RongzomFan

The Superiority of Tantra to Sutra

By RongzomFan, in Buddhist Discussion

Recommended Posts

Apech   

Apech
Posted

how long is RongzomFan banned for this time? Hope it wont be too long. :)

 

(sigh)

 

 

Banned means forever ... except some people have returned proving there is life after TaoBums death.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

C T   

C T
Posted

Banned means forever ... except some people have returned proving there is life after TaoBums death.

how long is forever?

 

(more sighing)

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Songtsan   

Songtsan
Posted

I think he just needs a break - he was probably over expressing his Yang function...he is simply not in balance.

 

Like me!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

C T   

C T
Posted

I think he just needs a break - he was probably over expressing his Yang function...he is simply not in balance.

 

Like me!

you do realize growth accelerates thru resistance and greater challenges, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

C T   

C T
Posted

I was responding to your last question ;).

yes, i know...

 

the 'Wha?' is a Chinese expression of surprise. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple_Jack   

Simple_Jack
Posted

In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object. Expositions of the "two truths" are for deluded sentient beings.

That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all.

He absolutely does nail it and his demolition of the false counter arguments is a masterpiece.

 

Nice to see the false premises in todays institutionalised, pseudoacademic "Buddhism" being demolished.

 

Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html

 

Loka Sutta: The World

 

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33577-satipatthana-the-direct-path-to-realization/

 

XI.1 THE SENSE-SPHERES AND THE FETTERS
....According to the discourses, to develop understanding and detach­ment in regard to these six internal and external sense-spheres is of central importance for the progress towards awakening. An impor­tant aspect of such understanding is to undermine the misleading sense of a substantial "I" as the independent experiencer of sense objects. Awareness directed to each of these sense-spheres will re­veal that subjective experience is not a compact unit, but rather a compound made up of six distinct "spheres" each of which is de­pendently arisen.
Each of these sense-spheres includes both the sense organ and the sense object Besides the five physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) and their respective objects (sight, sound, smell, flavour, and touch), the mind (mano) is included as the sixth sense, together with its mental objects {dhamma). In the present context, "mind (mano) represents mainly the activity of thought {mannati). While the five physical senses do not share each other's respective field of activity, all of them relate to the mind as the sixth sense. That is, all perceptual processes rely to some extent on the interpretative role of the mind, since it is the mind which "makes sense" out of the other senses. This shows that the early Buddhist scheme of six sense-spheres does not set pure sense perception against the conceptual activity of the mind, but considers both as interrelated processes, which together bring forth the subjective experience of the world....
....Often these six senses and their objects occur in descriptions of the conditioned arising of consciousness (viniiatia).7 An intriguing as­pect of this conditional situation is the rote that subjective influence plays in the perceptual process * Experience, represented by the six types of consciousness, is the outcome of two determinant influ­ences: the "objective" aspect on the one hand, that is, the in-com ing sensory impressions; and the "subjective" aspect on the other hand, namely, the w ay in which these sense impressions are received and cognized. Supposedly objective perceptual appraisal is in reality conditioned by the subject as much as by the object. One's experience of the world is the product of an interaction between the "sub­jective" influence exercised by how one perceives the world, and the "objective" influence exercised by the various phenomena of the ex­ternal world....
....Although a fetter arises in dependence on sense and object, the binding force of such a fetter should not be attributed to the senses or objects per se. The discourses illustrate this with the example of two bulls, bound together by a yoke. Just as their bondage is not caused by either of the bulls, but by the yoke, so too the fetter should
not be imputed to either its inner or its outer conditions (for example eye and forms), but to the binding force of desire...
....The trends that set in with the vortical interplay between consciousness and name-and-form, continue through the subsequent links of the formula of Dependent Arising. The six sense-spheres bifurcate themselves precipitating a dichotomy of an 'internal' and an 'external' with its concomitant notions of a 'here' and a 'there', Contact, in a specific sense, is a sequel to this very dichotomy. It implies a principle of discrimination between two things and consciousness fulfils this condition, “Dependent on the eye and forms, friends, there arises eye-consciousness, a coming together of the three is contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” (M. I. 111. Madhupindika S.). The canonical simile of the friction between two sticks illustrates this aspect of contact. With feeling, the split in experience becomes sufficiently palpable as to call forth the notion: 'I am'. “Where, friend, there is no feeling at all, would there be any such notion as: 'I am' ?” “There would not, Lord." (D.II 67. Mahànidàna S.). The discriminative function of consciousness is seen here in the form of distinguishing three feeling-tones and hence sometimes one finds consciousness itself being defined in terms of knowing discriminatively (vijànàti) the three grades of feeling -- 'pleasant' (sukha), 'unpleasant' (dukkha) and 'neither unpleasant-nor-pleasant' (adukkhamasukha). Out of this discrimination there arises craving (or 'thirst') for the pleasant and consequently, a reaching-out --a 'grasping'-- for the same. In the process of 'grasping' there is involved a kind of 'projection' of desires (cf.`nati' -- inclination, bent) whereby the split in experience widens into a definite gap between a subject and an object. `Becoming' or `existence' is the make-believe attempt to bridge this gap which, however, forever remains unabridged, for the material on which it relies is perpetually crumpling up underneath.
^^^^^
This is the principle of dependent origination which forms the basis for buddhadharma.
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

themiddleway   

themiddleway
Posted

Another point of view from http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/dharma-as-mental-event.html Dharma as mental event

dharma.gifThe earliest strands of Buddhism seem to avoid any ontological speculation, and dharma - in the sense of the object of manas - has no particular status viz a viz reality. Indeed I'm not convinced that they even thought in terms of 'reality'. However over the years dharma did take on an ontological cast. So much so that Nāgārjuna spends much of his important work the Mūlamadhyamaka Kārikā(MMK) demolishing the idea. In this essay I attempt to show the progress of this change. Dharma as mental object is the most important and characteristically Buddhist use of the word dharma, but it perhaps the most difficult to translate. Some of the definitions of the philosophical term 'qualia' might fit, and 'noeta' has been suggested though choosing Latin terms is not always helpful to an English speaker. To render it 'things' is misleading in my view, and 'mental objects' is inelegant. In fact many authors leave dharma untranslated in this case.

 

Why should the word find an application in this sense? To answer this we need to take a step back and reconsider the Buddhist view of consciousness (Sanskrit vijñāna; Pāli viññāṇa). Consciousness is always 'consciousness of ', the Buddha did not allow for a free floating entity called consciousness that was waiting to be aware of something (see JR: What is Consciousness?) - consciousness is dependently arisen, and this is the most important application of the principle of conditionality. In particular consciousness arises in dependence on contact between a sense organ and a sense object. Particularly with reference to the mental sense (manas) the object is called 'a dharma' - and this specifically includes the information garnered from the other five senses. So a sight object gives rise to sight consciousness, but this sight consciousness in turns becomes the object of the mind sense, it is itself a dharma. As we've seen over the past two weeks the primary meaning of dharma is foundation. Here the dharma acts as a 'foundation' to vijñāna since vijñāna arises in dependence (in part at least) on sense objects. We can see, then, that dharma in this sense is related to words for cause (hetu, paccaya) and condition (nidāna, upanisa, bandhu).

 

Now the main interest in the early suttas is on vijñāṇa not on dharmas; that is, on the subjective pole of experience rather than the objective. So for instance the processes which enable us to have experiences - the five skandha (P. khandha) - are mentioned frequently and treated quite exhaustively. The nature of dharmas is only given cursory attention if any. The reasons for focusing on the mind are pragmatic because it is the insights into the functioning of mind that are liberate us.

 

However, the lack of definite statements about dharmas in the suttas left a lacuna that became very attractive to a certain type of mind - and unfortunately they were frequently the same people who preserved the texts and were the chief textual authorities and exegetes.

 

The first step was the abhidharma. Abhidharma is an interesting word. PED gives 'special dhamma' as it's chief sense, but under abhi- they say the primary meaning is "that of taking possession and mastering" which suggests that its meaning would be impossible to guess from the etymology (which is not uncommon). What the abhidhamma is, is an analysis of the Buddhadharma and in particular of the dharmas themselves in the sense I am exploring now. The abhidharmikas were concerned with identifying the types and categories of dharmas both mental and physical, and the interactions between them in creating consciousness. I must confess at this point that I have never really studied abhidharma, and don't have much interest in it. Presumably the original intent grew out of injunctions in meditation texts such as the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta to observe the arising and passing and away of dharmas. However the subtle shift of the attention from the moon to the finger meant that the dharmas themselves, rather than their contingency per se moved into focus, and this seems to me to be a fundamental error.

 

Another issue which has plagued Buddhism presumably from the moment the Buddha died is whether it is possible for any of us to have the experience he had. While he was alive to say yes he seems to have inspired huge confidence. I presume that the shift to the view (exemplified in Peter Masefield's flawed work Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism [1]) which says that without the physical presence of a Buddha awakening is not possible was a gradual giving way to pessimism, rather than a sudden collapse of confidence. However one of the motivations, as I understand it, behind the abhidharmika's efforts was to understand awakening - to intellectually keep the possibility of liberation alive.

 

In the abhidharma the idea of what a dharma is begins to take on form. Scholars are quick to point out that they do not see a definite ontology here. [2] It is not that the abhidharmika's set out to establish the nature of a dhamma, but in creating their lists of dharmas they provided an opening for those with a more ontological bent. What they do is create finitelists which they present as exhaustive - there are these kinds of dharmas and no more. That the different abhidharmikas came up with overlapping but often quite different list tells us much in retrospect. The definiteness of these lists was problematic. By the time of the commentarial tradition in 5th century Sri Lanka a dharma has become a thing - which may well be why this is the favoured translation of dhamma in contemporary times.

 

The various early schools of Buddhism (the tradition records eighteen names) each had their own collections of suttas, their own vinaya, and their own abhidharma. Since the sutta collections vary mostly in how they are arranged it is presumed that these stem from a common stock [3]. Each surviving vinaya shows a little more variation - especially in the number of pratimokṣa rules and in how elaborated is their account of the Buddha's life. Each abhidharma however has a significantly different take on the subject - though of course all shared a method and aimed at the same goal.

 

The Sarvāstivādin abhidharmikas seem to have gone further down the ontological road than any other Buddhist groups. Their very name means 'everything exists' (sarva asti). They held dharmas to be substantially existing elements of reality. Just how far they gave strayed from the Buddha's teaching is brought into focus when one considers that Nāgārjuna is thought by some scholars to have written his stark and decisive polemic, Mālamadhyamika Kārikā (MMK), in response to the Sarvāstivādins. [4] Amongst other aims Nāgārjuna comprehensively dismantles the twin notions of existence and non-existence. Neither apply. If Nāgārjuna appears nihilistic it is perhaps because he was writing against a pernicious form of eternalism. In any case we can read MMK as an attempt to wrestle Buddhism back on track - away from any interest in the nature of reality, and back to an interest in the nature of experience. It is terms of experience, not in terms of mysticism or paradox, that we need to understand that 'things' neither exist nor non-exist, because those 'things' are our mental processes which have no ontological status, no substantial being. Indeed in what sense canany process be said to 'exist'?

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

idiot_stimpy   

idiot_stimpy
Posted

The magic show of the natural state is immutable reality,

the reality that includes both polluted and pristine;

just as the internal space of both clay and golden vessels,

whether damaged or intact, neither increases or decreases,

so in moments of both delusion and freedom,

reality itself remains nonjudgmental constant.

This is buddha-mind in its natural state of being,

and knowing this one is truly wise

 

- Maya Yoga by Keith Dowman pg67

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple_Jack   

Simple_Jack
Posted (edited)

In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object.

That's the irrelevant bit of the whole thing. What difference does any of that make at all.

He absolutely does nail it and his demolition of the false counter arguments is a masterpiece.

 

Nice to see the false premises in todays institutionalised, pseudoacademic "Buddhism" being demolished.

 

Perhaps it will lead to a renaissance of the actual teachings.

 

This is also an inherent feature in the Dzogchen tantras, but Dzogchen dispenses with the "two truths" model altogether, and instead explains the difference in terms of vidya [rigpa] vs. avidya [marigpa]:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/

 

A tantra called Uprooting Delusion from the dgongs pa zang thal cycle provides the following description:

 

The way sentient beings arise:

that nameless general ground,

is non-conceptual and not established at all,

invisible and unclear, from which

when the bifurcation occurs,

since vāyu, vidyā, and space separate, [3/b]

the intrinsic sound of the elements produces vibration.

From the inside of the darkness of the clear part of appearances,

as soon as a storm of fire emerges,

scattering everywhere,

Vidyā, like the mind of a lunatic,

is dazed and reeling.

Since vidyā lacks confidence in its own appearances,

it panics at sound, is frightened of rays,

and through awareness not taking its own place,

the ignorance that arises simultaneously with it

is called “the causal ignorance.

 

Because of a lack of mindful attention,

self and other are grasped as a duality,

and both outer and inner dependent origination occur.

The whole universe arises

through awareness looking externally.

All sentient being arise

through awareness looking internally.

Through looking there, fearful appearances arise,

through looking here, ‘self’ arises.

Many mistakes arise from the single mistake

about the appearances of here and there.

Because of being mistaken about a self, there is a mistake about other,

attachment to self, aversion to other.

From the seed of attachment and aversion,

the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes.

Because one is held as two, [4/a]

that is called the delusion of dualistic grasping.

Since one imputed and mistook outer and inner,

that is called “the imputing ignorance”.

Because of familiarity of subject and object of that,

from the thick buildup of traces,

there was entrance into the state of samsara.

That is how the six migrations occurred.”

...the String of Pearls states:

 

Having been gripped by the apprehender and apprehended

in the aggregates, elements and gateways,

one remains in samsara itself for a long while,

within the belly of the three realms

one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]

bound by the chains of ignorance,

covered with dense black darkness of samsara,

attached to the spicy taste of passion,

one is bound by the noose of confusion,

tormented by the hot fire of hatred,

one’s head is covered by pride,

the gates of jealously are locked,

surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,

tied about the neck with the noose of apprehender and apprehended,

stuck in the swamp of past traces,

one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,

the mother of karma is joined with her child,

one following the other just like a water wheel,

alternating between good and bad bodies,

born in different forms,

and through heightening one’s self-grasping

one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering,

one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies,

one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions.

Fire appears as water to hell beings,

as hunger and thirst to hungry ghosts,

as fog to animals.

the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,

those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,

as weapons and armor to asuras,

and as desirable things to gods.

For example, just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel

one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.

Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope

since what isn’t there is held to be there,

both the outer and inner container and contents form,

and if that is investigated, it is a rope,

i.e. the container and contents are already empty

the ultimate with the form of the relative."

 

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.

 

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 not 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 wisdoms and only displays as 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.

Edited by Simple_Jack
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple_Jack   

Simple_Jack
Posted (edited)

Another point of view from http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/dharma-as-mental-event.html Dharma as mental event

 

Loppon-La, has explained a number of times, that Dzogchen cosmology is identical to the cosmology laid out in the abhidharma-kosha, with the exception that it is from the POV of Dzogchen hermeneutics.

 

This is also an inherent feature in the Dzogchen tantras, but Dzogchen dispenses with the "two truths" model altogether, and instead explains the difference in terms of vidya [rigpa] vs. avidya [marigpa]...

 

Posts from Loppon Namdrol explaining the view of co-dependent arising and its relation with the 'basis' of Dzogchen:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=420

 

... All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause....

 

Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.

 

Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,

 

Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."...

 

Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.

 

If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=440

 

This occurs because of latent traces of karma and affliction left over from the previous eon, according to a commentary attributed to Garab Dorje on the Single Son of All the Buddhas Tantras.

 

So this neutral awareness that rises out of the basis upon the stirring of vāyu in the basis actually has a cause.

 

Amazing!

Mere clear vidyā, this mere intermediate realization,

it is not a buddha, is not a sentient beings,

neutral, dependent on both conditions.

For example, it is like a stainless crystal ball,

which can produce fire or water through the condition of the sun or the moon.

Likewise, vidyā, the essence of the mind,

arises as the suffering of samsara or the bliss of nirvana through conditions.

 

The Three Kāyas Tantra from the Ka dag rang shar...

 

The basis does not have a cause, just like space does not have a cause. But it is a repository for the build up of traces nevertheless.

 

The way samsara arose at first is, when the trio of vāyu, vidyā and space arose from the undifferentiated basis, since vidyā was unstable because of isolation, and engaged in self-delusion, panicked at sound, frightened of the light, and fainted at the light and was covered by ignorance. After it engages in self-delusion, the duality of outer objects and inner mind arises. The mere thought of self arising from other, and other arising from self, disturbed the karmavāyus. Mind is built up by the vāyu, the analytical mind analyzes objects. The self-deluded awareness demarcated sensation and since it did not recognize it own appearances, apparent objects were apprehended as a duality. Since that accumulated traces of karma, a physical body was appropriated and the suffering of delusion is uninterrupted. For example, sentient being formed out of ignorance are like being stuck pitch dark.

 

The Clear Lamp from the Ka dag rang shar

 

The whole process is clearly personal and individual, not transpersonal....

 

Space is a repository for all things, one does not have to reify space to understand that.

 

"Rang byung ye shes" means "wisdom that arises from oneself". This point is very clearly explained in many places.

 

In any event, we can consider that the Vima Nyinthig commentary attributed to Garab Dorje authoritative:

 

"From now on, the stirred pit of samsara will no appear as the six kinds of living beings. for twenty thousand eons, sentient beings, having severed the stream of samsara, will not appear with a bodily form. After that, from the arising of the subtle latent defilements of different actions, it will be equivalent with the production of the previous samsara and nirvana"

 

Thus we find out that all this business about the basis and so on is really just a way to talk about what happens in the so called dark eons, when everything below the third and fourth rūpadhātu are held to disappear, even though the origin of the basis is often couched in terms to place in an unimaginable primeval beginning.

 

Its a Buddhist way to try to talk about origins without talking about origins. "I can't find where it started so I am going to call it 'self-originated'." But if someone thinks it is pointing to some transcendental uber consciousness, well, if that is what someone thinks, I think someone doesn't really understand Dzogchen at all. If someone thinks the basis is consciousness, or some cognitive or noetic principle, they have understood nothing...

 

Nyibum* states:

 

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

 

The basis is nothing more nor nothing less this.

 

*the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig...

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=460

 

...So basically, all that fancy Dzogchen lingo about the basis and so on is really just talking about a mind stream that is proposed to have a primordial start point which is completely free of proliferation.

 

We can trust Nyibum about this because his father invented/revealed the Nyinthig tradition and he himself was a great scholar who studied widely...

 

It doesn't really mean anything. The continuum of a mind has no beginning. What is being proposed in (some) Dzogchen texts is that at some idealized point in the most distant past beyond our imagination there was a time when our mind was in a state of non-fabrication. At that time this non-fabricated mind, aka the basis, was not aware of itself or anything else but contains within it all the qualities of buddhahood. Then somehow, and it is never really explained how, our own mind's cognitive potentiality [rtsal] stirs and rises up ['phags] out of itself giving rise to neutral awareness that either becomes prajñā or ignorance depending on whether it recognizes its own potentiality or not. This kicks off the division between samsara and nirvana. It is completely personal and is not transpersonal at all. But unfortunately, because Dzogchen texts are not very clear about this, the account of the basis tends to be interpreted transpersonally, most likely due to the proliferation of Advaita.

 

It is my deeply held conviction that this transpersonal account which is favored by many people is a total misunderstanding based on reading these texts in Tibetan for the past 20 years and receiving detailed teachings on them from a variety of very qualified masters....

 

I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing. And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.

 

The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind....

 

So is the basis. They are both dharmas.

 

Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:

 

Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,

there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.

 

An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):

 

Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.

 

In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=480

 

Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception....

 

It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty....

 

The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta....

 

The way that great transference body arises:

when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,

when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about

on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,

the environment and inhabitants of the universe

returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.

One’s body is just a reflection,

self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;

one obtains a vajra-like body.

One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.

The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,

but only the body as it was before...

 

Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi

 

Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings....

 

Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=520

 

The basis, as I have already shown, is just your own clear and empty mind. There is no vidyā apart from your own mind's vidyā....

 

...the neutral awareness that can become vidyā or avidyā comes from the basis. As I said the basis is just your own mind. It is not some unitary ontological basis for everything. If it were, it would be no different than brahman. Say that it isn't sat is no help, since brahman too is considered beyond existence and non-existence. If there is a difference, it is that the basis, one's own mind, is also not established....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=540

 

In the highest Yogacara school, the non-aspectarian school, there is in fact no container universe to reincarnate into since the containers universe is merely a projection of seeds in the ālayavijñāna.

 

Dzogchen does not reject the outer universe in the same. Instead it interprets the pre/non-afflictive states of the five elements as "the five lights". But we can understand that the most subtle form of the five elements exist within consciousness. Wisdom is also just a name for a pre/un-obscured consciousness.

 

The basis is not a universal phenomena. though it is discussed in a manner resembling that for convenience. Each person has their own basis. This is why each person experiences delusion and liberation separately and at different times.

 

Because the basis seems to be discussed as it it were some universal "pleroma", to borrow a phrase from the Gnostics, this causes some people to go off the deep end and conclude it is some universal phenomena out of which everything arises rather than be a quality shared by everything that arises....

 

It is simple: the basis has nothing to do with afflicted mind, the one we ordinarily experience.The two statements may be reconciled in the following way.

 

The basis is simply a way of talking about the components of the universe — earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness — from the point of view their luminous intrinsic purity. A way of saying this in Tibetan in Dzogchen terms would be ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ཀ་དག་དང་ལྷུན་གྲབ (all phenomena are pure and naturally perfect by nature); a gsar ma equivalent presentation might run ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་དག་པ་དང་འོད་གསལ་བ (all phenomena are pure and luminous by nature).

 

The Kalacakra tantra makes a very important point about this, as Tagtshang Lotsawa points out in his survey of the Vimalaprabha:

 

Great bliss and empty forms [śunyatābimba, stong gzugs] are shown to exist in the basis with this wisdom element of the basis [gzhi] because Bhagavan Vajsattva Mahāsukha explains that all three realms exist in oneself in the commentary of the third verse of this [adhyātma] chapter, and it is established through the citation of the root text and commentary of “wisdom merged into emptiness”.

 

What is this wisdom? He again clarifies:

 

Bearing the name “wisdom”, this consciousness that exists pervading the bodies of all sentient beings is merged into that emptiness which pervades all sentient beings, including the sentient beings of the bardo and the formless realm. This is taught in the commentary as existing through a relative mode.

 

In Kalacakra, for example, the wisdom element is considered to be the five elements counted as one. Tatshang again:

 

As such, from among the ten elements, the first five are enumerated individually, i.e., the elements of space, air, fire, water and earth. Counting the latter five as one, since they are made into one so called “wisdom element”, these six elements form this womb-born body.

 

The fact that points towards the same meaning as the basis in Dzogchen is provided by him here:

 

This statement of the root text “Wisdom is merged into emptiness, uniform taste, unchanging, and permanent” is intended for the mind of the apprehending subject that apprehends the object of the empty form established through the power of meditating on the main [devatā]. Here, the meaning of uniform taste, unchanging and permanent are though to be “complete in perfection.” Further, the meaning of permanent is said to be freedom from obscurations. That also intends intrinsically lacking obscuration or without the obscurations of movements. Though there is nothing to identify here in inseparable uniform taste, while produced conditionally, the intention is that the apprehended object and the apprehending subject have a single essence, and that a transforming continuum is not possible.

 

This is an extremely important point and demonstrates why the body of light is possible through either Dzogchen thögal or the path of the two stages.

 

Now, someone might object that it is inappropriate to cite the Kalacakra to clarify points in Dzogchen tantras, but then if this is so, then all great masters from Nubchen on down to Dudjom Rinpoche are at fault for using such tantras as the Mañjuśrīnamasamgiti to clarify Dzogchen....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=580

 

Defining the basis as a sort of fabric out of which appearances arise does not solve the problem of individuated consciousnesses.

 

What is the basis in fact? The Dzogchen tantras describe this as "wisdom". This wisdom is said to have three aspects [rnam pa], original purity, its svabhāva; natural perfection, its prakṛiti; and compassion, the inseparability of the first two.

 

Even discussing wisdom as a the basis, even a nonsubstantiated basis as in Dzogchen does not make sense if that wisdom is not describing a noetic entity. Simplistic solutions like refusing to define it as one or many simply raise more questions than they answer.

 

There are two propositions:

 

B1, the basis as a transpersonal field out of which everything in samsara and nirvana is instantiated through its non-recognition.

 

B2 the basis is meant only to apply to any given sentient beings. Since this applies to all sentient being, here the basis is like fire, fire as light and heat as a quality, every instantiation of fire has light and heat. Likewise, every sentient beings shares common characteristics because they are sentient, they have consciousness.

 

Dante, your position is B1, and while I can understand how people are lead to accept B1 as the message of Dzogchen teachings, it is an exaggeration in my estimation.

 

Instead, I think B2 is the more proper understanding, based for example on Nyibum's remark that the basis is one's unfabricated mind. This is an authoritative citation that must be addressed and heeded. For example, the Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva states:

 

That is one’s own basis but it was not recognized by oneself. The samsaric three realms are formed through delusion. 
Then, after the afflictions become more coarse, different forms of sentient beings emerge, deluded from the basis in that way.”

 

This just means that each and every sentient being is deluded from their own basis; even though the basis is described in generic terms, it is not the case that all sentient beings ultimate share one basis. The basis is uniform in its nature, if you will, among all instantiations of sentient beings but each and every sentient being's basis is unique to that being. Since the Dzogchen tantras do describe wisdom as being a repository for traces, again we can try to explain this through B1 or B2.

 

In the B1 scenario, the basis would have to like a bank, where different people placed their traces, kind of like samsara accounts.

 

A B2 scenario is much simpler, since it is only means that since sentient beings did not recognize their own unfabricated minds, then they begin to develop the traces of action that produce our common karmic visions of the six realms. This is certainly the intent of Shabkar when he writes:

 

Therefore, since appearances are not fixed,

whatever appears [appears] because of the power of traces.

 

And:

 

Therefore, everything is an appearance of the mind.

Since everything is created by the concepts of the mind,

in reality, all of the appearances of the mind are empty.

 

More importantly Shabkar states:

 

Self-originated primordial wisdom appearing as vidyā is also the mind...

There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.

 

And:

 

This is the introduction that confirms the basis,

the natural reality of the mind essence.

 

Compare these last two with Nyibum:

 

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of the sole reality, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom.

(Apologies for the last version, which was from an earlier unedited version by mistake)

 

My present position therefore, is B2, the basis is just the way a sentient being's consciousness [shes pa rather than rnam par shes pa] or mind [sems, citta] is talked about in Dzogchen texts prior to being afflicted for all the reasons I mentioned earlier....

 

....Wisdom is suitable as a basis for traces, or so the Dzogchen texts tell us....

 

Ka dag or emptiness, the correct description of the basis according the the man ngag sde texts. But as pointed out in these same texts, the basis is not merely emptiness. It also has "wisdom" (ye shes), which is a kind of shes pa or sems, a primordial or pristine consciousness, as opposed to a rnam shes, an aspected consciousness that possesses concepts.

 

Basically, even though Dzogchen texts describe such a "beginning time", I personally don't believe that there is a start point ever. The description of such a start point is merely a literary device, much as Samantabhadra is a literary device.

 

The five elements are also included in wisdom, etc., so there is no contradiction between saying that the basis is wisdom, and the basis is empty. The problem comes only if one imagines that basis is somehow a unitary entity, a fabric, which provides the basis for the arising of sentient beings and buddhas on an objective level. But if, as I have come to understand, it is not referring to an objective entity or context, then the basis is easily described as a a set of general features which every noetic entity that we call "buddhas" or "sentient being" shares in common as an idealized "initial" set of conditions. The only difference between buddhas and sentient beings then is the extent to which they recognize this set of general features within their own continuums. Hence in this respect the so called original general basis merely describes an abstract set of qualities, but is not itself an instantiation of those qualities in any way. Those qualities are only instantiated in a sattva, a being. In this way the basis is not one, because it is instantiated individually; it is not many because it is a uniform set of qualities that are being instantiated across all beings.

 

This way, the general Buddhist dictum which extends all the way down to Vasubandhu's Kośabhaṣ (and clearly the authors of the Dzogchen tantras were familiar with it because they use the Kośa cosmology in such tantras as the Rigpa Rangshar), matter arises from mind/s. I.e. the order of the arising of matter presented in virtually all buddhist texts is:

 

Consciousness --> space --> air --> fire --> water --> earth.

 

In Dzogchen texts we see an analogous sequence: wisdom --> blue light --> green light --> red light --> white light -- yellow light; which when reified becomes the standard Buddhist sequence above. The only difference between the two sequences is that the former sequence occurs when the latter sequence is not recognized for being what it is, the display of a given being's own noetic capacity....

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=600

 

...since this ye shes is personal, never transpersonal, and at the time of the basis, is merely describing the mind (shes pa, sems) in a pre-afflictive state.

 

Tibetans translate jñāna as ye shes. That term "ye shes "is frequently translated as "pristine awareness" or "primordial wisdom", etc. I am saying that Dzogchen authors take this term very literally (a literalism criticized by people like Sakya Pandita) because they are taking this mode of shes pa (jñatā, jñānatā, parijñāna, etc.), which they describe as ye shes to mean that the original state (ye nas) of the mind (shes pa) is pre-afflictive, and Dzogchen is the path to recover that primordial state.

 

I am not saying that this consciousness is a universal plenum, like brahman, from which all beings arise; that is exactly the mistake I think most people fall into when studying Dzogchen, i.e. they wind up falling into an unintentional brahman trap.

 

Thus what I am saying is the basis is personal, not universal. Each's being has their own basis since they each have their own mind, the characteristics of the basis (essence, nature and compassion) are general, and apply to all minds, just as all candles on a table are separate and unique, but all flames on those candles bear the same qualities, heat and light.

 

The fault that I suffered from was not seeing the fact that rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā), ye shes (jñāna), shes pa(jñatā) are all talking about one thing, different modalities of a single continuum from sentient being hood to Buddhahood, based on language in man ngag sde texts, reinforced very strongly by Longchenpa, which make a very hard distinction between sems (citta) and yeshe (jñāna) without recognizing the distinction is not in substance, but merely in mode i.e. afflicted/non-afflicted.

 

Really, I am not saying anything that is terribly controversial. I am recognizing that I was mislead by the hard distinction made by Longchenpa and others who, for didactic reasons, make a hard distinction between mind and wisdom when what they are really doing is making a hard distinction between utterly afflicted minds and utterly pure minds, and providing a literary mythology (the universe arises out of the basis) to explain the separation of sentient beings and buddhas.

 

I have similarly come to the conclusion that the account of the basis arising out of the basis and the separation of samsara and nirvana at some imagined start point unimaginable eons ago is just a literary myth, and it does not need to be taken literally.

Edited by Simple_Jack

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple_Jack   

Simple_Jack
Posted (edited)

Posts from Loppon Namdrol explaining the view of co-dependent arising and its relation with the 'basis' of Dzogchen:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=600

 

They are the same thing.

 

And no, I was slightly mistaken before.

 

The reason people see the five lights everywhere they look is that they no longer have traces to reify the five elements as the five elements because their consciousness has become free of all traces of the two obscurations, i.e. with those removed, what remains is wisdom.

 

Of course, there is nothing substantial that is ever removed, from such a mind.

 

Then we gave this from the Rig pa rang shar:

 

Son of a good family, one must recognize the awareness [shes pa] free from grasping as one’s own state.

 

Or the Rang grol:

 

A vidyā that performs actions does not exist

in the essence of pure awareness.

 

Or the Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra has an interlinear note:

 

The nature of one’s vidyā is light. Since kāyas are the gathered in the sphere of wisdom, the meaning of the view of Samantabhadra is realized. Further, there is vidyā and the wisdom that arises from vidyā. Further, vidyā that is free from extremes and beyond multiplicity does not transcend awareness (shes pa) and knowing (rig), endowed with a core of empty wisdom free from the extremes of things.

 

The Sun and Moon Tantra states:

 

At that time, that fortunate one

when the appearances are self-evident,

the non-abiding awareness is called “natural”.

 

Anyway, there are too many references in various Dzogchen texts which state quite clearly that the basis is just one's mind. This is consistent with Buddhadharma. Other explanations are not.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15425&start=620

 

The basis is not the five lights. The five lights are expressions of wisdom.

 

Those all just exist in one's mind, as Shabkar points out.

 

The basis is not something separate from you the person, and it is not some uniform transpersonal field. It is just your own mind and it's essence.

 

By the way, I never thought the basis was a transpersonal field. But have become aware that many people interpret it as such, and therefore, I'm writing to correct this misapprehension.

 

In other words, Dzogchen teachings about the basis are actually "disappointingly" Buddhist and not so radical after all.

Edited by Simple_Jack
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple_Jack   

Simple_Jack
Posted

 

This is also an inherent feature in the Dzogchen tantras, but Dzogchen dispenses with the "two truths" model altogether, and instead explains the difference in terms of vidya [rigpa] vs. avidya [marigpa]:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33574-substance-dualism-in-buddhadharma/

 

...the String of Pearls states:

 

Having been gripped by the apprehender and apprehended

in the aggregates, elements and gateways,

one remains in samsara itself for a long while,

within the belly of the three realms

one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]

bound by the chains of ignorance,

covered with dense black darkness of samsara,

attached to the spicy taste of passion,

one is bound by the noose of confusion,

tormented by the hot fire of hatred,

one’s head is covered by pride,

the gates of jealously are locked,

surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,

tied about the neck with the noose of apprehender and apprehended,

stuck in the swamp of past traces,

one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,

the mother of karma is joined with her child,

one following the other just like a water wheel,

alternating between good and bad bodies,

born in different forms,

and through heightening one’s self-grasping

one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering,

one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies,

one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions.

Fire appears as water to hell beings,

as hunger and thirst to hungry ghosts,

as fog to animals.

the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,

those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,

as weapons and armor to asuras,

and as desirable things to gods.

For example, just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel

one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.

Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope

since what isn’t there is held to be there,

both the outer and inner container and contents form,

and if that is investigated, it is a rope,

i.e. the container and contents are already empty

the ultimate with the form of the relative."

 

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.

 

An improved translation of the above excerpt from The String of Pearls Tantra by Loppon Namdrol

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=15528&start=60

 

As such, the three realms are

the five aggregates, the five sense organs,

the five limbs, the five functional organs,

the five objects, the five afflictions,

the five thoughts, the five minds, the five concepts,

the apprehended objects and apprehending subjects established as samsara [… ]

Caught in the aggregates, sense gates and the sense elements,

the apprehended object and apprehending subject,

samara itself persists for a long while.

One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter

in the castle of the three realms,

tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on,

oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara,

attached to the salty taste of desire,

bound by the neck with the noose of confusion,

burned with the hot fire of hatred,

head covered with pride,

setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy,

surrounded by the army of enmity...

tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b]

stuck in the mud of successive traces

and handcuffed with the ripening of karma.

Having been joined with the ripening of karma,

one takes bodies good and bad,

one after another like a water wheel,

born into each individual class.

Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping,

one sinks into the ocean of suffering

and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms.

One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy.

The body of a hell being appears as fire or water.

Pretas are frightened and intimidated.

There is a fog-like appearance for animals.

The aggregates, sense gates and sense elements

of humans appear as the five elements,

and also happiness, suffering and indifference.

They appear as armor and weapons to asuras

and desirable qualities for devas.

Such dualistic appearances,

for example, are like a quickly moving wheel

spinning continuously for a long while.

As such, diverse appearances

are like seeing a snake from a rope;

that [rope] is not [a snake] but is apprehended as a [snake];

forming as both the outer universe and inhabitants.

If that is investigated, it is a rope.

The universe and inhabitants have always been empty,

the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jetsun   

Jetsun
Posted

~~~~~~~~~ Mod Warning ~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Well, he's an advocate of buddhadharma. He actually practices buddhadharma.

 

I think it's safe to conclude that the same cannot be said of you and yabyum24.

 

Simple Jack this is a warning for a personal insult. Any further insults and you will most probably face a suspension, further action may be taken when the other mods see the reports.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

steve   

steve
Posted

I say just close the thread...

The title itself violates the basic admonition to respect the legitimate paths, teachers, and lineages of others.

It has no place in the Buddhist subform, IMO.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Go To Topic Listing Buddhist Discussion