Dzogchen tantras uncreated and eternal

[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?

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

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

Yes, I'm capable, but I want your own interpretation on the matter, yet you can't even use your own terms. I'm familar with N.N. works, his stand on trikaya is the three existential states. But even these are not separate from the 8 consciousnesses. His stand on 'beyond mind' is simple beyond conceptualization, but this is talking about the body only, the dharmakaya is still the same basis as the alaya-vijnana, else you won't even be able to exist, as it is the ground that support this virtual reality right now.

[Malcolm]

Yes, I'm capable, but I want your own interpretation on the matter, yet you can't even use your own terms.

In general, it is not correct to debate about Dzogchen teachings with people, especially people who have wrong views about Dzogchen. So I am not to about argue with you about your views and try to condition you. You have already sufficiently conditioned yourself into an incorrect view about Dzogchen teachings. It is up to you to condition yourself out of it.

However I will leave you with this much — If you do not differentiate mind and wisdom, you will not understand Dzogchen at all.

In Dzogchen, the all-basis (ālaya) is only a repository of traces. Ālaya is āvidyā, ignorance. From ignorance arises the eight consciousnesses. Ignorance of what? The ignorance that results from not recognizing the gzhi (sthana) i.e. the three wisdoms. All this is very clearly explained in many, many Dzogchen tantras and texts.

I have given you enough information so that you may untie yourself from the knot that you have created for yourself.

Good luck.

M

[Jyoti]

Sure it is. You don't have to read even one sutra to practice Dzogchen and even if you do, it will not help your understanding of Dzogchen. You can't understand Dzogchen by trying to look at it from the POV of a lower vehicle.

Unless you practicing in cave blocking all outside interference, then you don't need the many tools of mahayana that is meant for busy practitioners whose mind cannot be free from the thinking of the various matters of daily life. The mahayana is not a lower vehicle, the classification of the yana by the nyinama is not universal in buddhism.

[Malcolm]

Sure it is. You don't have to read even one sutra to practice Dzogchen and even if you do, it will not help your understanding of Dzogchen. You can't understand Dzogchen by trying to look at it from the POV of a lower vehicle.

Unless you practicing in cave blocking all outside interference, then you don't need the many tools of mahayana that is meant for busy practitioners whose mind cannot be free from the thinking of the various matters of daily life. The mahayana is not a lower vehicle, the classification of the yana by the nyinama is not universal in buddhism.

There is no basis for this discussion since there is no common ground for a discussion at all. It is better to leave this here.

M

[pueraeternus]

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

But we are not rocks. And since the embodiment of the dharmata dawns as the dharmakaya, Chan practice leads to the essence of Buddhahood, the svabhavikakaya.

[Malcolm]

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

But we are not rocks. And since the embodiment of the dharmata dawns as the dharmakaya...

This amounts to saying that mind dawns as dharmakāya since the mind is the embodiment of its own dharmatā. But this does not correspond to how things are. It is a theory. Why? The dharmatā of the mind is not wisdom, and resting in it does not go beyond mind.


However, as Khenpo Ngachung pointed out, even if it is pointed out to those of the eight lower yānas that their vehicles never go beyond mind, they will not believe it -- which again is yet another reason it is pointless to argue or discuss Dzogchen with those who are not really interested.

M

[Jyoti]

In general, it is not correct to debate about Dzogchen teachings with people, especially people who have wrong views about Dzogchen. So I am not to about argue with you about your views and try to condition you. You have already sufficiently conditioned yourself into an incorrect view about Dzogchen teachings. It is up to you to condition yourself out of it.

However I will leave you with this much — If you do not differentiate mind and wisdom, you will not understand Dzogchen at all.

In Dzogchen, the all-basis (ālaya) is only a repository of traces. Ālaya is āvidyā, ignorance. From ignorance arises the eight consciousnesses. Ignorance of what? The ignorance that results from not recognizing the gzhi (sthana) i.e. the three wisdoms. All this is very clearly explained in many, many Dzogchen tantras and texts.
M

1. This part is pointless, as I can say the same about your case.

2. As for consciousness and wisdom, if I can't differentiate them, I would not be able to apprehend the transformation of consciousness into wisdom. As proponent of this system that would be strange.

3. The alaya has karmic traces, but when it transformed as wisdom, it is the dharmakaya, same basis. Alaya /= avidya, we can say in avidya, the basis is alaya, but alaya is not avidya. Same way as ignorance arises the eight consciousnesses, through vidya, the consciousnesses transform back into wisdom. All these points does not indicate anything beyond consciousness (mind), but all occurred within the seat of the consciousnesses as the basis.

[Malcolm]

[

3. The alaya has karmic traces, but when it transformed as wisdom, it is the dharmakaya, same basis.

Dzogchen tantras define ālaya as ignorance. It cannot be transformed into wisdom.

[Jyoti]

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

But we are not rocks. And since the embodiment of the dharmata dawns as the dharmakaya...

This amounts to saying that mind dawns as dharmakāya since the mind is the embodiment of its own dharmatā. But this does not correspond to how things are. It is a theory. Why? The dharmatā of the mind is not wisdom, and resting in it does not go beyond mind.


However, as Khenpo Ngachung pointed out, even if it is pointed out to those of the eight lower yānas that their vehicles never go beyond mind, they will not believe it -- which again is yet another reason it is pointless to argue or discuss Dzogchen with those who are not really interested.

M

1. Why only rocks, the dharmata is from all 12 entrances, basic knowledge of mahayana.

2. The embodiment (body) is dharmakaya all the time, no need to anticipate it to dawn.

3. 'Mind is embodiment of its own dharmata', again simple knowledge of mahayana that the mind faculty belong to one of the 12 entrances of dharmata.

4. The mahayanist don't accept it because there is no need to go beyond anything, what is beyond mind is an unestablished premise.

While some dzogchenpa busy themselves in reasoning out about the simple matter of mahayana due to their distorted system, the mahayanist already ahead of them in the utilization of means which are definitive.

[Malcolm]

While some dzogchenpa busy themselves in reasoning out about the simple matter of mahayana due to their distorted system, the mahayanist already ahead of them in the utilization of means which are definitive.

You are in the wrong forum. If you wish to criticize Dzogchen teachings, you may. Its your samaya, not mine.

I am done here.

M

[Jyoti]

[

3. The alaya has karmic traces, but when it transformed as wisdom, it is the dharmakaya, same basis.

Dzogchen tantras define ālaya as ignorance. It cannot be transformed into wisdom.

That is because the dzogchen tradition has no knowledge of means and body, within the 8 consciousnesses, only the 6th and 7th consciousness has causal component that allowed transformation to occur, the rest of the consciousnesses are passive and static. Ignorance is of causal component within the 6th and 7th consciousness, the alaya merely support their traces, it is passive in the sense that when the 6th and 7th consciousness is purified and thus transformed, it is automatically purified as well, when it is free of traces, it become the support of the mirror-like wisdom, and is termed the dharmakaya. Thus alaya and dharmakaya are not two different basis, but being different in names only due to the condition of the 6th and 7th consciousnesses.

[Jyoti]

While some dzogchenpa busy themselves in reasoning out about the simple matter of mahayana due to their distorted system, the mahayanist already ahead of them in the utilization of means which are definitive.

You are in the wrong forum. If you wish to criticize Dzogchen teachings, you may. Its your samaya, not mine.

I am done here.

M

Again a distorted concept, the precept of teaching is not depend on tradition but of definitive meaning.

[Virgo]

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.

Have you studied the three statements of Garab Dorje?

Kevin

[Jyoti]

Have you studied the three statements of Garab Dorje?

Kevin

Yes.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Dzogchen Upadesha has the most unique basis and cosmology. There really isn't anything like it the rest of Buddhism. Certainly not freaking yogacara. The closest would be Madhyamaka, but even that is not the same at all.

[pueraeternus]

This amounts to saying that mind dawns as dharmakāya since the mind is the embodiment of its own dharmatā. But this does not correspond to how things are. It is a theory. Why? The dharmatā of the mind is not wisdom, and resting in it does not go beyond mind.

But everything is an embodiment of its own dharmata, and dharmata is not only mind. Dharmata is tathata, suchness, and is just that.

All this just feels like the moving of goalposts in order to justify one's philosophical stance.

However, as Khenpo Ngachung pointed out, even if it is pointed out to those of the eight lower yānas that their vehicles never go beyond mind, they will not believe it -- which again is yet another reason it is pointless to argue or discuss Dzogchen with those who are not really interested.
M

The arguments will have to convincing first. The Prajnaparamita, which forms the backbone of Mahayana, already states that there is no body, no mind, etc. So it is not convincing to argue that the lower vehicles of Mahayana according to the Nyingma does not go beyond mind.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

The arguments will have to convincing first. The Prajnaparamita, which forms the backbone of Mahayana, already states that there is no body, no mind, etc. So it is not convincing to argue that the lower vehicles of Mahayana according to the Nyingma does not go beyond mind.

Malcolm is very convincing, because he is right.

You just don't understand him.

[Malcolm]

... The Prajnaparamita...

Lacks the explanation of lhun grub.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

... The Prajnaparamita...

Lacks the explanation of lhun grub.

I got it

[Jyoti]

Dzogchen Upadesha has the most unique basis and cosmology. There really isn't anything like it the rest of Buddhism. Certainly not freaking yogacara. The closest would be Madhyamaka, but even that is not the same at all.

The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used. This is a problem created by translator not familar with the standard mahayana terminologies, thereby introduce their own, this is very common with the english translations.