General Responses
treehuggingoctopus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 9:31 pm
I do not think anybody has said it yet, so the honour would seem to be mine:
stong gzugs, great to have you here!
Thank you! I've already learned so much from everyone here, I'm incredibly grateful
Kai lord wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:12 pm
Interestingly, the above two lineages both involved Naropa.
It seems most roads lead back to Naropa. He also became a major promulgator of the early Kālacakra tradition after he lost in debate to Kālacakrapada the elder.
Natan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:04 pmMy plate is full.
Your plate is indeed full—and full of some wonderful practices. It was inspiring reading your post, the dharma is deep and endless. You must have good karma to be exposed to so many of these rare practices!
Natan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:04 pm
Now I agree with much of what you say, except for when the visions give rise to philosophical systems. For me, this is where philosophy goes to die. There is no valid philosophical point to make about them. These are experiential. And arguing about it is entirely contrary to the opportunity for liberation. Madhyamaka goes far enough, but even that is a bit much for me.
Dölpopa clearly distinguishes between a "philosophical system" (siddhānta, grub mtha’) that rely on explanations and arguments and a "point of view" (darśana, lta ba) that provides a way of orienting oneself to experience both in meditative equipoise and in post-meditation. Gzhanstong is the latter. He explains gzhanstong literally as encapsulating into words the experiences of Kālacakra enlightenment that had remained only whispered in the mountain retreats in Jonang. What you read when you read his work is a phenemonological description of what enlightenment looks like. (This will be a repeated theme in my response to others below).
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:58 pmNo, he is relying on the oral traditon of the so-called gsang mtha' tradition which comes through Mal Lotsawa from Naropa.
Thank you for this valuable information! I can see the red and white bindus leading to dematerialization here. I suppose what's different about Kālacakra and what he's discussing is the emphasis on dematerialization into light, an empty form with all aspects.
Does Dzogchen (or at least the "Tögal postures") Derive from Kālacakra?
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:29 pm
Uh huh. A contemporary of Dangma Lungyal.
Unsupportable claim, there is no textual evidence for this.
Yes, Yumo Mikyo Dorje and Dangma Lungyal were contemporaries. The difference is that the former's teachings can be traced back several generations to earlier known historical figures like Somanatha, whereas the latter was a treasure revealer, so there's no historical sources to backtrack where his teachings come from, aside from the mythical lineage. To that end, I'm not well-versed on the latest research, but as far as I know from Germano's work, there is no clear evidence that any independent tradition called Dzogchen or Atiyoga existed outside of Tibet, and there is certainly no evidence that tögal (or its postures) were ever practiced in India.
The oral tradition of Yumo Mikyo Dorje described by Tāranātha thus provides
the best evidence we have, to my knowledge, that these "tögal postures" can even be traced back to India, even if they are originally Kālacakra postures. Now you're correct that we don't have texts from Yumo that mention the postures. But Yumo, like his intellectual successor Dölpopa, wasn't a big fan of dzogchen. So the idea that he'd borrow the practices from there seems unlikely.
But there's more. The only time Yumo even mentions dzogchen, is in his Brilliant Lamp of Mahāmudrā, and he attributes to it an inanimate emptiness, which might imply that the visual practices of the instruction series weren't established at that point, as clearly the instruction series isn't an inanimate emptiness.
From Yumo's Brilliant Lamp of Mahāmudrā wrote:There are also some who maintain, Mahāmudrā is the Svātantrika Madhyamaka’s clearing away of appearances or the Prāsaṅgika’s Collection of Reasoning, or the vacuous view of emptiness of the Dzogchen, which is a view of inanimate emptiness, or the emptiness of annihilation. They think these approaches are more profound than the tantra vehicles that teach mahāmudrā as luminosity. If you think mahāmudrā is like that, it is not.
So Yumo was obsessed with visual experience in meditation, was familiar with Dzogchen, and doesn't see Dzogchen as having a visual practice, but an inanimate emptiness. All this is evidence that Kālacakra visual practices
predate those of Dzogchen, likely including the tögal postures.
When I get a chance, I'll go through the earliest Kālacakra sadangayoga commentaries more closely see if I find references to the postures there. (That is, unless you've already looked through them and can say that they're not there. Did you know they were in Tāranātha's text? I find most Dzogchenpas aren't aware of this fact). But I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of Kālacakra visuals preceding those of Dzogchen.
Now you're right that we're relying on Tāranātha's texts that Yumo practiced the postures, rather than having a source from Yumo himself. Given that his mention of the postures wasn't in a polemical context, but in a restricted practice manual, I see no reason why he'd be putting on airs. Plus the Jonang critique of Dzogchen has never been about the postures (if anything, that's something Mipham mentioned more, that the tögal postures are still "effortful" which kind of goes against the whole Dzogchen aesthetic), but about the limitations of recognition and the need to distinguish between consciousness and wisdom, which isn't really possible without bringing the winds into the central channel (more on this later).
Further, given that Tāranātha is the closest thing Tibet has ever had to a serious historian, I therefore wouldn't take that possibility too seriously. Plus, as you were so kind to look into, he is correct about their presence in Kunpang Thukje Tsondru's practice manual, so he's 1 for 1 in terms of things we can historically validate. I don't know why he'd be mistaken about Yumo's teaching. The teaching has been passed on continuously within Jonang.
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:29 pm
There is no evidence of these three postures in the short six yoga text Kongtrul includes in the gdams ngag mdzod. Also the ten signs of the day and night practice, from a Dzogchen point of view, are mind and not ye shes. So there is that as well.
Kongtrul does not see these as mind, but as ye shes. (I think Dzogchen and Kālacakra are basically making the same arguments against each other: your stuff is based on consciousness not wisdom, you are doing too much / too little effort, you are misinterpreting the empty forms, etc.)
Kongrul wrote:The ten signs (rtags bcu), specifically related to the sixfold yoga of the Kalachakra tantra, are empty images (stong gzugs) to be meditated upon for the actualization of the vajra body. These empty images are not produced by thoughts and are extremely clear. They are the manifestation of pristine awareness, free from subject-object dualism. They resemble space in that they are devoid of mental constructs, beyond existent and non-existent phenomena. They are the luminous clarity nature of one’s own mind and also the totality of the dimensions of awakening.
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 10:29 pm
And the point Dudjom makes is that after one experiences a multicolored thigle, then one drops this, and moves on to the limbs of dhyāna, prāṇāyama, and so forth. And finally, it is only when one gets to the full development of the black pattern in the limb of samādhi after the vāyus have been forced into the central channel and so on, that one perceives the six realms and so on and various buddhaforms. I would agree however, that this stage is basically the same as rig pa tshad phebs, since it is in the limb of samādhi that, according to Kunpang, one attains the path of seeing. The third vision similarly is where one attains the path of seeing in Dzogchen, if one is a rim gyi pa, and not a cig car ba.
This is a great insight, thanks for sharing. I'm really grateful for your expertise here! Now, obviously, in Kālacakra nobody ever "drops the thigle" to do prānāyama but the thigles are mixed with prāna. Tāranātha makes this clear in his commentary on the Sekodeśa (and elsewhere), that prānāyama requires one to settle into meditative equipoise (samahita) with a mindstate of analambana, and only when prāna merges with the empty form is prānāyama accomplished. Working with the winds alone is not prānāyama in sadangayoga. It requires merging winds and empty-forms.
So it seems like we can set some provisional correspondences between the dzogchen visions and the six yoga limbs? If I'm reading this correctly, there is some correspondence between the dzogchen first vision and the first/second yogas of Kālacakra (where the initial visions of smoke, etc. onto the bindus with Buddhas in them appear). It seems like you've also nicely linked up the third vision with the fifth yoga (what you describe sounds to me more like the fifth limb of anusmriti than the sixth limb of samādhi, as the actual deities appear as a stainless disc of light in the fifth limb, not the sixth, which is more of an accumulation and deepening of the fifth, rather than introducing new experiences).
Can you offer any some clarity on how the fourth vision of Dzogchen links up with Kālacakra? I've often heard of it as the dissolution of all visions into darkness, but on the prior thread linking Dzogchen and Kālacakra, you said that's not exactly accurate. Does Dzogchen claim you become an empty form of radiant light at the conclusion of the fourth, like Kālacakra says you do at the conclusion of the sixth yoga?
More on Kālacakra and Dzogchen
Natan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 12:04 pmI also cannot agree that Kalachakra is smooth or unified compared to Dzogchen. That is simply is impossible. Tregcho and Togal are unified and not piecemeal, although different teachers have various presentations. Once one is into Togal, there's just one move, one yoga from start to finish. That's it's special feature ... Also Togal is completely effortless, meaning there is no active yoga or visualizations.
I think I see the confusion here. Of course, two moves (if we're being charitable and setting aside pointing-out, rushen, semdzin, etc. along with the fact that most Dzogchen practitioners also do guru yoga, deity yoga, etc. practices) are fewer than six moves (in Kālacakra). Tāranātha's point is that tögal is about lhundrup and trekchö is about kadak; this is attempting to fuse together two different principles. Kālacakra is empty form endowed with all apsects (i.e., gzhanstong) all the way through, it just mixes empty forms with different aspects of the subtle body until one becomes an empty form. This is why Kālacakra is more unified in his view, despite having more steps. Bad analogy, but it's akin to how a 70.3 mile triathalon is less unified than a 100 mile bike-ride. The latter may be longer (more distance to cover), but it is more unified (as it operates on the same principle throughout). I don't need you to accept the argument, just want to help you and others understand it. That's why he says a house held up by a single solid beam is more sturdy than one held up by many different beams tied together. (You're also attributing way more active visualization into the Kālacakra six-branch yoga than is accurate: the visions are spontaneous, we just work with them using some effort, as we use winds, tummo, etc.).
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:58 pm
Dölpopa's claim is that recognition alone won't do the trick,
That's because he lived in the generation after Sakya Paṇḍita and was educated at Sakya, and has conservative views about path abhisamaya.
Yes, I agree, the Sakya founders believed that rebirth in samsara occurs because the winds haven't been drawn into the central channel; he develops this idea much further, given how he differentiates between consciousness and wisdom as mutually exclusive, and consciousness doesn't really ever still until the winds are stilled, which occurs by bringing them into the central channel, hence unless that happens you're still in consciousness land (which is why he says that recognition alone, per dzogchen, is akin to claiming the shell that looks yellow is actually white, without curing the jaundice). This relates to what I mentioned to Natan above, that Dölpopa's project (in contrast to what you suggest, of integrating the two truth and three turnings, which is just one of many means to an end) is to describe reality as it appears to the Buddhas in Kālacakra enlightenment.
In fact, the problem with recognition is actually probably one of his two central claims (per Hopkins): the first of which is interpreting sutras and tantras in light of each other (which integrates buddha nature sutras with Kālacakra empty forms and more) and the second of which is that recognition alone is not enough. He doesn't exactly pull punches in how wrong he thinks this view is in his Fourth Council:
Fourth Council wrote:Therefore, such a wrong view, in which recognizing your very essence is sufficient, is the secret words of Mara. Reject such an evil view, the work of Mara, which says: "You enter the perfect path or the wrong path through such realization or lack of realization. Therefore, you are liberated by recognizing your very essence." You might say, "The meaning of recognizing your very essence refers to precisely the realization that this consciousness of your own mind is the dharmakaya." Because this consciousness is the opposite of the dharmakaya, it is never the dharmakaya.
Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 5:58 pm
If people become attached to lhun grub through thinking the visions are real or ultimate, they will block their practice. But it also because gzhan stong falls into the error of asserting the basis is only lhun grub, not the union of ka dag and lhun grup, aka, ka dag chen po.
I think this is getting to the crux of the difference! "Purity" in dzogchen is, in essence if I understand it correctly, just inherent emptiness as a non-affirming negation. If it's empty, it can't ever be stained. But, to the Jonang, this isn't purity, it's something neutral, neither pure nor impure. "Purity" in Kālacakra and Jonang entails having positive aspects.
I'd compare your citation to Dölpopa's here:
Fourth Council wrote:Precisely that ground of emptiness
is the sugata essence, the natural family,
the natural Buddha, natural Dharma,
and natural Sangha, the natural spontaneous
mandalas, natural deities, natural tantras
and mantras, natural nirvāna, natural luminosity,
natural purity, primordially pristine,
pristine form up through omniscience,
the form of the fully established, immutable
true nature up through the phenomena
of a buddha and so forth,
the ten unconditioned powers and so forth,
thusness with infinite qualities complete,
and the Buddha of the ground, the Primordial Buddha.
He elaborates on this in Mountain Dharma in a way that illustrates precisely why his use of the three turnings isn't about trying to reconcile some sutra stuff, but to explain how reality appears to a Buddha:
Mountain Dharma: Mode of establishing an ultimate that is other than self-emptiness through setting forth the pure noumenon's forms ranging through to the pure noumenon's omniscience (290.1) wrote:
Concerning that, purification is of two types-natural primordial purity and purity of adventitious defilements. Moreover, with respect to natural primordial purity, those of which [the bases of emptiness] are empty are imputational natures and other-powered natures-conventional forms and so forth-because those phenomena do not at all exist and are not established in the mode of dispositional abiding, like the child of a barren woman. The bases that are pure of those--ultimate noumenal forms and so forth--do not ever not exist because, whether conventional ones-gone-thus appear in the world or not and whether transmigrating beings realize [ultimate noumenal forms and so forth] or not, they always abide as pure forms and so forth and they abide as divine collections of ultimate pristine wisdom.
Concerning that, the pure basis, the pure aggregate of forms, or the aggregate of pure forms, is the ultimate deity of pristine wisdom vairochana-the mirror-wisdom. Likewise, the aggregates of pure feelings, discriminations , compositions factors, and consciousnesses are ratnasambhava, amitabha, amoghasiddhi, and akshobhya-the wisdoms of equality, individual analysis, accomplishing activities, and element of attributes of very pure attributes.
Basically, if you're a Buddha, you don't see the five aggregates, you see the five deities and five wisdoms, and so forth. This entire conventional reality disappears to you and you see everything as this divine, holy, reality: a mandala full of buddhas, beauty, and bliss, so it becomes impossible to do anything other than to spontaneously radiate your buddha nature that was always already there, fully developed, into form bodies, interfacing with that same nature in all beings. Please pardon my devotion to Dölpopa, and my belief that he has the definitive view of the Buddha here. But if enlightenment isn't this, but is some sort of "conventional-reality-without-any-imputed-concepts leading to things having a void-like-dreamy-vibe attached to them," that just sounds so bleak. But, of course, to each their own!
Virgo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 4:16 pm
A couple of important points from the discussion thus far:
Let's not forget that these points you've flagged as important have all been readily refuted from the Jonang perspective.
The Dzogchen critique is that the mahāyoga tantras, including Kālacakra, rely on relative nāḍīs, vāyus, and bindus.
The Kālacakra critique of Dzogchen is that it doesn't penetrate the subtle nāḍīs, which makes it a "nominal" completion stage practice, as Tāranātha points out in his critique (
post here). Observing the visions are one thing, dematerializing the entire subtle body into light is another.
...it is a path based on mind and not ye shes..
Kālacakra says the same thing about Dzogchen as I note above. This also has to do with how the two traditions differently define mind and wisdom. For Dölpopa, they are mutually exclusive things and until you still the mind through entering the winds into the central channel, you're not in wisdom. Pointing out instructions are still symbolic and have some subtle conceptuality, as as Tāranātha notes in his critique (
post here).
When we read this text carefully, it does not actually appear to support the idea that the ultimate is empty of the relative.
I pointed to the Mathes article that assesses Tāranātha's argument favorably. Stearns' Buddha from Dölpo has additional material that's precedent on how Dölpopa interprets the three natures. He amasses a huge amount of support in his Mountain Doctrine, as you can read in Hopkins' translation of it. Any interested party can read these sources for themselves rather than taking my word or Malcolm's word for it. But, again, as I've said above, this isn't something that keeps any Jonangpa up at night. Dölpopa isn't telling us how to read books, he's telling us how the Buddhas see reality.
Given how few enlightened teachers have explained how reality appears from the perspective of enlightenment, there's something worth listening to about Dölpopa's view. He wasn't sitting around making philosophical arguments with gzhanstong. In fact, his initial realization of it shocked and humbled even himself and he attributed them in part to the good blessings of building the beautiful Jonang stupa per the Kālacakra. When gzhanstong first arose in his mind, he kept it quiet for years until he had absolute certainty and had fully realized Kālacakra enlightenment.
Alas, my share of good fortune
may be so inferior,
but I think a discovery such as this
is good fortune.
Is this discovery by a lazy fool
due to the blessing of the Kalkī emperor?
...
I prostrate, bowing to all masters,
buddhas, and kalkīs, by whose kindness
the key points that are difficult
for even the exalted ones to realize
are precisely realized, and to their great stūpa.
Given that I don't know any other historical teachers who have really put into words how the world appears upon enlightenment, and built a darśana around it, I wouldn't discard Dölpopa's words. But I obviously have a lot of devotion to him, so if his words doesn't work for you, no problem. 84,000 doors and all