What is Dzogchen?

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

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am

Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:06 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:42 pm
Sherab wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:58 pm

What then is your definition of the relative and your definition of the ultimate?
Consult Candrakīrti. But in brief, an ultimate truth is the object of a veridical cognition; a relative truth is the object of a nonveridical cognition.
What is this object?
Any given object has two natures, according to Candrakīrti possesses two natures: one ultimate, one relative. If you are not happy with this, take it up with Candrakīrti.
I am using the concepts of sets.

One set is the set of all objects that are eternal, namely permanent and unchanging. The other is the set of all objects that cannot be a continuum because they are annihilated. The set that avoid the two extremes is merely that set for any object that don't fall into either of the two other sets.
As I said, it does not matter whether you use this noun or that noun. Your proposed set is just another extreme: neither existent and nonexistent. This is just the fault of the fourth extreme, which is why it also needs to be negated. It is not enough to negate two extremes. You must negate all four.

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

Re: What is Dzogchen?

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:50 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:22 am
One question that often occurs to me in these debates is, from whence arises the 'energy of bodhicitta' in all of this? After all bodhicitta-compassion is the fundamental driving motivation of the bodhisattva. But it's not something that can be intellectually contrived, in my experience, nor is it necessarily something under one's control. So how does bodhicitta emerge or fit into this understanding of the 'negation of appearances'?
We don't negate appearances.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4838
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: What is Dzogchen?

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:53 am

well, perhaps not, but the question stands.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Drenpa
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:50 am

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Drenpa » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:14 am

Malcolm: I have never made such a silly argument in my life.

Sherab:
What then is your definition of the relative and your definition of the ultimate?
RU, like serious?

User avatar
SkyDragon3
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:47 am

Re: What is Dzogchen?

Post by SkyDragon3 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:44 am

My understanding of the dzogchen state is that it is beyond concepts, so clearly is not reached by arguing over the definition of words.
I came across this short verse which seems helpful with this, for me:

Concepts

We know hot, because we know cold,
We know weak, because we know bold,
We know low, because we know high.
. Without knowing the first,
. We cannot know the second.
This is the law of opposites.

There can be no good, if there is no bad,
There can be no happy, if there is no sad,
There can be no long, if there is no short.
. There can be no first,
. If there is no last.
This is the law of comparison.

There is a time when cold may be hot
And hot may be cold,
And weak my be bold,
And low may be high,
. Because these things change in relationship
. With other comparable things.
This law of change is unchangeable.

. If one understands this law
. (And it is but one)
. These words become as chaff;
. Totally without meaning and substance;
. They are an unreality, speaking of an unreality.

User avatar
Drenpa
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:50 am

Re: What is Dzogchen?

Post by Drenpa » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:48 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:22 am
One question that often occurs to me in these debates is, from whence arises the 'energy of bodhicitta' in all of this? After all bodhicitta-compassion is the fundamental driving motivation of the bodhisattva. But it's not something that can be intellectually contrived, in my experience, nor is it necessarily something under one's control. So how does bodhicitta emerge or fit into this understanding of the 'negation of appearances'?
The "energy of bodhicitta" as you put it, arises unimpeded. However obscuring affliction blooms in the minds of sentient beings as long as there is any involvement with negation or affirmation of appearances.

Relative bodhichitta then, is precisely a contrivance of mind.

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

Re: What is Dzogchen?

Post by Malcolm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:18 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:53 am
well, perhaps not, but the question stands.
In Dzogchen teachings, bodhicitta, the aspiration for full buddhahood in order to benefit sentient beings, arises from seeing that sentient beings suffer because they have not seen the truth.

Given that Dzogchen is part of uncommon Mahāyāna Secret Mantra, its presentation of aspirational and engaged bodhicitta is not actually different than that of common Mahāyāna. Bodhicitta is also fundamental to the path of the Great Perfection.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4838
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: What is Dzogchen?

Post by Wayfarer » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:35 pm

Thank you.

:namaste:
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Sherab » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:06 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:42 pm
Consult Candrakīrti. But in brief, an ultimate truth is the object of a veridical cognition; a relative truth is the object of a nonveridical cognition.
What is this object?
Any given object has two natures, according to Candrakīrti possesses two natures: one ultimate, one relative. If you are not happy with this, take it up with Candrakīrti.
I went through the possibilities of what the objects of cognition could be for a table and an example and you clearly could not reply my question directly. Why?

If you bother to try to answer my question directly instead of evading, you will notice that the object of cognition for a relative truth and an ultimate truth for a table can never be the same object until you drill down to the final parts that made up the object.

For the same reason, you will also notice that the object of cognition necessarily has to be a mental image rather than the object itself for a relative truth until you come to the final parts that made up the object.
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:06 am
I am using the concepts of sets.

One set is the set of all objects that are eternal, namely permanent and unchanging. The other is the set of all objects that cannot be a continuum because they are annihilated. The set that avoid the two extremes is merely that set for any object that don't fall into either of the two other sets.
As I said, it does not matter whether you use this noun or that noun. Your proposed set is just another extreme: neither existent and nonexistent. This is just the fault of the fourth extreme, which is why it also needs to be negated. It is not enough to negate two extremes. You must negate all four.
Why I give my reply to your response, I gave my reason.

However your reply to my response is merely an assertion. Is your assertion based on mere authority or reason? If it is the latter, why don't you spill it out?

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

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:37 am

It’s not that I can’t answer your questions, it’s that I have already done so multiple times and have no interest in repeating myself ad nauseaum.
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:06 am

What is this object?
Any given object has two natures, according to Candrakīrti possesses two natures: one ultimate, one relative. If you are not happy with this, take it up with Candrakīrti.
I went through the possibilities of what the objects of cognition could be for a table and an example and you clearly could not reply my question directly. Why?

If you bother to try to answer my question directly instead of evading, you will notice that the object of cognition for a relative truth and an ultimate truth for a table can never be the same object until you drill down to the final parts that made up the object.

For the same reason, you will also notice that the object of cognition necessarily has to be a mental image rather than the object itself for a relative truth until you come to the final parts that made up the object.
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:06 am
I am using the concepts of sets.

One set is the set of all objects that are eternal, namely permanent and unchanging. The other is the set of all objects that cannot be a continuum because they are annihilated. The set that avoid the two extremes is merely that set for any object that don't fall into either of the two other sets.
As I said, it does not matter whether you use this noun or that noun. Your proposed set is just another extreme: neither existent and nonexistent. This is just the fault of the fourth extreme, which is why it also needs to be negated. It is not enough to negate two extremes. You must negate all four.
Why I give my reply to your response, I gave my reason.

However your reply to my response is merely an assertion. Is your assertion based on mere authority or reason? If it is the latter, why don't you spill it out?

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Sherab » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:20 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:37 am
It’s not that I can’t answer your questions, it’s that I have already done so multiple times and have no interest in repeating myself ad nauseaum.
I feel tired having to read the similar explanation multiple times, references to authority without giving the reasoning that backed the authority and the frustrating evasions. I remain engaged in the thread because I wanted to show my reasons, step by step (to ensure clarity), as to why I think your arguments are not satisfactory because they don't address certain issues within them. I'll leave it anyway since you expressed your desire to discontinue the discussion.

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

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by krodha » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:39 am

Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:06 am

What is this object?
Any given object has two natures, according to Candrakīrti possesses two natures: one ultimate, one relative. If you are not happy with this, take it up with Candrakīrti.
I went through the possibilities of what the objects of cognition could be for a table and an example and you clearly could not reply my question directly. Why?

If you bother to try to answer my question directly instead of evading, you will notice that the object of cognition for a relative truth and an ultimate truth for a table can never be the same object until you drill down to the final parts that made up the object.

For the same reason, you will also notice that the object of cognition necessarily has to be a mental image rather than the object itself for a relative truth until you come to the final parts that made up the object.
This notion that (i) the object of cognition has to be a “mental image” rather than the “object itself, or (ii) the idea that you must “drill down to the final parts that made up the object” in order to have relative and ultimate truths be simultaneously applicable to a given object... are these your own ideas?

I’m not sure where you are deriving these notions from.

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

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:44 am

Sherab wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:20 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:37 am
It’s not that I can’t answer your questions, it’s that I have already done so multiple times and have no interest in repeating myself ad nauseaum.
I feel tired having to read the similar explanation multiple times, references to authority without giving the reasoning that backed the authority and the frustrating evasions. I remain engaged in the thread because I wanted to show my reasons, step by step (to ensure clarity), as to why I think your arguments are not satisfactory because they don't address certain issues within them. I'll leave it anyway since you expressed your desire to discontinue the discussion.
I understand your point of view, but I consider your objections quixotic at best.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Sherab » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:25 pm

krodha wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:39 am
Sherab wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am

Any given object has two natures, according to Candrakīrti possesses two natures: one ultimate, one relative. If you are not happy with this, take it up with Candrakīrti.
I went through the possibilities of what the objects of cognition could be for a table and an example and you clearly could not reply my question directly. Why?

If you bother to try to answer my question directly instead of evading, you will notice that the object of cognition for a relative truth and an ultimate truth for a table can never be the same object until you drill down to the final parts that made up the object.

For the same reason, you will also notice that the object of cognition necessarily has to be a mental image rather than the object itself for a relative truth until you come to the final parts that made up the object.
This notion that (i) the object of cognition has to be a “mental image” rather than the “object itself, or (ii) the idea that you must “drill down to the final parts that made up the object” in order to have relative and ultimate truths be simultaneously applicable to a given object... are these your own ideas?

I’m not sure where you are deriving these notions from.
My notions came from reasoning.

Malcolm stated this: "... in brief, an ultimate truth is the object of a veridical cognition; a relative truth is the object of a nonveridical cognition."
If the "object" in the statement do not pertain to the same object, then there is equivocation. When there is equivocation of a term, that can easily lead to confusion and wrong understanding.

Also, from modern science, we know that the brain reconstruct from signals it receives from the senses a picture of objects in its field of perception. Therefore we know from modern science that we do not see the actual object but a mental representation of the object.

What I therefore wanted to ascertain was what exactly is the objection of cognition for ascertain of the relative truth and the ascertain of ultimate truth. If they are different, you have a problem of equivocation. If they are not, you have a problem of how can the ultimate truth be verified through the senses but objects perceived through the senses are merely mental representations and not the actual object itself.

For consistency, then, object of cognition in Malcolm statement has to be a mental representation. But if that is the case, then what is understood ultimately cannot be accurate and cannot be a basis for explaining how Siddhas can have the ability to affect their physical objects such as leaving footprints on rocks.

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

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Malcolm » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:07 am

Sherab wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:25 pm
For consistency, then, object of cognition in Malcolm statement has to be a mental representation. But if that is the case, then what is understood ultimately cannot be accurate and cannot be a basis for explaining how Siddhas can have the ability to affect their physical objects such as leaving footprints on rocks.
No, the object of cognition is not "representation only," (vijñāptimatra) for it it were, there would be no difference between Cittamātra and general Madhyamaka.

I get a little tired of repeating myself, but here it goes again:

Because all entities can be perceived veridically,
it is found that all entities can be apprehended with two natures.
When some object that is perceived veridically, that is true.
All [objects] perceived falsely are said to be relative truths.


Candra continues:

"The buddhas that know with correct wisdom the intrinsic nature of the two truths have taught that all external entities such as formations, sprouts, and so on, have two intrinsic natures. These [natures] are relative and ultimate.

This excludes your contention that what is being referred to are mental representations.

He continues:

The ultimate is the acquisition of the essential identity of the specific object of the wisdom (jñāna) that sees the truth, but is not established through its own nature. This is the first nature. The other is all the mental eyes of ordinary people that are obscured with opthalmia and cataracts, which find an existent self from the power of false perception. Whatever becomes the object of the perception of children, such a nature is not intrinsically established. Therefore, the nature of all entities are apprehended in these two ways.

Frankly, the frustrating thing about you is that you don't do your homework, and don't seem to bother to educate yourself about these things. This is the main reason why I have no interest in your exercises in logic. It is a waste of time, for me, because your logic is not grounded in citation. Time and again, in order to even have a discussion, I define terms, which you consistently ignore, based on some personal criteria which is opaque at best. We have wasted the better part of thread supposedly devoted to Dzogchen to just running on the same hamster wheel. So am I out.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Sherab » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:47 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:07 am

No, the object of cognition is not "representation only," (vijñāptimatra) for it it were, there would be no difference between Cittamātra and general Madhyamaka.

I get a little tired of repeating myself, but here it goes again:

Because all entities can be perceived veridically,
it is found that all entities can be apprehended with two natures.
When some object that is perceived veridically, that is true.
All [objects] perceived falsely are said to be relative truths.


Candra continues:

"The buddhas that know with correct wisdom the intrinsic nature of the two truths have taught that all external entities such as formations, sprouts, and so on, have two intrinsic natures. These [natures] are relative and ultimate.

This excludes your contention that what is being referred to are mental representations.

He continues:

The ultimate is the acquisition of the essential identity of the specific object of the wisdom (jñāna) that sees the truth, but is not established through its own nature. This is the first nature. The other is all the mental eyes of ordinary people that are obscured with opthalmia and cataracts, which find an existent self from the power of false perception. Whatever becomes the object of the perception of children, such a nature is not intrinsically established. Therefore, the nature of all entities are apprehended in these two ways.

Frankly, the frustrating thing about you is that you don't do your homework, and don't seem to bother to educate yourself about these things. This is the main reason why I have no interest in your exercises in logic. It is a waste of time, for me, because your logic is not grounded in citation. Time and again, in order to even have a discussion, I define terms, which you consistently ignore, based on some personal criteria which is opaque at best. We have wasted the better part of thread supposedly devoted to Dzogchen to just running on the same hamster wheel. So am I out.
While you claim to understand my position, you in reality, don't.

For example, in the above, you said "your contention that what is being referred to are mental representations". If you have bothered to understand what I wrote, you will understand that I did NOT at any time said that was my position.

For the sake of clarity, what I said was "For consistency, then, object of cognition in Malcolm statement has to be a mental representation. But if that is the case, then what is understood ultimately cannot be accurate and cannot be a basis for explaining how Siddhas can have the ability to affect their physical objects such as leaving footprints on rocks."

Notice that I started off the sentence with "For consistency, then.." to indicate that what follows was a result of earlier reasoning. Then I went on to point out the problem with such a conclusion. Do you think I am that stupid to adopt such a position knowing that there was a problem with such a position? Maybe you do.

If not, I am left with the conclusion that you don't really understand what I wrote or you don't bother to understand what I was trying to say.

One thing is very clear to me now, namely, that you placed authority over proper reasoning when you stated "It is a waste of time, for me, because your logic is not grounded in citation." Or to be more accurate, you place your interpretation of authority over the proper reasoning of others.

Finally, as far as I can see, the authority you cited in no way contradict my actual position and I have reasons to back that.

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

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by krodha » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:07 am

Sherab wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:47 am
If not, I am left with the conclusion that you don't really understand what I wrote or you don't bother to understand what I was trying to say.

Finally, as far as I can see, the authority you cited in no way contradict my actual position and I have reasons to back that.
Your mentioning of the ideas I pointed out above, specifically the “mental representations” and breaking things down to fundamental constituents, seemed to be your position. If they aren’t then they certainly muddied the waters in terms of understanding your actual position.

At first you appeared to be taking issue with the import of Candrakīrti’s view on the two truths being species of cognition, but now you are saying you actually are in agreement with his view.

Honestly it is hard to decipher your position, but it would be nice to if you want to unpack it further.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Mind essence introduced in advaita and TB

Post by Sherab » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:41 pm

krodha wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:07 am
Sherab wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:47 am
If not, I am left with the conclusion that you don't really understand what I wrote or you don't bother to understand what I was trying to say.

Finally, as far as I can see, the authority you cited in no way contradict my actual position and I have reasons to back that.
Your mentioning of the ideas I pointed out above, specifically the “mental representations” and breaking things down to fundamental constituents, seemed to be your position. If they aren’t then they certainly muddied the waters in terms of understanding your actual position.
Read what I posted carefully. I was merely pursuing a line of argument to try and demonstrate the possible issues from not being clear about what exactly the term object refers to.
krodha wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:07 am
At first you appeared to be taking issue with the import of Candrakīrti’s view on the two truths being species of cognition, but now you are saying you actually are in agreement with his view.
It may have appeared to you that I was taking issue with Candrakirti's view. If you have bothered to read carefully, you would have noticed that I was referring to a statement made by Malcolm and was trying to get his clarification as to what the object of cognition was.
krodha wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:07 am
Honestly it is hard to decipher your position, but it would be nice to if you want to unpack it further.
I disagree. I think it is because you don't bother to read my posts carefully and as a result misunderstood what I was saying. That then translated into your thinking that it is hard to decipher my position because you previously thought you had understood my position. This is just my opinion and it is fine by me if you disagree.

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests