Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:29 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:20 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Namdrol wrote:
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
[i]"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.


Hi N - I'm having trouble with this paragraph: the translation appears to be saying " since there (is)* nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight, vidya does not exist." On the face of it, this makes no sense.

*Im assumng this word was left out accidentally?

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
gad rgyangs wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
[i]"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.


Hi N - I'm having trouble with this paragraph: the translation appears to be saying " since there (is)* nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight, vidya does not exist." On the face of it, this makes no sense.

*Im assumng this word was left out accidentally?


Yes, there is a a typo.

And the passage makes perfect sense.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm
Posts: 452
:)

Just Jax vs (mostly) Everyone else on Dharmawheel.....it got ugly sometimes!

_________________
s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:34 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
[i]"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.


Hi N - I'm having trouble with this paragraph: the translation appears to be saying " since there (is)* nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight, vidya does not exist." On the face of it, this makes no sense.

*Im assumng this word was left out accidentally?


Yes, there is a a typo.

And the passage makes perfect sense.


it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
gad rgyangs wrote:

it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?


You are being myopic:

Here is the passage Vimalamitra is commenting on:

There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.

Context, context, context.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:56 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:

it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?


You are being myopic:

Here is the passage Vimalamitra is commenting on:

There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.

Context, context, context.


that still does not explain the (non)sense of the conditional statement SINCE X, THEREFORE ~X, as in "since there is nothing but vidya, vidya does not exist."

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:02 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
I have to admit I am a bit confused too, even considering the context..that is if we are holding it to standards of logic as opposed to a type poetic allusion.

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:06 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
Adamantine wrote:
I have to admit I am a bit confused too, even considering the context..that is if we are holding it to standards of logic as opposed to a type poetic allusion.


Unless it is trying to say that "existence" only makes sense when contrasted with non-existence.. and since there is nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight therefore there is no "existence" of vidya per se.

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Adamantine wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
I have to admit I am a bit confused too, even considering the context..that is if we are holding it to standards of logic as opposed to a type poetic allusion.


Unless it is trying to say that "existence" only makes sense when contrasted with non-existence.. and since there is nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight therefore there is no "existence" of vidya per se.


Yes.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:17 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
Namdrol wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
I have to admit I am a bit confused too, even considering the context..that is if we are holding it to standards of logic as opposed to a type poetic allusion.


Unless it is trying to say that "existence" only makes sense when contrasted with non-existence.. and since there is nothing apart from pure vidya and vidya of insight therefore there is no "existence" of vidya per se.


Yes.


:smile:

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Adamantine wrote:
...


Sorry, I made a translation error -- this is from an old, unedited translation I have not re-examined. The passage should be read:

"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], one understands that the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight, the chains, do not exist other than being mere designations...

(My bad I don't usually trot out unedited translations without checking them to see if they are free of errors)

The passage is trying to state that all of these discussions are merely nominal. This is why Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa and others state over and over the intention of Dzogchen and the intention of Madhyamaka are the same.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:24 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
Namdrol wrote:
Adamantine wrote:
...


Sorry, I made a translation error -- this is from an old, unedited translation I have not re-examined. The passage should be read:

"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], one understands that the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight, the chains, do not exist other than being mere designations...

My bad.

The passage is trying to state that all of these discussions are merely nominal. This is why Longchen, Jigme Lingpa and others state over and over the intention of Dzogchen and the intention of Madhyamaka are the same.

N



well that's much clearer... thanks for checking into it.

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Jnana wrote:
Yeah. And what's even more hilarious is arguing over poetry!!!


Dzogchen texts are not poetry. This is a common misunderstanding.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm
Posts: 1106
Namdrol wrote:
Dzogchen texts are not poetry.

Yes. It was a frivolous remark.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
samdrup wrote:
:)

Just Jax vs (mostly) Everyone else on Dharmawheel.....it got ugly sometimes!


It was ugly before?! I feel like in this thread... I just metaphorically witnessed Namdrol and Xabir take Jax out back and beat him halfway to death.

It was like office space...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN3v0drnTdQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:

it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?


You are being myopic:

Here is the passage Vimalamitra is commenting on:

There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.

Context, context, context.


Would you say the translation you just posted above is most accurate? (I assume you would being that I'm sure you translated it)

I posted this same passage earlier but a different translation and there seems to be a few clearly noticeable differences. I believe someone(Mr. G?) already posted a quote from you(in response to an unrelated post) stating that use of the term "gnosis" is unnecessary and can actually potentially muddle things up, but aside from that there also seems to be other terms which don't correlate.

This is the other one:
Within self-emergent primordial gnosis,
there are no objects to be experienced,
There is nothing which has previously passed away,
Nor anything which will subsequently emerge,
Nor anything at all which currently appears.

There is no karma,
There are no latent karmic propensities,
There is no dimmed awareness,
There is no mind,
There is no psyche,
There is no insight,
There is no cyclic existence,
And there is no transcendence of misery -
It is not the case that even awareness itself exists.

There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis.

- excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret
(Absence Of Letters | yi ge med pa) or (Letterless Tantra | yi ge med pa'i rgyud)


At any rate I suppose it just goes to show the potential contrasting meanings and connotations different terms can give depending on translation, even though overall they both seem to ultimately convey the same insight.

Also should note because it ultimately coincides with the topic: Jax proceeded to label me a nihilist for posting this passage... and not that the labeling in and of itself matters (I'm not here to bicker about mudslinging), but it does serve to reify the necessity of this discussion at hand. Glad this is all being addressed thoroughly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
asunthatneversets wrote:

Would you say the translation you just posted above is most accurate? (I assume you would being that I'm sure you translated it)



IN general, yes. My translation of the passage is based on Vimalamitra's commentary of the passage in question, which apart from one error pointed out above, is perfectly fine.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
Namdrol wrote:
The passage is trying to state that all of these discussions are merely nominal. This is why Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa and others state over and over the intention of Dzogchen and the intention of Madhyamaka are the same.

N

Good to know it from you finally, considering our "Academic Discussion" forum. I'm remembering it, thanx :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Since I am sleeping, whatever I say, how can I wake you?
I can only sell shits in golden frames.

How is there doubt by the kindness of awakened nature-master ( neo and so on) other then being swept away in analysis or going blank?

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
muni wrote:
Since I am sleeping, whatever I say, how can I wake you?
I can only sell shits in golden frames.

How is there doubt by the kindness of awakened nature-master ( neo and so on) other then being swept away in analysis or going blank?

here you have the topic http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=7120&start=0 from "Academic Discussion" which was splitted to "Tibetan Buddhism" forum "as suppose to be shentong" by Mr.G . Don't sleep again please in Dharmawheel. Use the analysis until its total collapse, so you will realize you were only pointed-out by analysis although there had never been any reference point in the first place (including this analysis itself).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: conebeckham, heart 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