Simple_Jack

'Basis' according to Nyibum means one's own 'unfabricated mind'.

Bump.

Never mind.

Bump.

Bump.

Wow, I think you've just proven my statement a couple pages back: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526893 I can understand why you would arrive at that conclusion especially considering your background in Advaita; conflating the Buddha's teachings of anatman into an affirming-negation to arrive at a transpersonal or universal consciousness. The only thing you accomplish by stating the above is making buddhadharma even more nebulous than it already can be to those unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy and praxis.... I totally understand why you would prefer to keep it that way on this board though.

Malcolm wrote: Nyibum* states: As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of reality of a single nature, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated wisdom. The basis is nothing more nor nothing less this. *the son of Zhang stong Chobar, the terton of the Vima Nyinthig Malcolm wrote: Yes, I believe so. So basically, all that fancy Dzogchen lingo about the basis and so on is really just talking about a mind stream that is proposed to have a primordial start point which is completely free of proliferation. We can trust Nyibum about this because his father invented/revealed the Nyinthig tradition and he himself was a great scholar who studied widely. Malcolm wrote: I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others. The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind. Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka: Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable, there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”. An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage): Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature. In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all. Malcolm wrote: Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception. Malcolm wrote: It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty. Malcolm wrote: Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is. Malcolm wrote: The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche.

According to your interpretation which in the end is conceptual according to Dzogchen. Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen aren't that old [strictly speaking on a textual basis] compared to other Eastern traditions. Well, you are quoting a translation of a translation from ChNN, it makes sense that we discuss how ChNN translates this into English himself.

.

Actually translated by Andriano Clemente from Italian into English, but my assertion still stands that you are relying on an inaccurate translation to affirm this according to the confines of your background in Advaita. This is a seminal tantra of Dzogchen, but in the end this is a semde tantra. The actual path of Dzogchen is togal which is the reserve of the menngagde class of Dzogchen tantras.

The basis has 3 aspects which are ka dag [primordial purity], lhun grub [spontaneous perfection], and the inseparability of the two as thugs rje [compassion]. Ka dag corresponds to emptiness in sutrayana. It doesn't matter in the end because this is conceptual according to Dzogchen. Anything that arises is by definition avidya i.e. ignorance according to Dzogchen. Like I said in another thread: Longchenpa and Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, are one of the few, who consider the view of emptiness in Dzogchen and Prasangika Madhyamaka as equivalent; albeit the latter is considered as an intellectual view. Togal is the actual path of Dzogchen.

Bump.

Bump.

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html "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." - from The Unwritten Tantra

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html Malcolm wrote: In Dzogchen, the realization of emptiness occurs when one accomplishes the third vision. Prior to this, emptiness is merely correct inference. Khenpa Ngachung explains this as one of the superiorities of Dzogchen i.e. that one can discover one's real nature prior to the realization of emptiness. This feature allows one to eradicate the coarse obscurations even while below the path of seeing, where traditionally, in Mahāyāna systems, it is held to be impossible. --------------------- Jax wrote: Interesting Malcolm Smith, hadn't heard that. However I can cite many examples that equate realization of Kadag at trekchod with realization of emptiness. Are there even more varying opinions beyond these two? also trekchod is equated with realization of Mahamudra. Surely you concede Mahamudra realization is also the full realization of emptiness... No? Malcolm wrote: Hi Jax: Realizing treghö and practicing tregchö are two entirely different things. One practices tregchö until realization. The practice of trencho however is only possible when one is free from doubts about one's primordial state i.e. the basis [gzhi]. --------------------- Malcolm wrote: Tregchö is a practice. It has a result. The practice of Mahāmudra, Lamdre and Tregchö is basically the same i.e. equipoise in an instant of uncontrived awareness. Jax wrote: Yes, Malcolm, I know that. But I am saying when the fruit of trekcho view is realized, that is the same as Mahamudra. Since that is the "same" as Mahamudra, and realization of Mahamudra contains the full realization of two-fold emptiness, then trekchod realization contains full realization of two-fold emptiness as well. Hence practice of thogal is not necessary for realization of two-fold emptiness. Malcolm wrote: Hi JAx: No one every said that thogal was necessary for realizing twofold emptiness. --------------------- Jax wrote: Is there another emptiness realized beyond two-fold emptiness at the third thogal vision? Malcolm wrote: Hi Jax: No, there is not. --------------------- Jax wrote: then the Third Vision of Thogal realization of emptiness is not superior to the two-fold emptiness realized upon realization of Kadag at trekchod? Malcolm wrote: The answer to your question is no, it is not superior. The third vision is basically the equivalent of the first bhumi in the sutra system. However, in tregchö one does not eradicated the coarse obscurations prior to realization of emptiness.

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas" Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."

My response from this thread: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526907 I didn't accuse yabyum24 (or gatito for that matter) of being a non-practitioner of buddhadharma because he held views that were contrary to views of my own: I said it because the aggregate of consciousness is generally regarded as dependently originated in all the variety of Buddhist sects and tenet systems. This has a real world bearing on Buddhist practice since It forms the foundation of buddhardharma....

Ok, who's your guru? My assertion still stands that you are misconstruing this translation of gzhi according to the confines of your background in Advaita.

Malcolm's reputation is irrelevant to the accurate understanding of the "Kunjed Gyalpo". Now, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, is an authority that you can trust since he's been highly regarded, by other masters, as a master of Dzogchen. Yes, I understand you would prefer to rely on an inaccurate translation of the "Kunjed Gyalpo", but seeing as how you have not received transmission and teachings of Dzogchen from a qualified guru: I have to conclude, that you're misapprehending the above translation, according to the confines of your understanding from your background in Advaita. I think it would be best if you received teachings from a qualified (i.e. authorized) guru. In the mean time, you can rely on the words of ChNN, as relayed through Malcolm.

Malcolm has received Dzogchen teachings from many different Dzogchen teachers, one of which was Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, who was widely regarded as completing all four visions of togal; he was regarded as a living buddha. Now, the above says "The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara."; Chogyal Namkhai Norbu is Malcolm's root guru.

Yes, this is how to accurately understand this Tantra according to how its taught in Dzogchen: http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-all-creating-king-and-implications.html Soh wrote: "Hi Namdrol, As you mentioned about Hindu Vedanta... a question came to mind. I was just reading someone's post half an hour ago in another forum: ( http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress/topic/1499/page/7?replies=200 ). He/she ('star') states that according to Dzogchen view, everything is Consciousness, and therefore everything is real. What is your comment on this? Also, he/she states 'The Supreme Source' as a reference... in which I also personally have some questions regarding this book: in certain parts of the book, Consciousness is described as an all-creating agent, which sounds like God to me. How does Dependent Origination apply here?" Malcolm wrote: "This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen. The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara. All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real. In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real. In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.*" ------------------- And here's someone from your yahoo group having this same conversation with Jean-Luc Achard, obviously his answer was ignored... ? wrote: "That quote above still can be interpreted the same way. The Kunjed Gyalpo says that there is nothing to do, try, search etc... Because everything is from the Supreme Source, thus perfect. There is not two sources, but one. Then what can possibly be 'perfected' ?" Jean-Luc Achard wrote: "Supreme Source is not a Dzogchen concept. I don’t know (well i suspect) why they choosed this title (way too New Age for me) but the original is 'All Creating' (kun-byed, lit. 'All Doing') refering to the mind. So mind creates everything, that’s the meaning, its not a reference to some cosmic source somewhere as it may sound from the english title. What can be perfected? Well one’s deluded mind can be perfected, certainly not the natural state. Nobody said the natural state has to be perfected, it’s one’s ultimate essence, but our ordinary being is not our essence, it is deluded, full of ignorance, and this is what has to be perfected." *"chain of dependent origination" refers to the specific theory of dependent origination which is the 12 nidanas aka. the 12 links of dependent origination. The general theory of dependent origination is "When this exists, that exists; With the arising of this, that arises; When this does not exist, that does not exist; With the cessation of this, that ceases

Bump.

I didn't accuse yabyum24 (or gatito for that matter) of being a non-practitioner of buddhadharma because he held views that were contrary to views of my own: I said it because the aggregate of consciousness is generally regarded as dependently originated in all the variety of Buddhist sects and tenet systems. This has a real world bearing on Buddhist practice since It forms the foundation of buddhardharma. Also, I've already given an explanation for my accusations towards gatito, here http://thetaobums.com/topic/33012-bernadette-roberts-christian-contemplative-view-on-buddhism/?p=526544

.

That's the caveat is it not? In order to take any of this seriously it takes having some experience yourself; this is dependent on an individual's conditions. Based on what you said above I can only conclude that you've overlooked the subtleties and purpose of Buddhist view and practice. I can understand why you would arrive at that conclusion especially considering your background in Advaita; conflating the Buddha's teachings of anatman into an affirming-negation to arrive at a transpersonal or universal consciousness. The only thing you accomplish by stating the above is making buddhadharma even more nebulous than it already can be to those unfamiliar with Buddhist philosophy and praxis. Let's look at the instructions of Buddha in the Bahiya Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2] In order to arrive at this directly one needs to comprehend the purpose of Buddha's teachings on the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta. The purpose of this is to continually deconstruct cognition, especially the sense of an undifferentiated conglomerate "awareness", down to its basic constituents i.e. eye consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, ear consciousness, body consciousness, mental consciousness; all of which arise dependent on the meeting of the corresponding sense organ and the sense object. The Bahiya Sutta is significant due in part to the "directness" of these instructions. The directness of these instructions points to another significant insight from the Kalakarama Sutta: http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer. He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer. He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser. He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower. This is actually crucial to understanding the divergence between the experiential insight of the Upanishads and that of buddhadharma which to sum up is: in thinking, no-thinker; in seeing, no-seer; in hearing, no-hearer, etc.