asunthatneversets wrote:The only dichotomy dzogchen employs is delusion and wisdom.
There is no such dichotomy in dzogchen, yogacara or any definitive teaching, as
dichotomy does not apply in term of opposites, but the speculation of the body as two.
Nonduality literally refers to not-two, not about any opposites or extremes.
Dependent arising is the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly
What you refer is the aspect of mere appearance, not the aspect of dependent arising,
the latter is the function of means, which is based on the alaya-vijnana and the 7
consciousnesses. The function is depended on the seeds and the perfuming agents (7
Dependent arising can't be an object of the 7 consciousnesses because the 7
consciousnesses only exist on a conventional level and therefore are dependently
Of course not. The consciousnesses are the causes of dependent arising appearances.
However, they have intimate relationship. Dependent arising is the ripening
appearance of the seed, the cause of the ripening of the seed is the 7 consciousnesses
(the perfuming agents). Both the appearance of dependent arising and the 7
consciousnesses arise sponteneously from the basis (alaya-vijnana).
Since dzogchen is experiential, the truth it points to is unassailable and cannot be
adulterated. Certain groups or individuals (such as yourself) may attempt to interpret
dzogchen within the frame of their own structure of reasoning, and in doing so,
adulterate it... but at that point it's no longer dzogchen which is being adulterated, all
that is being botched is a mere intellectual translation/interpretation.
The structure of the three principles (body, form and means) is not exclusive ownership
of dzogchen, true ownership belongs to reality (dharmadhatu). Any teaching will have
individual who wrongly interprete them, but these wrong interpretation has nothing to
do with the principles. Thus, yogacara represent the three principles, when dzogchenpas
judge yogacara based on interpretation of individual, this is termed relying on the
persons and not the dharma. Any person who understand the dharma on the
standpoint of yogacara can easily refute such judgement, the same apply to dzogchen.
You only enjoy Mipham because his exposition matches your own point of view, and
therefore you continually champion his exposition in The Lions Roar. You're only
looking to validate your construct of beliefs.
For person who didn't understand the dharma, then the attachment to words, rather
than the meaning is the norm, such a person will easily attached to other norms of
their chosen tradition, and based on these as 'truth'. The chances of their ability to
accept the teaching of other traditions is slim, as their 'truth' is based on differences
that is apparent to them. Mipham does not belong to this group of dzogchenpa, he has
own vision of dzogchen and understand its relationship to other traditions, this is the
sign of his mastery of the dharma, and the reason that his writing is worth refering.
I never said everything is consciousness, the natural state isn't consciousness.
I didn't infer to your opinion about consciousness. Dzogchen didn't avoid the term
consciousness, instead it uses terms with similar meaning such as wisdom, awareness,
cognition, wakefulness, presence, nature state, nature of mind, primordial experience,
existential condition, etc. There is no merit in such usage of words, as it only serve to
confuse with the variety of words, where the standard dharma terminology
'consciousness' is the same and doesn't confuse.
The reason a term like 'consciousness' is usually avoided is because if dzogchen asserted
that everything is consciousness then it would run the risk of suggesting the existence
of an abiding ground of being, or substratum.
Dzogchen already asserts everything is clarity (form) of awareness (consciousness).
Dzogchen also claimed a common ground (alaya) of everything, so you are not making
Saying that everything is consciousness suggests that something has been established,
which is perfectly acceptable in yogācāra, but not in dzogchen.
This is a flaw reasoning, there is no assertion in yogacara that the 7 consciousnesses are
established (permanent), unlike dzogchen, yogacara distinguished the body and means,
and so what is not establish and what is established (8th consciousness) have no
confusion, and so what belong to the realm of existent, can be admitted as permanent
or existent without fear of confusion.
The actualization of the natural state is the recognition of the authentic condition, that
condition isn't consciousness, only the teaching you champion (Yogācāra and other
eternalist views) claims that.
If the nature state is depended on an actualization, then it is conditional to the
actualization, thus saying it is 'nature' is contradictory of term. A condition is simply a
condition, no different with regards to authentic (dependent arising nature) or
unauthentic (imaginary nature). Thus the ability to recognize is the same with whatever
arise (mental condition or object). Due to your having to select an ultimate object
(authentic condition) in order for recognition to occur, then the recognition is
conditional upon the ultimate object. The problem with your view is this ultimate
object is not consciousness, then the sources of arising from the 12 entrances are not it,
since the 12 entrances are none other than consciousnesses.
Consciousness (as a term) is also avoided because it suggests a number of other
subtleties, for example: 'one who is conscious' and/or a localized occurrence of
consciousness contrasting other pockets of consciousness (as you suggest below) and so
on and so forth.
As mentioned, the term with similar meaning in dzogchen is awareness, according to
your example, it suffered the same problem (which is not reasonable).
'Awakened mind' is just a relative term, it isn't to be taken literally, nothing truly
awakens, and there is no mind in dzogchen.
In your own word "'Awakened mind' is just another way of saying prajñā, yeshe, sherab
etc...", so I didn't bring up awakened mind, I only response to your usage of the term.
That said, the body of yogacara is not mind either, but in the same way as dzogchen
require the upholding of vidya, the relying on the mind (means) is clearly required.
Surely nothing truly awaken, because the body can't be awakened as it is beyond
change, but the whole teaching (dzogchen or yogacara) is not about the body but the
They are the result of conceptual projection. People are conceptual projections, and yes
the person's body is due to dependent origination, it depends on the projected web of
You clearly failed to understand it is the ripening of the seed within the storehouse
consciousness that is the cause of the manifestation of the appearances
(consciousnesses) of dependent arising. If a concept can determined the appearance of
dependent arising, then we don't need to accumulate merit or planting the seed of
virtue, we only need to day dream with the assurance that it will be part of one's
dependent arising appearance. Unfortunately, we don't have such a dharma.
You must be using the term "intellect" to represent knowledge of thusness, usually
"intellect" is used to signify conceptual processes of reasoning.
The intellect is indeed the conceptual processes of reasoning, but with the additional
knowledge of thusness, without the latter, it is not termed the intellect, at least not the
intellect in concordance with the reason. In buddhist discussion, as the example of
sutra, usually when speaking of intellect, it excludes the option for worldly intellect, so
the word intellect is assumed to be associated with the reason of thusness.
Internal and external are conceptual projections, they do not exist inherently, they have
nothing to do with vision. Even vision itself is a delusional notion when it comes down
to it. They are imputed constructs. Formless meditative states (as in blank voids of
closed off samadhi) have nothing to do with dzogchen.
Definitively speaking, they exist inherently as well as not exist inherently, due to being
both permanent and impermanent. Thus to simply say they don't exist is to stray to the
extreme of non-existent. To say they are conceptual projections is wrong since the two-
fold manifestations are based on the form and means of the three principle structure
(yogacara) or clarity and capacity of the three existential modes (dzogchen).
There are no non-deceptive mental images being that there are no mental images.
Then why assert a conceptual construction to the two-fold manifestation of
consciousness and to the dependent arising nature? This conceptual construction is
where it fit here (the imaginary nature).
Affliction is never bodhi. You either have one or the other and neither are ever truly
Affliction is none other than consciousness, the body of consciousness is the thusness, so
affliction is none other than thusness, knowledge of thusness is the intellect, the
intellect is associated with bodhi. Thus affliction is bodhi (i.e. for one who understand
Bodhi as a term is only implemented to signify the absence of affliction, in contrast of
affliction, otherwise bodhi is simply the natural state.
Bodhi literally translated as 'awakening', the nature state is the thusness, thusness is of
the body, whereas bodhi is of the means.
Only according to Yogācāra are there natures which inherently exist, according to
dzogchen, nothing exists inherently, everything is illusory.
Definitively speaking, only the ultimate nature inherently exist, whereas the dependent
arising nature both exist and non-exist. However, when the dependent arising nature is
posited as illusory, then the illusory nature (dependent arising nature) still exist and
non-exist, thus to say 'nothing exists inherently' is falling into the extreme of non-
existent. However, even this exist and non-exist dependent arising nature (means) is
not the ultimate nature (body), thus there is the two truths, which is the unity of the
means and body.
there is no specific faculty called the 'imaginary nature' in dzogchen.
Dzogchen has employed deity yoga as well as symbols of visualization, yet it didn't has
'imaginary nature' as a terminology, is indication that dzogchen is not as great as its
name suggest. Also this imaginary nature is not a faculty (but of the three natures),
there is only six faculties (sense organ) spoken of in buddhism. As a side note,
dzogchen also mistakenly associate the 7th and 8th consciousnesses as the skandas,
there is only five skandas in buddhism. This is the reason it associates the 8th
consciousnesses as the means, and so must invent a body such as alaya (ground) devoid
of consciousness. If one read the 'Doctrine of Mere Consciousness', there is passage
showing how the 8th consciousness can be proven to exist independently of the
dissolution of the skandas.
The nirmanakaya is the unconfined, unobstructed and uninterrupted capacity and/or
energetic display of the primordial state.
This 'capacity' in dzogchen is another word for 'means' in yogacara.
Those were rhetorical questions. But if we must answer them (as you attempted to do),
the correct answers are, yes, the intellect is responsible for their inception and yes, it is
also responsible for the notion of sensory consciousnesses and any subsequent
perceptions based on those consciousnesses. In dzogchen none of these qualities are
Only the body is considered established (as permanent), not the means, so rendering
the means as unestablished is to maintain the dynamic and creativity of it.
According to Yogācāra... not dzogchen.
It is also according to Dzogchen based on Mipham's texts.
Those differences point to nothing except for what you wish to extract from them. The
existence of space and time are delusory notions born of conceptualization, predicated
on the delusory notion of a subject-object dichotomy. Your example assumes that you as
a subject are in fact observing an objective aircraft. It also assumes that the aircraft is an
object which is truly apprehended by the eye consciousness and ear consciousness. You
presuppose the appearance of a consecutive unfolding of moments in time to be
authentic and again, also consider experience to be divided into an internal-external
dichotomy. Far too many suppositions occurring, your argument and example are again
As stated the two-fold division (subject and object) of consciousness is the form and
means of the body (yogacara) or clarity and capacity of the essence (dzogchen), it is the
support of the dependent arising nature (nirmanakaya) as well as pure realms
(sambogakaya). Conceptual construction only responsible for the formation of the
imaginary nature, a term which is foreign to your tradition that also entertained
Any dharma of permanence is a deluded dharma.
So the dharmakaya (samantabadra) and nirvana of your tradition are not permanent,
because if the dharmakaya (samantabadra) and nirvana are permanent it is a deluded
There is no quality which possesses only non-cessation, nor any which possesses only
endurance. The quote above is stating that out of this apparent reality, which is unborn,
appearances seemingly manifest, yet within those appearances nothing is ever truly
established, there is only the timeless display of the primordial nature. Because it is
beyond the four extremes, within apparent enduring there is no endurance, nothing is
created or established. Within apparent cessation, there is nothing which ceases,
nothing is destroyed or terminated.
I'm not saying the manifested appearance or means are permanent. But refering to the
unborn and primordial nature, how can this be impermanent and yet unborn at the
In dzogchen phenomena are products of delusion, if the authentic condition is known
then what was previously mistaken as phenomena is known to be the luminous self-
display of the basis, and the basis is uncreated. Stating that the dynamism and
creativity of reality require a permanent and non-arising basis is flawed logic and
nothing more than wishful thinking.
Delusion is refering to the imaginary nature produce in the absence of knowledge, but
the cause of this delusion which is the dependent arising nature is not produce by the
delusion. Otherwise, the delusion which is depended on the dependent arising nature
produce the dependent arising nature is not logical, as the former would not exist prior
to the 'production' of the latter.
Padmasambhava had this to say about the two truths in Self Liberation Through
Seeing With Naked Awareness:
"The Madhyamikas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to the extremes of the
This is refering to the Madhyamikas (persons) and not Madhyamika, if there is a
person with realization of the non-extremes (nonduality) of the two truths, then even
though he is of Madhyamika, there is no fault. Similarly a Buddha can take the
position of Madhyamika and has flawless view. The difference is just one with
realization and one without the realization. One without the realization will rely on
the method of analysis to arrive at conceptual understanding of the meaning, this is the
cause of the extremes of the two truths (separate and not nondual). However, the
doctrine of Madhyamika is not at fault, it is the person who failed to realise the true
meaning. The same thing applied to yogacara and dzogchen, faults belonged to
individual but not the teaching.
Internal and external are concepts, and while those concepts are useful, they have no
authenticity beyond their place as mere concepts. Believing them to be authentic and
inherent aspects of experience is delusion.
Again only the imaginary nature within the internal and external field are conceptual
construction, such conceptual construction has no meaning, not to mention being
useful (for what?). This does not include the dependent arising nature within the
internal and external field, as this is not of conceptual construction, nor of product of
delusion. Also, the two-division of consciousness itself is the form and means of the
body which is not of conceptual construction.
Your notion of the "underlying truth and reason" is another concept which you've
attached to and yes it certainly does provide you with notions of what to accept and
reject, as we've all seen regularly on this forum. I do enjoy how you contradict yourself
and fall victim to your own projections as your response goes along though.
So you are proposing to negate the truth or reason of authentic nature (thusness), viz.
The metaphor of the mirror is implemented to elucidate the characteristics of the
primordial state, the tendency to interpret the metaphorical use of the mirror-itself as
suggesting an abiding ground is a common misconception. In that metaphor it is more
accurate to explore the reflective capacity of the mirror, instead of the mirror itself,
otherwise we fall victim to the essentialist/eternalist views such as yours. So the mirror's
reflective capacity is never tainted by the reflections themselves, much like the natural
state's empty essence is ever-pure. The mirror helps to describe the natural state's
primordial purity (kadag), spontaneous radiance/presence (lhundrup) and responsiveness
As I mentioned the use of mirror is to communicate the capacity, or means. Rather
than 'to elucidate the characteristics of the primordial state' or body, the mirror is to
show the means is capable of reflecting the 'reason' (vidya) of thusness', thus capable of
holding the reason in the state of arising, whereas the body itself does not have the
arising. This capacity of holding the reason in the state of arising is the intellect. If the
body is to be rely instead of the means (intellect), the use of mirror is redundant. The
mirror symbolize the thought (means), the thought of the reason of thusness is
symbolize by the mirror's reflection of thusness, which is the same but of different side,
the side of non-arising (without thought) which is the original state and the side of
arising (with thought) which is the reflected state.
Dzogchen is only the primordial state, the anu-yoga practices may be used as supports
for maintaining the dzogchen view, but they are not dzogchen any more than walking
down the street is dzogchen (if one is maintaining the view). Anu-yoga practices are
very useful, but they are not ati-yoga in essence, only when practiced by one who is
abiding in the knowledge of ati.
In other words, you are saying vidya is dzogchen, I can also say the intellect is yogacara,
so what is the difference?
Samantabhadra is only representative of the primordial state, and in fact is the
personification of the primordial state. Samantabhadra has nothing to do with the
In that case, this is monotheism, since this Samantabhadra has nothing to do with your
Dzogchen speaks of the destruction of the world at the end of the great kalpa as a
metaphor, not to be taken literally, no world has ever been created or destroyed in the
view of dzogchen.
Metaphor for what? I'm aware of the meaning of non-arising, but that is only refering
to the ultimate condition, the dependent-arising nature (the appearance of time) has
persistance and it is not terminated on awakening.
Dzogchen only accepts the level of the individual mind-stream as a tentative and
relative appearance, which is rendered null and void apart from conventional
appearance, so it is completely illusory, but a useful illusion. Individuated seeds of
karma are products of delusion and are eradicated upon the actualization of the
primordial state. You're reaching quite far in attempting to equate dzogchen to your
view you enjoy propagating, it cannot be done.
Illusory nature with persistance, this is the meaning. It is not a negation of mere
appearance and dependent arising nature. The seeds are always on the constant change
of state, from active to inactive based on the presence of perfuming or lack of
perfuming. On attaining the bodhi, the bad seeds become inactive, whereas the good
seeds become active and multiply and manifest as pure realms, otherwise the cause of
pure realms would be absence. It is not the case where the bad seeds are eradicated,
they simply become inactive. The various bhumis are the result of maturing the various
good seeds and their multiplying. No result happened without a cause, and dzogchen is
It's all conceptual construction.
So you are saying the trikaya and four wisdoms are conceptual construction, then we
can day dream and attained the trikaya and four wisdoms?
Dzogchen isn't a buddhist teaching, it is your true nature. The teachings are a tool
which aid one in recognizing that nature, but the teachings are not dzogchen.
So you are saying Buddhist teaching is not about your true nature and therefore not the
same as dzogchen?
Good and bad are relative notions which are always product of thought, in recognizing
the primordial state thought is pacified and benefit is already present. Rigpa is
synonymous with bodhicitta.
The recognizing is also of thought, otherwise you are talking about the body which
can't be attained. Pacified thought is not the aim of knowledge. Bodhicitta shared the
same means as the deluded mind, it is termed bodhicitta in the presence of the
intellect, and termed the deluded mind in the presence of delusion, so it is not the
same as knowledge (vidya), although knowledge is the cause of bodhicitta.
there's no other reason why you would actively seek to devalue other traditions.
Saying dzogchen is in fact equalled or comparable to yogacara in term of the structure,
how is this devalue other traditions?