asunthatneversets wrote:The Nyingma Dzogchen doesn't posit a two-truth dichotomy either.
Again, the two-truth itself is not dichotomy. Because there is only one body within the two-truth. The body is the ultimate truth, whereas the means of this body manifest as conventional truth. Conventional truth is none other than the dependent arising nature, the dependent arising nature is none other than object of the 7 consciousnesses.
The only dichotomy dzogchen employs is delusion and wisdom. Dependent arising is the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly exist. Dependent arising can't be an object of the 7 consciousnesses because the 7 consciousnesses only exist on a conventional level and therefore are dependently originated themselves.
asunthatneversets wrote:just because (as a teaching) it has survived within the systems of the Nyingma or Bön doesn't mean it in itself has been adulterated in any way, shape or form. That would be impossible.
The teaching has been adulterated, partly due to translation to Tibetan, and it will get worse when translated into other languages, and partly due to incorporating into the gradual vehicles, as the definitive meaning contradict the provisional meaning. That's why we need capable scholars like Mipham who can make commentaries that has a significance with respect to main stream buddhism. That's also the reason why it need to be compared against scriptures of definitive meaning especially from the chinese tripitaka as well as yogacara of chinese buddhism. It may choose to be isolated from the rest of buddhism, and being subject to further corruption due to the work of human nature, where the means to rectify will be completely absence. Or it can choose to be part of the main stream buddhism, able to criticize others, as well as being criticized if something goes wrong. The later approach is recommended, being able withstand criticism through the intellectual writings will help the teaching to stay on the right track, as well as helping others who have wrong in their tradition and teaching. If one is on the right track, there should be no fear being able to defend what is right, and opposed to what is wrong.
Since dzogchen is experiential, the truth it points to is unassailable and cannot be adulterated. Certain groups or individuals (such as yourself) may attempt to interpret dzogchen within the frame of their own structure of reasoning, and in doing so, adulterate it... but at that point it's no longer dzogchen which is being adulterated, all that is being botched is a mere intellectual translation/interpretation. You only enjoy Mipham because his exposition matches your own point of view, and therefore you continually champion his exposition in The Lions Roar. You're only looking to validate your construct of beliefs.
asunthatneversets wrote:Dzogchen is the actualization of the natural state within one's experience, you either experience dzogchen or you don't, talking about dzogchen isn't dzogchen, the texts about dzogchen aren't dzogchen, these things point to it... and if you can recognize it within your own experience, then that is dzogchen.
Since everything is consciousness (nature state or experience), saying about the actualization of consciousness is not making sense. This is one example of what would be corrupting the teaching when relying on specific words as ultimate rather than relying on the meaning.
I never said everything is consciousness, the natural state isn't consciousness. The reason a term like 'consciousness' is usually avoided is because if dzogchen asserted that everything is consciousness then it would run the risk of suggesting the existence of an abiding ground of being, or substratum. Saying that everything is consciousness suggests that something has been established, which is perfectly acceptable in yogācāra, but not in dzogchen. The actualization of the natural state is the recognition of the authentic condition, that condition isn't consciousness, only the teaching you champion (Yogācāra and other eternalist views) claims that. Consciousness (as a term) is also avoided because it suggests a number of other subtleties, for example: 'one who is conscious' and/or a localized occurrence of consciousness contrasting other pockets of consciousness (as you suggest below) and so on and so forth.
asunthatneversets wrote:'Awakened mind' is just another way of saying prajñā, yeshe, sherab etc...
Prajna is not subject to awakening (bodhi), it belong to the category of the body, which is existence, permanent, non-arising, uncreated, etc. Bodhi belongs to the category of the means, which is existence and non-existence, permanent and impermanent, non-arising and arising, uncreated and created, etc. As is the association of mind with 'awakened', mind as stated previously belongs to the category of the means.
'Awakened mind' is just a relative term, it isn't to be taken literally, nothing truly awakens, and there is no mind in dzogchen.
asunthatneversets wrote:The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie, means that the seeming persons, places, things etc... that appear to exist as a result of conceptual projection are illusory
These (persons, places, things etc.) are not the result of conceptual projection. If you rendered persons as conceptual projection for example, you basically rendered the person's body is not due to the dependent arising nature, and you also rendered the person's consciousness as non-existence. Then you suffered the consequence of having to rationalize your own consciousness as a singular reality, viz. the alaya-vijnana in others are false.
They are the result of conceptual projection. People are conceptual projections, and yes the person's body is due to dependent origination, it depends on the projected web of concepts.
asunthatneversets wrote:Unwittingly believing the illusion to be truly authentic is delusion (avidyā). When delusion is recognized to be delusion, then ignorance is neutralized and wisdom remains.
In the absence of illusion (imaginary nature), one merely remained authentic with the dependent arising nature (consciousness), this is not any different than one who practice the formless and cessation meditation, since in both cases, one absorped into what remains, i.e. consciousness itself (absolute nature). Then how come the arahat and the worldly meditators who attained this is said to be not the awakening (bodhi) of buddhahood? The answer is the intellect is absence.
Only according to Yogācāra. In dzogchen there is only delusion and wisdom. You must be using the term "intellect" to represent knowledge of thusness, usually "intellect" is used to signify conceptual processes of reasoning.
asunthatneversets wrote:This is referring to ignorance (avidyā).
One can visualize deity (mental image) and perceive what is not, as long as one view the deity with the intellect, it is not consider a view of delusion. Therefore, delusion has nothing to do with vision, whether of imagery or of dependent arising nature, but has to do with the absence of the intellect.
Avidyā is ignorance of the authentic condition.
asunthatneversets wrote:It is certainly referring to the basis of external and internal as imaginary, because that basis is avidyā.
External and internal are also of vision, as stated above avidyā is not determine by the vision. Avidya as it literally translated as the absence of knowledge, even in the absence of external and internal vision through force of conceptual construction or in formless meditative condition, if the knowledge is absence, these formless/nondual conditions or states are not free of avidyā.
Internal and external are conceptual projections, they do not exist inherently, they have nothing to do with vision. Even vision itself is a delusional notion when it comes down to it. They are imputed constructs. Formless meditative states (as in blank voids of closed off samadhi) have nothing to do with dzogchen.
asunthatneversets wrote:This is stating that the appearance of environments (external world) and life forms (sentient beings endowed with internality) only seem real due to the deceiving nature of the conceptual superstructure amassed by the intellect.
You don't called it 'intellect' in the absence of knowledge, the right word is 'delusion'. On the other hand, in the presence of intellect, what seem 'real' (deceptive) is considered the dependent arising nature, and what seems unreal (non-deceptive mental image) is considered imaginary nature, there is no confusion between the two and the latter is not considered as the conventional truth. Again what seems real and unreal, has nothing to do with the knowledge of the ultimate meaning that constitutes the ultimate truth.
Intellect is a term which is acceptable, or delusion works as well if you prefer that term. The issue seems to be that you're using the term 'intellect' to signify some type of faculty of enlightened wisdom. There are no non-deceptive mental images being that there are no mental images. As for the rest of your answer you're derailing into obfuscation as usual.
asunthatneversets wrote:The rampant habitual proclivity to presuppose conventional imputation is accurately framing the nature of experience, dissimulates reality and makes it appear as that which it is not, just like misperceiving a rope to be a snake.
Like the visualization of deity, it is of imaginery nature (fake), but there is no binding if the intellect is present, viz. even affliction is bodhi in the presence of the intellect. But identify what is imaginery nature is to separate it from the dependent arising nature, because it is due to the truth of dependent arising nature, that true bodhicitta can arise, to negate it in favour of the formless ultimate truth therefore strayed from the point of mahayana, thus the middle path.
Affliction is never bodhi. You either have one or the other and neither are ever truly established. Bodhi as a term is only implemented to signify the absence of affliction, in contrast of affliction, otherwise bodhi is simply the natural state.
asunthatneversets wrote:Metaphorically, the snake is a figment of the imagination, the rope is the nature of mind (or 'thusness' as you like to say).
The imaginery nature is also thusness, as everything is mere consciousness, the body of consciousness is the thusness. But thusness does not negate the imaginary nature, as there is no requirement since the negation is not the cause of thusness. Similarly thusness has no requirement to negate the dependent arising nature, and consequently the conventional truth, since the negation is not the cause of thusness. Hence, there are the three natures, but only two inherently exist, whereas the other
Only according to Yogācāra are there natures which inherently exist, according to dzogchen, nothing exists inherently, everything is illusory.
asunthatneversets wrote:So the nature of the two-truths is that the delusional appearances of avidyā have no reality whatsoever apart from delusion, they are birthed and sustained by conventional dissimulation and the authentic condition has nothing to do with these delusional appearances, nor is it truly ever effected by them (even the notion of an authentic condition is a conventional dissimulation, though the notion is warranted since it requires distinction from delusion).
Imaginary nature exist even in the state of vidya, for example in deity meditation while holding the view (vidya), and in the case of buddha, is expressed as the state of sambogakaya. Basically the buddha has no fear with regards to the three natures, as these are none other than the trikaya.
When I say "the delusional appearances of avidyā" I'm addressing how the 'imaginary nature' is related to, if the authentic condition is known, then the 'imaginary nature' is no problem, if it isn't known, then the imaginary nature wreaks havoc.... but of course there is no specific faculty called the 'imaginary nature' in dzogchen.
asunthatneversets wrote:The conventional truth wasn't outright negated, but it wasn't reaffirmed either, it was considered comparable to delusion, which it is.
You compare the knowledge of the conventional truth as delusion, but conventional truth is none other than the truth of the dependent arising nature, it is the potency (means) of the body (nirvana) that manifest as the nirmanakaya.
The nirmanakaya is the unconfined, unobstructed and uninterrupted capacity and/or energetic display of the primordial state.
asunthatneversets wrote:So if the intellect is the party responsible for distinguishing objects, and also responsible for the 'imaginary nature' attributed to these alleged objects... why is it not also responsible for their inception? And why is it not responsible for the notion of sensory consciousness and perception as well?
This is due to the six sensory consciousnesses are the support of the desire realm (corresponds to nirmanakaya), in their absence, the 7th consciousness can indeed function on its own, and in that case, it manifests the form realm (both internal and external). This corresponds to the sambogakaya.
Those were rhetorical questions. But if we must answer them (as you attempted to do), the correct answers are, yes, the intellect is responsible for their inception and yes, it is also responsible for the notion of sensory consciousnesses and any subsequent perceptions based on those consciousnesses. In dzogchen none of these qualities are established.
asunthatneversets wrote:Are there really objects? Objects 'out there' which are gathered by sensory consciousness? Aren't these objects in fact the presence of the senses themselves? Can you truly separate an object from the modalities of tactile and visual sensation? And aren't these senses in fact the presence of consciousness itself? Can you truly separate consciousness from sensation? Sensation from objects?
Mere appearance of object both exist and non-exist, it exists as mere appearance with dependent arising nature, it non-exists as permanent appearance with essence of such characteristics. Knowledge of what exist and non-exist in term of mere appearance is the conventional truth. All objects are mere perceptions (consciousness). Sensation is also perception (consciousness). Thus everything is consciousness and consciousness is none other than thusness. Knowledge of the conventional object in term of the body of consciousness is the ultimate truth. Thus the two truths exist, being different, yet inseparate from within the same conventional object.
Those were also rhetorical questions.
asunthatneversets wrote:Objects seem to exist because one is ignorant of their true condition, if that condition is known then it is also known that no objects have ever existed (or not existed).
As stated above, conventional truth has its object exists in the mode of mere appearance and dependent arising, whereas the knowledge of the ultimate truth of object does not cause mere appearance to cease to appear, nor for dependent origination to cease while in the presence of condition, this is the reason that both truths exist without one capable of negating the other. The ultimate truth only negate the essence exists for the characteristics of appearance to be permanent, whereas conventional truth negate the ultimate truth possessing the characteristics of dependent origination, thus none of them capable of negating the truth that established each of them distinctively.
According to Yogācāra... not dzogchen.
asunthatneversets wrote:you're right that initial moment of contact is free of conceptual activity... so therefore it's also free of 'objects' and likewise free of the 'senses' is it not?
There is existence of space and time that can clearly distinguished the existence of subject and object distinctions. In term of space and time, it is best by observing a supersonic aircraft, when one see the aircraft with the eye consciousness, one cannot hear with the ear consciousness the sound of the aircraft approaching, until a moment later, the reason is that the existence of space and time between the subject (consciousness) and object (consciousness) is the cause of the delay of the arriving of the sound. The differences of object (light) and the object (sound) point to a causality factor which is the dependent arising nature, the differences also point to the dependent arising nature has two division of internal and external field of experience.
Those differences point to nothing except for what you wish to extract from them. The existence of space and time are delusory notions born of conceptualization, predicated on the delusory notion of a subject-object dichotomy. Your example assumes that you as a subject are in fact observing an objective aircraft. It also assumes that the aircraft is an object which is truly apprehended by the eye consciousness and ear consciousness. You presuppose the appearance of a consecutive unfolding of moments in time to be authentic and again, also consider experience to be divided into an internal-external dichotomy. Far too many suppositions occurring, your argument and example are again irrevocably flawed.
asunthatneversets wrote:Or perhaps you don't see that your habitual tendency to employ conceptual activity has become a deeply engrained perception that governs your experience. After years and years of this vicious little cycle you have formed (what are now 'subconscious') presuppositions regarding these divisions and conceptual activities. You actually believe that some of these activities are somehow inherent, or left-over when conceptualization has ceased, and you don't question them but instead try to convince others that this is true so you can feel safe and warm in your little bubble of delusion. If you would question these presuppositions, you would find that, "such is the moment where the dependent arising nature of object is established as" COMPLETELY dependent on conceptual construction. You have not taken your investigation of dependent arising all the way to the ground.
Our relative dimension of existence that correspond to nirmanakaya, possessses dependent arising nature, time and space relativity, all these are not base on conceptual construction. Whereas the blissful dimension of existence that correspond to the sambogakaya, is all about subject and object images that are pure, objects here can be imaginary and mind-only, but in the presence of intellect, there is no binding, and due to permanence in appearances as opposed to the dependent-arising appearances, there is bliss. Thus, even by leaving dependent arising nature and engaged in conceptual construction in the presence of intellect does not bind. This is what the tantra of generation/transformation all about, what is generated is the internal and external appearance, the means of transformation is the mind (imaginary construction).
They certainly are based on conceptual construction.
asunthatneversets wrote:In buddhism 'emptiness' is another word for dependent origination, and just as Nāgārjuna points out in his 60 Stanzas: "The supreme knower of reality, said that dependent production is not production."
"The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma):
From that which involves no origination, everything originates;
and in that very origination, there is no origination!
The wonder of it!
In it's very enduring, there is no enduring!
The wonder of it!
In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!"
- Guhyagarbha Tantra
This is not contradictory, in the mahayana, the dependent origination is the means to communicate the dharma of permanence which is about the absolute - buddha nature. Whenever there is cessation and no cessation, or enduring and no enduring coming in pairs, it is pointing to the means, by pointing to the means, the means point to the body which has only non-cessation and enduring. Since only by the existence of the truth of non-cessation and enduring as a basis, can there be the truth in the manifestation of cessation and no cessation, or enduring and no enduring.
Any dharma of permanence is a deluded dharma. There is no quality which possesses only non-cessation, nor any which possesses only endurance. The quote above is stating that out of this apparent reality, which is unborn, appearances seemingly manifest, yet within those appearances nothing is ever truly established, there is only the timeless display of the primordial nature. Because it is beyond the four extremes, within apparent enduring there is no endurance, nothing is created or established. Within apparent cessation, there is nothing which ceases, nothing is destroyed or terminated.
asunthatneversets wrote:I can agree with the former half of this (regarding the dependent arising nature), although I'm not sure if I'd derive permanence from it's ceaselessness. Also, since the phenomena in question are merely deceptive appearances they can only appear to be simultaneously impermanent/permanent, they (being empty) cannot truly posses such traits.
Phenomena or appearance is manifestation, it is not the basis or body. Only the manifestation can have the characteristic of arising and ceasing, or permanent and impermanent coming in pairs. The basis or body has to be permanent, and non-arising in order to maintain such dynamic and creative occurrences.
In dzogchen phenomena are products of delusion, if the authentic condition is known then what was previously mistaken as phenomena is known to be the luminous self-display of the basis, and the basis is uncreated. Stating that the dynamism and creativity of reality require a permanent and non-arising basis is flawed logic and nothing more than wishful thinking.
asunthatneversets wrote:If Mipham did deviate from the traditional view in an attempt to create some form of coalescence between Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka
Dzogchen is actually the greater Mādhyamaka (refer to 'Self-liberation by Nakedly Awareness' by Padmasambhava). Padmasambhava is also the one who continously maintained the two truths in his dzogchen discourses to Yeshe Thogyal. So Mipham is certainly not the first to maintain the two truths and Madhyamaka in dzogchen. So by corruption it referred specifically the recent effort to dismiss the two truths and Madhyamaka (including the common mahayana) in dzogchen. Bear in mind that without these two, your tradition will be no different from the 2 yanas which also realises the same emptiness.
Padmasambhava had this to say about the two truths in Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness: "....Also there exist others who, being attached to their own personal ideas and interpretations,
Become fettered by these attachments and so do not perceive the Clear Light.
The Sravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to subject and object.
The Madhyamikas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to the extremes of the Two Truths.
The practitioners of the Kriya Tantra and the Yoga Tantra are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to seva-sadhana practice.
The practitioners of the Maha-yoga and the Anuyoga are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to Space and Awareness.
And with respect to the real meaning of non-duality, since they divide these (Space and Awareness) into two, they fall into deviation...."
asunthatneversets wrote:Mainly the two-fold division of the "ultimate" into "non-deluded subject and non-delusory object", this is an incorrigible notion in the eyes of ati-yoga. Therefore to associate concepts such as these with the teachings of dzogchen, is to contaminate those teachings.
However, to think that the mere identification of internal and external is a concept, and such concept contaminate the teaching, then such a person already have a concept as to what to accept and reject, irrespective of the underlying truth and reason. Then such a concept is not in concordance with the way things are. The same with the means and body, without knowing the different, one misses the key point of practice as well as in analysis. For instant, thought is of the external and of the means, whereas original wisdom is of the internal and of the body, by knowing the site of the internal, by remaining in that, the nature is seen, this is the equavalent of direct introduction of the original face. Similarly, by knowing the external means, the internal state can be reflected externally as an object like a reflection is exactly the same as the original, an analogy of using mirror, to be generated at anytime once becoming familiar, and utilize as the reason for the function of the non-analytical intellect.
Internal and external are concepts, and while those concepts are useful, they have no authenticity beyond their place as mere concepts. Believing them to be authentic and inherent aspects of experience is delusion. The only contamination which apparently takes place is your own inability to recognize your authentic condition. Your notion of the "underlying truth and reason" is another concept which you've attached to and yes it certainly does provide you with notions of what to accept and reject, as we've all seen regularly on this forum. I do enjoy how you contradict yourself and fall victim to your own projections as your response goes along though.
Jyoti wrote:The intellect being connected to the bodhi, the integration of the intellect with the exernal basis (7 consciousnesses), is the function of perfuming the seeds of bodhi, which directly lead to the progress in the bhumi. Whereas the body itself, by absorbing into that, a function is lost, like a boat being driven by the torrent, being passive it become one with the torrent. The body beyond progress and degeneration, will remain the same whether one pretend to be with it or not, thus one does not intentionally trying to become the body, nor bother with it, but one rely only on the reflected reason that is the capacity of intellect. But without knowing the difference of internal and external, the knowledge of means and body, even to progress and bhumi in the bodhi would be absence, such a person only know the body, the wisdom, without knowing the means, a progress can't be made.
The point you're attempting to make is obfuscated by your use of terminology.
asunthatneversets wrote:Again, Dzogchen does not uphold that an inherent division exists. Dzogchen also doesn't create a distinction between one consciousness and other consciousnesses nor does it ultimately give credence to the notion of other beings (being that it considers the duality of sentient and non-sentient to be delusory, and therefore does not purport such notions).
Dzogchen does distinguish the means and the body, example is the use of mirror's reflection to symbolize the means (vidya) of the primordial state (body). Then there is the use of deity or symbol for visualization to generate the primordial state (object), and then rely on the mental impression which is the reflected image of the original object, this mental impression is on the side of means and can be generated after becoming familiar, and so can be brought into function of the intellect. If you read Longchenpa's work, he does make commentary regarding the individual 8 consciousnesses. It is really impossible for a mahayana doctrine, especially for one claiming to be the summit of all vehicles not being equipped with such basic knowledge of buddhism It is commonly accepted knowledge that the higher vehicle cover the knowledge of the lower, but not the lower the higher. In this case, it is expected that dzogchen cover the basis of buddhism, regardless of what others say due to their motive of isolating dzogchen from the common mahayana. Dzogchen share the same view with the common mahayana regarding the existence of beings with their own individual mind stream, regardless of the notion of Samantabadra as unique, as Samantabadra is only regarding the individual's consciousness. Example is dzogchen accept the destruction of the world at the end of the great kalpa, where beings only left with their alaya-vijnana, with all other consciousnesses annihilated, this is clearly showing dzogchen accept individual possessing separate mind-streams (not just illusion). The notion of there being no separate mind-streams, hence no separate alaya-vijnana in beings is not acceptable in buddhism or dzogchen is due to the requirement of maintaining individual seeds of karma, if beings has no separate alaya-vijnana, then each of them has no persistent within dependent-origination.
The metaphor of the mirror is implemented to elucidate the characteristics of the primordial state, the tendency to interpret the metaphorical use of the mirror-itself as suggesting an abiding ground is a common misconception. In that metaphor it is more accurate to explore the reflective capacity of the mirror, instead of the mirror itself, otherwise we fall victim to the essentialist/eternalist views such as yours. So the mirror's reflective capacity is never tainted by the reflections themselves, much like the natural state's empty essence is ever-pure. The mirror helps to describe the natural state's primordial purity (kadag), spontaneous radiance/presence (lhundrup) and responsiveness (thugs rje).
The visualization and generation practices are not dzogchen, they are maha-yoga and anu-yoga practices. Dzogchen is only the primordial state, the anu-yoga practices may be used as supports for maintaining the dzogchen view, but they are not dzogchen any more than walking down the street is dzogchen (if one is maintaining the view). Anu-yoga practices are very useful, but they are not ati-yoga in essence, only when practiced by one who is abiding in the knowledge of ati. Samantabhadra is only representative of the primordial state, and in fact is the personification of the primordial state. Samantabhadra has nothing to do with the individuals consciousness. Dzogchen speaks of the destruction of the world at the end of the great kalpa as a metaphor, not to be taken literally, no world has ever been created or destroyed in the view of dzogchen. Dzogchen only accepts the level of the individual mind-stream as a tentative and relative appearance, which is rendered null and void apart from conventional appearance, so it is completely illusory, but a useful illusion. Individuated seeds of karma are products of delusion and are eradicated upon the actualization of the primordial state. You're reaching quite far in attempting to equate dzogchen to your view you enjoy propagating, it cannot be done.
asunthatneversets wrote:The two-fold division is itself a product of conceptual construction. Mere appearances only appear to establish themselves in such a (two-fold) manner due to conforming with the initial imputed designation of two-fold division.
Unless you are saying the 8 consciousnesses are product of conceptual construction, they are not. Otherwise the four wisdoms and trikaya would be conceptual construction as well.
It's all conceptual construction.
asunthatneversets wrote:Dzogchen doesn't stray into ultimate truth or relative truth, neither of these notions can contain it.
There is no buddhist teaching outside the two truths, as these are termed the truth, they are not of notion, nor can notion establish either of them.
Dzogchen isn't a buddhist teaching, it is your true nature. The teachings are a tool which aid one in recognizing that nature, but the teachings are not dzogchen.
asunthatneversets wrote:It's actually another thought which determines whether a prior thought is good or bad, and that
whole process is dependent on thought (memory) itself and is therefore completely illusory.
Of course the previous is only a brief description, fuller meaning is whether the content of thought is determine by the intellect or delusion. For the former, what is beneficial for self and others is considered good, what is otherwise is considered bad. For the latter, all determination of what is good or bad would be non-definitive, and of individual opinion only.
Good and bad are relative notions which are always product of thought, in recognizing the primordial state thought is pacified and benefit is already present. Rigpa is synonymous with bodhicitta.
asunthatneversets wrote:Only in Yogācāra does awakened wisdom refer to consciousness, awakened wisdom in dzogchen has nothing to do with consciousness. Thus the meanings are worlds apart.
Nothing is outside consciousness, positing an element outside consciousnesses is no longer a teaching of buddhism, some dzogchenpa even proposes an alaya separate from consciousness, there cannot be such alaya, thus there is only alaya-vijnana but no such thing as alaya. Sometime we use simplified term like body or basis to refer to the ground consciousness, in that case, alaya sometime used, but it does not imply there is such element as a body, basis or alaya without the consciousness.
You're merely imputing your understanding of yogācāra onto dzogchen without knowing dzogchen. These are baseless intellectual assertions predicated on your own interests, your active engagement in downplaying dzogchen is a reflection of your own need to feel a certain way about yogācāra, more specifically your own identification with yogācāra. I don't even understand why you come and post here apart from this specific thread, you clearly have no interest in dzogchen, all you do is attempt to negate it, or compromise it by somehow twisting it to match your own eternalist/essentialist view, which it never ever will. You're welcome to post here of course, but you're only deluding yourself in your efforts to mitigate dzogchen. I can't even imagine going to another forum for the sole purpose of attempting to refute the topic there, activity of that nature screams insecurity. I'm not sure what your vendetta is with dzogchen, but perhaps your time would be better spent examining yourself, and the reasons for your diametric opposition to dzogchen (and most likely anything which isn't Chinese Yogācāra). Your campaign against dzogchen is merely an expression of your own relationship with yogācāra, there's no other reason why you would actively seek to devalue other traditions. You don't see any of us here going to yogācāra forums in order to refute it in the name of dzogchen, what value or benefit would that produce for anyone? Dzogchen isn't a belief system, or a philosophy, or an intellectual theory or ideology. You don't seem to understand that.