Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[Simple_Jack]

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

 

I'm really speaking out against the secular-materialist view which uses the physical sciences as a tool for its justification.

[ralis]

I'm really speaking out against the secular-materialist view which uses the physical sciences as a tool for its justification.

 

The view as you state is a tool for exploring the phenomenal world. What is the problem with being secular? As opposed to being trapped in a religious mindset where the individual mind is a closed box. In this case the attachment to the Buddhist box.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

The view as you state is a tool for exploring the phenomenal world. What is the problem with being secular? As opposed to being trapped in a religious mindset where the individual mind is a closed box. In this case the attachment to the Buddhist box.

 

Case in point, ralis. Anyways, when it comes to the Dharma, it's no skin off my back whether you put more faith in the physical sciences. You've clearly made your choice.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[goldisheavy]

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).

 

Yup.

[ralis]

Case in point, ralis. Anyways, when it comes to the Dharma, it's no skin off my back whether you put more faith in the physical sciences. You've clearly made your choice.

 

I don't put blind faith in anything.

[goldisheavy]

Is the moon still there when you are not looking?

 

Yes and no. The moon is not there as an object that exists in and of itself by its own power. However, the moon as a primed state of mind is there.

 

The experience is structured by habits and expectations. When you look in a certain direction at a certain time you expect to see certain types of "things." That's how the mind works.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[asunthatneversets]

The view as you state is a tool for exploring the phenomenal world. What is the problem with being secular? As opposed to being trapped in a religious mindset where the individual mind is a closed box. In this case the attachment to the Buddhist box.

 

Religious mindsets can come in various forms, all it takes is a certain ideology to attach to (and identify with) and voilà. You can attach to a Buddhist box, and/or attach to a scientific materialist box, both have the potentiality to make the individual mind a closed box depending on how that individual relates to said view.

 

Science proper, is interested in advancement and refining itself, it is open, unbiased, willing and eager to investigate things empirically and considers its findings to be tentative conclusions which are never paraded as definitive or ideological statements of truth.

 

The irony of your entire attack on the buddhadharma at the hand of science is that you aren't advocating for science at all. Rather you are advocating for what is called scientific materialism, which is a rigid fixation on a specific paradigm of thought. Hence why you are involved in the very type of conduct you are projecting onto Buddhism and proclaiming Buddhists to be guilty of.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[Simple_Jack]

 

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).

 

 

Yup.

 

Not the case at all. The Karma Kagyu (or shentong view for that matter) does not have a monopoly on Vajrayana. Arguments between shentong and rangtong are irrelevant when considering that Mahamudra is the definitive view and path for the Sarma schools.

 

I don't put blind faith in anything.

 

"Blind faith" is a misnomer, which is not the case, because obviously you must have faith in science over and above the Dharma; which can only be the conclusion considering your reaction against my statement on the secular-materialist view.

 

...or that we all exist only in your mind.

 

Which is a species of mentalism which gets deconstructed, and ultimately speaking, is a non-existent in buddhadharma.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[goldisheavy]

That was the answer I expected from you.

Science disagrees with this opinion (despite absurd propaganda in pop-science magazines).

 

It would not astound me if you believed that the world will end when you die...

 

Well, science as a method for establishing knowledge relies on some assumptions that cannot be proven even in principle, and must be taken on faith.

 

As for the world ending when I die, the worlds as we know them are mind's activity, and the mind doesn't end, so you can guess what happens after the human body becomes dysfunctional.

[goldisheavy]

...or that we all exist only in your mind.

 

This depends on perspective. From your perspective we could say we all exist only in your own mind.

 

In fact, there are as many goldisheavys as there are subjective perspectives in which goldisheavy is featured. And none of those goldisheavys is a particularly true or a particularly false one. They're all illusions.

Edited August 8, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

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.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that gzhan stong and Yogācāra are very in line with one another, I was merely saying that apart from adopting a few principles from Yogācāra, a statement that the view of the whole of the tantras (that Vajrayāna is based upon) is that of Yogācāra or gzhan stong is really a view that would reflect the school or teacher one is learning from, just as the view I have learned is.

 

So as you said it really has to do with what school or teacher you are learning from. I also have a Kagyu lama, however he is Drikung and therefore does not adhere to a view which would promote gzhan stong as being an authoritative view in relation to the tantras or Vajrayāna in general. I've also attended teachings on Sakyapa texts and the gzhan stong view was never once mentioned or even alluded to.

 

That was the only point I was making. That statements in support (whether yours or mine) of certain principles, regarding how said principles may or may not accurately reflect the expositions of the tantras is contingent upon our teacher, more than being an accurate statement about the tantras themselves.

[goldisheavy]

Arguing over what someone or something else believes is a complete waste of time. What will help is to understand for each of you what each of you believe, and why.

[asunthatneversets]

Arguing over what someone or something else believes is a complete waste of time. What will help is to understand for each of you what each of you believe, and why.

 

Not sure if that was directed at me, but if so you may have not read my response in its entirety because it was anything but an argument against what Apech or anyone else believes. It was a move to show how both of our interpretations and opinions are relative and contingent upon what we have been exposed to... and neither is wrong nor right.

[goldisheavy]

Not sure if that was directed at me, but if so you may have not read my response in its entirety because it was anything but an argument against what Apech or anyone else believes. It was a move to show how both of our interpretations and opinions are relative and contingent upon what we have been exposed to... and neither is wrong nor right.

 

I was addressing everyone who's reading this. I didn't mean to single out any specific persons.

 

Thing is, arguing over what some school of thought believes is a waste of time, because what binds us is our own belief and not anything else. Therefore, we should try to understand what we each believe and why.

[ralis]

"Blind faith" is a misnomer, which is not the case, because obviously you must have faith in science over and above the Dharma; which can only be the conclusion considering your reaction against my statement on the secular-materialist view.

 

Blind faith questions nothing in regards to what is presented as absolute truth. For myself I ask questions and only see possibilities. I have no interest or need in patriarchal parents that wear skirts and funny hats that you and asunthatneversts have an incessant need for.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ralis

[Apech]

I was addressing everyone who's reading this. I didn't mean to single out any specific persons.

 

Thing is, arguing over what some school of thought believes is a waste of time, because what binds us is our own belief and not anything else. Therefore, we should try to understand what we each believe and why.

 

You make a good point of course. It is not that in quoting what my teachers have said that I wish to use the error of authority to convince anyone else that I know what I am talking about. It is simply a practical thing - that when one is a practitioner and has received certain teachings and so forth then there is a natural tendency to rely on them. However I don't think this should be mistaken for a 'belief'. As I progress I continuously assess and re-assess my understanding of the 'View' and I do this partly in the light of what has been explained to me or what I have read and also my own experience (meditational and otherwise). So I view it as more of a process than a fixed idea or concept. It is inevitable that in this process I realise that things that I thought I understood, I don't, that ideas need to be challenged and discarded or reformulated time and time again. So I do not believe things because I have been told them but I do adopt them as working models for study with some confidence in those that explained them to me. Much as you may believe that you can cross a busy road, you still look both ways before leaping into the road ... but without that initial confidence that it was possible you would never even try.

[C T]

Blind faith questions nothing in regards to what is presented as absolute truth. For myself I ask questions and only see possibilities. I have no interest or need in patriarchal parents that wear skirts and funny hats that you and asunthatneversts have an incessant need for.

LOL

[Simple_Jack]

@ ralis

 

The fundamental flaw with this line of reasoning, from the POV of Dharma, is that this does not account for yogic experience; in fact this is a presupposition of secular-materialists who get involved with Dharma. From the POV of Dharma, if you can't even begin to verify the experience of the 1st dhyana, then on what grounds are you going to dismiss a yogi's development of mundane siddhi, for example, other than inference based on limited karmic vision? As a qualifier of this statement, I'm not saying that people cannot practice from this base nor am I advocating for the literal acceptance of Meru cosmology.

 

However I don't think this should be mistaken for a 'belief'. As I progress I continuously assess and re-assess my understanding of the 'View' and I do this partly in the light of what has been explained to me or what I have read and also my own experience (meditational and otherwise). So I view it as more of a process than a fixed idea or concept. It is inevitable that in this process I realise that things that I thought I understood, I don't, that ideas need to be challenged and discarded or reformulated time and time again. So I do not believe things because I have been told them but I do adopt them as working models for study with some confidence in those that explained them to me. Much as you may believe that you can cross a busy road, you still look both ways before leaping into the road ... but without that initial confidence that it was possible you would never even try.

 

Apech, you're jumping through hoops to justify that you have faith in the teachings, own it! Shradda is a liberative factor in the 8-fold noble path which can only increase from personal experience of the teachings.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

Yes and no. The moon is not there as an object that exists in and of itself by its own power. However, the moon as a primed state of mind is there.

 

The experience is structured by habits and expectations. When you look in a certain direction at a certain time you expect to see certain types of "things." That's how the mind works.

 

You are saying that the material universe is inert/dead? What if the material world was intelligent and perceptive? Not in a human sense, but alien to sentient species.

[goldisheavy]

You are saying that the material universe is inert/dead? What if the material world was intelligent and perceptive? Not in a human sense, but alien to sentient species.

 

There are many perspectives one can maintain.

 

However, in order to truly rest in a perspective without any doubt, one has to embrace subjectivity 100%. Otherwise what will happen is that a person will try to align their own view with the views of others. This process requires that some doubt always be entertained internally, or else, you'd have no motivation to correct or reconcile your own view to be more in line with the views of others.

 

In other words, doubt is caused by conventional orientation. And doubt destroys concentration and spiritual stability (although it enhances convention stability).

 

You have to decide what is important to you and act accordingly. You can't have it all.

[asunthatneversets]

Blind faith questions nothing in regards to what is presented as absolute truth.

Interesting. Sort of misunderstands that the dharma is an empirical methodology which is used to bring about genuine tangible insights.

 

Which means if the dharma is 'faith', then anything that you identify with scientifically is also faith.

 

For myself I ask questions and only see possibilities.

You exhibit biases just like anyone else who holds to views.

 

I have no interest or need in patriarchal parents that wear skirts and funny hats that you and asunthatneversts have an incessant need for.

This is like me saying "I have no interest or need for patriarchical parents who don lab coats and pocket protectors that ralis has an incessant need for". Which is about as low brow as you can get when it comes to finding reasons to reject something because what a scientist wears has nothing to do with science, just like what a Buddhist teacher wears has nothing to do with the buddhadharma.

[Apech]

Apech, you're jumping through hoops to justify that you have faith in the teachings, own it! Shradda is a liberative factor in the 8-fold noble path which can only increase from personal experience of the teachings.

 

I'm not jumping through any hoops. I really think that when you post on here you should discount the idea that you understand anybody else's position or reason's for what they say. You clearly don't have any ability in this respect .. hence I suspect the lengthy quotes of others that you usually go in for.

[ralis]

This is like me saying "I have no interest or need for patriarchical parents who don lab coats and pocket protectors that ralis has an incessant need for". Which is about as low brow as you can get when it comes to finding reasons to reject something because what a scientist wears has nothing to do with science, just like what a Buddhist teacher wears has nothing to do with the buddhadharma.

 

You stated in regards to defending Buddhist parental authority in an earlier post. That is why I mentioned it. Further, Lamas sitting on thrones wearing their medieval garb has everything to do with it. Otherwise why would they wear such costumes? These dudes come to the West and expect everyone to throw money and gifts at their feet while dressed in their exotic finery. Norbu doesn't dress that way. In fact, he was a professor at the University of Naples. A real world job.

 

Lab coats serve as a means of protection when working around chemicals and other material.

 

BTW, don't you have anything better to do with your time? I am semi retired and am finishing a real world career and considering a second career.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ralis