Two approaches.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Dronma » Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:27 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:So lemme get this straight. For you, misapprehending the appearances of the basis and thus straying into a samsaric experience is neither more nor less desirable than correctly apprehending the basis and realizing buddhahood? There's nothing to do but just keep naturally cycling through samsara by the force of karma because it's all the appearances of the primordially pure basis? Why even bother with Dzogchen, then? Or any kind of spiritual practice for that matter? Why not a life of hedonism?


Yes, exactly this mistaken view leads directly to a life of hedonism!
In fact, all these philosophical queries have been made again and again in human spiritual history.
The terms are different, but the subjects of mental interrogation are exactly the same.
And the answers have been given intellectually a long time ago by great philosophers and masters of different traditions and religions.
At least, I have several examples from the vast spectrum of Greek philosophy.... :meditate:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Jinzang » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:17 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Jinzang wrote:Holding erroneous views is a mental phenomenon, but the view itself is not. If we accept that views are mental phenomena, all sorts of difficulties arise, such as two people cannot hold the same view, views perish with the person who holds them, etc.


kosa says:

23a Mind and its mental states are necessarily generated together.
The mind and it mental states cannot be independently generated.




Not relevant to my point. The Kosa is referring to mind (citta) and mental factors (cetasika). Views are not dharmas. If I think purple cows eat pink grass, I am holding a false view. While the thought is a mental factor, the view, which is what the thought is about, is not. Views are not dharmas according to abhidharma or any sytem of buddhist philosophy.

And as I said to bein with, dharmas can either exist (conventionally) or not. Views can be mistaken or unmistaken. Two different things entirely.
Lamrim, lojong, and mahamudra are the unmistaken path.
Jinzang
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Dronma » Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:38 pm

Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:so one can entertain mistaken views about the nature of the basis, but thats no more or less a manifestation of the basis than correct views. It leads to a different movie though.


You're mistaken in assuming that there is no error -- the proof of that is contained within your own statement.
......

Basically, your point of view entails that for you liberation is meaningless. Which is fine, but that is not the point of view of Dzogchen, nor Buddhism as a whole. It may be the point of view of various neo-advaita, pseudo-zen, new age gurus, but not Dzogchen.
......

The mistake then is seeing as there what isn't there, which is why this tantra, among others uses the rope/snake example. What this tantra is stating is that deluded appearances we see that are predicated in the basis do not exist in the basis and are not appearances of the basis, but rather misapprehensions of the appearance of the basis.

You on the other hand seem to be saying that the basis manifests as sentient beings and the six realms. If this is what you are saying, then you are very far away from the point of view of the great perfection.

N


:twothumbsup:

Additionally, a little excerpt from "The Invocation of Samantabhadra":

"In the beginning for the deluded beings
Rigpa did not arise in the base
And so they fell into a blank state of unconsciousness,
The very cause of ignorance and illusion.
From this sudden faint
They emerged frightened, dizzy and agitated.
From this, the notion of self, other, and enemy arose.
Through the gradual increasing of habitual tendency
Samsara enfolded sequentially.
From this, the five poisonous emotions spread
And the action of the five poisons manifested unceasingly.
Thus, since the base of beings' delusion
Is ignorance and unsonsciousness,
Through my invocation as the Buddha,
May all become aware of their Rigpa!

Co-emergent ignorance
Is a state of unconsciousness and blankness.
The conceptual ignorance
Is the dualism of self and others.
The two ignorances, co-emergent and conceptual,
Are the base of delusion for all beings.
Through my invocation as the Buddha,
May the dense darkness of unconsciousness
Of all beings in samsara dissolve,
May dualistic perception be purified,
And may all become aware of their state of Rigpa!"

:namaste:
"My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour"
~ Padmasambhava ~
User avatar
Dronma
 
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:29 pm
Location: Athens - GR

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:11 am

Jinzang wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
Jinzang wrote:Holding erroneous views is a mental phenomenon, but the view itself is not. If we accept that views are mental phenomena, all sorts of difficulties arise, such as two people cannot hold the same view, views perish with the person who holds them, etc.


kosa says:

23a Mind and its mental states are necessarily generated together.
The mind and it mental states cannot be independently generated.




Not relevant to my point. The Kosa is referring to mind (citta) and mental factors (cetasika). Views are not dharmas. If I think purple cows eat pink grass, I am holding a false view. While the thought is a mental factor, the view, which is what the thought is about, is not. Views are not dharmas according to abhidharma or any sytem of buddhist philosophy.

And as I said to bein with, dharmas can either exist (conventionally) or not. Views can be mistaken or unmistaken. Two different things entirely.


kosa, chapter 5 is about the anusayas, the latent defilements, which are considered dharmas. there are 6: attachment, anger, pride, ignorance, false views, and doubt. there are five false views: the view of self and things pertaining to self, the view of eternity and annihilation, the view of negation, the view that holds as hight what is low, and that holds for cause and Path that which is not cause and Path.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:05 pm

Namdrol wrote:The basis only displays one way. That display is either properly recognized or not, leading to samsara and nirvana.


Are you saying that proper Recognition of the Basis & Its display leads to Nirvana and that non-recognition leads to Samsara? Or are you saying that non-recognition leads to either Samsara or Nirvana?

Well, obviously the latter:

Namdrol wrote:Neither samsara nor nirvana exist in the basis. But the basis is made up of three wisdoms. Since there is no ignorance in that state to begin with, there can be no ignorance in that state later. This is why we disagree about whether ignorance is a display of the basis or not. The reason why samsaric phenomena are consider originally pure is that they are simply a result of a misapprehensions of the originally pure naturally formed display of the basis. We do not need to manipulate these phenomena in anyway. But we do need to recognize their actual state, both as delusions (the way they are appearing to us (snang lugs)) and the way these apparent phenomena are present in and of themselves (gnas lugs).


If Being in the State of Dzogchen Contemplation is equivalent to proper Recognition of the Basis & Its display; then in that moment of Contemplation, all Vision is a display of the Basis, yes?

Although how do we tell the difference between Dzogchen Contemplation and 'mere' Nirvanic states (if there is indeed a difference)? If Rushen and Semdzins are for the separation of Samsara and Nirvana, then Trekcho and Thogal are mainly how we could distinguish between Nirvana and the Recognition of the Basis & Its display (if it is as you say, that neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist in the Basis), right?

Are there any books or audio teachings by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche where he gives teachings on the Recognition of the Basis & Its display, the Youthful Vase Body, etc., and where Rinpoche actually emphasizes the use of the word "Basis" or gZhi?

Thank you for these explanations Namdrol, they are very helpful. :anjali:
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:03 pm

Lhug-Pa wrote:
If Being in the State of Dzogchen Contemplation is equivalent to proper Recognition of the Basis & Its display; then in that moment of Contemplation, all Vision is a display of the Basis, yes?



Not exactly.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Sönam » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:06 pm

Because Longchen Rabjam was quoted a lot in this thread, then let see what he says about ...

"At the very moment of the arising of the intrinsic awareness from the basis, the eight spontaneous appearances of the basis arise naturally. At that moment by not apprehending those appearances as others and by realizing them as the natural glow (gDangs) with a pure mind (gZu-Bo'i Blos), the movements ('Gyu-Ba) of the intrinsic awareness cease in themselves. At the first movement, by realizing the self-essence of the self-appearances, the realization of the true meaning develops ... At the second movement, the delusions are dispelled and the perfection of primordial wisdom develops. That is the development of the basis itself as the result of enlightenment. It is called the self-liberation through the realization of the essence, the primordial Buddhahood. Having dissolved the self-appearances into the primordial purity and become enlightened at the basis before all, it is also called the Lord Universal Goodness, the primordial Buddha."

Tshig-Don Rin Po-Ch'e'i mDzod
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
Sönam
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:59 pm

Namdrol wrote:The basis only displays one way. That display is either properly recognized or not, leading to samsara and nirvana. Neither samsara nor nirvana exist in the basis. But the basis is made up of three wisdoms. Since there is no ignorance in that state to begin with, there can be no ignorance in that state later.


agreed up to here, but your next statement is a non sequitur:

This is why we disagree about whether ignorance is a display of the basis or not.


the reason why we disagree about this is because you have already forgotten the last thread where this was decided once and for all. I will copy the crucial citation:

getting back to the question of ignorance being an appearance of the basis or not, here's Dudjom R. in the BiG rEd BoOk (pg54):
The doctrines or phenomena of samsara are originally caused by ignorance which arises in three interrelated aspects. Firstly, the ignorance of individual selfhood (bdag byid gcig pu'i ma rig pa) arises as consciousness, but is not recognized as such. Secondly, through the co-emergent ignorance (lhan cig skyes pa'i ma rig pa), the unconsciousness of the true essence and that consciousness emerge together. Yet it is thirdly, through the ignorance of the imaginary (kun tu brtag pa'i ma rig pa) that one's own perceptions are externally discerned. Since these three aspects arise diversely from a single essence, they arise from the ground as the appearance of the ground; and since this is not known to have been self-originated, the threefold which subjectively discerns objects is the causal condition of samsara.

then he quotes the sgra thal 'gyur:
The basis of bewilderment ('khrul pa) is ignorance.
Ignorance has three forms.

he continues:
From the very moment of bewilderment, that same bewilderment arises as the ground-of-all (kun gzhi, alaya) in its role as the ignorance, the naturally obscuring expressive power, which is the unconsciousness of the true essence. Dependent upon that (ground of all) is the mind which is the consciousness of the ground-of-all and the six conflicting emotions which orignate from it.


so there is a progression of 1) ground to 2)ignorance arising as appearance of the ground, to 3)bewilderment arising based on that ignorance, to 4)the kun gzhi arising together with the bewilderment and becoming the basis of 5) mind and afflictive emotions.


I thought this question had been put to rest, but you are still claiming otherwise. what part of the above citation do you not understand?

I believe part of the confusion relates to this whether one is looking at all this from the point of view of the basis, from knowledge of the basis (rigpa) or from our relative, dualism vision perspective (marigpa). From the relative perspective, there is desirable happiness and undesirable suffering, there are relative conditions to work with (ChNNR's anuyoga practices he gives) and rejection of ignorance, marigpa. From the point of view of the basis (rigpa), none of this exists, but it is all clearly apparent arisings from the baisis as appearances of the basis. There is no other process described in the texts that would account for ignorance. You can't pass the buck and say we cognitive errors AKA "sentient beings" are the source of marigpa, because what is our source, our "real nature"? Again, you seen to posit some other ground or display that would account for us, so that the basis and its display doesn't have to get its hands dirty. But thinking that sentient beings with their ignorance are "dirty" is just the kind of view that does not exist from the perspective of the basis (rigpa). So it is a contradiction to claim that abiding in rigpa is the summum bonum of Dzoghchen practice, and then stubbornly refuse to accept the Dzogchen view (not the Mahayoga view, or the Anuyoga view), which is rigpa, and which is attested in all the texts. Yes, you can trot out citations that come from tantras discussing things from the POV of our limited condition, but these should not and can not be conflated with those texts that are presenting the pure Dzogchen view (rigpa).
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:15 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:the reason why we disagree about this is because you have already forgotten the last thread where this was decided once and for all. I will copy the crucial citation:



"In brief, those delusions also are not delusion that exist in the cause and basis, but as one does not understand the actual state of the basis one is stubbornly deluded about one’s appearances. For example when grasping to a seeming appearance that does not exist in the material, a rope appears to be a snake. Like a conch shell appearing yellow, the actual state of the basis has not been understood, and there is fixated delusion about one’s appearances."

-- Khandro Nyinthig
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:18 pm

and here's the crucial thing: if you say, "well thats all well and good, but we're stuck here in our relative, samsaric condition, so it's only intellectual nonsense to say this stuff." then you may be a very good Buddhist, and a follower of the lower yanas, but you are not a Dzogchenpa. Being a Dzogchenpa means recognizing the crucial point, recognition of one's real nature (basis), definitively deciding on this state (giving up once and for all the views of lower yanas as ultimate), and continuing in that state (abiding in rigpa). Sure, you can do your dragpurs and sinamukhas to play with the display and aid other illusory beings, but if you don't accept the Dzogchen view (rigpa) then just practice anuyoga or something, but why denigrate the Dzogchen view?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:25 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Lhug-Pa wrote:If Being in the State of Dzogchen Contemplation is equivalent to proper Recognition of the Basis & Its display; then in that moment of Contemplation, all Vision is a display of the Basis, yes?



Not exactly.


Then could we say that while in the State of Contemplation, afflictions that arise are self-liberated as they arise; however that we couldn't say that all Vision is the display of the Basis until all afflictions are exhausted? (i.e. just because we are capable of entering into Contemplation, doesn't mean that all afflictions are necessarily self-liberated all at once in that moment).

I need to study and practice more is what it boils down to.


Sönam wrote:Because Longchen Rabjam was quoted a lot in this thread, then let see what he says about ...

"At the very moment of the arising of the intrinsic awareness from the basis, the eight spontaneous appearances of the basis arise naturally. At that moment by not apprehending those appearances as others and by realizing them as the natural glow (gDangs) with a pure mind (gZu-Bo'i Blos), the movements ('Gyu-Ba) of the intrinsic awareness cease in themselves. At the first movement, by realizing the self-essence of the self-appearances, the realization of the true meaning develops ... At the second movement, the delusions are dispelled and the perfection of primordial wisdom develops. That is the development of the basis itself as the result of enlightenment. It is called the self-liberation through the realization of the essence, the primordial Buddhahood. Having dissolved the self-appearances into the primordial purity and become enlightened at the basis before all, it is also called the Lord Universal Goodness, the primordial Buddha."

Tshig-Don Rin Po-Ch'e'i mDzod


:good:

Can't wait to study this text.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:59 pm

Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:the reason why we disagree about this is because you have already forgotten the last thread where this was decided once and for all. I will copy the crucial citation:



"In brief, those delusions also are not delusion that exist in the cause and basis, but as one does not understand the actual state of the basis one is stubbornly deluded about one’s appearances. For example when grasping to a seeming appearance that does not exist in the material, a rope appears to be a snake. Like a conch shell appearing yellow, the actual state of the basis has not been understood, and there is fixated delusion about one’s appearances."

-- Khandro Nyinthig


ok, this is saying that not understanding the basis results in delusion. we all know this, no one is saying otherwise. all this is doing is emphasizing the importance of "understanding the basis" which is rigpa. Abiding in this knowledge is realization. and it is precisely when one understands the basis that one understands that all phenomena of samsara and nirvana are the display of the basis. Are sentient beings and their delusion a phenomena of samsara? check. are all phenomena of samsara and nirvana the display of the basis? check. Therefore, are sentient beings and their delusion part of the display of the basis? check, and mate.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pero » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:01 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:You can't pass the buck and say we cognitive errors AKA "sentient beings" are the source of marigpa, because what is our source, our "real nature"?

Marigpa is the source of sentient beings, not the other way around.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:05 pm

Pero wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:You can't pass the buck and say we cognitive errors AKA "sentient beings" are the source of marigpa, because what is our source, our "real nature"?

Marigpa is the source of sentient beings, not the other way around.


exactly. so if its not our fault, whose fault is it?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pero » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:11 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:You can't pass the buck and say we cognitive errors AKA "sentient beings" are the source of marigpa, because what is our source, our "real nature"?

Marigpa is the source of sentient beings, not the other way around.


exactly. so if its not our fault, whose fault is it?

Sorry but I don't understand the question.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby gad rgyangs » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:15 pm

Pero wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:Marigpa is the source of sentient beings, not the other way around.


exactly. so if its not our fault, whose fault is it?

Sorry but I don't understand the question.


if sentient beings are not the source of marigpa, then what is?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Pero » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:18 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Pero wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:exactly. so if its not our fault, whose fault is it?

Sorry but I don't understand the question.


if sentient beings are not the source of marigpa, then what is?

Hmmmmm, I actually have no idea about that.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:25 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
if sentient beings are not the source of marigpa, then what is?


Sentient beings are the product of delusion and misapprehension, so saying that sentient beings could be the source of something is like claiming the snake in the rope/snake analogy could be the source of something. The snake is only the result of something, which is misunderstanding and delusion, likewise sentient beings are the same. Nonrecognition is the source of marigpa.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Two approaches.

Postby Malcolm » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:09 pm

gad rgyangs wrote: Therefore, are sentient beings and their delusion part of the display of the basis? check, and mate.


Sentient beings are deluded about the display of the basis. When they cease to be so deluded, they are buddhas.

The basis never displays as anything other than the five lights.

Further, The Luminous Space states:

    That mind is produced out of the dualistic grasping
    to the six objects of the manifestation of wisdom.

How can that [mind] be produced? Since [the mind] is produced from that ignorance that does not recognize the intrinsic manifestation of wisdom [the mind] is produced.


Sentient beings, rocks and trees are assembled by delusion about the basis. But the basis only displays one way. It does not display as both samsara and nirvana.


Since that critical point of luminous empty vidyā was not recognized, grasping onto that produced the five elements, and the causal thigle [was produced] from the refined part of those. The body was produced from that [refined part] and energy [rtsal] of wisdom produces the five sense gates in that [body]. Within those [sense gates] the five wisdoms are produced. The five [sense gates] grasping onto those [five wisdoms produce] the five afflictions. After first being created by the energy of wisdom; in the middle, it was not recognized that the body of the refined part of the assembled elements actually is the five wisdoms, since this was not realized through intellectual views, the non-sentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it. Here, it is actually five wisdoms to begin with; in the middle, when the body is formed from assembly of the elements through ignorance grasping onto those [five wisdoms] also, it is actually the five wisdoms. The five aggregates, sense organs, and afflictions also are actually the five wisdoms. In the end, since one transcends accepting, rejecting, proofs, and negations since those are realized to be real. As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into wisdom without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the non-sentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instruction.

The basis only is the five wisdom and only displays the five wisdoms -- the rest is delusion. Ignorance [avidyā] is not a display of the basis, it is delusion about the display of the basis. Knowledge is not a display of the basis, it is the absence of delusion about the display of the basis.

One basis, two paths, two results.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Two approaches.

Postby heart » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:21 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:if sentient beings are not the source of marigpa, then what is?


Ignorance is the cause of sentient beings. What is the cause of ignorance? Fear, doubt and uncertainty.

/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
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asunthatneversets, Google [Bot] and 20 guests

>