Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

[asunthatneversets]

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.

What you and I consider to be 'creative' may differ drastically, and being that you and I tend to disagree on things (more often than not) I can't say whatever criteria I'd have to meet to be considered 'creative' in your eyes would even be reasonable in my opinion.

[goldisheavy]

What you and I consider to be 'creative' may differ drastically, and being that you and I tend to disagree on things (more often than not) I can't say whatever criteria I'd have to meet to be considered 'creative' in your eyes would even be reasonable in my opinion.

 

Do you consider quoting people you admire to be creative?

[asunthatneversets]

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

I'm so afraid, terrified even.

[asunthatneversets]

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.

An inaccurate generalization, no doubt.

 

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?

Again, a few inaccurate generalizations here... and though there is much I could discuss, I usually like to discuss Buddhism when in a Buddhist forum (wild, I know) so that is what i usually discuss.

[goldisheavy]

I'm so afraid, terrified even.

 

So, what is the difference between a Xerox machine and yourself?

 

Approaching yogic doctrines from a POV of scholar is a total waste of time. Scholars imagine there is some objective and impartial way of understanding whatever they study. The scholars do not understand they bring their biases, hopes, and fears into everything they study. Their impartiality is simply a pretense. And the objectively "correct" way of understanding any yogic doctrine simply doesn't exist as such. There is no such thing.

 

Yogic doctrines were created by yogis for personal enjoyment and consumptions of other yogis. They are to be digested and mixed with personal experience and sensibilities. There's no way to be unbiased about them. Instead these doctrines should be approached with an attitude of "How can this enhance my experience?" Yogis have a personal, intimate relationship with the teachings. Five yogis have five different and equally valid approaches to the same set of teachings. They're valid on account of intimacy as opposed to being reflective of some non-existent objective standard.

 

You can tell a real yogi by how they speak. They tend to be familiar with the doctrines, but they don't need to quote them and they generally have their own way of expressing profound truths. You can also tell by the values they bring to conversation. Is adherence to a doctrine an important value? If yes, then it's definitely not a yogi. Is personal experience important? Then it's probably a yogi. Or you can observe how the person weighs convention vs private experience. If the private experience is held higher than convention, that's a yogi. If convention is held higher, then it's an ordinary being.

 

The point here is not that you should try to be more like a yogi. On the contrary. Be whoever you like and do whatever you enjoy doing. That's what I am saying. But meanwhile, try to understand, you can't fool the noble Sangha by constantly quoting this or that snippet of whatever. If you want to belong to the Sangha, you need to move beyond quotations and doctrines. In other words, if you want to be a part of this community, you can't continue as before.

[asunthatneversets]

Do you consider quoting people you admire to be creative?

Much of my life revolves around creativity, art, music, etc... whether or not citing quotes is creative is a question I wouldn't even begin to consider or worry about.

[goldisheavy]

Much of my life revolves around creativity, art, music, etc... whether or not citing quotes is creative is a question I wouldn't even begin to consider or worry about.

 

Art? You mean, expressing yourself within the allowable limits of convention is your creativity?

 

You want to be a regular human being, right? Cause that's what I see. You're happy being a human. You have the same aspirations, hopes, dreams and fears as a human. When your body wears itself out, you'll die as a human having been born a human. Since your craving for humanity is not yet over, after your body enters into a dysfunctional state your own mind will reform a human-like realm where it can continue to pursue its human-like cravings and delusions. Is this satisfactory for you? If yes, by all means, you shouldn't change a thing. Keep plugging.

[goldisheavy]

By the way, if your art is anything like what you talk about here on this forum, then I won't be surprised if your art is some pathetic Xerox of some other artists you admire.

[Simple_Jack]

Approaching yogic doctrines from a POV of scholar is a total waste of time.

 

In addition, a so called “pandita” is described as “A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge.” A so called “kusali” is described as “One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.”

In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood.

-- Sakya Pandita

[goldisheavy]

Now that you mentioned art, I should mention something.

 

All great artists and all great art proceed from spiritual flaws. A person needs a craving to be an artist. A person needs to want to share some message with humanity. Art becomes authentic in proportion to how straightforwardly and faithfully an artist expresses oneself. By necessity, at the limit of sincerity, the convention has to buckle in the face of great art, because all convention demands that participating beings suppress certain parts of themselves, and a great artist reaches a state of lack of inhibition in pursuit of sincere expression. This lack of inhibition will fly in the face of convention quite naturally.

 

So without any desire or attempt to copy anyone, simply by having a craving to share some kind of message, an artist reaches the apex of one's art at the same time convention becomes privately transcended by that same artist.

 

So these flaws lead to states beyond the flaws under the right circumstances.

 

So as an artist, what personal flaws do you bring to the table? What cravings? What passion? If you yap about dispassion all day long, is that your passion? Are you sincere? An artist without passion is just a machine of no consequence and no interest whatsoever. Boring. From a Buddhist POV passions are poisons, and yet you need those poisons to be a great artist.

Edited August 12, 2014 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

In addition, a so called “pandita” is described as “A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge.” A so called “kusali” is described as “One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.”

In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood.

-- Sakya Pandita

 

How shocking and surprising to find that a pandita asseses oneself favorably as a pandita.

[asunthatneversets]

.

Edited August 12, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[goldisheavy]

Looks like your desperate attempt to offer a line by line rebuttal backfired. Haha.

 

Try to speak to the spirit of what I am saying instead of to the lines, and you won't exceed the quotation limit of this forum.

 

Do you have anything to say? When you quote Namdrol, it means you think Namdrol has something to say. When you quote some Tantra, likewise, it means you think some Tantra has something to say. But the question I want to pose is, do you have anything to say? If I wanted to talk to Namdrol, I know where to find him. Similarly, if I wanted to talk to the beings who have passed away, such as the various historic adepts, I would summon their spirits. I don't need you to quote them for me.

 

As for assumptions, how do you know I am assuming something without you first assuming something yourself? If you made no assumptions at all, what could you say about anything I wrote here?

Edited August 12, 2014 by goldisheavy

[asunthatneversets]

Looks like your desperate attempt to offer a line by line rebuttal backfired. Haha.

Yes, though far from desperate. The HTML was not working, glad the technical malfunction brought you some joy.

[asunthatneversets]

So, what is the difference between a Xerox machine and yourself?

Apparently none according to you.

 

Approaching yogic doctrines from a POV of scholar is a total waste of time.

This (i) presupposes that I approach yogic doctrine from the point of view of a scholar, and (ii) that approaching yogic doctrines from the point of view of being a pandit is a total waste of time.

 

Both are false assumptions.

 

Scholars imagine there is some objective and impartial way of understanding whatever they study.

Perhaps some do.

 

The scholars do not understand they bring their biases, hopes, and fears into everything they study.

Sort of like you and your biases, hopes and fears which are being vomiting all over this forum disguised as critiques of my own proclivities.

 

Their impartiality is simply a pretense. And the objectively "correct" way of understanding any yogic doctrine simply doesn't exist as such. There is no such thing.

That is actually both true and false, simultaneously.

 

Yogic doctrines were created by yogis for personal enjoyment and consumptions of other yogis. They are to be digested and mixed with personal experience and sensibilities.

This is also true.

 

There's no way to be unbiased about them. Instead these doctrines should be approached with an attitude of "How can this enhance my experience?" Yogis have a personal, intimate relationship with the teachings. Five yogis have five different and equally valid approaches to the same set of teachings. They're valid on account of intimacy as opposed to being reflective of some non-existent objective standard.

Again, both true and false depending on context.

 

You can tell a real yogi by how they speak.

That is a ridiculous assertion.

Edited August 12, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

They tend to be familiar with the doctrines, but they don't need to quote them and they generally have their own way of expressing profound truths.

This of course depends on the person and the circumstances that the teachings are being addressed or presented in.

 

You can also tell by the values they bring to conversation.

Actually, you can't.

 

Is adherence to a doctrine an important value?

Again, depends on the circumstances.

 

If yes, then it's definitely not a yogi.

According to you.

 

Is personal experience important?

Usually yes.

 

Then it's probably a yogi.

There are charlatans and idiots who talk about direct experience as well. So no, not always a yogi.

 

Or you can observe how the person weighs convention vs private experience. If the private experience is held higher than convention, that's a yogi.

Context is everything.

 

If convention is held higher, then it's an ordinary being.

Depends on the circumstances and individual.

 

The point here is not that you should try to be more like a yogi.

Okay.

 

On the contrary. Be whoever you like and do whatever you enjoy doing. That's what I am saying.

Good you clarified.

 

But meanwhile, try to understand, you can't fool the noble Sangha by constantly quoting this or that snippet of whatever.

Can't pull one over on goldisheavy and his noble sangha.

 

If you want to belong to the Sangha, you need to move beyond quotations and doctrines.

There's really only one way to move 'beyond' quotations and doctrines... and it doesn't involve rejecting them as you pompously suggest.

 

In other words, if you want to be a part of this community, you can't continue as before.

Which community is that? Because I'd rather go in the opposite direction.

[goldisheavy]

Asunthatneversets, looks like you're out of steam completely.

 

I guess you really never had your own point of view to begin with. You were here pretending to defend some external-to-yourself POV which of course you can never do. I guess you were trying to represent the Dzogchen lineage when all you can do is represent yourself, right? Would you say this was false representation? Did you pretend to impartiality and/or objectivity?

[asunthatneversets]

By the way, if your art is anything like what you talk about here on this forum, then I won't be surprised if your art is some pathetic Xerox of some other artists you admire.

Well, either way, I apologize for whatever I've said that is causing you to lash out like this.

[hagar]

Is there an objective reality or not in Dzogchen theory?

 

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

 

But I think that we all can only perceive a little glimpse of it, interpret it halfway wrong and that therefore our view of it is distorted (=our subjective reality).

Like the blind guys who only touch one part of the elephant and get the nature of the elephant wrong.

 

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

Being trained as a philosopher I felt tempted to go into this one, just because. Then I realized I did not know anything about Dzogchen really.

 

I know for a fact that a majority of philosophers of science uphold that sense perception is a better indication of the existence of an subject-independent reality than a proposition, or an argument.

 

That said, the whole notion of objective reality presupposes a whole package of propositions about the world that cannot be verified by testing; most importantly the subject-object dichotomy.

 

But what difference does it make?

 

h

[Apech]

---Moderation Message ---

 

This is an interesting thread for the most part but I notice that it has descended into ad hominem during (what for me is) the night. I'm not sure why it is not possible for people to hold a debate on a topic such as this without resorting to armchair psychoanalysis of the person who disagrees with them. I could split and pit this unproductive part of conversation but i won't for now I'll keep it intact in the hope that we can squeeze some more juice from ideas around interpreting dzogchen, madhyamaka, yogacara and so on. But please avoid personal attacks as they are both against TB rules and very un-Buddhist.

 

--- Mod Message Ends ---

[Wells]

.

Edited October 28, 2014 by ZOOM

[gatito]

Now that you mentioned art, I should mention something.

 

All great artists and all great art proceed from spiritual flaws. A person needs a craving to be an artist. A person needs to want to share some message with humanity. Art becomes authentic in proportion to how straightforwardly and faithfully an artist expresses oneself. By necessity, at the limit of sincerity, the convention has to buckle in the face of great art, because all convention demands that participating beings suppress certain parts of themselves, and a great artist reaches a state of lack of inhibition in pursuit of sincere expression. This lack of inhibition will fly in the face of convention quite naturally.

 

So without any desire or attempt to copy anyone, simply by having a craving to share some kind of message, an artist reaches the apex of one's art at the same time convention becomes privately transcended by that same artist.

 

So these flaws lead to states beyond the flaws under the right circumstances.

 

So as an artist, what personal flaws do you bring to the table? What cravings? What passion? If you yap about dispassion all day long, is that your passion? Are you sincere? An artist without passion is just a machine of no consequence and no interest whatsoever. Boring. From a Buddhist POV passions are poisons, and yet you need those poisons to be a great artist.

 

All great art flows from the divine and can entrain the divine within the apparent separate individual.

 

Any flaws in the artist would only become apparent when the artform is not manifesting through them.

 

This is why beautiful music, pictures, the natural world etc. are gateways to the Truth.

 

Ananda can be translated as Beauty, as well as Love, Bliss, Peace and Happiness.

[Simple_Jack]

In addition, a so called pandita is described as A scholar in the foundation of outer and inner objects of knowledge. A so called kusali is described as One who has the most dedication inwardly after severing all outer distractions.

In terms of actual perfect Buddhahood: the first, having become knowledgeable about all objects of knowledge, has severed doubt through hearing, reflection and meditation. Then, because of severing doubt through meditating which makes samadhi essential, the pandita gradually attains Buddhahood after actualizing the Dharma of realization. A kusali necessarily has the same basis, but when considered alone, a pandita is closer to Buddhahood.

-- Sakya Pandita

[asunthatneversets]

A "non-ordinary" being can manipulate objective reality, perceptible for all.

In other words: He can create wonders.

Many accomplished Dzogchen-practitioners prove that their accomplishment is real and that they mastered their inner Clear Light by manipulating objective reality as for example imprinting their hands and feet into solid rock. The results of these actions are visible for everybody and verifiable by science.

 

Can you manipulate objective reality?

Manipulating phenomena is a siddhi. Siddhis are signs of prolonged meditation but are not signs of realization. It is not acceptable criteria for judging whether one is realized.

[ralis]

Manipulating phenomena is a siddhi. Siddhis are signs of prolonged meditation but are not signs of realization. It is not acceptable criteria for judging whether one is realized.

 

I propose that one can be both realized and have the various siddhi powers. Mutual exclusivity proceeds from authoritarian based systems in which you are an advocate/shill for.

Edited August 12, 2014 by ralis