Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Malcolm Smith on Dzogchen (WISDOM DHARMA CHAT)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2024
- In this excerpt from a Wisdom Dharma Chat with Malcolm Smith and host Daniel Aitken, Malcolm discusses differences between Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta.
Malcolm said very different things about Advaita Vedanta in 2012: "What are the four seals?
All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All afflicted phenomena are suffering
All phenomena lack identity
Nirvana is bliss.
You can find these four seals in Advaita Vedanta as well. Just substitute brahman for nirvana and you have a perfect match. It is very hard to differentiate brahman from nirvana. Really, go ahead and try.
I once forced Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso to admit (I have a witness, incidentally) that there was no substantial difference between Advaita Vedanta and Gzhan stong in terms of how they presented their view. His only response was a sectarian polemic "But there is no buddhahood in Vedanta!" Now, mind you, I am not saying that there is such a thing. But when you study these texts, you come to realize, even as Bhavaviveka and Shantaraksita both observed, that language of Advaita and the language of Madhyamaka are more or less identical. Shantaraksita complains in his Tattvasiddhi to the effect "If you accept the nature of things is non-arising, why do you not become Buddhist!?"
Now, again, I am not saying that if you practice Advaita you will become a buddha -- I honestly do not know. But I am saying that when you study these things, philosophically, at any rate, it is very hard to show the difference between Advaita and Madhyamaka. The main difference between them is that Hindus accept the Vedas as self-originated and Buddhists do not.
But in Dzogchen we accept that Dzogchen tantras are self-originated, that they arise directly out of the sound of dharmatā. So, this is not really very different than what the Vedic scholars believe. For example, the Song of the Vajra is just the intrinsic sound of dharmatā, the state of realization of Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri in union.
Though Dzogchen tantras do take pains to differentiate themselves from Upanishadic doctrines of the atman, these very same ideas get used in Dzogchen in a very similar way -- which is why there is a rebuttal in Dzogchen tantras of certain ideas we find in the Upanishads so we don't run out and say "The Upanishads teach the same thing as Dzogchen".
So we can find a lot of parallels in Dzogchen and non-Buddhist teachings."
I wish more was expounded upon in regards to Dzogchen versus A.V........Lots of murkiness
I think its wonderful that Dzogchen, Vedanta and Shaivism all have different fascinating views on the nature of reality. There should be as many unique views as there are sentient beings!
They're not all the same tho.
Dzogchen is anti-foundationalist.
It's in the video man, 2:00 - 3:30.
Vedanta, and Shaivism IS NOT talking about emptiness.
I have personally run into their dead ends.
Data F: I didn’t say they were all the same. Clearly said they were all different.
word,
@@dataf2624 how can i learn more about how these traditions are different?
Probably Dzogchen is a synthesis of the teachings of Yoga Vasistha mixed with Chinese Taoism and Chan ...
a whole podcast expanding on these topics would be great
How to hear the full podcast?
great topic and discussion! thanks so much
Thanks for this Malcolm
2:10. "the nature of everything is empty"?
What are dreams made of? Nothing. They are just experiences.
A great example how great scholars and translators end up entangled in their sophisticated nets of mental constructs. Indeed, Malcolm understands and explains Dozgpachenpo clearly and well enough, yet, his understanding of nondual teachings such as Shaivism and advaita vedanta is so so superficial. He barely scratches the surface. Shiva is Adibuddha, plain and simple. Saying Shaiva tradition has a substance and dzogchen doesn't is a prime example of scholarly bias. Where do you place Samantabhadra, Malcolm?
Very nicely put. This video is hilarious, one doesn't need a pile of concepts Dzogchen or Advaita to cognize the profound sublime radiance of Realized Beings!
"Teacher" Smith is a complete fraud, really a disgrace to his guru and lineage, a great shame.
if shiva was adibuddha you would be able to explain and assent to the buddhas position that persons are neither the same as mind and body nor different that mind and body. but of course only those realizing the 4 arya truths can perceive this, the rest perceive a self to persons in answer to the buddhas asserted position above.
Many traditions became lost or corrupted because the followers fails to become realized/enlightmened and start to theorize the teachings to others. Malcolm is an example. Moreover, you will have more realized persons as a percentage in Advaita, Kabbalah, Sufism and even magic than the whole Dzogchen community. Malcolm has done 3 years retreat without result, if you spend 3 years retreat with a mystic you will do miracles. Dzogchen practitioners tell you that they will be liberated after death in Bardo. This sounds to me like a religion which promises results after death !!
It's so funny, compare the absolute radiance of Ramana Maharshi with where all this pontification takes one !
Om namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya. Yes I was thinking of Sri Ramana smiling if he was privy to this debate.
That's because this "teacher" Smith is a complete fraud.
Psychic energy from the cosmos for humanity 💖
there seem to be two different 'non-dualities' being spoken of here: non-duality and a (non-dual) duality (which is also non-dual [but for a seemingly different reason- b/c dualistic appearances are empty or something like that]).
In Dzogchen, there is two kind of non-duality. First is the non-duality of nirvana and samsara. Second, is the non-duality of sentient beings and what he experiences as it is projection his own nature.
In Advaita non-duality means, Brahma is the only one reality and everything else is his own reflections including all the atmans.
Parabrahmin or Shiva is seen as the vessel (shaktiman) for consciousness (shakti). Not exactly that it's "real"...just that it is EVERYTHING. The trika asserts your experience of the world as real but the objects in it as an illusion.
Malcolm is biased. He can't expand out of his unique dzogchen bubble far enough to understand different traditions in their own dimension and their own inner narratives to understand them well enough to be compared without confusion. Shiva in Shaiva tradition is exactly the same reality as Samantabhadra in dzogpachenpo and Nyingma tradition.
why do you make a distinction between objects, and experience? Objects and the experience of them are not distinct (in Buddhism).
given that, the objects of the world cannot be said to be real, nor can the experience of them be either.
One more thing to add - if you say with one breath Dzogchen and Vajrayana don't have a foundation (all dharmas are empty) and that Trika Shaiva doctrine pronounces everything as real cause all is derived from Parabhairava you create inconsistency in your philosophy. Cause both these absolutist views are identical on the level of contemplative experience. No difference. It is for this sort of superficiality that scholars are for laughs for genuine yogis and siddhas. Literally manufacturing differences where there are none just for sake of having some point of dispute or disagreements, cause the real practice and actual knowledge is lacking and certain jeeva wants to belong to ''superior'' school of thought. Yogis and realized adepts of either of those mentioned systems all agree on this point - there is no fundamental difference in quality of realization or values of these respective teachings - they to themselves, in their own right are full and exhaustive systems with complete arsenals of skillful means and methods that lead to final realizations. Some negligible differences in philosophy, whereas unifying common ground in experience makes these differences absolutely unimportant.
Malcolm has zero realization. Dzogchen practitioners have faith they will be liberated in Bardo after death. This is a religion, not a real mystical practice. I have known many of them in US, EU, Nepal they are not even clairvoyant. The best among them have some good dreams. This is very sad. When you try to give them advice they overreact and become inflammatory. I can only offer them prayers.
Sounds like Fichte
This short answer is very reductionist! Simply reading the long version of Yoga Vasistha Maha Ramayana will clear up any doubts. Probably Dzogchen is a synthesis of the teachings of Yoga Vasistha mixed with Chinese Taoism and Chan ...
Great grand teacher of shankaracharya named Gaudapada , used to bow down to Buddha before Badarayana (writer of Brahma sutra) and he was very much influenced by the Buddhist masters like Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu , his work clearly shows how much he was influenced .The Hinduism philosophy is Aatma or saat baadhi whereas, Buddhist philosophy is Aanatma and swavab sunyata baad.
Difference between Buddhist Non-duality and Advaita Vedanta Non duality : ruclips.net/video/po5m5nrH94Q/видео.html