Yogacara and dzogchen

[username]

Do you realise that Hinayana followers would say the same thing about the sutras you believe are definitive?

Yes, been there!

You'll get here too!

[Malcolm]

But we do not accept Mahayana as definitive. We only accept Dzogchen as definitive, based on what the Buddha has taught in those teachings.

This type of claim is precisely the reason the buddha explicitly stated the guidelines on how to distinguish the scriptures of non-definitive meaning from the scriptures of definitive meaning. Therefore, based on those guidelines, no person can undermine the authenticity of the definitive scriptures, or the mahayana that is established by it.

Jyoti

This is not even very precise -- for example, one Indian school of common Mahāyāna (i.e.Madhyamaka) follows the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa sūtra for ascertaining what is definitive; another (Yogacara) follows the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra. Both schools also utilize the four reliances from the Kaśyapa-parivarta sūtra. Your criteria therefore is far less certain that you pretend.

When it comes to Dzogchen, Dzogchen is beyond the considerations of common Mahāyāna.

M

[Jyoti]

However one can not mix in a higher vehicle with a lower one & then claim the lower one is definitive. This is illogical & in that case one should only stick to one's own chosen lower vehicle, ie:Mahayana or Hinayana.

Correct, but dzogchen is not higher than yogacara as I have indicated in this thread.

Jyoti

That is perfectly fine for a Mahayanist to state & we understand. However you can not take Dzogchen teachings, then say Dzogchen is talking garbage when it says it has samayas as you did, or it is higher & more definitive than Mahayana. This is not Mahayana, which does not accept taking Dzogchen teachings & empowerments in the first place as you do. This is your own creation which is completely illogical & self contradictory from the point of view of Dzogchen AND Mahayana. You are just picking & choosing whatever bits you like from both & rearranging as you see fit. Seriously, this is basically Jyotiyana.

Then you don't understand the four reliances, the four reliances does not differentiate tradition, even if it is not a traditional buddhist teaching, but if the teaching meet the criteria of the definitive meaning, it is considered definitive, this is what I did to the dzogchen tradition, by confirming its teaching as definitive based on the standard criteria as stated in the sutras.

Jyoti

[futerko]

Jyoti has been completely logical and consistent in all of her statements. She has just "picked" statements to support her position based upon the comments of others.

Indeed, I was thinking exactly the same thing... There is nothing beyond consciousness and therefore thought is the highest wisdom - its perfectly circular and irrefutable... If I draw the limit of reality as my bathtub, then the whole of reality is just soapy water and a rubber duckie.

[Sönam]

Well Jyoti you just said;

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

I had to confirm the status of any mahayana scriptures in accordance to what is outlined in the scriptures as definitive, before I will considered relying on it. It is clear in the scriptures that the tantra's skillful means has hidden intention, therefore is considered non-definitive. But this does not mean one cannot practice tantra, nor implied that one should reject this scripture explanation, rather one should be aware that he is only practicing the provisional dharma.

Jyoti

And how did you confirm that mahayana scriptures are definitive? On what base? ... how could you know that YOUR confirmation is definitive?

Sönam

[Jyoti]

This is not even very precise -- for example, one Indian school of common Mahāyāna (i.e.Madhyamaka) follows the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa sūtra for ascertaining what is definitive; another (Yogacara) follows the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra. Both schools also utilize the four reliances from the Kaśyapa-parivarta sūtra. Your criteria therefore is far less certain that you pretend.

When it comes to Dzogchen, Dzogchen is beyond the considerations of common Mahāyāna.

M

I personally follow several sutras, there are basically no differences in the criterias set up for determining the definitive teaching. basically no one has a business in another tradition, the same for dzogchen with regards to the mahayana, but when your tradition undermine the mahayana, rendered it as inferior or of a lower vehicle, then we have the right to defend it.

Jyoti

[Sönam]

Do you realise that Hinayana followers would say the same thing about the sutras you believe are definitive?

Yes, been there!

And when you were there, could you imagine you would be somewhere else? ... but I confirm you bthe following as definitive: once you will be there too!


Sönam

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Which Mahayana master is authorizing his followers to take Dzogchen teachings & empowerments?

Otherwise this is making things up just as one wishes.

Exactly. This is a comedy.

EDIT: It seems to me that Jyoti is a very nice person. But the more I try to understand, it also seems to me that Jyoti actually does not have a vehicle at the moment. Jyoti has Jyoti.

[Sönam]

but when your tradition undermine the mahayana, rendered it as inferior or of a lower vehicle, then we have the right to defend it.

Jyoti

Good point, it makes all more clear. Shure you have the right to defend your vehicle ... and from the pov of your vehicle you did it well.
Just one more point, dzogchen does not render anything as being inferior ... even not as being a lower vehicle.

Sönam

[username]

That is perfectly fine for a Mahayanist to state & we understand. However you can not take Dzogchen teachings, then say Dzogchen is talking garbage when it says it has samayas as you did, or it is higher & more definitive than Mahayana. This is not Mahayana, which does not accept taking Dzogchen teachings & empowerments in the first place as you do. This is your own creation which is completely illogical & self contradictory from the point of view of Dzogchen AND Mahayana. You are just picking & choosing whatever bits you like from both & rearranging as you see fit. Seriously, this is basically Jyotiyana.

Then you don't understand the four reliances, the four reliances does not differentiate tradition, even if it is not a traditional buddhist teaching, but if the teaching meet the criteria of the definitive meaning, it is considered definitive, this is what I did to the dzogchen tradition, by confirming its teaching as definitive based on the standard criteria as stated in the sutras.

Jyoti

No you don't understand basic statements & questions put to you hence your evasion of them & why you can not possibly understand never mind apply the four reliances reliably. Let me explain in simpler language. Dzogchen says it is a vehicle. You are interested in it. You take teachings & empowerments from it's lamas. Then you realize Dzogchen says:

1- Dzogchen has samayas
2- Dzogchen is the ultimate definitive teaching of the Buddhas
3- Dzogchen is superior to all other Buddhist vehicles

Then you say to Dzogchen, actually on those points you are talking garbage. I know you better than yourself or Garab Dorje or Padmasambhava. Let me correct you and knock you into shape.

Then you do not stop there. You start fixing Mahayana too. Since no Mahayana master has authorized his followers, or you, to take Dzogchen teachings & empowerments you say:

4- Jyoti knows better than all mahayana masters who forbid taking Dzogchen
5- Jyoti will take Dzogchen teachings & empowerments from Dzogchen masters (by definition: realized on 3rd vision or higher & able to give DI from their lineage) & will then incorporate it into Mahayana with Mahayana as the definitive POV, as she understands them & sees fit

This is neither Dzogchen nor Mahayana but your own yana.

6- Finally: Tathagata is beyond concepts.

[byamspa]

Indeed, I was thinking exactly the same thing... There is nothing beyond consciousness and therefore thought is the highest wisdom - its perfectly circular and irrefutable... If I draw the limit of reality as my bathtub, then the whole of reality is just soapy water and a rubber duckie.

hmm, maybe the universe is simply the reflection of a rubber ducky on a bathtub bubble.

That would explain a lot, actually.

[viniketa]

I suppose I am not 'welcome' to post in this forum, but I read it from time to time and have been reading this topic, and have an observation.

Joyti is correct when she says Dzogchen tantras cannot be said to contain definitive meaning:

The term "tantra" is just a general word in Sanskrit that means effectively "manual".
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 06#p125970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, this is not to say that the 'manuals' cannot lead to experience which can be said to be 'definitive'...

[username]

I suppose I am not 'welcome' to post in this forum, but I read it from time to time and have been reading this topic, and have an observation.

Joyti is correct when she says Dzogchen tantras cannot be said to contain definitive meaning:

The term "tantra" is just a general word in Sanskrit that means effectively "manual".
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 06#p125970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, this is not to say that the 'manuals' cannot lead to experience which can be said to be 'definitive'...

Earth is not flat.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p125953" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[byamspa]

Earth is not flat.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p125953" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's because its rubber-ducky shaped.

[byamspa]

Earth is not flat.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p125953" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's because its rubber-ducky shaped.

Its also possible that the mind is shaped like a rubber-ducky too.

[Jyoti]

And how did you confirm that mahayana scriptures are definitive? On what base? ... how could you know that YOUR confirmation is definitive?

Sönam

Below is some from the scriptures I have translated before regarding what is definitive or otherwise:

In the Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra it is stated that:

“The scriptures of non-definite-meaning discuss the suffering of life and death, [whereas] those in the scriptures of definite-meaning (nitartha) is the nonduality of samsara and nirvana”

Also:

"[On] the words: the life and death is so called; [whereas on] the meaning: [is] knowing the life and death have no nature; [On] the words: "the taste of nirvana; [whereas on] the meaning: [is] knowing nirvana has no nature".

The terminology that is applied toward a-nitartha (indefinite-meaning)[in order to complete its deficiency]. The saying that exposed clearly the real meaning of the ultimate is termed nitartha. The saying which is indefinitive and inexhautive is termed a-nitartha. Thus nitartha and a-nitartha is another term for expedite mean / upaya (a-nitartha) and the authentic (nitartha).

The Maharatnakuta sutra stated "If any scripture, there is a saying [that show]: revulsion against samsara and inclined toward nirvana, is a-nitartha. If there is a saying about samsara and nirvana as nondual is termed nitartha." The Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra stated: "The scripture of nitartha [is about] the nonduality of samsara and nirvana."

Regarding the type of scriptures that are definitive:

Those belonged to the vaipulya class in the mahayana tripitaka. Vaipulya means 'broad and vast and extensive in scope'. Those of middle turning is definitive with some interpretation required, whereas of final turning is definitive without interpretation.

List of Vaipulya Sutras :

Prajnaparimita
Lalitavistara
Suvarnaprabhasa
Avatamsaka
Samadhiraja
Lankavattara

Tathāgatagarbha:
Mahaparinirvana Maha Sutra, Mahāvaipulya mahāsamghāta sūtra, mahavaipulya-purnabuddha-sutra-prasannartha-sutra, vimalakiirti-nirdeza-sutra

Jyoti

[byamspa]

Does all of this intellectual masturbation show one the nature of their mind?

[Jyoti]

No you don't understand basic statements & questions put to you hence your evasion of them & why you can not possibly understand never mind apply the four reliances reliably. Let me explain in simpler language. Dzogchen says it is a vehicle. You are interested in it. You take teachings & empowerments from it's lamas. Then you realize Dzogchen says:

1- Dzogchen has samayas
2- Dzogchen is the ultimate definitive teaching of the Buddhas
3- Dzogchen is superior to all other Buddhist vehicles

1. I'm not taking the samaya of dzogchen tradition but the samaya of the teaching which is vidya, this is the same as the 'reason' in yogacara.
2. Except that it is not the only teaching that is ultimate, I have knowledge of all the other teachings that has views comparable to it.
3. Having knowledge of all other teachings allowed me to know this is not true.

Therefore these three points you presented do not apply.

Jyoti

[byamspa]

You didn't answer me, how does this point out the nature of one's mind?

In other words, what is the *point* of all this back and forth?

[Jyoti]

You didn't answer me, how does this point out the nature of one's mind?

In other words, what is the *point* of all this back and forth?

This is not a direct introduction! But it is presented as if you already know the nature.

Jyoti