Clarification on Nyingma view of emptiness

[ThreeVows]

Where does he say this is a mandala of deities?

That statement was not specific to Dzogchen. However, using Barron’s translations, Longchenpa says,

The Prasangika system expounds the very highest view of all the cause-based dialectical approaches.

He then says,

The inner approach of the secret mantra is remarkably superior to the outer dialectical approach.

He says things like,

For those involved in the dialectical approach, the view is simply that of emptiness free of conceptual elaboration; they do not realize the indivisible truth that abides primordially as the nature of deity and mantra. Those of the mantra approach do realize this.

or

In the dialectical approach, the principle of enlightened form signifies nothing more than the illusory nature of sensory appearances, as well as positive behavior through ordinary physical activities. The mantra approach is superior in that the secret of enlightened form signifies the perfection of the world of all appearances and possibilities as deities and immeasurable mansions, and the ordinary body as a mandala, with such techniques as mudras and dance incorporated into the path.

Now, you might counter that this is all mahayoga level, not dzogchen, which to some extent is somewhat fair. But it’s also not entirely fair I think. The essence of the deity is realized as being basically indivisible from all appearances in dzogchen without any contrivance. The whole isle is realized as gold. It’s not just that someone talks about gold while they experience shit, it’s that there is nothing but gold to be found - this is the essential nature of the deity.

Even what might be called ‘ordinary appearances’ are realized as gold. They do not remain ‘ordinary’ in a sense that one has some conceit of being a dzogchenpa and one is so smart and all stays ordinary in some sort of shitty way - it’s more that the ordinary is realized as gold. There is nothing else to be found, in the three times.

This is essentially the realization of the ultimate deity, with all phenomena being the mandala of the deity. This is not a specific, contrived visualization but is rather simply the truth.

Basically. Written on my phone, pardon mistakes.

[ThreeVows]

"... what is important here is understand... that when the sense fields are laid to rest in their ground in Longde's practice of Dzogchen, then this luminosity is not neutral. It's completely and perfectly divine. It is brilliant wonderment and bliss beyond any imagining.

If one practices Dzogchen without the proper foundation in Ngondro and Generation Phase and Completion Phase, then one's Dzogchen practice tends to become a kind of dry, aloof, untouchability. One may really become an asshole Dzogchenpa in that fashion, filled with the conceit of conceptual enlightenment. If you are actually practicing Dzogchen, then mind becomes utterly pure and radiant and one recognizes all of appearance as divine wonderment, unbearable in its blissful quality. When there is no concept to solidify and make the sense perception rigid and false, then its immediate moment enhances and always points to the true nature of perception, which is the luminosity of awareness. This is called rangbop in Tibetan. 'Rang' meaning the self-nature of awareness, 'bop' to settle in. And so, this is what Milarepa is saying in the line that says, "Awareness is luminous, in its depths it is bliss."

[Kai lord]

Now, you might counter that this is all mahayoga level, not dzogchen, which to some extent is somewhat fair.

Most people forget that Guhyagarbha Tantra, the root tantra of Mahayoga, actually contains a chapter on Dzogchen. Guru Rinpoche wrote a commentary on that chapter.

[ThreeVows]

One other thing, at the risk of over-speaking:

This system of the natural great perfection's usual manner of evaluating freedom from extremes, and so on, is the same as prasaṅga madhyamaka. The difference is that in madhyamaka an emptiness that is considered to be like empty space is made into the basis, whereas here, naked, originally pure vidyā—neither provable nor negatable—made into the basis. All the phenomena that arise from that [basis] are evaluated to be liberated from extremes, like space.

Generally speaking I think you could say that prasangika madhyamaka is unsurpassed when it comes to this particular function. It is basically the terminal point of analysis of the mind. There is nothing beyond it, in terms of this analysis.

And yet, the vajrayana isn't entirely about 'the mind' in this sense.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche says, basically, paraphrased from memory, that the 2nd turning is sort of half-relative, half-ultimate. I think the relative aspect is basically the orientation of the mind that culminates in the terminal approach of prasangika madhayamaka dialectics. This is like if you were in some big room, and there were many doors, and all of the doors got closed except for one, single door, the only door that actually led out of the room. Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing. And the realization of suchness, which is the vajra, is that which is through that door. Vajrayana proper is founded on this. This is the ultimate aspect of the 2nd turning.

But anyway, in terms of 'evaluating freedom from extremes', there is nothing better. It is the great sharp sword that liberates.

[Kai lord]

Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing.

If that is the case, then Bhāvaviveka, Asanga, etc, wouldn't have attained Arya bodhisattvahood.

[ThreeVows]

Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing.

If that is the case, then Bhāvaviveka, Asanga, etc, wouldn't have attained Arya bodhisattvahood.

No, I don't think that is necessarily the case. The essential point has to be assimilated, which can be done in a non-analytical manner as well, and one can still discuss other things. Dudjom Rinpoche for instance discusses how there is basically a lower and higher mode of understanding mind-only, and the intention of Asanga and Nagarjuna are aligned in truth. But I don't know that I have the capacity to discuss this precisely at this time, so I won't try overly hard.

[Malcolm]

One other thing, at the risk of over-speaking:

This system of the natural great perfection's usual manner of evaluating freedom from extremes, and so on, is the same as prasaṅga madhyamaka. The difference is that in madhyamaka an emptiness that is considered to be like empty space is made into the basis, whereas here, naked, originally pure vidyā—neither provable nor negatable—made into the basis. All the phenomena that arise from that [basis] are evaluated to be liberated from extremes, like space.

Generally speaking I think you could say that prasangika madhyamaka is unsurpassed when it comes to this particular function. It is basically the terminal point of analysis of the mind. There is nothing beyond it, in terms of this analysis.

And yet, the vajrayana isn't entirely about 'the mind' in this sense.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche says, basically, paraphrased from memory, that the 2nd turning is sort of half-relative, half-ultimate. I think the relative aspect is basically the orientation of the mind that culminates in the terminal approach of prasangika madhayamaka dialectics. This is like if you were in some big room, and there were many doors, and all of the doors got closed except for one, single door, the only door that actually led out of the room. Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing. And the realization of suchness, which is the vajra, is that which is through that door. Vajrayana proper is founded on this. This is the ultimate aspect of the 2nd turning.

But anyway, in terms of 'evaluating freedom from extremes', there is nothing better. It is the great sharp sword that liberates.

I don’t find evaluating Dharma in terms of the three turnings to be useful—there is no agreement on it among different scholars. For example, as I read the sole brief passage the doctrine is based on, it defines the third as merely a reemphasis of the second.

[Malcolm]

"... what is important here is understand... that when the sense fields are laid to rest in their ground in Longde's practice of Dzogchen, then this luminosity is not neutral. It's completely and perfectly divine. It is brilliant wonderment and bliss beyond any imagining.

If one practices Dzogchen without the proper foundation in Ngondro and Generation Phase and Completion Phase, then one's Dzogchen practice tends to become a kind of dry, aloof, untouchability. One may really become an asshole Dzogchenpa in that fashion, filled with the conceit of conceptual enlightenment. If you are actually practicing Dzogchen, then mind becomes utterly pure and radiant and one recognizes all of appearance as divine wonderment, unbearable in its blissful quality. When there is no concept to solidify and make the sense perception rigid and false, then its immediate moment enhances and always points to the true nature of perception, which is the luminosity of awareness. This is called rangbop in Tibetan. 'Rang' meaning the self-nature of awareness, 'bop' to settle in. And so, this is what Milarepa is saying in the line that says, "Awareness is luminous, in its depths it is bliss."

This is a quote from whom?

Needless to say, there is no need for two stages in Dzogchen.

[Kai lord]

Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing.

If that is the case, then Bhāvaviveka, Asanga, etc, wouldn't have attained Arya bodhisattvahood.

No, I don't think that is necessarily the case. The essential point has to be assimilated, which can be done in a non-analytical manner as well, and one can still discuss other things. Dudjom Rinpoche for instance discusses how there is basically a lower and higher mode of understanding mind-only, and the intention of Asanga and Nagarjuna are aligned in truth. But I don't know that I have the capacity to discuss this precisely at this time, so I won't try overly hard.

The Chinese account of Asanga story (by Xuanzang?) is particularly interesting, it in particular states that Asanga attained the first bhumi or path of seeing after hearing a discourse on Madhyantavibhaga, Verses Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes, from Maitreya.

[Malcolm]

Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing.

If that is the case, then Bhāvaviveka, Asanga, etc, wouldn't have attained Arya bodhisattvahood.

No, I don't think that is necessarily the case. The essential point has to be assimilated, which can be done in a non-analytical manner as well, and one can still discuss other things. Dudjom Rinpoche for instance discusses how there is basically a lower and higher mode of understanding mind-only, and the intention of Asanga and Nagarjuna are aligned in truth. But I don't know that I have the capacity to discuss this precisely at this time, so I won't try overly hard.

Dudjom’s arguments about an inner madhyanaka are not convincing, partially predicated as they are on a mangled citation from Bhavaviveka that does not mean what he takes it to mean

[ThreeVows]

One other thing, at the risk of over-speaking:

This system of the natural great perfection's usual manner of evaluating freedom from extremes, and so on, is the same as prasaṅga madhyamaka. The difference is that in madhyamaka an emptiness that is considered to be like empty space is made into the basis, whereas here, naked, originally pure vidyā—neither provable nor negatable—made into the basis. All the phenomena that arise from that [basis] are evaluated to be liberated from extremes, like space.

Generally speaking I think you could say that prasangika madhyamaka is unsurpassed when it comes to this particular function. It is basically the terminal point of analysis of the mind. There is nothing beyond it, in terms of this analysis.

And yet, the vajrayana isn't entirely about 'the mind' in this sense.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche says, basically, paraphrased from memory, that the 2nd turning is sort of half-relative, half-ultimate. I think the relative aspect is basically the orientation of the mind that culminates in the terminal approach of prasangika madhayamaka dialectics. This is like if you were in some big room, and there were many doors, and all of the doors got closed except for one, single door, the only door that actually led out of the room. Prasangika Madhyamaka is the doorway to the realization of the path of seeing. And the realization of suchness, which is the vajra, is that which is through that door. Vajrayana proper is founded on this. This is the ultimate aspect of the 2nd turning.

But anyway, in terms of 'evaluating freedom from extremes', there is nothing better. It is the great sharp sword that liberates.

I don’t find evaluating Dharma in terms of the three turnings to be useful—there is no agreement on it among different scholars. For example, as I read the sole brief passage the doctrine is based on, it defines the third as merely a reemphasis of the second.

I'm aware that you don't find that to be useful, but this is a thread on the Nyingma view, and generally speaking the great Nyingma masters do indeed discuss the three turnings. Longchenpa for example is quite clear, as is Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, and others.

By and large I'm not exactly talking to you to be honest.

As for the statement from the Samdhinirmocana, obviously it is listed twice, the wording is the same, and yet it says that the second is surpassable and the third is not. I think many might more or less simply say that either you get it or you don't. It is perhaps self-secret in the same manner as other things. FWIW, I think proper discernment of the third turning is identical to the realization of the path of seeing. The second turning sort of includes this, but it can also be understood in an intellectual manner without this discernment. That is the relative orientation of the mind - basically the mind that goes towards cutting off all of the doors, but that does not actually walk through the door.

The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness. As Dilgo Khyentse says, the third turning is entirely ultimate, not half-relative. This is the discernment of the Vajra.

A couple of quotes from Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche:

In the first turning of the wheel, at Vārāṇasī, he taught the Four Noble Truths common to both Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna.

In the second, at Rājagṛiha, or Vulture Peak, he expounded the Mahāyāna teachings on absolute truth — the truth devoid of characteristics and beyond all conceptual categories. These teachings are contained in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra in One Hundred Thousand Verses.

The third turning of the wheel, at several different times and places, was devoted to the ultimate teachings of the Vajrayāna, or adamantine vehicle.

and

In the first Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, he taught relative truth; in the second, a blend of relative and absolute truth; and in the third, the ultimate, irrevocable truth.

[ThreeVows]

Dudjom’s arguments about an inner madhyanaka are not convincing, partially predicated as they are on a mangled citation from Bhavaviveka that does not mean what he takes it to mean

Arguing with you is mostly a fool's game, but generally speaking I think Dudjom Rinpoche is more of an authority than you are.

Otherwise, I think I will probably cease with this game at the moment.

[Sonam Gyalmo]

Dudjom’s arguments about an inner madhyanaka are not convincing, partially predicated as they are on a mangled citation from Bhavaviveka that does not mean what he takes it to mean

Arguing with you is mostly a fool's game, but generally speaking I think Dudjom Rinpoche is more of an authority than you are.

Otherwise, I think I will probably cease with this game at the moment.

But it's against the law for M to he wrong, so I look forward to his return fire!

[Malcolm]

The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness.

Agreed, so is the second, but the Buddha had to repeat himself because folks were not getting it. However not every sutra called “third turning” can be regarded as definitive.

[krodha]

The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness.

Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra:

• Suchness empty of suchness is the emptiness of suchness. Whatever is emptiness, that is suchness. There is no emptiness apart from suchness. Suchness is emptiness, emptiness is suchness.

[natusake]

The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness.

Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra:

• Suchness empty of suchness is the emptiness of suchness. Whatever is emptiness, that is suchness. There is no emptiness apart from suchness. Suchness is emptiness, emptiness is suchness.

Seems to be well outside of any sort of idea of a blank void that we often see Mahayana accused of, even in Dzogchen texts.

[Malcolm]

Dudjom’s arguments about an inner madhyanaka are not convincing, partially predicated as they are on a mangled citation from Bhavaviveka that does not mean what he takes it to mean

Arguing with you is mostly a fool's game, but generally speaking I think Dudjom Rinpoche is more of an authority than you are.

It is quite unlikely Dudjom Rinpoche tracked down the exact source of the citation in Bhavya’s text I discuss below. Certainly the translator could not find it. I did find it, and explained it here on thus forum ten years ago.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 65#p184765

[krodha]

The third turning proper is unsurpassed as it is the discernment of suchness.

Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra:

• Suchness empty of suchness is the emptiness of suchness. Whatever is emptiness, that is suchness. There is no emptiness apart from suchness. Suchness is emptiness, emptiness is suchness.

Seems to be well outside of any sort of idea of a blank void that we often see Mahayana accused of, even in Dzogchen texts.

Yeah the occasional accusations of śūnyatā being an inert void really just amount to polemical puffery at the end of the day.

[Lingpupa]

Dudjom’s arguments about an inner madhyanaka are not convincing, partially predicated as they are on a mangled citation from Bhavaviveka that does not mean what he takes it to mean

Arguing with you is mostly a fool's game, but generally speaking I think Dudjom Rinpoche is more of an authority than you are.

It is quite unlikely Dudjom Rinpoche tracked down the exact source of the citation in Bhavya’s text I discuss below. Certainly the translator could not find it. I did find it, and explained it here on thus forum ten years ago.

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 65#p184765

The problem you have introduced here arises because you claim that Dudjom’s arguments are predicated on what you assert to be a mangled citation. I have neither the resources nor the skill to check whether your claim there makes sense, so, provisionally at least, let's assume that it does. But "predicated on"?

Referring to the Big Red Book, and specifically not to the translator's introduction where neither Bhavaviveka nor Bhavya are mentioned at all, but to Dudjom's actual contents on pp. 178-186, as far as I can see there is no citation from either Bhavaviveka or Bhavya at all. There is just a passing reference to him (excuse absence of diacritical marks here) along with, firstly Nagarjuna and Asanga, going on to to say "similarly explained by" Ratnakarasanti, Bhavya, Atisa et al.

The suggestion that Dudjom’s arguments, which are developed with the use of citations from a number of sutras and other treatises, depend on one citation - a "citation" that is not even actually cited - and are therefore undermined, is thus inconsequential to the extent that it effectively vanishes. It shifts the issue from that of views about shentong, rangtong and so on to a question about a minute pebble in someone else's shoe - someone who is not even in the room.

[ThreeVows]

The suggestion that Dudjom’s arguments, which are developed with the use of citations from a number of sutras and other treatises, depend on one citation - a "citation" that is not even actually cited - and are therefore undermined, is thus inconsequential to the extent that it effectively vanishes. It shifts the issue from that of views about shentong, rangtong and so on to a question about a minute pebble in someone else's shoe - someone who is not even in the room.

It is utterly comical to consider that a terton’s understanding and realization of the dharma has anything to do with such a quotation.