Dzogchen and Buddhism

Locked
xabir
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by xabir » Tue May 22, 2012 4:32 pm

mzaur wrote:
Nighthawk wrote: Emptiness is just a meaningless word. Advaita is all about direct experience like Zen and Dzogchen.
Then you haven't understood the essence of Dharma. Emptiness is the insight which liberates, not a meaningless concept. Ramana Maharshi would would cling to the Self and sink into a vegetative state for weeks so that his disciples would have to feed him and wipe his butt. Are you saying Maharshi lacked direct experience? He had plenty of it.
Yes, having a direct experience of Presence doesn't mean liberation.

One often goes through many experiential insights in one's journey. E.g. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 4:34 pm

mzaur wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote: But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka.
It's actually very easy to differentiate the two.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... hindu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sridhar SJB Rana's reponse first of all is just crypto-realism:

"First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion."

And he is wrong -- I have addressed this issue at length elsewhere on this forum. Rongzom clearly states that in Dzogchen at any rate, all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions:

"Likewise, the system of dzogchen realizes and is the culmination of the comprehension of all phenomena as totally equivalent with illusions. That being the case, the mind is not confused by the power of appearances and there is no ability to develop formations; nothing is adopted, nothing rejected, nothings moves, nothing is sought. As such, this culmination of the comprehension of being like an illusion is also proven to the culmination of comprehending the two truths as inseparable."

And:

"Because the system of dzogchen understands four things for all phenomena— understanding what is to be abandoned; understanding what is to be taken up; understanding what can be left in equanimity; and what understanding what can never be actualized, it establishes all phenomena as non-dual. At that time there is no difference between non-duality, homogeneity, [68/a] non-arising, naturelessness, emptiness and selflessness. Since that is so, because this proof of all phenomena as non-dual is the heart of all intimate instructions, therefore, [dzogchen] is “the heart of all intimate instructions”

Second, Bhavaviveka admits that the distinction between the Vedantic Atman and the Buddhist Anatman is extremely difficult to parse.

Third, as I already pointed out, Santaraksita complains of the Advaitan, since they accept the non-arising nature of phenomena, which is the Tathāgatas position, for what reason then do they not simply join the Buddhist fold.

Fourth, the similarities between Advaita and Mahāyāna did not go unnoticed by Hindu scholars, with the Dvaita Vedantins and others going so far as to accuse Shankaracarya of being a crypto-buddhist.

So, while I am not claming that Advaita and Madhyamala are making the same point, I am pointing out that it is much more difficult to differentiate them mere sectarian declarations like Shridhar Rana makes in his article.
Last edited by Malcolm on Tue May 22, 2012 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
mzaur
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 4:35 pm

username wrote: What Username has termed here "pure ultimate space" is just a synonym for emptiness. Of course, in Dzogchen, we are not focusing solely on emptiness but also on the innate potential for manifestation, inseparable from emptiness, which obviously can't be denied. If you remember that despite whatever manifests or doesn't, not even an iota can be established in the slightest, just as madhyamaka says.
The bolded part is what emptiness simply means. The emptiness of establishment of phenomena, their non-inherence. Comparing emptiness to 'pure ultimate space' is weird.
And for all I know, maybe Advaita says this too, which could only be a good thing. Not a concern for me one way or the other as Advaita is not my practice and therefore none of my business, but I feel happier just smiling and admitting I have no idea about that.
Yes, Advaita does teach that there is an ultimate space which is the source of all reality, all phenomena. But this is wrong view according to Buddhadharma. If Dzogchen does say then, then I would agree with Namdrol that Dzogchen is not Buddhist.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 4:37 pm

mzaur wrote:I would agree with Namdrol that Dzogchen is not Buddhist.
Namdrol never said this, nor does Malcolm.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 4:39 pm

mzaur wrote:
Yes, Advaita does teach that there is an ultimate space which is the source of all reality, all phenomena. But this is wrong view according to Buddhadharma.
The Chos dbyings mdzod states "Everything arises from the dharmadhātu, everything subsides into the dharmadhātu..."

N
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

xabir
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by xabir » Tue May 22, 2012 4:44 pm

Malcolm wrote: Sridhar SJB Rana's reponse first of all is just crypto-realism:

"First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion."

And he is wrong -- I have addressed this issue at length elsewhere on this forum. Rongzom clearly states that in Dzogchen at any rate, all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions:
I believe Sridhar SJB Rana is making the point that all phenomena are not necessarily one's delusional projection as in a dream which vanishes upon waking up to be replaced by another reality (e.g. Brahman). i.e. appearances (sights, sounds, smells, etc) don't disappear in awakening despite realized as illusory. Their being conceived as real however does vanish. There is however no truly existing, independent reality a.k.a Brahman that exists apart from (illusory) appearances.

In any case, even though the world can be likened to a dream, it is not literally a dream which vanishes to be replaced by another reality. It is however completely illusory.
Last edited by xabir on Tue May 22, 2012 4:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
mzaur
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 4:48 pm

Malcolm wrote:
mzaur wrote: It's actually very easy to differentiate the two.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... hindu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sridhar SJB Rana's reponse first of all is just crypto-realism:

"First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion."

And he is wrong -- I have addressed this issue at length elsewhere on this forum. Rongzom clearly states that in Dzogchen at any rate, all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions:
He isn't talking about Dzogchen.
Second, Bhavaviveka admits that the distinction between the Vedantic Atman and the Buddhist Anatman is extremely difficult to parse.
It's not difficult at all. Atman is not empty.
Fourth, the similarities between Advaita and Mahāyāna did not go unnoticed by Hindu scholars, with the Dvaita Vedantins and others going so far as to accuse Shankaracarya of being a crypto-buddhist.
His teacher Gaudapada was very inspired by Nagarjuna, but this does not mean that everything inspired him. The ultimate truth of Advaita is that there is a true self-existing reality existing beyond phenomena. The ultimate truth of Madyamaka is the true nature of phenomena (there is a big difference)

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by dzogchungpa » Tue May 22, 2012 4:50 pm

Hi Malcolm, you've used this phrase, or similar ones, before:
"phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions" and I've always wondered if that has a different
meaning for you, or for the text being translated, than
"phenomena are illusions", and, if not, why is the word "equivalent" used?
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. - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 4:55 pm

mzaur wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
mzaur wrote: It's actually very easy to differentiate the two.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... hindu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sridhar SJB Rana's reponse first of all is just crypto-realism:

"First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion."

And he is wrong -- I have addressed this issue at length elsewhere on this forum. Rongzom clearly states that in Dzogchen at any rate, all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions:
He isn't talking about Dzogchen.
Actually, he is.


Second, Bhavaviveka admits that the distinction between the Vedantic Atman and the Buddhist Anatman is extremely difficult to parse.
It's not difficult at all. Atman is not empty.
Define empty. Is Atman free from extremes or not?


M
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

username
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by username » Tue May 22, 2012 4:56 pm

mzaur wrote:
username wrote: What Username has termed here "pure ultimate space" is just a synonym for emptiness. Of course, in Dzogchen, we are not focusing solely on emptiness but also on the innate potential for manifestation, inseparable from emptiness, which obviously can't be denied. If you remember that despite whatever manifests or doesn't, not even an iota can be established in the slightest, just as madhyamaka says.
The bolded part is what emptiness simply means. The emptiness of establishment of phenomena, their non-inherence. Comparing emptiness to 'pure ultimate space' is weird.
And for all I know, maybe Advaita says this too, which could only be a good thing. Not a concern for me one way or the other as Advaita is not my practice and therefore none of my business, but I feel happier just smiling and admitting I have no idea about that.
Yes, Advaita does teach that there is an ultimate space which is the source of all reality, all phenomena. But this is wrong view according to Buddhadharma. If Dzogchen does say then, then I would agree with Namdrol that Dzogchen is not Buddhist.
On both points you are wrong as TB accepts Trikaya as nature of the universe.

Further, in TB the same word has different meanings in different philosophical systems, yanas, tantric studies and Dzogchen. So your very basic generalizations and commandments to Buddhists are completely mistaken.

Finally that first quote is by Pema Rigzin about what I said, not what I said about myself. Again you are confusing everything into a jumble there too.

Good luck.
Dzogchen masters I know say: 1)Buddhist religion essence is Dzogchen 2)Religions are positive by intent/fruit 3)Any method's OK unless: breaking Dzogchen vows, mixed as syncretic (Milanese Soup) 4)Don't join mandalas of opponents of Dalai Lama/Padmasambhava: False Deity inventors by encouraging victims 5)Don't debate Ati with others 6)Don't discuss Ati practices online 7) A master told his old disciple: no one's to discuss his teaching with some others on a former forum nor mention him. Publicity's OK, questions are asked from masters/set teachers in person/email/non-public forums~Best wishes

User avatar
mzaur
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 5:04 pm

Malcolm wrote:
mzaur wrote:
Yes, Advaita does teach that there is an ultimate space which is the source of all reality, all phenomena. But this is wrong view according to Buddhadharma.
The Chos dbyings mdzod states "Everything arises from the dharmadhātu, everything subsides into the dharmadhātu..."

N
Longchen sounds like a crypto-Hindu

User avatar
mzaur
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 5:13 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, he is.
I am talking about Ācārya Dharma Vajra in that article. He is talking about Madyamaka not Dzogchen
Define empty. Is Atman free from extremes or not?
Empty = lacking inherent existence, devoid of permanent substance, etc. Atman is not free from extremes. Atman is Brahman, and Brahman is inherently existing. When I talk about Brahman, I refer to Nirguna Brahman (undifferentiated sat chit ananda)

Inherent existence is an extreme, no?

User avatar
mzaur
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by mzaur » Tue May 22, 2012 5:26 pm

username wrote:
mzaur wrote:
username wrote: What Username has termed here "pure ultimate space" is just a synonym for emptiness. Of course, in Dzogchen, we are not focusing solely on emptiness but also on the innate potential for manifestation, inseparable from emptiness, which obviously can't be denied. If you remember that despite whatever manifests or doesn't, not even an iota can be established in the slightest, just as madhyamaka says.
The bolded part is what emptiness simply means. The emptiness of establishment of phenomena, their non-inherence. Comparing emptiness to 'pure ultimate space' is weird.
And for all I know, maybe Advaita says this too, which could only be a good thing. Not a concern for me one way or the other as Advaita is not my practice and therefore none of my business, but I feel happier just smiling and admitting I have no idea about that.
Yes, Advaita does teach that there is an ultimate space which is the source of all reality, all phenomena. But this is wrong view according to Buddhadharma. If Dzogchen does say then, then I would agree with Namdrol that Dzogchen is not Buddhist.
On both points you are wrong as TB accepts Trikaya as nature of the universe.
Dharmakaya is none other than emptiness. Different words, same meaning. I thought this was common knowledge.
Further, in TB the same word has different meanings in different philosophical systems, yanas, tantric studies and Dzogchen. So your very basic generalizations and commandments to Buddhists are completely mistaken.
Sounds confusing.

User avatar
Lhug-Pa
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Lhug-Pa » Tue May 22, 2012 5:27 pm

For all here discussing Brahman etc., you might want to read part of this Google book preview of Sky Dancer: The Secret Life and Songs of the Lady Yeshe Tsogyel By Stag-śam Nus-ldan-rdo-rje, Keith Dowman, Eva Van Dam—that is, starting on page 241 (the following link should go straight to that page)—on the Dzogchen teachings of Guru Rinpoche Padmasambhava and the Four Visions (no actual Thogal instructions, just an explanation):


http://books.google.com/books?id=ACPL_m ... _text&cd=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Like Buddhist said a page or so back, in Dzogchen there is also Lhun-drub or Lhungrub (and Sounds, Lights, Rays, Ngowo, Rangzhin, Thugs-rJe, gDangs, Rolpa, rTsal, rGyan, mDangs, etc.; not only the Emptiness aspect.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:Imagine you walked around thinking your were flat broke and you came to me for money. Now imagine I told you that in fact that there was a diamond buried under your house--that in fact everyone possesses such a diamond whether they know it or not--and I explained how to get your hands on it... Would I have caused you to possess the diamond or just helped you become aware of what was rightfully yours from the beginning? Did either of us create the diamond for you, or did you just naturally possess it? Had you ever truly been separate from it, or did you just think you were?

You could also have the problem of misplacing the diamond frequently after you'd managed to get ahold of it with my help, because you get distracted a lot. So you could practice relaxing and recalling where you'd put it. Again, no cause or effect ultimately involved insofar as you are not ever creating anything, only reconnecting with your knowledge and natural potential for wealth.
:good:
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 22, 2012 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jinzang
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Jinzang » Tue May 22, 2012 5:36 pm

You can't rank how enlightened someone is by their verbal descriptions of their experiences. You can't say Eckhart Tolle has reached this level, Ramana Maharishi, that, and Nisargadatta, the other. Verbal descriptions only give an imprecise indication of what someone has understood. It's only by associating closely with a person for a while that you can know what they have achieved. And you can't really judge a person whose achievement is greater than your own, you can only say it's greater.
"It's as plain as the nose on your face!" Dottie Primrose

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 5:38 pm

mzaur wrote:
I am talking about Ācārya Dharma Vajra in that article. He is talking about Madyamaka not Dzogchen
He mentions both.
Define empty. Is Atman free from extremes or not?
Empty = lacking inherent existence. Atman is not free from extremes. Atman is Brahman, and Brahman is inherently existing. When I talk about Brahman, I refer to Nirguna Brahman (undifferentiated sat chit ananda)

Inherent existence is an extreme, no?[/quote]

First of all, that definition of emptiness is incomplete unless you are a Gelugpa.

If you investigate carefully, you will discover than brahmin is considered to go beyond this notion of inherent existence [svabhāva] since it is considered to be beyond predicates and extremes and thus is inexpressible.

Now, I am not saying that Advaita and Madhyamaka are precisely the same -- but in terms of linguisitic formulation, it is very difficult to distinguish them.

M
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 24487
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Malcolm » Tue May 22, 2012 5:45 pm

mzaur wrote:
I don't see how emptiness negates lhun-drub at all, unless you view emptiness as Brahman instead of as freedom from extremes. Emptiness is the condition of all phenomena. I don't understand why you keep talking about is as something other than the nature of phenomena.
lhun grub is not a phenomena, and has nothing to with with phenomena. Phenomena are a result of ignorance that does not recognize the basis. Lhun grub is one of the three wisdoms inherent to the basis, the visible side. Ka dag is the emptiness aspect of the basis, the non-visible side. Energy/compassion is the inseperability of those two.

Now pay careful attention: I never equated Dzogchen with Advaita, nor did I venture an opinion on the nature of realization in Advaita. I said I don't know what Advaitans and other Hindus realize. I never denied that Dzogchen was a Buddhadharma.


M
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


Free of hope and fear, relax.
Human life spent in
a state of great spaciousness is enjoyable.


— Kunzang Dechen Lingpa

xabir
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by xabir » Tue May 22, 2012 5:48 pm

Brahman is an ultimate reality that is beyond notions of existence and non-existence, because Brahman is deemed as a transcendental, unchanging and independent ultimate reality that cannot be accessed with concepts. It is attributeless pure consciousness.

Emptiness means that everything including Brahman is a mere imputation free of any true existence or reality that can be pinned down, and that being so, no existence or non-existence can be established. There is no 'Brahman' that can be pinned down as an ultimate reality apart from or within appearances, it is just a convention denoting an empty flow of luminosity-appearances, just as no "wind-ness" can be pinned down apart from blowing or a "river" apart from flowing.

Emptiness does not mean no appearance, i.e. no chariot does not deny the appearance of the chariot. Likewise, no Brahman, no Consciousness, etc. does not deny awareness/knowing, luminosity or appearances, but rejects awareness as an ultimate ground or ultimate reality.

i.e. Alex Weith:

Just for the sake of clarification, I would like to make it clear that I never said that "these luminous self-perceiving phenomena which are craving-free and nondual are the Ultimate", if there could still be any ambiguity about that.

On the contrary, I said that what I used to take for an eternal, empty, uncreated, nondual, primordial awareness, source and substance of all things, turned out to be nothing more than the luminous nature of phenomena, themselves empty and ungraspable, somehow crystallized in a very subtle witnessing position. The whole topic of this thread is the deconstruction of this Primordial Awareness, One Mind, Cognizing Emptiness, Self, Atman, Luminous Mind, Tathagatgabha, or whatever we may call it,

As shocking as it may seem, the Buddha was very clear to say that this pure impersonal objectless nondual awareness (that Vedantists called Atma in Sanskrit, Atta in Pali) is still the aggregate of consciousness and that consciousness, as pure and luminous as it can be, does not stand beyond the aggregates.

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'" (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta).
Last edited by xabir on Tue May 22, 2012 5:53 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Lhug-Pa
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Lhug-Pa » Tue May 22, 2012 5:48 pm

mzaur wrote:I don't see how emptiness negates lhun-drub at all, unless you view emptiness as Brahman instead of as freedom from extremes. Emptiness is the condition of all phenomena. I don't understand why you keep talking about is as something other than the nature of phenomena.
It doesn't, I can't say if such a dichotomy exists, yes, and I'm not; respectively.

Just said that in Dzogchen it is not only the Emptiness aspect that is emphasized.

Anyhow, I was referring to the contents of the book Sky Dancer as seen on pages 241 and 242 specifically regarding the discussion we're having:


Lhug-Pa wrote:For all here discussing Brahman etc., you might want to read part of this Google book preview of Sky Dancer: The Secret Life and Songs of the Lady Yeshe Tsogyel By Stag-śam Nus-ldan-rdo-rje, Keith Dowman, Eva Van Dam—that is, starting on page 241 (the following link should go straight to that page)—on the Dzogchen teachings of Guru Rinpoche Padmasambhava and the Four Visions (no actual Thogal instructions, just an explanation):


http://books.google.com/books?id=ACPL_m ... _text&cd=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Like Buddhist said a page or so back, in Dzogchen there is also Lhun-drub or Lhungrub (and Sounds, Lights, Rays, Ngowo, Rangzhin, Thugs-rJe, gDangs, Rolpa, rTsal, rGyan, mDangs, etc.; not only the Emptiness aspect.
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 22, 2012 5:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Sherlock
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism

Post by Sherlock » Tue May 22, 2012 5:50 pm

From an old thread
The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused now. So based on your current readings Malcolm, does Advaita actually say that brahman is real/ultimate/truly existent?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Virgo and 58 guests