Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:40 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am
Posts: 543
? :namaste:

_________________
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Caz wrote:
? :namaste:


Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am
Posts: 543
Malcolm wrote:
Caz wrote:
? :namaste:


Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.


Good to know thanks Malcolm. :namaste:

_________________
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Posts: 185
Malcolm wrote:
Caz wrote:
? :namaste:


Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.


If understood correctly, the Prasangika view is experiential, no difference there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Posts: 185
Caz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Caz wrote:
? :namaste:


Yes, the difference is however that Prasanga is just an intellectual analysis where as Dzogchen is experiential.


Good to know thanks Malcolm. :namaste:


In his Gelug/Kagyu Mahamura text the Dalai Lama advises Dzochen pratitioners to study Je Tsongkhapa's prasangika presentation of emptiness, saying that it would be "very beneficial."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm
Posts: 854
Mipham would be better IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
cloudburst wrote:
In his Gelug/Kagyu Mahamura text the Dalai Lama advises Dzochen pratitioners to study Je Tsongkhapa's prasangika presentation of emptiness, saying that it would be "very beneficial."



While Jigme Lingpa in general gives Tsongkhapa's presentation of Prasanga in his Yon tan mdzod; later, in the Dzoghen section he criticizes Madhaymaka in general for failing to be able to exceed intellectual analysis.

Longchenpa, half a century before Tsongkhapa, writes in his autocommentary to the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu in chapter 8:

This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on.

However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis.


So in terms of freedom from extremes and so on, Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are identical. Where they differ is what is considered the basis [gzhi, sthana]-- the basis in Madhyamaka is emptiness, whereas the basis in Dzogchen is considered to be rigpa.

M

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Posts: 185
Malcolm wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
In his Gelug/Kagyu Mahamura text the Dalai Lama advises Dzochen pratitioners to study Je Tsongkhapa's prasangika presentation of emptiness, saying that it would be "very beneficial."


While Jigme Lingpa in general gives Tsongkhapa's presentation of Prasanga in his Yon tan mdzod; later, in the Dzoghen section he criticizes Madhaymaka in general for failing to be able to exceed intellectual analysis.


This simply reflects his approach. Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Longchenpa, half a century before Tsongkhapa, writes in his autocommentary to the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu in chapter 8:

This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on.

However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis.


So in terms of freedom from extremes and so on, Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are identical. Where they differ is what is considered the basis [gzhi, sthana]-- the basis in Madhyamaka is emptiness, whereas the basis in Dzogchen is considered to be rigpa.

M


This has nothing to do with whether the Madhyamaka pov is experiential. Just becasue the basis is not rigpa for sutra madhyamaka in no way means that it is not an experiential path. Then there is always Madhayamaka from a tantric pov.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
cloudburst wrote:
Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.


Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 am
Posts: 189
So basically Madhyamaka shows everything is illusory through logic i.e. vajra sliver reasoning.

While Dzogchen shows everything is illusory through personal experience.

This is my understanding.


Last edited by SSJ3Gogeta on Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
Madhyamaka is supposed to lead to experience too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Posts: 185
Malcolm wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.


Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.


The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am
Posts: 543
cloudburst wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.


Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.


The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.


I would say so yes if you didn't develop the correct view of emptiness it would be difficult to apprehend the object correctly. :)

_________________
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 1967
One is a View, the other is a State.

The View may help some people contextualise the practice but the State itself does not rely in any way on a View - other than understanding that this is so, which is an aspect of the experiential fruit.

_________________
Left


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
In Madhyamaka there is a subtle game of acceptance and rejection going on. In Dzogchen/Ati it's not like this.

_________________
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
cloudburst wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Whether or not Madhyamaka fails in exceeding an intellectual approach depends upon whether or not the meditator fails to exceed and intellectual approach.


Madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. It has no form of vipashyana which is uniquely distinguished from sūtrayāna in general.

When it comes to meditating vipashyāna, one does not sit there and engage in intellectual analysis ala madhyamaka.


The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.


After an eon of meditating perhaps. But while one is below the path of seeing one's "insight" is conceptual, and not experiential.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm
Posts: 185
Malcolm wrote:
cloudburst wrote:

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.


After an eon of meditating perhaps. But while one is below the path of seeing one's "insight" is conceptual, and not experiential.


The point of view is either conceptual or not depending upon the meditator.

How long it takes to become the type of meditator for whom it is non-conceptual depends upon the meditator, the methods, the guru etc. Could be aeons could a few years , or months .....days.... really it depends.

You have moved from saying that Madhyamaka is "just an intellectual analysis" to saying that conceptual is not experiential. I would say that for a yogi on the path of preparation meditating with ultimate example clear light, the point of view is technically speaking conceptual, but this means something very very different from "just intellectual analysis," doesn't it? This discussion is about the prasangika point of VIEW, and a view is necessarily experiential, as it is a view.

meditating on a generic image of ultimate truth with a mind of clear light is certainly experiential.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Just for the sake of clarification Prasangika doesn't make any claims about the ultimate. They posit that they have no position regarding the ultimate. In other words they make no assertion about the ultimate. They do however say a lot about the relative and this is the sticking point because they implicitly accept a split between relative and ultimate. In so doing they imply that even though the ultimate is beyond concepts it is still something of a future achievement or goal. So in this way their view is different from those schools who posit that relative and ultimate are in union and that the wisdom of emptiness is self-arisen (arising from itself rather than causes).

_________________
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 1967
cloudburst wrote:
and a view is necessarily experiential, as it is a view.



Really? Necessarily?

A person may form a view about swimming through reading a book - that is nothing to do with experiencing swimming, it is vicarious at best.

Is it any different for people reading a book about theories of emptiness and forming a view ? Did the Madhyamika need to 'experience' Madhyamaka or just experience the teachings about it.

Dzogchen is a state, not a theory, hence it is only ever experiential. The existence of a state does not depend upon a theory or faith in it.

_________________
Left


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
cloudburst wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
cloudburst wrote:

The process of madhyamaka is based on intellectual analysis. Through this process of investigation, one develops insight. This new view is experiential, and this is the point of view of madhyamaka.


After an eon of meditating perhaps. But while one is below the path of seeing one's "insight" is conceptual, and not experiential.


The point of view is either conceptual or not depending upon the meditator.

How long it takes to become the type of meditator for whom it is non-conceptual depends upon the meditator, the methods, the guru etc. Could be aeons could a few years , or months .....days.... really it depends.

You have moved from saying that Madhyamaka is "just an intellectual analysis" to saying that conceptual is not experiential. I would say that for a yogi on the path of preparation meditating with ultimate example clear light, the point of view is technically speaking conceptual, but this means something very very different from "just intellectual analysis," doesn't it? This discussion is about the prasangika point of VIEW, and a view is necessarily experiential, as it is a view.

meditating on a generic image of ultimate truth with a mind of clear light is certainly experiential.


From a Dzogchen point of view, such a samanyārtha (spyi don) is an intellectual analysis, an conceptual contrivance.

Of course, you can play with words if you like, and argue that concepts are experiences, but that is not the distinction that is being drawn here.

The experience of vidyā Longchenpa is referring to is not a samanyārtha, a generic image, even for a commoner. It is also never a result of conceptual analysis of any kind.

In other words, to tease it out for you further, as you admit, the object for a commoner meditating emptiness according to any system of Madhyamaka is a conceptual object which in truth is conceptual abstraction based on an intellectual analysis.

The "object", for a commoner meditating according to the system of Dzogchen, is always a non-abstract non-conceptual pratyakṣa [mngon gsum] of dharmatā.

The ultimate meaning of both systems is the same, but the means and praxis are quite different -- thus providing the reason why Madhyamaka, being a sutrayāna path, requires three incalculable eons to traverse the paths and stages; whereas the path of atiyoga possesses only a single stage, traversable immediately.

M

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group