Matt J wrote:
Matt J wrote:I can't find it now, but Malcolm once said Dzogchen doesn't address the issue squarely, but there are two potential explanations: a yogacara madhyamaka and a svatantrika one.
Found it: viewtopic.php?t=5080&start=40
Malcolm wrote:There are two answers to this question in Dzogchen.
a) external phenomena are projections of minds. A mind is capable of projecting an appearance for another mind: classical example, the woman who meditates on herself as a tigresss and terrifies her village.
b) external phenomena are a result of causes and conditions; their appearance is a result of traces -- for example, the liquid that has six different appearances according to how it is perceived by beings of the six realms.
As far as the latter is concerned, Longchenpa observes that phenomena are not mental factors, as in yogacara.
Now, how is this really any different from the Madhyamaka interpretation of Lama Tsongkhapa? Actually it sounds the same, only presented in a different way. According to Lama Tsongkhapa, all phenomena are empty of inherent existence because they only arise in dependence upon causes and conditions, and in dependence upon the mind that imputes it.
Also, like Prasangika Madhyamaka, it fits very well with the formulation of quantum mechanics. The causes and conditions would correspond to the quantum wave function
, which is merely a mathematical construct that provides a probability distribution of possible ways the particle could manifest if and only if
it is observed by a conscious mind. In other words, without the mind playing a role, the particle does not manifest at all. Or, in the words of Werner Heisenberg, it is only the act of observation that causes the transition from the "possible" to the "actual."
Here is another post, from that other thread on Dzogchen, that sounds just like the Madhyamaka interpretation of Lama Tsongkhapa:
Malcolm wrote: Acchantika wrote:
padma norbu wrote:Anyone who wants to get a better understanding should buy The Supreme Source and read page 95 (of course, reading everything before that would be a good idea, too, as well as everything after it).
Partly what I am trying to understand is how to read that book as not
positing that there is an ineffable, non-graspable primordial basis of all existence that is spontaneously self-luminous and the source of dharmakaya, inlcuding the mountain and the mind, not simply as concepts, but in the literal sense of sourcing and pervading the entire dimension of reality, hence "The Supreme Source".
Can you suggest anything that would help me put that book in context?
First of all "mind" here is short for "awakened mind" i.e. bodhicitta or the nature of the mind. It does pervade all of your own appearances. It is an all=creating king because all appearances are constructed by your mind and come from your mind, thus it is a king since it is the dominates all of this constructive activity. It's nature is inexpressible since it is empty from the very beginning and not established as something ultimately real in its own right.
According to Prasangika Madhyamaka, mind is also empty of inherent existence. All "external phenomena" are, likewise, empty of inherent existence because they are dependent upon the mind that imputes them (as well as being dependent on causes and conditions). In other words, they exist in mere name only, meaning to say that they are imputations by the mind, which basically also means that "all appearances are constructed by your mind and come from your mind."
So how is all this not the same as the Madhyamaka interpretation by Lama Tsongkhapa, other than in the manner of presentation? Lama Tsongkhapa just presents it in a very intellectually rigorous way, and that to me is testament to his wonderful genius and advanced realization.