Talk:Reality in Buddhism

Untitled

This is a highly subjective treatise not worthy of the appellation factual and objective. It would be better if it were removed and replaced by fact and links only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.225.144 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is clearly someone's personal opinion and is written apparently without much regard for WP's standards and rules. Why, for example is Dzogchen given such prominence when just about every one of Buddhism's hundreds of major philosophers had an opinion on this topic? The article provides some opinion and material of interest but it seems more like the kind of article you find on one of the many Buddhist article sites than on Wikipedia. --50.64.40.229 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What is this article about? What specific term are we using for 'reality' here? dharmata? tattva? svabhāva? Something else? What are we trying to do with this article?

I am not sure that Namkhai Norbu would be happy with what is claimed next to his name: In Dzogchen, the perceived reality is considered to be unreal. - In fact, Namkhai Norbu doesn't say this. He cites straight from Prajnaparamita and says that the world is like a dream. Moreover, he continues to cite from Sutra, stating that dreams and waking life do not have different essential natures: they are both empty of inherent existence.

We cannot say that the world is unreal. This was a typical mistake made in the zendo by neophytes, who often lost fingers, eyes, even arms for saying it. It is not real. Ow! That hurt. If we continue to deny the pain (it also is unreal), and by entailment, all experience, all we do is dissolve the definition of 'reality', and we end up having wasted our time. A further danger is that we may begin to believe in a transcendent reality (similar to the matrix - take the red pill), but such a game is meaningless - we will have supplanted our concrete bonds to samsara with just another set of bonds to some transcendency.

25,000 verses:They understood all dharmas as being like a (magically-conjured) illusion, like a mirage, like the moon reflected in water, like empty space, like an echo, like the city of the Gandharvas (a cloud castle), like a dream, like a shadow, like an image in a mirror, and like a (supernatural) transformation.

If we think this means that things are unreal, then we are mistaking nihilism for wisdom, unless we are using 'unreal' within a specific, technical context. In normal discourse about reality we say that everything is either real or unreal - there is no third position (the Law of excluded middle). In order to face the dream-like nature of phenomena, we have to add something more: Within Madhyamaka, this is the two truths, within the Cittamatra, the three natures. So, now we can talk about what is real/unreal conventionally, and real/unreal ultimately (for the Madhyamikas) and something similar in Cittamatra: It becomes sensible to talk about things being like a dream, or unreal, because we have placed these terms into a meaningful (and liberating) context.

Regarding dream yoga - a system that goes back at least as far as the six yogas of Naropa - it's function is not merely to recognise the dreaming, but also to facilitate the subtle dream consciousness, which is far more powerful for the utilisation of dzogchen (or mahamudra, or any one of various wonderful yogas) than waking consciousness. IIRC, an hour of dream yoga is worth a thousand hours or so of waking practice. (20040302 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Hi, 20040302!
I am not sure that Namkhai Norbu would be happy with what is claimed next to his name: "In Dzogchen, the perceived reality is considered to be unreal."
I've heard him saying that (without the like and without mentioning Dzogchen in that statement) and in a very clear context, on a webcast. I know precisely the date and at what time, because I've trascribed this very carefully.
The Dzogchen section is based on the Dream yoga book by ChNN. You could also compare the paraphrasing with the ChNN's text (I've given the page numbers).
Did you read The Primordial experience? Same thing Longchenpa said in grub mtha' mdzod- Look up pages 20, 21, 22. --Klimov 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the way in which this comes across. Dzogchen is famous for using simple language. One could strongly argue that any understanding of the tradition requires personal instruction. Word One backs me up: One is introduced directly to one's true nature. Certainly, if the experience could be communicated in writing (or any other form of non-feedback oriented broadcast) alone, then one would not need to be directly introduced to the experience. As I said above, the cite on the article is clear, straight from Sutra. What is meant by 'unreal' depends on context, regardless of tradition. Is ChNN saying that the thumb of my left hand is as unreal as the famous US President Frederick Foobar?! It is dangerous to take a phrase out of context, and state "In Dzogchen, the perceived reality is considered to be unreal.", even if you hear your lama say it. As I understand it, Dzogchen isn't about philosophising, or writing books (or WP articles!) about the practice, and prides itself for that. Word Two backs me up: One attains certainty about this natural state and this certainty is not found by reading or studying, but by repeatedly familiarising one's mind with the direct experience as directly introduced by the lama. Then there is little else to it, but to maintain the practice as in Word Three: One continues with confidence in liberation. So, back to my original question - what is this article for? (20040302 10:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

what is this article for? Well, that seems an interesting question. Probably the purpose of the article is to give people pointers to information, e.g. to the ChNN's Dream yoga book or to the sutras referred to in the first section or to the Tathagatagarbha referred to in the newest section.
What specific term are we using for 'reality' here? dharmata? tattva? svabhāva? From the The Primordial experience I'd say, this article refers to the Tibetan term snang ba, appearances or, maybe a more precise translation would be 'the way things appear'. It seems interesting what Sanskrit term has been translated by snang ba. --Klimov 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If we feel it is useful to talk about dream yoga in this article, we should probably supply a link to Lucid dreaming. (20040302 11:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Is ChNN saying that the thumb of my left hand is as unreal as the famous US President Frederick Foobar?! Hmm... No, it doesn't seem so.
...Dzogchen isn't about philosophising, or writing books (or WP articles!)... That seems correct. --Klimov 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the following sentence from the article impossible to understand. Can someone help by phrasing it more clearly? "From a metaphysical standpoint, the Mahayana school has posited the idea of this ultimate reality of inter-connectedness as a unity with all things, a buddha-nature which illuminates or personifies the 'ultimate dimension' of reality (buddha-nature doctrine.)" — Kipholbeck 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a highschool student but I have studied buddhism from my Dhamma School and School untill my Ordinary Level But most of the facts in this artical are confusing and cannot be understood If it cannot be understood by me (a buddhist) I don't think there is much of a probability that it may be understood by others who are not buddhists. The matters described here are deep, that I know but I think the same thing could be said in a different way with simple words

Thanks Shenya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenya de silva (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dzogchen and Tathagatagarbha Sutras, Complimentary Philosophies?

Do these two philosophies go hand in hand? Or are they contradictory? Zachorious 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hallo Zachorious. Thanks for the question. I don't know much about Dzogchen, but I do know quite a bit about the Tathagatagarbha teachings. I think the two teachings are definitely thematically related - of a similar nature: they both speak of an indestructible spiritual Essence at the heart of all things (or as the root of Mind). But the two streams of teachings developed perhaps more or less independently of each other (although it is conceivable that the Tathagatagarbha doctrines influenced the Dzogchen ideas). Anyway, I would say that, although they are not formally linked, the Dzogchen and Tathagatagarbha teachings are compatible with each other and are not antagonistic in any major way. Hope that helps! Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mess

This article seems to be pretty much of one. It consists of a haphazard selection of ideas from a variety of sources, often unattributed. Opinions of some scholars are stated as facts, & teachings of particular schools or teachers are stated as Buddhist or Mahayana teachings. Some of the material about Theravada is simply wrong, & I've deleted it. Nibbana is ultimate reality for that school. I've added qualifications to other statements.

To say "often misunderstood and misinterpreted" is not NPOV. WP does not take sides. It does not say which interpretations are correct. Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gender Reality - taken from article.

"Usually the relationship between a female master and a male master is described as discipleship. "

What is the reason for this being here? In what way is this relevant to anything? The link to Machik Labdron is of no relevance to the claim, and less relevance to the concept of reality in Buddhism. (20040302 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Main concept about male and female in buddhism is the concept of dependent arising. Womanhood is thought to be result of "minor" birth. At the same time women are thought to be unfit for certain functions like chakravartin etc., for example.

As we know, there are female masters. What does buddhist reality say about the relationship between a female and a male master? Can he be described as her disciple?

"Machig Labdrön. (1031-1129). The great female master who set down the Chö practice, cutting through ego-clinging. Disciple and consort of the Indian master Phadampa Sangye."

What else? The concept of reality in buddhism does not include the concepts about male and female (according to your concept??

Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.59 (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me try to understand what you are saying. Please be patient.

Main concept about male and female in buddhism is the concept of dependent arising

Are you stating here that gender division in general is defined by Pratītyasamutpāda? I think this claim - as it stands - is patently absurd. Quite clearly the concept of gender is known to buddhists without depending upon Buddhist teachings.

Womanhood is thought to be result of "minor" birth

This is not true in all cases, and certainly untrue in eg the Vajrayana. There are plenty of references to this in source texts.

What does buddhist reality say about the relationship between a female and a male master?

Buddhist reality is a philosophical concept; if you wish to examine each of the hundreds or thousands of varying philosophical schools regarding the relationship between a female and male, (regardless of them being masters) - it would be a great undertaking. If we examine just one - eg. The madhyamika-prasangika view - then acc. to Nagarjuna, there is no essential relationship, just as there are no (essential) males or (essential) females, or (essential) masters.

Disciple and consort

refers to a specific master. In the Vajrayana, there has never been an issue about masters also being disciples, regardless of gender. In fact quite the opposite - it is considered to be impossible to use the paths of the Vajrayana without a guru, regardless of gender. Even Buddha Sakyamuni had many teachers.

I must be missing something. What are you trying to say? (20040302 (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Okay, you please be patient, too. Before I am trying to respond to your words I put a link for you here [2] with a quotation from page 2: "I once asked my lama why there were so few female incarnations in Tibet," she recalls. "He said, 'My sister had more signs at the time of her birth than I did. Everyone said 'Oh, someone very special is coming. 'Then it was a girl and they said, 'Whoops, mistake!' If it had been a boy it would have been taken care of. But because it was a girl, nothing was done about it. She was married off, with no education or training. The social structure was not prepared to deal with it."

Can you please connect this story about reality in buddhism with theory about Reality in Buddhism?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.94.19 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Aust.Okay - the issue you are raising, as I understand it, is the existence of a gender bias in Tibetan culture. I believe that this has been reasonably published, (though gender studies is an area that I know little about) - especially as many senior lamas have pointed out that there is no substantial support for gender bias either in the Mahayana or Vajrayana texts that are commonly referred to in the Tibetan traditions. Such a specific issue has nothing to do with the topic of 'Reality' (which is generally about what can be verified - Epistemology ) or about Buddhism - so this is definitely the wrong article to place your submission. Instead, you could possibly submit the text under a new section on tibetan gender studies at Tibetan culture or Tibetan people - though I feel the issue is probably not going to be warranted as relevant enough unless you are willing to supply citations for a full examination of Tibetan gender issues. see also Polyandry in Tibet, property ownership, governance, education, issues regarding the vinaya, etc) (20040302 (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC))