Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

[williamlam]

In Dzogchen, the goal seems to be to uncover ones Primodial Awareness. Is this state of Primodial Awareness, the quality of luminous emptiness, the same as the Non-Duality of True Self/Pure Witness as described by Advaita Vedanta?

To elaborate further, most Advaita and Neo-Advaita teachings seem to be focussed on uncovering a "fundamental awareness" that is not thought and not the mind... a depersonalised and universal 'knowing' that they will describe as the ocean behind the wave. This seems similar to what Dzgchen talks about.

Are there subtle differences in the non-dual states described in Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta.

There also seem to be a theory that the uniqueness of Buddhism is that it attempt to even deconstruct this True Self/Pure Witness, with the insight and realization of 'Emptiness'.

So is realizing 'Primodal Awareness' Dzogchen's endgame? And is this Primodial Awareness similiar to Advaita's True Self/Pure Witness?

...

[MiphamFan]

There is not only a subtle difference, there is a huge difference. In man ngag lta ba'i phreng ba, the only universally accepted work written by Padmasambhava himself, the Advaita view is one of the views of tirthikas to be refuted right at the beginning.

In Buddhism the term for nondual is advaya, not advaita.
Advaya=non-dual
Advaita = not-two

[Simon E.]

This.

[DGA]

There is not only a subtle difference, there is a huge difference. In man ngag lta ba'i phreng ba, the only universally accepted work written by Padmasambhava himself, the Advaita view is one of the views of tirthikas to be refuted right at the beginning.

In Buddhism the term for nondual is advaya, not advaita.
Advaya=non-dual
Advaita = not-two

I'm too ignorant of Advaita Vedanta to understand this distinction between advaya and advaita--and I have reason to suspect I'm not the only one. Would you mind elaborating just a bit to clarify?

Thanks

[MiphamFan]

Advaita basically is monism. There is not-two because there is only one.

Buddhism is beyond one or two. This is Madhyamaka. Malcolm wrote about this before.p

[DGA]

Thanks for the clarification. I was just unfamiliar with the Sanskrit terms and their significance.

[Losal Samten]

Advaya=non-dual
Advaita = not-two

Advaita - not-twoness

[Losal Samten]

Additionally, for all the claims that Advaita is the highest viewpoint, it's actually one of the views most easily dispatched with Madhyamaka reasoning. Both Atisha and Mipham say that, on its own terms, Samkhya is the most difficult tirthika viewpoint to refute.

[krodha]

The primary difference is in the nature and implications of "non-dual".

The puruṣa of Vedanta is "non-dual", however it is an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that Advaita is a substantial and reductive non-duality.

Whereas one's nature in Dzogchen is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's nature in Dzogchen is insubstantial and a non-reductive non-duality.

An ontological non-duality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.

On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

The primary difference is in the nature and implications of "non-dual".

The puruṣa of Vedanta is "non-dual", however it is an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that Advaita is a substantial and reductive non-duality.

Whereas one's nature in Dzogchen is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's nature in Dzogchen is insubstantial and a non-reductive non-duality.

An ontological non-duality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.

On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.

That's actually more clearly stated than Malcolm's post to the same effect elsewhere. Bravo!

[swooping]

Whoa, this explanation helped me a lot, ...and I'm going to have to read it several more times to fully get it I think.

Is anyone here familiar with Kashmir Shaivism?
Does it more or less (or similarly) different from dzogchen than vedanta?
I don't know enough about the details, but I understand that it is different from advaita vedanta and, to me at least, many of the dzogchen descriptions remind me of the Kashmir Shaivite descriptions of existence being the spontaneous joyful play of shakti, who is the energy or Shiva (consciousness).

With what little I have read about Kashmir Shaivism it, or at least parts of it, seem to be very very similar to dzogchen to me.

[Matt J]

Advaita as traditionally presented in a series of provisional teachings that leads to experiencing knowledge. Usually when people say "Advaita teaches" they mean at a certain level, Advaita presents a certain teaching. But these teachings are not a final set of concepts to memorize, they are part of a well-established path. At times, the teachings can even be contradictory.

The only way to truly grasp Advaita (or, in my mind, Dzogchen for that matter) is to practice it--- not simply form concepts and words about it. I don't know how one can accurately compare non-conceptual experiences.

[dreambow]

mattj, "The only way to truly grasp Advaita (or, in my mind, Dzogchen for that matter) is to practice it--- not simply form concepts and words about it. I don't know how one can accurately compare non-conceptual experiences" Of course, why are people making a talk fest out of it and comparing ...its not a competition! Its beyond all concepts. All the beautiful, stirring words written down are the merest indication pointing to the truth.

[Simon E.]

Advaita as traditionally presented in a series of provisional teachings that leads to experiencing knowledge. Usually when people say "Advaita teaches" they mean at a certain level, Advaita presents a certain teaching. But these teachings are not a final set of concepts to memorize, they are part of a well-established path. At times, the teachings can even be contradictory.

The only way to truly grasp Advaita (or, in my mind, Dzogchen for that matter) is to practice it--- not simply form concepts and words about it. I don't know how one can accurately compare non-conceptual experiences.

That may or may not be true.
Even if true that does not mean that they have the same result.

[Malcolm]

With what little I have read about Kashmir Shaivism it, or at least parts of it, seem to be very very similar to dzogchen to me.

It is not similar at all. In Trika, everything is considered real because everything is part of Shiva, and Shiva is real.

In Dzogchen, everything, there is nothing established in which or of which to be a part.

[williamlam]

The primary difference is in the nature and implications of "non-dual".

The puruṣa of Vedanta is "non-dual", however it is an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned existent. Which means that Advaita is a substantial and reductive non-duality.

Whereas one's nature in Dzogchen is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's nature in Dzogchen is insubstantial and a non-reductive non-duality.

An ontological non-duality is where everything is reduced to a single substance that exists alone by itself. For example if subject and object were merged and we then held a view that the union of the two as a single X is truly substantial and valid.

On the other hand, an epistemological non-duality is simply a recognition that the nature of phenomena is free from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence, hence "non-dual". This is a non-reductive non-duality because it does not leave anything in its wake, there is no X left over once the nature of phenomena is recognized.

In epistemic non-duality the nature of a conditioned phenomenon [dharma] and its non-arisen nature [dharmatā] are ultimately neither the same nor different, hence they are "non-dual", because the misconception of a conditioned entity is a byproduct of ignorance, and therefore said entity has never truly come into existence in the first place. This means that the allegedly conditioned entity has truly been unconditioned from the very beginning. And to realize this fact only requires a cessation of cause for the arising of the misconception of a conditioned entity, i.e., a cessation of ignorance. If dharmins and dharmatā were not non-dual then it would be impossible to recognize the unborn nature of phenomena because that nature would be rendered another conditioned entity.

Thanks for the clarification.

But let me just say all this sounds impossible to comprehend to most people.

How can subject and object merge, as in the case in Vedanta's non-duality?
How can something be free from existence and non-existence and be neither the same nor different?

Is this an intellectual understanding, or is this the spiritual emperor's new clothes? Perhaps the conceptual brain can never comprehend such deconstruction.

Which lead me to my next question :

How does Vedanta's ontological non-duality FEELS different from Dzogchen's epistemic non-duality ?

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Perhaps the conceptual brain can never comprehend such deconstruction.

There's no "perhaps" about it. I is specifically put in terms where all the logical possibilities are rejected, as in...

How can something be free from existence and non-existence and be neither the same nor different?

...thus it is beyond the reach of the intellect.

How can subject and object merge, as in the case in Vedanta's non-duality?

Subject and object are understood to be both expressions of one "substance". By removing the cruder more superficial levels of mind that "substance" is revealed (I think).

How does Vedanta's ontological non-duality FEELS different from Dzogchen's epistemic non-duality ?

The only person that could actually answer that question is someone that has experienced both. I don't think you'll find that person around here!

[Harimoo]

Advaita basically is monism.

Not at all.

Read here : https://arcaneknowledgeofthedeep.files. ... trines.pdf
Part II, chapter VIII

[Simon E.]

Perhaps the conceptual brain can never comprehend such deconstruction.

There's no "perhaps" about it. I is specifically put in terms where all the logical possibilities are rejected, as in...

How can something be free from existence and non-existence and be neither the same nor different?

...thus it is beyond the reach of the intellect.

How can subject and object merge, as in the case in Vedanta's non-duality?

Subject and object are understood to be both expressions of one "substance". By removing the cruder more superficial levels of mind that "substance" is revealed (I think).

How does Vedanta's ontological non-duality FEELS different from Dzogchen's epistemic non-duality ?

The only person that could actually answer that question is someone that has experienced both. I don't think you'll find that person around here!

cough...
I have told this story before. someone I know well received some kind of transmission of the oneness of all things from a vedanta teacher , he described the overwhelming feeling of bliss and non -difference to all phenomena. It lasted for some time. Eventually disappearing when someone barged into him while boarding a train...

A few months later he experienced ' pointing out '..he said that this was of a completely order of experience.

[MiphamFan]

Advaita basically is monism.

Not at all.

Read here : https://arcaneknowledgeofthedeep.files. ... trines.pdf
Part II, chapter VIII

Guenon is some bullshit Sufi-wannabe. He doesn't even want to admit there is reincarnation in Hinduism.