Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?

[3bob]

If we can plug the term nirvana into the four-fold negation formula then we can also plug the term emptiness into it with similar or the same results.

 

As for a certain shared experience such does not happen on a non-dual level by its very definition. (if that definition is shared, oops )

[asunthatneversets]

Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike whatsoever. The Dzogchen tantras went to great lengths to separate themselves from eternalistic views like those found in Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, etc., even mentioning Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name when refuting the view of Advaita yoga. Dzogchen explicitly rejects the views of Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, and other Hindu yogas.

 

These differences are not simply nominal, they are fundamental and vast. Hindu doctrines are ontological in nature, Dzogchen, which has its view rooted in the buddhadharma is completely and totally epistemic in nature. Not understanding the fundamental differences between these views will become a monumental issue, especially for anyone who is looking to reconcile them. Conflating Dzogpachenpo with Hindu views means one does not understand Dzogchen at all.

 

Both paths are wonderful, complete, time-tested and will lead to their respective definitions of liberation, both will also decrease or eliminate suffering in their own way... but they do not define the causes of suffering to be the same, and they do not define the elimination of suffering in the same way. They are completely different paths leading to different results.

[asunthatneversets]

Regarding the OP: the principle of ka dag (found in Atiyoga) completely forbids the possibility of anything like Brahman.

[3bob]

Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike whatsoever. The Dzogchen tantras went to great lengths to separate themselves from eternalistic views like those found in Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, etc., even mentioning Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name when refuting the view of Advaita yoga. Dzogchen explicitly rejects the views of Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, and other Hindu yogas.

 

These differences are not simply nominal, they are fundamental and vast. Hindu doctrines are ontological in nature, Dzogchen, which has its view rooted in the buddhadharma is completely and totally epistemic in nature. Not understanding the fundamental differences between these views will become a monumental issue, especially for anyone who is looking to reconcile them. Conflating Dzogpachenpo with Hindu views means one does not understand Dzogchen at all.

 

Both paths are wonderful, complete, time-tested and will lead to their respective definitions of liberation, both will also decrease or eliminate suffering in their own way... but they do not define the causes of suffering to be the same, and they do not define the elimination of suffering in the same way. They are completely different paths leading to different results.

 

(Edited in late:) Thanks for sharing your absolute conceptual information about no absolute ground of being, but who really does a particular school or any other school or person for that matter apparently think they are if they teach that they hold the power to "forbid" this or that, for instance is well recognized common ground known as non-dualism forbidden?? In the end (so to speak) didn't the Buddha say that even the raft, vehicle, or power of Buddhism had to be set down?

 

...when death dies there is no mourning

 

and if that is not a good enough similarity to put in their proper places the differences you speak of then I'd say all is "the vanity of vanities" (but I wouldn't say that except as a devils advocate)

Edited September 4, 2014 by 3bob

[stefos]

Why are you trying to teach Buddhists about Buddhism?

 

Buddhism doesn't propose an ontological absolute. That is the Buddhist position on the matter, based on all the teachings - not just a few cherry-picked misinterpreted quotes.

 

Of course the actual experience is beyond all this intellectual thought... but for the sake of being able to talk about it, Buddhism describes all things as empty, while Vedanta describes Brahman as an ontological absolute, and these descriptions are mutually exclusive. The experience doesn't fit in any description, but these descriptions are still pointing at two different things.

 

Who said they point to 2 different things?

Have you attained to that level? Sir, humility is required especially when it comes to the "absolutes" of any spiritual path.

 

Also, sir I'm not trying to elevate myself but I am trying to point out that the Pali texts are emphatically NOT indicative

of what the Buddha first taught....they are redactions & are biased toward the Theras approach.

Other ancient schools existed and it doesn't mean because they died out that the Theras OR any other group had the sum total of the Buddha's teachings En Toto, so to speak.

 

Does this make sense? I know it does for me anyway.

 

Stefos

 

P.S. Take it easy, we are friends here NOT enemies.

 

Let the ego drop....that's what I want.

[stefos]

Dzogpachenpo and the Brahman of Vedanta are nothing alike whatsoever. The Dzogchen tantras went to great lengths to separate themselves from eternalistic views like those found in Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, etc., even mentioning Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name when refuting the view of Advaita yoga. Dzogchen explicitly rejects the views of Advaita Vedanta, Sāṃkhya Yoga, and other Hindu yogas.

 

I disagree.......Dzogchen & Brahman are the same in their essential nature.

 

Kadag & Lhundrub = Sat Chit Anand

 

Both are empty & full NOT just Shunya.....sorry my man....I have to disagree player.

 

The Theras Pali texts even slip up and include the famous "Unborn, Undying, Uncreated, Unformed" passage and that when you read it carefully is NOT talking about a big old void Shunya....It's talking about consciousness not Shunya.

 

Read it yourself.

 

Stefos

Edited September 3, 2014 by stefos

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...is NOT talking about a big old void Shunya...

Stefos, shunya doesn't refer to a 'void' as in a particular essence or function or basis of things. Something that is vivid, dynamic, full of properties is still empty, because 'empty' means 'lacking independent existence' not 'lacking qualities'.

 

...What I've been saying here in a nutshell is that the 'clarity' statements have to be seen as not contradicting emptiness, to get the full flavour of the Buddhist view - terms that could easily be taken as pointers to an idea of an ontological absolute (which is mutually exclusive to emptiness teachings), taken instead as references to the sheer, vivid, dynamic potential of empty phenomena.

 

...To take that word 'unborn' as an example again. What does this mean considered in a way in accord with emptiness? That rules out 'without a beginning' in the way we would instinctively think. Is it subtler than that, straddling clarity and emptiness, presenting a vivid reality in which a 'beginning' cannot be grasped because of emptiness? Or is it just trying to poetically point towards an ineffable experience, rather than saying anything at all about origins or lack thereof in the first place? Or is it just a sword attacking intellectual certainty, preventing people from clinging to ideas of emptiness? I don't truly know - maybe that's the point...

Dzogchen and Brahman are different ideas, because Buddhist emptiness contradicts the idea of an ontological absolute, which is what Brahman is. In Buddhism there is no fundamental ground of existence.

 

...In explaining what it means by sentient beings' having the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' distinguishes three different ways of understanding the term "to have":

 

- Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

 

Since the above passage identifies sentient beings' ways of having Buddha nature with the third way of having, i.e., having in the future, it is again a proof that the teaching of the universal Buddha nature does not intend to assert the existence of substantial, entity-like self endowed with excellent features of a Buddha. Rather, Buddha nature simply represents the potentiality to be realized in the future.

 

Elsewhere in the 'Mahaparinirana Sutra', Buddha nature is defined as the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Way. It says:

 

- Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness ,which is 'prajna' itself. [False] emptiness means not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness. The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness, permanence and impermanence, suffering and happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is 'samsara' and what is not empty is great 'nirvana' ... Perceiving the non-self but not the self is not the Middle Way. The Middle Way is Buddha nature.(32)

 

The essential point of this passage is that true emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends any dictomony�wbeing and non-being, self and non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary people and the heterodox see only the existence of self, while 'Sravakas' and Pratyekabuddhas perceive only the non-self, but not the existence of a self. Clinging to one extreme or the other, they cannot realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and consequently cannot realize the Middle Way. Without the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend Buddha nature. Trying to lessen the monistic flavour of the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' interprets Buddha nature as both emcompassing and transcending the notions of self and non-self. It makes the doctrine of the Buddha nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature should not be treated as equivalent to the monistic absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of a substantive self, it is actually a positive expression of emptiness.

 

In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the 'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:

 

1) The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,

 

2) the 'tathagatagarbha' is based on the framework of the 'Mahayana' doctrine of 'sunyata-pratitys-amutpada'.

 

3) The development of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine signifies the ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the masses aiming at a given time.

 

That is to say the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was formed as an positive soterio-logical approach to counteract the "'sunyam sarvam'" (all is empty) view. The 'tathagatagarbha' which strongly articulates a devotional and experiential approach to salvation provides much to the hope and aspiration of the people at large. It is this positive aspect that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism.

 

4) The 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is employed as a skill-in-means ('upaya'). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the 'tathagatagarbha' is neyartha, a teaching requiring further qualifications -- rather, it is a skill-in-means in that it is taught to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and circumstances. This is why it is said in the 'sutra' that in order to teach the emptiness of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha', and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature' as representing "profound existence" derived from "true emptiness" rather than as a monistic self.

[3bob]

Thanks for sharing your absolute conceptual information about no absolute ground of being, but who really does a particular school or any other school or person for that matter apparently think they are if they teach that they hold the power to "forbid" this or that, for instance is well recognized common ground known as non-dualism forbidden?? In the end (so to speak) didn't the Buddha say that even the raft, vehicle, or power related to same in Buddhism also had to be set down?

Edited September 4, 2014 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...

I get what you're saying, and I don't want to be stuck in concepts more than anyone else. But this discussion is about whether or not Brahman and Dzogchen are the same. Am I not allowed to give any view on the matter if I happen to think they aren't the same?

 

I suspect that if I had given intellectual arguments for them being the same, nobody would have complained about me stating 'absolute conceptual information' that there is no difference.

 

Does the ban on concepts and absolutist statements only apply to people who disagree with you?

 

Also, how could I respond to this thread without using concepts anyway? That's how language works. We are all using concepts here to explain our opinions.

 

I'm not sure where the 'power to "forbid" this and that' statement is coming from, either, but I suspect it's also coming from resistance to opposing views. Of course there is correspondence, I'm not 'forbidding' stating that. I am not trying to 'forbid' anyone saying anything. But Dzogchen and Brahman are still different IMHO, not identical.

 

In my posts on this thread I think I've managed to take views that differ from mine seriously, consider them, and respond appropriately. In return you have seemingly accused me of 'forbidding' you to say your opinion, and stefos has implied that I am arrogant, and told me to 'be honest' and 'not B.S. me'.

 

¿Que?

[3bob]

I get what you're saying, and I don't want to be stuck in concepts more than anyone else. But this discussion is about whether or not Brahman and Dzogchen are the same. Am I not allowed to give any view on the matter if I happen to think they aren't the same?

 

I suspect that if I had given intellectual arguments for them being the same, nobody would have complained about me stating 'absolute conceptual information' that there is no difference.

 

Does the ban on concepts and absolutist statements only apply to people who disagree with you?

 

Also, how could I respond to this thread without using concepts anyway? That's how language works. We are all using concepts here to explain our opinions.

 

I'm not sure where the 'power to "forbid" this and that' statement is coming from, either, but I suspect it's also coming from resistance to opposing views. Of course there is correspondence, I'm not 'forbidding' stating that. I am not trying to 'forbid' anyone saying anything. But Dzogchen and Brahman are still different IMHO, not identical.

 

In my posts on this thread I think I've managed to take views that differ from mine seriously, consider them, and respond appropriately. In return you have seemingly accused me of 'forbidding' you to say your opinion, and stefos has implied that I am arrogant, and told me to 'be honest' and 'not B.S. me'.

 

¿Que?

 

 

Hello Seeker of Wisdom,

 

Of course you are allowed to give your views as you are so doing, along with others. (as is obvious)

 

The use of "forbids" came earlier in this thread as copied below, so I'm not using it in reference to you but as as an issue.

"... the principle of ka dag (found in Atiyoga) completely forbids the possibility of anything like Brahman".

from a post by asunthatneversets

 

Btw, I'm not talking about concepts per-se, although if they are given as an absolute from either camp then I think such are open to being refuted; which and again coming back to the four-fold negation I believe the Buddha used it to refute concepts as being absolute.

 

I think you gave your pov's without meanness or shallowness and I never said you did so thus I'm not sure how you are seemingly getting such from me ?

 

Your suspicion is not quite right since I've recently stated that mixing Buddhism and Hinduism is a no-no according their respective authorities and that I would not do it in the way you imply. I've also tried giving my pov's without meanness or shallowness although I do admit to a little sarcasm in my last post, but I don't think I'm deserving of you saying, "Does the ban on concepts and absolutist statements only apply to people who disagree with you?"

 

As for Stefos he is not me, and imo he struck un-fairly several times.

 

Edit add in: There is another saying that imo also refutes wisely, namely: "neti, neti" which is not that unlike the four-fold negation if you will?

 

 

Edited September 5, 2014 by 3bob

[stefos]

and stefos has implied that I am arrogant, and told me to 'be honest' and 'not B.S. me'.

 

As for Stefos he is not me, and imo he struck un-fairly several times.

 

Hi 3bob,

 

Here's the break down......

 

I don't think you're arrogant.

By saying "Be honest" I meant to level with me in an open & easy to understand manner.

By saying "Not B.S. you" I meant to express non-academic & "put yourself in an unenlightened persons position" thoughts about the matter

 

In no way should you take what I've said to you to be construed as an attack on your person.....Nope! I don't do that.......That is unloving.

 

Rather because of "certain experiences" that I've had, I want to make sure I'm not being duped.

 

I do apologize if you felt that I "Struck" you.....Again, I simply want true answers and not conjecture/speculation/philosophical wrangling. By the way, I'm not accusing you.

 

For example:

Sri Ramana Maharshi......Was he enlightened or not? Many people saw him & he was legit, not fake. Many true stories exist.

He expressed Sat-Chit-Anand

 

Guru Padmasambhava...Was he enlightened or not? Many people saw him too & he was legit, not fake. Many true stories exist.

He expressed the nature of mind which is Dzogchen.

 

Jiddhu Krishnamurti....Was he enlightened or not? Ditto.....He was very dogmatic when it came to "coming upon that which is eternal" Period. Krishnamurti denied both Sat-Chit-Anand & Dzogchen BUT he did state "the eternal" and he did teach "choiceless awareness" and it's self liberating mechanism which is also taught in Dzogchen! Krishnamurti blew off the Buddha's sayings as well: Both in the Pali & Mahayana texts.

 

Krishnamurti "lived the teachings" No nonsense with him. People are still alive who lived with the man in a communal setting.

 

Now,

Are there conflicting forms of enlightenment?

Different levels of enlightenment?

OR Is one completely right and the other completely a liar?

 

There we have it! Could you please answer and give brief explanation sir. I'm curious to see what you say!

 

Stefos

Edited September 6, 2014 by stefos

[Anderson]

to truly know whether dozgchen is same as or different from brahman one would have to know one or the other experientially.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...Are there conflicting forms of enlightenment?

Different levels of enlightenment?

OR Is one completely right and the other completely a liar?...

IMHO - if someone only sees the 'clarity' side and considers it eternal, substantial, unchanging essence, source of everything, (traditional traits of Brahman as an 'ontological absolute') that is partial.

 

If someone only sees the 'emptiness' side, everything being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance, that is partial.

 

If someone sees both as united, reality being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance in which minds are by principle fundamentally enlightened, that is complete.

 

The way Brahman is usually described seems to me to lean towards 'clarity only', whereas Dzogchen makes a big point of going straight for 'clarity and emptiness', avoiding a slant towards one alone.

 

Though obviously someone might use the word 'Brahman' without any idea of ontological absolute, since Brahman is generally portrayed that way while Dzogchen emphatically disagrees with that as described in earlier posts, I consider Brahman and Dzogchen to correspond, but not to be the same.

[3bob]

apparently two people are getting me mixed up with somebody else?

[doc benway]

IMHO - if someone only sees the 'clarity' side and considers it eternal, substantial, unchanging essence, source of everything, (traditional traits of Brahman as an 'ontological absolute') that is partial.

 

If someone only sees the 'emptiness' side, everything being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance, that is partial.

 

If someone sees both as united, reality being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance in which minds are by principle fundamentally enlightened, that is complete.

 

Chan Master Hongzhi spoke of this in practical terms, referring to sitting practice -

 

But if in illumination silence is lost,

then aggressiveness will appear...

But if in silence illumination is lost,

then you will become turbid and leave behind the dharma.

But when silence and illumination both are operating and complete

the lotus flower opens and the dreamer awakens

 

Once the balance is established on the cushion, time to bring it out into one's world.

The dreamer awakening implies the great bliss born of the inseparability of emptiness and clarity.

Edited September 6, 2014 by steve

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

Chan Master Hongzhi spoke of this in practical terms, referring to sitting practice -

 

But if in illumination silence is lost,

then aggressiveness will appear...

Great stuff. Steve, what do you make of Master Hongzhi choosing the word 'aggressiveness' here? I would have expected something like 'concepts' or 'grasping'. Perhaps he meant a subtle sort of tension?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Seeker of Wisdom

[doc benway]

Great stuff. Steve, what do you make of Master Hongzhi choosing the word 'aggressiveness' here? I would have expected something like 'concepts' or 'grasping'. Perhaps he meant a subtle sort of tension?

 

I wish I had access to the original - you never know with English translation of Chinese characters...

I think you are on the right track in terms of the intention.

I think he is pointing to the sense of self aggressively asserting itself into the picture.

The rending of the non-dual into duality - the beginning of violence and ignorance.

[3bob]

I think another way to look at what Steve's quote says is, "the higher one climbs the father they can fall".

in other words a being could climb to a god world of light and yet fall to a demon world of darkness, unless...

Edited September 6, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

Btw, Stefos and Seeker of Wisdom do you see how certain of your posts should have been more addressed to each other than to me, as in the sense you were both projecting what the other had said somehow onto me?

Edited September 6, 2014 by 3bob

[9th]

9. The mind is as space, embracing all. I am beyond mind. In reality, mind has no independent existence.

10. How can it be said that the Self is manifest? How can it be said that the Self is limited? I alone am existence; all this objective world am I. More subtle than space itself am I.

11. Know the Self to be Infinite consciousness, self-evident, beyond destruction, enlightening all bodies equally, ever shining. In It is neither day nor night.

12. Know the Self to be one, ever the same, changeless. How can you say: "I am the meditator, and this is the object of meditation?" How can perfection be divided?

13. You, Self, were never born, nor did you ever die. The body was never yours. The ancient scriptures have repeatedly affirmed: "This is all Brahman."

14. You are all the Absolute Reality, free from all change, the same within and without, Absolute bliss. Run not to and fro like a ghost.

15. Neither unity nor separation exist in you nor in me. All is Self alone. 'I' and 'you' and the 'world' have no real being.

- Avadhuta Gita

[stefos]

to truly know whether dzogchen is same as or different from brahman one would have to know one or the other experientially.

 

This is basically the only answer...........Verbal dialogue ends at a certain point my man.

 

No word or language can fully convey the absolute.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

apparently two people are getting me mixed up with somebody else?

 

My apologies.......Please forgive me.

 

I don't know who said this but "Whoever you are....I apologize."

 

What a convoluted mess.

 

IMHO - if someone only sees the 'clarity' side and considers it eternal, substantial, unchanging essence, source of everything, (traditional traits of Brahman as an 'ontological absolute') that is partial.

 

If someone only sees the 'emptiness' side, everything being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance, that is partial.

 

If someone sees both as united, reality being a dynamic process with no ultimate substance in which minds are by principle fundamentally enlightened, that is complete.

 

The way Brahman is usually described seems to me to lean towards 'clarity only', whereas Dzogchen makes a big point of going straight for 'clarity and emptiness', avoiding a slant towards one alone.

 

Though obviously someone might use the word 'Brahman' without any idea of ontological absolute, since Brahman is generally portrayed that way while Dzogchen emphatically disagrees with that as described in earlier posts, I consider Brahman and Dzogchen to correspond, but not to be the same.

 

Dzogchen & Brahman do correspond.

 

Sir, you haven't answered my question really:

Sri Ramana Maharshi

Guru Padmasambhava

Jiddhu Krishnamurti

 

Were they "enlightened" to any degree?

If so, WHAT degree?

 

You see, Islam/Judaism/Christianity all state that there is one God and one way.

The same is stated by SRM, GP, JK...........in other words, really there IS exclusivity in understanding THAT.

 

I look forward to your insights....with gratitude.

Stefos

[stefos]

 

9. The mind is as space, embracing all. I am beyond mind. In reality, mind has no independent existence.

10. How can it be said that the Self is manifest? How can it be said that the Self is limited? I alone am existence; all this objective world am I. More subtle than space itself am I.

11. Know the Self to be Infinite consciousness, self-evident, beyond destruction, enlightening all bodies equally, ever shining. In It is neither day nor night.

12. Know the Self to be one, ever the same, changeless. How can you say: "I am the meditator, and this is the object of meditation?" How can perfection be divided?

13. You, Self, were never born, nor did you ever die. The body was never yours. The ancient scriptures have repeatedly affirmed: "This is all Brahman."

14. You are all the Absolute Reality, free from all change, the same within and without, Absolute bliss. Run not to and fro like a ghost.

15. Neither unity nor separation exist in you nor in me. All is Self alone. 'I' and 'you' and the 'world' have no real being.

- Avadhuta Gita

 

That is cool.

 

Thank you

 

Stefos

[3bob]

I think if Krishnamurti really knew jack he wouldn't have wasted his life on trying to kill jack.

[stefos]

I think if Krishnamurti really knew jack he wouldn't have wasted his life on trying to kill jack.

 

O.K. !

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

 

It appears to be a play on words but I have a disconnect going on.

 

Care to share this in plainer language?

 

Thanks

Stefos

[3bob]

O.K. !

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

 

It appears to be a play on words but I have a disconnect going on.

 

Care to share this in plainer language?

 

Thanks

Stefos

 

substitute the word guru for jack and one would have about the same meaning. (for an anti-guru guru)