Posted by
u/lard-blaster
4 days ago
Can anyone tell me if this page is correct about Dzogchen vs Advaita?
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/10/dzogchen-vs-advaita-conventional-and.html?m=1
167
Award
Share
Approve
Remove
Spam
Post Insights
Only the author of the post and mods can see this
2.4k
Total Views
91%
Upvote Rate
N/A
Community Karma
2
Total Shares
Comment as xabir
Comment
Markdown Mode
Sort By: Top
Set as suggested sort
Contest
User avatar
level 1
krodha
·
4 days ago
Here is an updated brief comparison:
In comparing Buddhist principles such as nirvāna, or dharmakāya with something like the Brahman of Vedanta, there are distinct differences. Brahman on the one hand is a transpersonal, ontological, truly established ultimate. Whereas dharmakāya is a buddha’s realization of śūnyatā, emptiness, brought to its full measure at the time of buddhahood, which results from the cultivation of jñāna, or a direct non-conceptual, yogic perception of emptiness. Dharmakāya is the nature of a personal continuum of mind, is epistemic in nature, and is not a truly established ultimate nature.
The great Buddhist adept Bhāviveka, who lived during a time in India where there were many polemical debates and interactions between different traditions, addresses the distinctions in many of his expositions. This excerpt from his Tarkajvālā is especially pertinent:
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.
Thus we see that that dharmakāya is not an entity-like "possessor" of qualities. Conversely, brahman which is an ontological entity, does possess characteristics and qualities.
Dharmakāya is not an entity at all, but rather a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana]. As the Buddha says in the Samdhinirmocana, the ultimate in Buddhism is the general characteristic of the relative. The dharmakāya, as emptiness, is the conventional, generic characteristic of the mind, as it is the mind’s dharmatā of emptiness, it’s actual nature that is to be recognized. Liberation results from the release of the fetters that result from an ignorance of the nature of phenomena, and this is how dharmakāya is a non-reductive and insubstantial nature.
The differentiation of brahman as an entity versus dharmakāya as a generic characteristic is enough to demonstrate the salient contrasting aspects of these principles. Dharmakāya is an epistemological discovery about the nature of phenomena, that phenomena lack an essential nature or svabhāva. Alternatively, brahman is an ultimate ontological nature unto itself. Dharmakāya means we realize that entities such as brahman are impossibilities, as Sthiramati explains, entities in general are untenable:
The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.
Lastly, another succinct and pertinent excerpt from the Tarkajvālā, regarding the difference between the view of the buddhadharma and tīrthika (non-Buddhist) systems:
Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.
9
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 2
lard-blaster
OP
·
4 days ago
But if all experience is reducible to an attribute rather than a thing, even if the attribute is itself empty, at a certain point doesn't the difference lose any meaning? The question becomes "attribute of what?"
Regardless thank you for that very clear explanation.
3
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 3
krodha
·
4 days ago
The question becomes "attribute of what?"
A nominal convention. An inference, ultimately. But yes, ultimately there are no characteristics. An absence of characteristics is actually a synonym for emptiness.
7
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 4
lard-blaster
OP
·
4 days ago
Without some kind of absolute, the inference is eventually circular. The images eventually have to be "made out of" some kind of primitive. If the primitive is called delusion, then I'm fine calling Brahman delusion, but it doesn't make Brahman a delusional concept. It also doesn't mean the idea of the shared nexus is wrong, either
3
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 5
Thin_Objective976
·
4 days ago
I feel like once an individual gets "there", it doesn't matter how you describe it. Which words you use are irrelevant. All the descriptions fall short and are therefore inaccurate. It's the same shit though
6
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 6
lard-blaster
OP
·
3 days ago
I'm inclined to agree with you but the people replying to me are very insistent and clear that it's not the same, and that's what is melting my brain.
2
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 5
krodha
·
3 days ago
Without some kind of absolute, the inference is eventually circular. The images eventually have to be "made out of" some kind of primitive.
The “primitive” is called rtsal.
If the primitive is called delusion, then I'm fine calling Brahman delusion
Delusion results from a failure to accurately apprehend rtsal.
It also doesn't mean the idea of the shared nexus is wrong, either
A shared Brahman as a transpersonal, ontological principle is absolutely wrong in the context of Dzogchen.
6
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 6
lard-blaster
OP
·
3 days ago
Delusion results from a failure to accurately apprehend rtsal.
Then I am delusional. Probably will need a few more years to grok this. Thanks for indulging me.
1
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 7
krodha
·
3 days ago
Then I am delusional.
We all are. Only Buddhas are free of delusion.
5
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 5
ChanCakes
·
3 days ago
What is considered the primitive real that is the basis of delusional fabrications in Buddhism is not a “thing”. It can’t like Krodha explained really possess qualities or be an ontological basis like Brahman. Why? Because to put it into conventional language it is just dependent origination. It does not have any particular attributes or phenomena it can act as the basis of. Since any particular phenomena or attribute under analysis is found to be a misperception that never really existed in the first place.
But again this field of dependent arising cannot be said to a thing itself since when you make a thing you enter deluded conceptualisation again. If it is said to be an ontological basis then it’s been made into a thing and furthermore there was never anything for it to act as a basis for anyway.
3
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 6
lard-blaster
OP
·
3 days ago
Surely the ultimate/absolute at least is not considered empty in Dzogchen?
1
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 7
Jigdrol
·
3 days ago
It definitely is.
4
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 8
lard-blaster
OP
·
3 days ago
That would be impossible by definition. If the absolute is dependently originated, then you haven't gone far enough in defining it. So my guess is that in response Dzogchen just outright denies the absolute?
2
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 9
krodha
·
3 days ago
The so-called “ultimate” is little more than the absence of essence in apparent relative phenomena.
5
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 10
lard-blaster
OP
·
3 days ago
This feels like a koan. Relative to what? How can conventionality make any sense if the absolute is empty?
1
Reply
Share
Continue this thread
User avatar
level 9
Jigdrol
·
3 days ago
The “ultimate” is utterly free from extremes.
4
Reply
Share
User avatar
level 9
NothingIsForgotten
·
3 days ago
Śūnyatā is the complete lack of any independent causation or origination to be found anywhere.
The dharmakāya is uncaused and so it is also empty.
3
Reply
Share