Dzogchen, superior to Tantra. Really...?

[9th]

In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine."

 

The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of whatthe Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

 

In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:

 

I have a self... I have no self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self... or... This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

 

Thus the view "I have no self" is just as much a doctrine of self as the view "I have a self." Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls "I-making" — the creation of a sense of self — if one were to cling to the view that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around that view (see AN 4.24). But, as he says, the Dhamma is taught for "the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding."

 

[Jeff]

The whole idea is irrelevant to begin with, which is why there is no great focus on an explanation for related phenomena.   The key understanding involves recognizing experiences of perception caused by mistaking subject and object as different, separate things.  This is why buddhism is regarded as a teaching from the perspective of anatman - "not self".  It begins from the position that there is no self.  Experience, awareness and perception is not regarded as self.  Therefore it is not regarded that there are other selves "out there" as well.

 

Especially classical buddhism as expounded in the Pali Canon is highly practical in a very nuts and bolts way - much less concerned with metaphysical maps and so forth.  The basic idea is "do this yourself, here is how".  There are plenty of stories illustrating understanding and various perspectives on the insights of practice, but when gleaning the most essential and therefore probably oldest surviving teachings from the actual person of Siddhartha, anything beyond practical talk was either patently ignored or curtly dismissed.

 

Thanks, but I am familiar with the classical understanding of no self. But, originally there was classically the concept of two fold emptiness.  The first fold being emptiness of self (what you are describing) and the second fold being emptiness of ultimate reality (or the universe and stuff).  My point is that Rigpa is beyond emptiness of self component and the framework of which I have been describing is possibly related to the emptiness of ultimate reality.  When residing in Rigpa, one goes on to drop the obstructions that obscure such realization.  With realizing that ultimate reality is inherently "empty" one can easily connect to or help others, as it is realized that such perceived separation has never really existed.

[Jetsun]

In that place of non-separation if it is empty of self what is it that acts to try help "another"?

[Creation]

My point is probably found in what you seem to be calling the "subtle level".  You seem to be defining that there is a subtle level where communication amongst various beings can take place.  Hence, defining some "framework" or level for that communication to happen.  Where the classical view of buddhism has been that there is no such "subtle level" that connects.

I think is a question that comes up because of our modern worldview.  Classical Buddhism does have various planes of existence that can be traveled to or communicated with, and does have the idea that the siddhi of telepathy, mind to mind communication, etc. is possible, but this is already included in the ordinary 5 skandhas, not something extra that one has to postulate.  In modern times this is seen as something radically other than the world we know, so we might think that we need to postulate something more.  Now, just as with ordinary experience, the experience of these "subtle" levels can be analayzed into it's component parts if you are an Abhidharmika, their inherent existence deconstructed if you are a Madhamika, etc.  The classical authors just didn't feel the need to address these as a separate category.  

 

Or more that there is one being and any perceived separation is just the one being confused?

Even if you do want to postulate subtle levels to account for things like mind to mind communication, "it's all one" is not what Buddhism teaches.  Mahayana does teach that all perceived separation is ignorance, but not because there is only one being.  "Neither one nor many" would be more accurate.

[dawei]

The Bodhisattva vow binds you to help all sentient beings gain liberation.  This would be impossible without the communicative aspect of the Sambogha Kaya. 

 

Can you explain this more?

 

In what way does the vow bind?  More like an exhortation or it creates a framework?   What is the second sentence saying? 

[ralis]

This thread is moving off topic. Please discuss Dzogchen.

[doc benway]

Because the quote is stating that it is possible to connect and help others.  And that is possible while residing in Rigpa  (or what I often call "light" in a mystical christian framework).  The classical buddhist view is that it is not possible to connect to others and also not possible to "help", because mind streams are completely separate and hence no framework for anyone to reach anyone else.

 

 

But, you seem to be avoiding the issue of how others are connected or accessed while residing in rigpa.

 

Where the classical view of buddhism has been that there is no such "subtle level" that connects.

 

I think there are mistaken views here, Jeff. At least in Tibetan Buddhism and Bön it is all about connection.

That is the foundation for Guru Yoga, Bodhicitta, Refuge - connection.

[Apech]

Can you explain this more?

 

In what way does the vow bind?  More like an exhortation or it creates a framework?   What is the second sentence saying? 

 

The bodhisattva vow is the commitment to attain enlightenment for all sentient beings and is designed to evoke bodhicitta which is the motivating force behind one's practice.  Bodhicitta at the ultimate level is the realisation of emptiness of all phenomena - at the relative level this expresses as compassion.  Compassion here is not sentimental feeling but a true understanding that others are experiencing dukkha.  Prior to taking this vow you take refuge in the three jewels and part of this is that you are giving up worldly values (known as the eight worldly dharmas ).  So first there is a kind of renunciation, a focussing in on a commitment and then there is an expansive focus on positive qualities (generosity and so on).

 

This is in the mahayana and does not apply in Theraveda for instance.

 

Once you get to the vajrayana practice you are now focussing on transforming your mind.  So this includes yogas and energy working which is facilitated by having a sound motivation (bodhicitta) and a positive expansive view of your self and others (compassion, loving kindness and the six perfections).  So each stage builds on the last like a stupa and your practice is very strong.

 

Looking back from the energy working stage you can see that renunciation and working on positive values is actually powerful energy work.  The first is preventing leakage and waste of energy and the second is building a balanced and 'full' subtle body.

 

Throughout these practices you continue to develop more and more bodhicitta and the wish for all sentient beings to receive benefit from your own work (as well as yourself obviously) and this is a real thing.  So without a communicative level of the sambhoga kaya these wishes and blessings would be empty (in the bad sense) and just like pie in the sky.  So that's what I meant by the second sentence.

 

I wrote this quickly from my own understanding and so if anything is wrong or poorly expressed I apologise.

[9th]

Thanks, but I am familiar with the classical understanding of no self. But, originally there was classically the concept of two fold emptiness.  The first fold being emptiness of self (what you are describing) and the second fold being emptiness of ultimate reality (or the universe and stuff).  My point is that Rigpa is beyond emptiness of self component and the framework of which I have been describing is possibly related to the emptiness of ultimate reality.  When residing in Rigpa, one goes on to drop the obstructions that obscure such realization.  With realizing that ultimate reality is inherently "empty" one can easily connect to or help others, as it is realized that such perceived separation has never really existed.

 

If you find these personal distinctions useful, that is great.  However I do not consider any of this discussion to be relevant to practice and therefore I find it difficult to invest a significant amount of time and energy in what I consider akin to a dog chasing its own tail.  While these various views may or may not be "true" in some way, I do not find them applicable in that I have no desire to teach or debate in a formal manner.

 

I also notice no one has addressed the quote from the Buddha himself which I posted above, which is something I would wholeheartedly agree with - in that the classical buddhist persepective regards ALL VIEWS as hindrances.  The very act of postulating these various views is in itself a problem from the perspective of buddhism.  Again, I see it as "more of the same" samsaric activity, dressed up and presented as "spiritual truth".  

 

Dzogchen in particular is an echo of the original buddhist practice, in my understanding.  Essentially it is not buddhist, but rather shares the same objective, and thus is intimately related.  However at its core I consider Dzogchen to be the ultimate maturation of Tibetan shamanism, and without an understanding of shamanic paths I doubt anyone would truly be able to grasp the "landscape" as well as the practices presented in the texts.  It doesnt really matter because you will absolutely need to study with a trained Lama to receive dzogchen teachings in any real or proper way.

[Apech]

This thread is moving off topic. Please discuss Dzogchen.

 

 

The topic is about whether Dzogchen is superior to tantra - so we need to discuss tantric practices also.

[C T]

If you find these personal distinctions useful, that is great.  However I do not consider any of this discussion to be relevant to practice and therefore I find it difficult to invest a significant amount of time and energy in what I consider akin to a dog chasing its own tail.  While these various views may or may not be "true" in some way, I do not find them applicable in that I have no desire to teach or debate in a formal manner.

 

I also notice no one has addressed the quote from the Buddha himself which I posted above, which is something I would wholeheartedly agree with - in that the classical buddhist persepective regards ALL VIEWS as hindrances.  The very act of postulating these various views is in itself a problem from the perspective of buddhism.  Again, I see it as "more of the same" samsaric activity, dressed up and presented as "spiritual truth".  

 

Dzogchen in particular is an echo of the original buddhist practice, in my understanding.  Essentially it is not buddhist, but rather shares the same objective, and thus is intimately related.  However at its core I consider Dzogchen to be the ultimate maturation of Tibetan shamanism, and without an understanding of shamanic paths I doubt anyone would truly be able to grasp the "landscape" as well as the practices presented in the texts.  It doesnt really matter because you will absolutely need to study with a trained Lama to receive dzogchen teachings in any real or proper way.

well said. 

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Kar3n]

This thread gives evidence to my impression that Buddhism

is a truck load of horse crap with two or three little diamonds embedded in it.

 

Is not digging through all of the "crap" to find the diamonds part of any practice to make our lives and others' richer?

 

Much love to you Wells.

[ralis]

The use of terms such as empty, no self and so forth are extremely misleading and quite frankly serve very little utility in this or any other discourse. Such terms are posited as two extremes e.g. self, no self, which denote absolute points, but with no posited variables between the two points.

 

A more plausible way of seeing these terms in a different light is to understand that semantics are nothing more than maps/models which convey meaning and is never a one-one relationship between the map and the territory. Maps display nothing more than probabilities which are not absolute and such are always <1.

[ralis]

The topic is about whether Dzogchen is superior to tantra - so we need to discuss tantric practices also.

 

There is very little comparison of tantra and Dzogchen.

[ralis]

I also notice no one has addressed the quote from the Buddha himself which I posted above, which is something I would wholeheartedly agree with - in that the classical buddhist persepective regards ALL VIEWS as hindrances.  The very act of postulating these various views is in itself a problem from the perspective of buddhism.  Again, I see it as "more of the same" samsaric activity, dressed up and presented as "spiritual truth".  

 

All views are hindrances? I don't agree with that whatsoever. One can have a flexible view that allows for evolution or unlimited potential.

 

Read my post on maps for an explanation as to why I don't concur.

Edited January 8, 2016 by ralis

[gatito]

There is very little comparison of tantra and Dzogchen.

 

Better make a start then.

 

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Apech]

This thread gives evidence to my impression that Buddhism

is a truck load of horse crap with two or three little diamonds embedded in it.

 

Useful stuff horse crap.

[9th]

All views are hindrances? I don't agree with that whatsoever. One can have a flexible view that allows for evolution or unlimited potential.

 

Read my post on maps for an explanation as to why I don't concur.

 

I dont care if you concur or not, and I have no interest in your posts.  The same goes for your little friend.

[Brian]

Useful stuff horse crap.

Sometimes find ponies there...

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Jeff]

If you find these personal distinctions useful, that is great.  However I do not consider any of this discussion to be relevant to practice and therefore I find it difficult to invest a significant amount of time and energy in what I consider akin to a dog chasing its own tail.  While these various views may or may not be "true" in some way, I do not find them applicable in that I have no desire to teach or debate in a formal manner.

 

I also notice no one has addressed the quote from the Buddha himself which I posted above, which is something I would wholeheartedly agree with - in that the classical buddhist persepective regards ALL VIEWS as hindrances.  The very act of postulating these various views is in itself a problem from the perspective of buddhism.  Again, I see it as "more of the same" samsaric activity, dressed up and presented as "spiritual truth".  

 

Dzogchen in particular is an echo of the original buddhist practice, in my understanding.  Essentially it is not buddhist, but rather shares the same objective, and thus is intimately related.  However at its core I consider Dzogchen to be the ultimate maturation of Tibetan shamanism, and without an understanding of shamanic paths I doubt anyone would truly be able to grasp the "landscape" as well as the practices presented in the texts.  It doesnt really matter because you will absolutely need to study with a trained Lama to receive dzogchen teachings in any real or proper way.

 

I am not trying to say that I personally find the distinctions helpful.  My point was in the topic of the thread and comparing Dzogchen to Tantra.  To me, for such a discussion it is important to realize that there may be fundamental differences in the operating framework between the two.  Sort of what is "theoretically possible" with the different paths.

 

And "a dog chasing it's tail"... Is that not in many ways the nature of all discussion?  But, personally, I often learn things from such reflection...

 

Best wishes.  

[already]

All views are cognitive errors but they are simultaneously manifestations of primordial wisdom.