Vaktar wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:36 pm
The implied proposition is, what people are a calling "Atman" and so on--even if they do not understand what it is -- is what Dzogchen calls "mind nature". That is not so far-fetched. Take "mind nature" as metonymic for tsal
, and the proposition is that much more plausible.
No, a) nonbuddhists do not have the view of dependent origination, b) they do not understand phenomena to be essenceless, and c) misidentification of the mind essence cannot be construed as an equivalence.
Or excuse me, in case it turns out Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche didn't understand Dzogchen at all, or in any "real sense" that you might care to define it.
Pretty sure that Nyoshel Khnepo would not make such a claim.
And also, Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche expressed some other heretical views, for example, that practicing Vipassana could substitute for the traditional ngondro.
This is not a heretical view at all. The 400 one hundred thousands is not a requirement for entering Dzogchen teachings.
So perhaps you're right. Anyone who departs from a strict sense of orthodoxy -- and what is Dzogchen if not a highly orthodox system, with an entryway smaller than the proverbial eye of a needle -- can't possibly be right about Dzogchen.
Well, given that Shankara is one of the 60 teachers identified as promulgating wrong view in the Self-Arisen VIdyā Tantra, it would be very surprising to learn of any so called khenpo of Dzogchen claiming that Atman was just a Hindu name for the mind essence. You yourself admit the idea does not even exist in their system.