Yogacara and dzogchen

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:10 am

Andrew108 wrote:Jyoti. As I have mentioned you are cooking a soup following a recipe.
And in the final analysis you drop the intellect and go with the consequences of having
a teacher. This is how it works. Any debate is essentially meaningless in this context.
Your soup tastes as you think it should. The taste only fits you.


You can't compare the definitive dharma with a recipe that has variety, only the
provisional dharma has variety to cater for different requirement of the vessels. Thus
your analogy of using cooking recipe is not applicable here.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby futerko » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:16 am

Jyoti wrote:
futerko wrote:Extremes such as Dharmakaya being truly existent?


Free from extremes refer only to the means, whereas the body exists without extreme since its opposite body of non-existent does not exist.
In the realm of nonduality, the concept of extreme does not apply, thus the body is originally free from extreme (opposite).

The meaning seems prefectly clear here. The equality of all dharma is the point where "all dharmas are empty".


This is not what equality means, otherwise, the doctrine of heretics would be equalled as well. Equality means sharing the same structure of body, form and means. Dropping all this structure is termed the negation in the extreme (nihilism), without the body, even the word nonduality is not established, thus to called this dzogchen is misrepresenting that tradition with an errant view.

Jyoti


I didn't mention Dzogchen. "All dharmas are empty" is from the Heart sutra. You seem to have misunderstood Nagarjuna when he says that emptiness is itself empty.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:49 pm

futerko wrote:I didn't mention Dzogchen.


I know, I was refering to Andrew who associate the 'dropping all' to dzogchen.

"All dharmas are empty" is from the Heart sutra. You seem to have misunderstood Nagarjuna when he says that emptiness is itself empty.


When refering anything from the sutra of the middle turning such as this one, it is necessary to cite the whole context, as matter pertaining to emptiness need the right interpretation.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Malcolm » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:39 pm

Jyoti wrote:
Free from extremes refer only to the means



No, it refers to reality.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:05 am

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
exist.


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
consciousnesses).

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
originated themselves.


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
sense.

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
means (bodhi).

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
concepts.


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
established.


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
the connection).

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
established.


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
irrevocably flawed.


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
visualization practices.


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
dharma?


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
same time?


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
Two Truths."


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 vidya?


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
(thugs rje).


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
individuals consciousness.


In that case, this is monotheism, since this Samantabhadra has nothing to do with your
own consciousness.


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
no exception.


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?

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby futerko » Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:49 am

Jyoti wrote: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.


Mipham claims that the ultimate is not empty of being the ultimate, he does however deny that it has a truly established permanent existence.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby asunthatneversets » Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:15 pm

Jyoti wrote:
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.


There certainly is such a dichotomy in dzogchen, there is ma-rigpa and rigpa, ignorance and wisdom, but neither are ever truly established. Nothing is truly established.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:Dependent arising is the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly
exist.


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 consciousnesses).


No, it refers to the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly exist, including your notion of the 7 consciousnesses.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 originated themselves.


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).


The consciousnesses being empty, cannot be the cause of anything. There are no agents. The basis is not the ālayavijñāna.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


True in theory.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


In your opinion... based on your attachments to the norms of your chosen tradition and considering it to be 'truth', as you put it.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


What the word implies is of incredible importance. And what YOU imply when you use the term consciousness, is not what dzogchen refers to with terms like wisdom. Don't conflate the two.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 sense.


Clarity is not form. Some translators use the term 'awareness' but they do not state that everything is awareness. So no, dzogchen does not assert that everything is clarity of awareness in any way. The ālaya, is the all-ground, which is the basis of ignorance... the ground of confusion, from which everything arises. 'Things' arise from non-recognition of the primordial state, they do not arise from the primordial state, the primordial state has never arisen. I'm making perfect sense, you don't understand this teaching, and you even went as far as to claim that there is no such thing as the ālaya in your last response. So your bias has already clouded your ability to understand what is being pointed to.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


You're still asserting that there is something which belongs to a realm of existence (i.e. established) and can be admitted as permanent. This is not the dzogchen view.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


The actualization is the removal of ignorance which obscures the primordial state. The primordial state isn't conditional to anything. There is no ultimate object to select, the recognition is conditional upon the adventitious appearance of delusion which obscures, when the delusion is known to be delusion, then that is said to be recognition. In my opinion, the problem with your view is that you posit and ultimate and you assert it to be consciousness. Likewise you claim there are sources of arising and then state that there are 12 entrances which are none other than consciousness. You're talking about yogācāra, not dzogchen.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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).


As mentioned, awareness is a term employed by a select group of translators and does not accurately represent dzogchen.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:'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 means (bodhi).


Dzogchen is not about the 'means'. Again, you're talking about yogācāra, not dzogchen.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 concepts.


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.


According to yogācāra it is the ripening of the seed within the storehouse consciousness that is the cause of the manifestation of appearances of dependent arising. This is not the view of dzogchen. You don't seem to get this.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Yes I figured this was the case but I appreciate the clarification.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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).


They can be said to exist conventionally, but not inherently. Within the conventional there is no actual production or origination, these seeming appearances are illusory and are products of ignorance. I'm not saying they're non-existent, they would have to initially exist to have the possibility of being non-existent.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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).


The conceptual construction is the result of ignorance.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:Affliction is never bodhi. You either have one or the other and neither are ever truly established.


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 the connection).


According to yogācāra, not dzogchen.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Semantics.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Again, only according to yogācāra. There is no ultimate nature which inherently exists in dzogchen. To say 'nothing exists inherently' means just that (nothing exists inherently). It isn't falling into the extreme of nihilism, because nihilism would require something to be negated in the first place. You assume that there are aspects which have been established and therefore within your reasoning, to posit them as lacking inherency is a nihilistic view, but this conclusion is predicated on your initial assumption. As it is, essentialism/eternalism/nihilism are all conceptual notions which are based on the notion of something to be affirmed or negated. Dzogchen understands that these notions belong to conceptualization and do not transcend conceptualization. Reality is free of extremes (as was pointed out above).

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Maha-yoga and anu-yoga employ deity yoga and symbols of visualization, dzogchen (ati-yoga) is the primordial state. The ālaya gives rise to the appearance of consciousness, the ālaya is the kun-gzhi or all-ground, the basis of samsara and nirvana (samsara, because it is the basis of confusion... nirvana, because it provides the potentality for actualizing liberation). The gzhi, or ground is most likely what you are referring to as that which is 'devoid of consciousness'... it is the ever-pure and unborn.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Perhaps, I actually have no idea what you're referring to with a lot of the terminology you use, unfortunately.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 established.


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.


Yes, according to yogācāra... according to dzogchen nothing is established.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:According to Yogācāra... not dzogchen.


It is also according to Dzogchen based on Mipham's texts.


We have already established that you are basing these notions off of some texts (specifically 'The Lion's Roar') written by Mipham which are denatured exegetically.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 irrevocably flawed.


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 visualization practices.


You're talking about yogācāra.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 dharma?


They are not permanent, nor are they impermanent.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 same time?


How can that which is unborn posses any such characteristics?

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


Delusion is referring to ma-rigpa.

"Kyema! Although I am devoid of confusion, confusion arose from my expression. After the nature manifested unobstructedly from the unchanging ground, ignorance naturally manifested from the indeterminate compassion. For example, although the sky does not truly posses clouds, the clouds still arise momentarily. Likewise, no ignorance exists in the ground, yet ignorance naturally arises from the aspect of what manifested as compassion. Thus, the 'natural state of the ground of spontaneous presence' was formed."
- The Tantra Of Great Auspicious Beauty


Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 Two Truths."


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.


That is your interpretation of his statement. Madhyamaka is a wonderful and effective teaching, but he is addressing Madhyamaka in this quote.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


There are no internal and external fields in dzogchen.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 vidya?


Only the concepts regarding it.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 (thugs rje).


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.


This is your yogācārin interpretation of this metaphor.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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?


We can say lots of things, the difference is that dzogchen is the experience, not the words.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 individuals consciousness.


In that case, this is monotheism, since this Samantabhadra has nothing to do with your own consciousness.


Your statement is predicated on your assumption that consciousness is the end-all and be-all. And your monotheism comment is in turn predicated on the assumptions that 1) a consciousness exists 2) the primordial state is an object which could exist outside or beyond consciousness, and 3) that the primordial state is an established omniscience of some sort.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


The dependent arising nature is illusory in dzogchen. The 'ultimate condition' is dzogchen. I believe it's a metaphor in reference to certain mennagde practices.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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 no exception.


According to yogācāra, not dzogchen. Dzogchen is beyond cause and effect.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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?


You would be day dreaming if you thought you had in fact attained them in any circumstance.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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?


The teachings are 'about' the true nature... dzogchen is that true nature.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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.


The recognition is not of thought, and nothing is attained, there is no recognizer. Relative bodhicitta shared the same means as the deluded mind perhaps. Absolute bodhicitta is rigpa.

Jyoti wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote: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?

Jyoti


Because it's not equivalent to or comparable (in most every aspect) to yogācāra in terms of structure. On the level of it's teaching, it does share some vague comparisons, but as mentioned above, the teaching isn't dzogchen. Ok it's 4:30am, luckily Rinpoche's webcast kept me awake to do this response, bedtime now, goodnight Jyoti
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?

Postby Jyoti » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:06 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:Dzogchen does not even bother considering them separately but rather presents them
at all times as inseparable as water and its wetness.


Body, form and means are not separate, but without knowing their differences, it is
impossible to know the dharma, the three natures, the two truths, trikaya, etc.

Even on the level of Madhyamaka, it is understood that since no phenomena
whatsoever can be found that are actually established, neither can any agent, action, or
result be established. I.E. cause and result are illusory.


Phenomena (dependent arising nature) is not establish in Madhyamaka and Yogacara,
what is established is the ultimate nature. However, what is not establish is not non-
existence nor existence, it is termed mere appearance and conventional truth, i.e. it
cannot be negated to the extreme of non-existence as in this case. Similarly, cause and
result being illusory are not non-existence and cannot be negated as such. Straying to
the ultimate nature to the exclusion of all the 'illusory' truth, is an errant view similar
to the two yanas.

Dzogchen just takes it a step further, beyond the realm of intellectual analysis, and
introduces this inseparability of emptiness and natural formation experientially.

Dzogchen is not the only tradition that does this, depending on the capacity of the
dharma vessel, the teaching like yogacara and ch'an can recognized the thusness of the
three natures from the very beginning, since the relying on the intellect of the origin
required the recognition of thusness.

It is understood in Dzogchen, of course, that on the level of deluded experience, there
will still be the experience of subject and object and thus cause and effect until one's
realization has overcome that ignorance,


The experience of subject and object does not change in the state of awakening or
delusion, the difference of the awakened is there is no proliferation of imaginary
nature. Even the recognition of thusness within the subject and object, does not
eliminate the subject and object, since the dimension of form and means (sambogakaya
and nirmanakaya) are based on the two-fold manifestation of consciousness. The
recognition of thusness just give the knowledge that the two-fold emptinesses are the
same, but it didn't eliminate the two-fold manifestation of appearance.

but from the very start of Dzogchen one goes to the heart of dissolving that deluded
notion experientially, from the inside out.


Deluded notion referred to the imaginary nature, the two-fold manifestation of
appearance is of dependent arising nature. Dzogchen does not possess the teaching of
the three natures, there is danger that it will confuse the dependent arising nature with
the imaginary nature.

while sutra acknowledges that Buddhas know the absolute and relative levels simultaneously, they assert that ordinary sentient beings can't possibly do that, so they explain relative and absolute separately and one meditates on them as separate as well. But Dzogchen introduces them at all times as inseparable


Yogacara for example does not consider them separate since they are the body and means respectively.

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

Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?

Postby Sönam » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:27 pm

Jyoti wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:Dzogchen does not even bother considering them separately but rather presents them
at all times as inseparable as water and its wetness.


Body, form and means are not separate, but without knowing their differences, it is
impossible to know the dharma, the three natures, the two truths, trikaya, etc.


Jyoti, in Dzogchen there is no necessity to know the dharma, the three natures, the two truths, trikaya, etc.

Circumstances are that you meet a teacher, that he introduces to your own nature, then you realize it and you continue in that realization ...

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: 1864
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:47 pm

Beautifully written. My guess is that she will decide that you are somehow in error.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:37 pm

This thread still going?

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby alpha » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:18 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:This thread still going?

:zzz:


Well,... if i am not mistaken you made sure that this thread continues and stays alive by the simple fact that you have contributed to it.
I think people have been very succesful in keeping it alive , dont you think ?
AOM
alpha
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:05 pm
Location: kent

Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:20 pm

Jyoti wrote:Dzogchen does not possess the teaching of the three natures, there is danger that it will confuse the dependent arising nature with the imaginary nature.


It would be more accurate to say that Dzogchen finds the doctrine of the dependent nature faulty. The fault for which the yogacara school is criticized is the assertion the dependent nature is ultimate.

This is identical to the Madhyamaka criticism of Yogacara.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:31 am

futerko wrote:Mipham claims that the ultimate is not empty of being the ultimate, he does however deny that it has a truly established permanent existence.


Mipham is being careful with the word 'existence' since he is discussing with the dialectic tradition that is sensitive to such extreme. However, the passage below from the 'Becon of Certainty' is statement about existence of the body that is not to be negated.

"Therefore, because the dharmakaya abides as the primordially pure essence and the formal bodies abide as the spontaneous presence of the aspect of the nature of clarity, the dual accumulation is by nature primordially complete and spontaneously present. It is the great self-arisen gnosis that by nature does not abide in either cyclic existence or peace. Once this is manifest, there is no need to purposefully negate the extremes of existence or peace."

Words such as "primordially pure essence", "spontaneous presence", and "peace" (nirvana) here refer to the body of true existence and so cannot be negated with the method of negation that is apply to conventional reality (means) which is emptied of such essence (body).

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Andrew108 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:53 am

You see in Mipham what you want to see. But anyhow this is the last time I'm posting in this thread.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?

Postby Jyoti » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:57 am

Malcolm wrote:It would be more accurate to say that Dzogchen finds the doctrine of the dependent
nature faulty. The fault for which the yogacara school is criticized is the assertion the
dependent nature is ultimate.


The dependent arising nature (依他起性 paratantra-svabhāva) is not considered the
same as the absolute nature (圓成實性 parini·panna-svabhāva). The former is the
means of the latter (body), only the body is considered as established and therefore
ultimate. The two is not consider separate nor same, this is the basis of the two truths.

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

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby muni » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:01 am

How all (other) is not mind but not different.

*Bodhichitta*

Unsubstantial mirror is graspingless but not blankness. Unclingable... correctednesses and wrongnessess written on water. :alien:

In discussions there is pushing and pulling; bit cognetive problem.

:bow: Without the masters' pointing to come out of the right-wrong adventitious dreamlike creations, beings are birds who learned to talk, locked up in goldon cages while the simple bird is free. :bow:

I put a big spoon of soup in my mouth, keep the soup there so not swallow and explain how it taste.

muni blaba. :toilet:


No my high/low space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsQa7sf ... ure=relmfu


:bow: Dzogchen master -=*=- student.
Last edited by muni on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby Sönam » Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:22 am

Jyoti wrote:
futerko wrote:Mipham claims that the ultimate is not empty of being the ultimate, he does however deny that it has a truly established permanent existence.


Mipham is being careful with the word 'existence' since he is discussing with the dialectic tradition that is sensitive to such extreme. However, the passage below from the 'Becon of Certainty' is statement about existence of the body that is not to be negated.

"Therefore, because the dharmakaya abides as the primordially pure essence and the formal bodies abide as the spontaneous presence of the aspect of the nature of clarity, the dual accumulation is by nature primordially complete and spontaneously present. It is the great self-arisen gnosis that by nature does not abide in either cyclic existence or peace. Once this is manifest, there is no need to purposefully negate the extremes of existence or peace."

Words such as "primordially pure essence", "spontaneous presence", and "peace" (nirvana) here refer to the body of true existence and so cannot be negated with the method of negation that is apply to conventional reality (means) which is emptied of such essence (body).

Jyoti


No Jyoti, Mipham do not refere here to the "body of true existence" ... which is a non sense terminology in Dzogchen.

Peoples who comprehend only the words of the theories will not understand the pure meaning of it "as it is." Those people who are stewing the concept of calculating "the property of the subject (Phyogs-Ch'os)," "forward pervasion" and "reverse pervasion" (rJes-Su 'Gro-lDog), and whether the reasoning has been applied to "similar classes" (mThun-Phyogs) or to "dissimilar classes" (Mi-mThan Phyogs) and so on, fan the fuel of emotional defilements with the belows of perverted views, ignite the huge fire of manifold suffering, and burn their minds and those of others. Their pride is equal to a mountain.
The teachings on the nature are not like those so-called teachings in the form of elaborate nets of imagination (Kun-bTags) which have been multiplied into thousands by those people. The nature of the mind and of phenomena is peimordially pure. Therefore, there is nothing to be established or rejected ..."
- Longchen Rabjam - Shingta Chenpo -


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: 1864
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby muni » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:16 am

:bow: Homage to the Masters. :bow:

"The special Dzogchen item you (sem) need is a green plastic bucket. With another one, you (sem) cannot take the moon reflection out of the water".

That joke is me told (on my way to the shop to buy a green plastic bucket), to explain analysis is not facilating skylike total presence. :smile:

This tread seems to teach unfabricated nature embraces all pointing traditions.

Sem nyi compassion is all.

"Like the shimmering reflection in water,
appaerance is not simple nonexistent,
and yet is not existent
beyond both existence and nonexistence,
the yogin or yogini has no chatter in the mind.
Gnosis in itself is unoriginated and appaerances never crystallize;
the attributes of gnosis are intangible
and the fruition of gnosis is uncontrived". Longchenpa

You are my sunshine. :namaste:
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Yogacara and dzogchen

Postby futerko » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:37 am

Jyoti wrote:
futerko wrote:Mipham claims that the ultimate is not empty of being the ultimate, he does however deny that it has a truly established permanent existence.


Mipham is being careful with the word 'existence' since he is discussing with the dialectic tradition that is sensitive to such extreme. However, the passage below from the 'Becon of Certainty' is statement about existence of the body that is not to be negated.

"Therefore, because the dharmakaya abides as the primordially pure essence and the formal bodies abide as the spontaneous presence of the aspect of the nature of clarity, the dual accumulation is by nature primordially complete and spontaneously present. It is the great self-arisen gnosis that by nature does not abide in either cyclic existence or peace. Once this is manifest, there is no need to purposefully negate the extremes of existence or peace."

Words such as "primordially pure essence", "spontaneous presence", and "peace" (nirvana) here refer to the body of true existence and so cannot be negated with the method of negation that is apply to conventional reality (means) which is emptied of such essence (body).

Jyoti



"the spontaneous presence of the aspect of the nature of clarity" IS what you call "means" when viewed from a non-dual perspective.

What Mipham is saying here is that the means IS the aspect nature of the body, they are inseperable.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian and 5 guests

>