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.

Part 7 is now out: 

New and Improve Formatting Compilation: https://app.box.com/s/6q3mb4vwe7x52x6isfut8cdkdwb15d4d

Old formatting compilation (no speaker names, making it confusing): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yn0GuVsxcxyCG82GU-rC2ryXYs1q9oZPAi_OGkER_yI/edit?usp=sharing

Now available on audio! SoundCloud link: https://soundcloud.com/soh-wei-yu/sets/reddit-writings-by-krodha-kyle-dixon

Also See: Better Document Formatting and New Software to Improve Krodha/Kyle Dixon's Reddit Compilations

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.

Part 6 is now out: 

New and Improve Formatting Compilation: https://app.box.com/s/tgzpv157a6rd0lkxqcmtlmh2l93bqsvc

Old formatting compilation (no speaker names, making it confusing): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gmQjA-vVpDtfnwiitbwStyH_-1ebdu9b_gIcTwfmcjo/edit?usp=sharing

Now available on audio! SoundCloud link: https://soundcloud.com/soh-wei-yu/sets/reddit-writings-by-krodha-kyle-dixon

Also See: Better Document Formatting and New Software to Improve Krodha/Kyle Dixon's Reddit Compilations

Taken from Reddit

“Qn: I’m often wondering how understanding necessarily emptiness changes the way we relate to phenomena. For instance, how does this realization make my mind free from afflictions like anger, craving, clinging and so on?

Kyle (Krodha) replied:

Anger, craving and clinging are activities that in most cases, assume a subject-object duality. There is the assumption of a self that is interacting with objects, and that this self-entity as an agent can crave, cling, become angry at a foreign object or person that exists separately (from said self).

The experiential realization of emptiness collapses this subject-object duality so that there is no experience of a substantial inner reference point relating to external phenomena. The realization of emptiness also nullifies external entities, and reveals that outer phenomena are misconceptions, abstractions. Both sides of the dichotomy are uprooted, the self that can become angry, or crave, and the external phenomena to become angry at, crave or cling to... both sides are seen as a misconception or abstraction.

Emptiness is like awakening to realize that the appearance of a snake lying on the ground in a dark room is actually just a rope. Prior to recognizing the nature of that appearance, the alleged snake was capable of conjuring all sorts of emotions, fear, curiosity, worry, and so on. However, once the lights are turned on, and it is recognized that the snake was actually a rope all along, then the basis for fear, curiosity, worry and any other emotions or activities related to a snake are all evaporated instantly - because they were all predicated on a misconception.

In the same way, in realizing emptiness the basis for anger, craving and clinging would be evaporated instantly because they are also predicated on misconceptions.”

Kyle: “The Samādhirāja cited earlier says:

Young man, bodhisattva mahāsattvas who have become skilled in the wisdom of the nonexistent nature of all phenomena do not have desire for any form, sound, smell, taste, or touch. They do not become angry. They are never ignorant.

Why is that? It is because they do not see phenomena; there is no object to perceive. They do not see the phenomena of desire, the desire, or the desirer; that which angers, the anger, or one who is angry; nor that of which one is ignorant, the ignorance, or the one who is ignorant, and therefore there is no such object to perceive.

Because there is nothing to be seen and there is no object to perceive, they have no attachment to anything in the three realms and they will quickly attain this samādhi, and quickly attain the highest, complete enlightenment of perfect buddhahood.

On this topic, it has been said: All phenomena have no existence; They are all devoid of attributes and without characteristics, without birth and without cessation. That is how you should perfectly understand phenomena. Everything is without existence, without words, empty, peaceful, and primordially stainless. The one who knows phenomena, young man, that one is called a buddha.”

Part 5 is now out: 

New and Improve Formatting Compilation:  https://app.box.com/s/haqjou2bzug260wdu1iufvzd5iq924m4

Old formatting compilation (no speaker names, making it confusing): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tyVbos7y6a7eEmcmWf_2HhrS787SFe6wooklBJa-ZQo/edit?usp=sharing

Soh Wei Yu

Nice explanation and citations by Krodha/Kyle Dixon:

User avatar

level 3

krodha

·

2 yr. ago

·

edited 2 yr. ago

For Buddhas the field of phenomena does not appear as external but as their own display. Essentially meaning that knowing and what is known are not different. What is known is itself the activity of knowing.

Rongzom:

Buddhas and bodhisattvas are the knowers, and unmistakable true reality is the object of knowledge. Therefore, it is stated that there is no difference between knowledge and the object of knowledge.

Kūkai:

Although mind is distinguished from form, they share the same nature. Form is mind, mind is forms. They interfuse with one another without difficulty. Therefore, knowing is the objects of knowledge, and the objects, knowing. Knowing is reality, reality knowing.

8

Share

2m

Like

Reply

Active

Soh Wei Yu

User avatar

level 3

krodha

·

3 yr. ago

·

edited 3 yr. ago

"Would it be valid to say that when it is said "there is no object to apprehend nor anyone to apprehend it, just apprehension" is incomplete in assuming there even such a thing as apprehension?"

This statement is like saying there is seeing but no one who sees and nothing that is seen. But you are right saying there is even “seeing” is only a pointer. The Heart sūtra addressee even the activity of seeing:

So, in emptiness, there is no body, no feeling, no thought, no will, no consciousness. There are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, no touching, no imagining. There is nothing seen, nor heard, nor smelled, nor tasted, nor touched, nor imagined.

Some adepts do their best with descriptions. Sometimes using terms like “knowing” or “seeing” to capture the nature of awakened mind. Like this statement from Kūkai:

Form is mind, mind is forms. They interfuse with one another without difficulty. Therefore, knowing is the objects of knowledge, and the objects, knowing. Knowing is reality, reality knowing.

Or Milarepa:

This fundamental consciousness in itself is nothing at all. In the voidness [emptiness] of reality, lack of realizer and realized is realized, lack of seer and seen is seen, lack of knower and known is known, lack of perceiver and perceived is perceived.

All of these pointers are doing their best to describe the awakened state.

Buddha Śākyamuni makes the same assertions in the Kalakarama sutta and the Bāhiya sutta.

The idea is that visual appearances are precisely the activity of seeing and precisely “knowing.” Knowing or consciousness in general, is only what appears. And then through our ignorance we bifurcate this experiential dimension into subject-object duality. We must actually awaken through a cessation of delusion to recognize the true nature of reality.

4

Share

1m

Like

Reply

Soh Wei Yu

The myriad forms of the entire universe are the seal of the single Dharma. Whatever forms are seen are but the perception of mind. But mind is not independently existent. It is co-dependent with form.

- Zen Master Mazu

1m

Reply