Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Tibetan_Ice]

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

It seems that Jigme Lingpa refuted the mind-only philosophy...

 

Yogācāra As I have shown in chapter 4, the Seminal Heart is influenced by the teachings on the nature of samsaric consciousness found in sutras such as the Laṅkāvatāra, and in the work of writers from the milieu variously known as Yogācāra, Vijñānavāda, or Cittamātra. In its first and third chapters, YLG provides a good example of this influence, and the elements of Yogācāra found there can be traced back to the earliest Seminal Heart scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.293 Despite these similarities, one central aspect of Yogācāra thought, the statement that all phenomena are mind, is strongly criticized in the Seminal Heart; in the Longchen Nyingtig it is in YL that Jigme Lingpa makes this critique.

 

Although it is largely the mind-only doctrine of the Yogācārins that is discussed, the criticisms can apply to variations of that doctrine held by certain Tibetan traditions. The approach singled out in YL is a contemplation in two parts, the first being to understand that all phenomena are mind, the second that mind is empty.294

 

Jigme Lingpa writes:

When appearances are recognized as being created by mind, the mindstream that has attachment to their reality is reversed.

 

[ii] When you recognize the mind that fabricates them as empty, attachment to the truth of the outer object is abandoned.

 

[iii] By recognizing emptiness as gnosis, one does not mistake the true condition for nonexistence. This last essential point alone is the direct approach and the practice instruction.

 

[GrandmasterP]

"[ii] When you recognize the mind that fabricates them as empty, attachment to the truth of the outer object is abandoned. "

 

Who is doing that 'recognizing' and how?

Edited August 5, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[asunthatneversets]

"[ii] When you recognize the mind that fabricates them as empty, attachment to the truth of the outer object is abandoned. "

 

Who is doing that 'recognizing' and how?

You as the conventional individual recognize it.

[GrandmasterP]

Thank you for that confirmation asunthatneversets.

[deci belle]

Who's we, paleface?

 

 

Fair comment Deci but Buddhas know shit-loads of nothing.
We, on the other hand; only know next to nothing.

 

Since you do not now nothing as it is, you do not know my comment is precise.

 

There is no comparison to nothing you nor any buddhas can make about it.

 

For one who is unaware of the buddha himself~ mr P sure seems to be shoveling it thickly for the benefit of the punters…❤ hahahhahahaaa!!

 

 

 

 

 

ed note… spice up the last line… heehee!!

Edited August 6, 2014 by deci belle

[ralis]

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PjHWAXnrn0

Edited August 6, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

So it appears you advocate for the existence of a noumenon or noumena that phenomenal appearances are abstracted from?

 

You are entitled to that opinion but it is divergent from the buddhadharma.

[joeblast]

heh, seeing things as they are,

 

a fantastic jumble of letters

[ralis]

So it appears you advocate for the existence of a noumenon or noumena that phenomenal appearances are abstracted from?

 

You are entitled to that opinion but it is divergent from the buddhadharma.

 

It appears that you did not listen to Robert Anton Wilson in which he discusses the differences in cultures/languages in which translations can lead to misunderstandings. Languages are based on the evolution of any given culture and may not translate well, cross culturally.

 

Why not expound on your statement? BTW, I read Kant et alii at the university.

 

Material reality existed long before humans or Buddhists.

Edited August 6, 2014 by ralis

[asunthatneversets]

It appears that you did not listen to Robert Anton Wilson in which he discusses the differences in cultures/languages in which translations can lead to misunderstandings. Languages are based on the evolution of any given culture and may not translate well, cross culturally.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

Why not expound on your statement? BTW, I read Kant et alii at the university.

That's good.

 

Material reality existed long before humans or Buddhists.

Ultimately that would be impossible, but is acceptable in a conventional context, sure

[ralis]

What does that have to do with anything?

 

 

You haven't a clue as to the nuances of language and culture. If you did, the above question would never be asked of me. Furthermore, the participants in this thread are having a difficult time communicating the subject in question. With that in mind, this so called discussion becomes one of conjecture and innuendo. Why? The Dzogchen texts and translations from Sanskrit circa 1300 years ago, may contain many inaccuracies. My point is, the probability of extant texts being 100 % accurate in copying/translation is very low. If that being the case, then are reasonable discussions possible? I think not.

[asunthatneversets]

You haven't a clue as to the nuances of language and culture.

I'm well aware of the implications of language and cultural constructs, I was really just interested to see if you were actually planning on citing that as an argument against what is being discussed here.

 

If you did, the above question would never be asked of me. Furthermore, the participants in this thread are having a difficult time communicating the subject in question.

Perhaps some are. For myself, there are quite a few naysayers who post here, whose disinterest with buddhism seems very deeply rooted in various biases, so there's really no point in discussing these things in depth.

 

With that in mind, this so called discussion becomes one of conjecture and innuendo.

It does but not for the reasons you cite below.

 

Why? The Dzogchen texts and translations from Sanskrit circa 1300 years ago, may contain many inaccuracies.

The majority of the main Dzogchen texts are in Tibetan, which is a living language. So while there may indeed be some translational errors as is usually inescapable with translation, there are no inaccuracies which would compromise the integrity of the Dzogchen doxography to the extreme you are alluding to.

 

My point is, the probability of extant texts being 100 % accurate in copying/translation is very low.

Which is not the case for the aforementioned reasons provided.

 

If that being the case, then are reasonable discussions possible? I think not.

It's not the case, so your conclusion is based on a false premise.

[GrandmasterP]

Who's we, paleface?

 

 

 

 

Since you do not now nothing as it is, you do not know my comment is precise.

 

There is no comparison to nothing you nor any buddhas can make about it.

 

For one who is unaware of the buddha himself~ mr P sure seems to be shoveling it thickly for the benefit of the punters…❤ hahahhahahaaa!!

 

 

 

 

 

ed note… spice up the last line… heehee!!

 

Apologies Deci.

That was the 'Royal We' implying 'me' but excluding 'you'.

I know my place down here cleaning out these here stables.

 

[ralis]

At least one poster here has spoken out against science claiming it has no place in Buddhism. A few Lama's including the Dalai Lama don't share that idea.

 

http://voiceofclearlight.org/component/content/article/182-august-2014/468-august-2014--buddhism-and-science-conference

[goldisheavy]

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's just narrative. You don't know this for a fact.

[goldisheavy]

All practicing yogins are yogacarins of some variety. We can criticize yogacara for how they split the mind up, but what cannot be criticized is the fact that all phenomena are nothing but states of mind.

[Apech]

All practicing yogins are yogacarins of some variety. We can criticize yogacara for how they split the mind up, but what cannot be criticized is the fact that all phenomena are nothing but states of mind.

 

To which I would add that the Buddhist tantras contain an inherently Zhentong view which according to Mikyo Dorje is actually Yogacara. So anyone practicing Buddhist tantra is yogacara too (even though they might not admit it).

[asunthatneversets]

At least one poster here has spoken out against science claiming it has no place in Buddhism. A few Lama's including the Dalai Lama don't share that idea.

 

http://voiceofclearlight.org/component/content/article/182-august-2014/468-august-2014--buddhism-and-science-conference

 

This is the pertinent point which must be emphasized:

 

Buddhism draws the critical division differently— i.e., between sentience and non-sentience— because it is primarily interested in the alleviation of suffering and the quest for happiness. In Buddhism, the evolution of the cosmos and the emergence of the sentient beings within it— indeed, effectively everything within the purview of the physical and life sciences— belong within the domain of the first of the Four Noble Truths, which the Buddha taught in his initial sermon. The Four Noble Truths state that within the realm of impermanent phenomena there is suffering, suffering has an origin, the cessation of suffering is possible, and there is a path to the cessation of suffering. As I see it, science falls within the scope of the first truth in that it examines the material bases of suffering, for it covers the entire spectrum of the physical environment—“ the container”— as well as the sentient beings—“ the contained.” It is in the mental realm— the realm of psychology, consciousness, the afflictions, and karma— that we find the second of the truths, the origin of suffering. The third and fourth truths, cessation and the path, are effectively outside the domain of scientific analysis in that they pertain primarily to what might be called philosophy and religion.

 

-- Dalai Lama (2005-09-13). The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Kindle Locations 1243-1252). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[asunthatneversets]

To which I would add that the Buddhist tantras contain an inherently Zhentong view which according to Mikyo Dorje is actually Yogacara. So anyone practicing Buddhist tantra is yogacara too (even though they might not admit it).

 

This really depends on what tantras you are referring to, but the tantras as a whole do not contain a view that is inherently gzhan stong in nature.

 

Gzhan stong is actually a later formulation, and many of the main adepts who wrote commentaries on the tantras (in addition to their own expositions) actually assert that the view of the tantras accord more closely with what we think of as a traditional Madhyamaka view such as Prasaṅgika (a view the gzhan stong pas would refer to as 'rang stong' - which is just a straw man created by gzhan stong pas to set their view apart from traditional Madhyamaka).

 

The tantras adopt certain Yogācārin principles, such as the eight consciousness model [aṣṭavijñāna], however they do not necessarily adhere to a view we could state is 'Yogācāra', specifically (or in nature).

[Apech]

Hmmm not really convinced that HHDL really understands what science is or the paradigms that it uses. Buddhism is not science and is not a science as far as I can see. It is only the success and dominance of the scientific process currently that even makes us think that such a relationship is either possible or desirable. That there should be a dialogue is of course completely reasonable and generally a good thing.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Apech]

This really depends on what tantras you are referring to, but the tantras as a whole do not contain a view that is inherently gzhan stong in nature.

 

Gzhan stong is actually a later formulation, and many of the main adepts who wrote commentaries on the tantras (in addition to their own expositions) actually assert that the view of the tantras accord more closely with what we think of as a traditional Madhyamaka view such as Prasaṅgika (a view the gzhan stong pas would refer to as 'rang stong' - which is just a straw man created by gzhan stong pas to set their view apart from traditional Madhyamaka).

 

The tantras adopt certain Yogācārin principles, such as the eight consciousness model [aṣṭavijñāna], however they do not necessarily adhere to a view we could state is 'Yogācāra', specifically (or in nature).

 

Well I am relying on statements made by my own teachers so I cannot without a lot of back reading of notes counter what you say ... and you may well be right about some commentaries. My teachers are Sakya and Kagyu and views on this I am sure vary from school to school and teacher to teacher. The equation of Zhentong with Yogacara comes from Centre of the Sunlit Sky attributed to Mikyo Dorje.

[Apech]

Is the moon still there when you are not looking?

 

Yes and its watching you.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Apech]

I didn't ask you but thanks for sharing your opinion anyways.

 

No problem.