Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 am
Posts: 189
Jyoti wrote:
The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used.


You are a funny guy. You are just wrong.

Dzogchen's basis is beyond mind.

And I'm not going to say more than that.


Last edited by SSJ3Gogeta on Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: Globe
Jyoti wrote:
Virgo wrote:
Have you studied the three statements of Garab Dorje?

Kevin


Yes.

Would you be kind enough to explain the first statement?

_________________
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं

http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/336-je-tsongkhapas-great-stages-of-the-path
http://www.ripple.org
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainforests/donate-clicks-likes-and-tweets-to-fight-climate-change-and-deforestation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: Globe
Jyoti wrote:
SSJ3Gogeta wrote:
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.

Where is lhungrub explained in sutra?

Kevin

_________________
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं

http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/336-je-tsongkhapas-great-stages-of-the-path
http://www.ripple.org
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainforests/donate-clicks-likes-and-tweets-to-fight-climate-change-and-deforestation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 am
Posts: 189
Virgo wrote:
Jyoti wrote:
SSJ3Gogeta wrote:
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.

Where is lhungrub explained in sutra?

Kevin


:thumbsup:

Hell, there is nothing like lhun grub even in Mahamudra.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
SSJ3Gogeta wrote:
Jyoti wrote:
The basis is always the same regardless of buddhist traditions, differed only in terminology used.


You are a funny guy. You are just wrong.

Dzogchen's basis is beyond mind.

And I'm not going to say more than that.


1. You are wrong, I'm a girl.

2. 'Beyond mind' is a term being distorted here. beyond mind mean beyond cause and effort, not beyond the root consciousness that is beyond cause and effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:26 am
Posts: 189
Actually gzhi is literally beyond the root consciousness. It really is utterly beyond the mind, and even the empty nature of the mind.


Last edited by SSJ3Gogeta on Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:39 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
Virgo wrote:
Jyoti wrote:
Virgo wrote:
Have you studied the three statements of Garab Dorje?

Kevin


Yes.

Would you be kind enough to explain the first statement?


In my own word and style, receiving the introduction of meaning. This can be done with the help of a teacher directly, or through his book, or reading the scriptures of definitive meaning. The third is slower if one has no basis to begin with, but if one has some basis due to hearing or reading, then the scriptures are more helpful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
SSJ3Gogeta wrote:
Actually gzhi is literally beyond the root consciousness. It really is utterly beyond the mind, and even the empty nature of the mind.


Again you are repeating the same mistake regarding what is ' beyond mind' mean. Then you introduce an 'empty nature of mind', there is no such body, these are conditions of the body, not the body itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 805
Malcolm wrote:
pueraeternus wrote:
... The Prajnaparamita...


Lacks the explanation of lhun grub.


Fair enough, but I think the principle of lhun grub is implicit in the various Mahayana teachings on dharmadhatu, etc. Dzogchen does give a more lucid and clear explanation and exposition, but I won't say that the other vehicles are incapable of approaching gnosis and attainment of anuttarasamyaksambodhi on their own terms.

_________________
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Posts: 1434
Location: Globe
Jyoti wrote:
In my own word and style, receiving the introduction of meaning. This can be done with the help of a teacher directly, or through his book, or reading the scriptures of definitive meaning. The third is slower if one has no basis to begin with, but if one has some basis due to hearing or reading, then the scriptures are more helpful.


Oh OK, that's how Garab Dorje presented it? Thanks.

evin

_________________
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं

http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/336-je-tsongkhapas-great-stages-of-the-path
http://www.ripple.org
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainforests/donate-clicks-likes-and-tweets-to-fight-climate-change-and-deforestation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
Virgo wrote:
Where is lhungrub explained in sutra?

Kevin


The mahayana covered this within the word 'vidya', lhungrub is one of the sub-category of vidya, it is sufficient for mahayana to use the term vidya alone to cover all the sub-categories. Mahayana did not confused vidya (means) as prajna (body), but distinguished the two, thus one of the reasons it didn't have to use the sub-category definitions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
Virgo wrote:
Jyoti wrote:
In my own word and style, receiving the introduction of meaning. This can be done with the help of a teacher directly, or through his book, or reading the scriptures of definitive meaning. The third is slower if one has no basis to begin with, but if one has some basis due to hearing or reading, then the scriptures are more helpful.


Oh OK, that's how Garab Dorje presented it? Thanks.

evin


In term of meaning yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Jyoti wrote:
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!


Oh dear. This is sad. What is going on in your situation is that your self has become your guru. Your pride has taken on a form of guruhood. So the more you study and debate, the bigger and more valuable your self as guru becomes. This is a very dangerous place to be. Whenever or if ever you need my help I would be happy to offer it. This also serves as a warning to others on the path.

_________________
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 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
Andrew108 wrote:
Oh dear. This is sad. What is going on in your situation is that your self has become your guru. Your pride has taken on a form of guruhood. So the more you study and debate, the bigger and more valuable your self as guru becomes. This is a very dangerous place to be. Whenever or if ever you need my help I would be happy to offer it. This also serves as a warning to others on the path.


What is this guru worth since it exist even in the ignorant? You seems to worship the external guru, that's why I have stated as such, I'm not interested in the internal one, thus has no interest in the external ones as well. Rely on the teaching, not on the person please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
I feel I should be able to help you. I want to be able to help you. I will make a wish that at some point I will be of help.

_________________
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 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
Jyoti wrote:
Andrew108 wrote:
Oh dear. This is sad. What is going on in your situation is that your self has become your guru. Your pride has taken on a form of guruhood. So the more you study and debate, the bigger and more valuable your self as guru becomes. This is a very dangerous place to be. Whenever or if ever you need my help I would be happy to offer it. This also serves as a warning to others on the path.


What is this guru worth since it exist even in the ignorant? You seems to worship the external guru, that's why I have stated as such, I'm not interested in the internal one, thus has no interest in the external ones as well. Rely on the teaching, not on the person please.


You need personal instructions in Dzogchen Jyoti, it is even more important than studying.

"The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika). Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guru-ji."

Bodhicittabhavana by Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra

/magnus

_________________
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 61
If Dzogchen tantras are uncreated and timeless, like Vedas, they do not constitute Buddhism. More like pseudo-Buddhism of Shankara.

Nothing exists beyond emptiness. Like Nagarjuna says, if there was something permanent (beyond mind), then it would still be useless because it couldn't influence dharmas that are governed by cause and effect.

_________________
Namo Amitabha Buddha


Last edited by Tiger on Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Taiwan
heart wrote:
You need personal instructions in Dzogchen Jyoti, it is even more important than studying.

"The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika). Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guru-ji."

Bodhicittabhavana by Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra

/magnus


Perhaps, but I find manjusrimitra instruction on the first part of how to approach the path (as you quoted) to be more agreeable, since this is what has benefit me most. As for the upadesa, I have vast collection of them in my early years of self-learning and I don't think I am capable of dealing with mahayana contents if I didn't study the mahayana scriptures also. Even tibetan teachers of dzogchen tradition of the past and present study the mahayana scriptures in their tibetan form, so I just don't understand why western student of dzogchen tend to attached only to dzogchen content to the exclusion of the rest of mahayana, or worse to belittle it. If one read the commentaries of renown dzogchen teachers such as Mipham and Longchenpa, both of them make extensive quote of mahayana scriptures to support their view of dzogchen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 61
Also, I am not too knowledgeable about Dzogchen, but it is described as a natural, primordial state of mind so it is still not "beyond mind".

_________________
Namo Amitabha Buddha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 61
Jyoti wrote:
heart wrote:
You need personal instructions in Dzogchen Jyoti, it is even more important than studying.

"The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought. Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into. It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte (adikarmika). Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guru-ji."

Bodhicittabhavana by Acarya Sri Manjusrimitra

/magnus


Perhaps, but I find manjusrimitra instruction on the first part of how to approach the path (as you quoted) to be more agreeable, since this is what has benefit me most. As for the upadesa, I have vast collection of them in my early years of self-learning and I don't think I am capable of dealing with mahayana contents if I didn't study the mahayana scriptures also. Even tibetan teachers of dzogchen tradition of the past and present study the mahayana scriptures in their tibetan form, so I just don't understand why western student of dzogchen tend to attached only to dzogchen content to the exclusion of the rest of mahayana, or worse to belittle it. If one read the commentaries of renown dzogchen teachers such as Mipham and Longchenpa, both of them make extensive quote of mahayana scriptures to support their view of dzogchen.



Nice points. I would add that the reason why western students are more attracted to Dzogchen is because of the promise of "enlightenment" without putting one's own efforts and purely on the basis of a Guru's mercy/transmission. In the past in India, the gurus were usually reclusives who stayed in crematoriums or other dreaded locations; and they only had a few disciples (not students) on whom they conferred their transmission. Look at the present scenario where all these so called gurus are celebrities who give "transmissions" through webcast online!



My criticism of Dzogchen is that the Dzogchenpas call it the great "Self-liberation" but then have the audacity to say that Dzogchen can only be transmitted by a Guru! I am sure the justification is that the the refuge under a Guru is also a result of causes and conditions of our previous Karmas. But difficult to digest. Buddha's enlightenment is supreme because he is a samyaksambuddha (self-enlightened).

_________________
Namo Amitabha Buddha


Last edited by Tiger on Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian, qwerty13, Saoshun and 11 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