Krodha/Kyle Dixon wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/s/3NVoLvN7e4

Selwa (gsal ba) is “clarity.” Ösel (od gsal) is typically translated as “luminosity” or “clear light.”

This topic is somewhat nuanced, but for example, in common Mahāyāna and Anuttarayogatantra, clarity (gsal ba) is always conditioned, whereas luminosity (od gsal) is unconditioned and represents the “purity” of emptiness. Phenomena are “luminous” because their dharmatā is unconditioned and their nature is therefore totally pure and free from affliction.

Dzogchen makes things slightly more complex. In Dzogchen, luminosity (od gsal ba) has two meanings, both are categorized under the “clarity” aspect (gsal cha) of the nature of mind (sems nyid) which is related to lhun grub.

One of the definitions of “luminosity” (od gsal) is a state like deep sleep where there is no sensory input whatsoever. The other definition is od gsal as the mdangs or inner luminous aspect of rig pa which manifests as the visions of thögal and so on.

Dzogchen also however has an analogue to the luminosity (od gsal) of common Mahāyāna and Anuttarayogatantra, which is called zang thal. Zangthal is the pellucidity or transparent aspect of the clarity of the nature of mind.

For example, when the basis (gzhi), i.e., the nature of mind (sems nyid) is defined as “inseparable clarity and emptiness” (stong gsal dbyer med), the “clarity” in that definition is referring to zang thal.

For sentient beings zangthal is related to the visions on the path, again aspects of the rtsal of rig pa as the inner luminosity (mdangs) an attenuated or limited, but still pure expression of gnosis or pristine consciousness (ye shes). Then for awakened beings, zangthal is their full fledged gnosis or pristine consciousness (ye shes), and thus is actually more related to the ka dag aspect of the nature of mind.

Would be nice if all of these principles weren’t this complex, but unfortunately they are in relation to this topic.

u/zhonnu tagging you again since you asked about clarity.

u/jigdrol feel free to weigh in if any of this conflicts with your understanding.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dzogchen/s/ylP5OSD55l

Krodha (Kyle Dixon) wrote:

Advaita Vedanta is rooted in a Sāṃkhya worldview, which differs from the Abhidharma framework that Dzogchen is based on, that right there creates a firm distinction in the overall way these two systems function and view the world.

However beyond the fact that Advaita Vedanta is a sanatanadharmic view as opposed to buddhadharma, according to Dzogchen, Advaita is a false view that is incapable of producing liberation as defined by Dzogchen and buddhadharma in general. The Rigpa Rangshar for example lists Advaita Vedanta under various wrong views, and even mentions Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name in addressing Advaita.

For other refutations of Advaita Vedanta you can read Śāntarakṣita‘s Tattvasaṃgraha, or Bhāviveka’s Tarkajvālā, which are two main sūtrayāna level writings which dedicate some attention to contrasting these systems. One might object and say during the time of Buddha Śākyamuni there was no Advaita Vedanta so the Buddha never addressed Advaita directly, however Sāṃkhya yoga was around during the Buddha’s time, and given the Buddha separated and distinguished his dharma from these other views such as Sāṃkhya, and Sāṃkhya is the underlying worldview that Advaita is based on, we can know (or confidently infer) that the Buddha would have also objected to Advaita Vedanta.

As for specific differences, Advaita Vedanta posits a transpersonal, ultimate nature, their puruṣa, which is singular in nature as an established ontological essence. Dzogchen, by contrast, is based on buddhadharma, and so śūnyatā, or emptiness, is held to be the ultimate nature of phenomena. Emptiness, unlike brahman, is not a transpersonal nature that is truly established, even nominally. Instead, emptiness is a generic characteristic (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) and this is true even in Dzogchen as is demonstrated in the four samāyas of the basis (gzhi), the principle of gcig pu in particular. Emptiness is actually the antithesis of that which the puruṣa of Advaita represents; it is the absence of a svabhāva, or an essence, whereas puruṣa is actually an essence. Unlike the puruṣa of Advaita, emptiness is a non-reductive and non-affirming negation (prasajya-pratiṣedha) of all phenomena both compounded and uncompounded. Such a view is not shared by Advaita, which despite its attempts to classify its puruṣa as a subtle nature, even free of characteristics in the case of nirguṇabrahman, posits that brahman is still an essence that possesses the quality of being free of characteristics (nirguṇa), and this is the critique that Bhāviveka levels at Advaita:

“If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma (bdag pa dam pa —synonymous with Brahman) asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtlety, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place.”

Dzogpachenpo would agree with this assessment, as it also upholds that in jñāna (tib. ye shes), at the time of the path of seeing, we are ascertaining a nonarising in phenomena that is a non-affirming negation.

Sometimes people balk at these comparisons and say this is too much of a generalization, Advaita Vedanta is a variegated system, there is Sṛīṣṭīdṛīṣṭivāda, Dṛīṣṭisṛīṣṭīvāda, Māyāvāda or Vivartavāda and Ajātivāda, and of course that is fair, Dzogchen is the same way, however ultimately, just as it is the case with Dzogchen, despite these diverse subsystems, the underlying framework is in essence ubiquitous and uniform. We do not deviate from that framework despite the presence of varying methodologies or views within the system, and Advaita is no different. Even the much vaunted Ajātivāda which essentially an Advaita rendition of nonarising which cribs the Buddhist notion of nonarising, anutpāda, shared by Dzogchen, does not escape the consequences and implications of Advaita’s eternalist view. And for this reason Dzogchen would also state that Ajātivāda is incompatible with its view.

We can look to the Madhyamakālaṃkāra for the buddhist refutation of Advaita’s Ajātivāda:

“Therefore, the tathāgatas have said "all phenomena do not arise" because this conforms with the ultimate. This "ultimate" in reality, is free from all proliferation. Because there is no arising and so on, nonarising and so on isn't possible, because its entity has been negated.”

This is also how Dzogchen would refute Advaita Vedanta in this context. The above excerpt also exemplifies why emptiness is itself empty, and why emptiness is non-reductive. Advaita Vedanta cannot justifiably make the same claim about its puruṣa.

Are they similar in some ways? Sure. Is there benefit to be derived from understanding Advaita Vedanta on its own terms? Certainly. Can a practitioner of Dzogchen potentially understand Dzogchen better by understanding the views and nuances of Advaita Vedanta? Absolutely. My own teacher studied Advaita Vedanta systematically for this express purpose. But at the end of the day they are two different systems, with different bases, paths and results.

Also, to answer your question, Dzogchen is superior to Advaita Vedanta because we atiyogins, postulate that the puruṣa of Advaita is actually what buddhadharma calls the ālayavijñāna, which is a saṃsāric aspect of consciousness. All non-budddhist (tīrthika) systems fail to transcend saṃsāric states of consciousness according to Dzogchen and buddhadharma.

Thrangu Rinpoche explains:

“When Buddha Shakyamuni introduced the Buddhist teachings he taught extensively on the subject of the mind. In the context of the lesser vehicle (hinayāna), when explaining the five aggregates, the twelve sense sources, and the eighteen elements, the Buddha explained the mind in terms of six collections of consciousnesses; eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousness (i.e., the five sense consciousnesses), and the mind consciousness.

In the context of the great vehicle (mahāyāna), however, Buddha Shakyamuni explained the mind in terms of the eight collections of consciousness: the seventh consciousness is the klesha-mind and the eighth the all-base consciousness (ālayavijñāna). The reason why these two types of consciousness were not taught in the lesser vehicle is explained in the sutras. There it says “the absorbing consciousness is profound and subtle. If it were taken to be the self, that would not be appropriate.” The all-base consciousness functions uninterruptedly, like a flow of a river, by absorbing imprints and seeds. In many non-Buddhist philosophies - for example, that of the Indian Tirthikas - the true existence of a self is postulated. It could happen that the followers of such philosophies take the all-base consciousness to be the truly existent self; this is a mistake. In the great vehicle, however, there is no entity as such that could be viewed as the self: indeed, there is no valid cognition that could prove the true existence of such a self. Since sometimes the body is taken to be the self and sometimes also the mind, there is no definite focal point for the self. It obviously follows that the self cannot be construed as being the all-base consciousness either.”

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the praxis of atiyoga is based on a special type of pratyakṣa, or nonconceptual direct perception. For this reason ati is considered to be superior to every system even in the nine yānas of buddhadharma, and therefore clearly it would be considered superior to all tīrthika or non-buddhist dharmas. Every other system is rooted in mind, concepts and causal effort.

Good news regarding the DharmaWheel scraper (see: Table of Contents for Malcolm Dharmawheel Posts + Astus, Krodha (Kyle Dixon), Geoff (Jnana), Meido Moore):

Uploaded updated versions yesterday:

Malcolm posts in 12 files (docx and pdf and table of contents provided): https://app.box.com/s/ju3gothq09bmzzpcehv045ylwegvfzaj

Malcolm posts in 3 files (docx and pdf and table of contentsprovided): https://app.box.com/s/pwn72amv07cptm1wekvc2twv3k980iiv

Malcolm posts in one file (docx and pdf and table of contents provided): https://app.box.com/s/ibii96pyxps6nlhy71pj76s5mi92qxr1

Krodha (Kyle Dixon) Dharmawheel Posts: https://app.box.com/s/k0frsynnhxkivdsvjiqyhvt0zc8blbsl

Astus Dharmawheel Posts: https://app.box.com/s/ln2rvagp8u7xx0uytci78defdawgctsm

I have also updated the code to GitHub. (see: Table of Contents for Malcolm Dharmawheel Posts + Astus, Krodha (Kyle Dixon), Geoff (Jnana), Meido Moore)

Listening to PDFs on iPhone, Android, Windows, and Mac

This guide walks you through downloading and listening to PDF files on various devices using text-to-speech (TTS) features.

iPhone

1. Download the PDF Files
   1. Open Safari on your iPhone.
   2. Go to the provided Box.com link containing the ZIP file with PDFs.
   3. Tap the ZIP file to download it, then tap again to extract in the Files app.
2. Add PDFs to Books
   1. Open the Files app.
   2. Find the folder with the extracted PDFs.
   3. Select the PDFs, then tap Share.
   4. Choose Copy to Books to add them to your Books library.
3. Listen with Spoken Content
   1. Go to Settings > Accessibility > Spoken Content.
   2. Enable Speak Screen and Speech Controller.
   3. Open a PDF in the Books app.
   4. Tap the speech controller icon (the small floating button).
   5. Tap the Play button on the speech controller to begin reading aloud.

Android

1. Download the PDF Files
   1. Open Chrome and visit the Box.com link.
   2. Tap the ZIP file to download it, then extract its contents using a file manager.
2. Open PDFs in a PDF Reader
   1. Open your file manager.
   2. Locate a PDF and open it with your preferred PDF reader app.
3. Use Text-to-Speech
   • Option A: Download a TTS app such as Voice Aloud Reader (or explore the latest options on the Google Play Store).
     1. Open the TTS app, grant permissions, and choose a PDF to listen to.
   • Option B: Use built-in TTS in Android’s Accessibility settings:
     1. Go to Settings > Accessibility > Text-to-Speech Output.
     2. Configure the settings and enable TTS for PDF reading.

Windows

1. Open Microsoft Edge or Adobe Acrobat Reader.
2. Open your PDF file.
3. In Microsoft Edge, click the book-with-speaker icon; in Acrobat Reader, go to View > Read Out Loud.
4. Select Read Aloud and use the playback controls.
5. Adjust reading speed and voice under Voice options (in Edge) or Preferences (in Acrobat).
6. Stop reading by clicking the X in the control bar.

Note: “Read Aloud” works best for text-based PDFs and may not function properly with scanned PDFs.

Mac

1. Use Preview or Apple Books
   • Preview
     1. Open your PDF in Preview.
     2. Go to Edit > Speech > Start Speaking (or enable the Speak Selection shortcut in System Settings > Accessibility > Spoken Content).
   • Apple Books
     1. Double-click the PDF to open it in Books (or drag and drop it into the Books app).
     2. Use VoiceOver (press Command + F5 to activate) or the Speak Selection feature in Accessibility settings to have the text read aloud.
2. Configure macOS TTS Settings
   1. Go to System Settings > Accessibility > Spoken Content.
   2. Enable Speak Selection or Speech Controller, choose your voice, and adjust the speaking rate.

Tip: Make sure your PDFs are text-based (i.e., not just images). If your PDFs are scanned documents, you may need Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software before using text-to-speech.

With these steps, you can easily listen to PDFs on your iPhone, Android, Windows PC, or Mac. If you want to explore advanced voice options or speed controls, check out third-party TTS apps and system accessibility settings to find the best setup for you.

Cao Khánh wrote in AtR group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/25438496085765148/?__cft__[0]=AZW8JbPtGcnaNGO5rlSsT7lSKjoP9SU8e64eeY5Tx1k-TG8TLtnZS7Vys97Q5j1jFZegi24q7zx4S6uQmAYC0sSA4JgzGBehl8vCTMdqk_ypil0DyLw1Ax78HyfIw7xHsHPNdfE13EO3iiwlICPkEnR-F5f0LRjxNKoFvpfRPD6d7HqXUBCRVf7L5mOSc-2E7Yep49B9PZ2jt0ORZVCI2Q2uafSM7NB_hMzyaGE8GAks-A&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R

Top contributor

  · 

6 hours ago

  · 

Recommending Lama Joe Evans (Jigme Rangdrol) for Practitioners Interested in Dzogchen

I believe there are many people here already knows about Lama Joe or have been actively learning from him. And I have talked to Soh about him and Soh thinks it's okay for me to share this here.

So if you're interested in Dzogchen teaching, I would recommend Lama Joe for the following reasons:

Malcolm Smith, a Dzogchen teacher endorsed by AtR, said: "Joe Evans is my student and I vouch for him 100%".

I've attended the Spring Retreat with Lama Joe and his Rangdrol Foundation sangha, and can attest that he is very attentive and takes his teaching responsibilities very whole-heartedly, while also being very chillaxing about it.

Lama Joe says if you're genuinely interested in Dzogchen then that is good enough to start learning and practicing Dzogchen.

He holds his teaching online and accepts dana, so location limitation and monetary limitation is not the problem

He has a very active Discord sangha for ongoing correspondence as well.

He is hosting another retreat coming this summer so you can have a chance to receive Direct Introduction if you haven't had one already.

There is surely more things to appreciate about Lama Joe, so I invite other members who have received his teachings to share their perspectives

If you want to check out Lama Joe Evans, here's a few links that I've found helpful:

The Rangdrol Foundation website: https://www.rangdrolfoundation.org/

Interview about his experience with his different teachers (Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche, Acarya Malcolm Smith, and Dungse Rigdzin Dorje Rinpoche) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOShiRbfHDI

YOUTUBE.COM

Praxis Behind The Obscure: Dzogchen w/ Jigme Rangdröl

In this episode, Joe Evans also known as Jigme Rangdröl joins the podcast to discuss his Buddhist journey, how to find a qualified teacher, and stories of ex...

Cao Khánh

Author

Top contributor

Some nice writings from Lama Joe

"gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

The point of rushen and semdzin is really to bring distracting proliferations to a point of exhaustion so that you can observe the empty clarity of your mind, which is the nature of mind. In that moment of unfabricated consciousness you recognize your nature. If there’s no recognition of the presence you have slipped into dullness. If you’re grasping and labeling the experience you have slipped back into proliferation. The two diversion’s are fairly recognizable so in practice they are actually allies because they indicate when we have returned to distraction. Once you are familiar with rigpa then your thoughts are not a problem because you are now able to skillfully apply the three modes of liberation.

gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

Chogyal Namhkai Norbu was very adamant about this particular pitfall as well. People mistakenly claim that a blank state of quiescence is the dharmakaya. One has to understand that such a state is not the great perfection and merely leads to the formless realm at best but likely rebirth as an animal since it is marked by dullness.

gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

Sure, the main point is that rigpa is your rigpa, it is the naturally perfected cognizant aspect of the basis; which is in your body. It’s not outside, everyone has their own mind stream and thus their own rigpa.

gzhi (ground/basis) and zhi (peace)

Right, the nature of the individual, the basis."

Soh has commented his other writings to point that Lama Joe's view is "definitely not substantialist"

6h

Reply

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Cao Khánh its from his other posts that i knew his views are not substantialist, not these particular ones

6h

Reply

Edited

Cao Khánh

Author

Top contributor

Soh Wei Yu can you share them here as well? I'll correct the previous comment

6h

Reply

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Cao Khánh hmm i forgot, quite a number actually, i recommend people go through the whole pdf i posted if they are interested

6h

Reply

Edited

Cao Khánh

Author

Top contributor

damn 202 pages!!! nice one

6h

Reply

Soh Wei Yu

Admin

All-star contributor

Here is a compilation of his writings from reddit: https://app.box.com/s/eprptl38hilnznqk87kuif3vy62w7nkw

A%20Compilation%20of%20(Reddit)%20Joe%20Evans.pdf.pdf | Powered by Box

APP.BOX.COM

A%20Compilation%20of%20(Reddit)%20Joe%20Evans.pdf.pdf | Powered by Box

A%20Compilation%20of%20(Reddit)%20Joe%20Evans.pdf.pdf | Powered by Box

6h

Reply

Remove Preview

“Earth is flesh... Water is blood... Fire is heat... Air is breath... Space is mind... The sun and moon are the eyes... Stars are light... Clouds are hair... Trees are nāḍīs... Mountains are the body... Cliffs are the bones... These are perfect as such in the body of the yogin. [...] As such, since all phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are complete within the body and mind of the yogin, both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are present as the buddhahood of the naturally perfect nature. [...] This so-called 'saṃsāra,' this is nirvāṇa."

— Excerpt from "Buddhahood in This Life," translated by Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith (Introduction video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMWJ5TbbxU8, Amazon link to book: https://www.amazon.com.au/Buddhahood-This-Life-Commentary-Vimalamitra-ebook/dp/B01G2DD4U6, Acarya Malcolm's website: https://www.zangthal.com/)

Images below generated from ChatGPT / Dall-E.

Mr S wrote to Z., “ Mr S wrote: 

“Hi Z. - Even the idea of an I that dies in to the light is still relating to an I that has agency and can die in to the light. The eogic "I"  can never wake up! And our True Nature is already awake.  At some stage there is a seeing that what we seek we already are (empty awareness that simply is)  and that the egoic mind is just a dynamic appearing in empty awareness (this essentially is what pointed out during a Dzogchen transmission if words are used) However, as part of your process, and as a temporary concession, you can let go and relax into the light and see what happens. It is mega important though to differentiate between awakening (and is happening to know one)  which is totally non personal and an awakening experience which is the egoic self having the experience of an awakening - the latter ends up being just another experience and will be short lived and full of the difficult "post awakening" experiences people often describe, when they mistake it as an actual awakening.”, “Z., notice simply until it crystal clear that the apparent I that has had an abusive past is merely and nothing more than concepts and therefore a story appearing in awareness - seeing that you are the empty awareness and not thought which is like "writing on water" is all that needs to be seen (deeply). The past too is merely a concept arising within awareness. Awareness - your true nature - is without time. Once this is seen clearly, thoughts of all kinds related to the apparent I continue to rise as an energetic unravelling takes place that may continue for many years. This is why in Dzogchen Trekchod is practised thoroughly before Thogal.””

 Soh wrote to Mr S:

Thanks for your sharing. But I would like to mention that seeing 'Awareness' as a container for thoughts and phenomena to arise in is still a form of subtle dualism. It was seen this way during my I AM phase, but further insights into nondual anatman removes this subtle dualism. On anatta and different phases of insights: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html , https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

Likewise, Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith points out in his teachings (and I cannot do direct quotation from him as this is in his private forum posts for Zangthal members, but I have also compiled some of his public forum posts here, worth reading -- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html ), and I paraphrase, that seeing rigpa, pristine consciousness and so on as a container is the problem. There is in truth no container. Radiance is appearances and appearances is radiance.. the issue comes when we reify cognizance (the appearance of diversity) and its radiance as two things, so Dzogchen practice is simply recognizing that cognizance and its radiance are nondual even though there's always appearance of diversity. There is no self, but there is empty cognizance and its radiance.

Furthermore the dualism between rigpa and dhatu that are characteristic of earlier phases of practice and the preliminary form of rigpa, collapses with further insights (what I call nondual anatman insight):

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/02/a-letter-to-almaas-on-dzogchen-and.html

"...Also, as I said in DhO earlier, ""Another interesting 'technical' point since this is DhO. There was a point in his retreat where Arcaya Malcolm Smith described how at the mature phase of Dzogchen practice, the 'vidya'/'rigpa' (the knowing/knowledge) is exhausted where the vidya and dhatu (something like knowing and field of experience) totally collapsed in a 1:1 synchrony (and he gestured two circles coming together), whereas before that point [the exhaustion of vidya] there is a sort of out of phase issue between vidya and dhatu. That's said to happen in the fourth vision (in terms of bhumi map, Malcolm mentioned years ago that's 8th to 16th bhumi based on some text). Somehow it really reminded me of one of Daniel's descriptions in MCTB on fourth path. His student Kyle did inform me that it is the same as what I call anatta realization [which I realised almost 10 years ago, it is the same as MCTB's fourth path]. Also, Malcolm mentioned many people have the wrong idea that Vidya/Rigpa is some eternal thing that just goes on forever, but it too is exhausted later along with all other phenomena [although this is not annihilation as appearances/pure vision still manifest] (elaboration: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/08/acarya-malcolm-on-dzogchen-and-advaita.html )."

Likewise, Kyle Dixon, that Malcolm told me over dinner was the first student of his that totally understood his teaching, also said in 2014, "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle..."

....

Wrote to some people on reddit recently: "In the initial phase of practice, and even after the initial awakening into I AM/Eternal Witness, the Witnessing Presence seems to be behind all contents as an underlying background or ground of being.

That duality of context and content collapses in further realizations. In further realization, it is seen that there is never an Agent, a Watcher, an Observer, apart from moment to moment luminous manifestation.

Thought this might interest you, on the stages of spiritual awakening, nondual awareness and its nature and the subtleties of insight:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

🙏 🙂 p.s. I'm Soh, and Thusness (John Tan) is my mentor... I've been through similar stages in my journey as the first link (7 stages) with some minor differences (e.g. I didn't go through stage 3)"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/24571221969159235/?__cft__[0]=AZUnS-PzRJld-zYkzFST-s-l2FKyO9_siUz5-sQ-xoKn3BktKDjSC-qsQoGiVyfnTZ6H2toXly-MEadEimWwFERUkxp158pPPz4JYFdgBnEMIySuqCrJqcNHj5B7sUBif6u3jECkIcKhGNg35BgjR3f-T5G9lySywvyicENojELJ76EhzPfr8UIcb8M_ZsxPrCQ&__cft__[1]=AZUnS-PzRJld-zYkzFST-s-l2FKyO9_siUz5-sQ-xoKn3BktKDjSC-qsQoGiVyfnTZ6H2toXly-MEadEimWwFERUkxp158pPPz4JYFdgBnEMIySuqCrJqcNHj5B7sUBif6u3jECkIcKhGNg35BgjR3f-T5G9lySywvyicENojELJ76EhzPfr8UIcb8M_ZsxPrCQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R

André A. Pais

Top Contributor

  · nrtdoepSso2m29053l31484cl5m64uh1l3c08t8h3i1ta3854c2g0fhc24f5  ·
SOURCE OR NO SOURCE?
"Therefore, the heart of the matter is saṃsāra and nirvāṇa’s seed, cause, gene, or element. An oral instruction of Abu’s (Patrul Rinpoche) says that this is the indispensable cause. This does not refer to an ordinary causal process involving something that is produced and something that produces. Rather, it is the indispensable cause in the sense that if there were no pristine cognition as the natural condition, there would be no source for the dyad of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. It is analogous to how without space, there would be no arising of the environment and its inhabitants; without the ocean, there would be no waves; and in the absence of valuable objects, needs and wants do not arise. Likewise, if the ultimate truth—the natural condition—were absent, there would be no source for any of the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Therefore, it is called the indispensable cause.[9]"
[André: the above makes me slightly nervous, because I very much prefer the idea of sourcelessness / groundlessness / non-arising presented at the sutra level. However the following footnote makes me feel a bit more relaxed again.]
"[9] A supporting passage from Longchenpa’s Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission reads: “Just as rays of sunlight are subsumed within the orb of the sun, all phenomena of the universe of appearances and possibilities are subsumed within their source, awakened mind. Suppose we then investigate this, examining the place from which samsara and nirvana (whose very essence is that of a dream) come, the place in which they abide, and the place to which they go. Since samsara and nirvana have never existed, they have never existed in any mode of coming, abiding, or going; or, conversely, since none of these three modes has ever existed, samsara and nirvana have never existed. And so, given that even what is termed ‘awakened mind as the supportive ground’ or ‘awakened mind as basic space’ has never existed as something with an identifiable essence, all things are none other than their true nature, which is like space; this is conventionally referred to as ‘things being subsumed within the true nature of phenomena.’ But it should be understood that subsuming and what is subsumed are without foundation or support” (Longchen Rabjam [2001], 123–124)."
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../khenchen-ngawang.../tendrel
Keegan Donlen

Hey André A. Pais, i just wanted to give huge thank you to you. Your “Beyond awareness” post on the atr website personally allowed me to recognize my subconscious habit of fabricating a unitary awareness in the foreground, and ended up dissolving any sense of awareness I had and I ended up realizing what the masters and you truly meant by appearances being self-luminous.
Your writing in that post is probably the greatest I’ve read on this topic due to how clear and direct it is. Words can’t express my appreciation of it enough.
• 3h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Keegan Donlen wow, thanks, mate! Happy to hear it made some sense to you and helped in any way. It was all mostly based on the writings of John Tan and especially (for me) Soh Wei Yu. Nine bows to them!
It was also based on some personal reflections that I guess I hadn't yet seen quite exactly expressed that way anywhere else (AFAIK); curiously though, later found some similar pointers (concerning the absence of pervasion) in a very traditional Buddhist text (Mipham's commentary to Adornment of the Middle Way).
Anyway, my writing got better in the meantime, I believe, and my insight more refined -- I have no realization, though, guess you've beat me on that one (kuddos to you! ). The point being: I have a photo album here on Facebook called Personal Musings where I collect some reflections (curiously Beyond Awareness isn't there, I think), just in case you want to check some other stuff out.
Also, have another photo album called TSK & Tarthang Tulku where I collect some quotes and excerpts from my favorite spiritual book, in case it might interest you.
Ok, end of announcements!
• 2h
• 
  
• Reply
Keegan Donlen

André A. Pais and nine bows to you! Indeed, I haven’t really seen anyone express that topic in the exact same way you did and emphasize the same points you have and it definitely vibed with me. Do you know if that text requires a lung as I’d love to re…
See more
• 2h
• 
  
• Reply




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Keegan Donlen it's a sutric text, so I guess no lung or special authorization is required, although a traditional Lama would still find it advisable.
Mipham's text is rather dense at times, but if it's your cup of tea, you'll have a blast with it.…
See more
• 2h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Blumenthal

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Mipham

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor

• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
For readers, this is the link to Andre's article: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../beyond-awareness.html "Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness"

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness
Beyond Awareness: reflections on identity and awareness
• 1m
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Soh Wei Yu you've been getting into Dzogchen, how do you deal with the tendency in post-tantric vehicles to subsume appearances into some kind of ultimate source or ground? Does it strike you a bit like some reification is about to happen, or do you feel that it is very much in line with madhyamaka?
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
André A. Pais
In Dzogchen, there is no truly existing findable source, but an empty and luminous potentiality.
Malcolm’s translation of Longchenpa:
don de nges par rtogs 'dod na
dpe ni nam mkha' lta bur btag
don ni chos nyid skye ba med
rtags ni sems nyid 'gag pa med
If one wishes to ascertain the meaning of that,
the example is to examine "space-like."
The meaning is nonarising dharmatā.
The proof is the unceasing mind-essence.
In the commentary on this last line, the Chos dbying mdzod is cited:
"The proof is arising as anything at all from the potential (rtsal).
At the time of arising, there is no place of arising and no agent of arising.
If one examines the mere name, 'arising,' it is like space,
including everything in a great, impartial uniformity.
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
gad rgyangs wrote:
I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.
Malcolm wrote:
I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.
The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.
[Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.
Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):
Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.
In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.
gad rgyangs wrote:
Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.
Malcolm wrote:
Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.
gad rgyangs wrote:
There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).
Malcolm wrote:
It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.
gad rgyangs wrote:
When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
Malcolm wrote:
They never cease....
gad rgyangs wrote:
In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.
rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.
Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.
Sherlock wrote:
Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?
Malcolm wrote:
The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.
Malcolm wrote:
[Quoting gad rgyangs: in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.]
'The way that great transference body arises:
when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
the environment and inhabitants of the universe
returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
One’s body is just a reflection,
self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
one obtains a vajra-like body.
One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
but only the body as it was before...'
Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi
Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.
M
gad rgyangs wrote:
I'm talking about the perception of the relationship between nothing and something. The question of what jargon to use when talking around it is secondary, although not without historical interest.
Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.
Malcolm wrote:
Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
André A. Pais
Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mere appearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no real existence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchen tantras.
For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.
For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.
-- Nāgārjuna.
...
Malcolm: This is completely inconsistent with the view of Dzogchen. The view of Dzogchen is that there is no basis or foundation at all. Also the doctrine of the two truths is absent in Dzogchen. Further, the view of Dzogchen is that everything, including buddhahood is completely equivalent to an illusion and therefore, uniform.
- https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=649959#p649959

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
• 1h
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview
André A. Pais
Author
Top Contributor
Malcolm says that there are no 2 truths model in Dzogchen, but then claims that everything is equivalent to an illusion. "Illusion" seems to bring back the model of the 2 truths, because "illusion" only makes sense in contrast with "real" -- and we are then back to the 2 truths.
• 31m
• 
  
• Reply




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Top Contributor
Excerpt from https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
What makes you think Dzogchen is a affirming negation?
This is not the case. Dzogchen does not have a view to support or promulgate, and that is what affirming negations are for i.e. rejecting one thing in order to prove one's own perspective. By asserting that Dzogchen is asserting an affirming negation you are rendering Dzogchen inferior to Madhyamaka.
If Dzogchen is an affirming negation, than this statement from the Unwritten Tantra makes no sense:
“Apparent yet non-existent retinue, listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.
Since the wisdom appearances of people's own vidyā that are seen in personal experience are not established as entities of any kind, it is the appearance of the exhaustion of dharmatā."
Further, Vimalamitra states in The Lamp Summarizing Emptiness:
Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:
Everything arose from non-arising;�even arising itself never arose.
Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning. [180]
Empty things are empty by nature.
Since the emptiness of dharmatā is present without being contrived and without being transformed in the basis, yogins are also liberated by remaining naturally without contrivance and without transformations.
And:
"That dharmatā emptiness dwells in a fortress and is captured in a fortress: the fortress (that is like a circle of spears in the sky) encircles (without a beginning or an end) dharmatā, i.e., existence is dharmatā, non-existence is dharmatā, both are dharmatā and neither are dharmatā. As such, [dharmatā] is surrounded by the names “clear and unclear”, “empty and not-empty”, “existence and non-existence”, “permanence and annihilation”, and so on. That lack of finding evidence itself is dharmatā. Further, in reality nothing exists apart from dharmatā. That being the case, that emptiness (as a mere representation, baseless, and non-referential, being non-existent like a pretense) is understood with scripture, accepted by reasoning, proven by argument, and captured in a fortress. Be confident that dharmatā is the unmistaken true emptiness.
Therefore, to describe Dzogchen as an affirming negation does not make any sense at all.
N
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
• 43m
• 
  
• Reply
• Remove Preview

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Malcolm says that there are no 2 truths model in Dzogchen, but then claims that everything is equivalent to an illusion. "Illusion" seems to bring back the model of the 2 truths, because "illusion" only makes sense in contrast with "real" -- and we are then back to the 2 truths.

• 3d
• Like
• Reply

Katherine Willow

André A. Pais There is a difference between illusion as an affirming negation vs illusion as a non-affirming negation. What you are talking about is an affirming negation, i.e. claiming something is an illusion in order to say that something else is real. In Dzogchen, the claim of illusion is a non-affirming negation, negating the reality of an entity without saying something else is real. Here, the metaphor involves stating that the intrinstic reality of things, the "real" is the illusion, and their emptiness or nonexistence is what is real. Since emptiness is a non-affirming negation, this should be understood as turning the metaphor upside down by using it to show everything is unreal rather than showing that there is a real ground that an illusion hides. The so-called real ground is the lack of any real ground. For example, in "Finding Rest in Illusion", Longchenpa states:

"2. The primordial nature of the mind

Is a spacious, sky-like state

Where primal wisdom is like sun and moon and stars.

And yet when there occurs within this womb of space—

The wondrous sphere of emptiness—

A state of ignorance, conceptualization, dualistic clinging,

The hallucinations of the three worlds

And the six migrations manifest

In the manner of a magical illusion."

The auto-commentary states:

"The nature of the mind, the self-arisen primordial wisdom, is primordially pure and space-like. Within this state, which does not exist as anything at all, there move the five winds, of which the life-supporting wind is the root. This leads to the manifestation of [self-appearing rigpa] in the state of luminosity. When this is not recognized, it is misapprehended as an outer universe together with its inner contents, including one’s own body. All this appears variously as a mere magical illusion. As it is said in the tantra entitled the [Mind-Mirror of Vajrasattva], “In various ways, the beings of the three worlds stray from the ground, which in itself is nothing at all.”"

Thus, illusions appear from the basis, which itself is an illusion that produces nothing. Why? Because illusions do not exist, they are not produced. Because the basis (ground) does not exist, it does not produce existent things. But because there is co-dependent origination of adventitious ignorance together with the basis, the non-existent illusions appear as if they were existent. That is why it is called the ground that produces nothing in the Realms and Transformations of Sound Tantra. Thus, Longchenpa continues:

"But how do these hallucinatory appearances, which are like magical illusions, occur? The root text goes on to say,

"3. They appear spontaneously, through the power

Of interdependent causes and conditions—

Just as when a piece of wood or little stone

Is conjured through an incantation

And there appears a magical display,

A horse, an ox, a man or woman,

A mountain or a palace, and the rest.

"When a magical illusion is created of horses, oxen, and so on, there is a material cause, namely, a piece of wood or a pebble, and also a condition for the illusion, that is to say, the visual consciousness manipulated through the magic spell. On this basis, a hallucinatory experience of horses and oxen is produced. This manifests as the subjective experience of the mind, arising through the interdependent conjunction of causes and conditions. The hallucinatory appearances of saṃsāra are similar to this.

"4. Deluded mind and its habitual tendencies,

Phenomenal existence, the objects of the senses

And the three poisons that fixate on them—

All these occur because of ignorance.

Devoid of real existence, they all appear unceasingly.

They are like conjured apparitions.

From now on be convinced

That they are empty, false reflections.

"The underlying cause for all this is [rigpa] itself. The condition, on the other hand, is ignorance, owing to which, [rigpa] is distorted by the duality of the [subjective] apprehender and the apprehended (which thus becomes the object). It is thus that hallucinatory appearances, the universe and its animate contents, appear differently for different kinds of beings. Because of the three poisons, the various realms of saṃsāra, high and low, are experienced and seem real. But it should be understood that in fact they are nothing but false appearances—empty reflections—and that within [rigpa], the enlightened mind, there is no movement or change. The Samādhirāja-sūtra says,

"Just as in the midst of crowds,

The forms displayed by a magician—

Horses, oxen, chariots, and the like—

Appear in various forms yet lack reality,

Understand that all things are like this.

"And as the root text goes on to say, the illusions that appear while lacking all intrinsic being are like space."

Thus, the example of illusion is stated to explain the emptiness of all things. If it is still thought that rigpa is not empty while all appearances are empty because of being illusions, Longchenpa puts any such proliferations to rest:

"5. Sure it is that all things in phenomenal existence,

In saṃsāra and nirvāṇa,

Are in their nature equal and they all resemble space.

Understand that all are unborn,

Pure from the beginning.

All phenomena are by their nature devoid of existence. In themselves, they are like space. The Middle-Length Prajñāpāramitā says, “In themselves, phenomena are like space. One can find in them no center and no boundary.” And likewise we find in the Samādhirāja-sūtra,

All things disintegrate, O Son of the Victorious One,

All existents are primordially empty.

Extremists hold a lesser emptiness.

But there is no debate between the learned and the childish.

In this regard, some say that phenomena are empty by virtue of a preclusion of something that they do not possess 55 but that they are not empty of themselves. 56 This is like saying that the sun is empty of darkness but is not empty of rays of light. This is a lesser kind of emptiness, however, through which no freedom would ever be possible from the belief in the true existence of things. Examined according to the argument of “neither one nor many,” the sun is empty of inherent existence; being thus, it is also empty of rays of light. It is empty and yet it appears. This is the very principle and essence of Madhyamaka, the Middle Way."

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top Contributor

André A. Pais Dzogchen avoids this problem by putting the focus on one’s mode of cognition. When ignorance is present, sems (mind) is present. When knowledge is present, instead you have ye shes (pristine consciousness). Sems is of course what gives rise to apparent objects and the sense of dualism. Would highly recommend David Higgins’s paper “The Philosophical Foundations of Classical rDzogs chen in Tibet: Investigating the Distinction Between Dualistic Mind (sems) and Primordial knowing (ye shes)” which discusses the topic in more detail.

So both of these perspectives are accounted for and encapsulated in what Madhyamaka would call “ultimate truth”. After all, when delusion is present, we can’t say that that reality is any less true for us, in that given moment. It’s just that we’re deluded. Non-recognition is the issue. This is also how in Dzogchen one can claim that things are already pure from the very beginning.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Chris Jones thanks for your sharing. I'm usually very fond of Higgins' works. I've read most of Mahamudra and the Middle Way and of Buddha-nature Reconsidered and I thoroughly enjoyed those. Sheer precision and clarity. I've tried Philosophical Foundations but couldn't get very far, for whatever reason.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Chris Jones I've also read some shorter text of his on Longchenpa and the distinction between sems and yeshe. Yet, I'm not sure how that relates to my question above.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Katherine Willow thank you for your thorough and informative reply.

I think both affirming and non-affirming negations are problematic in the context of what I'm saying. Even the latter are reference points to be dropped. Of course, all means are valid as long as they remain skillful.

I wasn't saying that Dzogchen is postulating something as real. I just said that in the context of Malcolm proclaiming Dzogchen as not making use of the 2 truths model, saying that all things are illusory is still a reference to the 2 truths, even if somewhat abstractly (illusory is a concept that only makes sense in contradistinction with reality).

As they say in the 4 yogas of Mahamudra (and in Madhyamaka, of course), even a conviction in emptiness or one taste is to be removed, if the insight is to become more mature. Or as Dogen says, no trace of enlightenment remains.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top Contributor

André A. Pais

I was responding to this:

“Malcolm says that there are no 2 truths model in Dzogchen, but then claims that everything is equivalent to an illusion. "Illusion" seems to bring back the model of the 2 truths, because "illusion" only makes sense in contrast with "real" -- and we are then back to the 2 truths.”

This distinction is what allows Dzogchen to avoid having to take both relative and ultimate as “true” as per the two truths doctrine. Instead, as mentioned above, these are viewed from the lens of a single truth giving rise to different appearances (or lack thereof) depending on ignorance (or lack thereof). When ignorance is present, so are apparent objects. When ignorance is absent, objects are not present. According to Dzogchen, this is the only truth that needs to be stated. In this way, we avoid contradictions (things are both real conventionally and unreal ultimately). It’s just a slightly different presentation of the same view.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Katherine Willow

Realizing that appearances have no defining characteristics,

yogis are freed of even the most subtle beliefs

in ultimate and conventional reality

and are thus liberated from all metaphysical views.

This is conventionally termed “the purport of basic equality,”

“the view of the inseparability of the ultimate and conventional.”

A person in whose mind defining characteristics of the two truths

are intellectually posited as truly established

and are thus determined to be objects of knowledge

will never be able to relinquish dualistic mind.

For when that person has determined

that “the two truths are inseparable,”

with this deeply held belief, he also has not let go

of holding that the conventional exists as mere illusion.

That being so, even when he establishes the nondual nature of reality,

he harbors thoughts associated with dualism.

Investigating objects of knowledge by focusing the mind

on the distinction between the two truths

was taught as an antidote for those people

with excessive, obsessive clinging to real entities.

However, in the very nature of phenomena,

there are no dual characteristics.

Whosoever reverses grasping to characteristics

is free from this obsessive clinging.

When one experiences no craving or wishful thought

toward anything that appears,

this is called “the view of great equality.”

“Isn’t mere appearance the conventional reality?”

This is what was pointed out above with respect

to any person who believes appearance to be conventional

and believes, in the back of his mind,

that freedom from conceptual elaborations regarding that is the ultimate.

Still, for a mind that does not believe in the reality of the two truths,

to ask whether they are one or two is like asking

whether the son of a barren woman is blue or white.

~ Rongzompa

Once this kind of certainty has arisen,

Even clinging to mere illusion

Can be understood as conceptual imputation.

~ Mipham Rinpoche

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Active

André A. Pais

Author

Top Contributor

Chris Jones talking of lenses instead of truths seems to amount to the same. Even in sutra, the "truths" are epistemological more than ontological. And even in sutra, the relative truth is often taken as not true at all, but a mere worldly consensus between "childish" beings.

When you say objects are not present, you mean there aren't any appearances at all?

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Top Contributor

André A. Pais Objects are not present in the sense that they’re illusory, not real. Just pristine consciousness appearing as objects.

Yes, as I understand it there’s no real difference between Nagarjuna’s view, or the two truths, and Dzogchen. It’s just presented slightly differently. The only problem I have is the way that relative truth is proposed as “kinda true, but not really” in Madhyamaka which can be rather confusing. The emphasis on deluded cognition giving rise to apparent objects is much clearer, at least to me, and fits in very nicely with dependent origination. Dzogchen also has a very elaborate explanation of the different modes and aspects of consciousness, how they relate to each other, how they arise, and so on which I personally find helpful.

• 2d
• Like
• Reply

Katherine Willow

André A. Pais

Edit: I will add that the difference between the two truths in madhyamika and the one truth of Dzogchen, is that in Madhyamika we distinguish between conventional objects to be analyzed and freedom from proliferation that is reached when analysis exhausts objects. In contrast, the single truth of Dzogchen, the perfect teaching, is one's own vidyā. The distinction is important in madhyamika to support the process of analysis. Since Dzogchen is not based on analysis it does not need to posit any truth except self-originated pristine consciousness.

it all comes down to whether one's view involves conceptual clinging or not. I completely agree with you and your later post; these deviations involve treating the view of Dzogchen as a philosophical view rather than one based on direct perception. As long as one continues in deluded vision, their negations will be affirming, whether that affirmation affirms existence, illusion, nonexistence, and so on. That is why it is important to bear in mind the difference between the method of madhyamika and Dzogchen. While the former is based on analysis, the latter is based on direct perception; provided one has correctly identified rigpa, for the moment they remain in that recognition they do not grasp at illusion or nonillusion, and so on.

• 1d
• Like
• Reply

• Edited