Either one, identification, or non-identification, is not the point. These are mental activities. The cessation of these mental activities, duality, is the point. The natural state that is talked about is not concerned with identification.Matt J wrote:The thing I cannot fully shake is when you listen to Advaitins, they are always talking about identification. It is as though the key issue is to find the right target to identify with. So you won't identify with the body, energy, the parts of mind, the void (not the same as Buddhist emptiness no matter what they like to say), etc. But you DO identify with awareness, and then equate awareness with God. Buddhism, at least in my experience, always teaches non-identification.
Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Thanks. Most Advaitan's I've spoken to, if not all, have said that one is timelessy free and it makes no difference what occurs pre or post sahaja where as Sahaja governed by Rigpa/yeshe is the 'result taken as the path' in Dzogchen and it's an all or nothing situation -you're either in [non-]meditation or you're in post-meditation. (don't quote me on this summary yet!) .anjali wrote:If you look in the book, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, there is a wealth of info about Sahaja Samadhi.Vasana wrote:... I'd rather find more out about the Sahaja Samadhi as spoken of by Ramana [see above]and that of Mahamudra/Dzogchen
[...]Of course mind here means dualistic mind. Resting in the natural state for dzogchen/mahamudra also involves the end of the dualistic mind. There is a difference in the two states, at least doctrinally--and most Buddhist would say experientially.
I've tried explaining the analogy of the sun being obscured by clouds /adventitious circumstances and vasanas but have been told that sahaja and vasanas were later introductions and not part of Advaitan scriptures. Going by descriptions alone, Ramana's take on Sahaja and things like detachment from pleasure and pain seem to be the closest things we have going to the Dzogchen/Mahamudra Sahaja devoid of attachment and aversion. As you said, I expect that some Buddhists would say there is an experiential difference between the two but there's a difficulty in reconciling the tolerating of Tāpatraya which seems to be a feature in both systems. Is it incorrect or a stretch for me to associate the tolerance of Tāpatraya in advaita as the absence of attachment/aversion that the Mahamudra/Dzogchen fruition speaks of?
Classical Advaita Vedanta emphasises the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to attain moksha. It consists of four stages.
[...]Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
[1 of which is ] Titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya).
Tāpatraya refers to the three sources of Tāpa (literally, heat, or suffering) recognised in Hindu philosophy:
Ādhyātmika — the suffering caused by 'internal' factors like diseases
Ādhibhoutika — the suffering caused by physical forces such as earthquakes etc.
Ādhidaivika — the suffering caused by Karmic factors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%81patraya
'When thoughts arise, recognise them clearly as your teacher'— Gampopa
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Vasana, IIRC, Ramana never said Sahaj was something you came out of, so no post-sahaj experience. No experiencer is left. Sahaj should be synonymous with the natural state, irreversible, not an in and out like most people think. Ego was gone. Ramana described his own death. I believe in the books, they talk about 2 death events. Evidently, there are still energetic happenings that take place in the nervous system and body to integrate all this. It is not a mental process of concentration and other samadhis. All of that is gone.Vasana wrote:Thanks. Most Advaitan's I've spoken to, if not all, have said that one is timelessy free and it makes no difference what occurs pre or post sahaja where as Sahaja governed by Rigpa/yeshe is the 'result taken as the path' in Dzogchen and it's an all or nothing situation -you're either in [non-]meditation or you're in post-meditation. (don't quote me on this summary yet!) .anjali wrote:If you look in the book, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, there is a wealth of info about Sahaja Samadhi.Vasana wrote:... I'd rather find more out about the Sahaja Samadhi as spoken of by Ramana [see above]and that of Mahamudra/Dzogchen
[...]Of course mind here means dualistic mind. Resting in the natural state for dzogchen/mahamudra also involves the end of the dualistic mind. There is a difference in the two states, at least doctrinally--and most Buddhist would say experientially.
I've tried explaining the analogy of the sun being obscured by clouds /adventitious circumstances and vasanas but have been told that sahaja and vasanas were later introductions and not part of Advaitan scriptures. Going by descriptions alone, Ramana's take on Sahaja and things like detachment from pleasure and pain seem to be the closest things we have going to the Dzogchen/Mahamudra Sahaja devoid of attachment and aversion. As you said, I expect that some Buddhists would say there is an experiential difference between the two but there's a difficulty in reconciling the tolerating of Tāpatraya which seems to be a feature in both systems. Is it incorrect or a stretch for me to associate the tolerance of Tāpatraya in advaita as the absence of attachment/aversion that the Mahamudra/Dzogchen fruition speaks of?
Classical Advaita Vedanta emphasises the path of Jnana Yoga, a progression of study and training to attain moksha. It consists of four stages.
[...]Śamādi ṣatka sampatti (शमादि षट्क सम्पत्ति) — the sixfold qualities,
[1 of which is ] Titikṣa (the tolerating of tāpatraya).
Tāpatraya refers to the three sources of Tāpa (literally, heat, or suffering) recognised in Hindu philosophy:
Ādhyātmika — the suffering caused by 'internal' factors like diseases
Ādhibhoutika — the suffering caused by physical forces such as earthquakes etc.
Ādhidaivika — the suffering caused by Karmic factors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%81patraya
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Yeah you're right. Pre-Sahaja and 'after' it's become a default mode of being/knowing is slightly more accurate.
As for the stuff related to the nervous system, I won't even go there cos then it'll require the comparison of yogic and tantric subtle anatomy and that's a whole other topic. Most traditional Advaitans seem to reject any deliberate yoga to a degree.
As for the stuff related to the nervous system, I won't even go there cos then it'll require the comparison of yogic and tantric subtle anatomy and that's a whole other topic. Most traditional Advaitans seem to reject any deliberate yoga to a degree.
'When thoughts arise, recognise them clearly as your teacher'— Gampopa
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
'When alone, examine your mind, when among others, examine your speech'.— Atisha
-
- Posts: 813
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
- Location: Bangkok
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
The energetic stuff was from my own teacher who said these things were spontaneous occurrences, not cultivated at all. Someone took him to the Sankaracharya of Sringeri who listened to what happened to him. He said his teacher, who was now dead, had told him about these same things but were not part of the literature. Probably lost somewhere in antiquity. Many traditions either don't know or don't talk about these things.Vasana wrote:Yeah you're right. Pre-Sahaja and 'after' it's become a default mode of being/knowing is slightly more accurate.
As for the stuff related to the nervous system, I won't even go there cos then it'll require the comparison of yogic and tantric subtle anatomy and that's a whole other topic. Most traditional Advaitans seem to reject any deliberate yoga to a degree.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:41 pm
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
I don't think there is any difference.
Self-realisation in Advaita means to realise the Buddha Nature. This is the same Buddha Nature in Dzogchen and in the Mahamudra teachings. Modern Advaita master Mooji describes the primordial Buddha Nature in exactly the same was as Padmasbhava, almost word for word.
The realisation of the Self or Buddha Nature causes the practitioner to have spontaneous bodhichitta without discrimination. Mooji's description of the Buddha Nature/Self and the love that embraces the whole world that arises effortlesly towards every living being is not different from the love and compassion of a Buddha.
In \Mooji's Advaita/Zen teachings [he is referred to as a Advainta/Zen master] the person, self, I, - as in Buddhism - is exposed to be a complete fiction.
The essence is: there is no-person - the person is a fiction. The nature of the Self is spontaneous, universal love for all living beings without exception.
So what is the difference? Both systems transcend the illusory individual and cultivate a direct experience of the Buddha Nature: a vast, uncreated, space like awareness that has the nature of spontaneous bodhichitta.
As a practitioner of both Mahamudra for many years and now non-dual Advaita, I see little or no difference.
As for the idea of the witness, it is not a person looking. The question arises, when the person is seen to be an illusion like a mirage, with no substance whatsoever, who or what witnesses this?
Self-realisation in Advaita means to realise the Buddha Nature. This is the same Buddha Nature in Dzogchen and in the Mahamudra teachings. Modern Advaita master Mooji describes the primordial Buddha Nature in exactly the same was as Padmasbhava, almost word for word.
The realisation of the Self or Buddha Nature causes the practitioner to have spontaneous bodhichitta without discrimination. Mooji's description of the Buddha Nature/Self and the love that embraces the whole world that arises effortlesly towards every living being is not different from the love and compassion of a Buddha.
In \Mooji's Advaita/Zen teachings [he is referred to as a Advainta/Zen master] the person, self, I, - as in Buddhism - is exposed to be a complete fiction.
The essence is: there is no-person - the person is a fiction. The nature of the Self is spontaneous, universal love for all living beings without exception.
So what is the difference? Both systems transcend the illusory individual and cultivate a direct experience of the Buddha Nature: a vast, uncreated, space like awareness that has the nature of spontaneous bodhichitta.
As a practitioner of both Mahamudra for many years and now non-dual Advaita, I see little or no difference.
As for the idea of the witness, it is not a person looking. The question arises, when the person is seen to be an illusion like a mirage, with no substance whatsoever, who or what witnesses this?
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
There is a monumental difference.
For one, the Dzogchen tantras reject the Advaita view by name and also explicitly reject the view of non-duality that Advaita Vedanta promulgates. The view of Advaita also breaks a Dzogchen samaya.
There's no room for interpretation on this one, and the Dzogchen corpus made sure of that.
Last edited by krodha on Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
My understanding is that Advaita posits a single unified cosmic conscious that all of us are individual expressions of (albeit, unknowing). Mahamudra/Dzogchen/Prajnaparamita/Tahagatagarbha theory says nothing of the sort.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Indeed. If the single unified cosmic conscious exists, then when an individual consciousness becomes enlightened, that cosmic consciousness must also become enlightened since the individual consciousness is part of the cosmic consciousness. If that cosmic consciousness becomes enlightened, then so must all other individual consciousnesses become enlightened.Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:12 pmMy understanding is that Advaita posits a single unified cosmic conscious that all of us are individual expressions of (albeit, unknowing). Mahamudra/Dzogchen/Prajnaparamita/Tahagatagarbha theory says nothing of the sort.
If it is argued that the cosmic consciousness is already enlightened, then there is no reason why that knowledge cannot be shared with individual consciousnesses that are not enlightened since they are part of the cosmic consciousness. If the cosmic consciousness is already enlightened, there can be no unenlightened individual consciousness.
That is why the Buddha said in the Samdhinirmocana sutra "the ultimate is realized individually by the Aryas" since the Buddha had already realized that there is no single unified cosmic consciousness. For the same reason, he also knew that there is no Creator God. I would even argue that in Buddhism, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is merely a phenomenon whose working is not understood.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
'Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature' ~ St AugustineSherab wrote: I would even argue that in Buddhism, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is merely a phenomenon whose working is not understood.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
And you do not think that what St Augustine said might just be incoherent within the context of God's omnipotence?
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
This is not the forum for that argument. Just saying, that's all.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
We are in a Dzogchen sub-forum talking about Advaita and Dzogchen and you quote a Christian? Can we stay on topic people?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
But you must have posted the quote in response to my post for a purpose. Otherwise your post is pointless.
I am guessing that the purpose of your post was to suggest that Buddhism may not be the only religion that argues that there are really no miracles. My reply was to suggest that a religion that has an Almightly God as the creator of the universe cannot reasonably hold such a position.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
The only point I was making was that such an idea is not unique to Buddhism.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:41 pm
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
There is not a monumental difference between Mooji's teaching and the teachings of Dzogchen.krodha wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:09 pmThere is a monumental difference.
For one, the Dzogchen tantras reject the Advaita view by name and also explicitly reject the view of non-duality that Advaita Vedanta promulgates. The view of Advaita also breaks a Dzogchen samaya.
There's no room for interpretation on this one, and the Dzogchen corpus made sure of that.
That is like saying there is a monumental difference between Buddha Nature and Buddha Nature.
Mooji's teachings and the teachings of Dzogchen are identical almost word for word when referring to the realisation of Buddha Nature
and the fictitious nature of the self, 'I' or person. I have just received the oral transmission of a very sacred Dzogchen text and was once again
was struck by how similar it was to the teachings of Mooji. Having studied Buddhism and practised Buddhism for many, many years, this is my conclusion.
Buddha Nature is Buddha Nature. The sign that someone has realised it is an effortless and spontaneous
universal compassion towards all living beings without discrimination and the profound understanding that
the person, 'I' or self is a mere fiction, as are all phenomena.
Mooji talks about the spontaneous compassion that arises from the direct realisation of the Buddha Nature
in the same way as the Buddhist masters do. Moreover, and more importantly, he seems to exhibit the qualities of this realisation.
Outwardly Mooji's view is that all phenomena arise from consciousness and are of the same nature of consciousness.
This is the Chittamantrin view and a view that some Tantris Prasangikas [non-scholars] also accept,
as in the final analysis Buddha's ultimate view is somewhere in between the Chittamantrin and Prasangika view.
It is beyond the mind!
I can only conclude you have not read Mooji's teachings, or most importantly meditated on his instructions. To be fair they might not strictly be Advaita as he is classified [on the cover of his books[ as a Zen / Advaita master.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:41 pm
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Mahamudra says that all phenomena are manifestations of bliss and emptiness. The mind of clear light, which is the nature of bliss, mixes inseperably with emptiness, like water mixing with water. All phenomena are seen by the yogi to arise from this union of the clear light and emptiness.Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:12 pmMy understanding is that Advaita posits a single unified cosmic conscious that all of us are individual expressions of (albeit, unknowing). Mahamudra/Dzogchen/Prajnaparamita/Tahagatagarbha theory says nothing of the sort.
Mooji [Advaita/ Zen master who I am familiar with] says all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness and the same nature as consciousness. The consciousness he is referring to is the clear light mind or Buddha Nature. This view is accepted by some Tantric Prsangikas and is almost indistinguishable from the standard Tantric Prasangika view. In summary, they are very, very similar.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
That is not Dzogchen view at all. Not even slightly.Andrew David Boyle wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:49 pm
Outwardly Mooji's view is that all phenomena arise from consciousness and are of the same nature of consciousness.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
If I may inquire, although that isn't the Dzogchen view according to you, it does look like the general Yogācāra view.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:32 pmThat is not Dzogchen view at all. Not even slightly.Andrew David Boyle wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:49 pm
Outwardly Mooji's view is that all phenomena arise from consciousness and are of the same nature of consciousness.
Perhaps a formal thread, or at the very least a clarification in-thread, on what separates them would be in order?
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Our friend ADB has not clarified whether this consciousness is personal, as in Yogacāra, or transpersonal as in Advaita. Even so, the view of Yogācāra is not the view of Dzogchen, which view Dzogchen far surpasses, just as the sun outshines a candle.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:36 pmIf I may inquire, although that isn't the Dzogchen view according to you, it does look like the general Yogācāra view.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:32 pmThat is not Dzogchen view at all. Not even slightly.Andrew David Boyle wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:49 pm
Outwardly Mooji's view is that all phenomena arise from consciousness and are of the same nature of consciousness.
Perhaps a formal thread, or at the very least a clarification in-thread, on what separates them would be in order?