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.
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.