On Nirvana

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Vajrasvapna
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 1:45 pm

Re: On Nirvana

Post by Vajrasvapna »

asunthatneversets wrote: Of course there are certian Yogācāra tenets that Dzogchen implements in its system such as eight consciousness model, but when it comes down to the view in principle one can also say that Dzogpachenpo closely resembles the Madhyamaka view (not in praxis, but in principle).

The two quotes you posted above for Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are not all that different since the "ground" (or rather, 'basis') which is mentioned in the Dzogchen quote is original purity... a principle which is also referenced in the Madhyamaka quote: "...both in their true nature are originally pure."
I agree with your assertion. The view of Dzogchen is in harmony with the vision of both schools, Madhyamakha and Yogacara. The essence of Buddha-nature, as explained by Mipham Rinpoche, is the union of emptiness and luminosity. In the teachings of the second turned, the Buddha taught the principle of sunyata, while in the third, the Buddha-nature: luminosity.
The separation between emptiness and luminosity is what makes the tendencies of nihilism and eternalism arise.

My view is that Madhyamaka and Yogacara teachings are complementary, not contradictory, and the view of Dzogchen is their union. The teachings of Yogacara offer a better explanation of how the unenlightened mind can be transformed into enlightened mind:
"Enlightenment consists in bringing the eight consciousnesses to an end,replacing them with enlightened cognitive abilities (jñāna). Overturning the Basis turns the five sense consciousnesses into immediate cognitions that accomplish what needs to be done (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna). The sixth consciousness becomes immediate cognitive mastery (pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna), in which the general and particular characteristics of things are discerned just as they are. This discernment is considered nonconceptual (nirvikalpa-jñāna). Manas becomes the immediate cognition of equality (samatā-jñāna), equalizing self and other. When the Warehouse Consciousness finally ceases it is replaced by the Great Mirror Cognition (Mahādarśa-jñāna) that sees and reflects things just as they are, impartially, without exclusion, prejudice, anticipation, attachment, or distortion." http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro.html

Two books that I recommend about the subject:
Rangtong & Shentong Views http://amzn.com/B00506TUWS and Luminous Heart http://amzn.com/B0028ADJKS
"People these days use whatever little dharma they know to augment afflictive emotion, and then engender tremendous pride and conceit over it. They teach the Dharma without taming their own minds. But as with a river rock , not even a hair’s tip of benefit penetrates the other people. Even worse, incorrigible people [are attracted] to this dharma that increases conflict. When individuals who could be tamed by the Dharma encounter such incorrigible, their desire for the sacred Dharma is lost. It is not the fault of the Dharma; it is the fault of individuals." Machik Labdron prophecy.
krodha
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: On Nirvana

Post by krodha »

Aside from adopting a few tenets from Yogācāra you really will not find very many teachers asserting that the view of Dzogchen and Yogācāra are agreeable. You will however see many masters advocate for the similarities in view between Dzogchen and Prasanga Madhyamaka... even Bönpo lamas go with Prasangika Madhyamaka as a proper equivalent in the context of fundamental view when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.
User avatar
Vajrasvapna
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 1:45 pm

Re: On Nirvana

Post by Vajrasvapna »

asunthatneversets wrote:Aside from adopting a few tenets from Yogācāra you really will not find very many teachers asserting that the view of Dzogchen and Yogācāra are agreeable. You will however see many masters advocate for the similarities in view between Dzogchen and Prasanga Madhyamaka... even Bönpo lamas go with Prasangika Madhyamaka as a proper equivalent in the context of fundamental view when it comes to Dzogpachenpo.
Both books I recommended support a different view on Madhyamakha and Yogacara. Which text and which source you are using as the basis for your argument?

I think the big mistake of some Buddhist scholar is to believe that the teachings of Yogacara are contradictory to the teachings of Madhyamakha; but if this is true, for what reason we have Nagarjuna's collection of praises, an expression of the teachings of the third Turning?

My opinion is that all Buddhist philosophies are incomplete and are not able to express the Buddha-nature, for it is simply beyond expression.
You supported the vision of Prasangika school. Despite the logic of reducing to absurdity is special, it takes the impression that the Buddha nature is equal to nothing; but if it is equal to nothing, for what reason so many positive qualities of enlightened beings arise? Then you have a contradiction.

Finally, Dzogchen is not comparative with the logical method of sutras, but the vision is no different. As Manjusrimitra beautifully says:
"3. The Supreme Path of Direct Recognition
19 The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought.
20 Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into.
21 It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte(adikarmika).
22 Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher
and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guruji."
"People these days use whatever little dharma they know to augment afflictive emotion, and then engender tremendous pride and conceit over it. They teach the Dharma without taming their own minds. But as with a river rock , not even a hair’s tip of benefit penetrates the other people. Even worse, incorrigible people [are attracted] to this dharma that increases conflict. When individuals who could be tamed by the Dharma encounter such incorrigible, their desire for the sacred Dharma is lost. It is not the fault of the Dharma; it is the fault of individuals." Machik Labdron prophecy.
krodha
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: On Nirvana

Post by krodha »

Vajrasvapna wrote:Both books I recommended support a different view on Madhyamakha and Yogacara. Which text and which source you are using as the basis for your argument?
Numerous texts, don't have them on hand at the moment.
Vajrasvapna wrote:I think the big mistake of some Buddhist scholar is to believe that the teachings of Yogacara are contradictory to the teachings of Madhyamakha; but if this is true, for what reason we have Nagarjuna's collection of praises, an expression of the teachings of the third turned?
Not the same Nāgārjuna. But even then I don't see the text you are referencing as relating to Yogācāra.
Vajrasvapna wrote:My opinion is that all Buddhist philosophies are incomplete and are not able to express the Buddha-nature, for it is simply beyond expression.
Yes every system agrees that the unenumerated ultimate is beyond expression.
Vajrasvapna wrote:You supported the vision of Prasangika school. Despite the logic of reducing to absurdity is special, it takes the impression that the Buddha nature is equal to nothing;
Prasangika does not state that one's nature is 'nothing'. It simply says the ultimate is the non-arising of the relative.
Vajrasvapna wrote:but if it is equal to nothing, for what reason so many positive qualities of enlightened beings arise?
Well positive qualities are merely conventional for one, and secondly those qualities can only occur in the first place because that nature lacks inherency.
Vajrasvapna wrote:Then you have a contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
Vajrasvapna wrote:Finally, Dzogchen is not comparative with the logical method of sutras, but the vision is no different.
Right, the praxis is different, the view of the ultimate is the same as that found in the prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
Vajrasvapna wrote:As Manjusrimitra beautifully says:
"3. The Supreme Path of Direct Recognition
19 The direct, hard to understand, subtle field of knowing, the Great Path, is non-conceptual (akalpana), and entirely beyond the grasp of intellectual thought.
20 Divorced from verbal ideation, it is difficult to point out and as difficult to enquire into.
21 It cannot be communicated through words and [therefore] is not within the scope of the neophyte(adikarmika).
22 Nevertheless the path is to be approached through studying scriptures (sutra) of the World-Teacher
and following the personal instructions (upadesa) of one's Guruji."
Which apart from the principle of direct introduction is really no different than how the ultimate view is portrayed in any system of the buddhadharma.
User avatar
Vajrasvapna
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri May 03, 2013 1:45 pm

Re: On Nirvana

Post by Vajrasvapna »

asunthatneversets wrote: Numerous texts, don't have them on hand at the moment.
I also offered some texts which supports my points. Some quotes to support myself:
"As Mipham Rinpoche states, to believe that tathagatagarbha is a substantially existent thing would contradict the teachings of both Nagarjuna and the Prajnaparamita Sutras. From Mipham’s perspective, there is no contradiction between tathagatagarbha and Nagarjuna’s teachings; nor is there any contradiction between the teachings of Asanga and Nagarjuna; nor is there a contradiction between Rangtong and Shentong schools of thought. The great masters simply emphasized different aspects of the nature. The Nyingma school combines these various schools of thought without any contradiction or hardship." Opening the Wisdom Door of the Rangtong and Shentong Views - Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche, Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche

"in certain parts of the eastern as well as the Western academic traditions, the Yogācāra School has often been neglected or misrepresented, usually in favor of assigning the “pole position” among Buddhist schools to madhyamaka (in particular, to its Prāsaṅgika brand). There are many reasons for this, but two of the main ones are (1) making superficial and out-of-context judgments based on a unidimensional understanding and discussion of what seem to be stereotypical “buzz words” (such as cittamātra) and (2) not treating the concepts and explanations of Yogācāra in their own terms, but looking at them
through the lenses of other philosophical systems." Luminous Heart: The Third Karmapa on Consciousness, Wisdom, and Buddha Nature - Karl Brunnholzl

asunthatneversets wrote: There is no contradiction.
You did not follow my logic, a contradiction occurs only in a case of misinterpretation.
"People these days use whatever little dharma they know to augment afflictive emotion, and then engender tremendous pride and conceit over it. They teach the Dharma without taming their own minds. But as with a river rock , not even a hair’s tip of benefit penetrates the other people. Even worse, incorrigible people [are attracted] to this dharma that increases conflict. When individuals who could be tamed by the Dharma encounter such incorrigible, their desire for the sacred Dharma is lost. It is not the fault of the Dharma; it is the fault of individuals." Machik Labdron prophecy.
silver surfer
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: On Nirvana

Post by silver surfer »

I find it quite funny, when people confidently talk or assert an idea about something they don't know about. Nibbana is beyond theories, and intellect. As far as I know, it's knowable, understandable as an object, but not thinkable.

And about the quote;
Nibbana does not exist when there's no arahant or buddha in the world to experience it
IF (A) Nibbana does not exist when there's no arahant or buddha in the world to experience it
THEN (B) Nibbana is subjective, a psychological phenomenon

IF (B) Nibbana is subjective, a psychological phenomenon
THEN (C) Nibbana is a mental fabrication, which being dependent on another cannot be permanent

IF (C) Nibbana cannot be permanent
THEN (D) There's no true liberation from suffering
Really silly, this is. It's like saying there is no ocean if there are no rivers flowing towards it, isn't it? The reality of the ocean would not be affected by any river nor stream. So you're either ignorant of Nibbana, or not. It won't affect what's actuality/reality, it'll only affect the subject.

Is Nibbana is a psychological phenomenon - of course it is. What is the word "psychology" anyway? Isn't it just a name which turns into an idea in someone's head? In reality, you don't have to name things, you just know them as they really are.

PS: Nibbana is unconditional, and without Nibbana, you'll keep having individual existence as never-ending a continuum, as you're still mentally part of conditionality and causality. So as long as the heart is craving illusionary individual existence, it'll have it.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”