Bernadette Roberts: Christian Contemplative View On Buddhism

[Apech]

The term being translated as "pure and total consciousness" in the "All Creating King" is "bodhicitta". This is the primary term for the enlightened state in Dzogchen Semde. Something to watch out for is the presentation in Semde is different from Mennagde, for example Mennagde focuses on distinguishing sems and rigpa.

 

Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

Thanks for that clarification. So bodhicitta is being translated as 'pure and total consciousness' ... well maybe there are reasons for this in terms of Dzogchen terminology but its an unusual translation ... indeed I would have thought that bodhicitta is familiar enough to everyone to leave untranslated.

[Apech]

Seems very complicated to me

 

I'm sitting here knowing that I exist and knowing that I know that I exist but it seems that I don't actually exist at all - according to Buddhist theory

 

What's also rather strange is that I know that I exist even in the complete absence of mind and body, space and time, so my existence certainly isn't predicated on a mind (deluded or otherwise )

 

I therefore have to conclude that either Longchenpa was wrong or it's anothe one of those "bad translations"

 

This is a big problem (i.e. finding sruti in Buddhism - lots of smriti - but *%&!-all sruti).

 

 

I think a lot of people confuse that intellectual arguments for emptiness and no-self with the realisation of the same. Hence the barrage of fruitless arguments which prevail. Without rehearsing all those arguments I would say that the Buddhist view in my experience steers us more to a paradoxical situation where you both exist and don't exist at the same time and going for either complete absence of self (non-existence) or an eternal indestructible self is a kind of cop out. The philosophy is supposed to loosen your attachment to whatever it is you are clinging on to so that you can more easily go to the actual experience of seeing things as they really are. Part of the process is living with the paradox.

 

That Buddhism and Advaita take different views and approaches is a good thing as in this way more people with different preferences of thought and action can be guided to liberation. There is no need to conflate the two or even choose one as superior to the other. People follow which ever path draws them through personal karmic connection and hopefully respect the other way. This is what great teachers seem to do and I don't see why we should do any different.

[asunthatneversets]

That kun byed rgyal po translation is quite old.

 

Not sure if 'consciousness' is a translation for bodhicitta (in that 'Supreme Source' translation) because the term bodhicitta appears to be used itself, around pages 28 - 29.

 

'Consciousness' appears to be referencing wisdom, which is an inaccurate translation of wisdom.

 

Consciousness [tib. rnam shes, skt. vijñāna] does originate dependently according to Dzogchen, and is therefore conditioned and afflictive.

 

Wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna] in the other hand is unafflicted, and appears to be what the term 'consciousness' in that translation is supposed to represent.

 

Unlike Vedanta, there is no undefiled consciousness in Dzogchen.

 

The way 'consciousness' is used in that kun byed rgyal po translation is inaccurate.

[Creation]

That kun byed rgyal po translation is quite old.

 

Not sure if 'consciousness' is a translation for bodhicitta (in that 'Supreme Source' translation) because the term bodhicitta appears to be used itself, around pages 28 - 29.

 

'Consciousness' appears to be referencing wisdom, which is an inaccurate translation of wisdom.

 

Consciousness [tib. rnam shes, skt. vijñāna] does originate dependently according to Dzogchen, and is therefore conditioned and afflictive.

 

Wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna] in the other hand is unafflicted, and appears to be what the term 'consciousness' in that translation is supposed to represent.

Just for clarity, there are three Sanskrit words that could be translated mind or consciousness: citta, manas, and vijnana. In Mahayana, vijnana is defiled, as you point out, and manas is a subcategory of vijnana, but citta does not necessarily carry the connotation of being defiled, especially when bodhicitta is implied by citta. I checked and you are right about bodicitta being left untranslated in certain parts of "Supreme Source", so maybe I was wrong. But as explained in the commentary, the Tibetan for bodhicitta is changchubsem, literally "Pure, perfect mind" (from which "pure and total consciousness" is not much of a stretch), and Bodhicitta is the key technical term used for the enlightened mind in Semde. But I don't know Tibetan so I can't say anything with authority.

 

Thanks for that clarification. So bodhicitta is being translated as 'pure and total consciousness' ... well maybe there are reasons for this in terms of Dzogchen terminology but its an unusual translation ... indeed I would have thought that bodhicitta is familiar enough to everyone to leave untranslated.

I think the "leave technical terms untranslated" philosophy is useful, but there are those who frown upon it. And from a technical standpoint, bodhicitta has three or four different meanings depending upon context. As I said above, the Tibetan translation of bodhicitta literally means pure and perfect mind.

[Simple_Jack]

Seems very complicated to me

 

I'm sitting here knowing that I exist and knowing that I know that I exist but it seems that I don't actually exist at all - according to Buddhist theory

 

What's also rather strange is that I know that I exist even in the complete absence of mind and body, space and time, so my existence certainly isn't predicated on a mind (deluded or otherwise )

 

I therefore have to conclude that either Longchenpa was wrong or it's anothe one of those "bad translations"

 

This is a big problem (i.e. finding sruti in Buddhism - lots of smriti - but *%&!-all sruti).

 

To comprehend buddhadharma, even just intellectually, requires an attempt at approaching the teachings on its own terms by suspending any preconceived notions and biases. If you want clarification and an accurate translation, of excerpts from the "Kunjed Gyalpo", then I recommend going to this forum http://www.vajracakra.com/.

 

That kun byed rgyal po translation is quite old.

 

Not sure if 'consciousness' is a translation for bodhicitta (in that 'Supreme Source' translation) because the term bodhicitta appears to be used itself, around pages 28 - 29.

 

'Consciousness' appears to be referencing wisdom, which is an inaccurate translation of wisdom.

 

Consciousness [tib. rnam shes, skt. vijñāna] does originate dependently according to Dzogchen, and is therefore conditioned and afflictive.

 

Wisdom [tib. ye shes, skt. jñāna] in the other hand is unafflicted, and appears to be what the term 'consciousness' in that translation is supposed to represent.

 

Unlike Vedanta, there is no undefiled consciousness in Dzogchen.

 

The way 'consciousness' is used in that kun byed rgyal po translation is inaccurate.

 

I remember Malcolm explaining it as bodhicitta, just as Creation did above, but this makes sense also. I really couldn't tell from that translation (sorry gatito). i was completely off about that being a translation of gzhi.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I think a lot of people confuse that intellectual arguments for emptiness and no-self with the realisation of the same. Hence the barrage of fruitless arguments which prevail. Without rehearsing all those arguments I would say that the Buddhist view in my experience steers us more to a paradoxical situation where you both exist and don't exist at the same time...

 

Freedom from the extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence.

[asunthatneversets]

Actually Malcolm did clarify not too long ago:

Bodhicitta is the kun gzhi, the all-basis, in sems sde texts. The commentary on the rig pa'i khu byug, The Sun that Illuminates the Meaning states:

Therefore, bodhicitta, the all-basis, is classified as "the basis of purification of afflictions."

But this terminology of an "all-basis" as the equivalent of bodhicitta and so on does not actually occur in the 18 original bodhicitta texts themselves and is a later commentarial gloss.

You should understand that bodhicitta = primordial state is ChNN's language.

Translators evolve, and we are still in a very early stage of settling what these texts actually mean. This will not be achieved by one person, but we will arrive eventually a sounder translations through a process of dialectics.

Anyway, these days it is often the case that translations are obsolete within 15 years or less.

M

Edited February 26, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

Just for clarity, there are three Sanskrit words that could be translated mind or consciousness: citta, manas, and vijnana. In Mahayana, vijnana is defiled, as you point out, and manas is a subcategory of vijnana, but citta does not necessarily carry the connotation of being defiled, especially when bodhicitta is implied by citta. I checked and you are right about bodicitta being left untranslated in certain parts of "Supreme Source", so maybe I was wrong. But as explained in the commentary, the Tibetan for bodhicitta is changchubsem, literally "Pure, perfect mind" (from which "pure and total consciousness" is not much of a stretch), and Bodhicitta is the key technical term used for the enlightened mind in Semde. But I don't know Tibetan so I can't say anything with authority.

 

I would say that citta [tib. sems] does indeed carry the connotation of being defiled. Which is why the prefix 'bodhi' when added to 'citta' no longer signifies mere 'citta', just as byang chub sems cannot be said to be the same as mere sems (the prefix 'byang chub' altering the meaning in the tibetan term, just as 'bodhi' does with the sanskrit).

 

As far as the buddhadharma goes, the terms 'mind' and 'consciousness' are more often than not synonymous.

[gatito]

It's useful to to distinguish clearly between mind and consciousness - perhaps that's impossible in Tibetan Buddhism due to inherent limitations of the Tibetan language?

 

However, from what I can gather from the discussion above, I have no reason to change the quote: -

 

"Listen, great being, to what I am explaining to you!
From the beginning, pure and total consciousness, the supreme source, abides in the authentic all-transcending condition; however, the various traditions with their views are not able to relax in it."

 

The Kunjed Gyalpo

 

And, in the absence of a any other clear definition of Consciousness, I'll stick with "that which is reading these words and knows that it's reading these words"

 

Mind is, on direct investigation, nothing more than an imaginary construct, as there's no evidence that anything other than the current thought actually exists. Even a memory is just the current thought.

 

The subconscious is an even more imaginary construct, as by definition there's no evidence that it exists.

 

Thanks for your input everyone.

[Simple_Jack]

It's useful to to distinguish clearly between mind and consciousness - perhaps that's impossible in Tibetan Buddhism due to inherent limitations of the Tibetan language?

 

However, from what I can gather from the discussion above, I have no reason to change the quote: -

 

 

And, in the absence of a any other clear definition of Consciousness, I'll stick with "that which is reading these words and knows that it's reading these words"

 

Mind is, on direct investigation, nothing more than an imaginary construct, as there's no evidence that anything other than the current thought actually exists. Even a memory is just the current thought.

 

The subconscious is an even more imaginary construct, as by definition there's no evidence that it exists.

 

Thanks for your input everyone.

 

Mind (citta) and consciousness[es] (vijnana) are synonymous in Buddhism, but the definitions are distinguished, according to the function and attributes (e.g. manas-vijnana and klistamanas-vijnana of Yogacara) which can then take on different connotations depending on the school or system (e.g. Mahamudra vs. Dzogchen). Of course, mind (sems/citta) and the nature of mind (semnyi/cittata) are differentiated in Dzogchen.

 

The distinction between a "subconscious" and "conscious" levels of experience, are non-existent in Dharma religions, there's only ignorance and the degree to which one is still subjected to experiencing the traces of afflictions. These are just Western concepts.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Creation]

I would say that citta [tib. sems] does indeed carry the connotation of being defiled. Which is why the prefix 'bodhi' when added to 'citta' no longer signifies mere 'citta', just as byang chub sems cannot be said to be the same as mere sems (the prefix 'byang chub' altering the meaning in the tibetan term, just as 'bodhi' does with the sanskrit).

 

As far as the buddhadharma goes, the terms 'mind' and 'consciousness' are more often than not synonymous.

Well, in Semde, sems often means nature of mind rather than just mind, as often explained by Namkhai Norbu. A pertinent example is the word Semde itself not referring to mind but nature of mind. Also, the famous "Luminous, monks, is the mind [cittam], and it is defiled by incoming defilements." is a use of citta that explicitly states it's nature is undefiled.

 

I am having trouble understanding what your position is. You say "mind" and "consciousness" are not synonymous. Presumably mind would translate citta and consciousness would translate vijnana. But you also say citta, like vijnana, is defiled, which as far as I can tell would make citta and vijnana synonymous. What am I missing?

[asunthatneversets]

Well, in Semde, sems often means nature of mind rather than just mind, as often explained by Namkhai Norbu. A pertinent example is the word Semde itself not referring to mind but nature of mind. Also, the famous "Luminous, monks, is the mind [cittam], and it is defiled by incoming defilements." is a use of citta that explicitly states it's nature is undefiled.

 

I am having trouble understanding what your position is. You say "mind" and "consciousness" are not synonymous. Presumably mind would translate citta and consciousness would translate vijnana. But you also say citta, like vijnana, is defiled, which as far as I can tell would make citta and vijnana synonymous. What am I missing?

Mind and consciousness are synonymous in my opinion. You may have misread what I wrote above.

[Creation]

Ha, so I did.

[themiddleway]

I think a lot of people confuse that intellectual arguments for emptiness and no-self with the realisation of the same. Hence the barrage of fruitless arguments which prevail. Without rehearsing all those arguments I would say that the Buddhist view in my experience steers us more to a paradoxical situation where you both exist and don't exist at the same time and going for either complete absence of self (non-existence) or an eternal indestructible self is a kind of cop out. The philosophy is supposed to loosen your attachment to whatever it is you are clinging on to so that you can more easily go to the actual experience of seeing things as they really are. Part of the process is living with the paradox.

 

That Buddhism and Advaita take different views and approaches is a good thing as in this way more people with different preferences of thought and action can be guided to liberation. There is no need to conflate the two or even choose one as superior to the other. People follow which ever path draws them through personal karmic connection and hopefully respect the other way. This is what great teachers seem to do and I don't see why we should do any different.

Personally, with respect to no-self vis a vis self, I can not confirm either.

I like this summation from Jayarava:'The realisation of self qua contingent experience is liberating because it allows us to become sober with respect to sense experience'. Simple and to the point. The moment Buddhism strays into ontology is begins to sound like flatulence. The question/problem of moral agency,personal continuity in rebirth and no-self have created some abstruse discource in Buddhism. I've abandoned the lot since discovering Dzogchen.

[thelerner]

This is why i will try to absent myself more from these discussions from now on.

 

It really serves no useful purpose in terms of the intention to reach some accord on the understanding of how to promote and sustain goodwill, peace and understanding, so such discussions actually go against the grain of Dharma practice. Sometimes it punctuates the mind quite similar to the sensation of dragging fingernails across a blackboard.

I think I got this concept from a Buddhist reverend (Kubose?): A truth spoken in anger, harshly or offensively is no longer the truth. He may have used the term false speech instead of the word truth.

Seems contradictory yet in person to person matters I've found it quite true.

[Simple_Jack]

1. Buddhism is not rocket science

 

2. By definition Buddhism is not an ontology.

 

Why? Because the teachings of Buddhism do not seek to validate the existence nor non-existence of an entity. Co-dependently arisen appearances are free from the extremes of "is" or "is not". The view of [2-fold] emptiness in Dzogchen is really no different than that of Prajnaparamita.

[Apech]

Personally, with respect to no-self vis a vis self, I can not confirm either.

I like this summation from Jayarava:'The realisation of self qua contingent experience is liberating because it allows us to become sober with respect to sense experience'. Simple and to the point. The moment Buddhism strays into ontology is begins to sound like flatulence. The question/problem of moral agency,personal continuity in rebirth and no-self have created some abstruse discource in Buddhism. I've abandoned the lot since discovering Dzogchen.

 

 

Dzogchen is not Buddhism in your view?

[Simple_Jack]

Dzogchen is not Buddhism in your view?

 

Dzogchen does not have to be confined to an 'ism', especially not 'Buddhism', but without a doubt it is buddhadharma. Yet, it cannot be denied, that its grounded in 'Buddhist' logic.

[Simple_Jack]

Personally, with respect to no-self vis a vis self, I can not confirm either.

I like this summation from Jayarava:'The realisation of self qua contingent experience is liberating because it allows us to become sober with respect to sense experience'. Simple and to the point. The moment Buddhism strays into ontology is begins to sound like flatulence. The question/problem of moral agency,personal continuity in rebirth and no-self have created some abstruse discource in Buddhism. I've abandoned the lot since discovering Dzogchen.

1. Buddhism is not rocket science

 

2. By definition Buddhism is not an ontology.

 

Why? Because the teachings of Buddhism do not seek to validate the existence [nor non-existence] of an entity. Co-dependently arisen appearances are free from the extremes of "is" or "is not". The view of [2-fold] emptiness in Dzogchen is really no different than that of Prajnaparamita.

 

Just become familiarized with Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, particularly Ch.9 [pg.188] "Examination of the Prior Entity", and Buddhism will make a lot more sense:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=chapter%20nine&f=false

[Apech]

Dzogchen does not have to be confined to an 'ism', especially not 'Buddhism', but without a doubt it is buddhadharma. Yet, it cannot be denied, that its grounded in 'Buddhist' logic.

 

 

I meant the question in a simple sense. But I saw a vid of Namkhai Norbu called an introduction to dzogchen and it was a basic run through of the path starting with 4 Noble Truths. This is the same approach as mahamudra and lam rim which are definitely presented as 'buddhist' in this sense. I just wondered if someone was teaching Dzogchen as a totally separate thing (ignoring Bon for amoment) if you see what I mean.

[asunthatneversets]

I meant the question in a simple sense. But I saw a vid of Namkhai Norbu called an introduction to dzogchen and it was a basic run through of the path starting with 4 Noble Truths. This is the same approach as mahamudra and lam rim which are definitely presented as 'buddhist' in this sense. I just wondered if someone was teaching Dzogchen as a totally separate thing (ignoring Bon for amoment) if you see what I mean.

 

There may be some who claim that they teach Dzogchen as a totally separate thing, but that undoubtably starts to become a slippery slope depending on the presentation. Something to be wary of in my opinion. The moment you dispense with refuge, bodhicitta and dedication of merit, you have deviated from Dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen as our nature is free of dogmas and tradition, but then again so is prajñapāramita. The systems and traditions which are the means to discover that nature are just that, a means to bring about discovery... rafts to be abandoned. So they are useful, and their effectiveness is proven by the unbroken lineages which implement them. Better to simply see Dzogchen in the context of Buddhism as a helpful support. Which only becomes an issue when one gets caught up in the minor details, but that is on them. For myself, one of the best pieces of advice I ever received was not to get caught up in the details, go to the essence, see that all of these traditions in the buddhadharma are pointing to that essence.

[Apech]

There may be some who claim that they teach Dzogchen as a totally separate thing, but that undoubtably starts to become a slippery slope depending on the presentation. Something to be wary of in my opinion. The moment you dispense with refuge, bodhicitta and dedication of merit, you have deviated from Dzogchen.

 

Dzogchen as our nature is free of dogmas and tradition, but then again so is prajñapāramita. The systems and traditions which are the means to discover that nature are just that, a means to bring about discovery... rafts to be abandoned. So they are useful, and their effectiveness is proven by the unbroken lineages which implement them. Better to simply see Dzogchen in the context of Buddhism as a helpful support. Which only becomes an issue when one gets caught up in the minor details, but that is on them. For myself, one of the best pieces of advice I ever received was not to get caught up in the details, go to the essence, see that all of these traditions in the buddhadharma are pointing to that essence.

 

OK thanks for this.

[themiddleway]

Dzogchen is not Buddhism in your view?

I believe its the apotheosis of all vehicles. There is the myth of Atiyoga been taught in other world systems and the lineage founder himself is mythic but these things are outside my concern and understanding.

 

I would defer to the knowledge of Malcolm a translator of Dzogchen tantras http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8565&start=0

 

Dzogchen includes the meaning of all Buddhadharma, so one cannot say that by practicing Dzogchen as an independent path, one is dismissing Buddhadharma as unnecessary. One can dismiss the organized religion that has accreted around Buddhadharma i.e. "Buddhism", the corresponding socio/political/economic institutions, as unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners.

 

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

 

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

[yabyum24]

I believe its the apotheosis of all vehicles. There is the myth of Atiyoga been taught in other world systems and the lineage founder himself is mythic but these things are outside my concern and understanding.

 

I would defer to the knowledge of Malcolm a translator of Dzogchen tantras http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8565&start=0

 

Dzogchen includes the meaning of all Buddhadharma, so one cannot say that by practicing Dzogchen as an independent path, one is dismissing Buddhadharma as unnecessary. One can dismiss the organized religion that has accreted around Buddhadharma i.e. "Buddhism", the corresponding socio/political/economic institutions, as unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners.

 

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

 

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

One of the finest posts I've read in a long time on this topic. Very clear and gets to the heart of the matter.

[Jeff]

I believe its the apotheosis of all vehicles. There is the myth of Atiyoga been taught in other world systems and the lineage founder himself is mythic but these things are outside my concern and understanding.

 

I would defer to the knowledge of Malcolm a translator of Dzogchen tantras http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8565&start=0

 

Dzogchen includes the meaning of all Buddhadharma, so one cannot say that by practicing Dzogchen as an independent path, one is dismissing Buddhadharma as unnecessary. One can dismiss the organized religion that has accreted around Buddhadharma i.e. "Buddhism", the corresponding socio/political/economic institutions, as unnecessary for Dzogchen practitioners.

 

Some people are very attached to the Buddhist clothes in which they find Dzogchen. Those clothes are not so important. Dzogchen texts are relative so they reflect the culture of those they find themselves in. The principle of the three kāyas is beyond language, so it does not matter at all what you call your three kāyas. The three kāyas just express aspects of the wisdom of the basis.

 

If we want to understand emptiness in Dzogchen, we do not need to engage in any analysis at all -- we need to merely reflect on the examples of illusion -- that is sufficient for understanding everything is unreal -- no analysis required, no fancy Madyamaka analysis, we don't even have to use the word "emptiness", "Life is but a dream...." In this way we penetrate to the real essence of the teachings.

 

Thank you for the excellent description. To often Dzogchen is implied as Buddhist and often taught that way. Many traditions, have such a "primordial" approach.