Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Simple_Jack]

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

 

Relative appearances which appear to a deluded cognition are not validated in buddhadharma.

[asunthatneversets]

Relative appearances which appear to a deluded cognition are not validated in buddhadharma.

 

Right, as I said; "no inherency to be found anywhere".

[Simple_Jack]

Right, as I said; "no inherency to be found anywhere".

 

Probably best not to equate the two when you consider my above post.

[GrandmasterP]

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.

But you definitely typed that message and I definitely just read it in the same way that you are really ( in a practical sense) reading this response now.

Whatever you believe to be the case, by your own clear definition of terms ; cannot actually be the case hence what we have and all we have is this reality ( fictive or otherwise) within which we all live, move and have our being.

That's the reality wherein empirical events are replicable and measurable, the boiling point of water for one example.

That is Ralis' point as it is, and must be, by your own definition; your own conclusion.

If you can't yet apprehend your own logical conclusion then you've gotten a bit lost along the journey so far.

Think it through buddy and take your time.

If you cannot see this I'll not labour the point but it is a pretty simple point.

Phenomena 'are' and 'is-ness' just 'is'- irrespective of what any of us choose to believe.

Edited August 5, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[GrandmasterP]

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.

 

Good call.

Through a Bayesian lens maybe you take an objectivist approach and our chum the subjectivist.

That perhaps won't get us very far though as not everyone understands Bayesian praxes.

[Simple_Jack]

But you definitely typed that message and I definitely just read it in the same way that you are really ( in a practical sense) reading this response now.

Whatever you believe to be the case, by your own clear definition of terms ; cannot actually be the case hence what we have and all we have is this reality ( fictive or otherwise) within which we all live, move and have our being.

That's the reality wherein empirical events are replicable and measurable, the boiling point of water for one example.

That is Ralis' point as it is, and must be, by your own definition; your own conclusion.

If you can't yet apprehend your own logical conclusion then you've gotten a bit lost along the journey so far.

Think it through buddy and take your time.

If you cannot see this I'll not labour the point but it is a pretty simple point.

Phenomena 'are' and 'is-ness' just 'is'- irrespective of what any of us choose to believe.

 

Ralis has stated that he doesn't ascribe to materialism; he enjoys positivism.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Simple_Jack]

Materialism is scientifically outdated.

 

Materialism is a philosophical position. Would you prefer physicalism?

[GrandmasterP]

Right up to, but not beyond the point where the scientists need test tubes or any other such kit as produced by materialists.

 

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Simple_Jack]

Depends on you you define the term.

Every phenomena can be described by physics...at least potentially as physical theories, models and measurement equipment are still developing.

 

Great, so you also partake in positivism?

[Simple_Jack]

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

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

[asunthatneversets]

But you definitely typed that message and I definitely just read it in the same way that you are really ( in a practical sense) reading this response now.

Whatever you believe to be the case, by your own clear definition of terms ; cannot actually be the case hence what we have and all we have is this reality ( fictive or otherwise) within which we all live, move and have our being.

That's the reality wherein empirical events are replicable and measurable, the boiling point of water for one example.

That is Ralis' point as it is, and must be, by your own definition; your own conclusion.

If you can't yet apprehend your own logical conclusion then you've gotten a bit lost along the journey so far.

Think it through buddy and take your time.

If you cannot see this I'll not labour the point but it is a pretty simple point.

Phenomena 'are' and 'is-ness' just 'is'- irrespective of what any of us choose to believe.

Ah, no you're still coming at this from a flawed perspective and would need to take into consideration conventional vs. ultimate in the theme of Madhyamaka logic.

 

Your contention that phenomena 'are' and 'isness' just 'is' irrespective of anything is patently false, and the fact that you are asserting that to support your argument means we aren't even having the same conversation.

[GrandmasterP]

Yep, that seems to be the case for sure.

No biggie, I'll leave it at that.

Interesting thread anyhoo.

Edited August 5, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Simple_Jack]

 

Scientific measuring & estimation are our best tools to come as close as possible to objective reality.

 

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.

 

In second thought, it seems you partake in scientific realism.

[Apech]

- There is an objective reality.

- No there isn't.

- Yes there is.

- No.

- Yes.

- No, no, triple no.

- Is is is is is is is is.

- ... not.

- Absolutist!

- Materialist!

- You smell!

- You smell double.

- Pooo!

- You're philosophy is poo.

- Not as much as yours .. nana nana na na!

 

... and so ends our high level philosophical debate on the Dzogchen teachings, thank you and good night.

[deci belle]

Zoom said:

Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

 

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

 

Reality is independent of Dzogchen. Theory is not it.

 

Objectivity is selfless open aware perception of thusness as is.

 

The tao isn't taoist. Suchness isn't buddhist. Mental concepts aren't necessary to seeing reality.

 

This much doesn't require an awakening to the absolute; this much results in awakening to the absolute.

 

Objective reality is delusion without you identifying with your selfish personalistic views of self and other, good and bad.

 

Reality does not look any different to a buddha than it does to an ignoramus. Buddhas just don't know anything.

 

What theory is there in that?

[Simple_Jack]

Is the fault on Dzogchen that Zoom & Co. are essentially the Carvakas of the 21st century? They've made their choice.

[Tibetan_Ice]

From Approaching the Great Perfection: Simultaneous and Gradual Methods of Dzogchen Practice in the Longchen Nyingtig (Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism) by Sam Van Schaik:

 

 

 

Again he asked a question: Since the sensory spheres that manifest in that way are delusory perception, why does an object, such as a house, manifest to all sentient beings as the same thing? [83]

 

Thus spoke Samantabhadra: In the case of the perceptions of realized beings, delusory perception is never experienced. For nonrealized beings, on the other hand, perception manifests for each of the six families according to their general class. Therefore there are different perceptions for each of the six families; for instance, although there is just one single body of water, it is experienced as nectar by the gods, as embers by the hellbeings, and as blood and pus by the hungry ghosts. This is because those who are included in the karmic perceptions and dynamic forms of a particular family are given simultaneously one type of delusory perception, which is merely the coarse way their sensory spheres, senses, and thoughts manifest.

 

If one considers this from the point of view of the realized and the nonrealized, appearances manifest in this way within the human race as well. For example, for a yogin residing in the sameness of the true condition, although there is no obstruction to appearances such as mountains, houses, and palaces, his gnosis has no cognition apprehending them as such. Therefore in the state where appearances and mind are of one taste, he may even go like an eagle through the sky, or like a duck on the water, or pass through rocks and the like, because of the absence of grasping at those appearances.

 

Thus the all-creating king, the natural state of the mind itself, having been hidden invisibly in the expanse of the ālaya, emerges from the primordial ground as the luminosity of the great manifesting ground, free from extremes, and abides as the ground of all samsara and nirvana. However, when awareness moves away from the ground and enlightenment in the true expansewhich casts out the obscurations of cognition and the cognized, is not polluted by the apprehender or fettered by the apprehended, not confused in its own place, and not connected with objectsit is transformed into the mano-vijñāna.

 

Because I know that the great fault that is the supporter of karmic actions and imprints is to associate with the great demon of apprehender and apprehended, I Samantabhadra, never performing even the merest particle of contaminated virtue, am the buddhahood that is the ancestor of all buddhas.

 

This is the third chapter of the Tantra of the Expanse of Samantabhadras Wisdom, explaining the nature of the eight aggregates of consciousness.

 

[Simple_Jack]

@ deci belle

Recognizing unfabricated presence vs the conceptualizing mind is just day 1 of Dzogchen; one is not then officially a Dzogchenpa

[Tibetan_Ice]

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Simple_Jack]

Yogacara is definitely a "non-dual" realist (Buddhist definition) system.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[GrandmasterP]

- There is an objective reality.

- No there isn't.

- Yes there is.

- No.

- Yes.

- No, no, triple no.

- Is is is is is is is is.

- ... not.

- Absolutist!

- Materialist!

- You smell!

- You smell double.

- Pooo!

- You're philosophy is poo.

- Not as much as yours .. nana nana na na!

 

... and so ends our high level philosophical debate on the Dzogchen teachings, thank you and good night.

 

Oh yeah!

Sez who?

Mr Poopypants.

[GrandmasterP]

Zoom said:

 

 

Reality is independent of Dzogchen. Theory is not it.

 

Objectivity is selfless open aware perception of thusness as is.

 

The tao isn't taoist. Suchness isn't buddhist. Mental concepts aren't necessary to seeing reality.

 

This much doesn't require an awakening to the absolute; this much results in awakening to the absolute.

 

Objective reality is delusion without you identifying with your selfish personalistic views of self and other, good and bad.

 

Reality does not look any different to a buddha than it does to an ignoramus. Buddhas just don't know anything.

 

What theory is there in that?

 

Fair comment Deci but Buddhas know shit-loads of nothing.

We, on the other hand; only know next to nothing.