booker wrote:Hmmmm, Namrdol ofen says emptiness in Madhyamaka and Dzogchen has the same meaning, however currently I'm reading "Undbounded Wholeness" by Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and there's a part called "Core Philosophical Issues" where it's stated "Dzogchen and Madhyamaka speak of emptiness, they differ in their actual understandings of this".
Bon Dzogchen and Buddhist Dzogchen are slightly different.
What we say is that the main difference between Dzogchen view and Madhyamaka view is that the former is experiential and the latter is intellectual. But their content, their meaning, is the same as Jigme Lingpa writes:“ I myself argue ‘To comprehend the meaning of the non-arising baseless, rootless dharmakāya, although reaching and the way of reaching this present conclusion “Since I have no thesis, I alone am without a fault”, as in the Prasanga Madhyamaka system, is not established by an intellectual consideration such as a belief to which one adheres, but is reached by seeing the meaning of ultimate reality of the natural great completion.
Norbu Rinpoche states in his Questions and Answers on the Great Perfection: That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that.
What the Bonpos say is that Dzogchen view of emptiness and the Madhyamaka view of emptiness are different. We Buddhists definitely disagree.
"a vital point: only if wisdom and delusion do not exclude each other can wisdom be primordial."
That does not match well with this statement in the String of Pearls Tantra:The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.
"Wisdom's status as primordial has to do with its being spontaneously arisen from the base and thus not dependent on causes."
The Unwritten Tantra states:There is not object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.
If it arose, that means that even in wisdom there are processes. Wisdom is the basis, BTW.
"Sound, rays, and light are thus neither dependent on the base nor dependency arisen from the base. They are spontaneously present to it. This is not understood as a relationship of cause and effect."
The basis possess three wisdoms, essence, nature and compassion. They manifest as sound, lights and rays. However, the Bonpos place much more emphasis on this doctrine than Buddhist Dzogchen does (where it mainly appears as an explanation of the experience of the bardo).
My point was that the there are processess in the basis, whether you want to call them "causal" or not is really quite irrelevant.
And actually Buddhist Dzogchen disagrees with this Bon assessment above. Padmasambhava states:"Though the trio of essence, nature and compassion exist in reality, they occur as cause, condition and result because of ignorance."
But this is partly why I did not want to get into this. This topic is very complex, and is just a bunch of intellectual proliferation if you are not a practitioner of tögal. Just understand that there are processes in the basis. You can call them spontanous if you want.
Padmasambhava again states:The luminous part of vidyā in the basis stirs as the five lights. The karmic winds, the condition of vidyā, cause the colors to appear as a house of light. Since that is not understood as wisdom, delusion cognizing the part of dualistic appearances produces delusion about the duality of subject and object.
Garab Dorje explains the reason why there is stirring in the basis in his commentary on The Single Son of the All the Buddhas Tantra
:At that time, from the naturally occurring blessings of the personal experience of the realization of the heart essence (snying thig), having recognized one's own state, in one lifetime, everyone will attain the result of Buddhahood. From now on, the emptied pit of samsara will not appear as the six kinds of living beings. For twenty thousand eons, sentient beings will not appear possessing a bodily form having severed the stream of samsara. After that, from the arising of the subtle latent defilements of different actions, samsara and nirvana will arise in the same way as before.
Why is this possible? Again, the String of Pearls clarifies:Luminosity itself stores traces.
Luminosity ['od gsal], the nature [rang bzhin], which is the naturally formed [lhun grub] aspect of the basis, stores traces.
As I said, these issues are subtle, difficult and would take a long time to properly flesh out. Since these things take a long to time to flesh out, and since the explanation of the basis and the arising of the basis and so on and forth is really only relevant to tögal practice and is meant to provide a basis for understanding the result of that practice, delving into explorations of that topic prior to understanding the context of that explanation causes people to become trapped in a lot of useless conceptual proliferation.
Incidentally, I do not appreciate the tone of your comments.