Yogacara and dzogchen

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby kalden yungdrung » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:13 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Jyoti wrote:... abiding in the reason is the intellect.

You don't need the intellect to integrate your real nature into every perception, thought, desire or action. In dzogchen behavior is absolute spontaneity beyond adherence to rules or principles, carried out beyond specific sessions of contemplation into daily activities and even sleep. Regarding this behavior Padmasambhava says "one should neither accept nor reject anything, thus never falling into partiality". Behavior is the spontaneous flow of activity which is beyond intellectual acceptance and rejection and therefore beyond intellectual partiality insofar as the state of knowledge itself is totally beyond judgment. Its essence is that it is uncontrived.

The careless craziness of destroying clinging to a style …
may this human lifetime be spent in this State of uninhibited, naked ease.

Dudjom Rinpoche in the poem entitled Calling the Lama from Afar

Jyoti, Tiger, viniketa:

Dzogchempas have been getting themselves into trouble with unconventional perceptions, thoughts, desires, actions since day one. The bad reputations we get are actually helpful, if you can believe it - as long as our actions are genuine spontaneous and not just an act.

In any event a cramped intellect has nothing to do with behavior in Dzogchen. In fact, If you can believe it, technically speaking this form of "abiding in the reason", as you put it in your language above, that is, what we call "careless craziness", is actually the form of refuge in the third jewel which we have in Dzogchen.



Tashi delek,

It is like Mutsuk wrote, Jyoti does not answer on these for her not to understandable answers / replies from the Dzogchenpas. Is this a wise decission or the only way which is left for her, otherwise the whole philosophy is "lost"?

So if one is defending one should reply to the answers from the other party. And if one is not able to give straight answers, that will mean there is something to ponder about.

What is left over is the one way interpretation about what would be (Chinese) Yogachara.
Well that is what we (Dzogchenpas) realy know, or don't we know what Yogachara is? That is realy not difficult to understand, but maybe are there here herds of dummies running around, who knows. :shock:

But here is never agreed upon what that has to do or is related to Dzogchen.

So it is realy senseless to go on, on this one way road where we get explained what Yogachara would be, but the main question was YOGACHARA AND DZOGCHEN and not what is Yogachara.

Mutsug Marro
KY
THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNED
IF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGE
HE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MAN
WHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby MalaBeads » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:17 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote: In fact, If you can believe it, technically speaking this form of "abiding in the reason", as you put it in your language above, that is, what we call "careless craziness", is actually the form of refuge in the third jewel which we have in Dzogchen.


Well, that's interesting. I'd like to hear more about that, s'il vous plait.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby MalaBeads » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:30 pm

Andrew108 wrote:From my own side I think Yogachara is very much brain-centred. I don't think Dzogchen is. What I mean is that in Yogachara there is a holding onto moments of consciousness. Personally I think these moments are explained by looking at the way the brain works. If I held a Yogacharan position then recent scientific developments would somewhat undermine that position.

In Dzogchen, consciousness is not taken as being foundational and there is the notion of purity in that nothing can be found or established as foundational. Dzogchen's view is more pervasive. Our experience is all part of this pure, perfect, and present expression, its not linked to moments of consciousness. Dzogchen is not brain-based and this is very important.

I feel that a lot if the issues are quite simple. We don't need to use complicated language. In yogachara there seems some permanent source that in a way acts as a cause. We uncover it or get to know it and we get a realization as a result. In dzogchen pure and perfect means that there is no underlying mechanism that produces what we experience. And realization is not a result. Dharmata is not producing results and neither is it acting as a cause.

There are those who think they are understanding Dzogchen when in fact they are holding a Yogacharan view. And there are those who think that by knowing Yogachara they will know Dzogchen. I understand the connection between Yogachara and Dzogchen and importantly I know the differences. In simple terms Yogachara is like being stuck inside a box. Dzogchen on the other hand is completely open and inclusive. That's what inspires me. Also Yogacharans and Dzogchenpas need a bit of Madyamaka in order to not get stuck. But this is my opinion based on the notion that Dzogchen Semde is the best place to start.



Hmmmm....don't want to get stuck n the word 'brain'.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying here, Andrew. but a little uncertain on how you are using the word 'brain'.

From my perspective, the function of the brain is the integration of the activites of the entire (physical) body. And a body that can move well, ie flow, is optimal. That's why I like Feldenkrais, because it is re-teaching me how to move, ie flow, with my body in places I've gotten stuck. But maybe I'm emphasizing Feldenkrais too much here. I'm imaging people have no idea what I'm talking about.

But for me, from my perspective as a dzogchen practitioner, the involvement of the brain is about coordinating the flow of the body, the movement. Not about holding onto to anything.

:shrug:

That's just how I see it.
MalaBeads
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:41 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote: In dzogchen behavior is absolute spontaneity beyond adherence to rules or principles, carried
out beyond specific sessions of contemplation into daily activities and even sleep. Regarding this
behavior Padmasambhava says "one should neither accept nor reject anything, thus never falling into
partiality". Behavior is the spontaneous flow of activity which is beyond intellectual acceptance and
rejection and therefore beyond intellectual partiality insofar as the state of knowledge itself is totally
beyond judgment. Its essence is that it is uncontrived.


What Padmasambhava says is the description of the body, it is valid for introducing the meaning that serve to arise the knowledge of the body. But the correct practice is to rely on the intellect (means) that is derived from the knowledge of the body. It is an error to apply the description of the body to the means, since the intellect 'neither accept nor reject anything', the intellect of differentiation, or the later-derived intellect based on the dependent-arisen nature will not arise, as one would not accept nor reject such truth due to the clinging to such description, this would be the condition similar to one's actively blocking the intellect.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:57 pm

Jyoti wrote:... this would be the condition similar to one's actively blocking the intellect.


Nope.

Frankly this is what leads me to believe you are being disingenuous. You know for a fact this is not true.
Last edited by Karma Dondrup Tashi on Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:02 pm

MalaBeads wrote:
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote: In fact, If you can believe it, technically speaking this form of "abiding in the reason", as you put it in your language above, that is, what we call "careless craziness", is actually the form of refuge in the third jewel which we have in Dzogchen.


Well, that's interesting. I'd like to hear more about that, s'il vous plait.


Refuge in path of renunciation: Buddha, dharma samgha.

Refuge in path of transformation: guru, deva, dakini.

Refuge in path of spontaneous liberation: tawa, gompa, chopa, i.e. vision, contemplation, behavior.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby username » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:16 pm

Andrew108 wrote:From my own side I think Yogachara is very much brain-centred. I don't think Dzogchen is. What I mean is that in Yogachara there is a holding onto moments of consciousness. Personally I think these moments are explained by looking at the way the brain works. If I held a Yogacharan position then recent scientific developments would somewhat undermine that position.


From your own side I presume means that is your years of research on the matter plus your clarity on the subject. However we are not Dzogchen masters. In your post histories there is a long history of a few kind members who often replied to you we are not Dzogchen masters & we should not be teaching from our own side new ideas here. Many times you agreed with them and admitted the tendency and apologized. In response to Jyoti over the last few days some of us have been quoting various masters' positions & referencing several books for her on the points we made. IMO you have merely been reading what has been posted in response to her, forming a vague generalized if not incorrect assemblage and transmitting it. Apart from the few moments of being in the natural state, Dzogchen uses the brain like any sane vehicle for it's teaching.

Andrew108 wrote:Our experience is all part of this pure, perfect, and present expression, its not linked to moments of consciousness. Dzogchen is not brain-based and this is very important.

Again a generalization of what has been posted in response to Jyoti which is ambiguous if not downright misleading for new people. Several of us had been responding to Jyoti that Dzogchen goes beyond concept. I also mentioned going beyond the 3 times in Dzogchen & thirdly as Garab Dorje told Manjushrimitra going beyond cause & effect.

Andrew108 wrote:I feel that a lot if the issues are quite simple. We don't need to use complicated language. In yogachara there seems some permanent source that in a way acts as a cause.

And in dozgchen?

Andrew108 wrote:We uncover it or get to know it and we get a realization as a result.

And in dozgchen?

Andrew108 wrote:In dzogchen pure and perfect means that there is no underlying mechanism that produces what we experience. And realization is not a result.

really?

Andrew108 wrote:Dharmata is not producing results and neither is it acting as a cause.

Interesting.

I am often open to new ideas on Buddhist worldview so please share your groundbreaking new insights.

Andrew108 wrote:There are those who think they are understanding Dzogchen when in fact they are holding a Yogacharan view. And there are those who think that by knowing Yogachara they will know Dzogchen. I understand the connection between Yogachara and Dzogchen and importantly I know the differences.

I think 'those' mistaken Dzogchenpas in your opinion best ask their own guru. BTW I have not heard 'those' mistaken Dzogchenpas here making such mistakes as you claim.

Andrew108 wrote:In simple terms Yogachara is like being stuck inside a box. Dzogchen on the other hand is completely open and inclusive. That's what inspires me. Also Yogacharans and Dzogchenpas need a bit of Madyamaka in order to not get stuck.

Well you are just making generalities from what people have been saying here. Then making incorrect presumptions. Then giving it as the correcting teaching to others. This is not so kind to newcomers, IMO, who might not know better. During the last week I have been saying to our dharma sister Jyoti Tathagata is beyond concepts. I did not say Rigpa is beyond concepts just to use her own terminology. Other posters have been saying similar to her as well. But your posts are general and use terms like 'Dzogchen is' or 'source is' etc. which are vague to say the least. In Yogacara their base alayavijnana is as I said temporal, causal & conceptual. You then presume from various posts here (or maybe: years of scholarly research on Yogacara vs. Dzogchen? Though no references!) that Yogacara philosophers were making very basic mistakes. Put right by your generality. The Yogacara philosphers were some of the best minds in ancient India which is one of the best few historic regions on philosophy. They were not stupid.

Their base & path might have been conceptual, causal & temporal but I or other posters never said their masters were so stupid as to claim to define Tathagata, the fruit to be precise despite your generalizations here, to be explainable by concepts. They often quoted Shakyamuni on this and never made such childish mistakes as you declare here. You are extrapolating wrong conclusions & imprecise teachings for others from the posts here.

Andrew108 wrote:But this is my opinion based on the notion that Dzogchen Semde is the best place to start.

Different series suit different people at different times & different teachings within each for different folk. No Dzogchen master has ever made such a basic generalized erroneous universal declaration WRT to all people. However your novel Dzogchen ideas & advice is always interesting for me.

Andrew108 wrote:Dzogchen's view is more pervasive.

Yes I agree, again you are repeating in a generalized way what I said here on Wednesday (as taught by Dudjom Lingpa in detail):
username wrote:The basis in Dzogchen is completely different, much vaster, beyond all these which are pervaded by it anyway.
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 alpha » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:40 pm

whether they are the right paths or the wrong paths it doesnt matter since the supreme joy and happiness of natural condition is available to all beings in all universes.
Why ?
Because these beings high or low together with the entire phenomenal world are the ultimate liberation itself but they fail to see it.
If those who consider themeslves dzogchenpas still think that they need to take refuge they make a grave error since they do not understand that they are the supreme refuge themselves together with everything else.
How can you believe that you have to take refuge in something other than liberation itself which is you and everything else?

Please abandon all efforts to get somewhere ,relax and rest .
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:33 pm

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: There is no content of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a container. There is nothing beyond the appearances.


Contents here refer to the phenomena (dharma) in that stream of consciousness.


Right, within your proposed model, which is flawed according to the dzogchen view. There is no phenomena, all dharmas are products of conceptual imputation and are utterly empty. Likewise consciousness is also utterly empty. Consciousness and it's alleged contents are inseparable, experience is timeless and lacks a center, borders, edges or divisions, and that being the case both sides of that equation (consciousness / contents) are simply products of conceptual imputation.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
What is it that you consider the absolute to be? And how are you defining 'emptiness'? Where are
you finding permanence and true existence?


The side of the body is the absolute.
'Emptiness' is another term for the absolute (body).
On the side of the body, one finds permanence and true existence.


Again there are no sides. And the authentic condition transcends permanence, impermanence, both and neither. The same goes for existence. There is no permanence to be found anywhere, the permanence or true existence you are speaking of is an illusion which is product of delusion.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
The sense faculties are imputed notions of ignorance. As are both internal and external.


No, the sense faculties are neutral of any imputed notions of ignorance, the same for the all (internal
and external.


Nowhere in experience has there ever once been a sense faculty present (or absent). Sense organs, sense faculties, sense fields etc... are equivalent to horns on a hare and/or hair on a tortoise. The same goes for internal and external. You can insist on the presence of these dualities as much as you like, but doing so is nothing more than clinging to affliction. (The same goes for me denying the presence of these dualities, but I'm merely doing so in the name of this discussion to make a point).

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
Consciousness doesn't perceive any objects of form, being that objects of form are also products of
imputation and ignorance.


Consciousness is that which perceived in two divisions (subject and object), these two divisions
(including the various forms) of perception are the inherent aspect of consciousness which are not
cause by imputation and ignorance. Therefore, in the absence of imputation and ignorance, the two
divisions remained as the two-fold manifestation of consciousness.


You can believe that if you'd like, but it is a grievous error to do so, and a definite deviation from the authentic view. There is no inherent aspect of consciousness, being that consciousness itself isan empty notion. The absence of ignorance is vidyā, and I can assure you there is no division to be found in vidyā. Your reliance on the intellect as your vessel to access your true nature is a poisoned seed which will never germinate.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
However you are correct in stating that a subject must be present in order for objects to be seemingly
perceived. Dzogchen's dividing line isn't clear because there's no such thing as a dividing line outside
of imputed ignorance, and being that no dividing line is truly established within imputed ignorance,
there is no dividing line. Truly, in dzogchen there isn't even 'no dividing line', because such a
conclusion would require the initial presence of a dividing line to negate in the first place.


The dzogchen system does not build outside consciousness, therefore it is subject to the same principle
of consciousness, i.e. subject to its two-fold divisions, even though it is not clearly stated, the
distinction exist.

You may need to study Mipham's The Lion’s Roar Proclaiming Extrinsic Emptiness:

"the ultimate has both a nondeluded subject and a nondelusory object, because what exists there
cannot be invalidated (gnod pa) by a valid cognition that proves otherwise, because it is what is
proven after the reasoning establishing emptiness has already been applied, and because in
establishing it according to conventional validating cognition, no one in this world, including the
gods, can dispute it in accordance with the Dharma. "


In dzogchen no consciousness has ever been established, so building outside of consciousness would be an impossible endeavor. In regards to your notion of division, again, there is no division. You may want to find another translation for the cited text because it already lacks sound grammatical continuity just in reading it plainly, so I'm not sure what other errors may be present. If you want to read Mipham, I suggest "A Lamp That Dispels Darkness", it is an exemplary exposition on the dzogchen view.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
How can a notion be neutral? A notion needs to be "about" something. One can only have a notion
in relation to a person, place, thing, idea etc.


Notion itself is neutral, but when it is derived from the basis of delusion or intellect, then it is of
delusion or intellect.


I challenge you to provide an example of a neutral notion.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
and I suppose one could argue that conceptualization is itself a mere appearance if it's left in it's
suchness


Thought or conceptualization is not the dependent arisen nature, if a mental image is maintained by
thought, it is of the imaginary nature, hence does not inherently exist. Though thusness exists in both
natures.


The imaginary is also dependently arisen. Nothing exists inherently.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
Define 'means', I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term 'means'?


In the definitive dharma and yogacara of the chinese buddhism, the means refer to the function of the body. It is not skillful means, provisional meaning, gradual means and so on, rather it is the capacity that is inherent, in the same way as the two-fold manifestation of consciousness is inherent.


It's your opinion that it is the definitive dharma of course. I see no practical application for these notions apart from reifying ignorance which obscures, obstructs and obfuscates.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:  
I take it by 'essence' you mean svabhāva? I define thusness/suchness the same as mere appearance.


Essence here refered to the body (thusness), mere appearance (dependent arisen nature) is the means of the body, not the body itself.

Jyoti


I see. Essence in dzogchen refers to either one aspect of the trifold nature of mind (essence, nature and compassion), the essence being emptiness, the nature being clarity/luminosity. Or it refers to svabhāva.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:37 pm

username wrote:
Andrew108 wrote:From my own side I think Yogachara is very much brain-centred. I don't think Dzogchen is. What I mean is that in Yogachara there is a holding onto moments of consciousness. Personally I think these moments are explained by looking at the way the brain works. If I held a Yogacharan position then recent scientific developments would somewhat undermine that position.


From your own side I presume means that is your years of research on the matter plus your clarity on the subject. However we are not Dzogchen masters. In your post histories there is a long history of a few kind members who often replied to you we are not Dzogchen masters & we should not be teaching from our own side new ideas here. Many times you agreed with them and admitted the tendency and apologized. In response to Jyoti over the last few days some of us have been quoting various masters' positions & referencing several books for her on the points we made. IMO you have merely been reading what has been posted in response to her, forming a vague generalized if not incorrect assemblage and transmitting it. Apart from the few moments of being in the natural state, Dzogchen uses the brain like any sane vehicle for it's teaching.

Andrew108 wrote:Our experience is all part of this pure, perfect, and present expression, its not linked to moments of consciousness. Dzogchen is not brain-based and this is very important.

Again a generalization of what has been posted in response to Jyoti which is ambiguous if not downright misleading for new people. Several of us had been responding to Jyoti that Dzogchen goes beyond concept. I also mentioned going beyond the 3 times in Dzogchen & thirdly as Garab Dorje told Manjushrimitra going beyond cause & effect.

Andrew108 wrote:I feel that a lot if the issues are quite simple. We don't need to use complicated language. In yogachara there seems some permanent source that in a way acts as a cause.

And in dozgchen?

Andrew108 wrote:We uncover it or get to know it and we get a realization as a result.

And in dozgchen?

Andrew108 wrote:In dzogchen pure and perfect means that there is no underlying mechanism that produces what we experience. And realization is not a result.

really?

Andrew108 wrote:Dharmata is not producing results and neither is it acting as a cause.

Interesting.

I am often open to new ideas on Buddhist worldview so please share your groundbreaking new insights.

Andrew108 wrote:There are those who think they are understanding Dzogchen when in fact they are holding a Yogacharan view. And there are those who think that by knowing Yogachara they will know Dzogchen. I understand the connection between Yogachara and Dzogchen and importantly I know the differences.

I think 'those' mistaken Dzogchenpas in your opinion best ask their own guru. BTW I have not heard 'those' mistaken Dzogchenpas here making such mistakes as you claim.

Andrew108 wrote:In simple terms Yogachara is like being stuck inside a box. Dzogchen on the other hand is completely open and inclusive. That's what inspires me. Also Yogacharans and Dzogchenpas need a bit of Madyamaka in order to not get stuck.

Well you are just making generalities from what people have been saying here. Then making incorrect presumptions. Then giving it as the correcting teaching to others. This is not so kind to newcomers, IMO, who might not know better. During the last week I have been saying to our dharma sister Jyoti Tathagata is beyond concepts. I did not say Rigpa is beyond concepts just to use her own terminology. Other posters have been saying similar to her as well. But your posts are general and use terms like 'Dzogchen is' or 'source is' etc. which are vague to say the least. In Yogacara their base alayavijnana is as I said temporal, causal & conceptual. You then presume from various posts here (or maybe: years of scholarly research on Yogacara vs. Dzogchen? Though no references!) that Yogacara philosophers were making very basic mistakes. Put right by your generality. The Yogacara philosphers were some of the best minds in ancient India which is one of the best few historic regions on philosophy. They were not stupid.

Their base & path might have been conceptual, causal & temporal but I or other posters never said their masters were so stupid as to claim to define Tathagata, the fruit to be precise despite your generalizations here, to be explainable by concepts. They often quoted Shakyamuni on this and never made such childish mistakes as you declare here. You are extrapolating wrong conclusions & imprecise teachings for others from the posts here.

Andrew108 wrote:But this is my opinion based on the notion that Dzogchen Semde is the best place to start.

Different series suit different people at different times & different teachings within each for different folk. No Dzogchen master has ever made such a basic generalized erroneous universal declaration WRT to all people. However your novel Dzogchen ideas & advice is always interesting for me.

Andrew108 wrote:Dzogchen's view is more pervasive.

Yes I agree, again you are repeating in a generalized way what I said here on Wednesday (as taught by Dudjom Lingpa in detail):
username wrote:The basis in Dzogchen is completely different, much vaster, beyond all these which are pervaded by it anyway.

Water flows under the bridge.....and away it goes..
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 username » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:04 pm

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
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 Andrew108 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:16 pm

Like purple flowers sprouting in the spring and oh amidst such glory did our love grow. Inexplicably Andrew came to love username and their shared passions lit up the skies.
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 username » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 pm

Andrew108 wrote:Like purple flowers sprouting in the spring and oh amidst such glory did our love grow. Inexplicably Andrew came to love username and their shared passions lit up the skies.


Charming, thanks.
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 Pero » Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:15 pm

Andrew and Username sitting on a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. :D
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:04 am

asunthatneversets wrote:Right, within your proposed model, which is flawed according to the dzogchen view. There is no
phenomena, all dharmas are products of conceptual imputation and are utterly empty.


This is ignorance and negation of the dependent-arising nature and consequently contradicting the
concept of conventional truth uphold by nyingma dzogchen.

Likewise consciousness is also utterly empty. Consciousness and it's alleged contents are inseparable,
experience is timeless and lacks a center, borders, edges or divisions, and that being the case both sides
of that equation (consciousness / contents) are simply products of conceptual imputation.


You seems to define the consciousness within the characteristic of the 7th consciousness, where the
imaginery nature is sustained by conceptual imputation. However, it is clear that the former 6 sensory
consciousnesses are free of conceptual imputation. Thus, the perception of object prior to moment of
conceptual activity is considered direct perception of the conventional validating cognition. This is
prove of external object of phenomena is not due to conceptual imputation.

Again there are no sides. And the authentic condition transcends permanence, impermanence, both
and neither. The same goes for existence. There is no permanence to be found anywhere, the
permanence or true existence you are speaking of is an illusion which is product of delusion.


This is only refering to the means only, but the body is permanent.

Nowhere in experience has there ever once been a sense faculty present (or absent). Sense organs,
sense faculties, sense fields etc... are equivalent to horns on a hare and/or hair on a tortoise. The same
goes for internal and external. You can insist on the presence of these dualities as much as you like,
but doing so is nothing more than clinging to affliction. (The same goes for me denying the presence
of these dualities, but I'm merely doing so in the name of this discussion to make a point).


This is attempt to negate the means in favour of the characteristic of the body, the fact is the means
and body is inseparable.

You can believe that if you'd like, but it is a grievous error to do so, and a definite deviation from the
authentic view. There is no inherent aspect of consciousness, being that consciousness itself isan empty
notion.


This is contradictory to what Mipham says regarding the existence of ultimate subject and ultimate
object.

The absence of ignorance is vidyā, and I can assure you there is no division to be found in vidyā. Your
reliance on the intellect as your vessel to access your true nature is a poisoned seed which will never
germinate.


Vidya is knowledge of the thusness, thusness itself has no division, but the dependent arising nature
has a division of subject and object reality, and both reality is inseparable from thusness. Thus your
word regarding the division of thusness, show that you don't know what you are talking about.

In dzogchen no consciousness has ever been established, so building outside of consciousness would be
an impossible endeavor. In regards to your notion of division, again, there is no division.


In other words, you are trying to be superior to Mipham by opposing his thesis.

You may want to find another translation for the cited text because it already lacks sound
grammatical continuity just in reading it plainly, so I'm not sure what other errors may be present. If
you want to read Mipham, I suggest "A Lamp That Dispels Darkness", it is an exemplary exposition
on the dzogchen view.


I never based my understanding on any text on mere words, your opinion is just saying that you are
emphasizing on the words and not on the meaning.

I challenge you to provide an example of a neutral notion.


A notion is none other than thought. For example I can arise the thought of no-thought (the reason
of thusness), and enter the state of no-thought, then from the state of no-thought, I can arise the
thought again, will my first and last thought have a non-neutral position?

The imaginary is also dependently arisen. Nothing exists inherently.


No, the imaginary nature does not exists inherently, that is why is it termed imaginary nature.

It's your opinion that it is the definitive dharma of course. I see no practical application for these notions apart from reifying ignorance which obscures, obstructs and obfuscates.


So you are saying dzogchen is not a definitive dharma?

I see. Essence in dzogchen refers to either one aspect of the trifold nature of mind (essence, nature and compassion), the essence being emptiness, the nature being clarity/luminosity. Or it refers to svabhāva.


Essence is none other than nature, nature is none other than essence, compassion/capacity is the means of essence/nature. Essence and nature, or nature and compassion versus body and means are precisely the basis of the similarity of yogacara and dzogchen.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:56 am

Jyoti wrote:... this would be the condition similar to one's actively blocking the intellect.


Are you familiar with the history and legends regarding the alleged debate of Samye, which is supposed to have pitted Kamalashila against Hwa-shan Mahayana a Ch’an Master of the Northern School?

…The process of eradicating avidya is conceived… not as a mere stopping of thought, but as the active realization of the opposite of what ignorance misconceives. Avidya is not a mere absence of knowledge, but a specific misconception, and it must be removed by realization of its opposite. In this vein, Tsongkhapa says that one cannot get rid of the misconception of “inherent existence” merely by stopping conceptuality any more than one can get rid of the idea that there is a demon in a darkened cave merely by trying not to think about it. Just as one must hold a lamp and see that there is no demon there, so the illumination of wisdom is needed to clear away the darkness of ignorance.
Napper, Elizabeth, 2003, p. 103.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby username » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:05 am

Jyoti, I disagree with many of your arguments & think in future your horizons will broaden into the spirit of those words even more than now but I find your studies & interest & contemplations on these dharmic matters very commendable & enchanting. Best wishes.
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 Karma Dondrup Tashi » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:18 am

Jyoti wrote:But the correct practice is to rely ...

In other words the dependent nature directs its intention to parinispanna? This is incorrect. Jnana does not arise in order to produce nirvana otherwise both jnana and nirvana would be compounded.

Jyoti wrote:... the body is permanent.

In other words the basis can be defined by classes and differences? So you posit this "body" in terms of dualistic concepts such as external and internal, mental and physical, permanent and impermanent?

By "permanent" do you mean swasamvedana? Since this condition has no classes or differences it cannot be defined, referred to or explained in terms of any concept. The true nature of all entities, independently of whether we refer to it
by the name spontaneous awareness or by dharmata, neither comes into being nor ceases to be; therefore, it is clear that it is beyond being and nonbeing.

Jyoti wrote:The dzogchen system does not build outside consciousness[.]

Quite the reverse.

The first five of the six unconditioned phenomena posited by the Yogacharas cannot be unconditioned, for they are produced. In fact, Ashvagosha made it quite clear that (1) akasha or space, which was “the unlimited and unchanging,” is produced by our perception, for he noted that space is but a mode or particularization having no real existence of its own, which exists only in regard to our own particularizing consciousness. Likewise, (2) pratisamkhyanirodha or cessation (nirodha) of the passions (klesha) by the power of perfect discrimination is produced by discrimination (unless by “discrimination” we understood the unveiling of primordial gnosis on the Path or as the Fruit, but this is not what the term is taken to mean in the Yogachara School). It is even clearer that (3) apratisamkhyanirodha or cessation of the passions or kleshas without the intervention of perfect discrimination is produced by the techniques applied in order to achieve this cessation. And the same applies to (4) achala or disinterest concerning power and pleasure, as well as to (5) samjñavedananirodha, which as we have seen is a state wherein samjña or recognition in terms of concepts and vedana or mental sensation are inactive. Therefore, among the six phenomena that Yogacharas regard as unconditioned, only (6) tathata or thatness, which may be said to be the essential constituent of what Mahamadhyamaka calls the Base, may be validly regarded as such.
Capriles

According to ...the Dzogchen teachings, the Path must consist in Seeing through all experiences that are conditioned and made (samskrita), into the unconditioned and unmade (asamskrita), which is not only nirvana, but also the true condition of samsara—for, as we have seen, if this were not so nirvana itself would be conditioned and impermanent, and could not represent a definitive solution for suffering. Furthermore, this Seeing could not be the result of an action, for, as we have seen, action sustains the delusion that is the core of the conditioned and made.
Capriles
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Sönam » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:24 am

Jyoti wrote:
In dzogchen no consciousness has ever been established, so building outside of consciousness would be
an impossible endeavor. In regards to your notion of division, again, there is no division.


In other words, you are trying to be superior to Mipham by opposing his thesis.


(out of a bad translation of mine, from French ... but the sense should not be affected)

"It is fascinating to notice that in the rNying ma pa tradition of the Great Perfection (rDzogs chen), the majority of topics to be interpreted, to understand regarding oral transmission's norms (snyan brgyud) founded upon an Awawakening experience pure from all corruption, was already fixed in a very early date and that almost all following interpretations given by exegete from this school never brought something new, or few. Excepted, perhaps, 'Ju Mi pham rgya mysho (1846-1912) who tried a philosophical connection with Madhyamaka tradition, denaturing in that way the original principes of rDzogs chen. To speak about denaturation or else of adulteration of a tradition can certainly sound schocking in a "correct ecumenisme" context, but it's clear for purists that the Great Perfection's mind cannot be reduced to sutra or tantra's conceptions."
- Jean-Luc Achard - La base et ses sept interprétations dans la tradition rDzogs chen -


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: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby heart » Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:14 am

Jyoti wrote:
heart wrote:Like for example?


You can read more about the origin of the method of body and means (體用) from here:

http://www.buddhism.org/board/read.cgi? ... _number=60

Jyoti


That article is about Buddhism in Korea, quite difficult to read and gives no indication whatsoever what you mean with "origin of the method of body and means".Try again Jyoti.

/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: 3142
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gad rgyangs, Jeff, lelopa and 18 guests

>