asunthatneversets

Advaya means that conditioned entities, objects, etc. [dharmins] are truly non-arisen. Which means that the unconditioned nature [dharmatā] of so called objects [dharmins] is not found apart from said objects. The unconditioned nature is non-dual with the conditioned. The 'ultimate' nature is the non-arising of the relative. Advaita is something completely different. In advaita, the unconditioned is a stand alone essence which is the source of relative phenomena. Everything is eventually subsumed into that source, which is the one true reality. In advaya there is no actual reality or essence which remains when the relative collapses, because the abstractions of the relative only ever arose in the first place as the result of delusion. So the unconditioned in advaya is simply a literary device to convey the insight that the delusory abstractions of ignorance are actually non-arisen. No 'ultimate' remains. There is no 'one without a second'.

The difference does not lie in mere polemics, but rather in the view each system champions. If I was mounting a polemical argument I would assert the supremacy of one view over the other, but I have not done that. Obviously I am partial to the view of Buddhism, but that is besides the point. At any rate, advaya and advaita are not synonymous. It's always important to understand what certain terms are meaning to convey, especially if we understand that these descriptive terms are something like directions or instructions. Words can carry various meanings, even in English. If we were to give directions to someone who doesn't speak English very well and told them 'Bear right at the fork in the road', we would be using three English words or phrases which can mean different things depending on how the word is viewed. We who are fluent in English have no issue with understanding the directions, however someone who doesn't speak English very well may misconstrue those instructions as suggesting there is a grizzly bear in the road, or that brown bears have equal rights when they are near the eating utensil lying in the road, all types of possibilities. On the other hand, when the words are properly understood, and the context we find them in is understood, then we know full well that 'bear right' means to veer in a direction to the right, and we understand that 'fork in the road' means an area where the road splits. We have keen discernment because we understand the varying contexts, connotations, implications and meanings of the words. The same goes for 'non-dual' in the buddhadharma and 'non-dual' in the Hindu schools. If you choose to disregard the fact that the term 'non-dual' can carry different meanings then you are of course welcome to. However that does not mean the distinction is actually frivolous or arbitrary. It simply means you are choosing to disregard the possibility of words carrying different meanings.

Either way, non-dual in the buddhadharma is advaya. Non-duality in the sanatanadharma is advaita. Crucial difference.

For the record Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is discussing mahāyoga and anuyoga in the above quote. Hence why he begins with 'for example when we do Vajrayāna practice' and concludes with how the accomplishment stage results in the realization of Mahāmudrā.

Anyway, some of you who are self-proclaimed anti-debaters are now debating about debate.

Sectarian polemics in Tibetan Buddhism is common place. Debate is also seen as a way to refine one's relationship with the teachings in various ways. But whatever you're into, it's all good!

Or perhaps I should say 'welcome to the internet' ha. Or 'welcome to any place humans interact and share opinions'.

Welcome to Buddhism.

Well, surely not a shared or universal mind, as that is ultimately impossible. Two fold emptiness means a shared or universal mind is also unfounded. Emptiness does not say something is empty yet there is something else, everything is equally empty. This is why emptiness is chik'she kundrol [cig shes kun grol]; 'the one knowledge which liberates all'.

From "As It Is Vol. 2": "The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya." - Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

It is sometimes parsed that way. 'Seeing nothing is the supreme seeing' as Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche says.

The 'original' Dzogchen did not come from anywhere, it never began.

Śākyamuni was a nirmaṇakāya emanation of Vajradhāra, as was Garab Dorje, and Vajradhāra is in turn an emanation of the primordial buddha Samantabhadra. Ergo direct introduction is a non-sequitur.

The manner in which Dzogchen is taught in this current time is based on the three statements of the Mahāvidyādhara Garab Dorje, which are (i) direct introduction from a qualified guru, (ii) confidence in the view i.e. integration, and (iii) continuation. Therefore you cannot practice Ati Dzogpa Chenpo without the intimate instructions of a qualified master, and you are not practicing Dzogchen in the absence of a living transmission from a living master.

The 'pure Dzogchen' versus whatever you are stating is impure is total b.s. Your nature is Dzogchen, your nature is originally pure, there are various means to recognize and then realize that nature, so pick your poison. Citing descriptions of primordial wisdom and claiming that is 'pure Dzogchen' is misunderstanding the teaching. Primordial wisdom is always pure, however 99% of students require a process of refinement after recognition to fully realize that nature. Those who do not need a process of refinement are called cig car bas, and there hasn't been a cig car ba for centuries.

The lama is an indispensable requirement for Vajrayāna, which includes Dzogchen. No teacher, no dzogchen.

What's wrong with the debate and so on? It's an excellent way to refine one's understanding of the teachings on a relative level, which if done skillfully will aid in direct experiential recognition in the ultimate sense. This is why right view is first and foremost on the eightfold path. All I see is Buddhist values here.

Regarding your misinterpretation of 'spontaneity'; the recognition of rigpa does not arise spontaneously, otherwise there would be no reason for the teachings. Rigpa is indeed an innate attribute of sentient beings, however it is not known spontaneously, it must be pointed out and then recognized. This is why the Unwritten Tantra states; "Though the nature of vidyā pervades all, the dharmakāya is encountered in the intimate instructions." As for rigpa being translated as 'intrinsic awareness', it has been pointed out that this is merely a popular trend in translation. A trend which translators are slowly choosing to turn away from due to the potential confusion it can cause. The english term 'awareness' carries various connotations and meanings which can lead to misinterpretations, one of the most prominent being the mistake of holding everyday defiled cognizance as rigpa. That misstep, paired with the cig car rhetoric which is common in Dzogchen leads many people to misunderstand the teachings as promoting complete non-action, and so beings delude themselves into believing their afflicted relative state is dharmatā. A grievous error which if left unresolved will sever any chances of liberation in this lifetime. To add to the list of the aforementioned translators who have expressed disagreement with translating rigpa as 'awareness', we can also add Lama Tony Duff, who writes; "To translate it (rig pa) as 'awareness', which is a common practice today, is a poor practice; there are many kinds of awareness but there is only one rigpa and besides, rigpa is substantially more than just awareness. Since this is such an important term and since it lacks an equivalent in English, I choose not to translate it. This is the term used to indicate enlightened mind as experienced by the practitioner on the path of these practices. The term itself specifically refers to the dynamic knowing quality of mind. It absolutely does not mean a simple registering, as implied by the word 'awareness' which unfortunately is often used to translate this term. There is no word in english that exactly matches it, though the idea of 'seeing' or 'insight on the spot' is very close. Proof of this is found in the fact that the original Sanskrit term 'vidyā' is actually the root of all words in English that start with 'vid' and mean 'to see', for example 'video', 'vision', and so on." In the quote you cite from "The Practice of Dzogchen"; "In the unmoving and changeless Mind, Maintain the unchanging Dharmatā like Mt. Meru. The “simultaneously perfected Intrinsic Awareness,”85 spontaneously perfected and uncompounded, Neutrality [of good and bad] and non-duality of actions and efforts will be accomplished spontaneously." Your assertion that the phrase 'unmoving and changeless Mind' is a reference to śamatha is an erroneous claim. In this translation by Tulku Thondup, deluded mind [sems] and the nature of mind [sems nyid] are distinguished in the capitalization of the 'M' in the word 'mind'. So when 'Mind' is capitalized it is referring to the nature of mind [sems nyid], and when 'mind' is not capitalized it is referencing afflicted samsaric mind. As can be seen on page 43, where it states: "The Natural Great Perfection [rang bzhin rdzogs pa chen po] is the Mind [sems nyid] which is free from mind [sems]." Ergo, the quote you cited above is not discussing śamatha by any means, but rather is speaking of resting in the nature of mind [sems nyid], as can be seen by its capitalization of 'Mind', and the referencing of dharmatā which is never associated with mind [sems]. Have to go for now but I will respond to the rest of your post later this evening.

Third vision is equivalent to first bhūmi [path of seeing], it is the realization of emptiness, which is the full measure of rigpa. At that point one's knowledge of reality is complete.

Here is Jean-Luc Achard on translating rigpa: Pero wrote: So which translation for rigpa do you like? Jean-Luc wrote: Well, so far in English i haven't found anything i'm really crazy about. In the English translations i do i use Awareness because it's practically impossible to change the usage now. But, as we've discussed elsewhere, etymologically (the high-german gewhar from which Awareness is derived) does not really fit with the context. In french i use an other word. I use "Discernment" because it fits with the simpliest definition of Rigpa found in the ZZNG where it is sait that Rigpa discerns (rig) or distinguishes (phyed) the pure (dag = Mind, the nature of mind) from the impure (ma-dag = mind, the conditioned mind). In this discerning aspect (rig-cha), there is no duality, simply the ever-pure, lucid, vivid and fresh knowledge of the natural state. In such a state, the arising of thoughts is not a problem at all, on the contrary they may be more than welcome, especially for investigating the meaning of the teachings, spreading them, etc. Pero wrote: I always thought it's better not to translate rigpa, because this way there can't be as many concepts arising as to what it is. Jean-Luc wrote: In pure theory of translation (the famed Georges Mounin's theories), this is a mistake. When you don't have a word in the target language that fits with the original word in the source language, then the solution is to choose a word that comes the closest to the definition of the original word and then apply to it a semantic field that corresponds exactly to the original definition. That's what the Tibetans have done when they used "Rigpa" for the knowledge of the natural state. Rigpa/Discernement is the word/translation and "the knowledge of the natural state" is its definition. Then you have the semantic field with all that is related to the original word. The word you chose must also function in all the contexts that you see the original word in, in the original texts. Rigpa works also as a verb, so you have to be able to conjugate your choice. In an extreme sense, you can choose any word you like, provided it's close enough to the basic meaning of the original and you simply have to give it a special semantic field to work out fine. In standard tibetan, Rigpa does not have the meaning it has in Dzogchen. This means that the Tibetans have rendered its semantic field "sensible" in order to encompass the meaning they wanted to give it in a Dzogchen context.

It is when one's knowledge reaches its full measure or effulgence. One's knowledge is then complete. The realization of emptiness.

Awareness without knowledge is quite a simple concept. All sentient beings are aware, awake, cognizant, and so on. Only rare beings have knowledge of dharmatā. You can have awareness while being ignorant of dharmatā, but you cannot have rigpa in the ignorance of dharmatā. The memory of a taste being a composite of memories and so on is not the point, and is reading too far into this. This is the point: If after having tasted chocolate, someone attempts to tell you that the taste of an apple is chocolate, you would immediately disagree. Why is that? Because you know what chocolate tastes like, and you can therefore effectively discern the taste of an apple from the taste of chocolate. That knowledge is not conceptual, it is experiential, based on direct experience. Rigpa is a wisdom, which is the result of recognizing dharmatā. Rigpa can discern its wisdom [ye shes] from afflicted mind [sems]. In the absence of that discernment there is no way to differentiate mind from wisdom, and so rigpa, beguiled by delusion, becomes ignorance [ma rig pa], and is expressed as the mere clarity of mind. 'Primordial awareness', which is a bad translation of ye shes [primordial wisdom], does not rely on objects for its knowledge because primordial wisdom knows the non-arising [dharmatā] of objects [dharmins], that knowledge is rigpa [vidyā]. The insight of rigpa does not occur spontaneously, it arises due to recognizing one's nature, recognizing the nature of mind. Your charge that primordial wisdom does not rely on the senses and therefore would not need to taste chocolate is a wild misconstruing of the metaphor. Whether you're doing that consciously in an attempt to discredit the example of tasting chocolate, or whether you simply are not grasping this notion and that misconstruing is out of confusion, I'm not sure. Either way though your assertion makes no sense. Further, your charge that knowledge is not intrinsic to rigpa because we experience rigpa many times while falling asleep is nothing that the system of Dzogchen says. The teachings speak of experiencing the clear light while falling asleep and the natural light, but it never ever says we experience rigpa while falling asleep. This misunderstanding sheds a great deal of light on why you have aversion to understanding rigpa as knowledge though. So this disagreement is starting to make sense more as we go along.

Either way, pointing out instructions are first and foremost. It is possible to get into a non-dual state through śamatha, but that doesn't mean it is knowledge of dharmatā. The definitive rigpa of Dzogchen is known via recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid] and does not occur any other way. Calm abiding śamatha is a helpful prerequisite, but śamatha alone divorced of insight into mind-essence will never reveal rang byung rig pa. You are of course allowed to be presumptuous and act as if you're clearing the air for a bunch of intellectuals who do not practice and have no experience of Atiyoga, however just because you convince yourself and others of such ideas does not mean they are true. That being said, rigpa as 'knowledge' does not imply concepts, nor does it imply the intellect. As I said above, once you taste chocolate you then have knowledge of it. Whereas before you lacked knowledge (you were ignorant), you are now no longer ignorant because you know the taste first hand from direcf experience. Rigpa is exactly like that. So you are absolutely misunderstanding what 'knowledge' implies, and one would have to be a fool to think that anyone suggested rigpa was scholarly knowledge or something known by the conceptual mind. Nothing of the sort was ever suggested. Rigpa is not sāmadhi. Sāmadhi [ting nge dzin] is the natural state, which ensues from recognition of the nature of mind. When that nature is recognized, then mind has collapsed and wisdom remains. The capacity which knows wisdom, and can effectively discern mind from wisdom, is rigpa. Plain and simple. For rigpa to arise from śamatha one must achieve released śamatha, which renders the abiding reference point of mind as empty. Rigpa ensues from that recognition, which equivalent to recognizing the nature of mind.

Rigpa is knowledge of primordial wisdom [ye shes]. Prior to recognizing wisdom there is no knowledge of it. This goes for anything. The taste of chocolate perhaps; prior to tasting chocolate for the first time you have no knowledge of its taste. After tasting it you then know what it tastes like. Rigpa is like that. Prior to recognizing your nature you have no knowledge of it. After recognition you have no doubts about your nature because you know it. Awareness is just an awake presence, my cat has awareness.

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche has received criticism from Lopön Tenzin Namdak for stating that khyab rig pervades material existence. According to Lopön, khyab rig is merely the sugatagarbha which pervades the heart of sentient beings (dharmakāya encased in affliction), and so khyab rig is only a potentiality, as mentioned on the previous page in the excerpt from Jean-Luc Achard. Other than that though the above perspective is no different than any other interpretation. Except for referring to the gzhi as 'kunzhi' has the potential to be confusing.