Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Simple_Jack]

I'm not jumping through any hoops. I really think that when you post on here you should discount the idea that you understand anybody else's position or reason's for what they say. You clearly don't have any ability in this respect .. hence I suspect the lengthy quotes of others that you usually go in for.

 

Like when I quote Loppon-la? I do it so TI won't accuse me of making stuff up, which benefits everyone, therefore I quote him whenever there's an opportunity.

 

What they propose is that a mind freed from subject object transforms into wisdom, and if this wisdom does not really exist, liberation is impossible. In order for this wisdom to exist, then the mind out of which wisdom is transformed necessarily must exist. Yogacara thus becomes a non-dual realist system. This is not simply a prasanga disctinction -- this is a universal mahdyamaka charge against the treatises of yogacara.

 

As an aside, what the Madhyamakas are trying to explain to the Yogacarin is that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

 

The issue has been, as always, whether post-Yogacara Madhyamakas like Bhavaviveka were justified in their critiques of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu.

 

It is clear that after the attacks of Bhavaviveka and so on on the Yogacara school, that there was a response which involved a) altering the Perfection of Wisdom in 25 and 18 thousand lines with the addition of the Maitreya chapter in order to b} provide justification of the reworking the three nature model.

 

Basically, we can identify three phases of Yogacara: the sutra period, original commentatator period, and the post-Madhyamaka response period.

 

What we observe in period two is trenchent attacks by Asanga in particular on the austerity of the perfection of wisdom vision and a concern that it lead to a form of annihilationism.

 

What we observe in period three is a revamping of Yogacara, recasting the three natures in terms of the two truths.

 

This latter phase represents a defeat for the Yogacara system in general, since the three natures are completely unnecessary given the presentation of two truths. However, late Yogacarin partisans managed to communicate their ideas to Tibet, and since the time of Dolbupa, centuries of followers of gshan stong have been seriously confused about what the actual teaching of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu might have been, especially as this has been conflated with the tathagatagarbha theory.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

Edited August 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Like when I quote Loppon-la? I do it so TI won't accuse me of making stuff up, which benefits everyone, therefore I quote him whenever there's an opportunity.

 

What they propose is that a mind freed from subject object transforms into wisdom, and if this wisdom does not really exist, liberation is impossible. In order for this wisdom to exist, then the mind out of which wisdom is transformed necessarily must exist. Yogacara thus becomes a non-dual realist system. This is not simply a prasanga disctinction -- this is a universal mahdyamaka charge against the treatises of yogacara.

 

As an aside, what the Madhyamakas are trying to explain to the Yogacarin is that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

 

The issue has been, as always, whether post-Yogacara Madhyamakas like Bhavaviveka were justified in their critiques of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu.

 

It is clear that after the attacks of Bhavaviveka and so on on the Yogacara school, that there was a response which involved a) altering the Perfection of Wisdom in 25 and 18 thousand lines with the addition of the Maitreya chapter in order to b} provide justification of the reworking the three nature model.

 

Basically, we can identify three phases of Yogacara: the sutra period, original commentatator period, and the post-Madhyamaka response period.

 

What we observe in period two is trenchent attacks by Asanga in particular on the austerity of the perfection of wisdom vision and a concern that it lead to a form of annihilationism.

 

What we observe in period three is a revamping of Yogacara, recasting the three natures in terms of the two truths.

 

This latter phase represents a defeat for the Yogacara system in general, since the three natures are completely unnecessary given the presentation of two truths. However, late Yogacarin partisans managed to communicate their ideas to Tibet, and since the time of Dolbupa, centuries of followers of gshan stong have been seriously confused about what the actual teaching of Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu might have been, especially as this has been conflated with the tathagatagarbha theory.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Why not stop quoting and write from your own opinion/experience. Reminds me of fundamentalist preachers who beat people over the head with a bible.

[GrandmasterP]

Well Jack's comment that...

"Not the case at all. The Karma Kagyu (or shentong view for that matter) does not have a monopoly on Vajrayana. Arguments between shentong and rangtong are irrelevant when considering that Mahamudra is the definitive view and path for the Sarma schools. "..

Clinched it for me.

Argument over as far as I can see.

 

Edited August 10, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[ralis]

Is this the Kalu Rinpoche you are talking about?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalu_Rinpoche

 

And Sarah Hardiing?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Harding_(lama)

 

It would seem so.

 

Wow, you sure met some controversial figures back then...

 

 

That is correct. I didn't meet Kalu Rinpoche, before he passed on, but I used to hang out with Sarah and the rest of the Dharma bums who lived at the Kagyu center. I spent many days and nights meditating in the Stupa.

 

http://nobletruth.org/

 

 

[C T]

Like when I quote Loppon-la? I do it so TI won't accuse me of making stuff up, which benefits everyone, therefore I quote him whenever there's an opportunity.

 

.............908..................

~ Loppon Namdrol

If you are so adamant at quoting this chap at least be respectful enough to use the name he is currently using. I mean, you are aware that he no longer wants to be associated with the icky history of that 'name', don't you? Or am i missing something here?

[Simple_Jack]

Reminds me of fundamentalist preachers who beat people over the head with a bible.

 

I will continue to beat people over the head with quotes from Loppon-la for as long as I post on TTB's. Everyone will learn about Buddhism that way.

 

Well Jack's comment that...

"Not the case at all. The Karma Kagyu (or shentong view for that matter) does not have a monopoly on Vajrayana. Arguments between shentong and rangtong are irrelevant when considering that Mahamudra is the definitive view and path for the Sarma schools. "..

Clinched it for me.

Argument over as far as I can see.

 

That was a crude summary, since Sutra Mahamudra is the perfection of wisdom teachings wrapped up in the tantras and dohas of the mahasiddhas. Tantra Mahamudra is the path of the two stages (which the result of is Mahamudra), while Essence Mahamudra is equivalent to direct introduction, being a cig car method of sudden awakening.

[Tibetan_Ice]

SJ

GMP is being facetious

 

 

It's when we get sick of reading those evangelical fundamentalist Buddhist posts on TTB.

Buddhists aren't like that hence my conclusion that those who post that sickening bilge aren't Buddhists at all.

[steve]

That is correct. I didn't meet Kalu Rinpoche, before he passed on, but I used to hang out with Sarah and the rest of the Dharma bums who lived at the Kagyu center. I spent many days and nights meditating in the Stupa.

 

http://nobletruth.org/

 

 

 

That is one psychedelic stupa!

I've never been in one but this reminds me of Alex Grey's Chapel of Sacred Mirrors.

Beautiful photo.

PS - the younger Kalu Rinpoche has some very insightful teachings online...

In fact, he denounces a lot of the BS that rubs you the wrong way, rails.

I imagine you've checked out some of his stuff?

Edited August 11, 2014 by steve

[Simple_Jack]

SJ

GMP is being facetious

 

This calls for a quote by Loppon-la:

 

The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation.

 

The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considered extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise.

 

The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view.

 

As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference.

 

The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness.

 

The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces.

 

It is exactly emptiness precisely in the fashion that I described it, even in Dolbuwa's presentation.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Edited August 11, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

 

I will continue to beat people over the head with quotes from Loppon-la for as long as I post on TTB's. Everyone will learn about Buddhism that way.

 

<snip>

 

You're correct.

 

I've discovered that the versions of Buddhism espoused by most (if not all) of the lamas that I've encountered (or that have been recommended), people like the repeatedly banned alwayson (aka RongzomFan, Paul, Adinatha, etc.) and a few others is a complete waste of time.

 

I've also found that it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with these people in a spirit of mutual respect, tolerance and inquiry.

 

Furthermore, it's been an extremely useful and clear illustration of how a living teacher's words are turned into useless dogma by the followers who didn't/don't get it.

 

Finally, I've also learned a great deal about the workings of internet fora - their strengths and their weaknesses - and, not surprisingly, I've seen illustrated, over and over again, the central importance of clear rules, boundaries and principles enforced by strict moderation - as in real world interactions.

 

Keep up the good work Jack - it serves as the clearest illustration that exists on TTBs.

[Simple_Jack]

Right back at ya, buddy. If you want to learn about Buddhism heed Greg Goode's advice and put down the neoadvaita:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/page-24#entry527249

 

Greg Goode wrote:

Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

Right back at ya, buddy. If you want to learn about Buddhism heed Greg Goode's advice and put down the neoadvaita:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33591-the-superiority-of-tantra-to-sutra/page-24#entry527249

 

Greg Goode wrote:

Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and experientially through meditation.

 

I'm not your buddy Jack.

 

And I made it clear that I think that Greg has made a fundamental error in describing nirvikalpa samadhi (enlightenment/a full glimpse of the Truth) as a state.

 

Had he seen it for himself, he would have realised beyond any possibility of doubt that it is not a state.

 

 

Oops

 

Now there's something else that needs to be corrected:-

 

The Direct Path is about anatta very directly and if that's not clear then there's a big problem.

 

I was concerned about that when I corresponded with Greg about nirvikalpa samadhi, especially as Sri Krishna Menon specifically refers to that in his teachings.

 

I became even more concerned about it when I read page 171 of The Direct Path - a User Guide, which is simply incorrect.

 

It is however correct to say that you certainly should not mix and match from the two teachings (Emptiness and Direct Path Advaita). Even within the Direct Path teachings there are different methods (prakriyas) and Sri Atmananda stated specifically that no attempt should be made to reconcile them, although it is possible so to do.

 

I think that I'm being entirely fair about this despite considering Greg to be a friend and an all-around extremely decent guy. The interesting thing is that although I consider that he has a phenominal philosophical understanding of Atmananda Krishna Menon's writings and I found him extremely helpful in clearing up a couple of technical points during our correspondence, I believe that he hadn't realised nirvikalpa samadhi for himself at the time of writing The Direct Path - A User's Guide.

 

And, for the umpteenth time, I'm a traditional advaitin, (and a traditional Buddhist ) not a neoadvaitin, as you well know.

 

Attempting to misrepresent me as a neoadvaitin is not only technically incorrect but it also serves to highlight my point and that of other posters (that you're just parrotting without any real understanding of Tibetan Buddhism).

 

And I'd just add, for the sake of clarity about my position on Tibetan Buddhism, that having dipped into The Kunjed Gyalpo and Yeshe Lama, I'm not arguing that there's no value in these teachings (however, they'd need to be taught in person from a position of freedom - or read from a position of freedom).

 

From that perspective, I can understand the underlying reasons for restricting these texts - just as the heirs of Krishna Menon and his son Srii Adwayanada (K Padmanabha Menon) have restricted Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvriti in an attempt to prevent the spread of confusion about those teachings.

[goldisheavy]

"The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness."

 

I don't like this formulation of the pitfall, because it's too theoretical. What's the practical implication? What can those people who haven't fallen into the pitfall do that those who have fallen into the pitfall cannot? That's what needs to be made clear. If there is no practical difference, then there is little point in such abstract distinction.

 

The whole point of the mind-only doctrine is to alter the quality of one's experience in a fundamental way. Since the mind is ultimately a capacity rather than some object, mind-only is already perfect from the start, and that's why it's been preached in the semsde series of Tantras to begin with. There was never a strict need to correct such exposition or improve it, but nonetheless Tibetans went ahead and improved it with the further cycles of Dzogchen Tantras.

 

The whole point of the mind-only doctrine is to foster mental flexibility in the context of confidence. Madhyamaka has a flaw in that it doesn't develop confidence, since it appears to deny the mind's existence by relying on reason, which is a quality of the mind. This is why Madhyamaka is best suited for debates as opposed to meditation and/or yoga. In yoga you're not trying to win a debate, and so the conceptual cleanliness of Madhyamaka is pointless, since you're not doing yoga to impress others with your conceptual cleanliness.

 

To do yoga properly you need confidence and certainty, as opposed to vacuous abstractions. Ordinary source of confidence is convention, which is no good for yoga. Both mind-only and madhyamaka uproot convention, however madhyamaka leaves one confused in the end, with nothing to lean on. This only appears like a good thing to those who prize conceptual cleanliness or a conceptual roundness and smoothness. But yoga is not just some ball of concepts. In the course of yoga practice you need to learn mental flexibility. You need confidence to succeed. Confidence cannot be given by hazy concepts which don't even appear to dismantle physicalism/convention strongly, and madhyamaka is so refined that I've seen many people claim to be prasangikas while still fully clinging to physicalism at the same time, which is amazing, and is evidence of how pitiful madhyamaka is in practice. All these doctrines are skillful means as Namdrol said. And Madhyamaka is pitiful because its pursuit of absolute smoothness and perfect symmetry in its conceptual outline is wasted on most people. In other words, madhyamaka is generally not helpful and not skillful.

 

Understand that your mind exists as a capacity primordially. It has no starting point. It has no ending point. Understand that all that you know and experience are states of mind. Understand that all is conditioned by volition. From this point forward, develop more and more mental flexibility, continually seeking to recover more and more primordial freedom. That's the path of simplicity and confidence. You don't take what I say here into a debate. You use it for yoga. If you want to debate with chuckleheads, feel free to use Madhyamaka to win arguments. When you retreat back to your own space, drop Madhyamaka and use mind-only doctrine for actual practice. That's my advice. Basically Madhyamaka is for others. Mind-only is for oneself. Madhyamaka is public. Mind-only is intimate. That's the distinction.

[Apech]

What an excellent post. Just some points for further clarification.

 

I don't like this formulation of the pitfall, because it's too theoretical. What's the practical implication? What can those people who haven't fallen into the pitfall do that those who have fallen into the pitfall cannot? That's what needs to be made clear. If there is no practical difference, then there is little point in such abstract distinction.

The supposed refusal of either eternalist or nihilist positions is I think actually part of a more general project of refusing to take any position at all. What comes across to many as a kind of cop out but I believe when first used by Nagarjuna was a method for freeing up people from the natural tendency to seek out and settle on some kind of 'arche' or first principle which made them feel more secure. I think he wanted them to be insecure (in a sense) that is unfettered by the need to fix on some albeit transcendent or universal thing as the big IT.

 

The whole point of the mind-only doctrine is to alter the quality of one's experience in a fundamental way. Since the mind is ultimately a capacity rather than some object, mind-only is already perfect from the start, and that's why it's been preached in the semsde series of Tantras to begin with. There was never a strict need to correct such exposition or improve it, but nonetheless Tibetans went ahead and improved it with the further cycles of Dzogchen Tantras.

I don't know about all Tantras but its seems to me the one's I am familiar with rely on the wisdom-mind being inherent in the natural state. Without that confidence then it would be difficult to achieve success.

 

The whole point of the mind-only doctrine is to foster mental flexibility in the context of confidence. Madhyamaka has a flaw in that it doesn't develop confidence, since it appears to deny the mind's existence by relying on reason, which is a quality of the mind. This is why Madhyamaka is best suited for debates as opposed to meditation and/or yoga. In yoga you're not trying to win a debate, and so the conceptual cleanliness of Madhyamaka is pointless, since you're not doing yoga to impress others with your conceptual cleanliness.

 

To do yoga properly you need confidence and certainty, as opposed to vacuous abstractions. Ordinary source of confidence is convention, which is no good for yoga. Both mind-only and madhyamaka uproot convention, however madhyamaka leaves one confused in the end, with nothing to lean on. This only appears like a good thing to those who prize conceptual cleanliness or a conceptual roundness and smoothness. But yoga is not just some ball of concepts. In the course of yoga practice you need to learn mental flexibility. You need confidence to succeed. Confidence cannot be given by hazy concepts which don't even appear to dismantle physicalism/convention strongly, and madhyamaka is so refined that I've seen many people claim to be prasangikas while still fully clinging to physicalism at the same time, which is amazing, and is evidence of how pitiful madhyamaka is in practice. All these doctrines are skillful means as Namdrol said. And Madhyamaka is pitiful because its pursuit of absolute smoothness and perfect symmetry in its conceptual outline is wasted on most people. In other words, madhyamaka is generally not helpful and not skillful.

 

The power of the Madhyamaka view is that it is inherently logical and thus irrefutable by intellectual analysis. It is a skillful way of attack on the tendency of the mind to try to fix things for the purpose of ego security. I don't see a great deal of difference to this refusal to hold on to any reified substance or subject and 'the Tao which cannot be named'.

 

Understand that your mind exists as a capacity primordially. It has no starting point. It has no ending point. Understand that all that you know and experience are states of mind. Understand that all is conditioned by volition. From this point forward, develop more and more mental flexibility, continually seeking to recover more and more primordial freedom. That's the path of simplicity and confidence. You don't take what I say here into a debate. You use it for yoga. If you want to debate with chuckleheads, feel free to use Madhyamaka to win arguments. When you retreat back to your own space, drop Madhyamaka and use mind-only doctrine for actual practice. That's my advice. Basically Madhyamaka is for others. Mind-only is for oneself. Madhyamaka is public. Mind-only is intimate. That's the distinction.

 

I find that the more you progress with vajrayana through actual practice and less through reliance on book learning the more mind-only you become. Why? Because you are relating to something real I suppose. That realisation opens up the significance of the words in an unexpected way ... as in ah! that's what they meant! ... and that meaning is never the one you thought it was.

[Simple_Jack]

I don't like this formulation of the pitfall, because it's too theoretical. What's the practical implication? What can those people who haven't fallen into the pitfall do that those who have fallen into the pitfall cannot? That's what needs to be made clear. If there is no practical difference, then there is little point in such abstract distinction....

 

The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them.

 

But the view of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Mahāmadhyamaka are not partial at all since they are based on direct [yogic] perception of reality.

 

But the Buddhist view is not actually a verbal construct, and for that matter neither is Buddhist awakening.

 

For example, one needs only to understand the dependent nature of afflictions to become a stream entrant and so on, becoming free of the fetters. This does not require elaborate philosophy. It merely requires confidence in the teaching of dependent origination and the four truths of nobles.

 

Likewise, for the realization of emptiness on the path of seeing, one simply has to reflect on the absence of extremes (for a very long time, albeit), as Shantideva states, "when neither an entity or a non-entity remain before the mind, at the time, the mind is pacified", and this too is an experiential view.

 

In the case of Vajrayāna, the view, such as it is, is based on the experience of the example wisdom at the time of direct introduction or the third and fourth empowerments. Unfettered equipoise in the mind essence, or "ordinary awareness" is the view of Vajrayāna.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

[Simple_Jack]

"The mind is no-mind. The nature of the mind is luminosity."

~ Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra

[goldisheavy]

The supposed refusal of either eternalist or nihilist positions is I think actually part of a more general project of refusing to take any position at all. What comes across to many as a kind of cop out but I believe when first used by Nagarjuna was a method for freeing up people from the natural tendency to seek out and settle on some kind of 'arche' or first principle which made them feel more secure. I think he wanted them to be insecure (in a sense) that is unfettered by the need to fix on some albeit transcendent or universal thing as the big IT.

 

So (supposedly) an irrefutable view of Madhyamaka is not a security honeypot for the ego? This must be a joke.

 

I don't know about all Tantras but its seems to me the one's I am familiar with rely on the wisdom-mind being inherent in the natural state. Without that confidence then it would be difficult to achieve success.

 

Indeed. Read something like "Buddhahood without Meditation" which is from a later cycle, and you can see mind-only all over it. The mind-only language always sneaks back in. There is no need to be ashamed or to avoid it.

 

The power of the Madhyamaka view is that it is inherently logical and thus irrefutable by intellectual analysis. It is a skillful way of attack on the tendency of the mind to try to fix things for the purpose of ego security. I don't see a great deal of difference to this refusal to hold on to any reified substance or subject and 'the Tao which cannot be named'.

 

It's not logical inherently. It appears logical. There is nothing that is inherently so, remember? LOL

 

Ego security? So a view that supposedly cannot be assailed in a debate has nothing to do with ego security? Do I get this right?

 

I find that the more you progress with vajrayana through actual practice and less through reliance on book learning the more mind-only you become. Why? Because you are relating to something real I suppose. That realisation opens up the significance of the words in an unexpected way ... as in ah! that's what they meant! ... and that meaning is never the one you thought it was.

 

I don't know about "never." There can be some surprises, sure.

Edited August 11, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

The function of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, Perfection of Wisdom is to transcend limitations, not to stay bound in them.

 

But the view of Dzogchen, Mahāmudra and Mahāmadhyamaka are not partial at all since they are based on direct [yogic] perception of reality.

 

But the Buddhist view is not actually a verbal construct, and for that matter neither is Buddhist awakening.

 

For example, one needs only to understand the dependent nature of afflictions to become a stream entrant and so on, becoming free of the fetters. This does not require elaborate philosophy. It merely requires confidence in the teaching of dependent origination and the four truths of nobles.

 

Likewise, for the realization of emptiness on the path of seeing, one simply has to reflect on the absence of extremes (for a very long time, albeit), as Shantideva states, "when neither an entity or a non-entity remain before the mind, at the time, the mind is pacified", and this too is an experiential view.

 

In the case of Vajrayāna, the view, such as it is, is based on the experience of the example wisdom at the time of direct introduction or the third and fourth empowerments. Unfettered equipoise in the mind essence, or "ordinary awareness" is the view of Vajrayāna.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Namdrol could never win a debate with me. There is little point in posting his words. If Namdrol wants to try his hand, he can show up here and do so himself.

[asunthatneversets]

So (supposedly) an irrefutable view of Madhyamaka is not a security honeypot for the ego? This must be a joke.

Anything can be turned into a security honeypot for grasping and identification if related to in an unskilled way. Most every Buddhist view has safeguards put in place to avoid errors of that nature as much as possible.

 

Madhyamaka avoids this error with the two-truths. The analytical view is always a conventional relative, while the direct unenumerated and solely experiential recognitions and realizations are the ultimate truth. So from the very beginning the analytical meditations are presented as provisional means which if applied correctly will lead to experiential realizations, and in that sense grasping at the conventional view as having ultimate validity (outside of its application) is really pointless.

 

These systems are conscious of this, for instance Nāgārjuna states that emptiness is the cure to all views, and therefore those who turn emptiness into a view are incurable.

[goldisheavy]

Anything can be turned into a security honeypot for grasping and identification if related to in an unskilled way. Most every Buddhist view has safeguards put in place to avoid errors of that nature as much as possible.

 

Madhyamaka avoids this error with the two-truths.

 

 

On the contrary. The two truths doctrine, which by the way Dzogchen rejects, is a trap because it robs the person of confidence. Under the influence of the two truths doctrine the person continues to cling to convention and fears entering extraordinary states of experience (mind).

[steve]

On the contrary. The two truths doctrine, which by the way Dzogchen rejects, is a trap because it robs the person of confidence. Under the influence of the two truths doctrine the person continues to cling to convention and fears entering extraordinary states of experience (mind).

Maybe a little strong to say that "Dzogchen rejects" the two truths.

Dzogchen allows that the two truths are a part of the "lesser" stages but, from the perspective of the natural state, the two truths are irrelevant - subsumed might be a better word perhaps. I also would disagree with the perspective that they rob the person of confidence.

I think they give us confidence to work with our relative reality as much as necessary and work toward union with the absolute as possible.

[asunthatneversets]

Indeed. Read something like "Buddhahood without Meditation" which is from a later cycle, and you can see mind-only all over it. The mind-only language always sneaks back in. There is no need to be ashamed or to avoid it.

There are no Yogācāra views expounded in snang byang. Dzogchen may adopt certain Yogācārin principles such as the eight-consciousness model, however the Dzogchen view is its own and is not Yogācāra.

[goldisheavy]

Maybe a little strong to say that "Dzogchen rejects" the two truths.

Dzogchen allows that the two truths are a part of the "lesser" stages but, from the perspective of the natural state, the two truths are irrelevant - subsumed might be a better word perhaps. I also would disagree with the perspective that they rob the person of confidence.

I think they give us confidence to work with our relative reality as much as necessary and work toward union with the absolute as possible.

 

This is like saying that clinging to a mommy's leg gives one confidence to run freely.

[goldisheavy]

There are no Yogācāra views expounded in snang byang. Dzogchen may adopt certain Yogācārin principles such as the eight-consciousness model, however the Dzogchen view is its own and is not Yogācāra.

 

Weird that you think the clumsy eight consciousness model is what Dzogchen teachings borrow. Splitting the mind into eight distinct consciousnesses is probably the worst aspect of yogacara.

 

The main point of yogacara is to point the mind back to itself. In simple terms, the practitioner should seek to understand the power of one's own mind. Holding different kinds of worldviews confidently is part of the mind's power. Each worldview generates a different kind of realm. Doing this unconsciously and through clinging is samsara. Understanding this power and regulating one's own worldview accordingly is nirvana.

Edited August 11, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

On the contrary. The two truths doctrine, which by the way Dzogchen rejects, is a trap because it robs the person of confidence.

Dzogchen rejects the analytical praxis championed by Madhyamaka and does not agree that the two-truths is an accurate title since the relative cannot be considered 'true' in any sense. However ultimately Madhyamaka agrees and fully admits that there are not really two truths.

 

Ergo both agree that the only 'truth' is the unenumerated ultimate, and both accept conventions because otherwise their views could not be communicated, so the only difference is in praxis.

 

Under the influence of the two truths doctrine the person continues to cling to convention and fears entering extraordinary states of experience (mind).

Obviously that is false being that yogins have achieved realization through Madhyamaka analytics which are executed in a proper combination with meditation etc.

 

Really the only issues with Madhyamaka from the standpoint of tantra is that its path takes longer due to relying on the intellect and it does not work with energy.