Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon May 14, 2018 10:03 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:00 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 9:55 pm
The point of these stories is that in the theistic mystical traditions, people do understand the concept of the nonexistence of the divinity principle outside of one s existence. They understand fully and completely. But in order to stay in the church, in order to make the appropriate confessions, they are still very shy about the whole nontheistic approach.
Yes, again, standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.

Well, I guess CTR was a tirthika then.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Losal Samten » Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:03 pm
Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:00 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 9:55 pm
Yes, again, standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.
Well, I guess CTR was a tirthika then.
"Agreeing on nontheism completely" != agreeing on the selflessness of persons and phenomena. Nontheism and Sramanic traditions go nigh hand-in-hand; doesn't mean nontheism or sramanic traditions are de facto liberative.
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
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Location: Chile

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by javier.espinoza.t » Mon May 14, 2018 10:13 pm

Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:50 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:50 pm
To me, "God" is just a stupid idea... and a waste of time.

ChNN talks mostly to westeners, so he "must" say something to reach those with that "god" paradigma.
I agree that the commonly presented concept of God is absurd and impossible to verify. However, it is unfair to contrast the sophistication of esoteric Buddhism with an impoverished exoteric Christianity. Imagine if you met someone who thought Buddhism = the Pali Canon, interpreted in exactly one way that is definitive forever (or at least until Maitreya comes), and not acknowledging the distinction between provisional and definitive teachings. We usually only engage with the Christian equivalent of those Buddhists.

In the same way, Christians dismiss Buddhism as "atheist nihilism" and "pessimism" based on their misreading of the Pali Canon and their ignorance of Mahayāna, let alone Vajrayāna. I'm suggesting we not fall into the same cognitive trap.
i have not contrasted the god principle of ethernalists against vajrayana buddhism, i think this you have done :P

if i would contrast, i would say there is no much difference: in buddhism we say yidam and deities but slowly we are making the archtipe (that they simbolize) more seemingly like the christian god. what i'm saying is that buddhism is degenerating in a worship stuff, like the christian is.

User avatar
Spelare
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Spelare » Mon May 14, 2018 10:30 pm

Losal Samten wrote:Divine light, uncreated, nonconceptual, etc. is standard talk regards to tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.
Pretty remarkable for a medieval German, though, isn't it?

But Eckhart went further in deconstructing the very idea of God. He talked about something called "the essence of God":
Eckhart, Sermon 87 wrote: While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth. Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things. But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not 'God': He was That which He was. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not 'God' in Himself—He was 'God' in creatures.

Therefore I pray to God to make me free of God, for my essential being is above God, taking God as the origin of creatures. For in that essence of God in which God is above being and distinction, there I was myself and knew myself so as to make this man. Therefore I am my own cause according to my essence, which is eternal, and not according to my becoming, which is temporal. Therefore I am unborn, and according to my unborn mode I can never die. According to my unborn mode I have eternally been, am now, and shall eternally remain. That which I am by virtue of birth must die and perish, for it is mortal, and so must perish with time. In my birth all things were born, and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God. But you do not need to know this.
Now you can see why he was investigated for heresy by the Papal authorities! That quotation sounds totally arrogant and presumptuous if you read it as simply a delusional human being. But if the "I" speaking there is the same "I" that in our own tradition's scriptures says "I am primordial self-originating wisdom. I am the primordial source of all phenomena. I am the all-creating king, pure perfect presence," what he has said is the opposite of arrogance or presumption.

The story of an "I" reposing in its first cause and then giving rise to creation sounds very much like the accounts we've heard of dualistic samsaric experience arising through non-recognition and the arising of false knowledge on the basis of ignorance. In fact, I would suggest that that is what Eckhart is trying to get at. But he phrases it in the language of "creation" that was known to everyone in his culture the same way that Buddhist accounts of how dualistic consciousness arises would be familiar to Buddhists. Eckhart saw the need to go back to the ground from which all conceptual proliferation arises.

Does he have to have fully realized and integrated that awakening in order for us to suspect he had a genuine glimpse? Of course we won't find Buddhist words coming out of his mouth, because he was unacquainted with Buddhism. However, if we take seriously the teaching that all sentient beings have buddha-nature . . . very possible.
Last edited by Spelare on Mon May 14, 2018 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Neither person nor skandha
but unstained wisdom is buddha.
In its knowing, ever serene—
I go for refuge therein.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon May 14, 2018 10:45 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:03 pm
Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:00 pm

Yes, again, standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.
Well, I guess CTR was a tirthika then.
"Agreeing on nontheism completely" != agreeing on the selflessness of persons and phenomena. Nontheism and Sramanic traditions go nigh hand-in-hand; doesn't mean nontheism or sramanic traditions are de facto liberative.

Who said anything about anything being de facto liberative?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

krodha
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by krodha » Mon May 14, 2018 10:51 pm

Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:30 pm
That quotation sounds totally arrogant and presumptuous if you read it as simply a delusional human being. But if the "I" speaking there is the same "I" that in our own tradition's scriptures says "I am primordial self-originating wisdom. I am the primordial source of all phenomena. I am the all-creating king, pure perfect presence," what he has said is the opposite of arrogance or presumption.
There is no actual "I" in the Dzogchen teachings that says such things.

The style of prose which involves a first person perspective that is sometimes employed in the Dzogchen tantras is "direct," as opposed to the "indirect" style we find in the Śravāka suttas and Mahāyāna sūtras and śastras. Which means that instead of the text being a second hand report of an account, beginning with "thus I have heard, on one occasion...", it is styilized as a direct teaching or exposition from the personified dharmakāya. The retinue, rather than a group of aspirants and practitioners in the sūtras, is the nature of mind itself. The nature of mind is giving an exposition to itself, where the retinue is the form kāyas. Therefore we see the personified teacher using the first person singular pronoun "I", as a rhetorical device.

The Dzogchen tantras even go as far as to note what the pronoun "I" represents in the texts in question, and are clear it is a literary device. It isn't stating that there is some sort of transcendent self or "I", nor is it saying anything remotely similar to esoteric Christian teachings.
Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:30 pm
Does he have to have fully realized and integrated that awakening in order for us to suspect he had a genuine glimpse? Of course we won't find Buddhist words coming out of his mouth, because he was unacquainted with Buddhism. However, if we take seriously the teaching that all sentient beings have buddha-nature . . . very possible.
There is no evidence these Christian mystics acquired insight or had experiences that were commensurate with the definitive species of realization championed in Dzogpachenpo.

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Losal Samten » Mon May 14, 2018 10:56 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:45 pm
Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:03 pm
Well, I guess CTR was a tirthika then.
"Agreeing on nontheism completely" != agreeing on the selflessness of persons and phenomena. Nontheism and Sramanic traditions go nigh hand-in-hand; doesn't mean nontheism or sramanic traditions are de facto liberative.
Who said anything about anything being de facto liberative?
A tirthika and a Buddhist agreeing upon nontheism doesn't mean the Buddhist is a tirthika, as the dividing line between tirthika systems and Buddhism is that the latter has the sole hold on liberation. Systems can share certain aspects whilst still being fundamentally differentiated.

The whole discussion about whether tirthika realisation = Buddhist realisation is to lift the former out of the samsaric gutter and to make them liberative.
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།།

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Malcolm » Mon May 14, 2018 10:58 pm

This business about the soul”s spark is exactly the atman Buddha refuted. Surprised you don’t get that. There is no dependent origination here, no emptiness, etc, just an assertion of an unconditioned substance called a soul.
Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 9:37 pm
Here is an example of what I am talking about. If you read this, don't only scan for specific words that prove this author didn't realize the nature of mind (though you are, of course, free to do that). Try to get a sense of what state he might be trying to communicate to his audience through the skillful means of the Biblical and Greco-Roman philosophical literature they would have been familiar with:
Meister Eckhart, Sermon 60 wrote:I have sometimes spoken of a light that is in the soul, which is uncreated and uncreatable. I continually touch on this light in my sermons: it is the light which lays straight hold of God, unveiled and bare, as He is in Himself, that is, it catches Him in the act of begetting. So I can truly say that this light is far more at one with God than it is with any of the powers with which it has unity of being. For you should know, this light is no nobler in my soul's essence than the humblest, or the grossest of my powers, such as hearing or sight or any other power which is subject to hunger or thirst, cold or heat, and that is because being is indivisible. And so, if we consider the powers of the soul in their being, they are all one and equally noble: but if we take them in their functions, one is much higher and nobler than the other.

Therefore I say, if a man turns away from self and from all created things, then—to the extent that you do this—you will attain to oneness and blessedness in your soul's spark, which time and place never touched. This spark is opposed to all creatures: it wants nothing but God, naked, just as He is. It is not satisfied with the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost, or all three Persons so far as they preserve their several properties. I declare in truth, this light would not be satisfied with the unity of the whole fertility of the divine nature. In fact I will say still more, which sounds even stranger: I declare in all truth, by the eternal and everlasting truth, that this light is not content with the simple changeless divine being which neither gives nor takes:

rather it seeks to know whence this being comes, it wants to get into its simple ground, into the silent desert into which no distinction ever peeped, of Father, Son or Holy Ghost. In the inmost part, where none is at home, there that light finds satisfaction, and there it is more one than it is in itself: for this ground is an impartible stillness, motionless in itself, and by this immobility all things are moved, and all those receive life that live of themselves, being endowed with reason. That we may thus live rationally, may the eternal truth of which I have spoken help us. Amen.
In this passage, he is not using the words "God," "soul," "reason," "eternity," or even "truth" according to the commonly understood definitions of his own time (or ours). They seem to have been the nearest approximations he hoped would be intelligible to his audience. And often they still didn't understand, as he often comments in his writings! Eckhart sought the ground prior to God, prior to being, and he sought it in himself, not in a distant separate entity above the sky. Clearly, he had some recognition, even if we cannot be certain how to classify it. Of course, that might be an interesting exercise, but I think his poetic evocation was intended to awaken his listeners.

User avatar
Spelare
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Spelare » Mon May 14, 2018 11:00 pm

krodha wrote:The nature of mind is giving an exposition to itself, where the retinue is the form kāyas. Therefore we see the personified teacher using the first person singular pronoun "I", as a rhetorical device.
My point is precisely that Eckhart uses the first person singular pronoun "I" as a rhetorical device. His sermons, while ostensibly to his audience, were also a way for him to give an exposition to himself; to clarify his realization. He is personifying a recognition, something that was strange and new to his listeners.
krodha wrote:The Dzogchen tantras even go as far as to note what the pronoun "I" represents in the texts in question
The tantras themselves do that, or later commentators do that? I am not claiming one way or the other, I just want to know which it is.
and are clear it is a literary device.
When Eckhart had to defend himself at trial, he testified that he had been employing a literary device. So, that's a non-difference.
Neither person nor skandha
but unstained wisdom is buddha.
In its knowing, ever serene—
I go for refuge therein.

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Malcolm » Mon May 14, 2018 11:02 pm

Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:30 pm
Losal Samten wrote:Divine light, uncreated, nonconceptual, etc. is standard talk regards to tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.
Pretty remarkable for a medieval German, though, isn't it?

But Eckhart went further in deconstructing the very idea of God. He talked about something called "the essence of God":
Eckhart, Sermon 87 wrote: While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth. Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things. But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not 'God': He was That which He was. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not 'God' in Himself—He was 'God' in creatures.

Therefore I pray to God to make me free of God, for my essential being is above God, taking God as the origin of creatures. For in that essence of God in which God is above being and distinction, there I was myself and knew myself so as to make this man. Therefore I am my own cause according to my essence, which is eternal, and not according to my becoming, which is temporal. Therefore I am unborn, and according to my unborn mode I can never die. According to my unborn mode I have eternally been, am now, and shall eternally remain. That which I am by virtue of birth must die and perish, for it is mortal, and so must perish with time. In my birth all things were born, and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God. But you do not need to know this.
Now you can see why he was investigated for heresy by the Papal authorities! That quotation sounds totally arrogant and presumptuous if you read it as simply a delusional human being. But if the "I" speaking there is the same "I" that in our own tradition's scriptures says "I am primordial self-originating wisdom. I am the primordial source of all phenomena. I am the all-creating king, pure perfect presence," what he has said is the opposite of arrogance or presumption.

The story of an "I" reposing in its first cause and then giving rise to creation sounds very much like the accounts we've heard of dualistic samsaric experience arising through non-recognition and the arising of false knowledge on the basis of ignorance. In fact, I would suggest that that is what Eckhart is trying to get at. But he phrases it in the language of "creation" that was known to everyone in his culture the same way that Buddhist accounts of how dualistic consciousness arises would be familiar to Buddhists. Eckhart saw the need to go back to the ground from which all conceptual proliferation arises.

Does he have to have fully realized and integrated that awakening in order for us to suspect he had a genuine glimpse? Of course we won't find Buddhist words coming out of his mouth, because he was unacquainted with Buddhism. However, if we take seriously the teaching that all sentient beings have buddha-nature . . . very possible.
There is no first cause in Buddhadharma, including Dzogchen.

User avatar
Spelare
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Spelare » Mon May 14, 2018 11:06 pm

Malcom wrote:There is no first cause in Buddhadharma, including Dzogchen.
Suppose we aren't speaking of the entire cosmos, but of the dualistic samsaric perception of an individual. I thought that arose due to ignorance. Or is there a sense in which that is not accurate to say in Dzogchen?

I know that samsara is said elsewhere to be beginningless. I've never been certain how to reconcile those accounts. I usually do so in a general way with the concepts of timelessness and transcendence of cause-and-effect, but I'd like to do so more precisely.
Last edited by Spelare on Mon May 14, 2018 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Neither person nor skandha
but unstained wisdom is buddha.
In its knowing, ever serene—
I go for refuge therein.

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Malcolm » Mon May 14, 2018 11:13 pm

You are engaged in a top down reading.
Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:30 pm
Losal Samten wrote:Divine light, uncreated, nonconceptual, etc. is standard talk regards to tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms.
Pretty remarkable for a medieval German, though, isn't it?

But Eckhart went further in deconstructing the very idea of God. He talked about something called "the essence of God":
Eckhart, Sermon 87 wrote: While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth. Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things. But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not 'God': He was That which He was. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not 'God' in Himself—He was 'God' in creatures.

Therefore I pray to God to make me free of God, for my essential being is above God, taking God as the origin of creatures. For in that essence of God in which God is above being and distinction, there I was myself and knew myself so as to make this man. Therefore I am my own cause according to my essence, which is eternal, and not according to my becoming, which is temporal. Therefore I am unborn, and according to my unborn mode I can never die. According to my unborn mode I have eternally been, am now, and shall eternally remain. That which I am by virtue of birth must die and perish, for it is mortal, and so must perish with time. In my birth all things were born, and I was the cause of myself and all things: and if I had so willed it, I would not have been, and all things would not have been. If I were not, God would not be either. I am the cause of God's being God: if I were not, then God would not be God. But you do not need to know this.
Now you can see why he was investigated for heresy by the Papal authorities! That quotation sounds totally arrogant and presumptuous if you read it as simply a delusional human being. But if the "I" speaking there is the same "I" that in our own tradition's scriptures says "I am primordial self-originating wisdom. I am the primordial source of all phenomena. I am the all-creating king, pure perfect presence," what he has said is the opposite of arrogance or presumption.

The story of an "I" reposing in its first cause and then giving rise to creation sounds very much like the accounts we've heard of dualistic samsaric experience arising through non-recognition and the arising of false knowledge on the basis of ignorance. In fact, I would suggest that that is what Eckhart is trying to get at. But he phrases it in the language of "creation" that was known to everyone in his culture the same way that Buddhist accounts of how dualistic consciousness arises would be familiar to Buddhists. Eckhart saw the need to go back to the ground from which all conceptual proliferation arises.

Does he have to have fully realized and integrated that awakening in order for us to suspect he had a genuine glimpse? Of course we won't find Buddhist words coming out of his mouth, because he was unacquainted with Buddhism. However, if we take seriously the teaching that all sentient beings have buddha-nature . . . very possible.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon May 14, 2018 11:17 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:56 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:45 pm
Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 pm

"Agreeing on nontheism completely" != agreeing on the selflessness of persons and phenomena. Nontheism and Sramanic traditions go nigh hand-in-hand; doesn't mean nontheism or sramanic traditions are de facto liberative.
Who said anything about anything being de facto liberative?
A tirthika and a Buddhist agreeing upon nontheism doesn't mean the Buddhist is a tirthika, as the dividing line between tirthika systems and Buddhism is that the latter has the sole hold on liberation. Systems can share certain aspects whilst still being fundamentally differentiated.

The whole discussion about whether tirthika realisation = Buddhist realisation is to lift the former out of the samsaric gutter and to make them liberative.

OK, you appear to be incapable of understanding so this is my last reponse. You described something as "standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms", presumably as opposed to something Buddhist. If it is in fact something in common with Buddhism, your observation is irrelevant.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Malcolm » Mon May 14, 2018 11:27 pm

Ignorance also has a cause in Dzogchen. There are no first causes. And even Samantabhadra possessed ignorance.
Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:06 pm
Malcom wrote:There is no first cause in Buddhadharma, including Dzogchen.
Suppose we aren't speaking of the entire cosmos, but of the dualistic samsaric perception of an individual. I thought that arose due to ignorance. Or is there a sense in which that is not accurate to say in Dzogchen?

I know that samsara is said elsewhere to be beginningless. I've never been certain how to reconcile those accounts. I usually do so in a general way with the concepts of timelessness and transcendence of cause-and-effect, but I'd like to do so more precisely.

User avatar
Spelare
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:38 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Spelare » Mon May 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Malcolm wrote:Ignorance also has a cause in Dzogchen. There are no first causes. And even Samantabhadra possessed ignorance.
Okay, thanks. I will look into that and try to clarify it experientially, if possible. If not, I'll at least brush up on my textual knowledge.
Malcolm wrote:You are engaged in a top down reading.
Fair enough. Would it, however, be undue speculation to suppose that some non-Buddhists like Eckhart encountered the ālaya-vijñāna and then tried to articulate their experience in theistic language? I thought that's what thousands of Hindus are supposed to have been doing all these years.
Neither person nor skandha
but unstained wisdom is buddha.
In its knowing, ever serene—
I go for refuge therein.

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Losal Samten » Mon May 14, 2018 11:48 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:17 pm
OK, you appear to be incapable of understanding so this is my last reponse. You described something as "standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms", presumably as opposed to something Buddhist. If it is in fact something in common with Buddhism, your observation is irrelevant.
Not 'something', I specifically excerpted from your quote the "concept of the nonexistence of the divinity principle outside of one's existence" as being a common feature in tirthika mysticism. There is nothing for me to be 'incapable of understanding' because you sought out and copy-pasted that quote here for some unknown reason (as you declined to mention it), so I merely commented on it as I saw fit.

It seems we both need to post with more clarity.
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།།

krodha
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by krodha » Mon May 14, 2018 11:52 pm

Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:00 pm
My point is precisely that Eckhart uses the first person singular pronoun "I" as a rhetorical device. His sermons, while ostensibly to his audience, were also a way for him to give an exposition to himself; to clarify his realization. He is personifying a recognition, something that was strange and new to his listeners.
His expositions appear to be no different than the Advaitan authors who used "I" as a means to indicate their transcendent nature, and the Advaitans are certainly not using said pronoun rhetorically. For them it is referencing something truly substantial that is endowed with an ontological status, there is no reason to assume Eckhart was not doing the same.
Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:00 pm
When Eckhart had to defend himself at trial, he testified that he had been employing a literary device. So, that's a non-difference.
Eckhart pivoted to his claimed "literary" position under duress, in order to literally save his own head.

The Dzogchen tantras on the other hand are understood to use the same language rhetorically and this information was voluntarily provided under no threat of beheading.

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Malcolm » Mon May 14, 2018 11:53 pm

Spelare wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:36 pm

Fair enough. Would it, however, be undue speculation to suppose that some non-Buddhists like Eckhart encountered the ālaya-vijñāna and then tried to articulate their experience in theistic language? I thought that's what thousands of Hindus are supposed to have been doing all these years.
The ālaya-vijñāna is not an object of consciousness. The basic error nonbuddhist make is that they hold consciousness, whether dualistic like the Samkhya, or nondually like Advaita, to be permanent, unconditioned and so on. This is Eckhart's flaw as well. They do this because they do not have the view of dependent origination.

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon May 14, 2018 11:58 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:48 pm
dzogchungpa wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 11:17 pm
OK, you appear to be incapable of understanding so this is my last reponse. You described something as "standard tirthika metaphysics and mysticisms", presumably as opposed to something Buddhist. If it is in fact something in common with Buddhism, your observation is irrelevant.
Not 'something', I specifically excerpted from your quote the "concept of the nonexistence of the divinity principle outside of one's existence" as being a common feature in tirthika mysticism. There is nothing for me to be 'incapable of understanding' because you sought out and copy-pasted that quote here for some unknown reason (as you declined to mention it), so I merely commented on it as I saw fit.

It seems we both need to post with more clarity.

OK, let me respond one more time. I had thought the relevance of CTR saying that the "concept of the nonexistence of the divinity principle outside of one's existence" was understood "fully and completely" by at least some Christians would be obvious, considering that the topic of this thread is the following quote:
“Most Westerners receive a Christian education and in the Christian tradition God is very diffused. God is recognized as something outside. They don’t know that God is in our real nature. If you have that knowledge and you are reading the bible, you can see there are many words that indicate God means our real nature. But then it developed in a more dualistic way. When they started to say, “the unique God governing all universe”, then it became easy to think God is governing everything. But it does not correspond in the real condition. So it is very important when you follow the Dzogchen Teachings, that you really understand what God means. It is not necessary to wonder if God exists or not. Some people are worried there is no God in Buddhism. In Buddhism there are so many kinds of gods, but Buddhists do not speak of the unique God. The essence of Buddhist teaching is Dzogchen, which is the final teaching of the Buddha Shakyamuni. Through Dzogchen we can really understand what God is and we don’t have to worry if there is a God or not. God always exists as our real nature, the base, for everybody.”
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4850
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Quote by ChNNR about Dzogchen and God - where is it from?

Post by Wayfarer » Tue May 15, 2018 12:04 am

I have always thought one of the main differentiators of Buddhism is the 'parable of the raft' - that the Buddhist teaching is a means to cross the river, but something that is left behind once the river has been crossed. So in that sense, all Buddhism is 'expedient means', it has no ultimate meaning or value beyond that of 'pointing out' and crossing over.

That's where the major difference is with Biblical/Semitic religions, which don't make such a distinction - in their eyes, the teaching IS the ultimate, there is no 'ultimate' other than the religion itself. The other main differentiator is that in the Biblical/Semitic faiths, God is the ultimate authority figure and source of power - both as 'a jealous God' and also the one who inflicts judgement and punishment on evil-doers. That attitude is practically inextricable from mainstream Christianity. (But the mystics are a different matter, which is why they have themselves often been treated as heretics or outsiders by the ecclesiastical authorities.)

As for the talk of 'outside' or 'other to' - the nub of that distinction is non-dualism (whether advaya or advaita) - which generally speaking was never made explicit in Christianity, although now with the benefit of hindsight, there are modern teachers (like Richard Rohr, Cynthia Bourgeault and Bernadette Roberts) who speak of 'Christian non-dualism' as something that has been there all along (but who are also 'flirting with heresy' in the eyes of some.)
Last edited by Wayfarer on Tue May 15, 2018 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

Locked

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests