Yogacara and dzogchen

[Andrew108]

So Jhoti what is it that you want? What do you want to happen? Do you have a goal in mind?

The intention is to clarify errors as well as ignorance within teaching of individual and tradition with
words that may be useful.

Jyoti

What errors? What ignorance?

[kalden yungdrung]

So Jhoti what is it that you want? What do you want to happen? Do you have a goal in mind?

The intention is to clarify errors as well as ignorance within teaching of individual and tradition with
words that may be useful.

Jyoti

What errors? What ignorance?

Tashi delek,

I have so the feeling that this all is going about, that Dzogchenpas can have a test in proving their patience and skills here right on.
Jyoti does a good job here no doubt about it.

Mutsug Marro
KY

[futerko]

Jyoti,

I found this essay which I think explains the two perspectives that Mipham is talking about. http://ftp.buddhism.org/Publications/IA ... 20Park.pdf

He explains,

"While enlightened beings see everything from a t'i(體) perspective,
unenlightened beings see everything from a yung(用) perspective...

If we detach yung from t'i, our picture will become a small one,
but if we merge yung into t'i', we will have a big picture which
comprises all small pictures. Since small picture embraces a yung
perspective, they are liable to be wrong."

[heart]

So Jhoti what is it that you want? What do you want to happen? Do you have a goal in mind?

The intention is to clarify errors as well as ignorance within teaching of individual and tradition with
words that may be useful.

Jyoti

Well, one obvious fault that you keep repeating is that you keep using the concept Essence-Function (體用) which is a key concept in Korean Buddhism with a very doubtful origin in the Yogacara tradition in this discussion, perhaps you should start a new thread called "Korean Buddhism and Dzogchen" instead.

/magnus

[Jyoti]

Well, one obvious fault that you keep repeating is that you keep using the concept Essence-Function (體用) which is a key concept in Korean Buddhism with a very doubtful origin in the Yogacara tradition in this discussion, perhaps you should start a new thread called "Korean Buddhism and Dzogchen" instead.
."

Ti-yung (體用) does not originate in Korea. Wonhyo (617-686 A.D.) studied the theory of Ti-yung in china and introduce the theory to the Korean. The theory of Ti-yung employed in chinese buddhism (madhyamaka tradition) existed before Wonhyo, for example, Chi-tsang (549-623 A.D.), cf. The Two Truths in Chinese Buddhism, Page. 5.

The yogacara of chinese buddhism was in a state of decline, it is Ōuyáng Jiàn 歐陽漸 (1871-1943) who revived the consciousness-only chinese school in the 20th century.

In the first part of his work 唯识抉择谈 is introduction of his interpretation of Ti-yung (體用) , I leave it un-translated for chinese readers only:

一、抉擇體用談用義

無為是體，有為是用﹔非生滅是體，生滅是用﹔常一是
體，因果轉變是用。有為生滅因果無漏功德，盡未來際法爾
如是，非獨詮於有漏也。是故須知有為不可歇，生滅不可滅
，而撥無因果之罪大，又復須知一真法界不可說，凡法皆即
用以顯體，又復須知體則性同，心、佛、眾生三無差別﹔用
則修異，流轉、還滅，語不同年。

Most articles about him and his works are in chinese, and yet to be translated in english, below is all I can find from english source:

Ouyang Jingwu's biography:
http://humanitiescenter.nsysu.edu.tw/en ... ing_wu.php
http://buddhistinformatics.ddbc.edu.tw/ ... D%E6%BC%B8

English material associated with Ouyang Jingwu:
http://gradworks.umi.com/33/34/3334824.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article- ... -ph-d.html
http://books.google.com.my/books?id=jJf ... ye&f=false

Jyoti

[Malcolm]

So Jhoti what is it that you want? What do you want to happen? Do you have a goal in mind?

The intention is to clarify errors as well as ignorance within teaching of individual and tradition with
words that may be useful.

Jyoti

What errors? What ignorance?

Her own.

[Jyoti]

What errors? What ignorance?

According to what is being analysed through the theory of ti-yung. Various examples are in previous posts.

Jyoti

[Malcolm]

What errors? What ignorance?

According to what is being analysed through the theory of ti-yung. Various examples are in previous posts.

Jyoti

Essence/function is irrelevant to Dzogchen teachings.

M

[heart]

Well, one obvious fault that you keep repeating is that you keep using the concept Essence-Function (體用) which is a key concept in Korean Buddhism with a very doubtful origin in the Yogacara tradition in this discussion, perhaps you should start a new thread called "Korean Buddhism and Dzogchen" instead.
."

Ti-yung (體用) does not originate in Korea. Wonhyo (617-686 A.D.) studied the theory of Ti-yung in china and introduce the theory to the Korean. The theory of Ti-yung employed in chinese buddhism (madhyamaka tradition) existed before Wonhyo, for example, Chi-tsang (549-623 A.D.), cf. The Two Truths in Chinese Buddhism, Page. 5.

The yogacara of chinese buddhism was in a state of decline, it is Ōuyáng Jiàn 歐陽漸 (1871-1943) who revived the consciousness-only chinese school in the 20th century.

In the first part of his work 唯识抉择谈 is introduction of his interpretation of Ti-yung (體用) , I leave it un-translated for chinese readers only:

一、抉擇體用談用義

無為是體，有為是用﹔非生滅是體，生滅是用﹔常一是
體，因果轉變是用。有為生滅因果無漏功德，盡未來際法爾
如是，非獨詮於有漏也。是故須知有為不可歇，生滅不可滅
，而撥無因果之罪大，又復須知一真法界不可說，凡法皆即
用以顯體，又復須知體則性同，心、佛、眾生三無差別﹔用
則修異，流轉、還滅，語不同年。

Most articles about him and his works are in chinese, and yet to be translated in english, below is all I can find from english source:

Ouyang Jingwu's biography:
http://humanitiescenter.nsysu.edu.tw/en ... ing_wu.php
http://buddhistinformatics.ddbc.edu.tw/ ... D%E6%BC%B8

English material associated with Ouyang Jingwu:
http://gradworks.umi.com/33/34/3334824.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article- ... -ph-d.html
http://books.google.com.my/books?id=jJf ... ye&f=false

Jyoti

Since the concept isn't known in any source in Sanskrit using it as a kind of key-term, since everything you say revolves around this concept, to defend Yogacara is an error. I would even say that it makes most of your posts off topic.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

Since the concept isn't known in any source in Sanskrit using it as a kind of key-term, since everything you say revolves around this concept, to defend Yogacara is an error. I would even say that it makes most of your posts off topic.

/magnus

I have had similar pointless conversations with Astus, who also used this idea of essence/function in order to show how Zen was comparable with Dzogchen or even superior to it.

This idea is strictly Sino-Buddhist, and as you rightly point out, is completely incommensurable with Dzogchen.

M

[futerko]

What errors? What ignorance?

According to what is being analysed through the theory of ti-yung. Various examples are in previous posts.

Jyoti

As far as I can see, the biggest barrier to communication here is your insistence on remaining on the side of yung (means, function, 用) despite Wonhyo's teachings to the contrary.
Even then it would be a mistake to believe those terms were equivalent to Dzogchen, however it would be a step in the direction of understanding.

[anjali]

I have had similar pointless conversations with Astus, who also used this idea of essence/function in order to show how Zen was comparable with Dzogchen or even superior to it.

This idea is strictly Sino-Buddhist, and as you rightly point out, is completely incommensurable with Dzogchen.

The only reading I've done in this area is from the book Tracing Back the Radiance, Chinul's Korean Way of Zen, translated by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. Here is perhaps the clearest quote on the nature of essence/function in that work:

The original essence of the true mind contains two types of functions. First, there is the innate function of the self-nature. Second, there is the function which adapts to conditions. These can be compared to a bronze mirror. The bronze itself corresponds to the essence of the self-nature. The brightness of the bronze corresponds to the function of the self-nature. The images reflected because of that brightness are the function which adapts to conditions. Under suitable conditions images can be reflected and manifest in thousands of different ways; but the brightness is ever bright. p.165

From my limited knowledge, this seems to be similar to the notion of ground/luminosity/unconfined capacity.

The revelation teaching also employs the two approaches of revelation through inference and revelation through perception. Hung-chou notes, "The mind cannot be pointed out; it is through such properties as capacity for speech and so forth that we can prove its existence and become aware of the presence of the Buddha-nature." This is the approach of revelation through inference. Ho-tse says straightaway, "Since the mind-essence is that which is capable of awareness, awareness is precisely the mind." To reveal the mind through its awareness is the approach of revelation through perception.
pp. 166

Elsewhere in the work, it is pointed out that the essence of the mind is void. Adding all this up, it seems to be similar to the notion of "empty in essence, cognizant/aware in nature, and unconfined in capacity."

If this has been discussed in another thread, I'd appreciate a pointer. I'm not an expert in these matters, just someone with limited reading who has noticed seeming similarities.

[Indrajala]

Since the concept isn't known in any source in Sanskrit using it as a kind of key-term, since
everything you say revolves around this concept, to defend Yogacara is an error. I would even say that
it makes most of your posts off topic. "

The theory of Ti-yung (體用) is covered in the chinese tripitaka which has origin in sanskrit, since yogacara
relied on several definitive scriptures (sutras and sastras) of chinese tripitaka containing the theory of
Ti-yung, the relying of such theory on yogacara discussion is not off topic.

[Jyoti]

As far as I can see, the biggest barrier to communication here is your insistence on remaining on the
side of yung (means, function, 用) despite Wonhyo's teachings to the contrary.
Even then it would be a mistake to believe those terms were equivalent to Dzogchen, however it
would be a step in the direction of understanding.

There is problem on relying on the body rather than the means, below is one example:

The body is of non-doing (無為), the means is of doing (為). If relying on 'non-doing', the form of
both 'doing' and 'non-doing' are missing. Whereas relying on the 'doing', the form of 'non-doing' is
present. Thus, by relying on the 'doing' is the true 'non-doing', but not vice versa.

This is as stated in the sastra:

Maha-prajna-paramitra sastra:
"As stated in the sutra: Being separated from the 'doing', there is no 'non-doing', because of the 'doing', it is said there is the 'non-doing'."

大智度論釋
T25n1509_p0715a16(07)║畢定品第八十三之餘(卷第九十四)
T25n1509_p0720c26(00)║　如《經》中說：離「有為」無
T25n1509_p0720c27(02)║　「無為」，因「有為」故說「無為」；

Jyoti

[username]

These are just concepts, philosophies, words & Sutras. No Chinese or Japanese sutrayana practice got rainbow bodies AFAIK, never mind in our large numbers, with mere words & semantic claims. Dzogchen has a path of practice whose actual fruits can be verified in stages, unmatched by any sutra conceptual vehicle, not even close by miles. It is good the Chinese are increasingly interested in the philosophies & sutras of mahayana & other luckier Chinese with higher capacity in Vajrayana/Mahamudra/Dzogchen proper & that some westerners find the Japanese Zen trendier than Chinese vehicles as palatable concepts to enter the path with. All good in the end, but nowhere near Dzogchen as they wish or claim or tell themselves often.

[futerko]

As far as I can see, the biggest barrier to communication here is your insistence on remaining on the
side of yung (means, function, 用) despite Wonhyo's teachings to the contrary.
Even then it would be a mistake to believe those terms were equivalent to Dzogchen, however it
would be a step in the direction of understanding.

There is problem on relying on the body rather than the means, below is one example:

The body is of non-doing (無為), the means is of doing (為). If relying on 'non-doing', the form of
both 'doing' and 'non-doing' are missing. Whereas relying on the 'doing', the form of 'non-doing' is
present. Thus, by relying on the 'doing' is the true 'non-doing', but not vice versa.

This is as stated in the sastra:

Maha-prajna-paramitra sastra:
"As stated in the sutra: Being separated from the 'doing', there is no 'non-doing', because of the 'doing', it is said there is the 'non-doing'."

大智度論釋
T25n1509_p0715a16(07)║畢定品第八十三之餘(卷第九十四)
T25n1509_p0720c26(00)║　如《經》中說：離「有為」無
T25n1509_p0720c27(02)║　「無為」，因「有為」故說「無為」；

Jyoti

Mipham says that both are necessary, for example his consideration of the fourth question in Beacon of Certainty.
The idea was not about relying solely on the "body", but to say that the means includes both doing and non-doing and can therefore be relied upon solely would seem to make it somehow fundamental, which is absurd. Both are required, but the point I was making was more about the view than about any activity.
This concept of the body reflects the reification of Dharmakaya which is precisely avoided by Dzogchen. If the body/basis is thought of in this way then how can it ever find expression? As you say, it is "non-doing" so it must remain inert. This creates a dualism which cannot be reconciled.

[Malcolm]

I have had similar pointless conversations with Astus, who also used this idea of essence/function in order to show how Zen was comparable with Dzogchen or even superior to it.

This idea is strictly Sino-Buddhist, and as you rightly point out, is completely incommensurable with Dzogchen.

The only reading I've done in this area is from the book Tracing Back the Radiance, Chinul's Korean Way of Zen, translated by Robert E. Buswell, Jr. Here is perhaps the clearest quote on the nature of essence/function in that work:

The original essence of the true mind contains two types of functions. First, there is the innate function of the self-nature. Second, there is the function which adapts to conditions. These can be compared to a bronze mirror. The bronze itself corresponds to the essence of the self-nature. The brightness of the bronze corresponds to the function of the self-nature. The images reflected because of that brightness are the function which adapts to conditions. Under suitable conditions images can be reflected and manifest in thousands of different ways; but the brightness is ever bright. p.165

From my limited knowledge, this seems to be similar to the notion of ground/luminosity/unconfined capacity.

The revelation teaching also employs the two approaches of revelation through inference and revelation through perception. Hung-chou notes, "The mind cannot be pointed out; it is through such properties as capacity for speech and so forth that we can prove its existence and become aware of the presence of the Buddha-nature." This is the approach of revelation through inference. Ho-tse says straightaway, "Since the mind-essence is that which is capable of awareness, awareness is precisely the mind." To reveal the mind through its awareness is the approach of revelation through perception.
pp. 166

Elsewhere in the work, it is pointed out that the essence of the mind is void. Adding all this up, it seems to be similar to the notion of "empty in essence, cognizant/aware in nature, and unconfined in capacity."

That's the problem with mere comparisons of terms, one loses all nuance.

You neglected to cite Tsognyi RInpoche in full i.e. "Rigpa is empty in essence, cognizant by nature, and unconfined in capacity. Simultaneously seeing these three is named rigpa."

Rigpa is also beyond mind, etc.

[Jyoti]

Mipham says that both are necessary, for example his consideration of the fourth question in Beacon of Certainty.

Mpiham did not says anything regarding the means and body. Mipham was educated from the system of Tibetan buddhism, where knowledge of the distinction of means and body are absence, that is the reason in many places, he uses the term samsara and nirvana simultaneously, this should not occur to one who understand the two terms refer to one body.

The idea was not about relying solely on the "body", but to say that the means includes both doing and non-doing and can therefore be relied upon solely would seem to make it somehow fundamental, which is absurd. Both are required, but the point I was making was more about the view than about any activity.

The view is also about abiding, without relying on the body does not implicate the absence of the knowledge of the body, but rather due to the knowledge of the body, that one is confidence that one does not have to bother with the body but leave it alone.

This concept of the body reflects the reification of Dharmakaya which is precisely avoided by Dzogchen. If the body/basis is thought of in this way then how can it ever find expression? As you say, it is "non-doing" so it must remain inert. This creates a dualism which cannot be reconciled.

The word 'kaya' literally refered to body, which belong to the realm of existence, there is no reason to fear the association with the word 'reification'. "Non-doing" on the side of body refer to its lack of arising and change, and so relying on it refer to having the means absorped into the state of the body, which necessitate the anihilation of the means, such as arrived by formless and cessation meditation in extreme cases. This type of error is typical in the arahants and formless meditators. But even mahayana (including dzogchen) practitioners who strayed to the body will make attempt to weaken the means (intellect), and consequently the fruit will not be higher than those achieved by the arahants and formless meditators.

Jyoti

[Malcolm]

But even mahayana (including dzogchen) practitioners who strayed to the body will make attempt to weaken the means (intellect), and consequently the fruit will not be higher than those achieved by the arahants and formless meditators.

This is like talking about water without ever having tasted it.

M

[futerko]

The word 'kaya' literally refered to body, which belong to the realm of existence, there is no reason to fear the association with the word 'reification'. "Non-doing" on the side of body refer to its lack of arising and change, and so relying on it refer to having the means absorped into the state of the body, which necessitate the anihilation of the means, such as arrived by formless and cessation meditation in extreme cases. This type of error is typical in the arahants and formless meditators. But even mahayana (including dzogchen) practitioners who strayed to the body will make attempt to weaken the means (intellect), and consequently the fruit will not be higher than those achieved by the arahants and formless meditators.

Only from the point of view of the means, as Wonhyo teaches, the yung perspective is distorted by prejudice, misjudgment, and illusion, while the t'i perspective is free of those things.

As your above quote from the Maha-prajna-paramitra sastra also shows, "there is no 'non-doing'," So when you say, ""Non-doing" on the side of body refer to its lack of arising and change" - you have made "non-doing" into an existent entity. You have conceptualised emptiness as being formless and involving cessation (i.e. as negation) - how can you then consider the two truths as unified?

Or to put it slightly differently - if means is cause and effect, and body is permanently existing non-doing, how can the two ever connect with each other?