are often, but not always, not only unopposed but unfortunately encouraged to set up their novel lineages. But Jyoti is not one of these. She belongs to another group which is that of an honest seeker of truth IMO & will be fine in the end because her intentions are properly motivated. We all make mistakes and it often took many of us years to come to even realize this: that as beginners we have much, and I mean most of the teachings, to learn from our lineage masters yet to this very day hence our regular mistakes, speaking for myself. So I wish Jyoti the best of luck on her path.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby mutsuk » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:20 pm

username wrote: But Jyoti is not one of these.

I am not in a position to find out that clearly.

She belongs to another group which is that of an honest seeker of truth IMO & will be fine in the end because her intentions are properly motivated.

I must humbly disagree because she does not seem to want to learn anything but rather to impose the hegemonic approach of chinese buddhism over tibetan Dzogchen. In some of the works translated into chinese, the lamas/translators clearly alterate the actual meaning to promote Chan over Dzogchen, not Chan as equal to Dzogchen (which would also be wrong doxographically) but Chan over Dzogchen. The idea is to secure superiority for anything chinese. That is dangerous for the future if it is not contradicted.

We all make mistakes and it often took many of us years to come to even realize this: that as beginners we have much, and I mean most of the teachings, to learn from our lineage masters yet to this very day hence our regular mistakes, speaking for myself. So I wish Jyoti the best of luck on her path.

I honestly don't think she pictures herself as a beginner since the way she asserts things (like thogel visions are seen with the eyes, etc.) has another flavor to me: that of hegemony. It is also dangerous to formulate wrong views about Dzogchen. Not answering to these is like accepting them. I don't and I'm surprised there are not more reactions to her assertions. In fact, I'll take the opportunity of this message to leave the discussion for good because it is not leading anywhere, she refuses to question her own misunderstanding and refuses to learn anything. It's been a dramatic waste of time for me and for the readers of these posts. I apologize for this waste of everybody's precious time.
mutsuk
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby username » Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:39 pm

Hi mutsuk. On your first point, that is just my impression. On your second point, I agree with what you said but I doubt this stage of her not wanting to accept certain basic points of Vajrayana/Dzogchen, some of which she also denies, will last for ever. I could be wrong though. I think at some stage, maybe years, she will have to either accept or reject them & realize one can not have one's cake and eat it too. Basically you can not pick & choose from the basic tenets of Vajrayana/Dzogchen to mix with others as a new path saying on those points Vajrayana/Dzogchen are wrong!

On your third point as I said recently: when you talk to Khenpos who have researched for 4 or more decades in advanced topics & still say there is so much more to learn as only the surface is scratched, we as beginners realize we really have not even started learning properly. I do not think your marvelous effort was wasted as they will prove fruitful for her in the long run as well as benefiting others & I thank you for that. As I said the real danger often in the west is for those who are looking to create such syncretic ideologies (as you have opposed) in their own words to get disciples, ie: business, which can really harm others. But that is not her motive. However you do have a point as even if our motives are pure, in essence, who knows how long or little we have to live and what will happen to us in the meantime. Nothing is certain. All the best on your wonderful researches.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes
username
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:00 am

mutsuk wrote:The visions of Thogel are not objects of the eye consciousness. They are contemplated within the state of Rigpa. If they were objects of the eye consciousness then a third party, not practicing Thogel, could see them. This is not the case.


The eye consciousness cover the whole field of vision, ordinary vision or otherwise. Nothing is not of consciousness, this is the basic of yogacara and buddhism in general. Ordinary people can indeed see the togal vision including the bindus (tigles) themselves, but without the intellect, these visions does not serve any purpose.

Wrong, this means you don’t understand the nature of these visions. They are the rtsal of Rigpa, not object likely to be grasped by a sensory consciousness.


If it is of vision regardless of source, it is of the eye consciousness.

Doesn’t it ring a bell to realize that most of what you said about Dzogchen is in contradiction with what Dzogchen texts teach ?


These are the principal of togal, although the dzogchen text does not directly mention it in similar words, but the implication is the same.

You most obviously have difficulties with the lexicon. You say above that intellect is jnana. That sounds pretty weird to me. Jnana is ye-shes in tibetan, that is wisdom. Wisdom is independent from the intellect.


Wisdom is prajna, not jnana. Wisdom referred to the body (base), jnana is on the side of means (functions). Wisdom is beyond means (functions), it is passive (neutral). Togal rely on the means (jnana) for the development of visions. Rigpa/vidya is knowledge, this is corresponding to the 'reason' in yogacara, upholding the reason is the intellect (jnana), Dzogchen lack this 'jnana' and so it can only say 'abiding in rigpa', but in yogacara, they only need to refer this as the intellect, thus more sophisticated and precise in their usage of terminology.

Sorry but these sentences do not mean anything to me. During dark retreats, the process of visions is boosted, I don’t understand what you mean by “absence” here. You seem to be quite unaware of what experientially happens during dark retreats.


The vision itself has no means of developing itself, rather it is the very cause of delusion in the absence of the intellect, viz. the condition of darkness just promote the condition of the delusion further.


I hope you’ll show relevant quotes to back up your claims too. The passage from the Theg-mchog-mdzod is as follows (II, p. 277, more or less rendition from JL’s french translation) :
« well then, it is explained that even if one trains in Trekchö, the visions do not reach their ultimate measure but one still liberates from the aggregates ; what is the difference ? — There is a big difference : by training in Trekchö, except for partless atoms, the body does not turn into lights. Since it does not turn into lights, the Diamond Body will not be accomplished », etc.
You have the same example and nearly same wording in the Yeshe Lama which is “translated” into chinese. Trekchö results in rdul-lus, the rdul-lus does not manifest light. Then you have to understand that there are four further modalities to the rainbow bodies, 3 of them without remains, and one with remains. Since you claim to know Dudjom Lingpa’s works on thogal this should be clear to you then (if your sources in chinese are not flawed...).


I didn't say the rdul-lus manifest light, as I mentioned it is invisible. Further this text confirmed my position that trekcho results in rdul-lus, and not togal results in rdul-lus. 'Without remains' in the case of rdul-lus does not imply the the hairs and nails also disappear, this point you have to take note.

This is clearly what I thought. You have cultural bias and don’t even realize it. Mahayana is a path of renunciation.


This is only true to the gradual bodhisattva paths, but this is not the view of the definitive teachings of mahayana.

Then above that you have the path of transformation (tantras) and above that you have the path of self-liberation (Dzogchen). How can you expect anyone believe you in your claim stating that the Chan/yogacara system is the highest ?


The view of Chan/yogacara system is similar to self-liberation, thus your tradition to assert them as inferior or lower is incorrect.

Compared to Dzogchen its view is dualistic, its means are limited and does not have DI.


This is the common norm of your tradition, prove it with real thesis if you could. Dl is just a formality, the early ch'an has it, but later abandoned as it is just a formality which has its obstacles. There is no limit in the formality in which the meaning can be transmitted, including in written form.

The fact is clear that Chinese had no Dzogchen prior to the translations of Fahai Lama and others of the same period and that they did since then all they could to show that Chan was still higher than Dzogchen.


It is due to the fact that they have formal knowledge of ch'an that they were able to compare with dzogchen, the two views are comparable, not one higher than the other. But many chinese teachers still maintain dzogchen is higher due to togal, but it is my purpose here to refute this.

Did you ever read the bSam-gtan mig-sgron by Nubchen ? You should read that carefully because Nubchen goes on carefully showing how Sutra is limited compared to tantra and how both are limited compared to Dzogchen.


Usually the Tibetan scholars arrived at such conclusion due to not having accessed to mahayana's definitive scriptures. The PP sutra that the Tibetan relied is of the middle turning, it is not considered definitive without additional interpretation. Also the dzogchen scriptures are filled with obscured terms that are subject to right interpretation against the scriptures of definitive meaning.

If you think Chan/yogacara can compare to Dzogchen in terms of Base, Path, and Fruit, it means you don’t understand Dzogchen. Your description of the visionary process of Thogel clearly demonstrates that.
[/quote][/quote]

The path and fruit are actually the cause and effect of the means in yogacara's definition. The base is equavalent to the body (essence) of yogacara's definition.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:12 am

Jyoti. Just a few points.
1. There are no scriptures of definitive meaning.
2. The visions don't really have a purpose except to inspire the practitioner to move past the intellect.
3. Look at what's real past thinking mind.
So the idea I'm presenting here is that a large part of Buddhist practice is about not attaching to appearances as well as having the discipline to let things go. It seems that your approach is heavily intellectual and this in itself obscures.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby tomamundsen » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:16 am

Andrew108 wrote:1. There are no scriptures of definitive meaning.

Of course there are.
User avatar
tomamundsen
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:57 am

Andrew108 wrote:Jyoti. Just a few points.
1. There are no scriptures of definitive meaning.
2. The visions don't really have a purpose except to inspire the practitioner to move past the intellect.
3. Look at what's real past thinking mind.


1. These are found in the chinese tripitaka in huge volumes.

2. There is no reason to move past the intellect, as the opposite of intellect is delusion. Visions and/or perceptions are the body (dharmata), the body has no purpose of either bondage or liberation as it is neutral but the means (intellect) has a function when it integrates with the body, the function results in the development of visions and/or progress in the bhumis through the perfuming of the seeds of bodhi.

3. The means cannot past beyond the means, nor can the means become the body, all such attempts are mere proliferations.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Sönam » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:27 am

Jyoti wrote:
Andrew108 wrote:Jyoti. Just a few points.
1. There are no scriptures of definitive meaning.
2. The visions don't really have a purpose except to inspire the practitioner to move past the intellect.
3. Look at what's real past thinking mind.


1. These are found in the chinese tripitaka in huge volumes.

Jyoti


Lucky chineses ... is their a chance to have a translation of that special scripture in any other language (including Pali). Can you give sutra references ?

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: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:17 am

Sönam wrote:Lucky chineses ... is their a chance to have a translation of that special scripture in any other language (including Pali). Can you give sutra references ?

Sönam


Here's a few that I confirmed to be definitive:

Mahaparinirvana Maha Sutra, Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, mahavaipulya-purnabuddha-sutra-prasannartha-sutra, vimalakiirti-nirdeza-sutra. The first one may have an english translation but I don't read sutra in english or other languages, so I'm not so sure.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Sönam » Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:34 am

Jyoti wrote:Here's a few that I confirmed to be definitive:

Mahaparinirvana Maha Sutra, Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, mahavaipulya-purnabuddha-sutra-prasannartha-sutra, vimalakiirti-nirdeza-sutra. The first one may have an english translation but I don't read sutra in english or other languages, so I'm not so sure.

Jyoti


Then we do not have the same view on what's definitive ... :popcorn:

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: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:05 pm

Sönam wrote:
Jyoti wrote:Here's a few that I confirmed to be definitive:

Mahaparinirvana Maha Sutra, Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, mahavaipulya-purnabuddha-sutra-prasannartha-sutra, vimalakiirti-nirdeza-sutra. The first one may have an english translation but I don't read sutra in english or other languages, so I'm not so sure.

Jyoti


Then we do not have the same view on what's definitive ... :popcorn:

Sönam

Exactly Sönam. And that's why there are no scriptures of definitive meaning. Such a Scripture would have to be definitive for everyone.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:13 pm

Jhoti , what do you mean by intellect? This seems a strange term to use in this context. I'm wondering if there is a translation issue here?
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:17 pm

Sönam wrote:Then we do not have the same view on what's definitive ... :popcorn:
Sönam


This is not my view, it is the sutra's view about what is definitive, so anything outside this sutra's view that does not come from the Buddha cannot be relied. Note the instructions of the four reliances of mahayana.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby heart » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:27 pm

Jyoti wrote:
Sönam wrote:Then we do not have the same view on what's definitive ... :popcorn:
Sönam


This is not my view, it is the sutra's view about what is definitive, so anything outside this sutra's view that does not come from the Buddha cannot be relied. Note the instructions of the four reliances of mahayana.

Jyoti


Well Jyoti you just said;

Jyoti wrote:Here's a few that I confirmed to be definitive


Which seems to imply that they are definitive because you confirmed them to be so. Could be a language problem, I don't know.

Anyway, we practice Vajrayana in particular Dzogchen and for us the Tantras are definitive.

/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: 3125
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:30 pm

Andrew108 wrote:Jhoti , what do you mean by intellect? This seems a strange term to use in this context. I'm wondering if there is a translation issue here?


The intellect is derived from the 'thinking in concordance with the reason', the 'reason' is derived from thusness. This is how it is defined in the definitive scriptures.

Jyoti
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Next

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

>