Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita

[gad rgyangs]

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

[Stewart]

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

[gad rgyangs]

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?

[Malcolm]

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.

[gad rgyangs]

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."

[Adamantine]

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.

[Adamantine]

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.

[Malcolm]

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.

[Adamantine]

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.

[Malcolm]

...

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

[Adamantine]

...

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.

[Malcolm]

Yeah. And what's even more hilarious is arguing over poetry!!!

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

[Jnana]

Dzogchen texts are not poetry.

Yes. It was a frivolous remark.

[asunthatneversets]

:)

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

[asunthatneversets]

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.

[Malcolm]

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

[Mariusz]

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

[muni]

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?

[Mariusz]

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).