Dzogchen tantras uncreated and eternal

[Andrew108]

Poor Jyoti. Seems like everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure some good understanding will come out of this.

[Pero]

Poor Jyoti. Seems like everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure some good understanding will come out of this.

True. Though it just sort of happened that way.

[Malcolm]

Chan does not stop at the vijnana level.

From the point of view of Dzogchen, it does.

[Jyoti]

Jyoti, what do you think bodhicitta means within Dzogchen. What does it mean and what is it's role if any?

Bodhicitta points to bindu (明點） if I remember correctly, Bindu should be on the side of the body (dharmakaya), if one able to realize it, then it is liberation according to dzogchen. Dzogchen also has an esoteric path based on the physical body, where the ability to see the bindu physically is the requirement for progress.

[pueraeternus]

Chan does not stop at the vijnana level.

From the point of view of Dzogchen, it does.

It really doesn't, but there is nothing new in Buddhism for one tradition criticizing another based on incomplete understanding. Happens both ways.

[Andrew108]

Jyoti, what do you think bodhicitta means within Dzogchen. What does it mean and what is it's role if any?

Bodhicitta points to bindu (明點） if I remember correctly, Bindu should be on the side of the body (dharmakaya), if one able to realize it, then it is liberation according to dzogchen. Dzogchen also has an esoteric path based on the physical body, where the ability to see the bindu physically is the requirement for progress.

Ok so now tell me what you think bodhicitta means in terms of your experience.

[Jyoti]

Right, as I said, Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind, vijñāna.

So you equate mind as consciousness (vijnana), to have nothing to do with consciousness, you would have nothing to do with the dhamadhatu and the trikaya, and your version of dzogchen would have no basis.

[Malcolm]

Chan does not stop at the vijnana level.

From the point of view of Dzogchen, it does.

It really doesn't, but there is nothing new in Buddhism for one tradition criticizing another based on incomplete understanding. Happens both ways.

Yes, it really does. Why? Because for Chan, being a sutrayāna tradition, wisdom is the transformation of vijñāna.

M

[Malcolm]

Right, as I said, Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind, vijñāna.

So you equate mind as consciousness (vijnana), to have nothing to do with consciousness, you would have nothing to do with the dhamadhatu and the trikaya, and your version of dzogchen would have no basis.

If you assume the trikāya has something to do with vijñāna, then you would be correct. But that is not how the trikāya is understood in Dzogchen.

You need to read Primordial Experience, and understand how the Dzogchen tradition treats the cittamatra school and its doctrines so that you may correctly differentiate them. Otherwise, you will merely continue down this path of confusing yourself and others.

M

[Malcolm]

Poor Jyoti. Seems like everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure some good understanding will come out of this.

True. Though it just sort of happened that way.

It is likely to happen whenever someone comes to the Dzogchen forum and starts asserting that Dzogchen is subordinate to common Mahāyāna.

Jyoti has obviously not read Manjushrimitra's rdo la gser zhun

[Jyoti]

Ok so now tell me what you think bodhicitta means in terms of your experience.

It means the awakening intentionality that is in concordance with the reason (meaning).

[Jyoti]

If you assume the trikāya has something to do with vijñāna, then you would be correct. But that is not how the trikāya is understood in Dzogchen.

You need to read Primordial Experience, and understand how the Dzogchen tradition treats the cittamatra school and its doctrines so that you may correctly differentiate them. Otherwise, you will merely continue down this path of confusing yourself and others.

M

Why not just quote the text here or describe the content?

[Jyoti]

Jyoti has obviously not read Manjushrimitra's rdo la gser zhun

Quote the content please.

[Malcolm]

If you assume the trikāya has something to do with vijñāna, then you would be correct. But that is not how the trikāya is understood in Dzogchen.

You need to read Primordial Experience, and understand how the Dzogchen tradition treats the cittamatra school and its doctrines so that you may correctly differentiate them. Otherwise, you will merely continue down this path of confusing yourself and others.

M

Why not just quote the text here or describe the content?

You are an intelligent person and capable of doing your own reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Primordial-Experi ... experience

[Andrew108]

Ok so now tell me what you think bodhicitta means in terms of your experience.

It means the awakening intentionality that is in concordance with the reason (meaning).

Is this your experience? Really? I would have expected you to say that the experience of bodhicitta, in a Dzogchen sense, cannot be described by words. But you have been able to describe something. To me this demonstrates a flaw in your approach to Dzogchen. I don't mean to be mean spirited. I just think it would be to your benefit to look into these issues a but more.
We need the transmission. The direct introduction. So we need the guru. Then we need to practice. We need to be active and to intelligently reason things out. But we cannot manufacture realization through intellectual inference. This is how it is in Dzogchen. We are going past or beyond mind. This is the thing.

[pueraeternus]

[

From the point of view of Dzogchen, it does.

It really doesn't, but there is nothing new in Buddhism for one tradition criticizing another based on incomplete understanding. Happens both ways.

Yes, it really does. Why? Because for Chan, being a sutrayāna tradition, wisdom is the transformation of vijñāna.

M

But that is because you pigeon-hole it into that category and assume it to be so. Prajnaparamita is also sutrayana, but that doesn't mean it is merely the transformation of vijnana.

[Malcolm]

But that is because you pigeon-hole it into that category and assume it to be so. Prajnaparamita is also sutrayana, but that doesn't mean it is merely the transformation of vijnana.

That depends on one's exegetical tradition i.e. yogacara or madhyamaka.

Basically, the Dzogchen critique of sutrayāna in general is that even when sūtrayāna asserts wisdom beyond mind, it does not really succeed.

Even so, the emphasis of Chan is on dharmatā, not wisdom. Chan does not go beyond mind because it merely declares all things dharmatā.

That is not really going beyond mind.

M

[pueraeternus]

But that is because you pigeon-hole it into that category and assume it to be so. Prajnaparamita is also sutrayana, but that doesn't mean it is merely the transformation of vijnana.

That depends on one's exegetical tradition i.e. yogacara or madhyamaka.

And Chan is not purely yogacara - it is really a mix of several yogacara, madhyamaka and tathagatagarbha, with a Chinese flavor.

Basically, the Dzogchen critique of sutrayāna in general is that even when sūtrayāna asserts wisdom beyond mind, it does not really succeed.

Personally, I won't say that it does not really succeed, but that it uses different methods. In general, tantra (including Mahamudra and Dzogchen) has more efficient tools, or rather tools that suit a certain mentality.

Even so, the emphasis of Chan is on dharmatā, not wisdom. Chan does not go beyond mind because it merely declares all things dharmatā.

That is not really going beyond mind.
M

Why do you think so? *Genuine question - this is not a challenge*

[Malcolm]

[

Personally, I won't say that it does not really succeed, but that it uses different methods. In general, tantra (including Mahamudra and Dzogchen) has more efficient tools, or rather tools that suit a certain mentality.

This is a very post-Sakya Pandita view of tantric teachings in general.

Why do you think so? *Genuine question - this is not a challenge*

Even rocks have dharmatā. Resting in the dharmatā of a rock is not really going beyond the rock. In fact, it can't.

[Jyoti]

Is this your experience? Really? I would have expected you to say that the experience of bodhicitta, in a Dzogchen sense, cannot be described by words. But you have been able to describe something. To me this demonstrates a flaw in your approach to Dzogchen. I don't mean to be mean spirited. I just think it would be to your benefit to look into these issues a but more.
We need the transmission. The direct introduction. So we need the guru. Then we need to practice. We need to be active and to intelligently reason things out. But we cannot manufacture realization through intellectual inference. This is how it is in Dzogchen. We are going past or beyond mind. This is the thing.

If you note more carefully, the terms I used has no further description, terms such as reason (meaning), it mean I already realized this point, therefore I can bring out as inference, But in order for another to understand what this statement mean, he need to realize this reason (meaning). The statement itself is without flaw but definitive.

If one realized the meaning, that is the same as having passed the stage of transmission or direct introduction in dzogchen. And having realized oneself, the guru is not outside, but this fact does not only happen when one is realized, even when ignorance, the true guru is not outside either. When one depends on oneself using various analysis and arrived at realization of the inner guru, one in fact gained more experience than if one is to rely on another person to point out, the element of hard work is missing there.

As for the assumption that realization cannot be produce through intellectual inference, then one failed to understand that during direct introduction, the teacher is employing intellectual inference too. So what's the problem with intellectual inference, well the same as someone attached to the notion of nonconceptualization, thinking that the ultimate cannot be arrived through conceptual investigation. No one is suggesting the ultimate is constructed of concept, but thinking that one has to be absence of conceptualization in order to realized the ultimate is to mistakenly attempt to unite the means with the body of the ultimate, the failure of recognizing the primordial inseparability and distinction of means and body!