Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[asunthatneversets]

Weird that you think the clumsy eight consciousness model is what Dzogchen teachings borrow. Splitting the mind into eight distinct consciousnesses is probably the worst aspect of yogacara.

 

The main point of yogacara is to point the mind back to itself. In simple terms, the practitioner should seek to understand the power of one's own mind.

Pointing the mind back to itself is not a sole proviso of Yogācāra, rather it is really the point if the buddhadharma in general. What differentiates Yogācāra from other systems is much more subtle than this.

[goldisheavy]

Dzogchen rejects the analytical praxis championed by Madhyamaka and does not agree that the two-truths is an accurate title since the relative cannot be considered 'true' in any sense. However ultimately Madhyamaka agrees and fully admits that there are not really two truths.

 

Ergo both agree that the only 'truth' is the unenumerated ultimate, and both accept conventions because otherwise their views could not be communicated, so the only difference is in praxis.

 

 

Obviously that is false being that yogins have achieved realization through Madhyamaka analytics which are executed in a proper combination with meditation etc.

 

Really the only issues with Madhyamaka from the standpoint of tantra is that its path takes longer due to relying on the intellect and it does not work with energy.

 

Madhyamaka's ultimate view is absence of views. Madhyamaka fails to produce confidence in the mind for this reason: it consists purely of denials. It doesn't assert or defend anything that would be reliable for a practitioner. Of course that's the whole point. But that's a double-edged sword. This can be very bad for many people. In fact, I don't like madhyamaka and I consider it worthless for myself, even though I understand it completely and I know what its secret intention is.

 

In other words, Madhyamaka purposefully dispenses with narratives, but narratives is how people gain (and lose) power. The point is, it's infinitely superior to switch to an empowering narrative instead of simply trying to dismantle all the narratives. And the cool thing is that it's possible to hold a narrative with confidence while also knowing it has no ultimate truth. This is something Madhyamaka doesn't teach. This is purely a yogic/tantric endeavor. Which is to say, learning how to manipulate one's own worldview to one's own advantage is the endeavor of those who want to learn how to transform their own experiences in an infinite variety of ways as opposed to growing comfortable and acquiescent to whatever appears by default through the power of calcified habit.

 

There is no objective way to determine the length of the path, btw. All the claims of seven lifetimes, aeons, etc... it's all just posturing.

Edited August 11, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Pointing the mind back to itself is not a sole proviso of Yogācāra, rather it is really the point if the buddhadharma in general. What differentiates Yogācāra from other systems is much more subtle than this.

 

You missed the point.

[goldisheavy]

I think I need to be explicit here, because people don't take subtle hints well.

 

When I say "points the mind back to itself" a lot of you don't get what I am actually saying.

 

So let me completely rephrase it. When most people think of the mind, they think it's something inside the skull, something small, something that perceives and inter-operates with some environment that is objective and external to the mind. The main good thing about Yogacara is that it completely and radically rejects this view. There is nothing outside the mind. There is no real interaction, but only appearance of such, because all the "parts" are not true parts, since they do not have individual existences. In other words, what appears as an assemblage of parts or things is just an illusion. What appears external is also an illusion. In some sense you really need to hold a solipsist view here to practice yoga correctly. The problem with solipsism though is that it constitutes a rigid commitment, just like Madhyamaka is a rigid commitment, whrereas a flexible mind is a mind that can undertake any commitment. In solipsism the commitment is to one's own perspective. In Madhyamaka the commitment is to avoiding the views like the plague. However, what a yogi would ideally want is none of the above. Instead, a yogi wants flexibility. How can you be flexible with a mind chained to just one commitment? Why not believe in God for a week? Why not be a physicalist for a week? Why not be a mind-only adept for a week? Of course, the reason is results. If you go south for a week, you don't go very far south. If you go north for a week, you don't go very far north compared to if you went north for 50 years. However, once you've criss-crossed the whole Earth, do you really need to go South for 50 years? Of course not. That's the exercise of someone who is still exploring the surface of the Earth. Once you understand the surface, you can now go whereever, at will. And this freedom is the ultimate goal in the end.

 

I suggest that people here really explore solipsism fully before doing anything else. That's because solipsism is the most vicious and most direct counter to the idea of objective reality. Only this slam will be enough to dislodge the mind from its dormant state for many of you people. Anything else is just too subtle and too non-confrontational to do any real work before your body exhausts itself in this lifetime.

Edited August 11, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

Madhyamaka's ultimate view is absence of views. Madhyamaka fails to produce confidence in the mind for this reason: it consists purely of denials.

Right, and why is it an absence of views? Because it leads to the pacification of mind and the pacification of conditioned objects which can accord with the four extremes (existence, non-existence, etc.) which are required to have a "view".

 

It doesn't assert or defend anything that would be reliable for a practitioner.

Neither does Dzogchen, which is also a non-affirming negation.

 

Of course that's the whole point. But that's a double-edged sword. This can be very bad for many people.

I don't see how but you're welcome to your opinion.

 

In fact, I don't like madhyamaka and I consider it worthless for myself, even though I understand it completely and I know what its secret intention is.

 

In other words, Madhyamaka purposefully dispenses with narratives, but narratives is how people gain (and lose) power. The point is, it's infinitely superior to switch to an empowering narrative instead of simply trying to dismantle all the narratives.

This doesn't really make sense. Madhyamaka does not really dispense with narratives but instead seeks to reveal how narratives are merely conventional inferences.

 

And the cool thing is that it's possible to hold a narrative with confidence while also knowing it has no ultimate truth.

Which, as I just said directly above (coincidentally) is what these different paths allow for, Madyamaka included.

 

This is something Madhyamaka doesn't teach.

It's actually precisely what Madhyamaka teaches.

 

This is purely a yogic/tantric endeavor. Which is to say, learning how to manipulate one's own worldview to one's own advantage is the endeavor of those who want to learn how to transform their own experiences in an infinite variety of ways as opposed to growing comfortable and acquiescent to whatever appears by default through the power of calcified habit.

I'm not following on this one either but again you're welcome to that opinion.

 

There is no objective way to determine the length of the path, btw. All the claims of seven lifetimes, aeons, etc... it's all just posturing.

Well, obviously. The point of stating how long certain paths may take is a literary device to convey the nature of said path.

[asunthatneversets]

You missed the point.

The issue may actually be that you are holding some inaccurate presuppositions.

[goldisheavy]

The issue may actually be that you are holding some inaccurate presuppositions.

 

There is no objective standard for accuracy.

 

Even if 10 people think strawberry ice cream is the best, it doesn't mean anything much.

[goldisheavy]

Right, and why is it an absence of views? Because it leads to the pacification of mind and the pacification of conditioned objects which can accord with the four extremes (existence, non-existence, etc.) which are required to have a "view".

 

 

Neither does Dzogchen, which is also a non-affirming negation.

 

 

I don't see how but you're welcome to your opinion.

 

 

This doesn't really make sense. Madhyamaka does not really dispense with narratives but instead seeks to reveal how narratives are merely conventional inferences.

 

 

Which, as I just said directly above (coincidentally) is what these different paths allow for, Madyamaka included.

 

 

It's actually precisely what Madhyamaka teaches.

 

 

I'm not following on this one either but again you're welcome to that opinion.

 

 

Well, obviously. The point of stating how long certain paths may take is a literary device to convey the nature of said path.

 

All this is nonsense. I'm too lazy to reply point by point. So I am going to ignore it and reply to the last line.

 

Trying to convey the nature of the various paths using literary devices of path lengths is not a good way to convey anything. Why not? Because there is no objective standard of judgment.

[asunthatneversets]

I think I need to be explicit here, because people don't take subtle hints well.

I don't think that is the issue here.

 

When I say "points the mind back to itself" a lot of you don't get what I am actually saying.

I'm sure people do.

 

So let me completely rephrase it. When most people think of the mind, they think it's something inside the skull, something small, something that perceives and inter-operates with some environment that is objective and external to the mind.

Some people may hold such a view but I surely do not, nor have I even alluded to such a view.

 

The main good thing about Yogacara is that it completely and radically rejects this view.

So does Madhymaka, so does the prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Again, this contention is not what makes Yogācāra, 'Yogācāra'.

 

There is nothing outside the mind. There is no real interaction, but only appearance of such, because all the "parts" are not true parts, since they do not have individual existences.

Which is Madhyamaka 101, however Madhyamaka applies that same scrutiny to the mind itself as well.

 

In other words, what appears as an assemblage of parts or things is just an illusion. What appears external is also an illusion.

Again, no different from Madhyamaka. That actually is Madhyamaka.

 

In some sense you really need to hold a solipsist view here to practice yoga correctly.

Not in the least.

 

The problem with solipsism though is that it constitutes a rigid commitment, just like Madhyamaka is a rigid commitment, whrereas a flexible mind is a mind that can undertake any commitment.

It is ironic that in comparing Madhyamaka and Yogācāra, Madhyamaka is the view which actually dispenses with the rigidity you are referencing.

 

In solipsism the commitment is to one's own perspective.

Solipsism is really a completely inaccurate view, even for Yogācāra.

 

In Madhyamaka the commitment is to avoiding the views like the plague. However, what a yogi would ideally want is none of the above. Instead, a yogi wants flexibility. How can you be flexible with a mind chained to just one commitment?

This is completely misunderstanding how provisional praxis applies to a yogi's view.

 

Why not believe in God for a week? Why not be a physicalist for a week? Why not be a mind-only adept for a week? Of course, the reason is results. If you go south for a week, you don't go very far south. If you go north for a week, you don't go very far north compared to if you went north for 50 years. However, once you've criss-crossed the whole Earth, do you really need to go South for 50 years? Of course not. That's the exercise of someone who is still exploring the surface of the Earth. Once you understand the surface, you can now go whereever, at will. And this freedom is the ultimate goal in the end.

Again this seems to be indicative of your own ideas more than anything else.

 

I suggest that people here really explore solipsism fully before doing anything else. That's because solipsism is the most vicious and most direct counter to the idea of objective reality.

Solipsism is actually an inferior view to most every Buddhist system for the very reason that it reifies a solely subjective experience and states that only one's own experience ultimately exists. Compared to a solipsistic view, Madhyamaka is actually far more 'vicious' and direct.

 

Only this slam will be enough to dislodge the mind from its dormant state for many of you people.

You have to be joking...

 

Anything else is just too subtle and too non-confrontational to do any real work before your body exhausts itself in this lifetime.

Anything else besides solipsism? What are you taking about? This makes zero sense.

[goldisheavy]

Solipsism is actually an inferior view to most every Buddhist system for the very reason that it reifies a solely subjective experience and states that only one's own experience ultimately exists. Compared to a solipsistic view, Madhyamaka is actually far more 'vicious' and direct.

 

You didn't understand anything I said. I wasn't comparing views in terms of superiority and inferiority.

[asunthatneversets]

All this is nonsense.

You're entitled to that opinion, and that sentiment is mutual in reading your posts as well, to each their own.

 

I'm too lazy to reply point by point. So I am going to ignore it and reply to the last line.

Okay.

 

Trying to convey the nature of the various paths using literary devices of path lengths is not a good way to convey anything. Why not? Because there is no objective standard of judgment.

Those statements are merely saying that paths which uphold renunciation, etc. may potentially take longer because the mind is involved with accepting and rejecting phenomena outside the context of the method. Paths which use transformation are going to be a bit swifter because rather than maintaining that there are negative things to reject, those things are taken into the path and are seen as wisdom either directly or inferentially. Paths which implement self-liberation are then swifter than transformation because everything is treated as self-perfected (whether that perfection is seen directly or is a correct inference).

 

So that is what the differences (in how gradual or direct a certain path is) are meant to convey.

Edited August 11, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

You didn't understand anything I said. I wasn't comparing views in terms of superiority and inferiority.

Right, you were advocating for solipsism.

[Tibetan_Ice]

I guess none of my business, but I thought that Goldisheavy was just suggesting that the study of solipsism would be a good introduction to further understand the mind-only view. I didn't think he was advocating it.

[goldisheavy]

Right, you were advocating for solipsism.

 

So that's what you got out of what I said? If this is the level of your reading comprehension, you can be certain that you don't understand anything you've read so far. I mean, you bring this same mindset to everything else you read too. I'm sure you don't turn on this kind of bad reading comprehension exclusively to read my posts. lol This must be a pretty constant quality for you.

Edited August 11, 2014 by goldisheavy

[Tibetan_Ice]

Maybe a little strong to say that "Dzogchen rejects" the two truths.

Dzogchen allows that the two truths are a part of the "lesser" stages but, from the perspective of the natural state, the two truths are irrelevant - subsumed might be a better word perhaps. I also would disagree with the perspective that they rob the person of confidence.

I think they give us confidence to work with our relative reality as much as necessary and work toward union with the absolute as possible.

Naw, Dzogchen outright rejects the two truths..

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=UXK9JGMVW9IC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=dzogchen+two+truths&source=bl&ots=v7krvN8vwc&sig=ha8LOu6r5qkxWPtlEtMSoL5ZcK0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vibpU_qHM6OtigLI3YDQCw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dzogchen%20two%20truths&f=false

[asunthatneversets]

So that's what you got out of what I said? If this is the level of your reading comprehension, you can be certain that you don't understand anything you've read so far.

Solipsism aside, I did not agree with your summation of what differentiates Yogācāra from other views as it is and feel you misrepresented Madhyamaka.

 

I mean, you bring this same mindset to everything else you read too.

I'm not even sure what mindset you are inferring.

 

I'm sure you don't turn on this kind of bad reading comprehension exclusively to read my posts. lol This must be a pretty constant quality for you.

I see.

[asunthatneversets]

Naw, Dzogchen outright rejects the two truths..

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=UXK9JGMVW9IC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=dzogchen+two+truths&source=bl&ots=v7krvN8vwc&sig=ha8LOu6r5qkxWPtlEtMSoL5ZcK0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vibpU_qHM6OtigLI3YDQCw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dzogchen%20two%20truths&f=false

So does Madhyamaka, apart from its conventional praxis.

 

Ultimately both Dzogchen and Madhyamaka demonstrate the absence of any "truths" as such.

[GrandmasterP]

SJ

GMP is being facetious

 

Perish the thought!

 

[goldisheavy]

So does Madhyamaka, apart from its conventional praxis.

 

Ultimately both Dzogchen and Madhyamaka demonstrate the absence of any "truths" as such.

 

You're completely clueless. You speak as if there is some objective meaning behind Dzogchen or Madhyamaka.

 

This is why I continue to suggest that people like you should not worry about discerning the doctrines. It's a waste of time. Instead, try to understand yourself. Understand your limitations and overcome them. Can you?

[asunthatneversets]

You're completely clueless.

If you say so.

 

You speak as if there is some objective meaning behind Dzogchen or Madhyamaka.

You'd have to elaborate on this assertion and its context, because again this may be an aspersion which is being cast from within certain presuppositions you hold pertaining to objectivity, the nature of conventional praxis, and really 'meaning' in general.

 

This is why I continue to suggest that people like you should not worry about discerning the doctrines. It's a waste of time.

This would depend on how the individual in question is relating to doctrines and the information associated with discerning said doctrines from one another.

 

Instead, try to understand yourself. Understand your limitations and overcome them. Can you?

This is good advice but I don't see how it is warranted or relevant... which is to say you seem to be assuming that understanding myself and my own limitations is something I lack.

[goldisheavy]

This is good advice but I don't see how it is warranted or relevant... which is to say you seem to be assuming that understanding myself and my own limitations is something I lack.

 

What you lack is appreciation. You're obsessed with the doctrines. This is like being obsessed with the screwdrivers.

[ralis]

If you say so.

 

 

You'd have to elaborate on this assertion and its context, because again this may be an aspersion which is being cast from within certain presuppositions you hold pertaining to objectivity, the nature of conventional praxis, and really 'meaning' in general.

 

 

This would depend on how the individual in question is relating to doctrines and the information associated with discerning said doctrines from one another.

 

 

This is good advice but I don't see how it is warranted or relevant... which is to say you seem to be assuming that understanding myself and my own limitations is something I lack.

 

I would add that you repeat the same old party line as opposed to getting out of the Buddhist analytical box and posit something creative.

Edited August 11, 2014 by ralis

[goldisheavy]

I would add that you repeat the same old party line as opposed to getting out of the Buddhist analytical box and positing something creative.

 

He doesn't have a single original thought because he's too afraid to stand on his own two feet.

[asunthatneversets]

What you lack is appreciation.

Appreciation for what?

 

You're obsessed with the doctrines. This is like being obsessed with the screwdrivers.

'The screwdrivers'? Or just 'screwdrivers'? Or do you mean the racist ass white power band Skrewdriver? Because honestly I'm not obsessed with any of them or doctrines in general.

[goldisheavy]

Appreciation for what?

 

 

'The screwdrivers'? Or just 'screwdrivers'? Or do you mean the racist ass white power band Skrewdriver? Because honestly I'm not obsessed with any of them or doctrines in general.

 

Sure you're obsessed. Look at the content of your posts. What do you tend to talk about? You always dress up your personal opinions in the words of others. So you quote this or that, or you speak from this or that doctrine. You're always hiding behind the achievements of others and you're never naked.

 

Take away madhyamaka, dzogchen and other fluff, and what do you have left? What can you discuss? Do you ever do anything other than recycle the words of others? Have you found anything for yourself that wasn't printed in some book?

Edited August 12, 2014 by goldisheavy