Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28054
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Malcolm » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:20 pm

Anonymous X wrote: 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!
Neither have you, as far as I know.
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

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 4:46 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: 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!
Neither have you, as far as I know.
That was the message.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28054
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Malcolm » Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:23 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: 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!
Neither have you, as far as I know.
That was the message.

Ezcellent. So we are all this:

Image
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

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:16 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
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!
First of all, this isn't about me. Second, I'm not realized at all but I'm confident that the teachings I've received and apply result in realization. I don't have that same confidence in Advaita. You can cherry cherry-pick all you like but you can see from all of the posts that came before why these views are in place. Do you really think that with blind faith Buddhists will accept the realization of non-buddhists as being Buddhahood if that realization contradicts Buddhist view?
'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 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:24 am

Vasana wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
Vasana wrote:
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!
First of all, this isn't about me. Second, I'm not realized at all but I'm confident that the teachings I've received and apply result in realization. I don't have that same confidence in Advaita. You can cherry cherry-pick all you like but you can see from all of the posts that came before why these views are in place. Do you really think that with blind faith Buddhists will accept the realization of non-buddhists as being Buddhahood if that realization contradicts Buddhist view?
Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating Advaita at all, and especially that it is some how the same or better/worse than some Buddhist teachings. There have been some great masters from that tradition, make no mistake about that. Whether you are in a position to see this is another matter.

Because I am not scholarly and don't tend to memorize texts, the only things I rely on are my own wits and the discussions about them with someone who was able to show me my own mistakes and illusions in approaching this subject. He freed me from a kind of seeking by showing me how the conceptual could not answer any of my questions or confer any real equipoise (to use your term). It could be summed up as a letting go, not a very technical term, but extremely effective in daily life that has nothing to do with mind training. It is not dissimilar from Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views. The knife cannot cut itself. This is the problem defending any system of thought. Dogma sets in. Rigor mortis of the brain. Shit happens. This is why I have always appreciated the freedom that Chan masters had in expressing all this in ways that are seemingly against traditional belief. To illustrate this, I present another vignette:

Huineng was the 6th patriarch of Chan.

Once Xingsi asked Master Huineng, “What is the practice that does not fall into stages?”
The master said, “What have you been doing?”
Xingsi said, “I don't even practice the four noble truths.”
The master said, “What stages have you fallen into?”
Xingsi said, “Without even studying the noble truths, what stages could I have fallen into?”
The master said, “Just so, just so. You should maintain it well.”

krodha
Posts: 2406
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by krodha » Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:19 am

Anonymous X wrote:It could be summed up as a letting go, not a very technical term, but extremely effective in daily life that has nothing to do with mind training. It is not dissimilar from Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views.
Nāgārjuna's emptiness of views is due to an exhaustion of referents. Vastly different than giving up, or "letting go" as you term it.
Anonymous X wrote:The knife cannot cut itself. This is the problem defending any system of thought. Dogma sets in. Rigor mortis of the brain.
A knife cannot cut itself, nevertheless, there is genuine awakening. And you either awaken or you don't.

Dogma can take on many forms, even nihilism, which consists of rejecting views and "systems of thought" guised as "letting go."

No one awakens through letting go and just sitting around being content with delusion.

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 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:17 am

krodha wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:It could be summed up as a letting go, not a very technical term, but extremely effective in daily life that has nothing to do with mind training. It is not dissimilar from Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views.
Nāgārjuna's emptiness of views is due to an exhaustion of referents. Vastly different than giving up, or "letting go" as you term it.
Anonymous X wrote:The knife cannot cut itself. This is the problem defending any system of thought. Dogma sets in. Rigor mortis of the brain.
A knife cannot cut itself, nevertheless, there is genuine awakening. And you either awaken or you don't.

Dogma can take on many forms, even nihilism, which consists of rejecting views and "systems of thought" guised as "letting go."

No one awakens through letting go and just sitting around being content with delusion.
Let's not be too literal. Did I say 'awaken through letting go'? I don't think I even mentioned 'awakening'. These are your concepts that you fashion into dogma. Letting go is not rejection and not nihilism.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:38 am

Anonymous X wrote: Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating Advaita at all, and especially that it is some how the same or better/worse than some Buddhist teachings. There have been some great masters from that tradition, make no mistake about that. Whether you are in a position to see this is another matter.
The Buddhist teachings refute the Advaita view just as some traditional Advaitans might refute the Buddhist view. Unfortunately, it's something we can't side-step out of politeness here. If the view of either system is held to be incorrect by the other, then the masters of other systems will only be recognized as having realized provisional but not definitive mastery. Some more accommodating modern Advaitans and Buddhists may equate the mastery of both systems as equivalent but that's the claim this entire thread looks at.
Anonymous X wrote: It could be summed up as a letting go, not a very technical term, but extremely effective in daily life that has nothing to do with mind training. It is not dissimilar from Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views. The knife cannot cut itself.

...Huineng was the 6th patriarch of Chan.

Once Xingsi asked Master Huineng, “What is the practice that does not fall into stages?”
The master said, “What have you been doing?”
Xingsi said, “I don't even practice the four noble truths.”
The master said, “What stages have you fallen into?”
Xingsi said, “Without even studying the noble truths, what stages could I have fallen into?”
The master said, “Just so, just so. You should maintain it well.”
Anonymous X wrote:Let's not be too literal. Did I say 'awaken through letting go'? I don't think I even mentioned 'awakening'. These are your concepts that you fashion into dogma. Letting go is not rejection and not nihilism
You mentioned that letting go is not disimilar to Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views. So you did indirectly link 'letting go' to the fruit of Madhyamika. I'm glad that you've clarified that for you 'letting go' is not rejection or nihlism because it seemed (to me, at least ) like that was a view you've been putting forward on other occasions.

Kamalasıla writes,

'If the mere nonexistence of attention and mental engagement is taken to be “nonattention” and “mental nonengagement,” it is to be analyzed in what way these two [attention and mental engagement] are nonexistent.

[...]As long as yogic practitioners who evenly rest in meditative concentration have a mental consciousness, this [consciousness] must undoubtedly refer to something, [since] the consciousness of ordinary sentient beings does not abruptly become nonreferential. If they had no [such referential consciousness at all], how would they realize that phenomena are without nature? . . . Therefore, the arising of nonattention and mental nonengagement with regard to the genuine dharma should be regarded as something that is preceded by perfect discrimination. Why? Because it is through perfect discrimination that one is able to bring about nonattention and mental nonengagement.' [...]'Thus, whenever one hears such words as “inconceivable” [in the Buddha’s teachings], they [are meant to] teach that phenomena are just the object of personal experience in order to put an end to the pride of those who think that true reality [can be] realized through merely studying and reflecting on it as being such and such. [Such words] should also be understood as negating improper reflection. However, they are not [taught as] a negation of perfect discrimination. Otherwise, as explained before, they would contradict a vast number of scriptures and reasonings.'
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

krodha
Posts: 2406
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by krodha » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:09 am

Anonymous X wrote:Let's not be too literal. Did I say 'awaken through letting go'? I don't think I even mentioned 'awakening'.
Awakening and uprooting affliction is the name of the game.
Anonymous X wrote:These are your concepts that you fashion into dogma.
Awakening and removing obscurations are my concepts? I don't think so.
Anonymous X wrote:Letting go is not rejection and not nihilism.
You are downplaying "concepts" in the name of "letting go" in this very thread.

Marginalizing concepts is nothing more than attaching to an opposite extreme. It's the neo-Advaita game: rejecting concepts in the name of being "non-conceptual", in order to emulate some semblance of something misunderstood. Those who commit this error accomplish nothing, they marinate in their avidyā, thinking they're ten steps ahead of those they're attempting to contradict. Unaware that they are compromising everything and forfeiting a chance to make a substantial imprint on their continuums in this lifetime.

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 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:32 am

krodha wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:Let's not be too literal. Did I say 'awaken through letting go'? I don't think I even mentioned 'awakening'.
Awakening and uprooting affliction is the name of the game.
Anonymous X wrote:These are your concepts that you fashion into dogma.
Awakening and removing obscurations are my concepts? I don't think so.
Anonymous X wrote:Letting go is not rejection and not nihilism.
You are downplaying "concepts" in the name of "letting go" in this very thread.

Marginalizing concepts is nothing more than attaching to an opposite extreme. It's the neo-Advaita game: rejecting concepts in the name of being "non-conceptual", in order to emulate some semblance of something misunderstood. Those who commit this error accomplish nothing, they marinate in their avidyā, thinking they're ten steps ahead of those they're attempting to contradict. Unaware that they are compromising everything and forfeiting a chance to make a substantial imprint on their continuums in this lifetime.
You've got it all figured out, don't you.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:35 am

I wonder what people's thoughts are on the Sahaja samadhi as explained below by Ramana and the Sahaja as found in Mahamudra /Dzogchen? From what I can tell, Sahaja is the resultant state in Advaita where as in Dzogchen the result is taken as the path. Any other differences I'm missing? Advaita also seems to suggest that a state beyond subject/object , attachment or aversion is actualized at the level of the Sahaja. How does this differ from the absence of subject/object & attachment/aversion in Mahamudra/Dzogchen?

"Attachment is the cause of binding vasanas, but enjoyment without attachement does not bind and continue even in Sahaja". - Ramana

"Son, it is not appearances that bind you, it is grasping.
Cut through your attachment, Nāropa.
- Tilopa

Ramana's explanation of Sahaja;

Mr. S.S. Cohen: May I have a clear idea, Bhagavan, of the difference between Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhi?

Bhagavan:

Holding on to the Supreme State is Samadhi. When Savikalpa, when these disturbances are are absent, it is Nirvikalpa. Remaining permanently in the primal state without effort is Sahaja. Like Nirvikalpa, there is an internal as well as an external Savikalpa, depending on whether the disturbing thoughts are from outside or inside.

Cohen: Should all vasanas, (natural habits) be completely overcome before Self Realization takes place, or some may remain for Self
Realization to destroy?

Bhagavan: Vasanas which do not obstruct Self Realization remain.
In Yoga Vasishta, two classes of vasanas are distinguished: those of enjoyment, those of bondage. The former remain ever after Mukti is attained, but the latter are destroyed by it. Attachment is the cause of binding vasanas, but enjoyment without attachement does not bind and continue even in Sahaja.

Mr. Cohen and Major Chadwick differed among themselves about whether or not meditator can be affected by physical disturbances during Nirvikalpa Samadhi. They referred the matter to the Master.

Bhagavan:

Both of you are right. The one refers to Kevala and the other to Sahaja Samadhi. In both cases, the mind is immersed in the bliss
of the Self. In the former, physical movements may cause disturbance to the meditator, because the mind has not completely died out, but is still alive and can, as after deep sleep, at any moment be active again. It is compared to a bucket, which, although completely submerged under water, can be pulled out by the other end of the rope, which is tied to the pulley. Whereas in Sahaja, the mind, having sunk into the Self, like the bucket which has got drowned with its rope in the depth of the well, there remains nothing in it to be disturbed or pulled back to the world. One's activities then resemble that of a child who sucks its mother's milk in sleep, and is hardly aware of the feeding.

(Source: Guru Ramana. S.S. Cohen. Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai.)
Last edited by Vasana on Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

Losal Samten
Posts: 1428
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Losal Samten » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:36 am

Vasana wrote:Kamalasıla writes,

'If the mere nonexistence of attention and mental engagement is taken to be “nonattention” and “mental nonengagement,” it is to be analyzed in what way these two [attention and mental engagement] are nonexistent.

[...]As long as yogic practitioners who evenly rest in meditative concentration have a mental consciousness, this [consciousness] must undoubtedly refer to something, [since] the consciousness of ordinary sentient beings does not abruptly become nonreferential. If they had no [such referential consciousness at all], how would they realize that phenomena are without nature? . . . Therefore, the arising of nonattention and mental nonengagement with regard to the genuine dharma should be regarded as something that is preceded by perfect discrimination. Why? Because it is through perfect discrimination that one is able to bring about nonattention and mental nonengagement.' [...]'Thus, whenever one hears such words as “inconceivable” [in the Buddha’s teachings], they [are meant to] teach that phenomena are just the object of personal experience in order to put an end to the pride of those who think that true reality [can be] realized through merely studying and reflecting on it as being such and such. [Such words] should also be understood as negating improper reflection. However, they are not [taught as] a negation of perfect discrimination. Otherwise, as explained before, they would contradict a vast number of scriptures and reasonings.'
<3
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

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 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:06 am

Vasana wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating Advaita at all, and especially that it is some how the same or better/worse than some Buddhist teachings. There have been some great masters from that tradition, make no mistake about that. Whether you are in a position to see this is another matter.
The Buddhist teachings refute the Advaita view just as some traditional Advaitans might refute the Buddhist view. Unfortunately, it's something we can't side-step out of politeness here. If the view of either system is held to be incorrect by the other, then the masters of other systems will only be recognized as having realized provisional but not definitive mastery. Some more accommodating modern Advaitans and Buddhists may equate the mastery of both systems as equivalent but that's the claim this entire thread looks at.
Anonymous X wrote: It could be summed up as a letting go, not a very technical term, but extremely effective in daily life that has nothing to do with mind training. It is not dissimilar from Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views. The knife cannot cut itself.

...Huineng was the 6th patriarch of Chan.

Once Xingsi asked Master Huineng, “What is the practice that does not fall into stages?”
The master said, “What have you been doing?”
Xingsi said, “I don't even practice the four noble truths.”
The master said, “What stages have you fallen into?”
Xingsi said, “Without even studying the noble truths, what stages could I have fallen into?”
The master said, “Just so, just so. You should maintain it well.”
Anonymous X wrote:Let's not be too literal. Did I say 'awaken through letting go'? I don't think I even mentioned 'awakening'. These are your concepts that you fashion into dogma. Letting go is not rejection and not nihilism
You mentioned that letting go is not disimilar to Nagarjuna's emptiness of all views. So you did indirectly link 'letting go' to the fruit of Madhyamika. I'm glad that you've clarified that for you 'letting go' is not rejection or nihlism because it seemed (to me, at least ) like that was a view you've been putting forward on other occasions.

Kamalasıla writes,

'If the mere nonexistence of attention and mental engagement is taken to be “nonattention” and “mental nonengagement,” it is to be analyzed in what way these two [attention and mental engagement] are nonexistent.

[...]As long as yogic practitioners who evenly rest in meditative concentration have a mental consciousness, this [consciousness] must undoubtedly refer to something, [since] the consciousness of ordinary sentient beings does not abruptly become nonreferential. If they had no [such referential consciousness at all], how would they realize that phenomena are without nature? . . . Therefore, the arising of nonattention and mental nonengagement with regard to the genuine dharma should be regarded as something that is preceded by perfect discrimination. Why? Because it is through perfect discrimination that one is able to bring about nonattention and mental nonengagement.' [...]'Thus, whenever one hears such words as “inconceivable” [in the Buddha’s teachings], they [are meant to] teach that phenomena are just the object of personal experience in order to put an end to the pride of those who think that true reality [can be] realized through merely studying and reflecting on it as being such and such. [Such words] should also be understood as negating improper reflection. However, they are not [taught as] a negation of perfect discrimination. Otherwise, as explained before, they would contradict a vast number of scriptures and reasonings.'
Refutation is a scholarly game played out by pundits and theologians. At some point, you just drop out of this kind of thinking about views as it brings no real equipoise to your digestive system or stops the re-ification of a phenomenal self/ego. The knife cannot cut itself. For me, this is not the way. There is no real blueprint for truth or its path to it. Letting go is just a simple seeing of your own attachment and a loosening of its strings. There is no dogma or religious action that substitutes for this. You let it go because it's useless, not because you think it will take you somewhere or make you into something.

My preference for quoting anecdotes from Chan masters rather than scriptural or treatise excerpts that seem to be common on this board is because it tends to humanize this whole subject and also introduces a kind of humor and insight that can free up the fixations of mind, a reminder that what we are holding on to so tightly, doesn't matter. We don't need to repeat the words of a teacher over and over. The finger cannot point at itself. Thinking about thinking is useless in these matters and judging what is true is equally useless. Please refer back to Dogen's and Huineng's quotes I made in previous posts.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:51 am

Anonymous X wrote: Refutation is a scholarly game played out by pundits and theologians.
Buddhism was established because of refutation, not in spite of it. Do you think Buddhism would even exist if the Buddha didn't initially refute the tenets of the systems of his day? Do you think Chan would exist if it's adherents accepted all other systems equally without refuting them? Refutation in terms of your own personal experience is an aspect of discerning wisdom. Knowing what is what and what is not. Reducing it to a scholarly game misses the point entirely and ironically contradicts you then going to establish your own opinion in the rest of the post.
Anonymous X wrote: At some point, you just drop out of this kind of thinking about views as it brings no real equipoise to your digestive system or stops the re-ification of a phenomenal self/ego. The knife cannot cut itself. For me, this is not the way. There is no real blueprint for truth or its path to it.
Re-read the Kamalisha quote again and you'll see where it's in agreement with you there and where it suggests it's worth reconsidering the role of discernment . As for the 'value of thinking about views' , this depends on the system you practice. Even the systems that value analysis state that it ends in nonconceptuality.

"Ordinary beings are bound by conceptions
Nonconceptual yogins will find release.
Hence, the learned state that the result of analysis
Is that conceptions are at peace."

- Candrakirti
Anonymous X wrote: Letting go is just a simple seeing of your own attachment and a loosening of its strings.


No one suggested otherwise.
Anonymous X wrote:There is no dogma or religious action that substitutes for this. You let it go because it's useless, not because you think it will take you somewhere or make you into something.
It's not about Dogma, it's about whether perception and cognition are governed by Wisdom. If you think insisting on that is a dogma then you're mistaking the words for the meaning.
Anonymous X wrote:My preference for quoting anecdotes from Chan masters rather than scriptural or treatise excerpts that seem to be common on this board is because it tends to humanize this whole subject and also introduces a kind of humor and insight that can free up the fixations of mind, a reminder that what we are holding on to so tightly, doesn't matter. We don't need to repeat the words of a teacher over and over. The finger cannot point at itself. Thinking about thinking is useless in these matters and judging what is true is equally useless. Please refer back to Dogen's and Huineng's quotes I made in previous posts.
Anecdotes are fine and i agree that humour's very important for loosening up our rigidity.

Since everything is an illusion --
with some more perfect than others --
with no relationship to good or bad ,
being or not-being ,
one might as well
laugh from beginning to end .
- Longchenpa

'Some more perfect' than others is the dividing line between happy or sad face.
'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 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:44 pm

Anonymous X wrote: Refutation is a scholarly game played out by pundits and theologians.
Vasana wrote: Buddhism was established because of refutation, not in spite of it. Do you think Buddhism would even exist if the Buddha didn't initially refute the tenets of the systems of his day? Do you think Chan would exist if it's adherents accepted all other systems equally without refuting them? Refutation in terms of your own personal experience is an aspect of discerning wisdom. Knowing what is what and what is not. Reducing it to a scholarly game misses the point entirely and ironically contradicts you then going to establish your own opinion in the rest of the post.
Perhaps you don't see a difference between Buddha and Buddhism. The institution, etc., was not the work of Sakyamuni, but of political and power struggles undertaken by kings and such. One of the main schools to rise to prominence, Madhyamaka, was introduced maybe 700 years later. You don't think that there might be a possibility that many of these teachings were not the Buddha's, or at least not the original words spoken by him? There is no way to confirm this. For me, I have no problem with the Buddha's enlightenment. No one can establish their own enlightenment and there was probably no intention of him to do so. He had to be coaxed to say anything at all. He didn't just pop up and began to save all beings. For me, there is a big difference between his enlightenment and the Buddhist schools that rose to prominence. Chan was never interested in establishing itself like Vajrayana. Of course there were those who were interested in doing that but I strongly doubt if any of these Chan masters ever cared about this aspect. The Chan masters constantly threw water on the establishing of any authority, this is why it has been called 'a tradition outside of the scriptures'. Kublai Khan cared about this aspect of power and authority as well as other emperors, kings who wanted to control their people. Enlightenment is not true because someone established it. Sakyamuni was not the first enlightened person ever to walk this earth. I also doubt if Nagarjuna cared about refutation as a political tool. Refutation in the hands of a master is not the same as refutation by a student or anyone with self-motive. The student is basically a parrot, a computer. There is no system that bestows enlightenment on its followers. It is extremely personal, rare, and free of all dogmas and religions. It is not corruptible. How could an enlightened man be an empire builder?

I hope you don't take this in the wrong way.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:17 pm

With respect Anon, that is not a route of discussion I care to go down. If you want to start a new thread about those opinions then you're welcome. It's an important topic no doubt but I'd rather find more out about the Sahaja Samadhi as spoken of by Ramana [see above]and that of Mahamudra/ Dzogchen.

:focus:
'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 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:33 pm

Vasana wrote:With respect Anon, that is not a route of discussion I care to go down. If you want to start a new thread about those opinions then you're welcome. It's an important topic no doubt but I'd rather find more out about the Sahaja Samadhi as spoken of by Ramana [see above]and that of Mahamudra/ Dzogchen.

:focus:
Read the books. Ask David Godman questions. He seems to be the reigning English speaking authority on him. You won't find anyone on this board who is qualified to explain this to you. You can find his website on google.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Vasana » Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:27 pm

Anonymous X wrote:
Vasana wrote:With respect Anon, that is not a route of discussion I care to go down. If you want to start a new thread about those opinions then you're welcome. It's an important topic no doubt but I'd rather find more out about the Sahaja Samadhi as spoken of by Ramana [see above]and that of Mahamudra/ Dzogchen.

:focus:
Read the books. Ask David Godman questions. He seems to be the reigning English speaking authority on him. You won't find anyone on this board who is qualified to explain this to you. You can find his website on google.
Reading. I'll look up David Goodman, thanks. I also think there are people on this board qualified to explain this and shed light on things, at least from the standpoint of Dzogchen & Mahamudra.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
anjali
Global Moderator
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by anjali » Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:15 pm

Vasana wrote:... I'd rather find more out about the Sahaja Samadhi as spoken of by Ramana [see above]and that of Mahamudra/Dzogchen
If you look in the book, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, there is a wealth of info about Sahaja Samadhi. For example, this diagram:
SleepKevalaSahaja.png
SleepKevalaSahaja.png (16.15 KiB) Viewed 981 times
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. The sahaja samadhi of advaitans is when dualistic mind dissolves into the the Self (pure mind, pure consciousness, etc.) For dzogchen/mahamudra adherents, the dualistic mind dissolves into unconfined empty cognizance.
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche wrote:When all the activities of dualistic mind dissolve, when we are utterly stable in the unconfined empty cognizance, there is no longer any basis for remaining in the three realms of samsara.
Image

Dharma Wheel Terms of Service and Reporting Procedures.
Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for kindness. –-Seneca

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta

Post by Matt J » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:30 am

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.
"The essence of meditation practice is to let go of all your expectations about meditation. All the qualities of your natural mind -- peace, openness, relaxation, and clarity -- are present in your mind just as it is. You don't have to do anything different. You don't have to shift or change your awareness. All you have to do while observing your mind is to recognize the qualities it already has."
--- Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests