Dzogchen teaching of Tsongkhapa

[Tsongkhapafan]

Milarepa said:

You should know what all appearances are the nature of mind,
Mind is the nature of emptiness.

This unites the Madhyamaka and Yogacara views together, which is what is needed to attain enlightenment.

This is very similar to this teaching from Padmasambhava:

Lady Tsogyal asked the master: Are objects and mind a duality?

The master replied:
The objects seen are mind's display.
The many displays are the play of your mind.
And while they are empty in essence,
The objects you see can dissolve and need not be rejected.

Firmly resolve that objects and mind are not two.

Great! Thank you

[Malcolm]

You can dance on books all day,
but don't neglect going out to play;
you can see but you cannot say,
rainbows in space simply fade away.

-- Namdrol

[Jikan]

You can dance on books all day,
but don't neglect going out to play;
you can see but you cannot say,
rainbows in space simply fade away.

-- Namdrol

well spoken, and nice to see you by the way

[tamdrin]

You can dance on books all day,
but don't neglect going out to play;
you can see but you cannot say,
rainbows in space simply fade away.

-- Namdrol

What???

[heart]

You can dance on books all day,
but don't neglect going out to play;
you can see but you cannot say,
rainbows in space simply fade away.

-- Namdrol

/magnus

[gregkavarnos]

I got my head torn off for saying the same thing here viewtopic.php?f=66&t=3194#p25250 funny old thing the mind!

[cloudburst]

I agree it seems clear that Lama Tsongkhapa received Dzogchen instructions from his Nyingma lama. I have never heard that he passed them on.... Conebeck, you say there are indications that he taught Dzogchen, but not publicly... would you care to share those indications with us, please?

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.

We must be realistic in admitting that there are many different interpretations of these texts, it is not a simple matter of "reading them" and gaining clear certainty, is it? Otherwise why would there be so many respected masters debating the same texts? Orthodoxy is relative to those in whom you impute authority...what is orthodox in Kagyu is unorthodox in Sakya, and so on...

As for whos interpretation of the madhyamaka views is "correct," can't we just say they are different, or function in different ways? Otherwise, I don't see how one could claim the mantle of a non-sectarian view? There are points that may be disputed, but if we try to say one another's views are incorrect, I think we are off the mark by quite a bit.

I was mistaken about the Jigme Lingpa connection with this particular lama.

It is interesting in the context of this discussion to not that Jigme Lingpa himself understood and presented the view from the point of view of Je Tsongkhapa's presentation, so we must accept that the view of Lama Tsongkhapa and the view of Dzogchen are harmonious at very least.

[conebeckham]

Conebeck, you say there are indications that he taught Dzogchen, but not publicly... would you care to share those indications with us, please?

This came from Karl Brunnholzl, I think....from "Center of the Sunlit Sky," if I recall correctly....but I don't think there's any more information than that in the book itself. You'd have to track down Karl, and see who his sources were.

Cone Beckham

[cloudburst]

Conebeck, you say there are indications that he taught Dzogchen, but not publicly... would you care to share those indications with us, please?

This came from Karl Brunnholzl, I think....from "Center of the Sunlit Sky," if I recall correctly....but I don't think there's any more information than that in the book itself. You'd have to track down Karl, and see who his sources were.

Cone Beckham

Interesting. As it turns out, I have that book right next to me as I have been reading it and identifying many incorrect statements by Herr B about Je Tsongkhapa's view. It dos not mention in the index where one might find such a comment (one citation of "dzogchen" only), could you clarify?

[Malcolm]

It is interesting in the context of this discussion to not that Jigme Lingpa himself understood and presented the view from the point of view of Je Tsongkhapa's presentation, so we must accept that the view of Lama Tsongkhapa and the view of Dzogchen are harmonious at very least.

You need to qualify this -- Jigme Lingpa presented Prasangika Madhyamaka in terms derived from Tsongkhapa since he was in fact educated with a Gelug yigcha.

While he opined that from an analytical point of view that Dzogchen and Prasangika could be regarded as equivalent in terms of how they presented freedom from proliferation, he clarified that Dzogchen is experiential, whilst prasangika is wholly analytical.

[conebeckham]

Perhaps when I get home I can look for it...it may have been in another of Brunnholzl's book, now that I think of it though...possibly in his translation of Nagarjuna's "Praise to the Dharmadhatu." In any case, I distinctly recall thinking "hmm, that's interesting, wonder if there's more info....." and searching footnotes, etc., only to find nothing further.

I've never felt the need to bother any Geshe or Khenpo about it, but if you're interested, it would be a good question to ask, eh?

[cloudburst]

It is interesting in the context of this discussion to not that Jigme Lingpa himself understood and presented the view from the point of view of Je Tsongkhapa's presentation, so we must accept that the view of Lama Tsongkhapa and the view of Dzogchen are harmonious at very least.

You need to qualify this -- Jigme Lingpa presented Prasangika Madhyamaka in terms derived from Tsongkhapa since he was in fact educated with a Gelug yigcha.

While he opined that from an analytical point of view that Dzogchen and Prasangika could be regarded as equivalent in terms of how they presented freedom from proliferation, he clarified that Dzogchen is experiential, whilst prasangika is wholly analytical.

It's an interesting opinion. Often these things just come down to the way you slice the pie. Prasangika is indeed an analytical method, but one could also say that the prasangika methodology produces an experiential understanding. So prasangika was both created from and is productive of experience of the Ultimate.

Jigme Lingpa's presentation of emptiness in Treasury of Precious Qualities is wholly concordant with the presentation of Je Tsongkhapa. Your useage may seem a little unclear, as "derived from" could be taken to mean he came up with terms that were derived as part of a process that began with Gelug yigcha, whereas, and I am sure this is what you mean, the terms he used were taken directly from these yigcha and pressed into service without adulteration.

[cloudburst]

Perhaps when I get home I can look for it...it may have been in another of Brunnholzl's book, now that I think of it though...possibly in his translation of Nagarjuna's "Praise to the Dharmadhatu." In any case, I distinctly recall thinking "hmm, that's interesting, wonder if there's more info....." and searching footnotes, etc., only to find nothing further.

I've never felt the need to bother any Geshe or Khenpo about it, but if you're interested, it would be a good question to ask, eh?

I will admit, If I had an opportunity to discuss with a person of learning, this is not high on my list of points of interest.

Just wanted to clarify the extent and/or credibility of these "indication" that Je Rinpoche taught Dzogchen. I am not claiming he did not, as it is notoriously difficult to prove a neagtive, but let's just say that so far, only hearsay supports the conclusion? Are you happy with that?

[conebeckham]

Sure!

[cloudburst]

Sure!

[Malcolm]

It's an interesting opinion. Often these things just come down to the way you slice the pie. Prasangika is indeed an analytical method, but one could also say that the prasangika methodology produces an experiential understanding. So prasangika was both created from and is productive of experience of the Ultimate.

It is not the same as Dzogchen.

Jigme Lingpa's presentation of emptiness in Treasury of Precious Qualities is wholly concordant with the presentation of Je Tsongkhapa. Your useage may seem a little unclear, as "derived from" could be taken to mean he came up with terms that were derived as part of a process that began with Gelug yigcha, whereas, and I am sure this is what you mean, the terms he used were taken directly from these yigcha and pressed into service without adulteration.

As far as I am concerned, saying that view of Dzogchen and the prasanga view of Tsongkhapa are the same goes too far, is overly simplistic at best. Jigme Lingpa does not go this far at all.

[cloudburst]

It's an interesting opinion. Often these things just come down to the way you slice the pie. Prasangika is indeed an analytical method, but one could also say that the prasangika methodology produces an experiential understanding. So prasangika was both created from and is productive of experience of the Ultimate.

It is not the same as Dzogchen.

I, for one, never said it was, nor do I believe it to be.

Jigme Lingpa's presentation of emptiness in Treasury of Precious Qualities is wholly concordant with the presentation of Je Tsongkhapa. Your useage may seem a little unclear, as "derived from" could be taken to mean he came up with terms that were derived as part of a process that began with Gelug yigcha, whereas, and I am sure this is what you mean, the terms he used were taken directly from these yigcha and pressed into service without adulteration.

As far as I am concerned, saying that view of Dzogchen and the prasanga view of Tsongkhapa are the same goes too far, is overly simplistic at best. Jigme Lingpa does not go this far at all.

Personally, I agree, and I think if you read what I wrote above you can see I never said that view of Dzogchen is same as prasangika of Tsongkhapa, althogh among those who feel they are same are Dalai Lama and Jamgon Kongtrul the great.

I wonder if you feel that very subtle mind of clear light and view of Dzogchen are same? If not, what is difference?

[Malcolm]

I wonder if you feel that very subtle mind of clear light and view of Dzogchen are same? If not, what is difference?

If by "subtle mind of clear light" you mean an "uncontrived momentary awareness" (ma bcos pa shes pa skad cig ma), then the view is similar.

But prasanga can never lead to that so called "subtle mind of clear light" -- it lacks the method.

[cloudburst]

I wonder if you feel that very subtle mind of clear light and view of Dzogchen are same? If not, what is difference?

If by "subtle mind of clear light" you mean an "uncontrived momentary awareness" (ma bcos pa shes pa skad cig ma), then the view is similar.

But prasanga can never lead to that so called "subtle mind of clear light" -- it lacks the method.

I suppose I do not know if this is what I mean, as this terminology falls outside my experience. How is this uncontrived momentary awareness different from my moment to moment uncontrived awareness?

I agree, prasangika will not lead to clear light without application of supplementary methods.

[Malcolm]

I suppose I do not know if this is what I mean, as this terminology falls outside my experience. How is this uncontrived momentary awareness different from my moment to moment uncontrived awareness?

The difference is summed up nicely by "Parting From The Four Attachments "If grasping arises, it is no the view."

N