Allan Wallace comparing cessation and dzogchen

[@BenGowar]

At 10:19, Dr. Wallace is mistaken about there being no reference to the unborn and unconditioned in the Pāli Canon. Bhikkhu Bodhi provides a few counterexamples in Chapter 9 of Wisdom Publication’s very own, "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pāli Canon." Here is what he has to say: "A few suttas, most notably a pair in the Udāna-included here as Texts IX,5(3) [Ud 8:1; 80] and IX,5(4) [Ud 8:3; 80-81]-suggest that Nibbāna is not simply the destruction of defilements and an exalted feeling of psychological well-being. They speak of Nibbāna almost as if it were a transcendent state or dimension of being. Text IX,5(3) [Ud 8:1; 80] refers to Nibbāna as a “base” (āyatana) beyond the world of common experience where none of the physical elements or even the subtle formless dimensions of experience are present; it is a state completely quiescent, without arising, perishing, or change. Text IX,5(4) [Ud 8:3; 80-81] calls it the state that is “unborn, unmade, unbecome, [and] unconditioned” (ajātaṃ, akataṃ, abhūtaṃ, asaṅkhataṃ), the existence of which makes possible deliverance from all that is born, made, come-to-be, and conditioned.” Bhikkhu Bodhi translates the verses in Udana 8.3 as: “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks, there were no unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned.” He also translates the verses in Udana 8.1 as: “There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perceptionnor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering.” To find another counter example of the unconditioned being present in the Pāli Canon, you need look no further than Bhikkhu Bodhi’s abridged translation of Saṃyutta Nikāya 43: “Monks, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned. Listen …. “And what, monks, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned. “And what, monks, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Mindfulness directed to the body: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned. “Monks, I will teach you the uninclined … the taintless … the truth ... the far shore ... the subtle ... the very difficult to see ... the unaging ... the stable ... the undisintegrating ... the unmanifest ... the unproliferated … the peaceful ... the deathless ... the sublime ... the auspicious ... the secure .... the destruction of craving ... the wonderful ... the amazing ... the unailing ... the unailing state ... Nibbāna … the unafflicted ... dispassion ... purity ... freedom ... nonattachment ... the island ... the shelter ... the asylum ... the refuge ... the destination and the path leading to the destination. Listen ...” To reiterate, at 10:19, Dr. Wallace says, “There is no reference anywhere in the Pāli Canon to Buddha-nature, to Primordial Consciousness, to any dimension of consciousness that is unconditioned. There is no reference at all. Zero. There is one sutra that intimates it, but it’s pretty much not interpreted as being anything like Buddha Nature or Primordial Consciousness. So, to say that this experience that is classic and very very deep, Pāli Canon, Śrāvakayāna, Theravada realization, of authentic realization, of this cessation-Well, it is very deep. But there is nothing in their own context that suggests this is unborn, unconditioned. There is no reference to Buddha-nature in the whole of the Pāli Canon. Zero.” This is incorrect.

[@bell10877]

Yes.🙏🏼

[@jitindriya9798]

Yes, thank you... just what I would have pointed out too! (I have transferred the rest of my reply here to a full comment above).

[@ushojedi]

In the 7 stages of ego development it is important to note 2 that people are often stuck at: 4. Self extension - belonging and possession, 'I, me and mine'. It's my toy, it's my car, it's my house, it's my sausage, it's my country, it's my religion. 6. Self as reason - logical computations. An internal version of 3 & 4, building and owning. Arguing to destroy someone and thinking 'my' ideas, my knowledge.

[@jitindriya9798]

Thanks to @BenGowar (below) for pointing out the inconsistencies in what Dr Wallace asserts re the Pali Canon (from 10:16) and for providing detailed references and examples from Bhikkhu Bodhi. In fact, references to Nibbana, the unconditioned, the unborn, the deathless, are throughout the Pali Canon! The speaker seems to insist on the opposite in this instance. (However, perhaps he would review his statements if given more time and evidence... as it's easy to say things in the flow of a discussion that don't get fully qualified). While we don't get the actual term 'Buddha-Nature' or 'Nature of Mind' in the Pali suttas it is clear that the pointings to the deathless element or deathless reality share very similar descriptors as Rigpa. In the Pali suttas, there is also a phrase appearing in 2 or 3 key places that can be translated as 'consciousness unmanifest (or non-appearing), boundless (accessible everywhere), and luminous (or radiant)'... Sounds like Rigpa to me!😊 It's worth noting that avijja (in Pali), or avidya (in Skt), ignorance or lit. not-knowing or non-awareness, the root of the law of dependent arising (leading to suffering), is MA RIGPA in Tibetan... The opposite (vijja/vidya/knowing, or awareness infused with insight knowledge), which undermines ignorance and dissolves the process of dependent arising (and its concomitant suffering), is RIGPA in Tibetan. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (for one) unpacks clearly, directly and simply what Rigpa is and isn't in many of his translated talks. Different words/descriptors, translated through the centuries in different cultural contexts, can fool us into thinking there's a big difference with what is to be fundamentally realized! In trying to compare the 'experience' (or non-experience) of 'cessation' with 'Rigpa', we'd really have to be very, very clear what, exactly, we are talking about when we refer to 'cessation' and 'rigpa'... The word 'cessation' in the Pali suttas can refer to different aspects of experience depending on its context. And of course, the commentaries can define things somewhat differently to the suttas! (This is one of the main problems with such discourse throughout the centuries!) Academic discourse tends to adhere to the paradigms and their points of difference, whereas direct experiential understanding of mind will inevitability see through them. We can all get hung up on different view points along the way, but full realization will disperse/see right through all viewpoints! Also, as with Rigpa, the deathless element/the unconditioned reality (in the Pali suttas) can be 'glimpsed' or recognized many times before it is fully realized or stabilized in a person's stream of being (so called). Such glimpses are not dependent on being able to intentionally and repeatedly access a full absorption state of 'cessation' called saññāvedayitanirodha in Pali (lit, 'cessation or non-arising of perception and feeling'). There's a good deal of confusion around what this is and isn't (especially from an academic point of view), understandably! And given the different notions people have of what vinnana (consciousness, or sense-consciousness, in the Pali suttas) really refers to (in ones direct experience), if not properly qualified, misunderstanding is compounded.

[@mm-gg4hc]

So grateful for this. Thank you both🙏🙏🙏

[@SamaneriJayasara]

"As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind," Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist. (On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara. And as for it’s being something desirable; 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐕𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬. With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers). Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself." Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self." The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self." The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind." Some call it the Prajñāpāramitā or "the Perfection of Wisdom." Some call it the name Tathagata-garbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood." Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol." Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere." Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality." Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything." And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness." ~ Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche)

[@太白太白-d5h]

This type of “dharma” is a pure example of why the academic side should not involve its self with the issues of mind/spirit etc, unless it is for pure academic/detached from reality reasons ;))) The same way, the pop music artists, actors etc should not comment on politics ;))))

[@curtrod]

I see what you're getting at, but really, anyone can comment on anything, fact

[@太白太白-d5h]

@ anyone can also eat anything ;)))).fact ;)))) yet not everything is considered food suitable for human consumption ;)))) fact. ;)))))

[@LewisPuseyOK]

I didn't understand anything : )

[@annleland6422]

We get all possible experiences thru six- sense bases. When six-sense bases cease to function, that state is called Nivarna by Buddha. You can give it different name, but nothing beyond that.

[@karensealy9782]

Not this lifetime probably 🥴🤭

[@curtrod]

what you are saying is a self-defeating proposition, if the six senses provide all experience, then with no six senses there would be no experience, is nibbana no experience?, if so then it is nothing

[@annleland6422]

@@curtrod I got your point. What buddha said about nibbana is stated in page 1191 of " the connected discourses of the buddha", translated by bhikkhu bodhi. all our experiences are created depending on senses, they are conditioned. but the nibbana is not depending on senses, it is unconditioned as claimed by the buddha. this is the only unconditioned entity in all dhamma. cessation means the impermanence (or discontinuity) of eye consciousness, ...., mind consciousness. in meditation this discontinuity of consciousness can be detected and drop off as it is often described, then you have realized the nibbana. see the details given in chapter 13 of "mindfulness, bliss, and beyond", by ajahn brahm. buddha always encourages disciple to experience it because intellectual elaborations will not get you near nibbana. the book "concept and reality in early buddhist thought " by bhikkhu nanananda provides much more information about this topic and is good read. you can read it or download from his website. just google it. hope this information would be useful to you.

[@arabianbrahma]

@@curtrod I do not know what is Nibbana or if truly exist. But my understanding so far is this. We assume that the six senses are everything in our capacity. "Nothing" is just a concept, which can be meditated upon under the sixth sesne "mind sense". hence it is one of the formless state meditation. If we otherwise assume that there is something deathless, unborn and unchanging beyond the six senses or can not be perceived by the six senses. Then there is a seventh sense called Nibbana and the six senses are always blocking it. So by letting go the six senses, the seventh sense is known.

[@tenzinlama7310]

Thank you

[@oxident-954]

Are we really going to say samsaric traditions are in effect someone's "dzogchen"???

[@brotherk7883]

(Alan, one "l")

[@wanderingpoet9999]

Dr Wallace also makes another fundamental mistake I think. Nirodha Samapatti is not enlightenment itself it is just a temporary attainment which is only available to you if you have a very high degree of Insight. You can perfectly well be an Arahant without having experienced it according to the suttas. On the other hand the attainment of Rigpa , within the schools of Tibetan Buddhism that uphold it, is synonymous with enlightenment itself. So to try and compare the two on the same terms and decide that one is superior to the other as Dr Wallace does is meaningless. It is true that according to the Pali Suttas the Buddha was very wary of talking about enlightenment in terms of a special kind of consciousness. He talks about the sphere of the unconditioned, but does not label it as non dual consciousness. I'm imagining that he had good reasons for doing this, so that there is nothing for the mind to grasp onto and reify. Rigpa as an idea or pointer seems more prone to reification. But I can see it has some advantages as well - as encouragement to the practitioner. But it's all just different ways of talking about the same experience. Let's drop this ultraism, the unhelpful stacking of the yanas, and making out that the later one is superior to the earlier one. The idea that the Buddha himself taught the tantra to especially advanced disciples is just a myth. Inspiring perhaps but not to be taken literally...

[@Babassecretchannel]

No. He misses the whole point about the difference between vehicles. Yes, it is possible for anyone to glimpse rigpa but when that anyone becomes a shravakayani, then that persons adopts the view of shravakayana and that view does not lead to rigpa or buddhanature or buddhahood. With maha- and vajrayanas it is very different because the view and the practices are fundamentally different which through buddhanature leads to buddhahood.

[@Traumatose]

He's repeating the words of the masters he lists, with a profound and intimate knowledge of their teachings, not to mention vast experience over several decades in all of them. And notice, he makes no silly claim that some of the nine vehicles wouldn't lead to Buddahood - which is a total botch of the whole systematisation into nine. Allan Wallaces clarity and understanding here is second to none among western students.

[@Freedomnibbana]

It is clear that this tibetan approach is not Buddhism. It is a different religion with different view and practice. There are similarities but it is fundamentally different.

[@traceler]

It is the secret teachings of the Buddha, Buddha turn the wheel of Dharma 3 times, while followers of Shravakayana think that Buddha only taught what is in the Pali Canon.

[@MrBalthazar78]

Tibetan Buddhism is just reskinned Hindu tantra. Tara, Mahakala, Bhairava etc are appropriated Hindu deities. Rigpa, Buddha nature and so forth reskinned Brahman / Altman (advaita). Sorry. Theravada is the only living tradition that has some semblance of the original teaching of the Buddha. So there. If we must get into a comparison let’s make another honest comparison.

[@gustavosanthiago]

You said "Theravada is the only living tradition that has some semblance of the original teaching of the Buddha." But how could anyone know what is "the original teaching of the Buddha"? No one living today was there 2500 years ago to say that the Buddha did not teach the Mahayana or the Vajrayana. If you want historical accounts, the oldest buddhist scriptures that survived through this day are the ones from Gandhara, and they contain both Shravakayana and Mahayana sutras. Vajrayana was very secretly transmitted for obvious reasons, so it is not a surprise the it would be waaay harder to find actual physical evidence for its existence at the time of the Buddha. Nevertheless, there is also no proof that it was not taught to a few of his capable disciples.

[@Traumatose]

@MrBalthazar78 If you ask a practitioner of Advaita, they'll tell you that's wrong. If you ask a Theravadan, they'll tell you that's wrong. If you ask a Tantrika ("Hindu" or Buddist), they'll tell you that's wrong. The concepts of Atman or Brahman and Tathagathagarba or Rigpa are polar opposites, and refute the other. Generalisations are useful, but here they led to a complete misunderstanding of both Advaita and Buddhism. Haven't met a Theravada teacher who'd make such a claim that their's is the only Path. They correctly say their Canon contains some of the oldest recorded teachings of the Buddha, but they don't display such exclusive attitude as this comment does.

[@MrBalthazar78]

@ then you haven’t met any traditional Theravada monks or teachers. They rail against bodhisattva vows and encourage people to renounce these. There has been a many centuries of polemical deconstruction of Mahayana Buddhism by Theravada. They do not view it as legitimate and they do often accuse it of being thinly coated Hinduism. Which historically tantric Buddhism of course is.

[@Traumatose]

@MrBalthazar78 Then I consider myself very fortunate, for after 8 years under several Theravadan schools, I never came across such. Likewise, this confusing of the differences in approach of "Hindu" and Buddhist tantrism isn't to be found in the respective traditions.

[@memesmojo5622]

​@@MrBalthazar78can you give any sources for the centuries old theravada polemics?