In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals

[treehuggingoctopus]

As I understand the terms, cause is a necessity, while a condition supports...

For example, a seed is the cause of a tree, while water, light, soil are conditions that support the result, tree. One needs both, but the result will not occur, even if the conditions exist, if there is no cause.

That's exactly how ChNN explains it.

[dzogchungpa]

Per Garfield:

When Nagarjuna uses the word "cause" (hetu [rGyu]), he has in mind an event or state that has in it a power(kriya[Bya Ba]) to bring about its effect, and has that power as part of its essence or nature (svabhava [Rang bZhin]). When he uses the term "condition" on the other hand (pratyaya [rKyen]), he has in mind an event, state, or process that can be appealed to in explaining another event, state, or process, without any metaphysical commitment to any occult connection between explanandum and explanans.

Thanks. I must say that I find the distinction between having a power and being something that can be "appealed" to a bit arbitrary.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Per Garfield:

When Nagarjuna uses the word "cause" (hetu [rGyu]), he has in mind an event or state that has in it a power(kriya[Bya Ba]) to bring about its effect, and has that power as part of its essence or nature (svabhava [Rang bZhin]). When he uses the term "condition" on the other hand (pratyaya [rKyen]), he has in mind an event, state, or process that can be appealed to in explaining another event, state, or process, without any metaphysical commitment to any occult connection between explanandum and explanans.

Thanks. I must say that I find the distinction between having a power and being something that can be "appealed" to a bit arbitrary.

Conebeckham has just given a very clear illustration of the difference.

[dzogchungpa]

As I understand the terms, cause is a necessity, while a condition supports...

For example, a seed is the cause of a tree, while water, light, soil are conditions that support the result, tree. One needs both, but the result will not occur, even if the conditions exist, if there is no cause.

Yes, but I've always found this distinction somewhat arbitrary. I don't see why in the familiar example of the seed, the conditions are not also causes. Even if the cause, i.e. the seed, is present, without the other conditions the result will not occur either, so what is the difference? I don't know much about philosophy, but maybe this is related to the found kinds of causes that Aristotle mentions.

[Sönam]

You can create causes, but it can take many lifes before the conditions are present for the effect to ripen ... This is the exemple of the seed and the water (light, and so on).

Sönam

[Sönam]

In case of DI, there is no cause, but without the condition of the master, DI is not possible (or mostly improbable) ...

[heart]

I'm not sure if that's what you're asking about, Magnus, but Sonam is relying here on the terminology used by for instance Jay Garfield in his translations of Nagarjuna. In ChNN's parlance, Garfield's 'causes' (Skt. hetu) are primary causes and 'conditions' (Skt. pratyaya) secondary causes.

See pages 103 and following here:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=54kV38Q ... es&f=false

Thank you!

/magnus

[pueraeternus]

This is not a spin, it's how it's generally examined (causes give effects when conditions, causes are not conditions) ... but if you like to satisfy yourself pretending that Dzogchen is identical to any other yana, fine. Dzogchen practitioners are used to it ... be happy.

Oh it is a spin, because it can also be applied to the other yanas. And I have never said Dzogchen is identical, since all the yanas obviously have their own features, but they all lead to the final end-result.

Dzogchen practitioner? So am I.

[Virgo]

Dzogchen practitioner?

You know that Sonam (Serge) is a Dzogchen practitioner.

Kevin

[dzogchungpa]

...to the found kinds of causes that Aristotle mentions.

Oops, I just noticed my typo. I meant four kinds of causes.

[T. Chokyi]

In case of DI, there is no cause

Maybe I am misinterpreting this sentence, but I believe there is a cause that creates the conditions to experience DI with CHNN or other masters, whether DI "takes" right away, well, CHNN says not to worry so much about that.

As noted, meeting the teachings depends on meritorious causes. Liberation however does not.

[pueraeternus]

Dzogchen practitioner?

You know that Sonam (Serge) is a Dzogchen practitioner.

Kevin

Yes I do know. Which is why I wrote "So am I" after that..

[Sönam]

This is not a spin, it's how it's generally examined (causes give effects when conditions, causes are not conditions) ... but if you like to satisfy yourself pretending that Dzogchen is identical to any other yana, fine. Dzogchen practitioners are used to it ... be happy.

Oh it is a spin, because it can also be applied to the other yanas. And I have never said Dzogchen is identical, since all the yanas obviously have their own features, but they all lead to the final end-result.

Dzogchen practitioner? So am I.

Of course they all lead to the same fruit, it's Buddha's dharma ... just a question of time and capacity

Sönam

[Sönam]

In case of DI, there is no cause

Maybe I am misinterpreting this sentence, but I believe there is a cause that creates the conditions to experience DI with CHNN or other masters, whether DI "takes" right away, well, CHNN says not to worry so much about that.

Of course, speaking about "introduced" ... recognizing

Sönam

[Sönam]

further ...

The very first condition in the cause/effect relation (karma) is ignorance, not recognizing ... Therefore, eradication of ignorance put an end to effect ripenning. This is Liberation from the causal chain.

"The liberation of samsara as the non-existent in true nature ('Khor-Ba Rang-bZhin Med-Pa) is the attainment of the vision of nirvana, because samsara is nothing else than mind"
- Longchem Rabjam - Shingta Chenpo -

Sönam

[thigle]

I already did one direct introduction through webcast with Namkhai Norbu,

A "direct introduction" into what? The "natural state"? Really? If so, there's no need from itself for "rituals", because you're a "sotāpanna".

[krodha]

I already did one direct introduction through webcast with Namkhai Norbu,

A "direct introduction" into what? The "natural state"? Really? If so, there's no need from itself for "rituals", because you're a "sotāpanna".

Yes direct introduction to your nature. And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.

[thigle]

I already did one direct introduction through webcast with Namkhai Norbu,

A "direct introduction" into what? The "natural state"? Really? If so, there's no need from itself for "rituals", because you're a "sotāpanna".

Yes direct introduction to your nature. And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.

What "rituals/rites" you use "to familiarize" with primordially natural "knowledge/transparency"? I'm asking this question, because if "knowledge/transparency" was de facto even only temporarily self-obvious, one knows that neither rites/rituals nor anything other "practice" and reified "non-practice" can be used to "familiarize" with "knowledge/transparency". Before one knows this, it's necessary to "practice" everything, but that's preliminary exercises. Of course, if "knowledge/transparency" is self-obvious, one can dance in a circle and cry: hum hum", because of whatever, but in such a case, there's no grasping. In such a case, it's a possible expression of "knowledge/transparency".


[sry for my bad english]

[Sönam]

...
And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.

It does not sound very dzogchen at all ... maybe TB conceptualizations?

Sönam

[krodha]

...
And rituals, or whatever other method one wants to use to familiarize with that nature is an indispensable aspect of the teaching.

It does not sound very dzogchen at all ... maybe TB conceptualizations?

Sönam

TB?