Yogacara and dzogchen

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:32 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:In other words the dependent nature directs its intention to parinispanna?


No.

Parinispanna or paramartha is the reason which give rise to the 'intellect of the origin'. When the
dependent arising nature arises as the object of the 'intellect of the origin', the 'intellect of
differentiation' arises. The later-derived intellect is able to penetrate all phenomena in terms of
reason and matter, example in the case of buddhas, their ability to apprehend and expound all
dharma.

This is incorrect. Jnana does not arise in order to produce nirvana otherwise both jnana and nirvana
would be compounded.


Nirvana is the body, thus it can neither arise nor produce. Jnana is the means of the body, nirvana is
the body of all dharma, the means and body are inseparable as there is only one nature, one essence,
thus can never be compounded.

That said, the buddhahood of yogacara does not abide in nirvana (body) but abide in bodhi (means).
This is termed the non-abiding nirvana.

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?



A dualistic concept in buddhism is defined as having two absolutes or bodies, rather than such words
as external and internal, mental and physical, permanent and impermanent. 'A' can have two
opposing sides, but if the 'A' is one, there is no dualism.

By "permanent" do you mean swasamvedana?


Swasamvedana or paramartha refer to the reason of the body, thus it is considered permanent.

Since this condition has no classes or differences it cannot be defined, referred to or explained in
terms of any concept.


The paramartha cannot be defined, but this 'non-defined' does not refer to the form of the body, but
the reason of the body. The form of the body can be defined as permanent, uncreated, etc., because
this is seen in the nature of the dependent origination as ceaseless/permanent arising due to
conditions, etc. But the reason of the body is beyond conventional characteristics.

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.


Dharmata is none other than the thusness of phenomena, the reason of thusness is of course, non-defined. What you have described about it in the mode of negation of extremes does not help much in the understanding. Thus, in yogacara and in the definitive sutras, there are no descriptions other than the names being prescribed for them.

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 6:00 pm

Jyoti wrote:The later-derived intellect is able to penetrate all phenomena in terms of reason and matter, example in the case of buddhas, their ability to apprehend and expound all dharma.

Right. In other words in yogacara jnana arises when the individual mind directs its intention to the true condition of all entities, which is parinispanna and, as a result, nirvana obtains. "Ability to penetrate", i.e. "intention" itself implies the existence of a subject of intention and an object of intention. This point is illustrated by the very name of your school - yogacara. There is no "meditation" in dzogchen, thun sessions lead to contemplation. There is no "ability to penetrate". In yogacara the dependent nature's emptiness of the imaginary nature is the perfectly existent nature. In dzogchen there is only the "naturally manifest primordial gnosis realized through the spontaneous awareness of the primordial, true condition".

In yogacara not just thusness, but this spontaneous awareness is also an ultimately true, self-existing substance or reality. You said it yourself:

Jyoti wrote:Swasamvedana or paramartha refer to the reason of the body, thus it is considered permanent.

Existence cannot be predicated, either concerning dharmata or in regard to spontaneous awareness. Thus spontaneous awareness itself has no classes or differences. It therefore cannot be explained, only experienced. And it sure as heck cannot be considered "permanent" or impermanent.

Jyoti wrote:The form of the body can be defined as permanent, uncreated, etc., because this is seen in the nature of the dependent origination as ceaseless/permanent arising due to conditions, etc.

In dzogchen parinispanna is not merely the dependent nature's emptiness of the imaginary nature. It is the very ground in which both the imaginary images and dependent objects appear. Therefore dzogchen, rather than equating the absolute nature with paratantra — the dependently conceived nature that is empty of imaginary objects — holds the absolute nature to be empty, both of imaginary objects of refutation and of dependently conceived entities, whether "uncreated" or not.

Jyoti wrote:What you have described about it in the mode of negation of extremes does not help much in the understanding.

Right - because the whole point is not to "understand".
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Tiger » Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:58 pm

Sönam wrote:
... point of view, or tawa, is developed by looking at an object. You consider that this is good, that is bad, judging as though you were looking at an object. Your senses are pointed at an object, and you do an analysis and form a judgment. In that way, maybe, you can develop some type of intellectual study.
... That is not, however, the solution for overcoming samsara or obtaining realization. Discovering your own real nature means that you must observe yourself rather than only observing other objects. That is why, in the Dzogchen teaching, we use the example of looking in the mirror.


- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu - Dzogchen Teachings -



With all due respect, ChNN is wrong or ill informed or is probably referring to Non-Buddhism, Science or other fields and religions. In Buddhism when one selects an object for Shamatha, even the attainment of Samadhi can take one beyond the nature of intellectual analysis. And thats still only the Shamatha part. Heart sutra says form is emptiness and emptiness is form - and this is not something to be parroted by scholar-monks. This is expected to be realized.

The analogy of Mirror is used in Chan and probably also Yogachara in general. "Four Stations of Mindfulness" which is general to all vehicles of Buddhism, takes care of the "you must observe yourself rather than only observing other objects" part.

Shurangama Sutra is a kind of a manual written for meditators. What use does it have for intellectual analysis?
Namo Amitabha Buddha
Tiger
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:47 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby kalden yungdrung » Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:40 pm

Tiger wrote:
Sönam wrote:
... point of view, or tawa, is developed by looking at an object. You consider that this is good, that is bad, judging as though you were looking at an object. Your senses are pointed at an object, and you do an analysis and form a judgment. In that way, maybe, you can develop some type of intellectual study.
... That is not, however, the solution for overcoming samsara or obtaining realization. Discovering your own real nature means that you must observe yourself rather than only observing other objects. That is why, in the Dzogchen teaching, we use the example of looking in the mirror.


- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu - Dzogchen Teachings -



With all due respect, ChNN is wrong or ill informed or is probably referring to Non-Buddhism, Science or other fields and religions. In Buddhism when one selects an object for Shamatha, even the attainment of Samadhi can take one beyond the nature of intellectual analysis. And thats still only the Shamatha part. Heart sutra says form is emptiness and emptiness is form - and this is not something to be parroted by scholar-monks. This is expected to be realized.

Emptiness used in Madyamika is different than used in Dzogchen. Emptiness is not mere a negation of something but emptiness is a factor which goes together with sound, light and rays. Here is everything coming and returning to the base (Gzhi). This base has similarities with our visons and Bodhicitta. This base is total self aware like our non karmic or egoless Mind.

In Dzogchen practice is Samatha a preliminary. First meditation with object then without object, then we get visualised objects the entry to Tantra. It is never beyond conciousness like in Yogachara. The Gelug do claim that there must be some conciousness to get recognition about the object otherwise all would be go astray to nihilism..... :o
So emtiness used in Madyamika, Yogachara etc. is different to Dzogchen emptiness.



The analogy of Mirror is used in Chan and probably also Yogachara in general. "Four Stations of Mindfulness" which is general to all vehicles of Buddhism, takes care of the "you must observe yourself rather than only observing other objects" part.

The mirror used in Dzogchen can be used in different ways. One is that the mirror is empty and can therefore reflect. It has no bad or good because it is total empty. As well the Tsal (energy) of the base can reflect as well our own visions can reflect with the help of the Tsal. Only our visions are called Rolpa. The inner visions are not caused like in other Traditions by the conciousness but are self-emergent. So because of this aspect self-emergent, the use of the conciousness is NOT nescessary and even not needed. In Dzogchen meditation it is seen as a mistake if we make use of the conciousness to recognize our inherent Natural State. :D

Shurangama Sutra is a kind of a manual written for meditators. What use does it have for intellectual analysis?

Well we are at the very moment doing intellectual analysis to get closer to the point. I cannot expect from you that you would be able to abide in the Dzogchen Natural Sate..... In the latter case, we can easy stop with these intellectual analysis
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: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:08 am

Jyoti wrote:
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.


Perhaps some facets of the Nyingma school uphold the concept of conventional truth, but we aren't discussing The Nyingma. There is another board available for that if you'd like to discuss the Nyingma's view of conventional truth. Dzogchen does not uphold the duality of conventional and ultimate truth but instead sees this distinction as a fallacious projection of conceptualization. The Dzogchen treasure text Experiencing The Enlightened Mind Of Samantabhadra states, "In the awakened mind there is no relative or ultimate truth", and this is because Dzogchen is precisely the experience of awakened mind, and not dualistic conceptual elaboration about awakened mind. Though the Great Perfection is considered to be the quintessence and heart of all paths, it does consider all other approaches apart from itself to involve supposition, which is not an authentic apprehension of wisdom.

"The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie.
When everything is brought into the condition of gnosis in the vast expanse,
The subject and object in flickering awareness, like a child's dance,
Are neutralized in the state of awareness transcending intellect."
- Longchen Rabjam


-------------------

"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.

However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found -
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.

The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to -
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra



Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Within this schematic you're speaking of there is no sensory consciousness which exists apart from conceptual imputation. Your notion that "the former 6 sensory consciousnesses are free of conceptual imputation" is a presupposition that is held in place due to a failure to effectively apperceive the authentic condition. Again, there is no internal or external apart from relative conceptualization, nor objects. Conceptualization is the culprit in this predicament, but it is also the only means of communication, so it is a double edged sword in that respect. We implement language to convey descriptions, ideas, instructions to one another and this is a useful tool, but we fall into a subtle trap when we start to actually believe that language is describing pre-existent elements of experience, instead of actually creating them. This is something that needs to be recognized within your own experience, it cannot be understood intellectually, so I don't expect you to accept this fact, but I hope that it becomes evident in time.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


You say the 'body' is the absolute (a.k.a. emptiness), I don't see how emptiness can be said to be permanent, since emptiness is not a quality which can be said to retain characteristics such as permanence or impermanence. In what way does this 'body' abide? And in what way is it permanent?

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


So in a cryptic way, you're stating that the intellect and emptiness are inseparable?

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


From the text that Sönam was kind enough to share, it seems that relying on Mipham for an accurate account of the dzogchen view in some of his writings may prove to be problematic...

Sönam wrote:

"(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 shocking 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"


Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Yes vidyā is the knowledge of the natural state (or 'thusness', as you choose to define it, though that term isn't employed in dzogchen), and the natural state has no division. Dependent arising is the way in which apparent phenomena seemingly exist, and there is no division of subject and object within dependent origination since the subject/object dichotomy is itself a rather bold example of dependent origination. I believe the issue here is again the issue of the two-truths. According to the two-truths, yes, relatively there is division, though within that apparent division, no actual division is ever created. Ultimately there is no division, and within dzogchen not even the division of relative and ultimate is established, so any division posited to exist relatively is given no credence at all.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets 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.


I've made no mention of Mipham in the above statement, nor have I asserted anything close to what you're suggesting. I could play the same game with you by making a brash statement such as "In other words, you are trying to be superior to (insert dzogchen master of choice) by opposing his thesis", but I don't find that to be an effective response or anything which would resemble a productive addition to this discussion.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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'd hope neither of us would leave our understandings based on mere words. As for my lack of emphasis on the meaning of the quote you provided, I found it to be incongruent with the dzogchen view, and again this seems to be an issue which has stemmed from Mipham's exegetical denaturation that Sönam pointed out.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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?


A thought is none other than thought, a notion is a thought which is seemingly directed towards (or is about) something. In it's most basic state, yes, a notion is none other than thought, but if we're going to say that then why not say that about everything? The point was to address the notion of a 'notion', in a relative sense.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


I didn't say it existed inherently, I was pointing out that, that which is dependently arisen is not inherent, and since everything is dependently arisen, nothing exists inherently.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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?


Dzogchen is simply your true nature. I was saying that the conceptual structure you've amassed with all of these apparent divisions and dualities has no practical application apart from reifying itself, and thus it obscures, obstructs and obfuscates the authentic condition. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have any redeeming value, we all have to walk our own paths and like someone else was saying, I commend your affinity for the dharma and your willingness to engage in these discussions.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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


You actually were making sense up until you brought up the body and means again. I'm not sure what you're suggesting the basis of the similarity between the two is, they certainly don't share the same basis. The basis in yogācāra is mind (or consciousness) as you choose to see it, while the basis in dzogchen is awakened wisdom.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:06 am

heart wrote:
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


Please scroll down to find <3. T'i-yung> on the same website.
User avatar
Jyoti
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Location: Taiwan

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:09 am

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Right. In other words in yogacara jnana arises when the individual mind directs its intention to the
true condition of all entities, which is parinispanna and, as a result, nirvana obtains.


This 'jnana of the origin' is a non-analytical intellect. Nirvana is not obtain because the body cannot
be obtain by the means, as they are not separate from the beginning. What is attained is the bodhi,
the arriving of this jnana is the attainment of the first bhumi.

"Ability to penetrate", i.e. "intention" itself implies the existence of a subject of intention and an
object of intention. This point is illustrated by the very name of your school - yogacara.


This is refering to the 'intellect of differentiation', or 'latter-derived intellect', which is a combination
of analytical and non-analytical intellect. The subject of intention is the paramartha, the object of
intention is the dependent arising nature. Thus in this intellect, the knowledge of the two truths is
present. This is a more dynamic and evolved form of jnana and therefore the arriving of this jnana is
the attainment of the second bhumi, and this jnana remain the same all the way to the tenth bhumi.
Due to the yogacara relied exclusively on the intellect, if the name of the tradition is based on what
the teaching relied, then it would be appropriately called the 'intellect-only'. However, since the
tradition has to caters for everyone including those has yet to attain the intellect, thus it was called
the 'consciousness-only'.

There is no "meditation" in dzogchen, thun sessions lead to contemplation. There is no "ability to
penetrate".


In yogacara, the relying on the intellect is not a meditation, as there is no formal meditation and
post-meditation to be distinguished. Even in the stage of bodhisattva, there is attainment of four
non-obstructions which are the non-obstruction of the dharma, meaning, words, and speech. Only
the persons (including arahats) of the two yanas do not possess the four non-obstructions. Thus, it
seems that your form of dzogchen strayed to the view of the two yanas.

Even though your tradition entertained more fancy words and strange terminologies, but in the
principle, practice and abiding is similar to the two yanas. For example, it is the mindfulness practice
of the theravada tradition can be said to cover all of their principle, practice and abiding. Though the
version of dzogchen in the nyingma tradition according to Mipham is more in line with the
mahayana, due to embracing the two truths, and utilizing of both analytical and non-analytical
intellect.

In yogacara the dependent nature's emptiness of the imaginary nature is the perfectly existent nature.
In dzogchen there is only the "naturally manifest primordial gnosis realized through the spontaneous
awareness of the primordial, true condition".


What you stated there is about the body which meaning is to be realize. In yogacara this is only
about the body and one can't rely on it directly without having the means. But in order to rely on the
means (jnana), the reason (paramartha) of the body has to be realized first. So it is not so simple as
merely stating the descriptions or names about the body, no matter how colorful those descriptions or
names are.

In yogacara not just thusness, but this spontaneous awareness is also an ultimately true, self-existing
substance or reality. You said it yourself:


Of course the consciousness is true, as it is the body of thusness.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby heart » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:56 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


So, "T'i-yung" , is what you translate as "body and means"? The translation as "essence-function" seems more appropriate to me. To my understanding this concept isn't from Yogacara, so it certainly isn't strange that many here had a hard time understanding what you are talking about. This expression is particular to Korean Buddhism. I quote from wikipedia:

"The t'i-yung paradigm has roots in the Wei-Chin era of Chinese history, whose predominant intellectual trend was "Unification of the Three Teachings" ideology, i.e., the quest for a theoretical reconciliation among Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-Function

The aim of that reconciliation and unification of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism can hardly be considered Yogacara Jyoti. Of course it might be very important concept in Korean Buddhism and I am guessing that you are Korean. Anyway, thank you for the pointer, I think I understand why this discussion is so hard to follow now.

/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: 2929
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:09 am

Jhoti, I should point out that what asunthatneversets has written is really very very good. Instead of moving your argument somewhere else you would do well to take on board what asunthatneversets has said.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:43 am

asunthatneversets wrote:Perhaps some facets of the Nyingma school uphold the concept of conventional truth, but we aren't
discussing The Nyingma. There is another board available for that if you'd like to discuss the
Nyingma's view of conventional truth.


There is no dzogchen without the discussing the nyingma's perspective of dzogchen, to posit
otherwise is ignorance of the history of dzogchen, or to posit there is a pure form of dzogchen would
be a mistake, because we didn't live in the time of Hevajra. The very fact of the requirement of
dzogchen for direct transmission instead of preserving the teaching in the authenticity of the original
scriptures, make dzogchen impossible to not be contaminated through the passing of the lineage by
the opinions of different teachers. The effort of nyingma scholars like Mipham who make the
dzogchen teaching stand out in writing among other Tibetan buddhist traditions contribute much to
the authenticity of dzogchen as a buddhist teaching in the main stream buddhism throughout the
world. However, later effort of some who attempt to isolate dzogchen from main stream buddhism
will have negative impact on any such previous effort.

Dzogchen does not uphold the duality of conventional and ultimate truth but instead sees this
distinction as a fallacious projection of conceptualization.


To assert conventional and ultimate truth as a duality is not having understand the meaning of the
inseparability of the conventional and ultimate.

The Dzogchen treasure text Experiencing The Enlightened Mind Of Samantabhadra states, "In the
awakened mind there is no relative or ultimate truth", and this is because Dzogchen is precisely the
experience of awakened mind, and not dualistic conceptual elaboration about awakened mind.
Though the Great Perfection is considered to be the quintessence and heart of all paths, it does
consider all other approaches apart from itself to involve supposition, which is not an authentic
apprehension of wisdom.


Thusness has no different with regard to relative or ultimate, knowledge of this nondifferentiation is
the 'intellect of nondifferentiation', or the 'intellect of the origin' which is non-analystical in nature,
this is what the text referred to as the awakened mind. 'Awakened' correspond to bodhi, whereas
mind correspond to the 6th and 7th consciousnesses, these are the sites for the function of the
intellect.

"The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie.
When everything is brought into the condition of gnosis in the vast expanse,
The subject and object in flickering awareness, like a child's dance,
Are neutralized in the state of awareness transcending intellect."
- Longchen Rabjam


'Lie' is sometime translated as deception, appearance is deceptive in the sense that it is the cause of
mistaken perception. Again thusness itself has no different in terms of the all (12 entrances).

"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,


This is refering to the imaginary nature

giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.


This is refering to the imaginary nature within the internal and external field of perception, for
example, the imaginary self and the imaginary self of others as well as the imaginary object as real
substance.

Without reading the full context exist above regarding the rope analogy. This part of the sentence can
easily confused as refering purely to the basis of external and internal as imaginary, the term
'externality' refer to external contents rather than merely the 'external' field of perception itself.

However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found -
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,


The statement is fine as it refer to the thusness, since in term of thusness, even the dependent arising
nature is thusness, and the term emptiness is refering to thusness, not an absolute emptiness in the
conventional sense.

as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.


This is description for mere appearance and conventional truth, thus if the emptiness in previous
passage were taken as absolute in the conventional sense, then the word 'seems to have such concrete
form' (equavalent to 'mere appearance') and 'conventional' (conventional truth of the dependent
arising nature) would have no place.

The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;


The snake is the imaginary nature, the rope is of the dependent arising nature, thus only the
dependent arising nature is true.

analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to -
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra


The analogy is refering to the truth of the imaginary nature (bird) and the truth of the dependent
arising nature (promontory). The 'nature of the two truths' refer to the truth of the dependent
arising nature and the truth of the absolute nature. 'Conventional dissimulation' refering to the
impermanence of the apparent phenomena contain the truth of dependent origination. 'Authentic
reality has no relationship to' refer to the truth of the absolute nature has no relationship to the truth
of dependent origination.

In no place did this quote of Longchenpa negate the conventional truth in favour of the ultimate
truth, he is just describing the thusness. While the thusness may be describe from the position of the
ultimate meaning, it causes more confusion (in the absence of right interpretation) than it does to
generate understanding.

Within this schematic you're speaking of there is no sensory consciousness which exists apart from
conceptual imputation.


No, the conceptual imputation is the function of the 7th consciousness. The 6 sensory consciousnesses
have no such capacity. The 6 sensory consciousnesses are merely responsible for the gathering of the
object of perceptions, they are able to distinguish objects but have no capacity of arising the
imaginary nature based upon such object.

Your notion that "the former 6 sensory consciousnesses are free of conceptual imputation" is a
presupposition that is held in place due to a failure to effectively apperceive the authentic condition.



A simple method is to know why this is not a notion but a fact is to know that it take time for
conceptual activity to occur after the senses having contact with the object, so the intiatial moment of
sense contact is free of conceptual activity, such is the moment where the dependent arising nature of
object is established as not depended on conceptual construction. That's why I have suggest you read
Mipham's or other buddhist material on valid cognition before asserting what you apparently have no
knowledge about.

You say the 'body' is the absolute (a.k.a. emptiness), I don't see how emptiness can be said to be
permanent, since emptiness is not a quality which can be said to retain characteristics such as
permanence or impermanence. In what way does this 'body' abide? And in what way is it permanent?


As I said, in buddhism emptiness is another word for the absolute, anything of absolute exists, and
such existence is permanent, viz. permanence has to do with existence, and existence with
permanence.

Conversely the dependent arising nature has to do with the false/deceptive appearance, such
false/deceptive appearance is impermanent and permanent, it is impermanence because appearance
changes, it is permanent because of its capacity for ceaseless/permanent arising due to conditions.
The body abides permanently in nirvana (ceasing/non-arising aspect).

So in a cryptic way, you're stating that the intellect and emptiness are inseparable?

Emptiness is the thusness, the reason of thusness is the intellect, so thusness (emptiness) is not
separated from the intellect.

From the text that Sönam was kind enough to share, it seems that relying on Mipham for an
accurate account of the dzogchen view in some of his writings may prove to be problematic...


So you rather believe in the opinion Jean-Luc Achard, someone who has no known authority in the
dzogchen nor having produce any philosophical commentary on dzogchen, than in the wisdom of
Mipham's philosophical thesis?

Yes vidyā is the knowledge of the natural state (or 'thusness', as you choose to define it, though that
term isn't employed in dzogchen), and the natural state has no division. Dependent arising is the way
in which apparent phenomena seemingly exist, and there is no division of subject and object within
dependent origination since the subject/object dichotomy is itself a rather bold example of dependent
origination.


Conventional appearances always have two-fold divisions, as it is inherent division of consciousness
itself, thus this inherent distinction allow one to know instinctively what is external and internal.
What is external also have reality not share on the internal, such reality as the consciousnesses (mind
stream) of other beings which may only be perceive by the external senses (including divine sight of
the gods), whereas the internal senses can only perceive the mind stream of one's own. This is due to
the fact that the internal division is of the 8th consciousness, the rest of the sensory consciousnesses
are based on the external division. The 8th consciousness is also considered as the body of other
consciousnesses, the other consciousnesses act as the means, thus all of the 7 consciousnesses are
permanent and impermanent (the dynamic and creativity of the means).

The fact that conventional appearances is conventional, there is no need to try to eliminate the
characteristics of the two-division by shear negation, since mere appearances still continue to
appeared in two-fold division regardless of the conceptual construction that attempt to modify it. As
conventional truth is conventional truth, ultimate truth is ultimate truth, attempting to convert the
appearance of conventional truth to match the description of the ultimate truth is all proliferation.

I believe the issue here is again the issue of the two-truths. According to the two-truths, yes,
relatively there is division, though within that apparent division, no actual division is ever created.
Ultimately there is no division, and within dzogchen not even the division of relative and ultimate is
established, so any division posited to exist relatively is given no credence at all.


Again what is not establish as two divisions is only when speaking of the thusness. If dzogchen
strayed to the ultimate truth to the exclusion of relative truth, then it strayed from the middle path,
when it talks of attaining nirvana, liberation from samsara or of suffering, then it disqualified itself as
a teaching of definitive meaning and consequently downgrade itself to the view of the 2 yanas.

A thought is none other than thought, a notion is a thought which is seemingly directed towards (or
is about) something. In it's most basic state, yes, a notion is none other than thought, but if we're
going to say that then why not say that about everything? The point was to address the notion of a
'notion', in a relative sense.


Even in a relative sense, a thought itself is neutral to the position of good or bad, rather it is the
content of the thought that determined whether such a thought is good or bad. Otherwise, thought
would have an essence that determine it as good, and an essence that determine is as bad, etc. Since
there is no such individual essence, thought itself attached to the content (matter and reason) of
dhamadhatu, and according to such content, determine itself as good or bad thought.

I didn't say it existed inherently, I was pointing out that, that which is dependently arisen is not
inherent, and since everything is dependently arisen, nothing exists inherently.


Only the imaginary nature can be said to be not inherently exist as it is artificial constructed by mind,
but those of dependently arisen nature is inherent aspect of existence. The term 'nothing exists
inherently' is a gross generalisation which is only true in the ultimate sense in contrast to thusness
but not in the relative sence, since mere appearance and dependent origination still continue to arise
without ceasing and these are not based on imagination.

You actually were making sense up until you brought up the body and means again. I'm not sure
what you're suggesting the basis of the similarity between the two is, they certainly don't share the
same basis. The basis in yogācāra is mind (or consciousness) as you choose to see it, while the basis in
dzogchen is awakened wisdom.


The basis in yogacara refered to the body (consciousness), whereas awakened wisdom, primordial
wisdom, self-existing gnosis or whatever, in dzogchen these all refer to the body (consciousness), thus
it is not different in meaning to the yogacara. Yogacara will not rely on the body, neither is
dzogchen, as dzogchen rely on the means which is vidya, but it seems some dzogchenpa only know
the body and miss the crucial point of the means.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:52 am

Good posting Jyoti
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Sönam » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:10 am

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:Perhaps some facets of the Nyingma school uphold the concept of conventional truth, but we aren't
discussing The Nyingma. There is another board available for that if you'd like to discuss the
Nyingma's view of conventional truth.


There is no dzogchen without the discussing the nyingma's perspective of dzogchen, to posit
otherwise is ignorance of the history of dzogchen, or to posit there is a pure form of dzogchen would
be a mistake, because we didn't live in the time of Hevajra. The very fact of the requirement of
dzogchen for direct transmission instead of preserving the teaching in the authenticity of the original
scriptures, make dzogchen impossible to not be contaminated through the passing of the lineage by
the opinions of different teachers. The effort of nyingma scholars like Mipham who make the
dzogchen teaching stand out in writing among other Tibetan buddhist traditions contribute much to
the authenticity of dzogchen as a buddhist teaching in the main stream buddhism throughout the
world. However, later effort of some who attempt to isolate dzogchen from main stream buddhism
will have negative impact on any such previous effort.

...

Jyoti


This is a point of view, quite biased by the way, using a lot of may or maybe, therefore quite difficult for a real communication ... suppositions are suppositions, nothing more to say. But you have to considere that many of us have a different view about, Dzogchen did exist long before any nyingma perspective exists. Time is relative and certainly when speaking about Dzogchen. As for Mipham's vain efforts to propose an intellectual pov for other Buddhists traditions, I'm not estonished that you jump on such a concept ... but Dzogchen does not work so, and you can discuss for hours with my vajra friends, Dzogchen starts with a Master and Direct Introduction and intellectualism has no real place in it.

May you be happy
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 -
Sönam
 
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby muni » Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:17 am

lets' separate fallen rain drops in the ocean. Lets' compare our breathing out in open air....lets' separate my space from yours.
oops :focus: Lets' throw this post out of space. Out with that rubbish!
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Tiger » Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:15 pm

Emptiness used in Madyamika is different than used in Dzogchen.


Only the conceptualization or expression of it based on concepts and words is different. I am afraid, the emptiness is same for both.

Emptiness is not mere a negation of something


Nor is it in Madhyamika. Please update yourself about Buddhism (as opposed to Dzogchen).

emptiness is a factor which goes together with sound, light and rays.


Sounds, lights and rays are dependently originated. In any case, Heart Sutra says "Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness", so you are right even though for wrong reasons.
In Dzogchen meditation it is seen as a mistake if we make use of the conciousness to recognize our inherent Natural State.


So long as you are "recognizing" something, you are using consciousness. I guess by "consciousness" you refer to the six consciousnesses?

The inner visions are not caused like in other Traditions by the conciousness but are self-emergent. So because of this aspect self-emergent, the use of the conciousness is NOT nescessary and even not needed.


If they were "truly" self-emergent you wouldn't require a Guru and your practice, would you?
"Guru" and "practice" are causes here, and "self-emergence" is result.

:rolling:
Namo Amitabha Buddha
Tiger
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:47 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:28 pm

Jyoti wrote:What is attained is the bodhi, the arriving of this jnana is the attainment of the first bhumi.

"Attainment". Which is as you said "ability to penetrate", i.e. intention, rather than spontaneous awareness. In dzogchen spontaneous awareness is always already indivisibility of path and fruit.

Concerning the bhumi, in the Atiyoga one single level is spoken of, as the practitioner is compared to a garuda bird that upon hatching is already fully developed: the state that manifests in the direct Introduction that marks the outset of the Path of Atiyoga is not different from the Awakening that is the final Fruit of this Path.
Capriles

Discussion of bhumis in Rigpa Rangshar Tantra is beyond my payscale therefore I stick with view in above paragraph.

Jyoti wrote:Due to the yogacara relied exclusively on the intellect, if the name of the tradition is based on what the teaching relied, then it would be appropriately called the 'intellect-only'. However, since the tradition has to caters for everyone including those has yet to attain the intellect, thus it was called the 'consciousness-only'.

OK, and this "intellect-only", or "consciousness-only", or this "consciousness free from the duality of perceiving subjects and perceived objects" is an intellectual view, which is completely different from the view of dzogchen, which is direct vidya itself.

Jyoti wrote:your form of dzogchen strayed to the view of the two yanas ... your tradition entertained more fancy words and strange terminologies ...

You are someone who simply does not accept the threshold position that in ati there is no need to contrivedly create the qualities of Awakening, as is done in the causal vehicles of the Sutrayana. In dzogchen spontaneous realization of the indivisibility of katak and lhundrub is already vidya.

Jyoti wrote:But in order to rely on the means (jnana), the reason (paramartha) of the body has to be realized first.

i) There is nothing on which to rely since the dependent nature void of the imaginary nature is not a characteristic.
ii) Nothing has to be "realized first in order to" in dzogchen.
iii) If you directly rest in the basis there is no need to "realize first in order to", "rely", "attain", have an "ability to penetrate" or direct one's intention toward, anything else.

Jyoti wrote:So it is not so simple as merely stating the descriptions or names about the body, no matter how colorful those descriptions or names are.

Then why bother stating them in the first place?

Jyoti wrote:Of course the consciousness is true, as it is the body of thusness.

You would say that, since you think it has characteristics.

Since this discussion remains fixed to the views of sutrayana, I'm out.

:zzz:

Jyoti I am confident you will attain Buddhahood.

:bow:
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:36 pm

Jyoti, you are repeating yourself and not really responding directly the comments people are making. At some point you have to say what you really know and explain why what you know is useful for others. Even if I was really into Yogachara I'm not sure I could find anything meaningful in what you are saying. You seem to be explaining things from a book, but then so what? What really is it that you want? What would you like to see happen here? Do you want people to think that Yogachara is superior to Dzogchen? Or equal? Are you trying to recreate debates of the past? Are you a clever Taiwanese scientist planning on building a Yogachara machine will restructure our brains? What is it exactly that you want?
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby kalden yungdrung » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:11 pm

Tashi delek,

My question would be is it now clear for everybody or only still not for Jyoti ?

How can you convince somebody who never has done in her life Dzogchen Meditation, about the meaning about Dzogchen Meditation ?

Here we can see clearly that if such a person would be given the Direct Introduction here and now, right on, that would be senseless without those special (Dzogchen) preparations. Not to mention about the knowing / insight or the essence of:
Yogachara / Cittamatra, Madyamika, Shentong, the 3 Buddha Bodies, object and subject, Nirvana and Samsara, Illusion and no illusion etc. All these matters must a Dzogchenpa know and he/she does allways.......
Therefore Dzogchen is not for nothing the highest goal there is, if you do practice Dzogchen you know everything automaticly :smile:

I guess so that this is now also proved that only for SOME and not for everybody the preliminaries are a must.
If these preliminaries are not done, then these persons like Jyoti would have big problems after the Direct Introduction.

What is then the sense of the Direct Introduction for these kind of persons?

NOTHING

To avoid such a difficulty, for her would be the best, to do some preparations like, Ngondro, Guru Yoga, Kordo Rushen etc.
Then she will be fit to understand Rigpa and then afterwards to experience Rigpa as such and such. This is called the sequential way.

Then the Direct Introduction would be meaningfull to such persons. :twothumbsup:

Best wishes to Jyoti' s emancipation and hopefully she will smile, after that she did practiced the Dzogchen meditations etc.. :D


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: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:06 pm

Tiger wrote:If they were "truly" self-emergent you wouldn't require a Guru and your practice, would you? "Guru" and "practice" are causes here, and "self-emergence" is result.

While there is a place for the Master as an external individual in human form, on the Path of spontaneous liberation the teacher, in the most genuine and profound sense of the term, is the practitioner’s own tawa.

Disciples on the Path of spontaneous liberation must acquire sufficient familiarity with the Vision or tawa and sufficient confidence in it as to be able to become autonomous and self-sufficient, so that, as a result of treading the Path, their own state of rigpa or Truth becomes their direct source of inspiration and point of reference. In fact, a true student is not a blind person and a true Master is not a guide dog; the true Master leads students to See, so that they do not depend on him or her, and the true student is the one who succeeds in Seeing. If a teacher behaves like a seeing-eye dog, it is because he or she does not See—and, when the blind lead the blind, they fall together into the abyss.

All this allows us to understand why it is said that the principle of the Path of spontaneous liberation is self-responsibility rather than putting ourselves totally under the authority of others: while in the state of rigpa (Awake Awareness or Truth), pure spontaneity is the guide of Behavior; when the state of rigpa is not manifest, the practitioner must keep in all circumstances the “presence (or mindfulness) of responsible awareness” (Tib., tenpa dangshe zhingyi).

Capriles
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby oldbob » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:25 am

:namaste:

Many excellent posts. Thank you all! :good: :good: :good:

But now over and over again is not progress.

Perhaps Yogacara and Dzogchen has been exhausted.

Perhaps time to move on.

ob

PS - BTW - of course everyone knows that Dzogchen includes Yogacara and not vv. :smile:

---but that is the subject for another thread.
oldbob
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Yudron » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:58 am

This is a point of view, quite biased by the way, using a lot of may or maybe, therefore quite difficult for a real communication ... suppositions are suppositions, nothing more to say. But you have to considere that many of us have a different view about, Dzogchen did exist long before any nyingma perspective exists. Time is relative and certainly when speaking about Dzogchen. As for Mipham's vain efforts to propose an intellectual pov for other Buddhists traditions, I'm not estonished that you jump on such a concept ... but Dzogchen does not work so, and you can discuss for hours with my vajra friends, Dzogchen starts with a Master and Direct Introduction and intellectualism has no real place in it.

May you be happy
Sönam[/quote]

Some -- such as Van Shaik-- feel that atiyoga may have emerged in India as stage of deity yoga practice.

Dzogchen first appearing as the culmination of the meditative practice of deity yoga (the visualization of a deity and recitation of his or her mantra) around the 8th century. And then in the 9th and 10th centuries, Dzogchen became a way of contextualizing deity yoga in terms of nonconceptuality, nonduality and the spontaneous presence of the enlightened state.


see the entire article at http://earlytibet.com/2011/08/03/early-dzogchen-iv/

Unless there is a significant archeological find in the future, we just won't know from a Western historical perspective exactly where Atiyoga came from. ChNNR has his ideas, the Bon have their ideas, and Nyingma religious traditionalists have their ideas.

Since Nyingma is a term that was invented at the time of the second transmission of the Dharma from India, as a way of distinguishing what Dharma was already there, versus what was being transmitted newly (sarma), you can't separate Dzogchen from Nyingma. That is, unless you are trying to say it was a Bon thing only until then, meaning that the huge Buddhist libraries of Tibetan and Sanskrit texts that Atisha saw when he came to Tibet did not contain atiyoga. Do you really want to go there?
Yudron
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Location: Sunny California

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CrawfordHollow and 11 guests

>