Karma Dorje wrote:
Has a genuine and impartial evaluation of Trika and Dzogchen been made in the last couple hundred years? No, because on both side there is more importance given to the brand than an honest discussion.
Trika is realist. Dzogchen is not.
Namdrol wrote:Once again, if you read the Karandavyuha, you will find Shiva is converted by Avalokiteshvara. Two different persons, if you will.
And if you read the Abhidharma there is a square central mountain with the continents arrayed around it. It doesn't take a brilliant polemicist to come up with stories like that and it convinces no one who hasn't already made up their mind.
The persons who authored the Karandavyuha clearly intended different persons by the name "Shiva" and "Avalokiteshvara".
Namdrol wrote:I already accepted intertexuality.
I am not positing intertextuality. I am positing shared genesis and continued cross-fertilization.
I can't see how you can dismiss the cosmology of the central mountain on the one hand and yet still insist on cosmological fables of the creation of the devatas when there is a clearly symbolic agenda to the use of these deities as seats.
Namdrol wrote:I was arguing from the point of view of the tradition itself. I was not making a truth claim.
The position of the tradition itself is not in dispute. The verity of its claims is.
The verity of the claim "Kali is Yogini" is what is underdispute. However, for my part, if the tradition maintains that Kali is the subordinate of Yogini, that they are different person, one indicated by the name "Kali" and the other indicated by the name "Yogini", then I accept that they are different.
For example, Tibetans imagined that Bodhgaya was in Assam for centuries. They went in pilgrimages their, made offerings at Hindu shrines they imagined were Buddhists ones, and so on. But certainly, these gods the Tibetans mistook for Buddhist deities were not.
Namdrol wrote:No, the mythos is history. It shows the means of Buddhist appropriations of an older religious culture and a repurposing of it to suit Buddhist purposes. The Buddhist stupa's parts is a reworking of the symbolism of the vedic fire altar. But certainly a Buddhist stupa is not a vedic fire altar.
No one would argue that a stupa is a fire altar, nor a kila a yupa. However, when one looks impartially at tantric ritual in both Hindu and Buddhist context they see that both draw in exactly the same manner upon the Vedic strata.
Of course, this is the ritual syntax of Pan-Indian culture.
Tantrism accomplished the same thing in ostensibly different contexts and traditions that likely developed at the same time.
I don't agree with you. It is my opinion that different traditions adopted the body based methods of tantrism that grew out of the Upanishadic/Yoga/Ayurvedic traditions and adapted them to their own view and soteriologies. I do not accept as a necessary consquence that these methods offer the same result irrespective of the views of those who practice them.
I prefer Trika to all other versions of Hinduism, but I do not think that Trika and Dzogchen are even remotely the same. I am pretty certain there is no Togal in Trika -- at least, in what I have read in English (a fair amount) I have never run across it. Of course, I do recognize that texts like the Vijñānabhairava have many methods that bear resemblance to certain preliminary Dzogchen practices. Emptiness is not the final view in Trika, however. It is the final view in Dzogchen.