Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Losal Samten » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:45 pm

Vasana wrote:Right, I suspected this would lead to meditation devas. It still doesn't explain some Advaitan's insistence that the realization of a Jivanmukti is synonomous with the erradication of any more karma coming to fruition in the future.

Swami Sivananda on Nirbija Samadhi:

"Without seeds or Samskaras [...] All the seeds or impressions are burnt by the fire of knowledge [...] all the Samskaras and Vasanas which bring on rebirths are totally freed up. All Vrittis or mental modifications that arise from the mind-lake come under restraint. The five afflictions, viz., Avidya (ignorance), Asmita (egoism), Raga-dvesha (love and hatred) and Abhinivesha (clinging to life) are destroyed and the bonds of Karma are annihilated [...] It gives Moksha (deliverance from the wheel of births and deaths). With the advent of the knowledge of the Self, ignorance vanishes. With the disappearance of the root-cause, viz., ignorance, egoism, etc., also disappear."

Is this assertion correct or are they just hanging out in the meditation realms for eons taking it to be full realization?
Considering dhyana suppresses the afflictions (and were one not to know/believe the Buddhist take on dhyana/vipashyana), experientially if one were to see that the afflictions are being lessened through one's meditation, saying that the afflictions are being burned away wouldn't be a huge step to take, and since practically every tirthika meditation or mystic system has something along those lines, it seems to be the go-to response to such experiences.

Trungpa on rudrahood:
Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual pleasures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concentration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely mental pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limitless space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is completely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the boundary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain.
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:05 pm

Losal Samten wrote: Considering dhyana suppresses the afflictions (and were one not to know/believe the Buddhist take on dhyana/vipashyana), experientially if one were to see that the afflictions are being lessened through one's meditation, saying that the afflictions are being burned away wouldn't be a huge step to take, and since practically every tirthika meditation or mystic system has something along those lines, it seems to be the go-to response to such experiences.
Yeah that's a good point. Afflictions that have been [or will be] suppressed for potentially many aeons could mistakenly be equated with their permanent cessation. The confidence of a Jivamukti who has an affliction-suppressing realization would also naturally seem very self-assured and confident in this life since no disturbing emotion would arise or cause them trouble. I can see how it would be difficult to argue against someone who appears to have such realization and at this point it's now more clear as to how it also becomes increasingly difficult to even address this with many [neo]Advaitans since most of those who I've spoken to place no importance or belief in future lives since realization can be attained in this life. Even more challenging is to discuss it with those who have no sympathy or belief in these extensive Hindu or Buddhist cosmologies that account for meditation gods in the first place. :thinking:

If an aspirant didn't reach such a level but instead attained some lower heaven, I suppose there is at least more chance of them being scouted by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who can emanate forms to teach the correct meditations in the various deva realms.

Oh and thanks for the Trungpa story :thumbsup:
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:27 am

Malcolm wrote:
Vasana wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between nirvikalpa samadhi and vajropama samadhi apart from the person who is experiencing them: an ordinary afflicted being or someone about enter buddhahood. In the case of the former, such a person has not even scratched the surface of the two obscurations; in the case of the latter, vajropama samadhi eradicates the last vestige of the two obscurations.
So then by that token, An advaitan developing a stable nirvikalpa samadhi is progressing in the same manner as a Dzogchenpa developing a stable vajropama samadhi ? Don't such samadhi's serve to 'scratch the surface' of the obscurations at least?

Nope. The result of a nonaryan's nirvikalpa samadhi is rebirth in the realm of unconscious devas. Nonbuddhist samadhis merely suppress afflictions, they do not even scratch their surface.

Vajropama samadhi will only come at the end of the path, even if one is a Dzogchen practitioner. In order for Vajropama samadhi to function, one has to be on the verge of buddhahood.
As far as I understand the samadhis of the Advaitins, nirvikalpa is not something they even strive for. It is seen as more 'experience' as it does not deal with things as they are. It is a one-sided affair that does not integrate stillness and movement. I believe this is why Ramana stressed the importance of sahaj samadhi, coming to rest in the natural state. One doesn't stay in nirvikalpa samadhi. It does not involve the nature of the person and phenomenon. I would say that neither Vajropama or sahaj samadhi should be the concern of any practitioner as these seem to occur spontaneously and without any will or effort on our part.

Where can I find a textual description of vajropama samadhi?

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:37 am

Vasana wrote:
Losal Samten wrote: Considering dhyana suppresses the afflictions (and were one not to know/believe the Buddhist take on dhyana/vipashyana), experientially if one were to see that the afflictions are being lessened through one's meditation, saying that the afflictions are being burned away wouldn't be a huge step to take, and since practically every tirthika meditation or mystic system has something along those lines, it seems to be the go-to response to such experiences.
Yeah that's a good point. Afflictions that have been [or will be] suppressed for potentially many aeons could mistakenly be equated with their permanent cessation. The confidence of a Jivamukti who has an affliction-suppressing realization would also naturally seem very self-assured and confident in this life since no disturbing emotion would arise or cause them trouble. I can see how it would be difficult to argue against someone who appears to have such realization and at this point it's now more clear as to how it also becomes increasingly difficult to even address this with many [neo]Advaitans since most of those who I've spoken to place no importance or belief in future lives since realization can be attained in this life. Even more challenging is to discuss it with those who have no sympathy or belief in these extensive Hindu or Buddhist cosmologies that account for meditation gods in the first place. :thinking:

If an aspirant didn't reach such a level but instead attained some lower heaven, I suppose there is at least more chance of them being scouted by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who can emanate forms to teach the correct meditations in the various deva realms.

Oh and thanks for the Trungpa story :thumbsup:
Now you are getting into your imagination putting these things together and coming up with imagery and conditioned knowledge. There is a downside to this, arrogance, and the belief that you know and they don't. This is what happens in every religion and sect. Beliefs are reinforced, not let go of. This is intensified grasping. I'm sure you understand this. I hope you do. :-)

krodha
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by krodha » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:40 am

Anonymous X wrote:As far as I understand the samadhis of the Advaitins, nirvikalpa is not something they even strive for. It is seen as more 'experience' as it does not deal with things as they are. It is a one-sided affair that does not integrate stillness and movement. I believe this is why Ramana stressed the importance of sahaj samadhi, coming to rest in the natural state. One doesn't stay in nirvikalpa samadhi. It does not involve the nature of the person and phenomenon. I would say that neither Vajropama or sahaj samadhi should be the concern of any practitioner as these seem to occur spontaneously and without any will or effort on our part.

Where can I find a textual description of vajropama samadhi?
The Advaitins no doubt define "sahaj" differently than say, Mahāmudrā does. Sahaj for Advaitins is resting effortlessly as Brahman.

You are right though, Advaitins like Śri Atmananda Krishna Menon state that nirvikalpa samadhi is a temporary state and is not the ultimate goal.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:49 am

krodha wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:As far as I understand the samadhis of the Advaitins, nirvikalpa is not something they even strive for. It is seen as more 'experience' as it does not deal with things as they are. It is a one-sided affair that does not integrate stillness and movement. I believe this is why Ramana stressed the importance of sahaj samadhi, coming to rest in the natural state. One doesn't stay in nirvikalpa samadhi. It does not involve the nature of the person and phenomenon. I would say that neither Vajropama or sahaj samadhi should be the concern of any practitioner as these seem to occur spontaneously and without any will or effort on our part.

Where can I find a textual description of vajropama samadhi?
The Advaitins no doubt define "sahaj" differently than say, Mahāmudrā does. Sahaj for Advaitins is resting effortlessly as Brahman.

You are right though, Advaitins like Śri Atmananda Krishna Menon state that nirvikalpa samadhi is a temporary state and is not the ultimate goal.
How does Mahamudra define sahaj?
Can you point me to a textual description of vajropama samadhi, krodha?

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:16 am

Anonymous X wrote:
Vasana wrote:
Losal Samten wrote: Considering dhyana suppresses the afflictions (and were one not to know/believe the Buddhist take on dhyana/vipashyana), experientially if one were to see that the afflictions are being lessened through one's meditation, saying that the afflictions are being burned away wouldn't be a huge step to take, and since practically every tirthika meditation or mystic system has something along those lines, it seems to be the go-to response to such experiences.
Yeah that's a good point. Afflictions that have been [or will be] suppressed for potentially many aeons could mistakenly be equated with their permanent cessation. The confidence of a Jivamukti who has an affliction-suppressing realization would also naturally seem very self-assured and confident in this life since no disturbing emotion would arise or cause them trouble. I can see how it would be difficult to argue against someone who appears to have such realization and at this point it's now more clear as to how it also becomes increasingly difficult to even address this with many [neo]Advaitans since most of those who I've spoken to place no importance or belief in future lives since realization can be attained in this life. Even more challenging is to discuss it with those who have no sympathy or belief in these extensive Hindu or Buddhist cosmologies that account for meditation gods in the first place. :thinking:

If an aspirant didn't reach such a level but instead attained some lower heaven, I suppose there is at least more chance of them being scouted by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who can emanate forms to teach the correct meditations in the various deva realms.

Oh and thanks for the Trungpa story :thumbsup:
Now you are getting into your imagination putting these things together and coming up with imagery and conditioned knowledge. There is a downside to this, arrogance, and the belief that you know and they don't. This is what happens in every religion and sect. Beliefs are reinforced, not let go of. This is intensified grasping. I'm sure you understand this. I hope you do. :-)
I'm using my imagination yes, but if you followed the last part of the discussion and have heard other Buddhist teachings on these topics, you would know why I mentioned them. Obviously they have a very refined meditation but if as Malcolm has said, the afflictions have not been touched and merely suppressed then my line of thinking after that is quite normal from the traditional perspective.

Of course I don't think mere speculation about these realms is the meditation/non-meditation I'm to engage in.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:03 am

Vasana wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
Vasana wrote:
Yeah that's a good point. Afflictions that have been [or will be] suppressed for potentially many aeons could mistakenly be equated with their permanent cessation. The confidence of a Jivamukti who has an affliction-suppressing realization would also naturally seem very self-assured and confident in this life since no disturbing emotion would arise or cause them trouble. I can see how it would be difficult to argue against someone who appears to have such realization and at this point it's now more clear as to how it also becomes increasingly difficult to even address this with many [neo]Advaitans since most of those who I've spoken to place no importance or belief in future lives since realization can be attained in this life. Even more challenging is to discuss it with those who have no sympathy or belief in these extensive Hindu or Buddhist cosmologies that account for meditation gods in the first place. :thinking:

If an aspirant didn't reach such a level but instead attained some lower heaven, I suppose there is at least more chance of them being scouted by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who can emanate forms to teach the correct meditations in the various deva realms.

Oh and thanks for the Trungpa story :thumbsup:
Now you are getting into your imagination putting these things together and coming up with imagery and conditioned knowledge. There is a downside to this, arrogance, and the belief that you know and they don't. This is what happens in every religion and sect. Beliefs are reinforced, not let go of. This is intensified grasping. I'm sure you understand this. I hope you do. :-)
I'm using my imagination yes, but if you followed the last part of the discussion and have heard other Buddhist teachings on these topics, you would know why I mentioned them. Obviously they have a very refined meditation but if as Malcolm has said, the afflictions have not been touched and merely suppressed then my line of thinking after that is quite normal from the traditional perspective.

Of course I don't think mere speculation about these realms is the meditation/non-meditation I'm to engage in.
It was just a friendly reminder, not an admonishment. I always found discussions with adherents of one tradition inevitably either dismissing the other or just not being able to get what the other is saying. When you read talks with Nisargadatta or Ramana, you quickly realize that they are not in the same category as the neo advaitists and have themselves undergone some kind of radical change. I have yet to hear a clear and concise Buddhist pov on these two teachers and what they have realized in Buddhist terms. If one says they haven't scratched the surface, you can be sure that they don't understand themselves, just dogma.

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Losal Samten » Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:12 pm

Anonymous X wrote:It was just a friendly reminder, not an admonishment. I always found discussions with adherents of one tradition inevitably either dismissing the other or just not being able to get what the other is saying.
All traditions have distinct ideas about liberation and the way to get there, if a school doesn't accord with another then it only stands to reason that they wouldn't accept the other schools' claims to realisation. Either you have outright dismissal of other schools, or a subsuming of them into one's own, but where they're heavily aspectised/cut down to fit in with one's own ideas. For example you have Shankara with the former, and the latter with Ramana saying that the difference between Advaita and Pratyabhijna was mere semantics.
When you read talks with Nisargadatta or Ramana, you quickly realize that they are not in the same category as the neo advaitists and have themselves undergone some kind of radical change. I have yet to hear a clear and concise Buddhist pov on these two teachers and what they have realized in Buddhist terms. If one says they haven't scratched the surface, you can be sure that they don't understand themselves, just dogma.
Well, I suppose the standard Buddhist take on it that I could see would be that Ramana achieved the formless dhyanas, and that Nisargadatta would have gained proficiency in bringing forth/stabilising the induced experience via his initiation.

The problem comes with being a non-sectarian/school-less/trans-school individual, how is it that one is deciding that their realisation is valid, and that the refutations are incorrect? What qualifiers are you (and can someone) judge upon?
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by aflatun » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:05 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Vasana wrote:
I'm still not fully understanding this point. Surely if a commoner developed samadhi it would naturally burn away the afflictions in the same way it would for an Arya if the samadhi was exactly the same?
A commoner is afflicted. An ārya who abides in Vajraopama samadhi is, in Mahāyāna, already on the 10th bhumi. In the Hinayāna, they are on the supermundane path of meditation.

You need to study the samapattis as they are discussed in the Abhidharmakosha, chapter 8.
Is there a reliable English translation of the Abhidharmakosha available?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28316
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Malcolm » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:08 pm

aflatun wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Vasana wrote:
I'm still not fully understanding this point. Surely if a commoner developed samadhi it would naturally burn away the afflictions in the same way it would for an Arya if the samadhi was exactly the same?
A commoner is afflicted. An ārya who abides in Vajraopama samadhi is, in Mahāyāna, already on the 10th bhumi. In the Hinayāna, they are on the supermundane path of meditation.

You need to study the samapattis as they are discussed in the Abhidharmakosha, chapter 8.
Is there a reliable English translation of the Abhidharmakosha available?
There are two.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Norwegian
Posts: 1430
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Norwegian » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:17 pm

aflatun wrote:Is there a reliable English translation of the Abhidharmakosha available?
As Malcolm mentioned there are two translations of it, and if you are interested, you can buy them here:

The first English translation, as a 4 volume set in hardcover:
https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 895819139/

Reprint as softcover, individual volumes:
Vol. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730078/
Vol. 2: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730086/
Vol. 3: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730094/
Vol. 4: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730108/

The latest English translation, as a 4 volume set in hardcover:
https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosa-B ... 120836073/

These are the Amazon links of course, and I am sure they can be purchased elsewhere as well.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by aflatun » Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:49 pm

Malcolm wrote: There are two.
Norwegian wrote:
aflatun wrote:Is there a reliable English translation of the Abhidharmakosha available?
As Malcolm mentioned there are two translations of it, and if you are interested, you can buy them here:

The first English translation, as a 4 volume set in hardcover:
https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 895819139/

Reprint as softcover, individual volumes:
Vol. 1: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730078/
Vol. 2: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730086/
Vol. 3: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730094/
Vol. 4: https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosabh ... 875730108/

The latest English translation, as a 4 volume set in hardcover:
https://www.amazon.com/Abhidharmakosa-B ... 120836073/

These are the Amazon links of course, and I am sure they can be purchased elsewhere as well.
Thank you very much!
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:It was just a friendly reminder, not an admonishment. I always found discussions with adherents of one tradition inevitably either dismissing the other or just not being able to get what the other is saying.
All traditions have distinct ideas about liberation and the way to get there, if a school doesn't accord with another then it only stands to reason that they wouldn't accept the other schools' claims to realisation. Either you have outright dismissal of other schools, or a subsuming of them into one's own, but where they're heavily aspectised/cut down to fit in with one's own ideas. For example you have Shankara with the former, and the latter with Ramana saying that the difference between Advaita and Pratyabhijna was mere semantics.
When you read talks with Nisargadatta or Ramana, you quickly realize that they are not in the same category as the neo advaitists and have themselves undergone some kind of radical change. I have yet to hear a clear and concise Buddhist pov on these two teachers and what they have realized in Buddhist terms. If one says they haven't scratched the surface, you can be sure that they don't understand themselves, just dogma.
Well, I suppose the standard Buddhist take on it that I could see would be that Ramana achieved the formless dhyanas, and that Nisargadatta would have gained proficiency in bringing forth/stabilising the induced experience via his initiation.

The problem comes with being a non-sectarian/school-less/trans-school individual, how is it that one is deciding that their realisation is valid, and that the refutations are incorrect? What qualifiers are you (and can someone) judge upon?
I think the problem comes with being subjected to all the cultural input of all the various cultures and especially, the archetype of the perfect man/woman. Isn't that what various schools put out? The image of images like the Buddha? Every culture has them. Every culture strives for its attainment. All the idols, gods, faeries that man has created. All of it needs to be let go of, methinks. Not so easy, matey.

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by CedarTree » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:02 pm

From someone outside these two traditions (I practice Zazen in the style of Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery in America & Antaiji in Japan),

I can say the first 8 pages or so were incredibly beneficial. Almost replicated a Kensho of my earlier years.

To remember that pristine awareness is empty of any self and that this is bliss/compassion and ultimately liberating had to be hit by various angles but it re-awoke an understanding away from the conceptual mind.

Big thank you to the posters of those early pages.

Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:18 am

Anonymous X wrote:
Losal Samten wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:It was just a friendly reminder, not an admonishment. I always found discussions with adherents of one tradition inevitably either dismissing the other or just not being able to get what the other is saying.
All traditions have distinct ideas about liberation and the way to get there, if a school doesn't accord with another then it only stands to reason that they wouldn't accept the other schools' claims to realisation. Either you have outright dismissal of other schools, or a subsuming of them into one's own, but where they're heavily aspectised/cut down to fit in with one's own ideas. For example you have Shankara with the former, and the latter with Ramana saying that the difference between Advaita and Pratyabhijna was mere semantics.
When you read talks with Nisargadatta or Ramana, you quickly realize that they are not in the same category as the neo advaitists and have themselves undergone some kind of radical change. I have yet to hear a clear and concise Buddhist pov on these two teachers and what they have realized in Buddhist terms. If one says they haven't scratched the surface, you can be sure that they don't understand themselves, just dogma.
Well, I suppose the standard Buddhist take on it that I could see would be that Ramana achieved the formless dhyanas, and that Nisargadatta would have gained proficiency in bringing forth/stabilising the induced experience via his initiation.

The problem comes with being a non-sectarian/school-less/trans-school individual, how is it that one is deciding that their realisation is valid, and that the refutations are incorrect? What qualifiers are you (and can someone) judge upon?
I think the problem comes with being subjected to all the cultural input of all the various cultures and especially, the archetype of the perfect man/woman. Isn't that what various schools put out? The image of images like the Buddha? Every culture has them. Every culture strives for its attainment. All the idols, gods, faeries that man has created. All of it needs to be let go of, methinks. Not so easy, matey.
As far as I see, what we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with the archetype of the perfect man/woman. It's explicitly about whether or not there's Vidya/ Rigpa or it's absence. One of the main reasons there even exists teachings on the formless dhyanas and meditation gods is to serve as a warning sign not to engage in what seems like immense meditation and realization, but is merely the suppression of affliction and mentation.

Gampopa was mediating in a cave and an entire week passed for him without him noticing - Coming to, he was very proud of his meditation and then went and told his teacher, Milarepa. Milarepa instantly scoffed and admonished him saying this is no better than the meditation of the meditation gods who are deeply immersed in meditation but not at all liberated.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:42 am

Vasana wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
Losal Samten wrote:All traditions have distinct ideas about liberation and the way to get there, if a school doesn't accord with another then it only stands to reason that they wouldn't accept the other schools' claims to realisation. Either you have outright dismissal of other schools, or a subsuming of them into one's own, but where they're heavily aspectised/cut down to fit in with one's own ideas. For example you have Shankara with the former, and the latter with Ramana saying that the difference between Advaita and Pratyabhijna was mere semantics.

Well, I suppose the standard Buddhist take on it that I could see would be that Ramana achieved the formless dhyanas, and that Nisargadatta would have gained proficiency in bringing forth/stabilising the induced experience via his initiation.

The problem comes with being a non-sectarian/school-less/trans-school individual, how is it that one is deciding that their realisation is valid, and that the refutations are incorrect? What qualifiers are you (and can someone) judge upon?
I think the problem comes with being subjected to all the cultural input of all the various cultures and especially, the archetype of the perfect man/woman. Isn't that what various schools put out? The image of images like the Buddha? Every culture has them. Every culture strives for its attainment. All the idols, gods, faeries that man has created. All of it needs to be let go of, methinks. Not so easy, matey.
As far as I see, what we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with the archetype of the perfect man/woman. It's explicitly about whether or not there's Vidya/ Rigpa or it's absence. One of the main reasons there even exists teachings on the formless dhyanas and meditation gods is to serve as a warning sign not to engage in what seems like immense meditation and realization, but is merely the suppression of affliction and mentation.

Gampopa was mediating in a cave and an entire week passed for him without him noticing - Coming to, he was very proud of his meditation and then went and told his teacher, Milarepa. Milarepa instantly scoffed and admonished him saying this is no better than the meditation of the meditation gods who are deeply immersed in meditation but not at all liberated.
To illustrate my point which cannot be illustrated..........

Langye Huijue said:
Mahakasyapa did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi. Sanavasin did not know
Ananda's samadhi. Up to now, although I have samadhi, you do not know it.

Eihei Dogen said:
The World-Honored One did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Mahakasyapa did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Ananda's samadhi.
Sanavasin did not know Sanavasin's samadhi.
I have samadhi, but I do not know it.
You have samadhi but you do not know it.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:20 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
To illustrate my point which cannot be illustrated..........

Langye Huijue said:
Mahakasyapa did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi. Sanavasin did not know
Ananda's samadhi. Up to now, although I have samadhi, you do not know it.

Eihei Dogen said:
The World-Honored One did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Mahakasyapa did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Ananda's samadhi.
Sanavasin did not know Sanavasin's samadhi.
I have samadhi, but I do not know it.
You have samadhi but you do not know it.
Of course it's impossible to determine the realization of another unless you possess a degree of clairvoyance and a superior samadhi to whoever you're observing but since Advaita is based upon certain views of ultimate existence and ultimate reality, supposedly even their sahaja samadhi doesn't go beyond a very subtle identification with that state as being Brahman/true self which is by definition, not a realization equivalent with the realization the Buddha taught. As was mentioned, meditation follows view.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

muni
Posts: 4530
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by muni » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:24 pm

Non Dual Dzogchen/Nature. vs?
“ Only the development of compassion and understanding for others can bring us the tranquility and happiness we all seek. ”
H H Dalai Lama

"Relax." nirvana-samsara do not stray from spaciousness.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Anonymous X » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:32 pm

Vasana wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
To illustrate my point which cannot be illustrated..........

Langye Huijue said:
Mahakasyapa did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi. Sanavasin did not know
Ananda's samadhi. Up to now, although I have samadhi, you do not know it.

Eihei Dogen said:
The World-Honored One did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Mahakasyapa did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Ananda's samadhi.
Sanavasin did not know Sanavasin's samadhi.
I have samadhi, but I do not know it.
You have samadhi but you do not know it.
Of course it's impossible to determine the realization of another unless you possess a degree of clairvoyance and a superior samadhi to whoever you're observing but since Advaita is based upon certain views of ultimate existence and ultimate reality, supposedly even their sahaja samadhi doesn't go beyond a very subtle identification with that state as being Brahman/true self which is by definition, not a realization equivalent with the realization the Buddha taught. As was mentioned, meditation follows view.
I'm not trying to be rude to you, but you haven't had either realization of Avaita or Dzogchen yet you speak as if you know them intimately. You cannot judge anything using conceptual imagery. Read the poems again, please. There is a message there for you, and all of us!

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jeff H, topazdreamz, TrimePema and 44 guests