What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

User avatar
Tenzintharpa
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:19 am
Contact:

What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Tenzintharpa » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:33 am

I am a Gelug practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism and understand Tsongkhapa’s view but am a little confused on the different views of conventional phenomena held by other schools of Buddhism.
According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, does conventional phenomena:
A) Exist as Illusion, existing only as a projection of the mind, (literally unreal).
B) Exist as Illusion ‘like’; real but existing in an ethereal manner, lacking any inherent true essence; nominally existent.
C) Do Dzogchen and/or Nyingma deny the existence of conventional phenomena and/or matter?

Gelug presentation
The Buddha often described life as dream-like but he never asserted that life was a dream or that phenomenon did not actually exist.

Observed phenomenon don’t exist as mere images, projections or visions in the mind but rather exists as separate entities from the mind. The mind and matter are two separate things. Matter is separate from the mind that cognizes and dominates it. And although observed phenomenon are not simply created by a mind, their ultimate mode of existence is dependent upon the mind, so the mind doesn’t create the matter but the matter is dependent on the mind that imputes it as the imputer. Therefore, their mode of existence is separate from the imputer but their existence is dependent upon the imputer. Their mode of existence is separate but their existence is dependent. Nothing can exist independently from the mind which perceives it. ~ Dalai Lama

Thanks all,

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23355
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:51 pm

Tenzintharpa wrote:According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, does conventional phenomena:


According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, conventional phenomena are apparent yet nonexistent, thus they are illusory, etc.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Matt J » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:16 pm

How is it that phenomenon are illusory dreams, yet not mind? How do they not exist from their own side yet are not projections of mind, either?

Malcolm wrote:
Tenzintharpa wrote:According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, does conventional phenomena:


According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, conventional phenomena are apparent yet nonexistent, thus they are illusory, etc.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23355
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:31 pm

Matt J wrote:How is it that phenomenon are illusory dreams, yet not mind? How do they not exist from their own side yet are not projections of mind, either?

Malcolm wrote:
Tenzintharpa wrote:According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, does conventional phenomena:


According to the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma, conventional phenomena are apparent yet nonexistent, thus they are illusory, etc.


Mind is also a clearly apparent nonexistent.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

bhava
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby bhava » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:17 pm

In dzogchen and nyingma, conventional phenomena have allways been primordial enlightenment. One leaves analytical approach of "exist nor non-exist" far away, as it is the domain of conceptual mind. In the state of rigpa it your direct experience. Of course as upaya one can use any kind of analytical meditation, but real view completely transcends conceptual mind and its assertions.

Lukeinaz
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Lukeinaz » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:12 pm

bhava wrote:In dzogchen and nyingma, conventional phenomena have allways been primordial enlightenment. One leaves analytical approach of "exist nor non-exist" far away, as it is the domain of conceptual mind. In the state of rigpa it your direct experience. Of course as upaya one can use any kind of analytical meditation, but real view completely transcends conceptual mind and its assertions.


If conventional phenomena have always been primordial enlightenment and conventional truth is delusion then is delusion primordial enlightenment? Now I understand all the drinking and sex. Sign me up!
What a joy when the gentle rain comes on time.
What a joy when the crops ripen in the fields.
What a joy if bodhicitta were to be produced
in the minds of living beings equal to space.
-Khunu Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23355
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:52 pm

Lukeinaz wrote:
bhava wrote:In dzogchen and nyingma, conventional phenomena have allways been primordial enlightenment. One leaves analytical approach of "exist nor non-exist" far away, as it is the domain of conceptual mind. In the state of rigpa it your direct experience. Of course as upaya one can use any kind of analytical meditation, but real view completely transcends conceptual mind and its assertions.


If conventional phenomena have always been primordial enlightenment and conventional truth is delusion then is delusion primordial enlightenment? Now I understand all the drinking and sex. Sign me up!


You should read Rongzom's hook.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

Lukeinaz
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Lukeinaz » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:57 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Lukeinaz wrote:
bhava wrote:In dzogchen and nyingma, conventional phenomena have allways been primordial enlightenment. One leaves analytical approach of "exist nor non-exist" far away, as it is the domain of conceptual mind. In the state of rigpa it your direct experience. Of course as upaya one can use any kind of analytical meditation, but real view completely transcends conceptual mind and its assertions.


If conventional phenomena have always been primordial enlightenment and conventional truth is delusion then is delusion primordial enlightenment? Now I understand all the drinking and sex. Sign me up!


You should read Rongzom's hook.


Entering the Way?
What a joy when the gentle rain comes on time.
What a joy when the crops ripen in the fields.
What a joy if bodhicitta were to be produced
in the minds of living beings equal to space.
-Khunu Rinpoche

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23355
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:00 pm

Lukeinaz wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Lukeinaz wrote:
If conventional phenomena have always been primordial enlightenment and conventional truth is delusion then is delusion primordial enlightenment? Now I understand all the drinking and sex. Sign me up!


You should read Rongzom's hook.


Entering the Way?



Yes, that or the appearances as divine.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


There is neither sharp nor dull in the capacity of sentient beings. If it is asked why this is so, it is because an introduction is sufficient.


— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra

Penor
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:29 pm

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby Penor » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Lukeinaz wrote:
bhava wrote:In dzogchen and nyingma, conventional phenomena have allways been primordial enlightenment. One leaves analytical approach of "exist nor non-exist" far away, as it is the domain of conceptual mind. In the state of rigpa it your direct experience. Of course as upaya one can use any kind of analytical meditation, but real view completely transcends conceptual mind and its assertions.


If conventional phenomena have always been primordial enlightenment and conventional truth is delusion then is delusion primordial enlightenment? Now I understand all the drinking and sex. Sign me up!


Yes. As one of my dzogchen masters says, sem and rigpa are the same thing.

MiphamFan
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: What is the Dzogchen and/or Nyingma assertion of how conventional phenomena exists?

Postby MiphamFan » Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:48 pm

What would be the Dzogchen answer to people who say there is evidence there is some kind of objective external reality with the following arguments?

Quite the contrary, in fact; there are two very good reasons to think that there really is something “out there,” a reality outside our minds that produces the trickle of data we’ve discussed.

The first of those reasons seems almost absurdly simple at first glance: the world doesn’t always make sense to us. Consider, as one example out of godzillions, the way that light seems to behave like a particle on some occasions and like a wave on others. That’s been described, inaccurately, as a paradox, but it’s actually a reflection of the limitations of the human mind.

What, after all, does it mean to call something a particle? Poke around the concept for a while and you’ll find that at root, this concept “particle” is an abstract metaphor, extracted from the common human experience of dealing with little round objects such as pebbles and marbles. What, in turn, is a wave? Another abstract metaphor, extracted from the common human experience of watching water in motion. When a physicist says that light sometimes acts like a particle and sometimes like a wave, what she’s saying is that neither of these two metaphors fits more than a part of the way that light behaves, and we don’t have any better metaphor available.

If the world was nothing but a hallucination projected by our minds, then it would contain nothing that wasn’t already present in our minds—for what other source could there be? That implies in turn that there would be a perfect match between the contents of the world and the contents of our minds, and we wouldn’t get the kind of mismatch between mind and world that leaves physicists flailing. More generally, the fact that the world so often baffles us offers good evidence that behind the world we experience, the world as representation, there’s some “thing in itself” that’s the source of the sense data we assemble into representations.

The other reason to think that there’s a reality distinct from our representations is that, in a certain sense, we experience such a reality at every moment.

Raise one of your hands to a position where you can see it, and wiggle the fingers. You see the fingers wiggling—or, more precisely, you see a representation of the wiggling fingers, and that representation is constructed in your mind out of bits of visual data, a great deal of memory, and certain patterns that seem to be hardwired into your mind. You also feel the fingers wiggling—or, here again, you feel a representation of the wiggling fingers, which is constructed in your mind out of bits of tactile and kinesthetic data, plus the usual inputs from memory and hardwired patterns. Pay close attention and you might be able to sense the way your mind assembles the visual representation and the tactile one into a single pattern; that happens close enough to the surface of consciousness that a good many people can catch themselves doing it.

So you’ve got a representation of wiggling fingers, part of the world as representation we experience. Now ask yourself this: the action of the will that makes the fingers wiggle—is that a representation?

This is where things get interesting, because the only reasonable answer is no, it’s not. You don’t experience the action of the will as a representation; you don’t experience it at all. You simply wiggle your fingers. Sure, you experience the results of the will’s action in the form of representations—the visual and tactile experiences we’ve just been considering—but not the will itself. If it were true that you could expect to see or hear or feel or smell or taste the impulse of the will rolling down your arm to the fingers, say, it would be reasonable to treat the will as just one more representation. Since that isn’t the case, it’s worth exploring the possibility that in the will, we encounter something that isn’t just a representation of reality—it’s a reality we encounter directly.

That’s the insight at the foundation of Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy.


1. Basically is saying that there seems to be some kind of non-intuitive to human minds consistency to the external world like wave-particle duality.

2. Seems to say that acts of "will" are not apparent as phenomena the way sense objects or even thoughts are.

To 1. i guess one possible Buddhist rejoinder is that even dreams seem to have their own logic very often but it doesn't mean there is any reality to them. But I am not sure it will satisfy someone trained in Western philosophy.


Return to “Nyingma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart, Karma_Yeshe and 24 guests