Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[GrandmasterP]

Based on the claims of the usual suspects on here, some Dzogchen boosters certainly seem to believe their system to be a veritable repository of objective reality.

I'm with you that objective reality exists with the caveat - insofar as we perceive it.

That's reality enough for me.

Using doors bypasses any need to try and walk through walls IMO.

Edited August 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[thelerner]

Don't know Dzogen theory, but I think there's an objective reality. It can be objectively measured and analyzed without regard to human filters and conditioning.

 

Yet you can only measure what you know. Even objectively, say with a camera. There are still spectrums an ordinary camera won't see, but special devices can measure like infrared and various radiations. There are probably spectrums beyond those too. There may well be dimensionality to the world we don't notice, we simply don't have the scientific tools or expanded our paradigms enough to build them.

 

Observing the world there are repeated phenomena that defy standard explanations, that we need to consider seriously.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[GrandmasterP]

The energy that makes up the material body of a spoon is definitely real

& definitely located in the area of time and space where it can be measured or estimated scientifically.

 

The Matrix quote "There is no spoon!" is the most absurd statement ever and only "true" in some twisted purely intellectual interpretation.

 

+1

If there was no spoon cornflakes would remain uneaten.

Those ' Matrix' movies are truly dreadful, but they are just movies.

Some either never realised or seem to forget that fact.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[GrandmasterP]

I'll have the toast and marmalade then.

Breakfast being ( IMO) the most important meal of the day.

Edited August 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[asunthatneversets]

Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

 

I personally am 100% convinced that there is an objective reality!

 

For Dzogchen there is a conventional (objective) reality, which is valid in its nominal application, however ultimately there is no inherent objective reality (nor any sort of reality).

[GrandmasterP]

It must be bed time.

That actually made sense .

 

[ralis]

For Dzogchen there is a conventional (objective) reality, which is valid in its nominal application, however ultimately there is no inherent objective reality (nor any sort of reality).

 

You are stating an absolute/isness from a human point of view. The universe has been around for over 14 billion years. Long before we were around.

[asunthatneversets]

You are stating an absolute/isness from a human point of view. The universe has been around for over 14 billion years. Long before we were around.

That is the view of modern science, predicated on physicalist materialism. It is not the view of the Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna.

 

And if anything you are the one who just asserted an absolute/isness from a human point of view.

Edited August 4, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ralis]

That is the view of modern science, predicated on physicalist materialism. It is not the view of the Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna.

 

And if anything you are the one who just asserted an absolute/isness from a human point of view.

 

You fail to understand what you write. To include the verb 'is' denotes an absolute statement. If you stick your hand through a piece of basalt or granite and leave prints or holes, then we can have a discussion.

 

 

there is no inherent objective reality (nor any sort of reality).

Edited August 4, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

You fail to understand what you write. To include the verb 'is' denotes an absolute statement. If you stick your hand through a piece of basalt or granite and leave prints or holes, then we can have a discussion.

I understand quite well what I wrote. Either way, you also made an absolute statement (the universe is 14 billion years old), though it appears your confirmation biases lead you to confidently advocate for a double standard in that respect (as you are calling me out for the very thing you are likewise guilty of - though it is only something to be guilty of according to your own opinion held as some sort of falsely objective standard).

 

Science theorizes that the universe is 14 billion years old and believes it can substantiate that claim with what it considers to be factual evidence.

 

The buddhadharma's assertion that the universe is a misnomer and its apparent validity is merely a byproduct of afflictive patterns of reification and ignorance can also be proven through applying the methods of the dharma.

[ralis]

The buddhadharma's assertion that the universe is a misnomer and its apparent validity is merely a byproduct of afflictive patterns of reification and ignorance can also be proven through applying the methods of the dharma.

 

I stated the universe has been around for over 14 billion years. That does not denote an absolute, but an approximation. Stop revising what I write.

 

"A misnomer"? "Merely a byproduct of afflictive reification and ignorance"? You expect a reasonable person to believe such rhetorical nonsense?

Edited August 4, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

I stated the universe has been around for over 14 billion years. That does not denote an absolute, but an approximation. Stop revising what I write.

The timeline is irrelevant. The absolute you are asserting is the existence of a universe which formed whenever it formed.

 

"A misnomer"? "Merely a byproduct of afflictive reification and ignorance"? You expect a reasonable person to believe such rhetorical nonsense?

Obviously depends what you consider "reasonable" to be, and therefore a "reasonable person" would undoubtably also be defined as one who accords with what you deem to be reasonable.

 

Clearly you champion physical materialism, ergo what you consider to be reasonable is far from what I consider to be reasonable. Rendering the idea of "nonsense" to be a solely subjective notion, no doubt.

[Simple_Jack]

You fail to understand what you write. To include the verb 'is' denotes an absolute statement.

 

Buddhadharma escapes that assertion:

 

Jigme Lingpa, as translated by Erik Kunsang, page 417 of Wellsprings of the Great Perfection:

 

Beliefs in biased "is" and "isn't" fully crumble

[GrandmasterP]

But you've already agreed with Ralis asun....

You said that....

" there is a conventional (objective) reality, which is valid in its nominal application"....

which is exactly the same as what Ralis is saying.

Your rider that....

" however ultimately there is no inherent objective reality (nor any sort of reality)." Must be self-referentially correct as well.

Break it down to cases using one of Ralis' analogies and you have admitted that...( as an example)

There is such a thing as basalt albeit that I think it's nothing.

Or one of mine...

" Asunthatneversets believes his argument, as made; to be valid at the time of typing. That said, he does know that what he has typed is inherently nothing."

 

It all makes perfect sense as Ralis keeps on explaining to you.

You are of the same mind and making exactly the same claims that Ralis is making

Edited August 4, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[asunthatneversets]

Not at all, because I am not advocating for the existence or non-existence of an ontological universe or reality.

 

What I am saying is not even remotely close to what ralis is proposing.

[Simple_Jack]

But you've already agreed with Ralis asun....

You said that....

" there is a conventional (objective) reality, which is valid in its nominal application"....

which is exactly the same as what Ralis is saying.

Your rider that....

" however ultimately there is no inherent objective reality (nor any sort of reality)." Must be self-referentially correct as well.

Break it down to cases using one of Ralis' analogies and you have admitted that...( as an example)

There is such a thing as basalt albeit that I think it's nothing.

Or one of mine...

" Asunthatneversets believes his argument, as made; to be valid at the time of typing. That said, he does know that what he has typed is inherently nothing."

 

It all makes perfect sense as Ralis keeps on explaining to you.

You are of the same mind and making exactly the same claims that Ralis is making

 

Buddhadharma does not equate to the worldview of scientism:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/?p=507136

 

Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

 

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not"....

 

"Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation.

 

Nāgārjuna states:

 

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,

‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.

Because of that, is and is not

are not made into a basis by the wise.

 

- Loppon Namdrol

[ralis]

Buddhadharma does not equate to the worldview of scientism:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/?p=507136

 

Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

 

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not"....

 

"Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation.

 

Nāgārjuna states:

 

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,

‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.

Because of that, is and is not

are not made into a basis by the wise.

 

- Loppon Namdrol

 

You incessantly use 'is' in your posts. Use some gray in your posts as opposed to the form, yes/no, is/is not and so forth.

[asunthatneversets]

You incessantly use 'is' in your posts. Use some gray in your posts as opposed to the form, yes/no, is/is not and so forth.

There is no problem with using is or is-not conventionally.

[ralis]

There is no problem with using is or is-not conventionally.

 

In the language of mathematics, in which I have 45 credit hours which includes 700 level utility theory/Bayesian theory, there are no absolutes only probabilities. Language has built limitations which affects the thinking mind.

[asunthatneversets]

In the language of mathematics, in which I have 45 credit hours which includes 700 level utility theory/Bayesian theory, there are no absolutes only probabilities. Language has built limitations which affects the thinking mind.

 

Same with the buddhadharma, as there is no inherency to be found anywhere, an absolute or universal is an impossibility.

[Simple_Jack]

You incessantly use 'is' in your posts. Use some gray in your posts as opposed to the form, yes/no, is/is not and so forth.

 

Spare me your e-prime.

 

Jigme Lingpa, as translated by Erik Kunsang, page 417 of Wellsprings of the Great Perfection:

 

Beliefs in biased "is" and "isn't" fully crumble

Edited August 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack