Dzogchen tantras uncreated and eternal

[Malcolm]

Yogacara is not commensurate with Dzogchen.

I didn't find difficulty decibering dzogchen within the framework of consciousness-only system. They both belong to the sudden vehicle, but the consciousness-only system is purer as it is never a mixture of gradual and sudden teachings. The main collection of dzogchen teaching is from teachers who taught the gradual path of vajrayana.

Both of your assertions are unsupported.

[Jyoti]

Not the version of dzogchen that I know.

Which "version" would that be?

'Version' here refer to my interpretation of the dzogchen contents that I have come across. I'm the proponent of the four reliances:

1. Not relying on the words, but relying on the meaning
2. Not relying on consciousness, but relying on the intellect
3. Not relying on the person, but relying on the teaching
4. Not relying on the scripture of non-definitive meaning, but relying on the scripture of definitive meaning

What happened here, when someone argue based solely on words (or terminology) and not on the meaning, and support such argument based on a certain name of the scripture written by so and so, or of superiority of tradition such as dzogchen vs so and so tradition. What they have demonstrated is that they are strongly attached to the first part of categories mentioned above one way or the other.

[Jyoti]

Yogacara is not commensurate with Dzogchen.

I didn't find difficulty decibering dzogchen within the framework of consciousness-only system. They both belong to the sudden vehicle, but the consciousness-only system is purer as it is never a mixture of gradual and sudden teachings. The main collection of dzogchen teaching is from teachers who taught the gradual path of vajrayana.

Both of your assertions are unsupported.

Point me to one dzogchen teacher who is still living who taught the sudden teachings without mixing with any gradual means in all of their teachings, and point me to a consciousness-only scriptures that teach the gradual method, then repeat the same statement above.

[Pero]

Not the version of dzogchen that I know.

Which "version" would that be?

'Version' here refer to my interpretation of the dzogchen contents that I have come across. I'm the proponent of the four reliances:

1. Not relying on the words, but relying on the meaning
2. Not relying on consciousness, but relying on the intellect
3. Not relying on the person, but relying on the teaching
4. Not relying on the scripture of non-definitive meaning, but relying on the scripture of definitive meaning

What happened here, when someone argue based solely on words (or terminology) and not on the meaning, and support such argument based on a certain name of the scripture written by so and so, or of superiority of tradition such as dzogchen vs so and so tradition.

But how would you know the meaning if you haven't received any teachings on it? And I think that for Dzogchen, all scriptures of the 8 vehicles below it would belong to those of non-definitive meaning.

[Pero]

Both of your assertions are unsupported.

Point me to one dzogchen teacher who is still living who taught the sudden teachings without mixing with any gradual means in all of their teachings, and point me to a consciousness-only scriptures that teach the gradual method, then repeat the same statement above.

What are gradual means?

[pueraeternus]

Yogacara is not commensurate with Dzogchen.

I didn't find difficulty decibering dzogchen within the framework of consciousness-only system. They both belong to the sudden vehicle, but the consciousness-only system is purer as it is never a mixture of gradual and sudden teachings. The main collection of dzogchen teaching is from teachers who taught the gradual path of vajrayana.

Why do you say that Yogacara belongs to the sudden vehicle and is a purer sudden vehicle? All the texts on Yogacara describes a gradual praxis for āśrayaparāvṛtti and follows the five paths system.

I practice dzogchen and like to incorporate the gradual systems to my praxis, but even I find your assertions strange!

[Jyoti]

But how would you know the meaning if you haven't received any teachings on it? And I think that for Dzogchen, all scriptures of the 8 vehicles below it would belong to those of non-definitive meaning.

The tradition of dzogchen is a mixture of gradual as well as the sudden teaching, even for those teachers who attempt to make dzogchen pure in itself also involve themselves in teaching their own form of gradual method. Even the Bon version of dzogchen has their own form of gradual method. The gradual method is not of the definitive meaning regardless of the nyingma's classification of dzogchen as the summit of the nine vehicles. Thus, the name dzogchen can hardly be one the standard associations for definitive teaching. Scriptures of definitive meaning refers to contents of the mahayana which is definitive, not the same as the classification of the yana according to the nyingma.

Regarding the meaning, scripture of definitive meaning can be understood by simply reading directly without additional interpretation needed, person of higher capacity can apprehend the meaning directly without long period of analysis. Whereas person of lower capacity can try to analyse the various words and sentences repeatedly, until the meaning is apprehended.

[Jyoti]

Yogacara is not commensurate with Dzogchen.

I didn't find difficulty decibering dzogchen within the framework of consciousness-only system. They both belong to the sudden vehicle, but the consciousness-only system is purer as it is never a mixture of gradual and sudden teachings. The main collection of dzogchen teaching is from teachers who taught the gradual path of vajrayana.

Why do you say that Yogacara belongs to the sudden vehicle and is a purer sudden vehicle? All the texts on Yogacara describes a gradual praxis for āśrayaparāvṛtti and follows the five paths system.

I practice dzogchen and like to incorporate the gradual systems to my praxis, but even I find your assertions strange!

Yogacra covers the background of the entire paths, so those were stated, but the core is the definitive meaning versus non-definitive meaning. For practitioners of the sudden approach, they required these scriptures of definitive meaning. Many proponents of the consciousness-only doctrine are followers of ch'an, and their works focused on the sudden approach, without any element of gradual approach or skillful means.

[Jyoti]

Both of your assertions are unsupported.

Point me to one dzogchen teacher who is still living who taught the sudden teachings without mixing with any gradual means in all of their teachings, and point me to a consciousness-only scriptures that teach the gradual method, then repeat the same statement above.

What are gradual means?

Any provisional methods which that has a concealed intention, this concealed intention is element of gradual means.

[Andrew108]

Jyoti, it's really good that you are posting here and obviously you are very knowledgeable. It is possible that over the coming weeks you can learn more about Dzogchen. I know I have learnt a lot since I started posting here. I'm very thankful to Malcolm in particular. My teachers have never presented the Dzogchen teachings in the way that you have described. So I am intrigued to know who is your teacher?

[Jyoti]

Jyoti, it's really good that you are posting here and obviously you are very knowledgeable. It is possible that over the coming weeks you can learn more about Dzogchen. I know I have learnt a lot since I started posting here. I'm very thankful to Malcolm in particular. My teachers have never presented the Dzogchen teachings in the way that you have described. So I am intrigued to know who is your teacher?

i don't have the luxury of a personal teacher, but have being doing a lot of self studies in the past.

[Andrew108]

Respectfully, I would say that with Dzogchen a teacher is an essential requirement rather than a luxury.

[Jyoti]

Respectfully, I would say that with Dzogchen a teacher is an essential requirement rather than a luxury.

What I meant is in modern days, teachers has so many students, it is not possible to have one as our personal teacher, we can have teachers, but they are not personal one. What is the difference if we can only hear standard discourse that anyone else can hear, than merely doing much reading oneself? Ultimately one still has to do all the analysis oneself in order apprehend the meaning and to dispell all doubts, the teacher can't do this for us. The mahayana's four reliances also state that the importance of reliance on the teaching over the reliance on the person (which include teachers). And don't forget the entire concept of guru-disciple concept is borrowed from Hinduism, the buddhist tantric tradition that adapt it is also based on the skillful means, which intention is not definitive. The sixth patriach of ch'an seen the problem of this approach also, and decided to abandoned the tradition of passing of the robe, prefer to pass his teaching through the plateform sutra instead.

[Andrew108]

Well the principle of Direct Introduction is key in Dzogchen and you can't really get that from books. But of course the student needs to be active, as you point out. The Dzogchen transmission has been working quite well so far. So whether or not one wants to connect with that is a personal decision. Best wishes to you.

[pueraeternus]

Why do you say that Yogacara belongs to the sudden vehicle and is a purer sudden vehicle? All the texts on Yogacara describes a gradual praxis for āśrayaparāvṛtti and follows the five paths system.

I practice dzogchen and like to incorporate the gradual systems to my praxis, but even I find your assertions strange!

Yogacra covers the background of the entire paths, so those were stated, but the core is the definitive meaning versus non-definitive meaning. For practitioners of the sudden approach, they required these scriptures of definitive meaning. Many proponents of the consciousness-only doctrine are followers of ch'an, and their works focused on the sudden approach, without any element of gradual approach or skillful means.

Well, I would say that you are then using the principles of dzogchen and yogacara to enrich your practice, but not really practicing them per se. Perhaps you are really practicing Chan, which is a sudden path (though it also employs gradual methods among its diverse practices). Even in Chan, it is best to find a good teacher if you can.

[Malcolm]

Point me to one dzogchen teacher who is still living who taught the sudden teachings without mixing with any gradual means in all of their teachings, and point me to a consciousness-only scriptures that teach the gradual method, then repeat the same statement above.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.

Gandavyuha, etc

[Jyoti]

Point me to one dzogchen teacher who is still living who taught the sudden teachings without mixing with any gradual means in all of their teachings, and point me to a consciousness-only scriptures that teach the gradual method, then repeat the same statement above.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.

Gandavyuha, etc

N.N also taught skillful means such as yantra yoga and development stage yoga, where is purity of the sudden approach? The demand for purity is simple, there should not be mixture of two different approach in any discourse, otherwise confusion is inevitable. Also those who rely exclusively on the definitive meaning, do not required additional aid of skillful means.

The Gandayyuha is not a scripture of definitive meaning, and so would not be used by the consciousness-only school.

[Malcolm]

Point me to one dzogchen teacher who is still living who taught the sudden teachings without mixing with any gradual means in all of their teachings, and point me to a consciousness-only scriptures that teach the gradual method, then repeat the same statement above.

Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.

Gandavyuha, etc

N.N also taught skillful means such as yantra yoga and development stage yoga, where is purity of the sudden approach? The demand for purity is simple, there should not be mixture of two different approach in any discourse, otherwise confusion is inevitable. Also those who rely exclusively on the definitive meaning, do not required additional aid of skillful means.

This statement indicates that a) you do not understand the teachings of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu b) that you do not understand Dzogchen.

The Gandayyuha is not a scripture of definitive meaning, and so would not be used by the consciousness-only school.

The Gandavyuha commonly considered a Yogacara sūtra.

There are a number of Yogacara sutras. Also for example the Saṃdhinirmocana is a gradualist sūtra belonging to the so called vijñaptimatra or cittamatra school -- a foundational text, actually.

It is fine if you want to consider Mahāyāna definitive. But that is just not how it is for we who follow the teaching of Dzogchen. We consider Dzogchen definitive, and everything else provisional. That is normal.

[Jyoti]

Well, I would say that you are then using the principles of dzogchen and yogacara to enrich your practice, but not really practicing them per se. Perhaps you are really practicing Chan, which is a sudden path (though it also employs gradual methods among its diverse practices). Even in Chan, it is best to find a good teacher if you can.

Well I studied and practice dzogchen and ch'an before I approach the yogacara, and find the yogacara has surprise me in a number of critical area. It is actually much ragid and precise due to the mechanism of body and means (體用) . However, only a few modern scholars had make commentaries about this mechanism, and these texts are yet to be translated in english, except the one translated as essence-function (can be google, I think it is the ' The Awakening of Mahayana Faith').

Teacher that one considered good is usually one whose book one has read, and has unanswered questions that he wish to learn more from the teacher. In my case, the teacher that I wish to learn directly is either passed away, or is living too far from me, or is someone who has many students which make personal contact difficult. On the other hand, what I have learnt is understanding can only be attained by oneself through self-analysis, and doubt can only be dispel after one is satisfied with the reasoning and experience in practice. So the most one benefit from the teacher is when one really has a question that one cannot answer for oneself by any means, but I never encounter a time when I'm unable to arrive at the answer myself. Maybe for others who has difficulty in this area, having a teacher is beneficial. In my case, if I went the route of follow teacher, I would have lost the time better spend at practice or try to master more standard terminologies of buddhism through the reading of the mahayana tripitaka, or mastering the technicalities of dharma through reading the commentaries of consciousness-only.

[Malcolm]

Well I studied and practice dzogchen...

From whom did you receive Dzogchen transmission?

Teacher and Guru -- not the same thing at all.

Dzogchen is not based on questions and answers. It is based on experience.