Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:08 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 291
I happened across this text, by Tsongkhapa where he praises the view of the Great Perfection and he says that this with the practice of the Six Yogas of Naropa is the supreme way to proceed. It is a very interesting text!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24337291/Je-T ... ctars-1396

Enjoy,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
It's unlikely that Tsongkhapa was referring to Dzogchen as he never taught Dzogchen. There may be many meanings to the term 'Great Perfection'. Tsongkhapa says 'Great perfection, the extraordinary instruction of the Tantra', so Great Perfection may refer to the practice of Generation and Completion Stage.

Later, Vajrapani says:

"The Great Perfection is an exalted view, and also the elucidation of the view by Masters Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti is without error. It is impossible to generate transcendent insight without relying on them.

In this context, 'Great Perfection' may refer to the Perfection of Wisdom, the view of the ultimate nature of phenomena, especially as expounded by Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti which nowadays is referred to as the Madhyamika Prasangika view, so there are many different interpretations possible. Has anyone received a commentary on this text? that's the clincher.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
TsongKhapaFan-

There are some indications that TsongKhapa did, in fact, teach Dzokchen, though not publically.

As for this particular text, it was written by TsongKhapa's Dzokchen Master, Namkha Gyaltsen, also known as Lodrak Drupchen Lekyi Dorje. It was written in response to questions posed by TsongKhapa. It definitely refers to Dzokchen, or Great Perfection--this can be inferred in the text, where it enumerates the three systems of of Mahamudra, Dzokchen, and Madhyamika.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 291
It seems to me that he is referring to the view of the great perfection as it is commonly understood amongst Nyingma and Kagyu circles... At the beginning of the text we find reference to the adi-Buddha Samatabhadra.. and his consort Samantabhadri ""Karmavajra! Bring these esoteric words of mine to the ear of Matibhadrashri! It is the
intimation of Father Samantabhadra, the heart's message of Mother Samantabhadri - this
esoteric speech of mine, I Vajradhara! To achieve the great supreme medicine, the
uttermost pinnacle of all vehicles, seek out the clear light of the mind itself!"


That is Vajradhara is questioning them in response to inquiry into the ultimate clear-light mind.

This is also very similiar to Dzogchen ideas...

"The Lord of the Esoteric said, "Karmavajra! This emptiness, the actuality of awareness, is not contrived by anyone,
has no cause, no condition, but has been there from before the very beginning. It has no
infraction or observance, it cannot be focussed on or mistaken - it is Buddhahood in the
realm of primal perfection. Likewise, this natural clear light is effortlessly indivisible
from beginningless emptiness. Its exercise is ceaseless compassion. Whatever arises
kacks intrinsically real status, so you must understand all three as the great integration,
Buddhahood in indivisibility"



Also critical of a mere intellectual approach..
"partiality.

•First, the pitfall of view itself : the yogi in this esoteric Tantric system prefers naked direct perception to the view generally taught, accepted as emptiness devoid of
extremes. But there is no difference between those two if the ultimate is realized. If it
is not realized, then the general view is a verbal view held in the analytic mind and
does not hit upon the actual import; it is an erroneous view. Not trusting in the view
which is direct perception, but placing confidence in the verbal, analytic view, one
thinks that there is nothing to aim at, and that freedom from extremes is inactivity


n that and uncontrived primordial awareness is spoken of..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 291
from the footnote of the teaching..

"Here it is to be stated that in general there are many forms of correct interpretation of
the Great Adepts' deeds and instructions. Likewise, among the revelations of this Holy
Master, in the context of the view there are three different systems of interpretation: one
according to the Great Seal; one according to the Great Central Way; and one according
to the Great Perfection. Each has a definite intention according to the (needs of) the
disciples. Especially, this Supremely Healing Nectar is the best instruction given to
Master Tsong Khapa himself. Even the Dakinis said "The Supremely Healing Nectar is"

the Supreme Medicine." And Tsong Khapa himself said that "The secret speech of Holy Vajrapani, free of faults of excess, omission, and error - that is the Supremely Healing Nectar." He often praised it in this way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:18 pm
Posts: 359
agree with conebeck and tamdrin.

If it doesn't mean Dzogchen--as a supreme path usually practiced in Nyingma, the text would look very strange, comparing two known terms and one new undefined term which no one knows what it really means.
It can only be reasonable when it means (nyingma) dzogchen path.

Dzogchen masters do not look down upon Nagajurna/chandrakirti's view; it's explained in Ju Minpham's works. Many masters have indicated that they are actually not two unrelated views.

Tsongkhapa himself shows how a great master is always open-minded to dharma.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
The very reason Je Rinpoche was a revolutionary figure in the world of Tibetan Buddhism is that he studied and integrated the teachings from the already extant lineages, including the Nyingma/Dzogchen.
Its too bad so many have abandoned his spirit of diversity and non-sectarian exploration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm
Posts: 3142
Nangwa wrote:
The very reason Je Rinpoche was a revolutionary figure in the world of Tibetan Buddhism is that he studied and integrated the teachings from the already extant lineages, including the Nyingma/Dzogchen.
Its too bad so many have abandoned his spirit of diversity and non-sectarian exploration.


That's sad indeed.

/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: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
narraboth wrote:
Dzogchen masters do not look down upon Nagajurna/chandrakirti's view; it's explained in Ju Minpham's works. Many masters have indicated that they are actually not two unrelated views.


Ju Mipham sided with Gorampa and interpreted Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti's works incorrectly. For Dzogchen to work, it would have to be based on the correct interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti as explained by Shantideva, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
So say you. :shrug:
Plenty of masters whose realization is revered say otherwise.

And--after all--you're in the Dzokchen forum, which would likely predispose participants in a certain way.

You may not believe this, Tsong Khapa Fan, but Tsong Khapa's "interpretation" of Chandrakirti, and Madhyamika, is viewed as "unsual" if not "problematic" by the majority of Tibetan masters.

(Edited, because of prior poor word choice.....)

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Last edited by conebeckham on Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:05 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
I'd say that for Dzogchen to work it should be based on non-conceptual wisdom. Mipham, Tsongkhapa, Gorampa, Nagarjuna - these great teachers gave conceptual methods, which is all right as far as they are applied.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Well...
Ju Mipham, certainly, and I believe Gorampa as well, did not obviate Nonconceptual wisdom. I don't believe Tsong Khapa did either. But I think it is Tsong Khapa and his followers alone who claimed that Ultimate Realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
conebeckham wrote:
Well...
Ju Mipham, certainly, and I believe Gorampa as well, did not obviate Nonconceptual wisdom. I don't believe Tsong Khapa did either. But I think it is Tsong Khapa and his followers alone who claimed that Ultimate Realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind.


conebeckham,

Yes, the ultimate realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind, and that's how it has to start. It begins with inferential cognition but later it becomes direct, non-conceptual wisdom through familiarity, so there's no contradiction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Dzokchen says otherwise, TsongKhapa fan.
In fact, most Masters say otherwise. Instead of quoting Dzokchen masters, I'll go with some of those favored by Madhyamika adherents.....
Bhavavikika, for example:
Quote:
Since [true reality] is without discursiveness, it is peace. Since it is peace, it is the sphere of nonconceptual wisdom. Since it is the sphere of nonconceptual wisdom, it cannot be known through something else. Since words do not apply to that which cannot be known through something other [than this wisdom], the very nature of true reality is perfectly beyond the superimpositions of words.


Chandrakirti says:
Quote:
Views do not exist, something to be meditated on does not exist,
Conduct does not exist, and results do not exist:
The actuality of this is what is to be cultivated.
Let this mind free from thoughts rest in its own peace.

Without identifying something, without being distracted,
Without characteristics, and luminous— thus meditate.


And also, from the Prasannapada:
Quote:
The ultimate is not known due to something other. It is peace. It is what the noble ones are aware of as that which is to be personally experienced [by them]. . . . This is not consciousness.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
narraboth wrote:
Dzogchen masters do not look down upon Nagajurna/chandrakirti's view; it's explained in Ju Minpham's works. Many masters have indicated that they are actually not two unrelated views.


Ju Mipham sided with Gorampa and interpreted Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti's works incorrectly. For Dzogchen to work, it would have to be based on the correct interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti as explained by Shantideva, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa.

Nonsense.
The view that is in the minority on the interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chadrakirti is most definitely Tsongkhapa's.
Gorampa's refutation of Tsongkhapa in Freedom From Extremes is devastating. No wonder the Gelug political authority of central Tibet had the text banned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Well...
Ju Mipham, certainly, and I believe Gorampa as well, did not obviate Nonconceptual wisdom. I don't believe Tsong Khapa did either. But I think it is Tsong Khapa and his followers alone who claimed that Ultimate Realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind.


conebeckham,

Yes, the ultimate realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind, and that's how it has to start. It begins with inferential cognition but later it becomes direct, non-conceptual wisdom through familiarity, so there's no contradiction.

Nonsense again.
Read the original texts and you will find that this interpretation is unorthodox at the very least.
That doesn't necessarily diminish its effectiveness for individuals of certain leanings etc. but to assert that it is an absolute goes way too far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
Nangwa wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
narraboth wrote:
Dzogchen masters do not look down upon Nagajurna/chandrakirti's view; it's explained in Ju Minpham's works. Many masters have indicated that they are actually not two unrelated views.


Ju Mipham sided with Gorampa and interpreted Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti's works incorrectly. For Dzogchen to work, it would have to be based on the correct interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti as explained by Shantideva, Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa.

Nonsense.
The view that is in the minority on the interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chadrakirti is most definitely Tsongkhapa's.
Gorampa's refutation of Tsongkhapa in Freedom From Extremes is devastating. No wonder the Gelug political authority of central Tibet had the text banned.


Far from being 'devastating', Gorampa's refutation is most unconvincing and is easily dismissed. He clearly doesn't understand the nature of conventional truths. Tsongkhapa's interpretation is far more convincing and satisfying, providing as it does a perfect union of conventional and ultimate truths in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am
Posts: 230
conebeckham wrote:
Dzokchen says otherwise, TsongKhapa fan.
In fact, most Masters say otherwise. Instead of quoting Dzokchen masters, I'll go with some of those favored by Madhyamika adherents.....


conebeckham, there is a danger in quoting texts, because some of the words require interpretation. For example 'free from thoughts' doesn't necessarily mean non-conceptual; it can also mean free from thoughts of inherent existence. This is also the case with 'does not exist', which should be read as 'does not exist inherently', meaning that they are not utterly non-existence but are mere appearances and mere names. This is consistent with Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti's intentions.

Chandrakirti in particular disagreed with the idea of autonomous proofs as presented by Bhavaviveka and other Madhyamika Svatantrikas as what appears to the mind depends on your ideas, karmic pre-dispositions and so forth which is why a commentary is necessary to clarify the meaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
Nonsense.
The view that is in the minority on the interpretation of Nagarjuna and Chadrakirti is most definitely Tsongkhapa's.
Gorampa's refutation of Tsongkhapa in Freedom From Extremes is devastating. No wonder the Gelug political authority of central Tibet had the text banned.


Far from being 'devastating', Gorampa's refutation is most unconvincing and is easily dismissed. He clearly doesn't understand the nature of conventional truths. Tsongkhapa's interpretation is far more convincing and satisfying, providing as it does a perfect union of conventional and ultimate truths in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention.

Whatever you say chief.
The only thing that is unconvincing is that you are at all familiar with Gorampa's views, or Nagarjuna's for that matter.
It sounds like your giving a sales pitch or simply regurgitating what you read in Tharpa Publications.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:58 pm
Posts: 630
Like it or not, Je Tsogkhapa's main Tantric sources are Nyingma.
Like it or not, about 70% of his writings are on Tantric subjects.
Je Tsongkhapa was a revolutionary philosopher who had studied
every system existing in his time, he also practiced them.
His view is not sectarian, his followers... well another story.
But the great monastic universities were intended for all Tibetans,
not just Gelugpas.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 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