Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

[Andrew David Boyle]

That is not Dzogchen view at all. Not even slightly.

If I may inquire, although that isn't the Dzogchen view according to you, it does look like the general Yogācāra view.

Perhaps a formal thread, or at the very least a clarification in-thread, on what separates them would be in order?

Our friend ADB has not clarified whether this consciousness is personal, as in Yogacāra, or transpersonal as in Advaita. Even so, the view of Yogācāra is not the view of Dzogchen, which view Dzogchen far surpasses, just as the sun outshines a candle.

It is the view of someone who has directly perceived their Buddha Nature. There is no higher realisation.
As Mooji says: 'There is no higher realisation in the human kingdom.' The compassion of one who has realised their Buddha Nature
does not shine brighter than the compassion of another who has realised their Buddha Nature.

As I said in other posts the experiences of Mooji and the Dzogchen masters are described almost the same word for word.
For me, they are on the same level of realisation.

Also bear in mind that some Tantric Prasangikas also accept the Chittamatrin view. The truth is somewhere
in between but it is beyond words.

[DGA]

Mooji [Advaita/ Zen master who I am familiar with] says all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness and the same nature as consciousness. The consciousness he is referring to is the clear light mind or Buddha Nature. This view is accepted by some Tantric Prsangikas and is almost indistinguishable from the standard Tantric Prasangika view. In summary, they are very, very similar.

what's an "Advaita/Zen master," and how does one become one? What's "Advaita/Zen"?

is this the Mooji in question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooji

[Andrew David Boyle]

Mooji [Advaita/ Zen master who I am familiar with] says all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness and the same nature as consciousness. The consciousness he is referring to is the clear light mind or Buddha Nature. This view is accepted by some Tantric Prsangikas and is almost indistinguishable from the standard Tantric Prasangika view. In summary, they are very, very similar.

what's an "Advaita/Zen master," and how does one become one? What's "Advaita/Zen"?

is this the Mooji in question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooji

I think it is anew category!

[Grigoris]

Mahamudra says that all phenomena are manifestations of bliss and emptiness. The mind of clear light, which is the nature of bliss, mixes inseperably with emptiness, like water mixing with water. All phenomena are seen by the yogi to arise from this union of the clear light and emptiness.

Mooji [Advaita/ Zen master who I am familiar with] says all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness and the same nature as consciousness. The consciousness he is referring to is the clear light mind or Buddha Nature. This view is accepted by some Tantric Prsangikas and is almost indistinguishable from the standard Tantric Prasangika view. In summary, they are very, very similar.

Your grasp of Mahamudra is incomplete and that is why you confound the views.

Mahamudra is not a state of consciousness. Buddha Nature is not a state of consciousness. They are not phenomena and they do not give rise to phenomena.

But your confusion obviously arises from your attempt to mix Zen, Advaita, Tantra and Prasangika. You end up creating something completely indigestible.

[Malcolm]

Our friend ADB has not clarified whether this consciousness is personal, as in Yogacāra, or transpersonal as in Advaita. Even so, the view of Yogācāra is not the view of Dzogchen, which view Dzogchen far surpasses, just as the sun outshines a candle.

It is the view of someone who has directly perceived their Buddha Nature. There is no higher realisation.

you still have not clarified whether this is Self Mooji keeps talking about is personal or transpersonal.

In any case, having looked at what he says, as far as I can tell is it just standard Self view of Advaita, so not Dzogchen.

Buddhanature misunderstood is just the same as the tīrthika view of self.

[DGA]

Mooji [Advaita/ Zen master who I am familiar with] says all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness and the same nature as consciousness. The consciousness he is referring to is the clear light mind or Buddha Nature. This view is accepted by some Tantric Prsangikas and is almost indistinguishable from the standard Tantric Prasangika view. In summary, they are very, very similar.

what's an "Advaita/Zen master," and how does one become one? What's "Advaita/Zen"?

is this the Mooji in question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooji

I think it is anew category!

a new category of what? put differently: what does this category Advaita/Zen contain, and what makes it new or distinctive?

are you the inventor of this category?

[fckw]

Advaita Zen is closely related to both Christian Tantra and Jewish Islam.

[Wayfarer]

This is a pretty good Wikipedia article on ‘neo-Advaita’. I think it makes clear that most talk about ‘Advaita’ is by those who have encountered via the global ‘neo-Advaita’ movement which has become diffused throughout Western culture.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Advaita Zen is closely related to both Christian Tantra and Jewish Islam.

[Aku]

In Dzogchen, the goal seems to be to uncover ones Primodial Awareness. Is this state of Primodial Awareness, the quality of luminous emptiness, the same as the Non-Duality of True Self/Pure Witness as described by Advaita Vedanta?

To elaborate further, most Advaita and Neo-Advaita teachings seem to be focussed on uncovering a "fundamental awareness" that is not thought and not the mind... a depersonalised and universal 'knowing' that they will describe as the ocean behind the wave. This seems similar to what Dzgchen talks about.

Are there subtle differences in the non-dual states described in Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta.

There also seem to be a theory that the uniqueness of Buddhism is that it attempt to even deconstruct this True Self/Pure Witness, with the insight and realization of 'Emptiness'.

So is realizing 'Primodal Awareness' Dzogchen's endgame? And is this Primodial Awareness similiar to Advaita's True Self/Pure Witness?

...

In fact there is no endgame. It's just that for the true, persistent practitioners there is much less meaningless suffering.
The Realisation of Primordial Awareness is Being Beyond All Concepts.
That True Self is Sustaining Bright Pure Light.
The realisation of Emptiness comes in several degrees/steps for the bodhisattvas and these are named bhumis. These grounds can be thought of as discovering the levels of the mind followed by the transformation of the body. It begins by Cleansing Joy and passes through Total Bliss and so on.
Non-Duality is perceiving the World and the Ego as not separated.

[Natan]

This is Dharmawheel!!!!

Let’s talk about whether Swami Prapanabhandanada attained Buddhahood by practicing kechari mudra. That will rally help.

[Vaktar]

In Dzogchen, the goal seems to be to uncover ones Primodial Awareness. Is this state of Primodial Awareness, the quality of luminous emptiness, the same as the Non-Duality of True Self/Pure Witness as described by Advaita Vedanta?
...
Are there subtle differences in the non-dual states described in Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta.
...
So is realizing 'Primodal Awareness' Dzogchen's endgame? And is this Primodial Awareness similiar to Advaita's True Self/Pure Witness?

For a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.

So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.

[Malcolm]

For a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin.

I had a discussion with this person once. He rejects Dzogchen because, according to him, in Dzogchen there is dualistic appearance. He is right, of course, that Dzogchen does not negate dualistic appearances, it also does not affirm nondualism in the naive way in which everyone takes Dzogchen to be a nondualist tradition.

At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call..."Atman", or "God" and so on.

No. No one can study Dzogchen in a real sense and come away with this conclusion, since these propositions are strictly negated in Dzogchen teachings.

[Natan]

We cannot talk about Dzogchen. It’s just not Advaita. Bapuji is a nice man.

[Vaktar]

At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call..."Atman", or "God" and so on.

No. No one can study Dzogchen in a real sense and come away with this conclusion, since these propositions are strictly negated in Dzogchen teachings.

The implied proposition is, what people are a calling "Atman" and so on--even if they do not understand what it is -- is what Dzogchen calls "mind nature". That is not so far-fetched. Take "mind nature" as metonymic for tsal, and the proposition is that much more plausible.

Or excuse me, in case it turns out Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche didn't understand Dzogchen at all, or in any "real sense" that you might care to define it. After all he encouraged student Surya Das, a Dzogchen schmexpert, to found the Dzogchen Foundation right? And also, Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche expressed some other heretical views, for example, that practicing Vipassana could substitute for the traditional ngondro. So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.

[Natan]

Do yourselves a favor and forget about Advaita if you want to master Ati. The Ati universe is vast. Advaita is a kindergarten classroom. Don’t take this the wrong way. The sophistication levels just don’t compare at all. If Advaita is your puppy and I just kicked your puppy, hey, sorry, but you are limiting your world. I don’t see this as religions. There are results attested to here. Keep that in mind.

[Johnny Dangerous]

"Sophistication" is an important quality in this discussion? lol.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I don’t see this as religions. There are results attested to here. Keep that in mind.

I like the way you assume that “religion” does not yield results. That assumption is not safe. Keep that in mind.

[Vaktar]

The Ati universe is vast. Advaita is a kindergarten classroom. Don’t take this the wrong way.

I think you understate the matter. Advaita is a jejune quagmire of ad-hoc speculation. Shankara was desperately grasping at straws, living in the upper storeys of the Vedic barn, but too squeamish about "purity" versus "impurity", orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy, to tear his robes off and bang the Prajnaparamita milkmaiden with gusto in the alaya-hayloft.

Stuck in his unbelievably pious cerebrum, Shankara came up with an austere, ultra-orthodox rationale based entirely on scriptural citation and intellectual analysis. This is like declining a date with Jennifer Lawrence and spending a long night staring at a stick figure drawing of a girl in a dress instead. There is nothing arousing about it -- which was precisely what Shankara intended.

[Malcolm]

The implied proposition is, what people are a calling "Atman" and so on--even if they do not understand what it is -- is what Dzogchen calls "mind nature". That is not so far-fetched. Take "mind nature" as metonymic for tsal, and the proposition is that much more plausible.

No, a) nonbuddhists do not have the view of dependent origination, b) they do not understand phenomena to be essenceless, and c) misidentification of the mind essence cannot be construed as an equivalence.

Or excuse me, in case it turns out Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche didn't understand Dzogchen at all, or in any "real sense" that you might care to define it.

Pretty sure that Nyoshel Khnepo would not make such a claim.

And also, Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche expressed some other heretical views, for example, that practicing Vipassana could substitute for the traditional ngondro.

This is not a heretical view at all. The 400 one hundred thousands is not a requirement for entering Dzogchen teachings.

So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.

Well, given that Shankara is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, it would be very surprising to learn of any so called khenpo of Dzogchen claiming that Atman was just a Hindu name for the mind essence. You yourself admit the idea does not even exist in their system.