No, what harmed you was the bullet.adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.
N
No, what harmed you was the bullet.adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.
One could say that Madhyamka is a part of Dzogchen POV in general and here Kadak in particular. Also as ultimately all is subject to the tetralemma on being, any subject can thus be deferred to that final POV. This is a bit of logical reductionism. To be or not to be! However the view of Dzogchen is believed to be the highest by it's texts and major historic figures above lower yanas as symbolized by the vulture's feathers and they are considered subsets (not arguing if it is so here, just saying what is stated by them inner-textually as so). Finally in my post you see I mention that non-dual is used by tanslators and lamas for various terms. You choose to limit it to gnyis med and it's definition to:Namdrol wrote:username wrote:In translations of texts and by teachers who speak English, non-dual is often used in numerous instances of various methods and view explanations within Dzogchen alone, so it depends on the context and the stage and that particuar teaching. Ultimately view-wise in English texts and teachings it is often used for non-dualness of Kadak-Lhundrob within Dzogchen though each translator or lama has his/her personal choice of words for various occasions.
"Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being.
In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being.
Even when we talk about the inseparability of original purity and natural formation, kadag and lhundrup, this inseparability is actually predicated on the non-duality that I mentioned above. When we talk about freedom from the four extremes, the eight extremes and so on, it is all, in the end predicated on the absence of being and non-being. That absence of being and non-being is the essence of what the term "non-dual" means in Buddhist texts.
It is not a translation or terminology issue, it is just a basic fact of Buddhist view.
N
N
While I am an admirer of your translation as well as Valby's more than anyone else's, both crisp precise and simple yet extremely difficult to achieve, I can't believe any other translator limits the use of non-dual only to gnyis med and it's legitimate definition to those few words. Many translators use non-dual for a variety of subjects within view and methods: emptiness & clarity, emptiness & bliss, emptiness & non-thought, emptiness & awareness, meditator & yoga/path/view, meditator & guru/deity, meditator & trikayas, meditator & dbang/rolpa/rtsal, Kadak & Lhundrub, etc. etc. Some of the latter couples just mentioned were what I meant earlier largely in this thread. So I respect your opinion but all others too and it is not just translators but esteemed lamas too who use the term elsewhere often in speech and writing. Problem is, so few words in English and if we limit the few ones we have as you do, soon we have run out of words for the numerous Tibetan combo words and phrases. Then we have to use Heidegger's system of making-new-words-like-this as we go along, which is actually nearer Tibetan system somewhat. Like I said not a precise field, translation, and a major confusion for all and pretty subjective. And that's just English we're talking about!means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.
In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.username wrote:
While I am an admirer of your translation as well as Valby's more than anyone else's, both crisp precise and simple yet extremely difficult to achieve, I can't believe any other translator limits the use of non-dual only to gnyis med and it's legitimate definition to those few words. Many translators use non-dual for a variety of subjects within view and methods: emptiness & clarity, emptiness & bliss, emptiness & non-thought, emptiness & awareness, meditator & yoga/path/view, meditator & guru/deity, meditator & trikayas, Kadak & Lhundrub, etc. etc.
I can't file charges against a bullet.Namdrol wrote:No, what harmed you was the bullet.adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.
N
I'd say staying a PITA is a necessary sign of perfectionism which I personally abide by. On the other point formally yes specially as all, and we mean all, can thus be reduced to the question on being. Bit of a prime axiom. Also even that itslef is subject to not existing inherently, if you see what I mean. So from a path POV, other details then come into play.Namdrol wrote:In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.username wrote:
While I am an admirer of your translation as well as Valby's more than anyone else's, both crisp precise and simple yet extremely difficult to achieve, I can't believe any other translator limits the use of non-dual only to gnyis med and it's legitimate definition to those few words. Many translators use non-dual for a variety of subjects within view and methods: emptiness & clarity, emptiness & bliss, emptiness & non-thought, emptiness & awareness, meditator & yoga/path/view, meditator & guru/deity, meditator & trikayas, Kadak & Lhundrub, etc. etc.
And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable.
I am just a bigger pain in the ass than most translators and more insisitent that translations reflect and are completely consistent with buddhist view so that crypto-hindu notions stay out of our school.
Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on.
N
adinatha wrote:I can't file charges against a bullet.Namdrol wrote:No, what harmed you was the bullet.adinatha wrote:It is true that something false can harm me. For example, someone might see me as Osama bin Laden's cousin and shoot me. So a falsity is in the realm of being.
N
Depends if I got a good look at him.Namdrol wrote:adinatha wrote:I can't file charges against a bullet.Namdrol wrote:No, what harmed you was the bullet.
N
You can't file charges again a delusion, either.
Oh, a sort of "Who is it that is evading the question" sort of answer thenmuni wrote:Many had to learn to see the meaning of expressions in dharma, not going to digg in 'the ground of grammar'. Translators of texts have too. _/\_
*Master/Terton/Dharmakaya - Student*, even possible in silence, without any words/without 'touching bodies'. Grammar, vocabulary makes no holes in nature, no colours.
Unfabricated Dharma. not in the field of intellect. Undescridable. No grasping available, where to hang/nail down categories of words? Good, i wrote that because i completely fail in grammar.mindyourmind wrote:Oh, a sort of "Who is it that is evading the question" sort of answer thenmuni wrote:Many had to learn to see the meaning of expressions in dharma, not going to digg in 'the ground of grammar'. Translators of texts have too. _/\_
*Master/Terton/Dharmakaya - Student*, even possible in silence, without any words/without 'touching bodies'. Grammar, vocabulary makes no holes in nature, no colours.
Neutral-good-bad....mindyourmind wrote:Would you agree that 'non-duality' is not 'neutrality'?
Neutrality is sem, nondual is 'beyond'. You are making mixed expression soup.booker wrote:So if your body needs food you also stay in between of "need food" and "not need food"? Or is it like, there's no difference if what you will eat is bread or nails, for instance?
Maybe little robots in playstation.booker wrote:So when 'beyond' it's ok to eat nails and stones instead of bread and water when body needs food, right?
The concepts about are senseless and objects to grasp.dzinpa wrote:it is easy to be neutral about two points of view, nonduality might eat you
The dualistic opposites form the basis for conventional delusions, all conceptual thinking is linguistic thinking.White Lotus wrote:you will have to excuse me, but in my experience non duality is a non conceptual seeing of reality, that has very little to do with dualistic opposites that we use in logic.
If you are a Hindu, sure. But not if you are a Buddhist.it is beyond existence or non existence, but saying that it exists is fine...