View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Malcolm
Posts: 41218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Malcolm »

gad rgyangs wrote:
Since the ultimate pervades them without any nature at all, it is contained within each individual consciousness.
this is very different from saying, as you do, that the ultimate is each individual consciousness
I never said that each individual consciousness was ultimate per se. The point is that the ultimate (inseparable luminosity and emptiness) is a generic attribute they all share, in the same way all fires share the generic attribute of heat, and so on, or that each and every entity is empty. As Candra points, all things have two natures, one relative, one ultimate. In Madhyamaka, the ultimate nature of each and everything is emptiness. This is true also in Dzogchen; but in Dzogchen, not only are all minds ultimately empty, they are also ultimately luminous. This inseparable luminosity and emptiness is given the name "one's unfabricated mind" by Vimalamitra, or as Mipham puts it:
  • That basis is originally pure from the aspect of lacking any proliferation, and since it is not solely empty like space, its impartial clarity is naturally perfect without being delimited or falling into extremes. Since it is the source of the appearances of all samsara and nirvana, compassion is said to pervade everything. In the Dharma terminology of the Great Perfection, the pristine consciousness that is said to be three-fold.

    Likewise, in the sūtras and tantras, it called “the dhātu” and “emptiness” from the aspect of the characteristic freedom from all kinds of proliferation that cannot be perceived at all. [4/a] From the aspect of intrinsically radiant (mdangs) clarity it is called “self-originated pristine consciousness.” Since it does not change in aspect, it is called “original mind (sems),” “original mind (yid),” “naturally luminous mind,” “the vajra of mind,” “the vajra of space that pervades space” and so on. Even though there is an explanation with many different names, all of them are not different in meaning than dharmatā of the mind, the nondual dhātu and vidyā, or bodhicitta, the ultimate reality is like a vajra.

    Therefore, since the so called “dharmadhātu” is not understood to be only empty, it is the emptiness that possesses the supreme of all aspects, whole and indivisible from luminosity. Though it is called “self-originated pristine consciousness,” the subjective mind that realizes the emptiness of the duality, and of subject and object, does not know conditioned signs. It is also necessary to understand that such natural clarity does not have an iota of a sign that can be designated as conditioned.

    The bodhicitta mentioned in the mind series of the Great Perfection, the dharmadhātu mentioned in the space series, the self-originated pristine consciousness mentioned in the intimate instruction series, the dharmadhātu mentioned in the Prajñāpāramitā, the original mind mentioned in most of the mantra tantras and so on may have different names by virtue of their purposes, but since the meaning to understand is the pristine consciousness of that meaning which illustrates the union of knowing and emptiness, the reality of all phenomena, it is the original connate pristine consciousness. Since it is naturally settled dharmatā because it is not generated by the traces of transmigration’s three appearances, it is called the great bliss that is free from all pain of transmigration.
Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees
houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things
that common people designate dependent on their parts,
accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

then what is the mereological relationship between the basis of my mind and the basis of your mind?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
Malcolm
Posts: 41218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Malcolm »

gad rgyangs wrote:then what is the mereological relationship between the basis of my mind and the basis of your mind?
Does there have to be one?
Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees
houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things
that common people designate dependent on their parts,
accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:then what is the mereological relationship between the basis of my mind and the basis of your mind?
Does there have to be one?
you're the one positing multiple bases, so how do they relate to each other? or are you willing to just say "reality consists of a bunch of minds" and leave it at that?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
Malcolm
Posts: 41218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Malcolm »

gad rgyangs wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:then what is the mereological relationship between the basis of my mind and the basis of your mind?
Does there have to be one?
you're the one positing multiple bases, so how do they relate to each other? or are you willing to just say "reality consists of a bunch of minds" and leave it at that?
No, not multiple bases, no more than there are multiple heats.

The basis, as we saw above, is just the dharmatā of one's own mind, just as heat is the dharmatā of fire. We don't say of emptiness for example, that there multiple emptinesses for multiple entities, we don't need to say that of the basis either when we understand that the basis is a generic set of attributes for all minds, just as emptiness is a generic attribute of phenomena. We speak of emptiness often without distinguishing whether we mean one emptiness or many emptinesses, because it is understood at the outset that there is no entity "emptiness" that needs to spoken of in plural or singular terms. Likewise, we don't need to speak about the basis in plural or singular terms because we can understand at the outset the term "basis" refers to the dharmatā of the mind, and not some entity out of which minds arise, or in which they are somehow located. Likewise, we discuss fire in terms of heat, we don't say that fires have heats, we merely generically declare that all fires are hot.
Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees
houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things
that common people designate dependent on their parts,
accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

so you are saying that all buddhism has to say about reality is that minds are aware and empty.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
Malcolm
Posts: 41218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Malcolm »

gad rgyangs wrote:so you are saying that all buddhism has to say about reality is that minds are aware and empty.
In so many word, yes. That is all Dharma has to say about reality.

The rest of Dzogchen is an explanation about how minds are deluded, and how they liberate themselves. That's it. The rest is all complicated details.
Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees
houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things
that common people designate dependent on their parts,
accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166
Saoshun
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Saoshun »

gad rgyangs wrote:so you are saying that all buddhism has to say about reality is that minds are aware and empty.
Imagine you heard all eighty-four thousand teachings of Buddha and then contemplated on them. You would find that ultimately there was nothing that needed to be introduced beyond ‘Hitting the Essence in Three Words’. Compare these ‘three words’ to the teachings of a hundred panditas or a thousand siddhas, and there is nothing they can teach you beyond this. The omniscient Longchen Rabjam had realized completely the meaning of the three categories and nine spaces of Dzogpachenpo, and became inseparable from the Primordial Buddha Samantabhadra. Yet suppose you actually met him face to face: there would be nothing he could teach you beyond ‘Hitting the Essence in Three Words’. Rigdzin Jikmé Lingpa, Jikmé Gyalwé Nyugu and all the vidyadharas and masters of the three lineages—they could not possibly teach us anything beyond this one instruction.
[Source:] https://archive.org/details/HittingTheE ... ulRinpoche
Last edited by Ayu on Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Provided source.
mirrormind
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:21 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by mirrormind »

Malcolm wrote:That is all Dharma has to say about reality.

The rest of Dzogchen is an explanation about how minds are deluded, and how they liberate themselves. That's it. The rest is all complicated details.
For a mind that is just empty and aware the experience of something separate and concrete like an individual being must be utterly fascinating and alluring.
You can't think your way out of samsara.
Malcolm
Posts: 41218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Malcolm »

mirrormind wrote:
Malcolm wrote:That is all Dharma has to say about reality.

The rest of Dzogchen is an explanation about how minds are deluded, and how they liberate themselves. That's it. The rest is all complicated details.
For a mind that is just empty and aware the experience of something separate and concrete like an individual being must be utterly fascinating and alluring.
Yup, kicking the chain of dependent origination into high gear.
Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees
houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things
that common people designate dependent on their parts,
accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

ChNNR sez:
those who are interested in the Ati Dzogpa Chenpo teaching and follow its principle must first of all train earnestly in separating nature of the mind, or instant presence, from mind. The principal reason for the need for this separation is to avoid the deviation and error that can occur when most practitioners apply the practice on the path, i.e. that of mistaking experiences such as emptiness or clarity for our real nature.
So: our real nature is beyond emptiness and clarity. That is the basis, and direct knowledge of that is rigpa.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
krodha
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by krodha »

gad rgyangs wrote:ChNNR sez:
those who are interested in the Ati Dzogpa Chenpo teaching and follow its principle must first of all train earnestly in separating nature of the mind, or instant presence, from mind. The principal reason for the need for this separation is to avoid the deviation and error that can occur when most practitioners apply the practice on the path, i.e. that of mistaking experiences such as emptiness or clarity for our real nature.
So: our real nature is beyond emptiness and clarity. That is the basis, and direct knowledge of that is rigpa.
When ChNN says "emptiness" in that context he means gnas pa, which is "non-thought", "stillness" etc.

He doesn't mean emptiness as in śūnyatā [stong pa nyid].
Malcolm
Posts: 41218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by Malcolm »

gad rgyangs wrote:ChNNR sez:
those who are interested in the Ati Dzogpa Chenpo teaching and follow its principle must first of all train earnestly in separating nature of the mind, or instant presence, from mind. The principal reason for the need for this separation is to avoid the deviation and error that can occur when most practitioners apply the practice on the path, i.e. that of mistaking experiences such as emptiness or clarity for our real nature.
So: our real nature is beyond emptiness and clarity. That is the basis, and direct knowledge of that is rigpa.
No, you are confusing the experience of emptiness (just a state of nonconcepuality) and an experience of clarity (which is not the same thing as luminosity) for inseparable clarity and emptiness.

So I think you have not understood this point correctly at all. But please feel free to continue to understand things however you like.
Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees
houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things
that common people designate dependent on their parts,
accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166
krodha
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by krodha »

The three types of phenomena that manifest on the path are non-thought or gnas pa (what Rinpoche has translated as "emptiness"), clarity and bliss.

He is warning not to grasp at that phenomena, or mistake it for something definitive, because doing so will cause one to deviate from the path.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

Malcolm wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:ChNNR sez:
those who are interested in the Ati Dzogpa Chenpo teaching and follow its principle must first of all train earnestly in separating nature of the mind, or instant presence, from mind. The principal reason for the need for this separation is to avoid the deviation and error that can occur when most practitioners apply the practice on the path, i.e. that of mistaking experiences such as emptiness or clarity for our real nature.
So: our real nature is beyond emptiness and clarity. That is the basis, and direct knowledge of that is rigpa.
No, you are confusing the experience of emptiness (just a state of nonconcepuality) and an experience of clarity (which is not the same thing as luminosity) for inseparable clarity and emptiness.
so what you are saying is that when someone perceives emptiness and enters the first buhmi, they are not perceiving emptiness, just non-conceptuality?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
krodha
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by krodha »

The "experience of emptiness" [gnas pa], (which is ChNN's terminology) is just a calm mind with no movement of thought. It is a relative state that can be achieved through śamatha practice and so on.

The "realization of emptiness" [stong pa nyid], that marks the first bhūmi is something completely different.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

the inseparability of clarity and emptiness is not the basis, it is the roadsign pointing to the basis.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
krodha
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by krodha »

gad rgyangs wrote:the inseparability of clarity and emptiness is not the basis, it is the roadsign pointing to the basis.
Stong gsal dbyer med is the definition of the basis.

The basis is the unrecognized nature of mind.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by gad rgyangs »

krodha wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:the inseparability of clarity and emptiness is not the basis, it is the roadsign pointing to the basis.
Stong gsal dbyer med is the definition of the basis.

The basis is the unrecognized nature of mind.
have you experienced any of this or are you just playing with words?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

"I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
- Descartes, 2nd Meditation 25
krodha
Posts: 2610
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: View in Dzogchen and Shaktism

Post by krodha »

gad rgyangs wrote:have you experienced any of this or are you just playing with words?
I don't speak about things I haven't experienced.
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”