Nyoshul Khenpo wasn't one to make claims. But he wasn't prejudiced either. He wanted certain people in his audience to feel comfortable, like Ram Das et. al. And all wrong views aside, to disprove the "claim" (more like a friendly suggestion) that Atmavadis, or Christians, or Sufis, are pointing at the same moon as Dzogchenpas, you'd have to prove there was no moon where they were pointing. And that's not possible in a Buddhist context, unless you can disprove the theory of Buddha-nature altogether.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:26 pm
Pretty sure that Nyoshel Khnepo would not make such a claim.
Well, given that Shankara is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, it would be very surprising to learn of any so called khenpo of Dzogchen claiming that Atman was just a Hindu name for the mind essence. You yourself admit the idea does not even exist in their system.So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.
Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
There is no moon where they are pointing. They have never been able to show it, much less prove it.
Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world;And that's not possible in a Buddhist context, unless you can disprove the theory of Buddha-nature altogether.
as the Tathāgata has no nature, the world also has no nature.
-- Nāgārjuna, MMK.
- Adamantine
- Former staff member
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
- Location: Space is the Place
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
If he did indeed say something off-the-cuff like thatVaktar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:07 pmNyoshul Khenpo wasn't one to make claims. But he wasn't prejudiced either. He wanted certain people in his audience to feel comfortable, like Ram Das et. al. And all wrong views aside, to disprove the "claim" (more like a friendly suggestion) that Atmavadis, or Christians, or Sufis, are pointing at the same moon as Dzogchenpas, you'd have to prove there was no moon where they were pointing. And that's not possible in a Buddhist context, unless you can disprove the theory of Buddha-nature altogether.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:26 pm
Pretty sure that Nyoshel Khnepo would not make such a claim.
Well, given that Shankara is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, it would be very surprising to learn of any so called khenpo of Dzogchen claiming that Atman was just a Hindu name for the mind essence. You yourself admit the idea does not even exist in their system.So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.
in the context you describe—(is there a recording?)—it seems pretty obvious it would’ve been like skillful-means-101: for that group in that time and place, simply to help them eat the spinach, so to speak... not to be quoted at some later time as some ultimate definitive scriptural statement. Those of us who have spent good long chunks of time with great masters will be able to note numerous ocassions where they appeared to contradict themselves in varying contexts... doesn’t mean they were incorrect or confused...
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Before we go any further, references and context please. I find it extremely improbable that a teacher of his learning and stature would say the sort of things you’re attributing to him
Why did someone decided that this thread needed resurrecting? It was much better off dead, along with all “hey doesn’t advaita seem like Dzogchen if you don’t think about it much” discussions
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
I have two comments:Vaktar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:07 pmNyoshul Khenpo wasn't one to make claims. But he wasn't prejudiced either. He wanted certain people in his audience to feel comfortable, like Ram Das et. al. And all wrong views aside, to disprove the "claim" (more like a friendly suggestion) that Atmavadis, or Christians, or Sufis, are pointing at the same moon as Dzogchenpas, you'd have to prove there was no moon where they were pointing. And that's not possible in a Buddhist context, unless you can disprove the theory of Buddha-nature altogether.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:26 pm
Pretty sure that Nyoshel Khnepo would not make such a claim.
Well, given that Shankara is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, it would be very surprising to learn of any so called khenpo of Dzogchen claiming that Atman was just a Hindu name for the mind essence. You yourself admit the idea does not even exist in their system.So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.
(1) They are not pointing to the same thing. For example, the Christians points to an almighty Creator God. The Buddha himself taught that there is no such being. Then there are those who point to an overarching monistic entity. This is completely incompatible with the Buddha's argument of avoiding eternalism, one of the two extremes that he advised against. It is also incompatible with the Buddha's teaching on dependent origination whose meaning goes beyond the usual idea of causality.
(2) Since they are not pointing to the same thing, why try to conflate the two (the Buddhist ultimate) with non-buddhist's idea of the ultimate? For the Hindus, I think it is their subconscious wish to assimilate all sorts of ideas, including those Buddhism, into Hinduism. As a result, Hinduism is a pot of contradictory beliefs from which an adherent can cherry pick the ones he likes.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
How would you align the meaning of nature used above with the definition of nature that you provided here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30257#p478030 ?
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Lol, I think most here will agree with that statement....hey doesn’t advaita seem like Dzogchen if you don’t think about it much?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
If they don't, then what they're doing isn't Dzogchen...
As the neo-advaita master Alan Greenspan once said, "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
The former is svabhAva, the latter prakRti.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:01 amHow would you align the meaning of nature used above with the definition of nature that you provided here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30257#p478030 ?
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Just to clarify, by former you are referring to the nature of the Tathagata and by latter you are referring to the nature of the world?Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:15 amThe former is svabhAva, the latter prakRti.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:01 amHow would you align the meaning of nature used above with the definition of nature that you provided here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30257#p478030 ?
After posting the above, I went to search for your quotation in Tibetan and noted that rang bzhin was used throughout. There was no reference to ngo bo:
de bzhin gshegs pa'i rang bzhin gang/
de ni 'gro 'di'i rang bzhin yin/
de bzhin gshegs pa rang bzhin med/
'gro ba 'di yi rang bzhin med /
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
If Nagarjuna when referring to the nature of the Tathagata used rang bzhin to mean ngo bo, wouldn't he have committed the fallacy of equivocation in the quotation?Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:31 amJust to clarify, by former you are referring to the nature of the Tathagata and by latter you are referring to the nature of the world?Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:15 amThe former is svabhAva, the latter prakRti.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:01 am
How would you align the meaning of nature used above with the definition of nature that you provided here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=30257#p478030 ?
After posting the above, I went to search for your quotation in Tibetan and noted that rang bzhin was used throughout. There was no reference to ngo bo:
de bzhin gshegs pa'i rang bzhin gang/
de ni 'gro 'di'i rang bzhin yin/
de bzhin gshegs pa rang bzhin med/
'gro ba 'di yi rang bzhin med /
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
I am sorry, I thought you were referring to how the term rang bzhin is used in Dzogchen as opposed to MMK. In this case, the former is prakRti and the latter is svabhAva.Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:35 amIf Nagarjuna when referring to the nature of the Tathagata used rang bzhin to mean ngo bo, wouldn't he have committed the fallacy of equivocation in the quotation?Sherab wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:31 amJust to clarify, by former you are referring to the nature of the Tathagata and by latter you are referring to the nature of the world?
After posting the above, I went to search for your quotation in Tibetan and noted that rang bzhin was used throughout. There was no reference to ngo bo:
de bzhin gshegs pa'i rang bzhin gang/
de ni 'gro 'di'i rang bzhin yin/
de bzhin gshegs pa rang bzhin med/
'gro ba 'di yi rang bzhin med /
As an aside, when the MMK was first translated into Tibetan in the 8th century, svabhāva was translated as ngo bo nyid.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
I also believe that all of them glimpse the same thing (on the basis of the reported accounts of their experiences), but that post-experience, when karma driven conceptualisation kicks in, it is defined according to the criteria of each believer.Vaktar wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:38 pmFor a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.
So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.
"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
No one reports any experiences that resemble the experience of the direct perception of dharmatā outside of the teachings of the Dzogchen, because outside the teachings of Dzogchen, the subject to be experienced (dharmatā) and the means of experiencing it (direct perception) are not known at all, not even in Anuyoga.Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:50 pmI also believe that all of them glimpse the same thing (on the basis of the reported accounts of their experiences), but that post-experience, when karma driven conceptualisation kicks in, it is defined according to the criteria of each believer.Vaktar wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:38 pmFor a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.
So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Most who have practiced both paths in a serious manner state that in addition to being conceptually different, they are also experientially different.Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:50 pmI also believe that all of them glimpse the same thing (on the basis of the reported accounts of their experiences), but that post-experience, when karma driven conceptualisation kicks in, it is defined according to the criteria of each believer.Vaktar wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:38 pmFor a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.
So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Of course they would. They are, in both instances, judging a non-conceptual experience via their currently existing karmic view, after all.
PS My statement was regarding "mystical" experience on any/all paths.
"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
Nonconceptual experience, for worldly people, leads to rebirth in the formless realms or as an unconscious deva. Not desirable.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
No, I am saying that those who have practiced both paths, report that they are qualitatively different in an experiential sense. Like the taste of sugar and salt.
One would not assert that the taste of sugar and salt only differ in the aftermath of tasting them, when the non-conceptual experience of each is described differently.
They are actually different, experientially, as non-conceptual tastes. The same goes for these paths and their respective realizations, etc.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
Oh heel no they don’t. Atiyoga is impossible to glimpse by accident. Man oh man oh MAN!!!!Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:50 pmI also believe that all of them glimpse the same thing (on the basis of the reported accounts of their experiences), but that post-experience, when karma driven conceptualisation kicks in, it is defined according to the criteria of each believer.Vaktar wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:38 pmFor a quarter-century (!) I and one other person have periodically discussed these or similar questions with one of the world's leading Vedanta scholars, Ira Schepetin. At the end of the day, I can only concur with Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche and certain other Dzogchen masters before him, that what we call "Dzogchen" is what others call "connate wisdom", "great bliss", "Buddha-nature", or "Atman", or "God" and so on.
So is there a subtle difference or not? I think there are subtle differences of understanding, according to individual karma. There are also differences in terminology used to indicate "non-duality". But no such description can ever be axiomatic, unless we are willing to accept the finger that points at the moon as the moon itself.
There is NO MAN who has known, knows now or will ever know who was not initiated into the mandala by lineage guru of Ati. Impossible. Simple IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.
Re: Non-Duality in Dzogchen vs Advaita Vedanta
By definition there can be no difference among/between non-conceptual experiences, the idea of difference only exists conceptually/relatively.krodha wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:51 pmNo, I am saying that those who have practiced both paths, report that they are qualitatively different in an experiential sense. Like the taste of sugar and salt.
One would not assert that the taste of sugar and salt only differ in the aftermath of tasting them, when the non-conceptual experience of each is described differently.
They are actually different, experientially, as non-conceptual tastes. The same goes for these paths and their respective realizations, etc.
"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