﻿Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: You know you're...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here's a thorough one from Yongming Yanshou's Zongjinglu (tr. by Albert Welter):
I now present ten questions in order to form a framework [to test your understanding].

[1] Do you thoroughly understand seeing [one’s] nature, as if delineating and contemplating phenomenal forms similar to someone like Mañjuśrī?
[2] In everything you do—whether encountering situations or dealing with externals, seeing phenomenal forms or listening to sounds, raising a foot or lowering a foot, opening the eyes or closing the eyes—do you illuminate the implicit truth [ zong ] and comply with Buddhism?
[3] Do you read the teachings of each age and the statements of former patriarchs and masters, listening deeply and unafraid, completely understanding the truth in all of their teachings and not doubting it?
[4] In response to different [types of] difficult questions and all manner of trivial queries, are you able to provide [answers] according to the four kinds of eloquent responses and completely resolve the doubts that others have?
[5] At all times and in all situations, does wisdom shine forth unhindered and does thought after thought pass perfectly, without encountering a single dharma that is able to cause obstruction, or being interrupted for even a single instant?
[6] In all the occasions that present themselves to you in the external realm, whether contrary or agreeable, good or bad, do you resist [the desire to] elude them [on the one hand] and are you always conscious of destroying [any attachment to] them [on the other]?
[7] Within the realm of the mind and its objects comprised of a series of one hundred dharmas, do you get to see the extremely subtle essence-nature and the original point of rising of each and every [dharma], without confusing them with the circumstances of birth and death and the organs of sense and their objects?
[8] Regarding the four types of behavior—walking, standing, sitting, and lying—do you address others respectfully and exercise restraint when replying? And when wearing clothes and eating food, performing and carrying out [tasks], do you understand the true reality of each and every grade [in rank]?
[9] When listening to claims that there are Buddhas or there are no Buddhas, there are sentient beings or there are no sentient beings, do you sometimes applaud them and sometimes refute them, sometimes agree and sometime disagree, with a firm unwavering mind?
[10] When you hear about how all the different kinds of wisdom are able to clearly fathom how nature and form complement each other, how li and shi are unhindered, how nonexistence and existence are one and the same phenomena and do not reflect the origin [of phenomena] itself, and how the thousand sages appear in the world, can you avoid doubting it?

Even if you have not actually attained merits like these, you will never conceive the inclination to trespass or deceive, or form ideas of self-indulgence or satisfaction in one’s knowledge.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Energy from Buddhist perspective
Content:
catmoon said:
1. I'm using the definition of energy as one-half mass times velocity squared, and it's various equivalents.

Astus wrote:
My question was: "What is energy in Buddhism?" and not in modern physics, or anything else. I think that if this turns out to be a discussion on natural science, well, it's irrelevant to Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Orthodoxy in Vajrayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
Anyone else with some further info?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Shobogenzo & Commentary
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think those translations on the Soto Zen Text Project page are the best in English. (However, for some reason the website seems to be hidden in the last few weeks.)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Energy from Buddhist perspective
Content:
Astus wrote:
A "closed system" is only a hypothetical thing. It does not exist in reality. It'd mean an independent realm, a substance, a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 8:03 PM
Title: Re: Energy from Buddhist perspective
Content:
Astus wrote:
Two questions:

1. What is energy in Buddhism?
2. How could there be anything constant when all is impermanent?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Title: Re: Japanese creating management model to attract Buddhists
Content:
pueraeternus said:
It's rather difficult for Japanese Buddhism to flourish without reviving the Vinaya. Without it, the foundational base for a proper Sangha is missing. I am surprised it lasted that long and that there are powerful lines of transmission still alive. But it might not last another 2-3 generations.

Astus wrote:
I don't find it a definitive source of problems. Shinshu survived just fine throughout the centuries to become the biggest school in Japan. Japanese Zen could spread in the West quite well. It looks like that while there are parish priests everywhere who serve the community, there are a couple of monasteries with strict rules and training. Thus it became more stratified then a single group of ordained monks.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Orthodoxy in Vajrayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thanks Namdrol for the initial input. You listed the major differences between sutra and tantra, but what are the fundamental doctrines that tantras have to accord with in order to be considered authentic? I think of something similar to the four seals and such.

You say the transmission is valid if the teacher is realised or if s/he has an unbroken lineage. I assume there are no verifiable proofs for either of that, are there? Is a lineage authentic as long as it originates from a realised master - like if Jigme Lingpa was realised, then he is the primary originator of a new lineage, and those following him are members of an authentic transmission?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Japanese creating management model to attract Buddhists
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is no guarantee for what will actually work in the long run. So they have to try. Chan Buddhism started as a marginal movement of a handful of monastics. 700 years later it was the dominant Buddhist school. Nobody could have foretold that, neither the changes it needed to become the ruling doctrine.

Japanese Buddhism is still a living religion with diverse sects and communities. Maybe some schools will disappear in a few hundred years while new sects turn out to be major institutions eventually. The so called widespread "corruption of the Sangha" is not a new phenomenon at all but a necessary consequence of large churches.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, January 9th, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Title: Orthodoxy in Vajrayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
What constitutes orthodoxy (including orthopraxy) in Vajrayana? What is its definition? Or is it that there are several definitions? What are they?

I find that faith is emphasised as an essential key to Vajrayana practice. However, is it based on pure faith in the tantras, the lineage and the guru, or there are objective criteria for what makes a teaching Vajrayana? What are the requirements of a lineage, transmission, treasure text? Is it possible at all to separate transmission from the teaching, or they implicitly require each other? What is the guarantee for a transmission to be true?

What would be good to have here are actual references in answer for the above questions, and then some extra discussion of them.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Whose Buddhism is Truest?
Content:
Will said:
This will (hopefully) lead to the dying of sectarianism and the accepting of the plausibility that many Dharma heresies of the "lower" "mistaken" schools may have been genuine Dharma teachings direct from Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Historically, the winning sectarian arguments were not really based on texts. Chan took over in East Asia with the rhetoric of an outside scriptures lineage, Vajrayana is also organised around personal contacts. Social control of religious organisations requires social networking, those who care about books remain hidden in the libraries. Neither political rulers nor common people (lay or monastic) care much about philological and theoretical issues. Miracle making and big words, these work.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, January 7th, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: How practical is consort practice for the majority?
Content:
Namdrol said:
One of the funny things that people say is that lower tantra is more suitable for general public. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, in lower tantra there are many rites for attracting and seducing human and non-human woman, killing enemies, and so on.

The model for the four activities, pacifying, enrichment, power, and destructive rites, etc., come directly from kriya tantra. Kriya tantra is practiced for these siddhis specifically.

Astus wrote:
What do you make of the similar magic techniques described in HYT like the Cakrasamvara Tantra? It becomes symbolic suddenly?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Universities/Buddhist Studies
Content:
Huseng said:
No, people won't read a lot of it cover to cover, but on the other hand many people would make use of parts of major texts. Just as now people don't normally read the whole translation of the Pali canon cover to cover, but make use of sections of it for citations and research.

Astus wrote:
I see your point and concur. We are fortunate at least in the sense that even if we don't have the canon in English, we have search engines to do the searching.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Title: Re: Is Soto Zen Gradual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Regarding this "sudden" issue, I'd like to remind you all what Anders mentioned before, that it is more like "immediate", and the temporal meaning is just a small part of it. It is an immediate teaching because it is directly about the buddha-mind without any extra practices, and it is immediate compared to other Buddhist methods. How fast one actually attains liberation, that is a matter of personal abilities and not the teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Is Soto Zen Gradual?
Content:
Anders Honore said:
It's been a while since I read on it, but from what I recall, Daruma shu read almost like a caricature of the pop Zen clichés of the day.

Astus wrote:
In a sense it sounds like "pop Zen". You could say the same about a couple of other Zen groups, like Baotang, Hongzhou and Linji. However, I think that is just the surface. If you read a bit of what Faure says, Daruma-shu actually became mainstream under Soto label.
The more intellectual type of Zen with elaborate teachings, like those of Zongmi and Yongming, naturally could not obtain true popularity, and even those who knew about them and used their teachings, like Jinul and in the modern days Shengyan, used the methods of the more radical kanhua Chan. So it is rather a matter of balance between theory, rhetoric and practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Beatzen said:
All this technical stuff makes my eyes hurt.

Astus wrote:
Bang... simple English killed the sophistry.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Soto Zen Gradual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'd add an important aspect regarding Dogen's career in his later years, the Daruma-shu disciples.

"A number of Daruma-shū adepts, following Ejō (1198-1280) had collectively joined Dōgen's community, and this new audience strongly affected Dōgen's teachings and sectarian identity as a Sōtō patriarch. The change is drastically reflected in Shōbōgenzō and its increasing criticism of Ta-hui, Nonin's alleged master, extending gradually to the entire Rinzai tradition."
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/DogenStudies/DarumaShu_Dogen_Soto.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Universities/Buddhist Studies
Content:
Mr. G said:
Perhaps Honen was the last determined one to do so?  It's said he read the Tripitaka 5 times.

Astus wrote:
I think you know the difference between hagiography and history. It is also a matter of what Honen had as the canon.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Translating the Tripitaka
Content:
Will said:
Astus: most of them have not been actually studied by anyone for hundreds of years.
An embarrassment of riches is no excuse for indifference, now or in the past.  If Buddhists long ago and now ignored many texts it is their and our loss.

By the way, I recall there are 5100 or so texts in the Chinese canon.  If one subtracts the overlap of many scriptures being translated more than once, how many actual different titles are there; 3000 or...??

Astus wrote:
I think more of it as textual evolution. Those that are not found useful enough are left alone, the useful ones survive. Of course, usefulness in this context is quite difficult to determine, perhaps something along the line of religious and cultural trends.

I can't tell. But different translations are important sources actually as they were usually done in different eras from different sources, or even perhaps languages. Also, don't forget that a single text can be quite long, sometimes hundreds of fascicles.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Universities/Buddhist Studies
Content:
Astus wrote:
SPLIT TOPIC: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=6506&p=77069


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Universities/Buddhist Studies
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't think there's much point in translating the entire Chinese canon (which one exactly, BTW?). Also, I find it a bit presumptuous to think that all who translated texts to Chinese were like living professor bodhisattvas. Let's say a few people translate Xuanzang's prajnaparamita collection. How many will want to read it? How many who could read it today in Chinese reads it? On the other hand, we have a dozen translations of the Lotus Sutra and at least four translations of the Shobogenzo, just to mention the bigger works that have fairly little use, and people love to read them. Why? Because they believe it's important. However, until the scriptures are the interest of only a handful of scholars and even less Buddhists, translations will come slowly. Compare that to the Pali Tipitaka that was translated first by the BTS and then again it's being translated by others. Because they care about it. But who cares about Xuanzang's Great Prajnaparamita Sutra? So the situation is not that bad at all. Most of the popular works in East Asian Buddhism have already been translated, many of them more than once, some even have commentary. Realistically speaking, there are so many scriptures in Chinese that it'd take a few lifespans to read them all, and most of them have not been actually studied by anyone for hundreds of years.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Is Soto Zen Gradual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Another great source is Keizan's Zazenyojinki.

"Although we speak of realization, this realization does not hold to itself as being "realization". This is practice of the supreme samadhi which is the knowing of unborn, unobstructed, and spontaneously arising Awareness. It is the door of luminosity which opens out onto the realization of Those Who Come Thus, born through the practice of the great ease. This goes beyond the patterns of holy and profane, goes beyond confusion and wisdom. This is the realization of unsurpassed enlightenment as our own nature."
( http://www.wwzc.org/translations/zazenYojinki.htm )

"And although we talk about enlightenment, we become enlightened without enlightenment. This is the king of samadhi. This is the samadhi that gives rise to the eternal wisdom of the Buddha. It is the samadhi from which all wisdom arises. It is the samadhi that gives rise to natural wisdom. It is the clear gate that opens into the compassion of the Tathagata. It is the place that gives rise to the teaching of the great comfortable conduct (zazen) - It transcends the distinction between sage and commoner; it is beyond dualistic judgment that separates delusion and enlightenment. Isn't this the enlightenment that expresses one's original face?"
( http://terebess.hu/zen/szoto/zazen.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dogen... taught no enlightenment to be achieved but zazen itself became buddhahood for him.

tomamundsen said:
A common misunderstanding of Dogen.

Mr. G said:
I always thought this too:
From Dogen's Bendowa:
...
I thought Dogen's Zen was a completely different animal.  Definitely not gradual though.  How is it classified?

Astus wrote:
The quote itself shows Dogen's view of inherent buddhahood and the unity of zazen and enlightenment. That is because in shikantaza one "abides in the buddha-mind".


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
No time to argue based on personal idea.
It is better showing fact, fact, and fact.

Astus wrote:
Good, let's see facts. The Caodong tradition was created in the Song dynasty (see: Morten Schlütter: How Zen Became Zen). Their teachings were mostly the conservative form of Chan, compared to Dahui's innovation of kanhua practice. The teachers considered Caodong in the Tang dynasty were likely related to the Hongzhou school anyway (see: Jinhua Jia: The Hongzhou School of Chan Buddhism in Eighth- Through Tenth-Century China). So it is clear that Caodong masters did not conceive anything like a gradual practice.

Dogen himself was an advocate of inherent buddhahood, very much in line with current Japanese Buddhist thought. He taught no enlightenment to be achieved but zazen itself became buddhahood for him.

Sudden enlightenment was accepted by the early Japanese Soto masters as well. Dogen praised Hui-neng because "once he was suddenly enlightened, he left his mother and sought a teacher."
(Kenneth Kraft: Eloquent Zen, p. 92)

Where Dogen identifies the "right thought" of the nondeluded mind with nonthinking, a classical author like Hui-hai prefers to call it no-thought. To this extent the essential art of zazen seems to have become, in the vulgate Fukan zazen gi, nothing more (nor less) than fixed sitting in sudden enlightenment.
(Carl Bielefeldt: Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 148)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Astus wrote:
SPLIT TOPIC: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=6498


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Soto is a gradual enlightenment school of zen
Rinzai is a sudden enlightenment school of Zen

Astus wrote:
What an absurd idea. If anything, Rinzai could be labled as gradual because of their koan curriculum. But as all lineages originating from Huineng is per definition sudden, you can't find any "gradual Zen". Plus, there's nothing gradual about shikantaza.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Whose Buddhism is Truest?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Chinese Canon - in fact, several canons edited in China - contains thousands of texts, including multiple translations of the same work, but they did not start any movement saying that "nobody and everybody is correct". Since Buddhism never had a uniform and single Holy Scripture, the diversity of texts has been always present. At the end of the day, it is naturally MY (teacher's) BUDDHISM is the truest.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Astus wrote:
And anyway the reason for the difference in expositions and view is that the Heart Sutra is vast and profound and is a pith summary of the direct experience of the Prajnaparamita.  That it is brief is not a real factor.
Its shortness is a factor in my opinion, because it doesn't explain the meaning, therefore leaves the rest to one's imagination/previous study. Not unlike a Zen koan.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
kirtu said:
I haven't read the McLeod book or the Mu Soeng book but the others are essentially pointing to or teaching the Prajnaparamita (I was going to say they are essentially the same).

Astus wrote:
Since the Heart Sutra is brief, one can explain it in as many different ways as emptiness can be explained in different ways. Same with the concept of prajnaparamita. You can go with Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Tiantai, Huayan, Chan, Tantra, Mahamudra, or something new.

For instance, Ven. Seung Sahn distinguished three forms of Zen (theoretical, tathagata, patriarchal) based only on "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" (Compass of Zen, p. 229f). Dushun's Mirror of the Mysteries of the Universe of the Huayan (tr. by Cleary in Entry Into the Inconceivable) sets up the whole discussion based on a fourfold relationship between form and emptiness. There is also a Heart Sutra commentary by Fazang translated in Francis H. Cook's "Mahayana Buddhist Meditation" that follows Huayan exegesis and differentiates three meanings of the relationship between form and emptiness (mutual opposition, not mutual opposition, mutual creativity), then gives the four meanings of true emptiness, after which he lists another fourfold relation from the viewpoint of form, following in essence Dushun's analysis. Shunryu Suzuki, in Zen Mind, Beginner's mind (p. 25f) makes difference only between two views of form and emptiness, where the view of "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" is a dualistic view. These were only Buddhist interpretations. But if we look into other sources, like "The Eye Aware: Zen Lessons for Christians" by Jeroen Witkam, we may find even more interesting explanations. That's why I say that studying the Heart Sutra is far from simple and straightforward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqJ9qC2DRFc (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDD_UUGMp2c

Finally, here's a bit of Dogen (SBGZ: Bussho), just for its nice wording.
(tr. C. Bielefeldt):
This “emptiness” is not the “emptiness” of “form is itself emptiness.” “Form is itself emptiness” does not mean that “form” is forced into “emptiness”; it does not mean that “emptiness” has been divided up to author “form”: it is the “emptiness” of “emptiness is emptiness.” The “emptiness” of “emptiness is emptiness” is “a single stone in space.”
(tr. Nishijima & Cross):
This emptiness is beyond the emptiness of “matter is just emptiness.” [At the same time,] “matter is just emptiness” describes neither matter being forcibly made into emptiness nor emptiness being divided up to produce matter. It may describe emptiness in which emptiness is just emptiness. “Emptiness in which emptiness is just emptiness” describes “one stone in space.”


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Huseng,

As I see it from the history of Zen (in any country), it takes outstanding teachers (or rather appropriate circumstances) to enliven the tradition. This reform recently happened in China through Xuyun, in Korea through Gyeongheo, but in Japan the last big impact teachers were Menzan and Hakuin more than 300 years ago. Western Zen (and Ven. Shengyan for instance) was influenced mostly by Sanbo Kyodan, a modern, 20th century school, but it had little influence in Japan itself. Buddhism in Taiwan is very fresh and new, most of the founders are still alive.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Huseng said:
A lot of time has passed since DT Suzuki.
Type "Zen" into Amazon and you'll see all kinds of books on the subject with questionable titles and even more silly content.

Astus wrote:
By Zen I meant the religious part, not the mp3 player stuff, neither the books "Zen and the Art of..."
As for Amazon, among the first twelve items are (in order of appearance):
An Introduction to Zen Buddhism by D. T. Suzuki and Carl Jung
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki and David Chadwick
The Religion of the Samurai A Study of Zen Philosophy and Discipline in China and Japan by Kaiten Nukariya
The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment by Roshi Philip Kapleau
Everyday Zen: Love and Work (Plus) by Charlotte J. Beck


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Namdrol said:
This is the main different between Zen on the one hand, and (Kagyu) Mahāmudra and Dzogchen on the other. It is also the main difference between sutra and tantra i.e. the presence or absence of direct introduction. Mahāmudra and Dzogchen are based on direct introduction. This does not exist in any school of Zen, much less sutra.

Astus wrote:
I really want to add here the whole guru concept (and related yoga) as an outstanding difference - although some confuse it with blind worship of authority that exists everywhere. Zen has no such direct introduction partially because there is no such person to introduce one, and also because there is no such system one would have to adhere to in order to call it a feature of Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Huseng said:
A lot of people outside of Japan have completely mistaken ideas of what Zen is, and this I guess is to be expected given that most literature available on the subject in the English speaking world is either academic or written by complete fools who make up most of what they write.

Astus wrote:
I have to correct this a bit. It was those few Japanese teachers who implemented the current view of Zen in the West. DT Suzuki was the first, but many others followed.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
DarwidHalim said:
Mahamudra can be combined with this energy stuff, such as 6 yoga Naropa, but I think that one is the enhancement.

The core teaching is free from that.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

Astus wrote:
Unlike certain (theoretical) forms of Zen that has been reduced to the bare minimum, both Mahamudra and Dzogchen are generally understood as integral parts of a more complex teaching of Vajrayana. Also, unlike Zen, neither of those existed as independent traditions but only within the frames of the many schools of Vajrayana. Besides a very few modern teachers you won't find Vajrayana masters who cut off these practices from the others. Although Gampopa and some later Kagyü teachers taught about a stand alone Mahamudra, it is more of an exception than the rule.

Note that Zen hasn't really existed in its minimalistic form either in real life, nor as a strictly separate teaching. That's why Dogen said that it is wrong to call his teaching Soto or even Zen, as what he actually imported from China was a large curriculum of Buddhism in general (from temple design to koan collections).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 6:16 PM
Title: Re: How is Dzogchen/Mahamudra different from Zazen Samadhi
Content:
Astus wrote:
Let's turn the things around a bit and look at Mahamudra and Dzogchen from a Zen perspective. For the sake of argument, I take up the classical Zen definition as a special transmission outside teachings, not established on words and letters, but points directly to the mind, so by seeing its nature one reaches buddhahood.

Mahamudra and Dzogchen are full of expedient means, they require devotion and transmission, then extensive training. There are also many teachers who say that besides Mahamudra/Dzogchen one should also do different ritual practices, analytical meditation, deity yoga, etc. Beyond all those practices, one should also familiarise oneself with many levels of doctrines appropriate to the tradition where one studies, as preliminary requirements.

Zen doesn't require anything special, there are no transmissions, no guru devotion, no deities to pray to, no recitations and secret mantras, no long texts to learn. One is instructed from day one how to realise buddha-mind right there without anything else left to achieve. No hidden teachings, no obscure symbolism, just the essence of the Dharma from which all other teachings come. There are no fixed methods to follow but one is free to utilise whatever one wants to.

So there are quite a few differences here.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Beatzen said:
I don't see how you can interpret the heart sutra in many different ways... could you give me an example of that?

Astus wrote:
Read commentaries of the Heart Sutra by different people and you'll find how many things can be found in it.
For example:
The Heart Sūtra explained: Indian and Tibetan commentaries by Donald S. Lopez
Essence of the Heart Sutra: The Dalai Lama's Heart of Wisdom Teachings by Mark Epstein
Heart Sutra: Ancient Buddhist Wisdom in the Light of Quantum Reality by Mu Soeng
The Heart sutra: an oral teaching by Sonam Rinchen
The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra by Thich Nhat Hanh
There is no suffering: a commentary on the Heart Sutra by Ven. Shengyan
An Arrow to the Heart: A Commentary on the Heart Sutra by Ken McLeod


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Doesn't a statement like this leave the whole deal open to tantras that do not have an Indian origin (or at least a lineage to back them up), like the English language tantra of the Aro mob?

Astus wrote:
Very good question. History clashes with myth. Were the Mahayana sutras spoken by Shakyamuni? And the tantras? Are these sutras and tantras from India, Central Asia, China or Tibet? Could there be treasure texts in an e-mail attachment?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 4:34 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Beatzen said:
I don't know what kind of sanghas here in the states you guys are familiar with, but my sangha refers to sutras all the time.  Especially the Heart Sutra, which i am quite fond of as my favorite.

Astus wrote:
The Heart Sutra is a tricky one. It is like a 1.5 minute trailer to a 4 hour film, or a half page note to a 10 volume encyclopaedia. And because of its brevity it is easy to interpret it in many different ways. If you're for short and comprehensive texts, I recommend Ashvaghosha's "Awakening Faith in Mahayana" as a fundamental treatise of East Asian Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thanks David, I appreciate your approach to the matter. My question, however, was primarily for those who question the Aro gTer's validity. I am merely a curious bystander waiting for the outcome of this thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
Astus wrote:
Lineage is one thing. But another important thing is proving one's doctrine based on the teachings of canonical scriptures. How is that in Aro gTer's case?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Virgo said:
So as far as beliefs go, Theravada has no criteria whatsoever?

Jnana said:
The Theravāda has never been a monolithic entity or institution beyond the various monastic ordination nikāyas.
And not only doctrinally, but in terms of practice as well.

Astus wrote:
And Mahayana is even more diverse. So "Theravada vs Mahayana" is a pretty obscure thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
For a bodhisattva, bodhicitta is an intention and the path as well.
This is why, in terms of relative bodhicitta, there is both aspiration and engaged bodhicitta.
In terms of utimate bodhicitta, there is śamatha and vipaśyāna.

Astus wrote:
I see your point. I had a narrower meaning of bodhicitta in mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 4:32 AM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
Bodhicitta is the direct cause of buddhahood.
By itself, metta has no force to lead to liberation, as Dharmakirti points out.

Astus wrote:
Bodhicitta is the intention to become a buddha, but there is a path to be followed and without that path there is no buddhahood. If bodhicitta were the direct cause of it there would be no need of a path. However, from the practice of metta there is only one more step to liberation. But I agree, by itself metta does not cause liberation, only birth in the heavens.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
It is actually the opposite, this passage shows that metta cannot lead to liberation since it is "is fabricated & intended".

Astus wrote:
Metta is not the direct cause of liberation but it leads to liberation, just as meditation and morality leads to liberation. Bodhicitta is not the direct cause of liberation either but it leads to that. The quoted sutta lists 11 different practices to attain liberation with, among them are the immeasurables.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
An interesting source for an ecumenical outlook of Buddhism is Yogi Chen who studied both Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism. Another could be the Tendai type of ecumenism as it includes so many different practices, although within a single frame of theory.

As for this Greek part, this could be interesting for some: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/mcev.htm
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/phil371973.pdf (PDF)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 4:15 PM
Title: Re: Metta in Theravada Vs Bodhicitta in Mahayana
Content:
Namdrol said:
The former does not have the capacity to bring you to liberation, since it is a mundane meditation.

Astus wrote:
Metta and the other three can lead to liberation.

Namdrol said:
"Then again, a monk keeps pervading the first direction with an awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. He reflects on this and discerns, 'This awareness-release through good will is fabricated & intended. Now whatever is fabricated & intended is inconstant & subject to cessation.' Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then — through this very Dhamma-passion, this Dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five Fetters — he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.052.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 28th, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
An ecumenical approach is found in several Chinese masters' teachings, among whom one of the most prominent is Yongming Yanshou. Just as he could personally connect to and comprehend the major teachings of his time, it is also possible today to do the same with diverse traditions.

"The term zong is problematic owing to its different meanings. It can refer to a doctrinal interpretation, particularly the underlying theme or essential doctrine of a text, or to a “school,” which in Chinese Buddhism often refers to a tradition tracing its origin back to its founder. In this case, Yanshou is clearly closer to the first meaning, suggesting a unified underlying theme or essential doctrine of Buddhist teaching as a whole, and clearly countering narrower interpretations favored by sectarian lineage. The means to accomplish this aim are also made clear: using the question-and-answer method to dispel doubts and citing writings that make true principle—the central, unifying source ( zhengzong 正宗 ) of Buddhist teaching—explicit. The suggestion that such a unifying doctrine underlies all Buddhist teaching is essentially antithetical to sectarian concerns.
According to Yanshou, the citation of authoritative scriptures, the teachings of the Buddhas and patriarchs, makes clear that the one, all-encompassing, universal mind ( yixin 一心 ) is the zong , the central, unifying source of Buddhist teaching. The myriad dharmas of phenomenal existence ( wanfa 萬法 ) are the mirror, or reflections ( jing 鏡 ) of the mind. Hence, the title of the work, Zongjing lu , refers to a record ( lu 錄 ) of sources that reflect or mirror ( jing ) the essential, underlying doctrine of Buddhist teaching ( zong )."
(Albert Welter: Yongming Yanshou's Conception of Chan, p. 24-25)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 23rd, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Happiness, suffering and the Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Happiness means the lack of suffering. It is not the common happiness of worldly people that is filled with desire and attachment, but the peaceful contentment of liberated beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I prefer to follow a more historical view on the development of different Buddhist teachings. I add to that that in different times, places and circumstances the Dharma was adapted both intentionally and naturally. Thus all texts and teachings are to be understood in its own context and not in a misplaced or anachronistic manner. This leaves us the option to see all forms of teachings as many ways to express the same truth, same Dharma. This is evolution, not in the sense of progression to a higher level - since there is no higher truth than the Dharma - but in the sense of adapting in order to stay alive and relevant. In China they could come to the view, but of course not all agree with this, that the eight schools are one (i.e. all the major views are valid). And although this interpretation can also be used to create a "more equal than others" situation, I believe that this view generates a less biased and more open perspective on all the Buddhist traditions.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Sex in pureland?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here's Ven. Yinshun's view of the pure lands of Amitabha and Bhaisajyaguru. He says basically that the western land is for those with renunciation, and the eastern land is for those with a more worldly attitude.

Those who are timid and inferior,
Wish to have an easy path to practice.

The Buddha has special skillful means
To embrace and protect these beginners.

Of these, one of the most special
Is to be reborn in the Most Blissful Land.
Blessed by the Power of Amitabha Buddha,
They will not retreat from attaining enlightenment.

For those who cannot renounce worldly pleasures
But wish to attain enlightenment,
The Medicine Buddha vowed compassionately
To provide a Pure Land in the east.
(Yinshun: The Way to Buddhahood, Taking the Easy Path, v. 139-142)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
You identified the levels of practitioners with distinct teachings, that are again put into a hierarchical system. So those who follow sravakayana are necessarily low level practitioners, who follow sutrayana are medium level practitioners, who follow vajrayana are higher level practitioners, and who follow dzogchen are the best of all. This, I think, is a faulty identification on many levels.

First, these so called yanas are not real vehicles or traditions, but only one school's categorisation of the teachings as they understand them. Other schools have different interpretations of those teachings, just as they have different categorisations. However, the Nyingma categorisation does not and cannot include any other school's view of those teachings, otherwise they would actually be the same school. So it is with any other school. Thus there is no basis here to differentiate between existing schools, only a theoretical categorisation of certain teachings within a single school.

Second, the level of practitioners does not depend on what teaching they claim or seem to follow, but it is an inner quality others can hardly judge. There are beginners and advanced practitioners everywhere in every profession, just as there are students who learn slow and who learn fast. If students master French faster and German slower, does that mean those who study German are students of lower, and students of French are of higher ability? Or is it that French is simpler, easier and so inferior, while German is more complicated, harder and therefore superior? Does it make sense at all to call those students and languages superior or inferior? I don't think so.

Finally, to call things inferior and superior requires a value system, a measuring tool. But such values and measures are necessarily arbitrary. From a Nyingma point of view others are inferior, from a Zen point of view others are inferior. That's why I said that that kind of interpretation of the one vehicle doctrine is nothing more than arrogance. And arrogance is a very self-absorbed and closed-minded attitude.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sönam,

That is one common interpretation of the one vehicle doctrine. It seems it provides an explanation for the diversity of the teachings and traditions. What it actually always does and always used for that, is a justification for whatever the highest vehicle is imagined to be. It seems tolerant, but in fact it is simply arrogant. And I'm not saying here that you personally are arrogant, but this argument, known throughout Mahayana, is nothing more than an attempt to explain the superiority of a doctrine above others, based not on proper knowledge, but on fabricated karmic deficiency. A similar argument is used for the caste system.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: what is the cause of Avidyā(ignorance)?
Content:
Anders Honore said:
Nah. Ignorance is a dharma. It is not so much a lack of knowledge as it is actively looking at things wrongly.
Things couldn't arise in dependence on ignorance if it weren't a dharma.

Astus wrote:
Desirelessness (alobha), non-harmfulness (ahimsa), impermanence (anityata), space (akasa) and even suchness (tathata) are all dharmas. But "dharma" does not mean a "thing" but rather a category as used in abhidharma works, a mere linguistic term.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: what is the cause of Avidyā(ignorance)?
Content:
Astus wrote:
To add to the above post, ignorance is not a thing in itself but the lack of something, namely knowledge (jnana).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Indeed, there must be a respect and appreciation toward different forms of Buddhism. I often see how teachers of different traditions simplify and misinterpret other Buddhist teachings. A very common example is when people from Mahayana view Theravada simply as if it were the Hinayana doctrine they learnt a little about from their own traditions, or even worse, when they call Theravada what should be called Hinayana. This simplification and misinterpretation is a usual source of not understanding different Buddhist teachings. It would be enough to start with an open mind and hear what others actually teach. Calling others' faiths "hinayana", "sutrayana", "deviation", "superstition", etc. is the sign of closed minds. As it should be obvious for all Buddhists, it is ignorance that keeps us in the dark.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There has never been a uniform tradition but a diversity of teachers and teachings with differing levels of mutual understanding. It is also a false impression to conceive of existing traditions as things that survived centuries intact, unchanged and continuous. Naturally some think in terms of "preserving the old" and others in "adapting to the new situation". Pure lineages and teachings exist only in the realm of theories, and that's also the place of arguments about superior and inferior, original and corrupt, etc.

Institutionally speaking, universities are institutions where students learn about not only the local forms of Buddhism but others too. The Nikayas have been translated to Chinese and Japanese to serve as sources of knowledge and more, while at the same time different Mahayana works are available in Thai and other languages. I think that today there are people who want to believe in preserving and upholding only what they see as their own tradition, others think about reforming traditions in different ways, and there are those who just want to learn useful and interesting teachings regardless of labels.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: what is the cause of Avidyā(ignorance)?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Ignorance is not realising the empty, impermanent nature of mental formations, thus there is habituation that maintains ignorance. Avidya generates samskara, samskara generates vijnana, vijnana reinforces samskara, samskara reinforces avidya. Ignorance is not a thing that is created or not created by something, but a condition of being that is constantly maintained by habits, or we can say that being attached to habits is ignorance itself. There is no beginning as conditions come from former conditions and result in further conditions. This conditioning can be ended any moment by not creating it again. It is not simply a theory but our own mind and its functioning right now.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Astus wrote:
DN,

There is no failure on the Pure Land path. Those who have faith and determination in the vow of Amita Buddha are guaranteed to attain birth in the Land of Peace and Bliss. This is the general understanding of this teaching, some may add other requirements. If one is not born in the Pure Land, well, it's just like with anyone else. However, the practices of buddha-remembrance, prostrations, visualisations, recitations, etc. are all beneficial on other levels too. Also, the Pure Land path is for all kinds of practitioners from low to superb. That is why I consider it the apex of the Mahayana teaching that can universally liberate everybody.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: Diamond Sutra in latin
Content:
Huifeng said:
"Buddhist sutras were translated into literary Chinese, a dead language by that time."

If you mean that literary Chinese was dead at the time the Buddhist sutras were translated, I would have to disagree with you very strongly.
Even to this day, a fair percentage of Chinese Buddhists can still read these translations without too much difficulty.
Classical Chinese is still taught at most levels of education in Taiwan, for example, and plenty of people can read and recite some classics from memory.
It's not dead today, let alone 1500 years ago.

Astus wrote:
Dead language in the sense that it is not a spoken, everyday language. Latin is also preserved in its written, literary form, and in the USA it's the 8th most popular language learned by university students ( http://www.vistawide.com/languages/us_languages.htm ).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Can you explain me then why do we have to do anything at all if such rebirth depends on merit transference, Astus? Why is it only transferred to those who do this or that recitation instead of everyone, not mattering what they do? What does the doctrine says about it?

Astus wrote:
This requires understanding what merit transference is, which is quite simple actually. One receives another's merit when one rejoices in another's merit. The same is true of demerit of course. So the name "transference" is a bit misleading because there is no "merit energy" transferred from one person to another, but what happens is the identification with another's deeds. That is the reason why no buddha can just simply save the beings but beings must save themselves. That is why one has to create a connection between himself and a buddha. It is explained with the following analogy in the Shurangama Sutra:

"Those Buddhas taught me the Buddha-recitation Samadhi: Suppose there are two people, one of whom always remembers the other, while the other has entirely forgotten about the first one. Even if these two people were to meet or see each other, it would be the same as not meeting or seeing each other. On the other hand, if two people develop intense memories for one another, then in life after life, they will be together like an object and its shadow, and they will never be separated. The Tathagatas of the ten directions are tenderly mindful of living beings just like a mother remembering her son. But if the son runs away, of what use is the mother's concern? However, if the son remembers his mother in the same way that the mother remembers her son, then in life after life mother and son will never be far apart. If living beings remember the Buddha and are mindful of the Buddha, they will certainly see the Buddha now and in the future. Being close to the Buddha, even without the aid of expedients, their hearts will open of themselves."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Taego Order: 2011 Bikkhu Ordination
Content:
Jikan said:
Hi Anders,

It's unclear to me if the Taego order's vinaya lineage comes from Japan as I think you are saying, or not.  When would it have been transmitted from Japan?  or am I misunderstanding you?

Astus wrote:
Korea was under Japanese rule from 1910 to 1945 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule ). However, it is said that the idea of married clergy was started not because of the Japanese but because of Manhae ( http://sonbuddhism.org/history.html#marriage ).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Huseng said:
You can be Buddhist and disagree with the tenets of other schools. This is to be encouraged, otherwise you'll end up accepting everything as equal without acknowledging all the contradictions.

Well, Shinran had a rather notable position in that even evil people get into the Pure Land by virtue of the grace of Amitabha. That overrides karmic theory big time.

Astus wrote:
No problem with disagreeing, but the reasons you give in order to refute the Pure Land teachings don't actually address the proper doctrines themselves.

Shinran's "evil person" is simply a prthagjana, and the possibility of ordinary beings being born in the Pure Land was argued and accepted long before him by Jingying Huiyuan (523-592, see: The Dawn of Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Doctrine, p. 109). It doesn't negate karma but shows that via merit transference evil karma is overridden by good karma, as it is explained in the Lotus Sutra's Guanyin chapter.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Huseng said:
I understand it well enough. I just think much of it is incompatible with older lines of Buddhist thought.
I just don't think Amitabha is omnipotent and capable of bypassing karmic law.

Astus wrote:
What older lines do you mean? Teachings about different means to attain birth in buddha-lands has been part of Indian Mahayana and of East Asian Mahayana as well. The land of Amitabha was emphasised by the Tiantai school and then on by others. It is older than the whole Vajrayana.

No buddha is omnipontent and in interaction with beings they can't overwrite karma. As I said before, merit transference is what allows the assistance of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and that is a doctrine found even in the Nikayas.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Huseng said:
This is not so. Even Ajahn Brahm teaches that in the first jhāna there is no active will. I am speaking of the four jhānas as one finds in the Nikayas.

Astus wrote:
Ajahn Brahm has his own specific view of the jhanas (I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's quite unique). Since to achieve successive absorptions one has to maintain a focal point (see the system of 40 kammatthana), there are sustained mindfulness, intention and effort involved.

Huseng said:
Technically this Earth of ours is a buddha-realm and this is not a land of bliss for all but liberated beings.

Astus wrote:
This was not created by a buddha, unlike Sukhavati and others.

Huseng said:
You can still aid beings despite not being a realized arya.

Astus wrote:
Sure, but not actually liberate them. Plus, without prajnaparamita all merits are mundane merits.

Huseng said:
Sentient beings reside there, and they exist by virtue of defilements, hence it is samsara.

Astus wrote:
Beings exist there because of Amita Buddha's power - this is the so called other-power, that is a form of merit transference. Otherwise only arya bodhisattvas are capable of going there on their own.

In fact, the basic principles of the Pure Land school rely on the doctrine of merit transference, because that is what makes it possible for buddhas and bodhisattvas to assist beings in many ways. Merit transference requires the recognition of the offered merit, that's why buddha-mindfulness is the essential practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Huseng,

I don't think it will lead to dhyāna as there is an active willed intention ongoing throughout recitation.

Active will exists on all levels of dhyana, otherwise it would not be maintained, except during the 9th, but even then it's decided beforehand when the practitioner would exit from it.

It is a practice whose purpose is to achieve rebirth in a paradise, as I have explained above, hence I think it is escapism.
In the Pure Land there is minimal suffering and the work of salvation is left to Amitabha.

Paradises are the realms of gods, the Pure Land is a realm of a buddha. It is not minimal suffering but zero suffering, so it is called the Land of Bliss. Salvation is not left to Amita Buddha, he only provides the environment, the work is left to the individual.

Serious bodhisattva aspirants stick it out in this world and foster compassion, whereas in a paradise with minimal suffering there is little need to foster compassion.

Beings in the Western Pure Land have access to billions of worlds where they can carry out bodhisattva work. Being stuck in a single world doesn't really compare to that. Plus, talking about saving beings without being at least a 1st level arya bodhisattva is pretty deluded.

The Pure Land is still technically samsara as it is within the three realms and arises due to causes and conditions.

It is beyond samsara as it is not created by deluded beings' karma. See Tiantai's ten world teaching on this.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Title: Re: Simple question about Pure Lands
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddha-lands exist because of the buddhas who created them, just as the world exist because of people's karma. Now the questions are whether buddhas live eternally or not, and sentient beings are infinite or not. But is there a definitive answer?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2011 at 6:29 PM
Title: Re: commonalities and divergences between traditions...
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are a few things missed here about the Pure Land teaching.

Mahayana is not just about being full of compassion to save beings, but also about a whole pantheon of bodhisattvas and buddhas who can save beings. Actually the two comes in a single package. The Lotus Sutra is famous for describing how Guanyin saves anyone from all sorts of troubles, it also explains that she does that via a large amount of good karma being transferred. Same happens in case of Amita, anyone who has the faith and intention creates a connection because of that and receives the merits from Amita, thus it is guaranteed that one attains birth in his Pure Land.

Compassion is not developed by being subjected to suffering. Bodhisattvas and buddhas do not suffer, they have already transcended all the mundane concerns and troubles of people. Compassion emerges with wisdom, they are not separate. It is exactly because they have realised emptiness of all that they have unconditioned compassion for all.

Amita's Pure Land is not a simple heaven where people enjoy themselves ad nauseam. It was created with the sole intention of accepting all and establishing them in the path of buddhas and bodhisattvas. It is for those who want to attain enlightenment. Bodhicitta exists in the very intention of being born in the Pure Land.

People have doubts about the Pure Land path because it seems too easy, but if one has faith in the teachings of other Mahayana schools, the method of Amita is also there, as well as it is mentioned in several sutras.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: Taego Order: 2011 Bikkhu Ordination
Content:
Huseng said:
I've never heard of this in Japanese sources.

Astus wrote:
You can start here:

Kukai and the Tradition of Male Love in Japanese Buddhism by Paul Gordon Schalow, in Buddhism, Sexuality, and Gender, p. 215ff
The Great Mirror of Male Love by Ihara Saikaku (tr. P. G. Schalow)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2011 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
zangskar said:
Astus, as I was surfing for more books to shell out on I stumbled on this one

Moonshadows: Conventional Truth in Buddhist Philosophy [Paperback]
The Cowherds (Author)
Oxford University Press 2011
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Moonshadows-Conventional-Truth-Buddhist-Philosophy/dp/0199751439/ref=pd_sim_b_10 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In case it would be of interest to you

Astus wrote:
Thank you, great recommendation!


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 12th, 2011 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Caz said:
But wouldnt one need to first progress through the Bodhisattva stages to reach sudden enlightenment of Buddha ? One cannot be a Buddha without first developing Bodhichitta, This is a prequisite to enlightenment so how can this just suddenly perfectly develop in ones mind stream ? What method is it that is used. It was often said that Dzogchen was Ch'an in disguise so could you please elaborate the 5th catagory of teaching ?

Astus wrote:
Here are two brief explanations by Zongmi (tr. by Ven. Huifeng):

"If one suddenly realizes that the essence of one's own mind is originally pure, solitary and without defilements, itself originally endowed with the nature of undefiled wisdom, that this very mind is buddha, absolutely no difference, and thus cultivates based on that, this is the supreme unsurpassed Chan, also named the pure Chan of the Tathagatas, also named the Single Act Samadhi, also named the Suchness Samadhi. This is the fundament of all samadhis."
(CBETA, T48, no. 2015, p. 399, b16-20)

"Direct (sudden) realization of the essential purity of ones own mind, originally without defilements, itself endowed with the influx-free (non-afflicted) gnosis - this mind is Buddha, ultimate with nothing else beyond - cultivating in this manner, is the Supreme Vehicle Dhyana. It is also known as the Pure Dhyana of the Tathagatas."
(CBETA, X64, no. 1276, p. 808, c9-15 // Z 2:18, p. 494, c7-13 // R113, p. 988, a7-13)

And a fancy explanation from the Linji-lu (tr. Sasaki, p. 17):

"Outside mind there’s no dharma, nor is there anything to be gained within it. What are you seeking? Everywhere you say, ‘There’s something to practice, something to obtain.’ Make no mistake! Even if there were something to be gained by practice, it would be nothing but birth-and-death karma. You say, ‘The six pāramitās and the ten thousand [virtuous] actions are all to be practiced.’ As I see it, all this is just making karma. Seeking buddha and seeking dharma are only making hell-karma. Seeking bodhisattvahood is also making karma; reading the sutras and studying the teachings are also making karma. Buddhas and patriarchs are people with nothing to do. Therefore, [for them] activity and the defiling passions and also nonactivity and passionlessness are ‘pure’ karma.
There are a bunch of blind shavepates who, having stuffed themselves with food, sit down to meditate and practice contemplation. Arresting the flow of thought they don’t let it rise; they hate noise and seek stillness. This is the method of the heretics. A patriarch said, ‘If you stop the mind to look at stillness, arouse the mind to illumine outside, control the mind to clarify inside, concentrate the mind to enter samādhi—all such [practices] as these are artificial striving.’
This very you, the man who right now is thus listening to my discourse, how is he to be cultivated, to be enlightened, to be adorned? He is not one to be cultivated, he is not one to be adorned. But if you let him do the adorning, then everything would be adorned. Don’t be mistaken!
Followers of the Way, you seize upon words from the mouths of those old masters and take them to be the true Way. You think, ‘These good teachers are wonderful, and I, simple-minded fellow that I am, don’t dare measure such old worthies.’ Blind idiots! You go through your entire life holding such views, betraying your own two eyes. Trembling with fright, like donkeys on an icy path, [you say to yourselves,] ‘I don’t dare disparage these good teachers for fear of making karma with my mouth!’"


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, December 11th, 2011 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Taego Order: 2011 Bikkhu Ordination
Content:
rory said:
Or who knows maybe they are gay, it's a tradition and cliche that Kukai who brought Shingon to Japan 'introduced' homosexuality to the Japanese.

Huseng said:
What is your source for this?

Astus wrote:
Faure mentions this legend (or not just legend) of Kukai's part in introducing "male love" (but not lesbianism!) in his book "Red Thread".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
The buddha qualities in Zen is put under the term of function that is the perfect functioning of the six sense spheres in general. There are a few detailed discussions of these functions but it is not really important as one can use them spontaneously once the nature is realised, and such functioning is exemplified in many Zen stories.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Caz said:
I could understand Sudden Liberation in cutting the bonds of Samsara once Emptiness is realized but Buddhahood is progressive even Bodhisattvas still have subtle imprints of delusion and it takes time after theyre liberation to wipe these from the mind. So how would it be possible to have sudden Enlightenment ? Liberation and Enlightenment arent interchangable yet Ive seen a fair few people mistake them for being so, How is this distinction made in the Chan school ?

Astus wrote:
Bodhisattvas go through stages, yes. But according to Chan that is a lower understanding, and Chan teaches the Sudden and Perfect Vehicle where there is sudden enlightenment to buddhahood.

Here are Zongmi's categories: 1) the teaching of men and gods, 2) the teachings of the Hinayana, 3) the teaching of phenomenal appearances, 4) the teaching of the negation of phenomenal appearances and 5) the teaching that reveals the true nature of phenomena (intrinsic enlightenment)

But Zongmi was not really the advocate of sudden complete enlightenment, and those who were did not really care about setting up elaborate scholastic systems.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Mariusz said:
I don't think Zen has the similar practical jargon related to Lhundrub (Spontaneous presence). As I know Zen has not even the concept of the Bardo of Dharmata (Chönyid bardo), let alone instructions how actualise its spontaneously accomplished "visions" (the 4 visions; wylie: snang ba bzhi). Nevertheless, it is very easy to take carelessly sentences from Madhyamaka/Yogacara as a Zen "slang" or even as a Dzogchen "slang" for the practice.

Astus wrote:
It doesn't. I haven't seen any Zen work dealing with intermediate state practices, nor similar practice with lights, sounds, deities, etc. And while there is the understanding that buddha-mind has the perfect qualities inherently, it is not conceived of in tantric images.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 8:20 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and Bodhisattvas
Content:
LastLegend said:
Ok becoming Buddha.

But at that moment become the fully enlightened Buddha?

Astus wrote:
Exactly.

"To practice in every moment of thought is called the true nature. To be enlightened to this Dharma is the Dharma of prajñā, to cultivate this practice is the practice of prajñā. To not cultivate this is to be an ordinary [unenlightened] person. To cultivate this in a single moment of thought is to be equivalent to the Buddha in one’s own body.
Good friends, ordinary people are buddhas, and the afflictions are bodhi. With a preceding moment of deluded thought, one was an ordinary person, but with a succeeding moment of enlightened thought, one is a buddha. To be attached to one’s sensory realms in a preceding moment of thought is affliction, but to transcend the realms in a succeeding moment of thought is bodhi." (Platform Sutra, ch. 2, tr. McRae)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
That is from a different version than those three that exist in Chinese as far as I know. Tibetans like this "foretold by XY sutra/tantra" thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land and Bodhisattvas
Content:
LastLegend said:
Eventually will become Buddha?

There is no really past, present, and future right? Only to sentient beings there is.

Astus wrote:
Not eventually, but it is what becoming buddha is, seeing the true nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 9th, 2011 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Caz said:
Sudden Enlightenment or Sudden Liberation ? Full enlightenment isnt sudden. Liberation could be though...

Astus wrote:
There are different views about this ranging from minimal (entry to the level of faith, roughly identical to entry to the path of accumulation) to maximal (perfect buddhahood). It depends on what teacher/lineage/school you ask.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and Bodhisattvas
Content:
LastLegend said:
How do you explain this?

Astus wrote:
It is as often said in Chan: see nature, become buddha. The mind is buddha, realising this you become buddha. What else remains?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2011 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and Bodhisattvas
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are different interpretations and presentations of Chan, however, those who fully embrace the teaching of sudden enlightenment, don't aspire to aeons of bodhisattva practice but complete attainment in this life. As for Amita Buddha's Pure Land, it is a path with assurance of attainment, but that doesn't mean it skips the common stages of the bodhisattva path. That's why many teach the combined practice of Chan and Pure Land.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Separate discussion of http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6158 moved.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2011 at 5:30 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is no such thing as a Pure Land lineage, although in China and in Jodoshinshu they like to talk about certain patriarchs. There are several sutras talking about different buddha-lands, including the land of Amita Buddha. They are the primary sources of the teaching.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
LastLegend said:
But Bodhisattvas might not have the necessary Wisdom like Buddhas do to build Buddha lands.

Astus wrote:
Buddha-lands are created/completed once they become buddhas. If you want to carry on with this topic I recommend a separate thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
LastLegend said:
If I remember correctly, in Mahayana teachings, Bodhisattvas have to go to Pure Lands to become Buddhas. Or they might be "stucked" just like Arahants are stucked in Nirvana until they wish to go to Pure Lands.

Astus wrote:
There is no such necessity for bodhisattvas, they even work on building their own buddha-lands. What stops them from getting stuck is great compassion and the proper understanding of prajnaparamita.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 5:20 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
LastLegend said:
Both will lead to Buddhahood. The only the difference is the time it takes to become Buddha.

Astus wrote:
How so? Chan is the school of sudden enlightenment (not gradual development on the bodhisattva path), and the Pure Land path has 100% guaranteed buddhahood in one lifetime.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 4:16 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Jinzang said:
I can't claim to be expert in dzogchen (far from it.) But the way I remember Khandro Rinpoche explaining the issue is that while other paths (she specifically said mahamudra) teach that buddha nature is inherent in all beings, dzogchen teaches that the buddha qualities (such as omniscience) are inherent in all beings.

Astus wrote:
Buddha-nature includes the buddha qualities as explained in detail in the Ratnagotravibhaga and other works.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, December 7th, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
I really suggest you learn Tibetan and learn Dzogchen teachings in a proper way. Otherwise, you are just spinning empty words.

Astus wrote:
Thanks Namdrol, I appreciate your concern and I can only agree that knowing the canonical language and doing extensive studies with intensive practice is a proper way. At the same time, it seems that either you think that Dzogchen can be discussed only by those who have gone through rigorous training of some sort, or that discussion means to continuously avoid addressing the topic by disparaging remarks.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Chan fails to understand cleaning or not cleaning the mirror so we have here 2 aspects or point of view. Even without cleaning the mirror, i never heard the practice or Tantra about the Bardo States in Zen, which are unique only to the Dzogchen Traditions.

Astus wrote:
This is a valid point here, as far as Chan is not concerned with specific practices related to the intermediate state, however, such is not unique to Dzogchen but found in other Vajrayana traditions too. Nevertheless, that is not relevant to seeing the nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
The main point behind lhundrup is practical, it is not theoretical or abstract. It has to do with how Dzogchen is practiced.

Astus wrote:
Then it'd good if you could give it a definition. As a start, I bring here one.
Spontaneous presence/accomplishment is an inherent aspect of buddha-mind, and means the aware side and the buddha qualities.
As such, the same teaching is found not only in Chan but in all East Asian schools following the buddha-mind teachings as found in the treatise "Awakening Mahayana Faith" and other works.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
I see, those colors are conditioned or unconditioned?

You can see where this is going, right? lhun grub is not conditioned. But your "function" is. So they are completely different.

Astus wrote:
Is rupakaya conditioned or unconditioned? Are the qualities of buddha-mind conditioned or unconditioned? Are the wisdoms conditioned or unconditioned? It is possible to argue for both actually. Still, since the conditioned is in fact unconditioned, such extremes are only pedagogic.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
How so? You mean you can see it with your eyes?

Astus wrote:
I can see colours with my eyes, also perceive and imagine colours in my mind. That is functioning.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 1:32 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
Does Buddhamind have color?

Astus wrote:
Essentially no, functionally yes.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
it would be better for you to properly learn Dzogchen and find out for yourself what the difference is.

Astus wrote:
As you seem to already know that difference, it would be beneficial for all reading this thread if you could explain it. General statements like "that is sutra, this is tantra" and "ask your guru" doesn't help.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
MalaBeads said:
I have heard the phrase 'the chan school' often and have understood the phrase being used to distinguish it as "the meditation school" and not "the ritual school" (ie Vajrayana).
...
Chan, and it's Japanese descendent, Zen, are full of esoteric methods that are not available in the common literature.

Astus wrote:
Chanzong/Zenshu is incorrectly translated as "meditation school" as meditation itself is not unique to it, neither is there any special emphasis of it (not counting modern interpreters).

Esoteric practices, like what? Chinese Buddhism has several rituals that can be called "esoteric" but then its no point calling it Chan, unless as a reference to the entirety of Chinese Buddhism. Japanese Zen has different sources, like Tendai and Shingon. But this is not really the topic here. For discussion I recommend a separate thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
The first is not lhun grub, and the second is not direct introduction.

Astus wrote:
Could you define the difference?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: Karma and the Ten Powers
Content:
tobes said:
No doubt about that - the range of possible choices are determined by the range of samskarahs which have been previously accumulated.

So, you're right in pointing out that agency in Buddhism is not akin to a completely free agency; but neither is it wholly determined by past accumulations - there is always the possibility of creating new intentions and undertaking new actions.

Astus wrote:
There are always new actions, decisions, and such. However, they're based on the conditions present in the mind, including of course external circumstances that influence the mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Myth of Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
That all comes, abides and returns to the buddha-mind is found in Chan. And the classic definition of Chan explicitly says direct pointing to the nature of mind as the hallmark of the tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 7:38 PM
Title: Re: Karma and the Ten Powers
Content:
Astus wrote:
Agents acting and deciding is OK, that is our normal reality. But if you go to a "deeper level" then decisions and choices can't come from nothing but must be conditioned, otherwise it's very much a violation of dependent origination and causality in general. So in one sense there are free agents, in another the agents themselves are conditioned beings with conditioned minds.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, December 5th, 2011 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: Do Arhats have to become Buddhas?
Content:
Huseng said:
Such a view is easily refuted with scripture and reasoning, just like holding that icchantikas can never attain liberation.

Astus wrote:
As always, it depends on what scriptures you consider definitive and how you interpret things.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: A Question for Abhidharma analysts
Content:
Astus wrote:
Music is not an ultimate truth (in the abhidharmic sense) but an interpretation of the mind of specified series of sounds, a conventional truth. What you identify as music is conditioned by the culture and one's aesthetic taste.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 3rd, 2011 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Why not teach buddhism, instead of your mind?
Content:
Astus wrote:
MalaBeads,

Getting lost in content is wondering whether "mind is buddha" or "neither mind, nor buddha" is the better. There are no "best methods", only working methods that one can understand and use. The majority of old Zen teachings in that sense are very much useless as they speak in a foreign language using unknown ideas. If one wants to uphold the principle that Zen is only about pointing to the nature of mind, one must use intelligible language and not dead Chinese rhetoric. So how could we translate this saying, "neither mind, nor buddha", into something sensible? I'd say, it is not intelligence, emotion or awareness, neither it is anything supernatural or beyond current existence.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, December 3rd, 2011 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Do Arhats have to become Buddhas?
Content:
Mr. G said:
Outside the three realms? A Pure land?

Astus wrote:
It isn't really pure if it's within the three realms, is it?

Anyway, after early Buddhism first the idea of arhatship was raised to very high, then gradually in Mahayana they made it into a very low level of attainment, something dangerous and more detrimental than committing the 5 worst crimes. I find it better to view it as a religious concept and how it changed through the ages if one is looking for the big picture. Otherwise, there are different traditions and interpretations within Buddhism, including the view (in Mahayana) that arhats simply attain nirvana and that's all.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 2nd, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: A Question for Abhidharma analysts
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sounds (sound-consciousness) associated with pleasurable (or painful, or neutral) feelings generating attachment (or aversion, or disinterest).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, December 2nd, 2011 at 6:01 PM
Title: Re: Why not teach buddhism, instead of your mind?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mazu generally taught that mind is buddha. Then there was neither mind, nor buddha. Dazhu Huihai was quite satisfied with the first teaching, others preferred the latter. But without understanding the meaning it's pointless to debate the words. The meaning obviously is to see mind's true nature, what else is there? Then look at the different teaching methods used.

A monk asked, "Master, Why do you say that Mind is Buddha?" Mazu said, "To stop babies from crying." The monk said, "What do you say when they stop crying?" Mazu said, "Neither Mind, nor Buddha." The monk asked, "Without using either of these statements, how would you instruct someone ?" Mazu said, "I would say to him that it's not a thing." The monk asked, "If suddenly you met someone who was in the midst of it, then what?" Mazu said, "I would teach them to realize the great Way."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Why not teach buddhism, instead of your mind?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Do you care to elaborate?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Title: Re: Karma and the Ten Powers
Content:
Astus wrote:
As for free will, the mind is a series of conditioned factors that interacts with other conditioned experiences. It doesn't mean that there is some external force ruling over people. In fact, this idea that there is a "free self" is an illusion. Without such self, it is also pointless to conceive oneself being controlled by anything. Thinking itself is a series of conditioned factors. But, this basic causality should not be confused with karma because it is a special case.

mint said:
How does this relate to the so-called Ten Powers?

Astus wrote:
If we suppose that from a single point of time all past and future can be known, buddhas with omniscience are aware of it all. This is of course very much a theoretical assumption, not something based on traditional Buddhist explanations.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: Karma and the Ten Powers
Content:
Acchantika said:
In fact, this idea that there is a "free self" is an illusion. Without such self, it is also pointless to conceive oneself being controlled by anything.
Selves, karma, emptiness, liberation are all illusions. Everything is already empty, so why strive for enlightenment when both the striving and the enlightenment are empty? Because sentient beings perceive their suffering as real, there is no other reason.

Astus wrote:
From a simple conventional perspective, beings have free will and can act as they please then bear the consequences. From the same point of view, ten powers and such are magical and inconceivable. Also, on this level you either believe it or not all these things.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2011 at 5:21 PM
Title: Re: Karma and the Ten Powers
Content:
Astus wrote:
Emptiness is not an unconditioned reality opposite to conditioned reality. It is because all is conditioned that it's empty, it's actually the same thing.

As for free will, the mind is a series of conditioned factors that interacts with other conditioned experiences. It doesn't mean that there is some external force ruling over people. In fact, this idea that there is a "free self" is an illusion. Without such self, it is also pointless to conceive oneself being controlled by anything. Thinking itself is a series of conditioned factors. But, this basic causality should not be confused with karma because it is a special case.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2011 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Karma and the Ten Powers
Content:
Astus wrote:
Strict causality requires that every effect has definite causes and conditions, and those causes and conditions are also conditioned by previous factors. So it goes on and on. Consequently, if we knew all conditions at a single point of time and the rules how they go on, we could tell all past and future. This is not nihilism but determinism. Mental factors are subject to causality as well as material things. Whatever thought one has now is then a necessary consequence of the development of the entire world, or at least the chain of causes and conditions from past unknown.

As for whether buddhas are meant to be omniscient in this particular form or it means something else, I think it's debatable.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2011 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Diamond Sutra in latin
Content:
Dharma Atma said:
But why to translate them in the dead languages...

Astus wrote:
Buddhist sutras were translated into literary Chinese, a dead language by that time. Same can be said about Sanskrit. Latin, of course, is not that popular now as those were in their respective cultural spheres. Still, there is some beauty in Latin. Even two volumes of Harry Potter were translated to Latin (and one volume to ancient Greek).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 29th, 2011 at 6:51 PM
Title: Re: Diamond Sutra in latin
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is the use of translating the Diamond Sutra at all? The content is too difficult for anyone without prior education to make sense of, so any translation of it should be done with commentary. Not to mention there are dozens of English translations. A Latin version, well, it's fun, that's all.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 28th, 2011 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Diamond Sutra in latin
Content:
Astus wrote:
Very nice.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: Continuity / Discontinuity; Eternalism / Annihilationism
Content:
Astus wrote:
We can say that there is continuity in a middle way interpretation. It only requires understanding that:
1. there are no separate instances that follow each other (e.g., moments of time)
2. the term "continuity" is not a thing in itself but an expression


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Sherab said:
I don't know about others, but I do try to establish for myself the reasonableness of various aspects of Buddhist teachings (e.g. cause and effect, impermance) and practices (e.g. rationale for yidam visualisation) through logical arguments/reasonings.  But these logical arguments/reasonings cannot establish the validity of the teachings or practices.

In addition, the logical arguments/reasonings that I use for myself may not suit others because there are always assumptions upon which an argument/reasoning has to rest upon, and these assumptions may not make sense to or may not be accepted by others.

You may wish to ask yourself, how you yourself come to accept various aspects of Buddhist teachings.

Astus wrote:
It is possible to say that since ultimately nothing is established, one can come up practically anything and call it illusory conventional reality. However, there is a huge amount of "shared reality" that allows us to think there is a system in all this. In Buddhism the basis of everyday experience is karma, from karma arises the whole universe, and karma is based on the work of the mind. Mind also has its own organised functioning that is explained mainly in abhidharma and yogacara works. Now here is a problem that divides Buddhist thinkers, whether there is an outer reality independent of mind or not. Either case, it is difficult to explain the relationship either between a separate mind and outer things, or between personal and shared reality.

However, saying that nothing is ultimately established is not exactly correct because of dependent origination as the organising law of phenomena. But that is not enough to explain the mind-continuum as separate from the body, thus dependent origination is insufficient to be the basis of the Buddhist view of conventional reality. But perhaps if to this we add the existence of a mind-continuum we could be set.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Why is Vajrayana Better?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Nangwa,

A well known practice of Japanese Rinzai Zen is the koan practice. What is that in Vajrayana?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Best Language to Learn First?
Content:
Food_Eatah said:
It's probably also easier to learn Chinese since those slitty eye homeboys are everywhere!!!  You certainly wouldn't have trouble finding teachers and sources.

Astus wrote:
Modern Mandarin/Cantonese/etc. are not the same as literary Chinese (the language of the majority of Buddhist texts) and there is also the matter of Buddhist terminology. Similarly, spoken Tibetan is not the same as the language of the sutras and tantras.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Why is Vajrayana Better?
Content:
Nangwa said:
Maybe not by the same name but the Vajrayana scholastic tradition certainly accounts for these things.
Canons are not the same as traditions.

Astus wrote:
So you are claiming this based purely on faith in Vajrayana, not on actually knowing anything about them. That is when the all-inclusiveness of Vajrayana becomes a matter of another belief next to it being faster, better, etc., and not something even close to an established fact. Of course, this is not a problem at all, since all the other non-Vajrayana schools like to say that same things about themselves.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Why is Vajrayana Better?
Content:
Nangwa said:
Vajrayana includes the methods of Theravada and East Asian Buddhism plus many more.
The other paths are limited in scope and method.

Astus wrote:
Hardly. It has no four dharmadhatus, no three truths, no three minds, no five ranks, no three mysteries, no fifty-two stages, etc. It doesn't even have many of the sutras, treatises and other texts that are in the East Asian canons, neither does it have the Theravada canon or later works.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
conebeckham said:
Perhaps we need to define what a "view" is.

Astus wrote:
Apparently there is a major linguistic chaos generating unclear reactions here.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Why is Vajrayana Better?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Vajrayana is better than what? Obviously, it is better than those teachings it posits as other teachings. But as for those who actually know and follow other paths, it has no knowledge of, so comparison is not possible, unless someone would actually care to learn about those other paths. But so far I haven't met a Vajrayana follower who knows in depth about at least one East Asian or Theravada school.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 6:10 PM
Title: Re: Best Language to Learn First?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Chinese has the largest number of Buddhist texts (including tantras and modern translations). Sanskrit only has fragments and incomplete canons. So I think the question is whether you want to be a scholar-linguist or just want to read and study texts.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 17th, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Sherab said:
I thought that agreement between people automatically means that whatever is agreed is "established" for them individually.  Method of establishment could be different for each individual but there has to be "establishment" before agreement takes place.

Astus wrote:
By established I meant a logical system. That is rarely something people care to contemplate.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Namdrol said:
A view is a position concerning either existence or non-existence, that is the basis of all views. Madhyamakas do not have views concerning either.

Astus wrote:
Should add that it's independent existence and total annihilation. But to say that "there is no self" is not a position of non-existence, i.e. annihilation, and to say that "phenomena are inter-dependent" is not a position of existence, i.e. eternal self-sufficient being.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
zangskar said:
Trying to understand what your aim is, is it: how are the conventional truths associated with Buddhism 'proved' or argued for (regardless of the fact that they are ultimately held to be 'wrong')? I.e. what methodology (if any) is used in Buddhist doctrine to arrive at these conventional truths?

Is what you are looking for some explicit, written down philosophy of the conventional? Or is it what one could call the actual and perhaps tacit methodology, that would have to be discovered and elucidated through hermeneutic study of the texts?

Astus wrote:
Yes, you understand the question correctly. The second part, not necessarily needed.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 5:45 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sherab,

If in your interpretation conventional reality is only defined by agreement between people and nothing else, even causality can't be established, not to mention morality and karma. Those are the very bases of all Buddhist practice without which there can be neither sravakas nor bodhisattvas. Madhyamaka reasoning is great once the fundamental doctrines are clarified, but before that it's pointless to discuss emptiness. So instead of quotes and arguments about Buddhist sophisms one should first of all investigate the crude basics.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 4:32 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Sherab said:
Here's how I see it:

Buddhist view of conventional reality is the same as the ordinary man's view of conventional reality.  It is what is generally accepted by ordinary people.  Why?  How can there be any other type of conventional reality given the meaning of convention.

Things like the five elements, skandhas etc are conventional reality in the past in India.  Given the progress in science, no one who has undergone a "modern" education would really hold that fire is an element or water is an element and so forth.  So conventional reality changes with time.

So is there a need to establish a correct view of conventional reality, Buddhist or otherwise?  No, conventional reality is what is generally agreed upon i.e. the convention.  It is accepted as such without proof.  It is accepted as such because it is what is commonly accepted.

What happens if you try to talk to a modern man of science using conventions prevalent at the time of the Buddha, using terms like the five elements as if they are the current convention?  The man will probably think that you are caught in a time warp, and rightly so.

Astus wrote:
Good point, it is conventional without the need to be proved. However, many believe that there is only body (materialism - annihilationism), that there is an eternal soul (eternalism), a creator god (theism), etc., that are contrary to the Buddhist view but could be called conventional. Thus there is correct and incorrect view of conventional reality, and having right or wrong view is karmically important. It is also important in order to make any sense of the path to liberation, since it relies on several concepts of conventional truth.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
conebeckham said:
..and Astus, sorry for derailing the thread.  I'm not sure that there are "good" Buddhist arguments for a certain view of conventional reality, as compared to other sorts of arguments.  Karma, D.O., these things should appeal to those with a scientific mind, I think.

Astus wrote:
Maybe there are no such arguments. I've been looking into the Tattvasamgraha's arguments, but one of the major difficulties when it argues against materialists is that the modern view of the body is quite different from those in ancient India. But even if we put that aside, it is difficult to accept its explanations for instance for the body not being the basis for the mind when it falls to a reasoning applied to any sort of causal relation (one-many argument on p. 898).

Just to show how easily certain basic concepts are viewed as evident:
"The other aspect of looking at the relationship between appearances and mind is whether the body and mind are the same or different. Normally, we tend to think of them as different. Most people have a vague idea that their body is like the dwelling place of their mind—as though the body were the house and their mind were someone living in that house. In fact, they are indivisible, because the mind pervades the body." (Thrangu RInpoche: Ocean of Definitive Meaning, p. 110)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
edearl said:
There is nothing wrong with your logic.

I would like to be able to convince those who emote, but have had no success, because they think so differently than I do. A conversation might go like this: They say, "I believe my brother and I communicate telepathically." Whereupon, I say something like, "There is no scientific basis for telepathy, and experiments have not demonstrated it works." Then they say something like, "I don't care. Once my brother was struck by lightening, and I got the feeling something bad had happened. I called him from around the world, and sure enough he had been struck by lightening." Frustrated, I say something like, "IT IS MERELY COINCIDENCE. SCIENCE HAS DISPROVED TELEPATHY." And, they say, "Why are you yelling? I don't care what science says."

I have given up trying. My communication skills are inadequate.

Astus wrote:
You think in terms of debating, but all I'm looking for are sensible arguments for the Buddhist view of the world on the conventional level (and not arguments for emptiness, two truths, etc.). Reasons set up systematically to explain the ordinary realm of experience and fundamental teachings on the path of humans and gods (not above).


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 at 8:15 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
edearl said:
That the Buddhist wold view is superior seemed obvious to me, as I began to read about Buddhism. Unfortunately, logical arguments have little affect on people who memorize and emote rather than learn and think; otherwise, the world would be filled with Buddhists and people similar to Buddhists.

Astus wrote:
Logical arguments do have an impact, at least among those who value rational thinking. However, I still have to see those arguments to be able to apply them.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 at 5:17 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
Chapter 17 of MMK is a fine example of conventional reality in the Buddhist interpretation.

The point of arguments are, however, not to debate others but to serve as logical reasons for the Buddhist world view. So if one were to investigate why one should believe in the Buddhist understanding of conventional reality instead of others, there are clear explanations.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jnana,

Thanks, I'll look into it.

https://www.google.hu/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=tattvasamgraha%20santaraksita&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F61415472%2FGanganatha-Jha-tr-Santaraksita-Kamalashila-Tattvasangraha-of-Santaraksita-With-the-Commentory-of-Kamalasila-Vol-I-1937&ei=b43BTrDXAsbQ4QTE78STBA&usg=AFQjCNEtuvDx7GVwcBV_3WRoDuXikUI9_g&cad=rja (Very big file on Scribd!)
http://www.archive.org/details/tattvasangrahaof015823mbp (on Archive)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are a couple of points where all Buddhists agree to some level, for instance that there are 5/6 realms of existence, and not 7 or 4. That stealing is conducive to lower birth and giving is conducive to higher birth. That there are magical powers, curses, healing spells, etc. That there are distinct cyclic eras on both social and cosmological levels. That there are five aggregates and six senses. These and other basic teachings are taken as facts and evident attributes of the conventional reality. However, in this culture in our time it is not that easy to just accept them. But this is not a unique situation. Such realms, deities, afterlife, they were not normal in many other cultures where Buddhism spread throughout the centuries, and that includes the time and land of Shakyamuni too. So when Buddhists had to debate with brahmins, warriors, merchants, shamans, yogis, zoroastrians, taoists, confucianists, etc. they didn't just have to say that "all phenomena are empty" but also that Indra is a mighty god but doesn't really help humanity, that it is wrong to sacrifice animals and monks should not bow before kings.

So defining conventional reality as just something that are commonly accepted doesn't really fit here. Even if we go into epistemology.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Paul said:
It is just for the sake of refuting non-Buddhist opponents
That the learned ones have promoted them

Astus wrote:
And for this purpose I'd like to see all the many reasons for the validity of the Buddhist view vis-a-vis non-Buddhist views.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 15th, 2011 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
Namdrol,

I'm looking for convincing reasons to validate the Buddhist view, obviously for non-Buddhists who want to get a grasp of it. I assume there are reports of how different teachers spread the Dharma among new converts who were not familiar with such concepts as samsara, morality and karma, mostly non-Indians. I'm also curious because Madhyamika, Yogacarin and other teachers went on and on to prove their understanding of ultimate reality, but that is a later step.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 14th, 2011 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think this is going to an unintended direction. My question is if there are arguments to establish correct view on the conventional level. To give an example that is quite an important point here, is to differentiate mind from matter, as that is essential for the system of rebirth, morality and even liberation. Again, I'm looking for arguments to establish correct view of the conventional realm, not anything else.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 14th, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
The correct (i.e. Buddhist) view of conventional reality can be summed up as dependent origination. That includes the general law of causality, the teachings on morality, karma, realms, beings, mundane samadhis, and from a Mahayana POV the dharmas, five aggregates, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, November 14th, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Title: Reasons for Conventional Reality
Content:
Astus wrote:
Madhyamaka and other Buddhist thoughts have sophisticated and detailed methods to prove ultimate reality. What about establishing the correct view of conventional reality? Are there lists of arguments? Is it possible to logically argue for the Buddhist view of conventional reality?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2011 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Dogen translation in English
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I'm not a Dogen scholar or Japanese expert, my best advice is to check the different translations and choose the one you like. The Zuimonki was also translated by Thomas Cleary. As for the Shobogenzo, the Nishijima translation seems to be more literal while the Shasta Abbey's try to be more of an explaining translation (thus a bit easier to read first). You can get both online actually, the Nishijima tr. is on the Numata's website: http://www.bdkamerica.org/default.aspx?MPID=81

In my opinion, however, if you want a fine introduction to Dogen, I recommend Carl Bielefeldt's "Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation".
The http://hcbss.stanford.edu/research/projects/sztp/index.html is another valuable source for alternative translations.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 11th, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Dogen translation in English
Content:
Astus wrote:
As an intro to Dogen I'd recommend the Shobogenzo-Zuimonki, then the Shobogenzo, and only after that the Eihei Koroku.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, November 6th, 2011 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: are karma and rebirth for real?
Content:
KevinSolway said:
You must be aware that there are other interpretations of rebirth than your own, and that your own interpretation may not be the correct one.

Astus wrote:
Truth can be established only on defining principles. A correct interpretation exists only as far as one has the means to measure correctness. Truth on its own does not exist. Such is the teaching of dependent origination and emptiness. Therefore one may try to understand rebirth based on Buddhism or based on something else. This way the conclusions are already determined by one's preconceptions. Only when one becomes open to the Dharma it is possible to begin comprehending the teaching of the Buddha. How to be open and trusting toward this teaching of liberation? There are several ways depending on one's mental habits and ways of thinking. Debates like in this thread may serve such purpose, to assist in generating faith. But again, before openness there are only repetitive thought patterns coming from old mental conditioning. To eventually have insight into such a conditioned and narrow state of mind and see how that mentality could not yield happiness so far is the very first step on the path to enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 5:57 PM
Title: Re: Purelands
Content:
Astus wrote:
gingercatni,

It is not a matter of Akshobhya denying access nor Amitabha accepting people. Every buddha has the universal vows to liberate all beings and they have unbounded compassion toward all. At the same time there are specific vows that make buddhas and buddha-lands different. Thus conditions of getting to a buddha-land differ.

Historically speaking, it was quite a long process that Amitabha's practice became reduced to recitation and spread among lay people. Akshobhya's practice died out long ago, it wasn't competitive enough to survive on the religious market unlike other buddhas and bodhisattvas. If you prefer Abhirati I'm sure it is no problem to do practices related to that based on the sutras available. You might even find others who fancy Akshobhya above all the others.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: Purelands
Content:
Astus wrote:
Then what do you make of the other passages in the sutra that lists all the different practices one should perform in order to attain birth in Abhirati? It says that one should follow the same vows as Akshobhya plus aspire to be born in his land. It doesn't add that it's all right to do without everything else but faith. Or you see it otherwise?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Purelands
Content:
Astus wrote:
But you should look at the criteria of birth for those different buddha-lands. They are rarely available for just any ordinary being.

In case of Abhirati, "one with passion or attachment cannot be born in that Buddha-land. Only those who have planted good roots and cultivated pure conduct can be born there." (Treasury of Mahayana Sutras, p. 323) Also, answering Shariputra's question, Shakyamuni says that only those who follow the same practices as Akshobhya can be born there, plus other practices. (p. 332ff) It is definitely not an easy task.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: Purelands
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is said that Amita Buddha's land is the easiest to reach, that's why it is the one emphasised and taught primarily and not any other.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2011 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Wisdom,

I can agree that BDSM mixes lust with anger, fear, pride, inferiority-superiority ideas and other disturbing impulses. At the same time, you can find the same emotions in common relationships, whether sexual or otherwise. And when one creates an identity of BDSM practices it can go very deep. From this a lot of pain and suffering may come eventually. It is clearly negative to reinforce a mental conditioning for hurting others. But at the same time, BDSM puts different levels of violence into a more lust than anger based context. While lust is a primary factor here, the second strongest emotion seems to be pride. It is about pride whether one takes the role of being superior or inferior, ruler or servant. However, pride is a rather subtle affliction and it's not really addressed by common precepts, because it is not an act in itself or necessarily a source of harmful actions.

Buddhist morality or ethics is not something that is prescribed to all who follow the religion but these are so called training rules. One is a lay Buddhist from the point refuge is taken in the Three Jewels. Taking up the five precepts is the next step, but one can take any amount from 1-5, or even more. To make BDSM in itself a sexual (or rather sensual) misconduct would require it to be consuming the person who practices it, while if it were wrong because it is physically harmful it'd fall under the first precept. We can make a distinction between "healthy" and "unhealthy" sensuality, as there are abusive and nourishing relationships in many forms. BDSM in itself is not abusive, but it can become detrimental. So it is with marriage, etc. In case of sexual/sensual misconduct the important questions are whether it is socially disruptive and if it is obsessive. Both are harmful for one's mental state and create big troubles through conflict with others and extreme emotional attachments. In this sense, identifying with BDSM as a life form is equivalent of taking refuge in BDSM, so one better avoids that.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2011 at 7:33 AM
Title: New Administrator
Content:
Astus wrote:
Tara has become our very new administrator of Dharma Wheel. Please welcome her.

I'd also like to thank Ngawang Drolma's wonderful service she had done here since the beginning.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2011 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Wisdom,

There are a range of impulses that drive one to practice some form of BDSM. I consider none to be part of the path of a bodhisattva. However, the question is about ethics, and within Buddhism there are different levels of ethics. Any form of sexual practice can only be considered within the ethics of an ordinary lay person - neither ordained, nor enlightened - very much within samsara. The ethics of an ordinary lay person are meant to protect from the lower realms, to avoid excessive hatred, lust and torpor. BDSM, just as any other form of sensual pleasure, exists on different levels of intensity. In extreme forms it is as inadvisable as over indulgence in food, sleep, etc.

The "minimalist" definition of the relevant precept is:
"He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal." (MN 41.8)
This means not to disrupt the boundaries of family and social law. Quite sensible.
"Sexual misconduct is much censured in the world because it is the corruption of another's wife, and because it leads to retribution in a painful realm of rebirth." (Abhidharmakosabhasyam, 4.I.J.9.b.i, vol 2, p. 604)
If we get deep into the commentaries, we find under the third category (protected by the Dharma) of sexual misconduct the form of improper behaviour - something that is not found as a category in the Abhidharmakosabhasyam (4.L.III.F.3, vol. 2, p. 651) - that is:
"Improper behavior refers to beating..." (Jewel Ornament of Liberation, 6.II.A.3.a, p. 113)
In this case beating might cover certain forms of BDSM. But that is quite a weak point and nothing generally regarded as definitive.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, November 3rd, 2011 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Please return to the topic of this thread. Other discussions should be brought to another place.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
Food_Eatah said:
It's one thing to be tolerant to other people's actions, but another thing for disciples of the Buddha to condone behaviours that are harmful and clearly against the precepts!

Astus wrote:
Two questions then:
1. How is it harmful?
2. Exactly what precepts are those?

Food_Eatah said:
This domination crap is harmful for the sprititual practice.

Astus wrote:
BDSM is not intended to be a spiritual practice. But how and what kind of spirituality it harms is another question.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
mint said:
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of erotic asphyxiation or even fantasy rape scenarios.  I can imagine the rape scenario getting out of hand with the right balance of hormones and aggression.  It's what mother called "horsing around."

Astus wrote:
There are extreme cases, but just as well I can think of extreme cases of other activities, like certain sports. Still, exactly because they are extreme, only very few people pursue them, therefore it should not be projected on what the majority does. And as Keith mentioned before, every case deserves its own analysis. Generally speaking, BDSM is not about strangling each other or fantasising about crimes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
mint said:
Doesn't the latent harm beg some consideration, though?  While I agree that BDSM situations may not (and should not) entail intentional harm, as others in this thread have pointed out, accidents happen.  This doesn't really affect the karmic element much; however, it is like toying with a loaded weapon which is falsely regarded as having been emptied.  What happens when the weapon misfires?  Wouldn't responsible thing be to minimize the potential for such harm?

Astus wrote:
I'm no expert in BDSM but I assume most of its practices are not dangerous at all. Weapons can do serious injuries while hot wax or even needles are hardly threatening. No doubt there are accidents, just like in the bathroom. But if you consider that people practice this form of entertainment with those they care about, it is hard to think of it as morally wrong, not to mention that even "common sex" has some potential dangers, from physical injuries to STIs.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist ethics and BDSM?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is possible - and perhaps advisable at a later stage - to get into details of Buddhist ethics. But in brief, the precepts are meant to regulate social behaviour. It is not about enlightenment or no enlightenment, but good karma and bad karma, higher and lower birth. Harmlessness in terms of avoiding inflicting pain (physical or mental) on others is a fundamental principle in Buddhism. Since BDSM is about giving and receiving joy - although in an unusual way - it is not harmful. While it is a form of sensual attachment, the precepts are not meant to eliminate such desires but only to regulate them. So until whatever one does remains within the boundaries of not harming others intentionally, it is not against the precepts generally. That's how I see it.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: The Lotus Sutra
Content:
cdpatton said:
Overall, I personally think at the time of its composition, the Saddharma-pundarika was not so much a text for teaching praxis but rather a text advocating the Mahayana and attempting to convert the non-Mahayanists to the Mahayana teaching with the arguments against the three vehicles, recasting the bodhisattvas as the new examplars, etc.

Astus wrote:
Do you know about the magnitude of the Lotus Sutra's success among Indian Mahayana followers? Are there Indian commentaries?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: The Lotus Sutra
Content:
Astus wrote:
Kyosan,

There is no point of a teaching that only buddhas can understand as they have no need of teachings.

Food_Eatah,

Authenticity and quality are not the same.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 31st, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya of Amitabha sanskrit naming?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dharmakaya Amitabha,
Sambhogakaya Avalokitesvara,
Nirmanakaya Padmasambhava -
I bow before the divine Trikaya!

(Nyang-ral Nyi-ma-'od-zer quoted in Approaching the Land of Bliss, p. 24)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 30th, 2011 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Dharmakaya of Amitabha sanskrit naming?
Content:
Astus wrote:
That is not a definite distinction accepted by all. Amita Buddha (without dividing it to Amitabha and Amitayus) was thought of by different authors in East Asia as any of the three buddha-bodies.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 29th, 2011 at 4:48 PM
Title: Re: John R. McRae Dead
Content:
Astus wrote:
Very sad news. He was a true pioneer in East Asian Buddhist studies.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 27th, 2011 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
klqv,

I think I've lost you. What is your question exactly?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
I lined up those four options in an attempt to show that these are different approaches to practice. They are not really opposites but aspects one can bring up according to situation. There are different advances and drawbacks for each point, so it's better to see them all. It's very similar to the two truths teaching.

The gradualist views are true because there is hardly anyone who could understand the Dharma from just a few words, much less realise it immediately. The subitist views are also true because everybody has the ability to see the nature of mind right now and that buddha-mind needs neither perfecting nor manifesting. And there are students who like a systematic step by step approach, others like to focus only on the essential.

In the subitist way there is no path, no practice. Just being natural and ordinary. But usually this naturalness has to be practised for a while before it starts to actually become natural. This is practising not practising.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 25th, 2011 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
klqv said:
i don't follow.... from a merely analytic point of view, if even those that teach that there is no path don't practice as if there were none, then they are working with both.

more generally, the rhetoric of there being no path i thought was found in all chan. and if it is rhetoric for those that teach the most stringent sudden enlightenment [that's what we're talking about - right] then how can they be differentiated from the other camp. or, even, why would it be necessary to work with only one approach and not the other?

Astus wrote:
OK, let me explain a bit of the distinctions.

Gradual path: doing different practices (e.g. six paramitas) that eventually result in liberation.
Gradual enlightenment: different levels of enlightenment (e.g. 52 stages).
Sudden enlightenment: direct realisation of buddhahood.
Sudden path: immediate insight into buddha-mind without any further methods.

You can come up with any combination of the above four and find some school or teacher who advocated that. The Complete Enlightenment Sutra is a great example where the sequence goes from a subitist (sudden-ist) approach to a gradualist, each to match the different capacities.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, October 25th, 2011 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Do you mean Toeong Seongcheol and his view of sudden enlightenment, sudden practice? If so, while I have only minimal information on his teachings, he seems actually more like a teacher of gradual training to sudden enlightenment.

The two views mentioned can be merged into a single interpretation, and that's what Zongmi and Jinul did in their own ways. There is no need to take them as distant extremes or opposites. But it should still be recognised that it is possible to work only with one or the other, or create a hierarchical structure of them. Also, views emphasising a narrow path are usually more rhetoric than practical, while very diverse and complex interpretations tend to be rather theoretical than applicable.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 24th, 2011 at 5:16 PM
Title: Re: The Complete Path...by the Seventh Dalai Lama
Content:
Astus wrote:
OK. Where do you have it from?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 24th, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Title: Re: The Complete Path...by the Seventh Dalai Lama
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is there anywhere on their website or in a book? I'm asking because a Google search did not help me to find it. I just want to get the references clear if I happen to translate or quote it.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 24th, 2011 at 3:37 PM
Title: Re: Seosan's Argument for Pure Land Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Simplicity doesn't necessarily mean it is for people of low capacity. In fact, one may need lot of explanations to reach an understanding. I think it is quite rare that one just accepts a foreign religion based only on faith. And the original quote I brought here addresses a common view that the Pure Land and Amita Buddha are just symbols and not real at all. That is, in my view, a shallow understanding of the Pure Land teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 23rd, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism...
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Buddhist path is about putting the teachings of the Buddha and teachers into practice within our life. In that sense Zen is no different at all from any other "school".


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, October 23rd, 2011 at 7:33 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are two approaches regarding the status of Zen teachers. One is that there is a bodhisattva path one takes on, you can find this view in the teachings of Zongmi, Jinul and Shengyan. The other is to point out that concepts of bodhisattvas and buddhahood are just concepts, it is mistaken to take them too seriously and one's better be a man of no affairs.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 22nd, 2011 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Seosan's Argument for Pure Land Practice
Content:
plwk said:
Sometimes I wonder how is it that a 'simple' practice can be turned into such a mountain of views...

Astus wrote:
There's never been even a "simple thought", only naive philosophies and superficial views. That's why through analysis one finds both inter-dependency and emptiness at the same time, one thought including all thoughts and at the same time being without true basis.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 21st, 2011 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: The Complete Path...by the Seventh Dalai Lama
Content:
Astus wrote:
Wonderful summary. Can you give an exact source?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 21st, 2011 at 4:31 PM
Title: Re: Seosan's Argument for Pure Land Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Lip service is quite useless. As mentioned by Ryoto, the minimal requirement is to have faith. Without intention and reliance on Amita Buddha there is no birth. Without mindfulness of the practice there is no meditation.

Seosan says in the Mirror of Seon (52):

Chanting with the mouth is called "recitation," while chanting with the mind is called "reflecting on the Buddha. To merely recite a chant without awareness does not benefit one's practice. The Dharma Gate of the six syllables "Na-mu-a-mi-ta-bul" is a short-cut approach that can definitely lead you out of the cycle of transmigration. When you chant, your mind should be directed towards the realm of the Buddha. In your thoughts, you should maintain the chanting without falling into forgetfulness. With your mouth, you should chant the Buddha's name distinctly and not let your voice become sloppy. If you do this, your mind and your voice will come together. This is the meaning of "chanting the Buddha's name."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, October 20th, 2011 at 6:58 PM
Title: Seosan's Argument for Pure Land Practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
"The worthies in the above passages all directly point at the Original Mind. There is no other method. This holds true at the level of ultimate reality; however, in the phenomenal realm, paradise and Amitabha Buddha with his forty-eight vows, really exist. So anyone who recites Amitabha's name just ten times will ascend with the power of Amitabha's vows and be reborn on a lotus leaf. In this realm, he will soon break free from the wheel of transmigration. All the Buddhas of the Three Dimensions of time say that this is so. The Bodhisattvas of the Ten Directions85 all vow to be reborn there. In addition, the records describing all of those who have been reborn there in the past or present have been transmitted accurately. All of you practitioners who have made a vow to be reborn there should beware of mistaken views. You must be diligent!
The Sanskrit "Amita" means "unlimited life-span" or "unlimited brilliance." It is the name of the most excellent Buddha throughout the Ten Directions and the Three Dimensions86 of time. When this Buddha was practicing, he was called Dharmakara. He made forty-eight vows in front of Lokesvararaja Buddha. He said, "When I become a Buddha, if any deva or human being — or even the smallest insect — residing in any of the myriad worlds in any of the Ten Directions chants my name just ten times, I will cause that being to be reborn in my realm. For, until I am able to fulfill my vow, I will not enter Buddhahood." The sages of the past used to say, "Each time one praises the Buddha, the demons lose their courage. In addition, one's name is removed from the register in hell, as a lotus flower87 blooms in a golden pond." It has also been said in the Dharma of Repentance, "There is your own power and the power of others. The former is slow, whereas the latter is fast. It is like a man who wants to cross the sea. If he plants trees for timber to make a boat, it will take a long time. This is like using your own power. But if he borrows someone else's boat and crosses the sea, he will get there fast. This is like the power of the Buddha." It has also been said, "If a child approaches water or fire and then yells, his parents, hearing his shout, come quickly to save him from danger. It is the same with a man on his death bed who shouts the Buddha's name. The Buddha, who is in possession of mysterious powers, will definitely come and greet such a person. In this sense, the compassion of the great sages surpasses that of parents. Moreover, sentient beings' birth and death is much more dangerous than water and fire."
There are those who say, "The mind is the Pure Land. You cannot be 'born' in the Pure Land. Your Self Nature is Amitabha Buddha. There is no other Amitabha to meet with." These words seem to be correct, but in fact they are not. Amitabha Buddha has no desire or hatred. Do we likewise have no desire and hatred? The Buddha transforms hell into lotus flowers as easily as you might turn your hand over. Yet, we are constantly afraid of falling into hell through the force of our own karma; we certainly could not even consider transforming hell into lotus flowers. Amitabha Buddha observes infinite worlds as if they were right in front of his eyes. For us, even the things happening right outside our wall cannot be seen, let alone the worlds in all the Ten Directions. Therefore, man's nature may be Buddha but his actions are characteristic of a sentient being. If we discuss both character and function, they are as far from each other as the sky and the earth.
Master Kuei-feng once said, "Even though you actually awaken suddenly; in the end, you must cultivate gradually." These words are true indeed!
Then, what could we say to someone who insists that this Self Nature is Amitabha Buddha? How is it that Sakyamuni was born with his fine endowments? How is it that one like Amitabha Buddha appeared through spontaneous birth? If you think about it, you cannot help but understand. When you are on your death bed, suffering and on the verge of death, are you confident that you will be completely free? If you aren't, then you should do something to avoid falling into some long-lasting torment as a result of a moment's pride.
Even Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna, both of them patriarchs, clearly bestowed upon us their words and teachings which strongly advocated working for a good incarnation in the next life. Who am I to say that one should not concern oneself with the next life? Even the Buddha himself said, "The Western Paradise is far from here. One must pass through 180,000 worlds to get there." This is an explanation of characteristics for the sake of those with dull faculties. "The Western Paradise is not far from here. This very mind/sentient being is the Buddha/Amitabha Buddha." This is an explanation of the Self Nature for the sake of those with "sharp faculties." The teachings consist of both the provisional and the actual. Speech has an exoteric and an esoteric aspect. One whose understanding and actions are in agreement can penetrate both what is near and what is far. Consequently, the School of the Patriarchs has those, like Hui-yuan, who called out to the Amitabha Buddha and those, like Jui-yen, who called out to his own self."

(Seosan Daesa: http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/master/dharma_talk_view.asp?cat_seq=32&content_seq=133&priest_seq=0&page=1.; Mirror of Zen, 52)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 19th, 2011 at 3:37 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen teachers being equal to buddhas, only in the sense that mind is buddha and there is no buddha outside the mind. But it should be understood in the way that only those are true teachers of Zen who are enlightened to the buddha-mind, not the other way around that people bearing different titles are buddhas because of that.

Mind to mind transmission is the same as seeing nature, because Zen is not in words or concepts but enlightenment itself. Thus there is nothing transmitted. It is an organisational matter that official papers are also called mind to mind transmission while in fact they are not.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 15th, 2011 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Mystical Experience in Jodo Shinshu?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If mystical union is interpreted as seeing one's buddha-nature then it's not something one would experience as a deluded being who has no hope but the vow of Amita Buddha. Shinjin - as I understand it - is the unwavering faith in being assured of birth in the Pure Land. It also includes the understanding that one is an ignorant human while Amita is a perfectly enlightened buddha. Although without doubt there are people who like to interpret Shinshu in quite a different way to the point of equating shinjin with enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, October 14th, 2011 at 4:15 PM
Title: Re: Mystical Experience in Jodo Shinshu?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shin is a school of Buddhism, sounds evident but it's quite important not to forget. Therefore to comprehend its doctrine to the fullest requires some understanding of Mahayana. "Mystical union" is quite a theist concept. In Buddhism there is no "Self" that unites with a divine being. Also, Buddhism has a sophisticated meditation tradition, so all those "experiences" one may have are very well studied and explained there. If you're looking for something similar to union, in other schools' teachings you find that Amida is identified with buddha-nature that is the original nature of mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 12th, 2011 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Vietnamese Pure Land compared to Jodo Shinshu?
Content:
Dodatsu said:
Actually self and other power were conceived by Tanluan (Donran), and inherited by Daozuo (Doshaku) and Shandao (Zendo).

Astus wrote:
Thanks.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, October 12th, 2011 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Jogye head vows to further globalization of Korean Buddhism
Content:



Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Vietnamese Pure Land compared to Jodo Shinshu?
Content:
kirtu said:
Also there is no notion of Shinran's (or was it Honen's) Self-Power/Other-Power view.Kirt

Astus wrote:
Self- and other-power were conceived by Shandao, so it's present in other Pure Land schools.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2011 at 3:34 PM
Title: Re: Intelligent design
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten."
(Terry Pratchett: Mort, p. 1)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: What's wrong with Buddha's 6th sense?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are a couple of implications of that story.
1. The Dharma is not easy to understand.
2. At that time only Siddhartha understood it.
3. The great Brahma implored the Buddha to teach, acknowledging him as superior and as a buddha.

From a Mahayana perspective the whole thing was a show, a skilful means only, as the Buddha was enlightened aeons ago. That is another way of saying that one should not get lost in verbal details but see the purpose of a story.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, October 10th, 2011 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: If Mahakashyapa was first Zen/Chan patriarch..
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides that the whole succession of patriarchs, especially the Indian part, is a fiction, one of the Mahayana interpretation of the major disciples of the Buddha is that they were actually bodhisattvas under cover.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, October 1st, 2011 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out / Systematic Instruction
Content:
Astus wrote:
Greg,

Not necessarily. It goes through different forms of shamatha with and without object. Insight into ordinary mind comes through vipashyana. That is, in the systematic works like those by the 9th Karmapa, Tashi Namgyal and Natsok Rangdrol.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 29th, 2011 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Pointing Out / Systematic Instruction
Content:
Astus wrote:
Greg,

It uses the practices of shamatha to tame the mind, then vipashyana to guide one to the insight of the nature of mind. Then on, of course, all actions can be based on the realisation of the nature of mind, and that is continuous practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 27th, 2011 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: The first precept / upasaka vow ...?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Not killing in terms of lay vows primarily means only killing other humans. This is usually extended to all sentient beings as killing in any form involves negative karma. But full karma exists only when there is intention, act and result. Without result (somebody dying) it is not killing, neither it is without intention. Killing includes any method to kill other beings from direct murder to convincing someone to commit suicide. However, killing oneself is not always included as the precept is interpreted as always in relationship with others. If you keep looking even into this single precept, you can find many different interpretations.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Religion or family
Content:
Astus wrote:
Both monastics and lay people are humans, so there is no difference here. A major difference is in the environment. A householder life with job and family has limited freedom and there are binding duties one can't really avoid, including family dinners and earning enough to pay the children's education, plus all the other emotional baggage. A renunciant has a lot more freedom, not bound by family relationships, has nobody else to take care of while at the same time being taken care of through donations. Of course, one can be a householder bodhisattva and a renunciant worldly person, so one's spiritual qualities are not determined by one's social situation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Religion or family
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
Not to take away from what Astus has said but why does it have to be either/or? Awareness is awareness whether you're aware of other monks or of other family members. As long as that awareness is undistracted why try to change where we already are?

Astus wrote:
Being aware of doing something wrong is not enough to change such acts. Being aware of suffering is not enough to eliminate suffering.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Gelugpa View Overshadowing Madhyamaka
Content:
Astus wrote:
It could be added how the Tibetan view overshadows other forms of Madhyamaka. However, since it is primarily the Gelug school that upholds Madhyamaka as its central doctrine, and in Tibetan Buddhism they have generally a stronger emphasis on Madhyamaka than anywhere else, it is quite a natural outcome.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: Wall Gazing
Content:
Astus wrote:
There is "wall contemplation" (biguan 壁觀) and there is "facing the wall" (mianbi 面壁). In Bodhidharma's story the two becomes the same eventually. As for why in Soto Zen they rather sit facing the wall and how they call it, I do not know.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: "On White Women and Buddhism"
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rory,

"Show me something similar in China, Tibet, Vietnam, Korea? "
Nothing similar to that that I know of, and I know little. Beata Grant has some interesting studies on women and Chan, and there's Faure of course. However, if you look at it, it's not Buddhism itself that had a campaign against women. Sure, there was no big social liberation because of Buddhism, but that was never its purpose anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Title: Re: Wall Gazing
Content:
Astus wrote:
In Bodhidharma's case "wall gazing" likely meant not a physical posture but maintaining the mind like a wall, that is, without discrimination or attachment to emotions and ideas.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 3:27 PM
Title: Re: Religion or family
Content:
Astus wrote:
Epistemes,

If you look closely at my post I talk about motivation and goals, not about specific teachings. Also, most of the teachings are meant for monastics, although many of those can be used by lay people.

Bhikkhu Cintita has a series on Lay life:

http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/lay-buddhist-practice-1/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/the-art-of-lay-life-2/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/the-art-of-lay-life-3-selecting-elements/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/the-art-of-lay-life-4-selecting-elements-cont/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/the-art-of-lay-life-4-rejecting-elements/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/the-art-of-lay-life-6-rejecting-elements-cont/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/the-art-of-lay-life-7-balancing-elements/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/the-art-of-lay-life-8-balancing-elements-cont/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-art-of-lay-life-9-simplifying/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/the-art-of-lay-life-10-lay-and-monastic/
http://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/the-art-of-lay-life-11-lay-and-monastic-cont/


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 3:04 PM
Title: Re: Wall Gazing
Content:
Astus wrote:
What do you mean by "wall gazing"?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: "On White Women and Buddhism"
Content:
deepbluehum said:
No. I would have to say dharma is sexist, homophobic and racist. From the earliest suttas the superiority of men and inferiority of women has been reiterated many times. That Buddha is always a man is standard. Vajrayana changes this and gives women Buddha status. However, it is explained in Vajrayana that you have to have a "precious human body" meaning it has certain endowments (for practicing tantra). For example, being a hermaphrodite is not a "precious human body."  So homosexual bodies are not invited to the karmamudra. Being blind or deaf or missing any of the sense faculties is also not a "precious human body." Being mentally disabled is not "precious." You also have to be born in a "central country" where dharma is taught. So being in a tribal culture in some distant island is not a "precious human body" either. That country must be mostly peaceful with high institutions. So most of Africa is excluded. You can see how dharma is a rather exclusive club and is not all inclusive. In a sense it is justified because achieving Buddhahood is something winning a gold medal in the Olympics (if meditation were a sport). You would have to be world class.

Astus wrote:
This is a distorted interpretation of such terms. Talks of precious human body and fortunate birth is about motivating people who hear and learn about the Dharma, not about talking against those who are outside of such disciples. It is absolutely not a "hate speech" but a "motivational speech". And yes, being able to learn about the Dharma and practice it is a privilege, an elite club in samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: "On White Women and Buddhism"
Content:
rory said:
So in all conscience as a feminist how can I promote Buddhism when it has done zero for women? I turned East as I found a philosophy that explained the world to me in a rational way. But years later I've read Greek philosophy: Heraclitus everything is flux Democritus, Pythagoras,  Epicurus etc & I've found everything in Buddhism there. It's better for women, I don't have to deal with male hierarchical institutions or the hypocrisy.

Astus wrote:
Ancient Greece and Rome were fine patriarchal societies. In Athens women were simply confined to their homes just like in the Chinese Empire; in Rome, although they had lot of freedom until Christianity took over, were not allowed any political position. Also, the philosophers you listed were all men, just like all the others who are considered outstanding. So it seems to me that there's nothing special about ancient Western cultures and philosophies compared to the Eastern ones regarding the role of women. It shouldn't be forgotten either that Buddhism is not a culture but a religion, and as such its philosophy may not be - and cannot be - adequately mirrored in its socio-historical appearance.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Religion or family
Content:
Astus wrote:
If one is a householder it is likely one has a family. Because there are several duties one has to perform because of one's responsibility towards one's family there is little motivation to practice the Dharma. And even if there is some motivation it is usually a low level goal one wants to achieve. Rarely, if one does have great determination toward the Dharma, family then can appear as a major obstacle. Only a few fortunate people can manage having family and being deeply involved in the Dharma. That's why most of those who aspire for liberation leave the family behind and become renunciates, just like Siddhartha. Thus in Buddhism family is rather a symbol of attachment and samsara rather than something sacred, primarily because the Buddhist tradition is preserved and transmitted by monastics.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out / Systematic Instruction
Content:
Namdrol said:
Dzogchen etc., also have very detailed methodologies. They are just less sutra oriented.

Astus wrote:
Sure they do. It's just that I've never found those so clear, not that I've seen it all.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Title: Re: Pointing Out / Systematic Instruction
Content:
Astus wrote:
What I really admire in his approach - and Kagyu Mahamudra generally - is the detailed methodology they apply in this training.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 at 4:39 PM
Title: Pointing Out / Systematic Instruction
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is said that you can tell whether or not you have genuinely heard the teachings and understood their point by whether or not you are tame and peaceful in your conduct. And you can tell whether or not your meditation is effective by whether or not your kleshas are diminishing. Ideally, someone should finally have no kleshas whatsoever. But even on the way to that klesha-free state, your kleshas and thoughts should diminish. Therefore, I think that it is of far greater importance than the experience of dramatic instantaneous pointing out that people be taught mahamudra as a full system of instruction that they can implement on their own gradually through diligent application using either one of the three texts by the Ninth Gyalwang Karmapa—The Ocean of Definitive Meaning, Dispelling the Darkness of Ignorance, or Pointing Out the Dharmakaya— or one of the texts by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal—either Moonbeams of Mahamudra or The Clarification of the Natural State.
In short, I think it is of far more importance that people receive this kind of complete and systematic instruction so that they can gradually develop experience on their own, than that some kind of dramatic pointing-out procedure be done. Of course, it is possible to give dramatic pointing-out instruction, and when you do so, some people do recognize their mind’s nature. But, if I may say so, I question the stability and, therefore, ultimately the value of that. It certainly is a dramatic experience for those people who achieve it, but I see no evidence of their kleshas diminishing as a result. And furthermore, they then carry away with them the arrogance of the thought, “I have seen my mind’s nature.” I think it is of far greater importance actually to practice meditation slowly and surely and make all possible use of the resources which this book in particular gives you.
(Thrangu RInpoche: The Ninth Karmapa's Ocean of Devinitive Meaning, p. 127-128)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Andreas,

There are two problems with a symbolic interpretation: it makes Shinshu a path of salvation without any need for personal enlightenment, since in this life there is no effort, no development, and in the next there is no place to practice but instant liberation. The second problem is the lack of actual sources for this interpretation in the written teachings of Shinran.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 19th, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Rational?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is being rational Zen? Is being irrational Zen? Of course not. Can Zen be rationalised or "irrationalised"? Definitely. So it is not something but can be made into anything, such is the magic of mind. Zen can be presented in any way it is needed, that's the primary approach Zen has. That is quite a rational attitude that understands dependent origination and how to assist people in seeing the nature of mind, i.e. perceiving that ideas such as rationality and irrationality depend on each other without any real basis.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 18th, 2011 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
This topic of the interpretation of Pure Land in Shinshu has been discussed here: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=1084, that involved Andreas and Al Bloom too.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: What are some "must have" books?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think one should see the difference between essential books and auxiliary ones. There are also introductory books and in depth works. Just before this becomes a list of all the books people like.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
booker,

This is not a koan that is discussed here, neither any other practice, but a view, an interpretation of the Dharma, that exists in Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 15th, 2011 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
kirtu said:
The two Buddha's (Dogen and Daido Roshi) did not IMV intend this literally but as an expression of intimacy with all things.  From Dogen's perspective it may have been specifically from this perception of the interpenetration of all phenomena.  It could also have been from a serious expression of Mind Only.

Astus wrote:
The buddha-nature of all is an expression of universal dharmadhatu, which includes both the view of interpenetration, mind only and buddha-nature.

I don't think it has anything to do with "animism".


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 7:33 PM
Title: Re: Mahakala as your 1st empowerment?
Content:
Tilopa said:
What connection? He's not even a Buddhist.
But sure if the lama tells him it's ok to attend and take it as a blessing without binding commitments then it can only be beneficial.

Astus wrote:
Everybody has to start somewhere. If it's an empowerment, then so it be. Even hearing the name "Buddha" is a proof of connection and a source of enlightenment.

These empowerments are open for anybody. There are no bodyguards standing at the entrance asking you questions, there are no registration forms where one has to prove one's competence for being there. Either you are there or not. What level of understanding one can make of it is another question and that's where things like being a Buddhist, etc. matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahakala as your 1st empowerment?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What if it is looked in a different way? He goes to that specific empowerment because he already has a connection with it. It does no harm to participate but can create imprints that will, in the near or far future, urge the person to know more and get involved.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Title: Re: Varieties of Ganhwa Seon Teachings in Contemporary Korea
Content:
Astus wrote:
I would assume it is a "borrowed" practice because it was Hakuin who organised the Rinzai curriculum in the way it is today with many levels of koans.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 5:47 AM
Title: Varieties of Ganhwa Seon Teachings in Contemporary Korea
Content:
Astus wrote:
An essay by Ryan Bongseok Joo:

"Western Buddhists, who were introduced to Korean Seon (Jp. Zen, Ch. Chan 禪) Buddhism through Seung Sahn sunim (1927-2004), might find it surprising that gong’an (Jp. kōan 公案) meditation practice is taught quite differently in Korea from the way Seung Sahn sunim trained his disciples in the West. For instance, Seon masters in Korea generally do not ask their student to resolve a series of different gong’an gates like the way Seung Sahn sunim did. Instead, meditating on a single gong’an is considered sufficient in itself to bring the student to full awakening. It is also not a common practice to allot one-on-one private interview (Jp. dokusan 独参) time with a Seon master as part of the daily training schedule in a Korean monastery; although students can certainly meet with their teacher after having a breakthrough experience or when facing a difficult internal obstacle outside the regular monastic schedule. For native Korean Buddhists, it has been an open secret that Seung Sahn sunim heavily adopted the Japanese Rinzai Zen style in his teaching of gong’an practice, which was familiar to his Western disciples, but foreign to most Korean Buddhists. In this paper, I would like to introduce the other side, the teachings of gong’an practices by contemporary Korean Seon masters in Korea, which would be familiar to Korean Buddhists, but probably new to many Western readers."

http://international.uiowa.edu/centers/caps/documents/RyanJooAAS2011.pdf


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: tendai and zen
Content:
Jikan said:
The Rinzai and Soto schools did not exist in the time of Zhiyi.

Astus wrote:
Even in the time of Saicho they did not exist.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: Images of descending Amida
Content:
Astus wrote:
"When an aspirant is about to be born in that land through dedicated and undaunted practices, the Tathagata Amitayus arrives together with Avalokiteshvara, Mahasthamaprapta, innumerable transformed Buddhas, a great assembly of a hundred thousand monks and shravakas and innumerable devas in seven-jewelled palaces. The Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, carrying a vajra-seat, together with the Bodhisattva Mahasthamaprapta, approaches the aspirant. Amitayus releases a great flood of light which illuminates the aspirant's body and, along with the bodhisattvas, extends his hands in welcome. Avalokiteshvara and Mahasthamaprapta, together with innumerable bodhisattvas, praise and encourage the aspirant. Seeing this, the aspirant rejoices so greatly as to dance. Then he sees himself sitting on the vajra-seat, and following the Buddha, is born into that land in the time it takes to snap one's fingers."
(Contemplation Sutra, tr. H. Inagaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: Images of descending Amida
Content:
Astus wrote:
It's Amita Buddha greeting the deceased to escort them to the Pure Land. I guess.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: What are some "must have" books?
Content:
Astus wrote:
For East Asian Buddhism (after reading Paul Williams' Mahayana Buddhism):

Orthodox Chinese Buddhism by Ven. Sheng-yen
The Way to Buddhahood by Ven. Yinshun
Coming to Terms with Chinese Buddhism by Robert H. Sharf
Entry into the Inconceivable by Thomas Cleary
The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment by Charles Muller
Tracing Back the Radiance by Robert Buswell
Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation by Carl Bielefeldt
Buddhism of Wisdom and Faith by Thich Thien Tam


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Longquan Temple
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sadhu!


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
klqv,

See how there are different perspectives and levels of the teaching. For an enemy of Buddhism a teacher is a charlatan deluding people. For a non-Buddhist a teacher is just an old fellow. For a king the head of a monastery is an influential figure. For a lay person full of devotion the master is a holy embodiment of the buddhas. For an educated lay person the abbot is a wise man. For a novice the preceptor is the strict but kind leader. For an aged monastic the master is a fellow practitioner. A good teacher addresses all these people accordingly. So a Chan teacher can be anything from a deluded ordinary person to a living buddha. So Linji said (same concept as Vimalakirti Sutra's inconceivable liberation):

"If someone comes and asks about seeking buddha, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of purity; if someone asks about bodhisattvahood, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of compassion; if someone asks me about bodhi, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of pure mystery; if someone asks me about nirvana, I immediately appear in conformity with the state of serene stillness. Though there be ten thousand different states, the person does not differ. Therefore,
According with things he manifests a form,
Like the moon [refl ecting] on the water."

and

"Virtuous monks, don’t acknowledge robes. Robes cannot move of themselves, but people can put them on. There is the robe of purity, the robe of birthlessness, the robe of bodhi, the robe of nirvana, the patriarch-robe, and the buddha-robe. Virtuous monks, these spoken words and written phrases are all nothing but changes of robes."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 10th, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Title: Rigsum Gonpo
Content:
Astus wrote:
Could someone give me a general information on the level and form of practice related to this trinity of bodhisattvas? Also, if there is some info on what it has to do with the Sakyapas is also appreciated, just as an extra.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2011 at 6:25 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
klqv,

There are many different interpretations. In Zen the buddhahood of magical features has been put aside/refuted/rejected by several teachers, as something one should aspire for. Let's call that the practical side. On the other hand, the common Mahayana view of buddhas around us in different buddha-lands has not been neglected or removed from daily practice, even if the "true pure land is the pure mind". While the real buddha is the mind-nature, provisionally there are many buddhas. Maitreya is the next buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma after a period of no Dharma. But while in early Buddhism the buddhas were primarily identified as the initiators of the teaching, later it stopped being the main criterion, therefore there can be infinite buddhas even at the same place.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 9th, 2011 at 5:06 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the interdependent self-nature
Comes discrimination arising from conditions;
The perfection of the fruit comes from
Always being apart from the former nature.
(Trimsika, 21)

The imagined nature is the elephant;
The other-dependent nature is the visual percept;
The non-existence of the elephant therein
Is explained to be the consummate.
(Trisvabhava nirdesa, 28)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 8th, 2011 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Andreas Ludwig said:
I don't know how many times I have tried to explain to others that Pure Land Buddhism is not a monolithic block, there are sub-traditions so to say. In Shinshu the Pure Land is NOT a means (which is what you meant in your post I suppose?) but indeed the end - because the Pure Land is a way to talk about Nirvana in positive terms that we can relate to, rather than in denials (like Theravada does).

Astus wrote:
And I have to add to this that the Shinshu interpretation is not monolithic either. There are people who view it as you said and others who view it in a different way where the Pure Land is an actual buddha-land and not a metaphor.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 6th, 2011 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think revising Buddhist geographical understanding is one thing, while revising the order of the birth and destruction of the world is quite another. Even with the geographical modifications there can be some problems (see: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3803 ), how much so with larger changes. Of course, I believe it is possible to turn the classical Buddhist cosmology into an updated sci-fi universe.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 6th, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: "Mahamudra and Related Instructions," Peter Roberts
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is explicitly in the book that the texts were selected based on the recommendation of Thrangu Rinpoche, who is a Karma Kagyu teacher. So it is not really a surprise that it contains mostly Karma Kagyu texts.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2011 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Seon Master Jinje
Content:
Astus wrote:
Good advice, Ven. Huifeng.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2011 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism

Small animals, so called "micro-animals, are included within the category of microorganism.

N

Astus wrote:
I guess I should have listened better on biology classes...


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 5th, 2011 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'd argue that "small beings" and microorganisms are not the same thing. Tiny insects are one thing, bacteria are another, and the second type of beings are not filtered by a simple cloth. It's also problematic to call bacteria "sentient beings" from a Buddhist point of view.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 3rd, 2011 at 4:32 AM
Title: Ven. Guo Cheen's Works
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't know how many of you have heard of https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000090044883, who runs https://www.thecompassionnetwork.blogspot.com/. She's dedicated to translating sutras and commentaries to English. She has also uploaded useful works onto http://www.scribd.com/Guo_Cheen_5750.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49134211/List-of-Mahayana-Tripitaka-Titles
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39077716/The-Sutra-of-Sitting-Dhyana-Samadhi
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39077692/On-Human-Origins
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39077648/Advice-for-Monastics

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32987507/Avatamsaka-Matrix-on-Entering-the-Dharma-Realm-Chapter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32987336/A-Matrix-on-the-Essentials-of-the-Avatamsaka


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2011 at 5:10 PM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Acchantika said:
In genetics, evolution is defined as a change in the frequency and distribution of alleles at a given locus.

Astus wrote:
OK, that's evolution in genetics. Then what was mentioned under "evolution" is mainly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolutionary_history_of_life.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
So unless one restricts our birth to this planet and forget that the fact that animals were here first doesn't mean we were those animals and couldn't take rebirth as humans (or equivalent) somewhere else, I see no problem in accepting the theory of evolution. I even think that the fact that there is an evolution (why not some sort of staticism instead, a different model of life and environment) goes pretty well with the theory of karma.
Now, is the theory of evolution in accord with Buddhist cosmology? No. Do I think Buddhist cosmology is more than expedient means? No. To me, it's just an ornament to the finger, perfectly changeable, not the direction it points. That's how I see it. I never bought that Mount Meru stuff anyway.
There's a story Chogyal Namkhai Norbu tells about a Gelugpa teacher that wanted to write a book insisting on this cosmology in spite of his advice for not doing so, since we now knew things weren't like that. If memory doesn't fail me, he was translating this book. It didn't fly, I guess. Funny story that goes to show how Buddhist cosmology is not such a big deal in terms of Path or View. Perhaps someone can tell you this story better. I found it quite amusing.

Astus wrote:
Sure, there are many realms and many "planets". Still, if we go with the sequence of lives there is still a problem. Also, many jatakas and stories about former buddhas are placed in India, including cities from the Buddha's time. We can put all this into the category of "myths", nevertheless, these are the traditional views. Just like anything, this can change too. But it's a good reminder how ANY teaching may be reviewed and changed or forgot for ever.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism teaches that the primary driving force of the world is karma. That is reflected in Buddhist cosmology. The sequence of the becoming of the world is from top to bottom. That means that humans existed before animals.

Pero said:
Wow really? Can you give a link or something, I'd like to read a bit about it.

Astus wrote:
See the Aggañña Sutta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta, http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Agganna_Sutta


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2011 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Acchantika said:
Therefore, I respectfully object to the notion that evolution is not compatible with Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
You've changed the meaning of evolution and specified it in a way that might fit into certain Buddhist concepts. That is not objection in my view, but coming up with a whole different argument.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 2nd, 2011 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism teaches that the primary driving force of the world is karma. That is reflected in Buddhist cosmology. The sequence of the becoming of the world is from top to bottom. That means that humans existed before animals. The view of evolution is from bottom to top, humans evolved from animals. The diversity of beings in Buddhism is explained by karmic dispositions, in evolution by selection and adaptation. In terms of society, the Buddhist view is the cycle of golden age toward a bad age and from then to a golden age. Evolutionary view of the society teaches a progress from hunters-gatherers to modern cities. Buddhism explains that the true goal of every being is happiness and they are confused by the three poisons. Evolution says that the primary instincts and the meaning of all life forms are self-preservation and reproduction. Buddhism says that it is consciousness that makes one a sentient being. Evolution derives living organisms from molecules. These are the reasons why I say that Buddhism is not compatible with evolution.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 1st, 2011 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Evolution of humans and Mahayana Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Matching evolution with Buddhism, doesn't work. Different axioms, different views.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Quote from Dan Lusthaus: Buddhist Phenomenology, (p. 256-257; 263-264):

We are now ready to return to the question: Should prajnä-paramita be understood as connoting an essentialistic understanding of tathatä or should it be understood as connoting an epistemic process? Both positions have had their adherents within the Buddhist tradition. Since this controversy stands at the heart of the East Asian appropriation of Buddhist thought, and has determined many important parameters for doctrinal developments in China, Korea and Japan, closer examination of its features is in order. Yogacära, in particular as disseminated in China, polarized around this opposition, and in part Hsüantsang's project can be seen as a systematic refutation of the essentialist position as advocated by Paramärtha and others.
If Awakening, at least provisionally, is considered to be a goal, and sheer knowing is that goal's necessary (and perhaps sufficient) condition, the question arises: Is the goal something essentially existent, such that the epistemic method (jnäna- märga) uncovers it; or, does the method subsume the goal, such that the goal's provisionality is exposed, revealing not an essential truth, but rather an insight into the epistemic process itself? In the first case, knowledge (jnäna) will be considered the means or agent for attaining some -thing which in itself is impervious to or indifferent to the vicissitudes of epistemological approaches, though made accessible through such approaches. In the second case, nothing relevant exists outside or apart from the dynamic, progressive sphere of knowledge; Awakening here would mean that knowing (prajnä, jnana) becomes transparent to itself. Again, the former implies an absolute, objective Truth, while the latter implies a progressional unfolding that never posits anything apart from the process itself.
In Buddhist terminology, the former (the Essentialist) posits Buddhahood as a distinct realm, distinct precisely because it is accessible only to Buddhas, and hence somehow essentially other than the realms accessible to the remainder of sentient beings. At best, non - Buddhas might contain a germ or seed (tathägatagarbha) that offers the potential of entry into the distinct Buddha - realm, but they are considered non- Buddhas precisely because they have not yet actualized this potential. Here, as in other philosophical contexts, essentialism inscribes itself through the discourse of 'potential /actual.' Buddhahood and its corollariestathata, sambodhi, etc. would signify an ultimate, transcendental Reality.
The latter (the Progressionalist) would argue that the process of Awakening can never be separable from the Bodhisattva path ", and that (i) the pre - Awakening striving, (ii) the Awakening realization and (iii) the post - Awakening aid offered to other sentient beings can never be seen apart from the samsäric process in which that path occurs; moreover, samsära is able to proceed only in virtue of its emptiness (iünyata).26 The full career of the Bodhisattva is nothing other than this process. During (i), the Bodhisattva's progress is largely determined by samsäric and samskaric conditions, though efforts are made to overcome these determinants through theory and practice. During (ii), theory and practice converge, such that the inseparability of samsära and nirvana, or process (pratitya- samutpäda) and emptiness, infuse the whole of the Bodhisattva's life -world. The remedied process continues and disseminates in (iii).
Practical considerations also arise from this problem. If Awakening unfolds through a process, then to some extent this unfolding is temporal. These temporal aspects necessitate that practice towards Awakening be gradual. If, on the other hand, a ready -made transcendental realm already exists, then what is essential about Awakening remains entirely separate from temporal considerations, and entry into it may be 'sudden,' i.e., nondependent on any temporal considerations.

...

As Mahayana Buddhism developed, the essentialist vs. progressionalist controversy peaked. One text which preserves the tensions is the Lotus Sutra. The first half deals with upaya, the provisional, deceptive character of Buddhist doctrine and practice. The 'truths' of Buddhism are mere provisional ploys designed to bring one to a place where ploys are no longer necessary nor possible. The second half presents the 'True Buddha,' an ahistorical, unborn, undying, mythologically omniscient and omnipresent Power or Being. Centuries later East Asian schools, such as Tendai and Nichiren, rightly asked and debated which of these two visions of Buddhism contextualized which? If the first half gives the `truth,' then the second half should be seen as an elaborate upayic ploy. If the second half gives the 'truth,' then the ploys of the first half are merely indirect, pedagogical instruments for reaching this truth, for reaching this ontological realization.
Beyond the Lotus Sutra the essentialist vs. progressionalist opposition is found shaping Buddhist methodology, which is to say, the marga, the Path. Those taking Buddhism to hold an ontological nature as its essence, who conceive of Buddhism as grounded in Being, develop their essentialism by understanding prajna- paramita as `perfect -ion,' and posit that perfection as an ontologically primal and definitive 'tathata'; i.e., a things. Suchness `suchness' which is the universal, sacred, perfected nature of all becomes a cosmic essence, the primal, originary scene. Buddha is no longer a teacher who perfected himself, but the universal essence of all things, the potential perfection ontologically concealed behind a veil of transmigratory appearance. And yet, the veil and what it veils are united in essence. It is this interpretationwhich reads Nagarjuna's statement that not an iota of distinction can be drawn between samsara and nirvana (an epistemic observation) as if it were an ontological claim, a statement of essentialistic identity: sarpsdra is nirvana."
On the other hand, those who take the progressionalist stance displace the notions of nature and essence with a theory of perdurance, of continuity which, precisely because it is grounded in neither identity nor difference, can engender progress and betterment (or worsening). Prajnä- paramita here means 'perfecting,' as that which perdures becomes that which it is not, without ever being totally other than itself. The path is tread, and as with Heraclitus' river, the foot never truly stands on the same ground twice. The doctrines of the four gatins (stream-enterer, once returner, etc.), the bodhisattva career of ten or eighteen or fifty -two stages (bhüm,), etc., all exemplify the progressionalist attitude.
But like the Lotus Sütra, one way of dissipating the tension is to accept and attempt to harmonize both extremes. Thus hybrids arose: progressive essentialists claimed that one progresses toward the essence, and that the progress itself was grounded in the essence (tathägatagarbha); essentialistic progressives mounted elaborate schema in which one ultimately progressed beyond essentialisms by working through them (tattva, vastu, bhüta, dharma svalaksana, svarüpa, svabhäva, etc.). Yogäcära was a case of this last type of hybrid.
Finally, is tathatä, 'indexicality,' indicative of liberating universals, or repetitive, reiterative particulars? Given the incompatibility of essentialist universals and sünyatä, tathatä must remain ontologically open. It is entirely without conceptual (kalpita, vikalpa, kalpanä, etc.) ontological commitments. For the Ch'eng wei-shih lun, tathatä is a mere prajnapti.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
daelm,

I see. I can't clearly describe its development generally in Chinese Buddhism as I'm not familiar with all the details. Daosheng was the first to conceive and teach it to a wider audience. But I think there are a couple of other factors that I'm unaware of until we get to the Tiantai teaching of sudden enlightenment.

I don't have it, but there is a book: "Sudden and Gradual: Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought" by Peter N. Gregory, it has some essays on the subject.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Title: Re: "The Tulku System Could Ruin Buddhism..."
Content:
Astus wrote:
"You must see the difference between Dharma and tradition. When problems occur, understand that they do not come from the enlightened ones, but from the administrators. Even the Chinese communists who do not believe at all in religion nevertheless use it from time to time for their own political ends. This is because the administration system is so well established and is so powerful." (The Shamarpa, http://www.shamarpa.org/index.php?id=57 )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Tenzin1,

That site is quite a modern form of teaching. Not that it's a problem, but this kind of mixture of Tibetan and Chinese Buddhism is a recent phenomenon.

kirtu,

Of course, there are mantras and dharanis, they have been present for a long time. However, the presence of such practices only makes Chinese Buddhism more varied. I mean, there is no fixed line between Chan and other practices, no strong distinction between imaginary schools. Nonetheless, if we look at texts attributed to Chan teachers it's hard to find any tantric practices recommended or used.
Also note that like in the case of Seung Sahn, mantras are only used as objects for meditation without any extra value, unlike in tantric teachings where mantras have a meaning.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
daelm,

I've used "seeing" and "realising" as synonyms, both mean the experience vis-a-vis theory.

There was no such transition from gradualist Chan to subitist. Well, not in the sense of "long bodhisattva path" to "sudden buddhahood". Chan advocated from the beginning direct attainment. Zongmi was an exceptional teacher who wanted to merge Chan suddenness and experiential attitude with the elaborate teachings of Huayan. And although he had an outstanding follower in Yongming, the Hongzhou style came out as winner in the Song dynasty and became the orthodox interpretation.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 31st, 2011 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
klqv,

I didn't intend to make a huge gap between "scholastic Buddhism" and "Chan" since there isn't much. Whether enlightened beings they would change the world or not, I leave that to another discussion. But it's an interesting question for sure.

I searched in that book for "Chan" and found no connection. One can find certain rituals of tantric origin in Chan, but that's all I know of.

This little part seems relevant here a bit (also noteworthy how Kukai couldn't accept that not only esoteric Buddhism has all the cool stuff):

"The theory of quick attainment of Buddhahood, it must be added, is not peculiar to esoteric Buddhism. The Tendai and Kegon schools have a similar doctrine, and Zen advocates instant realization of enlightenment. Kukai's contemporary and the founder of the Japanese Tendai sect, Saicho (767822), in fact, promulgated the teaching of quick realization of buddhahood based on the Lotus Sutra against the Hosso teaching that expounds gradual progress toward enlightenment over a period of three incalculable aeons. In Kukai's view, Tendai and Kegon talk only about theoretical possibilities of attaining buddhahood quickly and lack an actual experience of realization."
(Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, p. 100)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddhafield or Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
The term "pure land" has appeared in Chinese Buddhism, first as a term for Amitabha's buddha-land, then it's become the common term for any buddha-land. So I'd say it's simply a matter of language.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Daelm,

The nature of the mind is the dharmakaya, to realise the dharmakaya is to realise buddhahood, that's why "seeing nature" is becoming buddha. Or rather, it is realising that the nature of the mind has always been the buddha. It's been taught like this since the early times, based on the Nirvana Sutra and others. This is one end of the possibilities of viewing it. The other end is what Zongmi propagated, that seeing nature is the first step that will eventually complete in buddhahood, although even in his interpretation it is not a matter of kalpas.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Tenzin1 said:
Is it really possible to paint all Chan traditions with one brush? Chan has an esoteric side that borrows heavily from Tibetan tantra. I would think the attainments in that tradition would be similar to those in TB. And for that matter, is the level of attainment of advanced practitioners in TB all identical? Do they all reach the same level?  It sounds like to some extent, this discussion is dealing in oversimplifications.

Astus wrote:
Chan is certainly not uniform. However, "esoteric side" is something new to me. Any references?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
klqv,

I believe there are quite a few enlightened beings among us, some are openly spreading the Dharma, some are hidden. However, I don't think that the presence of sages would mean global or even local revolution. This issue is addressed in the Vimalakirti Sutra's first chapter regarding the buddha-fields and its perception. Creating a "better world" is up to each individual, not some outer beings, otherwise even a single buddha could have liberated all beings instantly.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
klqv said:
bbbut i wasn't talking about zongmi's interpretation of chan, i was talking about his understanding of other people's interpretation of chan. Elsewhere he [shenhui] claims for himself the tenth bhumi, something that is only possible in the most demythologized interpretation of the bhumi theory.
Peter Gregory.

edit more to the point it's fine quoting ancient sources but i think to make your point you've got to do more than you have done - because there's always the possibility of adding "but" to them; the caveat that one is not [in all senses of whatever] as close to buddhahhod as that.
what you need is something that say but absolutely no buts, or says that some particular buts are not the case.


i find the idea that there are 100s or 1000s of buddhas running round, a strange one. e.g., wasn't maitreya the next buddha? that kind of thing...

Astus wrote:
Zongmi had a double presentation. On one hand, he affirmed that all Chan schools ultimately teach the same thing, on the other hand, he listed the Heze teaching (again, his interpretation, doesn't have much to do with Shenhui himself) as the superior one. He differentiated between talking to outsiders and insiders. I think he was biased a bit since he wanted to make the point that schools like the Baotang and Hongzhou are wrong and even immoral - a reasoning similar to the Tibetan view of Hashang.

Talking about a "demythologised view", one of the great innovations of early Chan (Hongren, Shenxiu) was to interpret common teachings in the light of buddha-mind, and not as a theoretical buddha-mind but as direct experience. And this is really an important point, that it's not a doctrinal idea they taught but wisdom unbound by fixed tenets.

Maitreya is the next buddha, yes. But the real buddha is the buddha-mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
klqv said:
hi,

i think this is a silly question - but i like it ha.
doesn't zongmi survey the prominent chan houses of his day - including hongchou - and decide that hongchou teaches sudden sudden enlightenment?
the thing about that being that for him, i am pretty sure though confused because you must know this already, sudden sudden means enlightenment into the abodes?

i would guess that either he distorted their teachings of they did indeed state that none of them were, quite, identical to the buddha.

Astus wrote:
Zongmi had his own unique interpretation of Chan. Others had their owns. Jinul, following Zongmi, taught sudden enlightenment and gradual practice. Seongcheol, a former head of the Jogye Order, said that Jinul is wrong and Zen is sudden enlightenment and sudden practice. In Soto Zen they say that practice is enlightenment, in Rinzai Zen they have many levels of enlightenment. In Chan, well, you can find them all.

klqv said:
A monk asked, "What is the Buddha right before my eyes?"
The master said, "The one inside the Buddha Hall is."
The monk said, "That is an image of Buddha. What is Buddha?"
The master said, "Mind is."
The monk said, "Mind is still something limited. What is Buddha?"
The master said, "Not mind is."
The monk said, "Mind or not mind, do you allow me to choose between them?"
The master said, "Mind or not mind, you can choose as you wish, and, if you can, tell me which one it is and it will be all right."
(The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, tr. James Green, p. 57-58)

"Buddha said, if you want to know the realm of buddhahood, you must make your mind as clear as empty space and leave false thinking and all grasping far behind, causing your mind to be unobstructed wherever it may turn. The realm of buddhahood is not some external world where there is a formal "Buddha": it's the realm of the wisdom of a self-awakened sage."
(Dahui's letter in "Swampland Flowers", p. 1, tr. Cleary & Cleary)

"To become a buddha, one must definitely pass though three asamkhya (immeasureable) great kalpas; or must deinitely pass though incalculable, countless, unthinkable kalpas; or else must definitely pass though one moment of thought. Although these three [time periods] are not the same, [fulfilling buddhahood] is neither difficult nor easy, and is neither a far distant time nor a sudden instant of time. Some fulfill buddhahood within a fist; some fulfill buddhahood at the top of a monk's staff; some fulfill buddhahood on the headtop of a patch-robed monik; and some fulfill buddhahood within the eyeball of a patch-robed monk."
(Dogen's Extensive Record, 6.446, tr. Leighton & Okamura, p. 402-403)

What you all have from your parents innately is the Unborn Buddha Mind alone and nothing else, so instead of trying to realize buddhahood, always abide in that Unborn Buddha Mind. Then, when you're asleep, you're sleeping in the Buddha Mind, and when you're awake, you're awake in the Buddha Mind; you're always a living buddha, and there's no time when you don't remain a buddha. Since you're a buddha all the time, there's no other special buddhahood for you to realize. Rather than trying to become a buddha, nothing could be simpler than taking the shortcut of remaining a buddha!
(Bankei Zen, tr. Peter Haskel, p. 22)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
What I do know is that certain Chan claims have no basis in Mahāyāna sutra.

Astus wrote:
"The use of the Buddha-nature idea, the sun of enlightenment within all human beings (indeed, within all sentient beings), the quality of non-discriminatory wisdom that is the sine qua non of buddhahood itself, is a profound innovation that separates proto-Chan and early Chan from early Indian Buddhism."
(John McRae: Seeing Through Zen, p. 42-43)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
kirtu said:
This was not always the case.  Chan evolved in this direction over time.

Astus wrote:
The first line about being outside of doctrines (jiao) was added in the 10th century when Chan was gaining popularity and posited itself against other schools. The other three are, however, were there before. So we can say that this definition is the hallmark of mature Chan as it's appeared in the Song dynasty.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
You missed my point -- certain Chan claims seem to be based on nothing more than the personal fabrications of those who make those claims.

Astus wrote:
The sudden teaching - compared to the gradual bodhisattva path - occurred with the appearance of Chan itself, it's been one of its fundamental doctrines since about the 7th century. You may call that the personal fabrication of all these people, but that is practically making the tradition a mistaken idea. Could it be that this claim of immediate liberation is wrong simply because the Indian Mahayana interpreted in a particular way can't accept it, very much like the legendary debate between Hashang and Kamalashila. On the other hand, when it came to (Gampopa's) Mahamudra - accused to be Hashang's teaching - they could say without much trouble how it is present even in different Mahayana sutras, like the Samadhiraja and the Lankavatara Sutra. I'm not saying here that Mahamudra would be identical to Chan, it's just that because you split up teachings as sutrayana and mantrayana Chan becomes predefined as necessarily a teaching that must fit into a specific interpretation of Mahayana, while the fact is that - as you have said before - Chinese Buddhism took its own course in interpreting the Mahayana teachings. Of course, not all in China agreed that there could be such a thing as sudden perfect enlightenment, although it has become the dominant view long ago.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: The virgin birth of Gautama.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Ultimately no birth, no death. Conventionally, it should serve the understanding of the ultimate. So it can be normal birth, c-section, virgin birth, magical appearance, beaming down from a spaceship...


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
(my version of answers)

1)What is the process for a normal person who just started zen/chan to reach full enlightenment, anuttara samyak sambodhi?

Study, practise, realise. Then study, practise, realise. Then... for innumerable lives. This is dedication and effort, the two important things to keep on walking the path.
As for the specifics, it depends on under whom and in what tradition you practise.

2)Are there diffrent levels of enlightement?How to " climb" the levels?

Yes and no. Levels in Zen can be many or few, from 3 to 52. Stages are only weak explanations, you are either enlightened or not.

3)What is the diffrence between a zen practicioner who has reached enlightenment(any level) and a Arahat?

"Subhūti, what do you think? Does the arhat think, 'I have attained the realization of the arhat?' "
"No, World Honored One. And why not? There is, in reality, no such a thing called 'arhat.' World Honored One, if an arhat should give rise to the thought, 'I have attained the realization of the arhat, this would mean that he is attached to the notions of self, person, sentient being, and life span.' "
(Diamond Sutra, ch. 9)

4)What are the diffrence & similarities in zen schools on the view of enlightenment?

Clinging to any view is non-enlightenment. This is agreed on by all Buddhist schools.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
deepbluehum said:
Let's just say Chan's method of introducing is equivalent to this. I don't think so. I think such an introduction is special to Vajrayana, but it could be in theory.

Astus wrote:
Here's Zichang's conversation with Huineng from the Platform Sutra (tr. McRae).

[Zhichang] said, “After arriving there I received no teaching for three months. Because of the importance of the Dharma, one night I entered [Shenxiu’s] quarters alone to inquire of him, ‘What is my fundamental mind, my fundamental nature?’ Shenxiu then said, ‘Do you see space?’ I said, ‘I see.’ He said, ‘When you see space, does it have characteristics or not?’ I answered, ‘Space is without form. What characteristics could it have?’ He said, ‘Your fundamental nature is like space in that there is not a single thing at all that can be seen. This is called correct seeing. For there to be not a single thing that can be known is called true knowing. There are no blue and yellow, long and short. Just see that the fundamental source is pure, the essence of enlightenment is perfect and bright: this is called seeing the nature and achieving buddhahood. It is also called the perceptual understanding of the Tathāgata.’ Even though this student heard this explanation, I was still not certain, and I beg Your Reverence to teach me.”
The master said, “That teacher’s explanation still allows perceptual understanding to exist, which is why you were unable to comprehend. I will now reveal a verse for you:

Not seeing a single dharma but maintaining the view of nonbeing
Is much like floating clouds blocking the face of the sun.
Not knowing a single dharma but maintaining one’s knowledge of emptiness
Is just like the great void generating lightning and thunder.

When such perceptual understanding arises for the slightest instant,
How can mistaken recognition ever understand expedient means?
You should understand the error of this yourself, in a single moment of thought,
And the numinous brilliance of the self will be constantly manifest.

When Zhichang heard this verse, his mind became suddenly expansive [in enlightenment], and he related a verse:

There is no reason to activate perceptual understanding,
To be attached to characteristics and seek for bodhi.
When one’s intelligence harbors a single thought of enlightenment,
How can one transcend the delusions of the past?

The self-nature, enlightened to the essential source,
Illuminates the crazed currents [of awareness].
Without entering the room of the patriarch,
In a daze, going about with two heads.

One day Zhichang asked the master, “The Buddha preached the three vehicles, and he also spoke of the Supreme Vehicle. I don’t understand these doctrines and would like you to explain them for me.”
The master said, “When you contemplate your own fundamental mind, do not be attached to the external characteristics of dharmas. There are no four vehicles in the Dharma; it is only that peoples’ minds vary. To learn and recite is the small vehicle, to be enlightened to the Dharma and understand its meaning is the middle vehicle, and to cultivate according to the Dharma is the Great Vehicle. To penetrate all the myriad dharmas and to be equipped with all the myriad dharmas, without any defilement at all; to transcend the characteristics of the various dharmas, without anything that is attained: this is called the Supreme Vehicle. ‘Vehicle’ has the meaning of practice and cannot be argued about orally. You must cultivate yourself, not ask me about it. At all times the self-nature is itself suchlike.”
Zhichang thanked [Huineng] and served the master until the end of his years.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 29th, 2011 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
What I do know is that certain Chan claims have no basis in Mahāyāna sutra.

Astus wrote:
The classical definition of Chan:

教外別傳 - Separate transmission outside doctrines
不立文字 - Doesn't rely on words and letters
直指人心 - Directly points to human mind
見性成佛 - To see nature and become buddha

So indeed, Chan is not based on sutras, shastras, or any doctrine. That is, of course, not the same as denying them. Also, those who wanted to match Chan with Jiao (doctrinal teachings), happened to do that using primarily Huayan teachings, which again does not fit Indian Mahayana interpretations in every aspect. You may call that "plain wrong" and such, but that doesn't make things any clearer. Chan is a practical tradition, calling it buddhahood, bodhisattvahood, enlightenment, awakening, etc. are all rhetoric, names and words.

Record of Linji, tr. Sasaki said:
"According to the masters of the sutras and śāstras, the threefold body is regarded as the ultimate norm. But in my view this is not so. Th e threefold body is merely a name; moreover, it is a threefold dependency. ... you must recognize the one who manipulates these reflections. ‘He is the primal source of all the buddhas,’ and the place to which every follower of the Way returns."

"There is only the man of the Way who depends upon nothing, here listening to my discourse—it is he who is the mother of all buddhas. Therefore buddhas are born from nondependence. Awaken to nondependence, then there is no buddha to be obtained. Insight such as this is true insight."

"Seeking buddha and seeking dharma are only making hell-karma. Seeking bodhisattvahood is also making karma; reading the sutras and studying the teachings are also making karma. Buddhas and patriarchs are people with nothing to do. Therefore, [for them] activity and the defiling passions and also nonactivity and passionlessness are ‘pure’ karma."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Since Chan, Huayen, and so on do not add any new insights into the nature of reality, nor do they add any revolutionary new methods, any claims they make to sudden buddhahood are merely rhetoric and philosophical trickery."

On one hand, Chan can be deduced from the sutras, so it is in no contradiction with the Buddha's teachings. On the other, the interpretation they make of the Dharma is unique in content, method and style. In content it teaches the sudden enlightenment that accomplishes buddhahood directly. In method it uses immediate insight into the true nature of mind. In style it has developed a language of enlightened action, most apparent in koans.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Which first bhumi?"

Only the usual ten bodhisattva stages are the bhumis, the others are faith, dwelling, conduct, transference, then the stages/bhumis.

"As I said, it is treated in the same way. When a bodhisattva realizes the first bhumi, there is no more emptiness to realize, all that is left to do is to complete the two accumulations, as I told you, the ten stages only map qualities, not realization."

As the quote said, there is no realisation on any of those bhumis. The realisation happened on the 11th level, the first level of dwelling, and the 1st bhumi is the 41st level.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 4:00 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Unknown said:
No, it is a Huayen view of the initial production of bodhicitta, which is the entrance to the path of accumulation.

Astus wrote:
It says first bhumi and it means the first bhumi. However, the five paths system is not used but the 52 stages. That means, for instance, that the buddha-nature is realised on the level of faith (first ten of the 52) in Zongmi's interpretation, or on the level of dwelling (second ten) in Li Tongxuan's version. A description of the arousal of bodhicitta, following Zongmi's teachings, is explained in Peixiu's "Exhortation to Resolve on Buddhahood" translated by Ven. Dharmamitra and is available on his website.

Unknown said:
No, since the ten stages are treated the same way. In Chinese Buddhism they are merely encased within an alternate scheme, but when I say first bhumi, I mean the first bodhisattva bhumi as described in the Dasabhumika sutra.

Astus wrote:
That's the point, it is not treated the same way. Here's Buswell's summary based on Tongxuan's work:
"The ten bhumis are the original foundation of all dharmas. Here the bodhisattva pervades all dharmas, all directions, and all positions simultaneously. Development before this stage involved some measure of effort and entailed as well the progressive development of meritorious practices. By the time the bodhisattva has reached the ten bhumis, however, he has nothing left to practice and nothing left to achieve. It is a kind of "firming-up" stage at which all the qualities and achievements attained throughout the previous levels are matured and allowed to infuse his entire being. He merges with all dharmas without, however, losing his own identity in the process. This is the stage of the unimpeded interpenetration of all phenomena- the highest expression of spiritual attainment in the Avatamsaka Sutra and, by implication, in all the Buddhist scriptures."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
"This is just intellectual contrivance."

Yes, so is the whole stages system. No, it is a summary of the Huayan view of the first bhumi.

"The first of the 52 bhumis is not anywhere near the path of seeing, so there is no immediate experience of the ultimate that can even be discussed."

You make the mistake of identifying one interpretation of the bodhisattva stages with another.

"You protested, but did not answer my observation concerning the idenity of the content of a first bodhisattvas realization and a buddha's realization.
In the end, all you have succeeded in showing is that Chan is systematically incoherent."

What I showed is that both "first stage" and "buddhahood" are relative terms that depend on interpretation. Unless you give a definition you want to base the comparison on your question can't be answered, or it can be answered in any way.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
"What then is the difference between a Buddha and first stage bodhisattva?"

It depends on how the first stage and how a buddha is interpreted. Here's one interpretation from Wonhyo's commentary to the Vajrasamadhi Sutra that is based on the Huayan view,

"the first bhûmi in fact encompasses all ten bhûmis, for in one moment one may suddenly access the ten types of dharmadhOEtus. The ten bhûmis are in fact the first bhûmi, for all [ten] may instantly be completely fulfilled at this initial gate [of the first bhûmi]. Owing to the fact that the ten bhûmis are in fact the first bhûmi, [the first bhûmi] is called the “one.” But because the first bhûmi is in factthe ten bhûmis, it is also “many.” Consequently, [the first bhûmi] is called the “one-and-many bhûmi.”"

In a similar fashion it is discussed by those who few (Zongmi, Jinul) who attempted to connect Chan with the doctrinal teachings, mainly Huayan. So it is not much different from what you say, however, they called sudden enlightenment not the entry to the first bhumi but the entry to the level of faith which is the first of the 52 levels. That makes your interpretation of Chan's sudden enlightenment a lot more positive than theirs. On the other hand, their interpretation is a bit more complex, as it is briefly explained by Buswell in a footnote:

"The "Brahmacarya" chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra states that the initial arising of the bodhicitta-the thought of enlightenment-which occurs at the entrance to the bodhisattva path at the first abiding stage is equivalent to the final achievement of Buddhahood (HYCb, p. 449c). This is the hallmark of the complete teachings, the fifth of the five divisions of the teachings recognized by the early Huayen patriarchs. With the awakening to the Buddha-wisdom which is inherent in his own self-nature, the bodhisattva is fully endowed with all the qualities of Buddhahood in their potential form. Only his habitual patterns of thought and behavior must be adjusted through gradual cultivation until Buddhahood is finally actualized. Nevertheless, as the bodhisattva has understood through his initial awakening that these residual habits are essentially void, no cultivation is actually done throughout that period. Therefore, once the innate Buddha-wisdom is recognized at the beginning of the bodhisattva path, Buddhahood has already been achieved."

Thus it is explained in a doctrine oriented way the achievement of complete enlightenment at the moment of realising the nature of mind. From a more common Chan perspective all the stages and classifications are so much hot air and entangling views. Hongren - who lived before Chan turned totally to the doctrine of subitism - wrote in his treatise, "The foregoing dialogues could be expanded endlessly, my hope for now is that you will become conscious that your own basic mind is Buddha. This is why I exhort you so earnestly, nothing the in the thousands of scriptures and myriads of treatises surpasses preserving the basic true mind - this is essential." Later, now in the developed Zen form, we find the following story expressing the same view, "Tokusan brought his notes on the Diamond Sutra to the front of the hall, pointed to them with a torch, and said, "Even though you have exhausted the abtruse doctrines, it is like placing a hair in a vast space. Even though you have learned all the secrets of the world, it is like a drop of water dripped on the great ocean." And he burned all his notes. Then, making bows, he took his leave of his teacher."

Zhaozhou, when once instructing the assembly, said, "I do not enjoy hearing the word 'Buddha'". It's that "buddhahood" is still strongly connected to doctrines and ideas. Dahui quoted one of Pang-yun's poems,

"Mind is Thus and objects are also Thus:
There is no true and also no false.
Existence doesn't concern me,
Nor does nonexistence hold me:
I'm not a holy sage,
But an ordinary fellow who understands things."

So, even if it sounds lot of "sophistry" and "sleight of hand", Chan focuses on immediate experience of the ultimate and so there aren't many discussions on bodhisattva stages, because having "stages", "levels" and "grades" of enlightenment are all ideas of "how it could be", while directly attaining no-thought and maintaining it in all situations - that's why I protested against the distinction of equipoise and post-equipoise - is the essential teaching and realisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 27th, 2011 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Regarding the dana-paramita (although the quoted MPPS section does not mentioned it) here is a little explanation from Dazhu Huihai:

Q: Where can one enter the doorway to this understanding?
A: Through the perfection of charity (dana-paramita).
Q: Buddha has said that the six paramitas are the action of the Bodhisattva path, so how can we enter the doorway to this understanding by practicing, as you have said, only the dana-paramita?
A: People who are confused or deluded do not understand that the other five paramitas all evolve from the dana-paramita. Therefore, in practicing the dana-paramita, one also fulfills the practice of the other five paramitas.
Q: For what reason is it called the dana-paramita?
A: "Dana" means the perfection of charity.
Q: What things can be given up in the name of charity?
A: Clinging to thoughts of duality can be given up.
Q: Just what does this mean?
A: It means to give up clinging, in the name of charity, to thoughts of good and evil, existence and non-existence, love and hate, emptiness and fullness, concentration and non-concentration, pure and impure, etc. In the name of charity, give up all of them. Then, and only then, can you attain the stage of the voidness of duality, while, at the same time, letting neither a thought about the voidness of opposites nor about charity arise. This is the genuine practice of the dana-paramita, which is also known as absolute detachment from all phenomena. This is only the voidness of all dharma-nature, which means that always and everywhere is just no-mind. If one can attain the stage of no-mind everywhere, no form will be perceived, because our self-nature is void, containing no form. This, then, is true Reality, which is also called the wonderful form or body of the Tathagata. The Diamond Sutra says: "Those who have abandoned all forms are called Buddhas."

The two accumulations of merit and wisdom are present in the mind. Emptiness is wisdom, function is compassion. Zen affirms that the trikaya is present in the nature of mind, so it is not that one has to develop wisdom for the dharmakaya and merit for rupakaya, but the buddha-mind is already perfect in all aspects. Still, that doesn't deny that there is also a gradual path of the bodhisattva, however, the gradual path doesn't deny the existence of a sudden path. Thrangu Rinpoche says that on the sutrayana it takes a long time to achieve buddhahood because they use analytical-conceptual meditation but Mahamudra uses an experiential method of directly looking at the nature of mind. A similar argument could be made in the case of Zen too.

This might help better understanding, here is Zongmi's differentiation between the five dhyanas, that is, the levels of practice:

1. With ulterior motives, one appreciates what is above, and rejects what is below, in order to cultivate.  This is the dhyana of non-Buddhists.
2. Correct faith in cause and effect, one uses appreciation and revulsion, in order to cultivate.*  This is the dhyana of unenlightened beings.
3. Ending rebirth through emptiness, fully realizing the true path, in order to cultivate.  This is lower vehicle dhyana.
4. Comprehending the two forms of emptiness, that of the person and that of dharmas, in order to cultivate.  This is Mahayana dhyana.
5. Direct (sudden) realization of the essential purity of ones own mind, originally without defilements, itself endowed with the influx-free (non-afflicted) gnosis - this mind is Buddha, ultimate with nothing else beyond - cultivating in this manner, is the Supreme Vehicle Dhyana. It is also known as the Pure Dhyana of the Tathagatas.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see. So the problem is the lack of the two accumulations. But even in the Prajnaparamita teachings we find that one paramita includes all the other paramitas.

In the Mahaprajnaparamitasastra (30.5.3; vol. 2, p. 859, tr. Lamotte-Migme) we find even the concept of abstaining for all kinds of practices, "Furthermore, the bodhisattva acquires the Prajñāpāramitā without practicing any dharma and without acquiring any dharma. Why? All practices (caryā) are erroneous and futile: from near or far, they present faults. In fact, bad dharmas (akuśaladharma) are faulty from close up; as for good dharmas, they are transformed and modified from far away; those who become attached to them will end up by experiencing pain and sorrow; thus they show defects from far off. [Good and bad practices] are like an appetizing food and a disgusting food both of which have been poisoned."

There is also the story of Prasannendriya and Agramati (MPPS, vol. 1, p. 323ff) where the first only taught insight into the true nature of reality without renouncing the world and the other all the many practices and ascetic methods. Prasannendriya became a buddha eventually and Agramati had to undergo lot of suffering later on.

Adding the buddha-mind teachings, the nature of mind has perfect function, the functioning of a buddha, and this is the display of all the qualities. What is there to accumulate for it?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
Because India is the source of the Dharma, the place where Mahāyāna developed, etc., and the site of Vajrāsana.

Astus wrote:
Do you deny the possibility that authentic Buddhism is not bound by geographical location? You defined a "mainstream Buddhism" as all Indian Buddhists while we both know that Buddhism there was neither unified nor static. Vajrayana claims buddhahood within one lifetime, so it is not exactly true that all agreed on the time it has to take to achieve it. The concept of sudden enlightenment was first taught by Daosheng (360?-434), a disciple of Kumarajiva. Because he was a Chinese master and not Indian, his view of Buddhism must be wrong? Saying that Indian Buddhism is the definitive because that's where it first appeared is very much an argument based on an irrelevant fact. Buddhism developed pretty much independently in China after Buddhism established itself. Why would then it be inferior only because of geographical reasons? Just as in India so it was in China that there were different traditions and interpretations of the Buddhadharma. Sudden enlightenment might be inconceivable for the Theravada and early Mahayana followers, but not so for the Vajrayana. Vajrayana developed in India and Chan developed in China. Neither of them are something you could find in such mainstream schools as the Sarvastivadins or the Dharmaguptakas. But then it comes down to the spatial distance between India and China. Do you find that an important point? In my view, the source of Dharma is the Buddha and not a place, nationality, ethnicity, political system or climate.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 8:02 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
"Mainstream" means "rest of the Buddhist world..."

Astus wrote:
That means a few of millions in Tibet, Mongolia and Bhutan, and the many Theravadins. In terms of the number of followers Vajrayana is not mainstream at all.

Namdrol said:
Mainstream means Buddhism in India.

N

Astus wrote:
Hm, the current Buddhism in India or sometimes in the past? And what time? Why only India and why that time? Among the Indian schools which is mainstream and which is marginal? This is getting messy...


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 4:44 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
"Mainstream" means "rest of the Buddhist world..."

Astus wrote:
That means a few of millions in Tibet, Mongolia and Bhutan, and the many Theravadins. In terms of the number of followers Vajrayana is not mainstream at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
Yes, these are often trotted out, but they do not prove anything other than that Chan Buddhists had a view of buddhahood that does not correspond to mainstream Buddhist thinking on the subject.

Astus wrote:
What "mainstream" actually means is debatable since Chan has been the primary doctrine of elite Buddhism in East Asia for a thousand years now.

Proving that Chan, and particularly sudden enlightenment, is a valid Buddhist teaching is the real issue then. For that we would need a couple of terms defined, especially buddhahood and buddha-mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Some quotes on the view of Mahayana and the three kalpas long practice from different Chan works.

But the Buddha said, "Only after undergoing innumerable hardships for three asankhya kalpas did I achieve enlightenment," Why do you now say that simply beholding the mind and over-coming the three poisons is liberation?

The words of the Buddha are true. But the three-asankhya kalpas refer to the three poisoned states of mind. What we call asankhya in Sanskrit you call countless. Within these three poisoned states of mind are countless evil thoughts, And every thought lasts a kalpa. Such an infinity is what the Buddha meant by the three asankhya kalpas, Once the three poisons obscure your real self, how can you be called liberated until you overcome their countless evil thoughts? People who can transform the three poisons of greed, anger, and delusion into the three releases are said to pass through the three-sankhya kalpas. But people of this final age are the densest of fools. They don’t understand what the Tathagata really meant by the three-asankhya kalpas. They say enlightenment is only achieved after endless kalpas and thereby mislead disciples to retreat on the path to Buddhahood.
( Breakthrough Sermon )

Q: What is the difference between the Mahayana and the Supreme Vehicle?
A: The Mahayana is the Bodhisattva's vehicle, and the Supreme Yana is the Buddha's vehicle.

Q: How can one practice to attain these vehicles?
A: To practice the Bodhisattva's vehicle is simply Mahayana practice. After attaining the Bodhisattva stage, where there is no longer any need to practice, one arrives at the stage of no-practice, which is permanently still and deep and where there is neither increase nor decrease. This is called the Supreme Vehicle or the Buddha's Vehicle.
( Entering the Tao of Sudden Enlightenment )

The monk asked: How can one suddenly attain the Tao through practice?
The master said: If one really has some good reason and is very sincere, with no trace of falseness, there is, for him, no need to spend endless Asankhyeya-Kalpas in practice. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra says, "A man who sails a boat on the ocean can move very far in a short time in a favorable wind." If there were not a favorable wind, the boat would only stay in the same place for many years. Also, if the boat were to leak, it would submerge and the man would die. The situation of all sentient beings can be compared quite closely to this one. The Surangama Sutra says, "There is Samadhi of seeing all things as illusion, which, in a finger-snap, leads to the state beyond all study." Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary to understand the Three Vehicles nor to attain the Ten Stages of a Bodhisattva's Progress to become Buddha in one thought, thereby transcending Kalpas of practice suddenly.
( Practice and Attain Enlightenment After Understanding the Principles )

"Followers of the Way, if you take my viewpoint you’ll cut off the heads of the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya buddhas; a bodhisattva who has attained the completed mind of the tenth stage will be like a mere hireling; a bodhisattva of equivalent enlightenment or a bodhisattva of marvelous enlightenment will be like pilloried prisoners; an arhat and a pratyekabuddha will be like privy fi lth; bodhi and nirvana will be like hitching posts for asses. Why is this so? Followers of the Way, it is only because you haven’t yet realized the emptiness of the three asamkhyeya kalpas that you have such obstacles."
( Record of Linji )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 26th, 2011 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Carl Bielefeldt in his "Dogen's Manual of Zen Meditation" discusses nicely (p. 87ff) that the Tiantai meditation system (the Mohezhiguan) that included both gradual and sudden methods (where the sudden part was the culmination of the practices) served as a model for Chan that took out only the sudden part - that is the Tathagata Dhyana (based on which it's called Tathagata/Rulai Chan), the vajropamasamadhi, the very state of buddhahood - and left behind the gradual stages. (Bielefeldt there also explains other important developments that are not relevant here but it's a good source to understand how Zen became like it is in Dogen's teachings and even today.) This shows that Zen is not at all without reasoning or doctrinal bases but what people see are teachings that were well established by that time and needed no apologetics - this is what is also called Patriarchal Chan, where the patriarchs are equal to living buddhas expressing the Teaching of the Unsurpassed Vehicle.

Zongmi, who emphasised the sudden enlightenment followed by gradual practice model, argued primarily against the Hongzhou and Baotang schools who taught instant liberation. In the end, however, the Hongzhou style won and from that appeared the Linji and Caodong schools to be the orthodox lineages then on.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
As I said, they tended to ignore Indian Mahāyāna masters, preferring their own interpretations. The only text of clear Indian origin in the short list given here is the first. The rest are native Chinese compositions.

Astus wrote:
Plus the Diamond Sutra. But yes, that is part of the difficulty of simply putting Chan under "sutrayana" and expecting it to conform with Tibetan views what it should be like. Therefore, if we don't count Indian Mahayana, perfect enlightenment in this life can be as valid a claim as in Vajrayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
I didn't mean they knew nothing about those works from India but they rather developed on their own way. The Maha-Prajnaparamita-Upadesa is one example, it was used heavily by both Sanlun and Tiantai, the Mahayana-Sraddhotpada-Sastra is another classic example used often by Huayan teachers.
Consider these works studied in the Korean Jogye Order's curriculum for novices ( http://longquanzs.org/articledetail.php?id=4743 ): Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, PP8000 Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra, Shuramgama Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Nirvana Sutra, Awakening Faith in Mahayana, Abhidharma teachings, Huayan teachings, Seon teachings. And if that sounds a very broad range, the texts studied in depth are ( http://www.acmuller.net/articles/ogahae-oxford.html ): Flower Adornment Sutra, Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, Sutra of the Heroic March Concentration, Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, Platform Sutra, Diamond Sutra. They are all related to Chan/Seon and Huayan/Hwaeom in different ways. No Nagarjuna, no Vasubandhu, no Haribhadra.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 10:17 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
Actually, I am questioning the entire basis of certain Chan claims to buddhahood because they broadly contradict Indian Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
That was Xuanzang's view too, he wanted to "correct" Chinese Buddhism - and he didn't really mean Chan since at that time it was still marginal. However, his doctrines were soon forgotten and the Huayan-Tiantai interpretations conquered the land on which Chan was built. Therefore, to connect Chan to Indian Mahayana one has to go back in time a bit, to around the 4th century when things started to take shape. That means that the primary treatises of Chinese Buddhism are not those that are used in Tibet to understand Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 6:24 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Indeed, this discussion was started based on the different interpretations of Buddhahood in Chan. So it is a "debate topic". And unless it deteriorates into personal attacks I find it a very fruitful form of interaction.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 5:05 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
LastLegend said:
Don't talk practice. When we have realized enlightenment we can come back and talk about all the paths not just the path we have employed.

Astus wrote:
Is there some taboo on discussions? This is a Buddhist Forum. Is it that the purpose of such a board as this is unclear? It is meant for talking about Buddhism, about Zen, etc. Questions like "why talk about this?" is saying that we should just shut down this section or even the whole forum. I doubt that's what you or those who make similar comments actually mean. But such meta-discussions like this is disrupting and very much off topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Kyosan said:
We can have some idea of what Buddhahood is and there is nothing wrong with that, but we should realize our limitations and not think that we know what Buddhahood is. Of course we don't, only Buddhas know what Buddhahood is. We are just deluded sentient beings.

Astus wrote:
"Buddhahood" is our own idea that we already have. Whether you say we can analyse this idea of Buddhahood or not doesn't touch the immediate truth that it is a concept we have in our minds. The reason it is said that Buddhahood cannot be figured out is exactly because we just have to drop these ideas and there it is.

"habituated discursive thought arises from the conditioned mind. The six data- fields, false conceptualization and conditioned energies are not the true essence of mind— indeed, they are like sky-flowers. But using discursive thought to discern the Buddha-state is like the sky-flowers further producing 'sky-fruits.' Circular false thoughts are useless here."
(Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, ch. 4, tr. C. Muller)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Huseng said:
Whatever influence there might have been I have never noticed it either in terms of text or in modern Chinese Buddhism.

Astus wrote:
I don't know much about Chinese ritual practices, but you may have noticed the large number of dharanis present in monks' daily rituals and their general popularity. There are also rites like "Liberating the Flaming-Mouths" (fang yankou 放焰口) based on a Tantric text by Amoghavajra, and the grand ceremony of "Liberation Rite of Water and Land" (shuiliu fahui 水陸法會).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Devices Zen and the Direct Path
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is not that there is a problem with expedients. But Zen - unlike the other paths - is about directly seeing the nature of mind. Using methods and techniques to gradually come to realisation and instantly accessing the buddha-mind are both valid. Bankei was among those few who kept alive that tradition of Bodhidharma, Huineng, Mazu and Linji to teach the immediate way. On the other hand, Hakuin - who lived a bit later - established a gradual practice of training with koans.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
the mind is buddha...

Namdrol said:
Nice, a conditioned, impermanent, afflicted buddha.

N

Astus wrote:
"Good sons, all hindrances are none other than ultimate enlightenment. Whether you attain mindfulness or lose mindfulness, there is no non-liberation. Establishing the Dharma and refuting the Dharma are both called nirvana; wisdom and folly are equally prajna; the method that is perfected by bodhisattvas and false teachers is the same bodhi; ignorance and suchness are not different realms; morality, concentration and wisdom, as well as desire, hatred and ignorance are all divine practices; sentient beings and lands share the same dharma nature; hell and heaven are both the Pure Land; those having Buddha-nature and those not having it equally accomplish the Buddha's enlightenment. All defilements are ultimately liberation. The reality-realms's ocean-like wisdom completely illumines all marks to be just like empty space. This is called 'the Tathāgata's accordance with the nature of enlightenment.' "
(Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, ch. 6, tr. C. Muller)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Huseng said:
However, none of that was really part of Han/Chinese Buddhism 漢傳.
Tibetan Vajrayāna in China was for Mongol and later Machurian aristocracy.

Astus wrote:
Primarily, yes. But that doesn't mean monks - especially close to the higher circles - didn't know about it. For instance, Hanshan Deqing did practice some Vajrayana techniques.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 25th, 2011 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Devices Zen and the Direct Path
Content:
LastLegend said:
If the teachers are not enlightened, they cannot teach direct path.

Astus wrote:
Neither can they teach Zen.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Namdrol said:
The difference lies in equipoise and post-equipoise.

Frankly, it is obvious that realizing the nature of the mind does not make one a buddha. That is why I stated that "buddhahood" in Chan is a euphemism for awakening, but it does not mean that one who has awakened is a Samyaksambuddha, though I imagine there are some deluded Chan practitioners even today who think it is so.

Astus wrote:
Equipoise and post-equipoise matters when there is a specific state of mind to cultivate. Zen is not about creating any mind. So it is called no-mind.

Realising the nature of mind doesn't make one a buddha, the mind is buddha, so there's nothing to be transformed. This is the teaching of buddha-mind - not just as a possibility of becoming buddha but that the qualities of a buddha are inherent. There is no buddha outside the mind, this is a fundamental Zen teaching. Of course this is not like as in the doctrinal teachings where the buddha is far away out there and reaching that level is almost impossible.

"Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi is a name for the realization that the Buddhas of the whole universe do not in fact possess the smallest perceptible attribute. There exists just the One Mind." (Huangbo, tr. Blofeld, T48n2012B, p384c, 21)

"All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That's all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood, and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles' twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
"But you, weren't you born of a mother? If you seek buddha, you'll be held in the grip of Buddha-Mara. If you seek the patriarchs, you'll be bound by the ropes of Patriarch-Mara. If you engage in any seeking, it will all be pain. Much better to do nothing.
There are a bunch of shavepate monks who say to students, 'The Buddha is the Ultimate; he attained buddhahood only after he came to the fruition of practices carried on through three great asamkhyeya kalpas.' Followers of the Way, if you say that the Buddha is the ultimate, how is it that after eighty years of life the Buddha lay down on his side between the twin sala trees at Kusinagara and died? Where is the Buddha now? We clearly know that his birth and death were not different from ours."
(The Record of Linji, tr. Sasaki, p. 222-223)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Title: Devices Zen and the Direct Path
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Generally speaking, Zen teachers nowadays instruct people by setting up rules or using devices. believing that without devices they can't manage, behaving as if without them it's impossible to instruct anyone, they're unable to teach by simply pointing things out directly. To teach people [this way], unable to manage without devices, is 'devices Zen.'
"Others tell students pursuing this teaching that it's no good unless they rouse a great ball of doubt and succeed in breaking through it. 'No matter what,' they tell them, 'you've got to rouse a ball of doubt!' They don't teach, 'Abide in the Unborn Buddha Mind!' [but instead] cause people without any ball of doubt to saddle themselves with one, making them exchange the Buddha Mind for a ball of doubt. A mistaken business, isn't it!"
(Bankei Yotaku, tr. Peter Haskel)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Huseng said:
Mantrayāna was introduced in the 8th century into China and seems to have become somewhat popular, perhaps because of the mysterious theatrical appeal of it to the common people, but it was effectively doomed in 845 when Wuzong crushed all Buddhist institutions. Any sort of urban Buddhism with state sponsorship received a deep, and sometimes fatal, blow.

Astus wrote:
That is a bit of an exaggeration. Vajrayana was available in China in later ages too, including translation of tantras, and enjoyed state sponsorship under the Mongols and Manchus. But I think it's that since the Taoists already satisfied those who were looking for yogic and magical practices, there was little need for a new one.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 5:33 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
Awakening in Chan means realising the nature of mind, i.e. the buddha-mind. Since the buddha-mind is perfect in qualities and omniscience, how could that awakening be limited? It is free from the emotional (klesa) and conceptual (jneya) obscurations, how could it be bound by anything at all? Teachers of Chan were well aware of the gradual stages and aeons of bodhisattva practice when they talked about buddhahood and claimed that Chan is a sudden path. Those who viewed it in a different way did say so.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
topic split: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5102


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 7:16 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is all right to not accept that Chan teaches the sudden gateway to buddhahood. Just as Huseng quoted, Zongmi is one of the few outstanding teachers who did not accept that view. But a large number of teachers did accept.

The fourth principle of Chan is "see nature, become buddha" (jianxing chengfo / kensho jobutsu 見性成佛). As it's said in the Platform Sutra, "If you recognize your own mind and see the nature, you will definitely accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood." (T48n2008, p351a, 12)

To make it clear how it was understood in the Hongzhou school:

"The deluded man seeks to obtain or attain something, while the enlightened man neither seeks, obtains nor attains anything whatsoever. The deluded man yearns for attainment in some distant kalpa in the future, while the enlightened man perceives the nature of all things suddenly and instantaneously."
(Huihai's "Tsung-Ching Record" tr. by Lok To, X63n1224, p26c, 5-6)

"Some students attain the state of liberated Mind quickly, some slowly.  After listening to a Dharma talk, some reach "no mind" directly.  In contrast, some must first pass gradually through the ten grades of Bodhisattva faith, the Dasabhumi of Bodhisattva development, and the ten stages before attaining the Perfectly Awakened Mind.  Whether one takes a long or a short time, however, once attained, "no mind" can never be lost.  With nothing further to cultivate and nothing more to attain, one realizes that this "no mind" is true, not false, Mind. Whether reaching this stage quickly or after passing through the various stages of Bodhisattva development gradually, the attainment of "no mind" cannot be characterized in terms of shallow or deep."
(Huangbo's "Chung-Ling Record" tr. by Lok To, T48n2012A, p380b, 5-9)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Outside of Tibeta Buddhism/Vajrayāna, Chan alone proposes that it is possible to attain fullbuddhahood in a single lifetime. But it seems that in Chan, "buddhahood" is a generally a euphemism for attaining the bodhisattva stages, and no Indian Mahāyāna tradition denies that it is impossible for someone to attain the path of seeing and so on. However, they would have done so based on past accumulations. So even here, Vajrayāna remain unique in asserting that one can attain full awakening 11 bhumi + in a single lifetime, soup to nuts.

Astus wrote:
It is not only Chan but also Huayan and Tiantai teach sudden enlightenment - interestingly Huayan puts "sudden enlightenment" one level below its own "complete teaching of the one vehicle". As for the difference between the entry to the bodhisattva stages and full buddhahood, in Chan it is clarified with the distinction of gradual and sudden paths. Gradual means the bodhisattva stages, sudden means immediate buddhahood. Of course, not everyone among the Chan teachers agreed with this view.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Not really, since if you examine things carefully, Mantrayāna is the only Indian Buddhist tradition that asserts full Buddhahood in one lifetime is actually a possibility.

All other Indian Buddhist traditions of which we have knowledge, Mahāyāna or not, assert that at minimum full awakening is impossible in less then three incalculable eons.

Astus wrote:
Renunciation is a key element in attaining arhatship, the goal of the majority of Indian Buddhist traditions. However, Buddhism in India died out long ago so it's not something I include in "other Buddhist teachings" simply because there is no such living religion. On the other hand, we have East Asian and South Asian Buddhism, neither of them defined as particularly Vajrayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 at 6:29 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Adamantine,

Examples from this thread is in the OP itself: this is the age of decline, therefore renunciation is impossible as a path, the path all can use is Vajrayana. This is practically negating the validity of all the other Buddhist teachings and selecting Vajrayana as the sole option. The book the quote is from is about a long ago extinct Chinese school that first propagated the presence of the age of decline. We can also find similar arguments in sutras, most prominently those that are associated with the Pure Land practice as the Pure Land school itself claims that in the age of decline it is the best path to choose.

You may disregard the careful study of Buddhism and put aside other teachings than those you like the most. But I think it is understandable for you that not everyone shares your view regarding Padmasambhava and other Tibetan Buddhist concepts.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Adamantine said:
academic gibberish. why are you quoting it?

Astus wrote:
It fits well the situation. Those arguing for a decline also posit their form of Buddhism as appropriate for this rotten age. So it is more a rhetorical device than anything else, as it has been used as such for a long time now in Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Those speaking the rhetoric of decline are "more interested in establishing a particular orthodoxy of “true teaching” than in voicing historical predictions of actual decline, prophetic warnings of moral failings, or existential statements about humankind’s capacity for realization. In fact, the beginnings of the Buddhist tradition of decline are best understood as a rhetoric of orthodoxy that marks the appearance of doctrinal differentiation in the Buddhist community. The elements of this argument can be found throughout the various canons, but always in the sense of an exhortation to adhere to the true teachings lest the predicted decline actually come to pass. It was also in China that we first encounter individuals convinced that the predicted demise had actually arrived, due in part to a preexisting and pervasive indigenous discourse of decline. In an interesting twist, the dominant use in China of the Buddhist polemic of orthodoxy was to legitimize new teachings, of which the Three Levels is one example. An important reason for this was that the decline came to be seen in terms of a decline in human nature, a claim about the corrupt existential condition of living beings rather than a decline of time or doctrine."
(Jamie Hubbard: Absolute delusion, perfect Buddhahood : the rise and fall of a Chinese heresy, p. 35)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2011 at 9:25 PM
Title: Seon Master Jinje
Content:
Astus wrote:
First time I've seen an ad on the Shambhala website that brought me to this page: http://www.jinje.us/Jinje.us/Home.html
Here we read: "Enlightened Seon (Zen) Master Jinje, the 79th Patriarch in the Korean lineage of the Buddha" And also: "The greatest living master of Ganhwa Seon (Korean Zen), he practices a distinctive questioning style of meditation that traces its roots back to the Buddha and remains virtually unknown in the US."

On his http://jinje.kr/eng/ it's simply stated, "He is the spiritual leader of the Korean Buddhist."
His https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinje_Seonsa plainly says: "Seon Master Jinje(1934~) is the greatest living master of Seon Buddhism secluded in Korea."

His http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/master/priest_view.asp?cat_seq=7&priest_seq=118&page=1 says, "He is currently the spiritual patriarch (joshil) of Donghwasa Temple. He became a member of Jogye Order’s Council of Elders in 2003. He also received the prestigious designation of Great Master (Daejongsa) from the Jogye Order in 2004."

Is he really the leader of all Korean Buddhists? Is he the head of the Jogye Order? Neither of that seems accurate to me. Does he have an impressive campaign for his visit to the US? Sure he does. By the way, he is an elder teacher, so it is a programme worth visiting by anyone who can.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 22nd, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Title: Re: Saichō's Monastic Reforms
Content:
Astus wrote:
A side note:

In Japanese schools they possess the proper doctrinal-practical transmission of the different schools, like in the case of Zen, but because they not necessarily live up to it, they're false. Again, even if they live up to the moral standards because they don't have the right set of rules and transmission they are false. So we could say that neither transmission nor the reality of practice makes one proper Dharma follower. Or it is that if we want we can view it as all right, if we want we can view it as totally wrong. That's because we can argue on the side of either ideal purity or practical situation. But I think what should be asked is the purpose of the whole training and whether a training used can generate the desired results.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: Haiku for Mahayana Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
this life is a dream
nothing can be grasped or seen
where do you wake up?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Buddhist View of Zen
Content:
mzaur said:
So from a Tibetan pov, Zen does not lead to the same realization as Vajrayana?

Astus wrote:
It does lead to buddhahood since it is Mahayana, so they simply put it into their interpretation of sutrayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 20th, 2011 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & bhūmis
Content:
Astus wrote:
"The great seal is the very essence of reality and the all-in-one path. The essence of reality being nondifferentiable, its division into the grounds and paths cannot be acceptable from the ultimate standpoint."
(Tashi Namgyal)

Tsele Natsok Rangdrol (Lamp of Mahamudra):

general preliminaries - lesser path of accumulation
special preliminaries - medium path of accumulation
guru yoga - greater path of accumulation

3 stages of one-pointedness - path of joining

some say: 3 stages of simplicity and arriving at one taste - first bhumi and path of cultivation
most say: post-meditation after attaining simplicity - first bhumi / path of sseeing

first stage of simplicity - 1-3 bhumi
medium stage of simplicity - 4-5 bhumi
greater simplicity - sixth bhumi
first stage of one taste - seventh bhumi
medium one taste - eighth bhumi
higher stage of one taste - ninth bhumi
lesser and medium stages of nonmeditation - tenth bhumi

greater nonmeditation - buddhahood/vajradhara, 11-13 bhumi

Dakpo Tashi Namgyal (Mahamudra: The Moonlight):

based on Drelpa Dönsal:
[path of virtuous absorption - one-pointed yoga
path of insight - non-discrimination yoga]
path of meditation (bhumi 2-10) - one taste yoga
buddhahood - nonmeditation yoga

based on Je Gyare:
path of spiritual merit - preparatory practices
path of virtuous absorption - one-pointed yoga
path of insight - nondiscrimination yoga
path of meditation - one flavor yoga
9-10 bhumi - lower-middle nonmeditation
buddhadhood - greater nonmeditation

Tashi Namgyal's own:
path of spiritual merits and first ground - preparatory practices and three levels of one-pointed yoga
path of virtuous absorpation and ground of joy - three levels of nondiscriminatory yoga
path of insight and meditation, 1-10 grounds - 1-3 levels of one flavor and 1-2 levels of nonmeditation
buddhahood - greater nonmeditation


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Conservation Efforts
Content:
Unknown said:
rural does not equal fuedal, though perhaps for Europeans this is the only equation they are familiar with. You have to bear in mind that during the 19th century, literacy rates in the United States was the highest in the world

Astus wrote:
I don't find the perspective of a peasant civilisation that enticing, even if it's sustainable. And when you keep yourself busy on the farm and you are isolated from other areas, literacy disappears as it is useless. Also, don't forget that the 19th century was already the modern age with steam power and gun powder.

Unknown said:
You are talking ahead of yourself. We are not advocating revolutionary or change of government or system. Why people have to bring this in every time?. We are only discussing ideas. But I think there are organizations out there that have people who come from different backgrounds, working on world peace. We can all sit and think it won't work-how is it gonna work? It will not work because that's what we think. Why don't we think that we can at least try?

Astus wrote:
I am discussing such ideas and I'm not marching on the streets or anything like that. But I don't find much to discuss about "how nice it would be if the world was a utopia", but rather considering ways that can be actually effective. Leaving change to those who are already in power, well, why would they want to make any changes? They already have it all, except they want more. Rich people are not less greedy than the poor.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Conservation Efforts
Content:
Astus wrote:
LastLegend,

"efficient and sustainable energy source" in my understanding - and I can be wrong of course - is the same as an infinite source of energy. Not realistic. But my knowledge is very limited here.

You may call it giving, compassion, enlightenment, etc. - these are ideas. You can't make people give - unless you start a so called "proletariat dictatorship". Since you can't make them give, can't convert them to new views either, the plan fails. That's what I was saying with the failure of religions and ideologies. Therefore, either we go medieval or new technologies. Both are mostly external (i.e. easier to recognise and accept by the majority) forces that make people follow new rules.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Hua Tou and Dzogchen
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Some questions:

- Free from attachment to concepts does mean?
- Seeing the Nature of Mind will be with the eyes?
- Are there also more ways to see the Nature of the Mind?
- Which mind would be here meant?
- What are pointing out instructions ?
- Where is this shattering of the great doubt explained?
- What is doubt and about what is one doubtfull?

Astus wrote:
I think you better look into this yourself as your questions are far beyond a simple post. And when you have some questions left you can go to the Zen forum section to start a topic for it.

Online:

http://www.purifymind.com/PracticeBegin.htm by Master Hanshan Deqing
http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/index.html
http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/hwadu/cat.asp?cat_seq=5

Books to read by Ven. Sheng-yen:

Shattering the Great Doubt: The Chan Practice of Huatou
Hoofprint of the Ox: Principles of the Chan Buddhist Path as Taught by a Modern Chinese Master
Illuminating silence: the practice of Chinese Zen
Attaining the way: a guide to the practice of Chan Buddhism


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Hua Tou and Dzogchen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shattering the great doubt means becoming free from attachment to concepts. That is seeing the nature of mind, entering the gate of no-gate, experiencing non-conceptual mind. This is the equivalent of pointing out instruction. How one continues to practice is another question.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: Conservation Efforts
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Infinite source of energy" does not exist, especially not on Earth. Keeping population low (it's already too high) and living in a rural environment would mean a sustainable livelihood where small communities can live on locally produced food and move regularly to arable land until the used land regenerates. That's quite medieval and would require a global catastrophe to reduce humanity into such a culture. Another option - if we want to believe in the salvational nature of science - is to reach a higher technical development, like in the Star Trek universe, that brings with itself the cultural change and so even money disappears. Religions, however, have already proven to be ineffective as social forces, same with other ideological systems, the reason for that is probably in the diversity of humans and opinions.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 3:38 PM
Title: Re: A thought ......
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mahamudra is more than a single meditation technique, while "vipashyana" covers a very big area. That's why I don't think so.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: The Rinpoche's Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Dogma seems to be one of the biggest obstacles in many spiritual traditions. It is often disguised as the wisdom of an infallible lineage, while sometimes it is simply ego’s creation for the purpose of postponing the true realization of oneness. As long as such spiritual teachings are based on dogma, they are dead wisdom, full of superstition. ... What is transcendent wisdom? Let’s inquire into that. Actually you can call it by many names, whatever name you prefer. It is a direct momentary process of dissolving all illusion right now, in this very moment. It is dissolving the illusion of pain, sorrow, and hatred. It is dissolving the illusion of self. There is a fire of awareness ignited in our consciousness which ruthlessly burns everything, without any exception. Sometimes it burns everything in a single moment and sometimes it burns one illusion after another. That burning process is transcendent wisdom. You can call it “transcendent wisdom” or you don’t have to call it anything. It is really awareness, not conceptualization. It is momentary. It is direct experience. It is a realization of losing everything, losing all of our cherished ideas and concepts, sometimes even without any resistance. It is a beautiful way of losing everything, not a painful way."
(No Self, No Problem, p. 125-126)

"In the Son approach, all these true teachings deriving from the faith and understanding of the complete and sudden school which are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges are called dead words because they induce people to create the obstacle of understanding. Nevertheless, with complete descriptions which accord with the nature they do instruct beginning students who are not yet able to investigate the live word of the shortcut approach, and they help to ensure that they have nonretrogressive faith and understanding. But if there is a person of superior faculties-one fit for the secret transmission who abandons all stereotyping as soon as he hears the tasteless word of the shortcut approach-that person does not stagnate in the defects of knowledge and conceptual understanding but, rather, comes to know his abiding place. This is called "to hear once, have a thousand awakenings, and attain great dharanis.""
(Collected Works of Chinul, p. 240)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Conservation Efforts
Content:
Namdrol said:
Screw the proletariat, the consumers must seize the means of production, and create a dictatorship of consumption...!

(oh wait...that won't work...)

Astus wrote:
It won't work only because consumers have no idea where those "means of production" are. Never even heard of them.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 19th, 2011 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Conservation Efforts
Content:
Astus wrote:
Who owns the resources? The rich.
Who protects the resources? The soldiers.
Who produces the resources? The workers.
Who organises the production? The managers.
Who distributes the products? The merchants.
etc. etc.

The idea of equal distribution is great. Communism, however, didn't work out so far.
The Buddha's recipe for the perfect world is the five precepts. How do you convince everybody to abide by it?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
Greg said:
I'd also like to put a plug in for Pointing Out the Great Way: The Stages of Meditation in Mahamudra by Daniel P. Brown ( http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=32808&-Token.Action=&image=1 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

It's academically rigorous yet oriented toward the practitioner, a survey of all of the important texts of the tradition. Really an impressive and very useful piece of work.

Astus wrote:
I've pondered on buying it but his relationship with Ken Wilber eventually deterred me.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
Greg said:
I'd also like to put a plug in for Pointing Out the Great Way: The Stages of Meditation in Mahamudra by Daniel P. Brown ( http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/display.lasso?-KeyValue=32808&-Token.Action=&image=1 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

It's academically rigorous yet oriented toward the practitioner, a survey of all of the important texts of the tradition. Really an impressive and very useful piece of work.

Astus wrote:
I've pondered on buying it but his relationship with Ken Wilber eventually deterred me.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Introducing the practice of Daimoku to friends and relatives
Content:
Namdrol said:
Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo during the physical union of man and woman is indeed what is called “earthly desires are enlightenment,” and “the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana.”

I wonder if this applies to chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo while watching porn.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 10:18 PM
Title: Re: The Rinpoche's Zen
Content:
Namdrol said:
The following is not Dzogchen.

Astus wrote:
Indeed, there is no mention of Dzogchen. As I've found, Anam Thubten talks of Prajnaparamita in his own way but associates with no specific teaching beyond that. Was it claimed otherwise somewhere?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 9:18 PM
Title: Re: The Rinpoche's Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
"The awakening has nothing to do with our background. It has nothing to do with whether we have been meditating for a long time or not. It has nothing to do with meeting impressive teachers or gurus. It is simply dependent on whether or not we are open to it."
(No Self, No Problem, p. 4)

"In the same way, when we pay attention to our breath, body sensations, and to the awareness that arises, then all the illusions, suffering, confusion, sorrow, and personal issues, all of this begins to dissipate. We see that all of these experiences are born of delusion. This is the sense of “I.” “I am real. I am truly existent.” Everything is gone except this “I,” this sense of self. Then, when we continue meditating, the sense of self also goes away. When we just keep meditating, when we just remain in that present awareness and observe, then the self dissolves too. When the self dissolves there is just pure awareness. When the self completely collapses, there is this inexpressible, simple yet profound and ecstatic, compassionate awareness. Nobody is there. “I” is completely nonexistent in that place. There is no separation between samsara, bad circumstances, and nirvana, good circumstances, and there is nobody pursuing the path or chasing after enlightenment. In that moment we realize the essence of the Buddha’s teaching."
(p. 41)

"Suddenly, when we stop producing concepts and ideas, when we stop feeding that illusory reality, when we stop associating with ego, it is very simple. It is simple to stop associating with ego. However there are no twelve step programs in transcendent wisdom. There is only the one-step program and that is to not associate with the ego. The moment we stop associating with ego it just immediately ceases right there."
(p. 128)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 18th, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: An independent Mahamudra forum?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Some of us were given Mahamudra pointing out instructions before we even took refuge let alone started ngondro!

Astus wrote:
So much for karma.

Pero said:
What do you mean?

Astus wrote:
That it depends on karma what one meets, hears, studies and understands.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Nevertheless, Dzogchen and Zen are different and are in no way equivalent, even when one is confronted by very similar statements. The difference in these statements hinges on very subtle points. You need to seek out a teacher who can explain them to you.

Astus wrote:
I'm not arguing that - at least not here - since the work quoted makes no mention of Dzogchen, and it doesn't have to. The topic of this thread is something else anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Mind is not jñ̄āna.

Astus wrote:
You may have noticed by now that terminology is not universal even within Buddhism. Mind (xin 心 - citta) in Zen is used not just for the deluded but the enlightened mind too, while other words like consciousness (shi 識 - vijnana) or intelligence (yi 意 - manas) are not used in both senses.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 5:23 AM
Title: The Rinpoche's Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Today I've been reading the book "No Self, No Problem" and although it is by a Nyingmapa teacher of the Tibetan tradition, I recommend it to every Buddhist who feel attracted by the teachings of the Zen tradition.

"If we want to realize the truth, the first thing to remember is that we don’t have to do anything. No sacred dances. No secret mantras. No religious conversion. We just sit quietly wherever we find ourselves and simply don’t do anything. This is most important. Don’t do anything. We look directly and see what is true in that moment without labeling or judging anything. Now we see the truth which is beyond our fantasies. We also see that our mind is a conglomeration of mental events, fleeting and insubstantial. At that moment it’s impossible to become attached to any personal story line. This is a perfect moment. It lacks nothing. That recognition brings about a sense of inexhaustible joy. We might feel like we want to get up and dance wildly. If so, do it and call it sacred dance."
(Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 84-85)

One day Yaoshan was sitting on a stone. Shitou asked what he was doing. Yaoshan said he wasn't doing anything. Shitou said, "You're just sitting here?" Yaoshan said, "Just sitting doing nothing is doing something." Shitou asked, "What exactly do you mean by 'doing nothing?" Yaoshan said, "If you asked all the sages, they wouldnt be able to tell you." Then Shitou recited a poem:

A person doesn't know how it works,
Just goes along with it naturally.
All the sages in history can't explain it,
And ordinary people don't understand it either.

(Soto Zen Ancestors in China, p. 60)

One day after Yaoshan had sat down, a monk came and asked, "What are you thinking about here by yourself?" "I'm thinking about not-thinking." "How do you think about not-thinking?" "By not thinking."
(p. 63)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Don't mistake poetry and rhetoric, like the above, for what is actual.

It simply means that all objects of knowledge are the display of one's own jñāna. It does not mean that rocks, trees, and such are independently awakened.

Astus wrote:
That's the same point as in Zen, Huayan, etc., it's just that they might call it dharmadhatu or mind or something similar.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 17th, 2011 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
"When self dissolves, everything is already awakened. Trees are awakened, rocks are awakened, birds are enlightened, and the clouds in the sky are enlightened. When the Buddha had this moment of complete realization, he discovered that this whole universe is already enlightened. More than that, he realized that every particle on the ground is enlightened. He saw that every particle is a Buddha paradise. In each particle there are billions and trillions of Buddha paradises. In each of those particles there are billions of buddhas residing. This whole universe becomes suddenly enlightened and perfect just as it is."
(Anam Thubten: No Self, No Problem, p. 46)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 16th, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
From Dogen's Zuimonki, "A Primer of Soto Zen",

"If you say that this is a degenerate age and do not arouse the mind that seeks the Way in this life, in what life do you expect to gain it? Even if you are not a person such as Subhuti or Mahakasyapa, you should study the Way in accordance with your capacity."
(p. 18)

"Did not even the Buddha offer twenty years of his life for our benefit in this degenerate age! Because of this, offerings by men and devas are still being made to Zen monasteries. Even though the Tathagata possessed supernatural powers of the greatest merit, he had to eat grain meant for horses and get through one rainy season. How can disciples in this degenerate age want things easier?"
(p. 19)

On another occasion Dogen said:
Most people in this world say: "I have the desire to study Buddhism; yet the world is degenerate, and man, inferior. The training Buddhism requires is too strenuous for me. I will follow the easy way and merely strengthen my links with Buddhism and put off enlightenment until another life."
The attitude these words express is completely wrong. In Buddhism, the setting-up of the three periods of Law was merely a temporary expedient. In the Buddha's time, the monks were not necessarily all outstanding; there were some who were extraordinarily depraved and of low character. It was for such evil and inferior persons that the Buddha drew up the precepts. All people inherently have the capacity to awaken to Buddhism. Don't think that they do not possess it. If you practice in accordance with the teachings, you will gain enlightenment without fail.
As long as you have a mind, you can distinguish between good and evil. As long as you have hands and feet, you have the ability to join your palms together and to walk about. There fore, there is no such thing as not having the equipment to practice Buddhism. All human beings are born with this potential; this is not so of those born in the animal world. Students of the Way, do not wait until tomorrow. This very day, this very moment, practice in accordance with the teaching of the Buddha.
(p. 72)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 16th, 2011 at 2:53 AM
Title: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Astus wrote:
Caring about those who suffer is compassion. To think of not only those animals that are killed for their meat but also those that suffer because of the way the treat them is a larger circle of compassion. This way the final conclusion will be to live like a Jain monk. But if you add some wisdom and not just get lost in the deep emotions it becomes obvious that beings live on other beings, and even plants - that are not considered sentient beings - live on not just sunlight and water but organic elements coming also from animals. Diet itself is rarely a matter in Buddhism except for a few texts, including those that say animal products, including dairy, are impure. What does matter is intention because that is what actually affects oneself and eventually others. This is an important difference between how Buddhists and how other religions, like Jainism, understand karma.

Rory,

I presume you've been in Budapest downtown where obviously you find a large variety of restaurants. But even if you just look around outside of that area in the city, you hardly find any place where you can order purely vegetarian food, unless you want to eat only vegetable soup or pasta (although pasta usually contains egg). This is a country where you spread liver-cream on bread ( https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ooP4gqeVIBw/TWNQDk9mFQI/AAAAAAAAAIc/GNzoZqTAoso/s1600/DSCF3423_resize.JPG ) for breakfast. So Luke is indeed not in an easy situation to keep a vegetarian diet.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2011 at 5:32 PM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
Astus wrote:
What masters are you missing now? I don't know your criteria for who counts as a proper Buddhist teacher, but if you simply look at the amount of published teachings it is surprisingly large, at least in English. Probably the amount is a lot higher in Buddhist countries. So it comes down to the question whom you judge as "correct" and as "incorrect, as "enlightened" and as "non-enlightened". And that will be your personal judgement based on your own view of Buddhism. Others do have different interpretations of course.

Since you mentioned the list of masters, in Zen there is the concept of transmission, and until this day many such transmissions are alive. Consequently the heirs of the old masters are here among us.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2011 at 3:48 PM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
Astus wrote:
You can say that Zen teaching is not specifically something you choose for personal reasons. Generally claiming that the times are worse than before, in my opinion, is a concept that has been repeated over and over for more than thousand years in Buddhism. Therefore I believe it is not that everything is getting worse every minute but that it is easy to believe in some golden age when everything was perfect and compared to that we are in a truly bad situation. The "masters of old time" are hardly some historical fact but rather a view of history, an interpretation, that is heavily coloured by the imagination of the people who came later. Just consider that at the time the Zazen Ron was composed there were people like Honen and Shinran who preached that because this is the age of Dharma-decline and the difficult practices are too hard for the majority while there were also Zen masters like Eisai and Dogen teaching sudden enlightenment. And although now Dogen is recognised as a very important Zen teacher, in his time he was very much unknown. So now you may say that there are only few great masters but a few hundred years later people might as well say that the 21st century was an optimal time of great masters and great achievements while the 24th century is so bad that there is no hope at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2011 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Jnana said:
The same can basically be said of Chan.

Dechen Norbu said:
Can you substantiate that, please? Are you saying Chan is not a path of renunciation then, right? If so, I would like you to develop a little further if you don't mind. I would like to know if they don't consider the five aggregates something to be given up and don't practice under such perspective.

Astus wrote:
"The buddha-nature is not the good and not the nongood. This is called nondual. The skandhas and sensory realms are seen as two by ordinary people, but the wise comprehend their natures to be nondual. The nondual nature is none other than the buddha-nature." (Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, ch. 1)

When ever was it in Buddhism that the skandhas had to be given up? It is attachment to the aggregates that generates suffering, it is to view the skandhas as self that creates ignorance.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 15th, 2011 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
LastLegend said:
Interestingly, all the meditative Mahayana sutras (such as Diamond and Shurangama) talk about just that—non-grasping. That says one should not rely on the discriminating consciousnesses but the original essence of mind. If one is able to do this, then he/she will realize enlightenment. In other words, if one is not attached or reacting when the 6 consciousnesses contact with the external, he/she is said to have samadhi.

But nowadays this can be hard.

Astus wrote:
I don't think it'd be harder now then any time before. Although there are many new things around us in terms of technology and culture, the way human mind works is pretty much the same as at the time of the Buddha. But seeing the nature of mind and abiding in that mind is indeed not that easy, so one should practice all the six paramitas and follow a gradual training until things become clear.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
Astus wrote:
To see nature means just the non-grasping awareness as the original essence of mind, the mind that does not rest on any thought, idea or emotion, therefore it doesn't generate a whole world, the samsara. To practically see nature one has to "make a step back", that is, see how thoughts arise and cease, see how when any thought (dharma, mental phenomenon) is grasped further thoughts arise and one creates a world - so it is taught that the world is created by the mind. Seeing that thoughts arise and cease, what they come from and where they return to is the nature of mind. In fact, even where thoughts abide is the nature of mind.

The teaching on this of the Zazen Ron is summed up like this:

When asked how one is to use the mind (youjin) in Zen spiritual practice, the author of the Zazen ron replies that the true use of the mind is no-mind and no-thought (munen) (5; 412-413). Since all things appear only provisionally, we should not consider (shiryou) them (11; 415); if we do not consider them - if we have "the ultimate [practice of] no-mind" - we put a stop to all false views and discriminations of thinking (akuchi akuken shiryou funbetsu) (9; 414). This way of no-thoug, or no-mind, "does not consider any good or evil" (9; 414); hence it has no aspiration for merit (kudoku) (8; 414) or even for the buddhadharma itself (13; 415). It simply "sees all things without seeing them in the mind and hears all things without hearing them in the mind" (24; 421). This is by no means a Hiinayaana practice of stilling the mind (12; 415) and eliminates the three aeons of the path (15; 416). One who "does not consider any good or evil" directly cuts off "the root source of sa.msaara"; he is "a buddha without beginning or end and is [practicing] Zen whether walking, standing, sitting or reclining" (19; 417).
( No-Mind and Sudden Awakening: Thoughts on the Soteriology of a Kamakura Zen Text by Carl Bielefeldt in Paths to Liberation: the Mārga and its Transformations in Buddhist Thought, p. 492)

Also, I could find out that the Zazen Ron quoted in the OP is only a selection (translator still unknown to me), the full translation of the same text's Chinese version is found in Thomas Cleary's "The Original Face" under the title "Zen Master Daikaku's Treatise on Sitting Meditation" (大覺禪師坐禪論), in simplified Chinese transcription found here: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4d3f203e0100ftpj.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 13th, 2011 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
DN,

If Vajrayana is preferred because it is easier than the "path of renunciation", and that is its primary advantage, why not then choose the "path of Pure Land"? That is the easiest of all even in Tibetan Buddhism. Then there is no need to renounce, no need to transform, no need to study, no need to meditate, no need to avoid anything an ordinary modern citizen would do. And at the same time it guarantees perfect enlightenment in one lifetime, unlike virtually any other path.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
heart said:
Not really. During the pointing-out instructions there is outlined a number of instructions and questions that the teacher should ask the student and also a number of possible answers and what the further instructions should be for a student answering this or that. Never seen anything similar in any other text.

Astus wrote:
I see, so it's more elaborated there, just as you said: a teacher's manual.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
heart said:
Not really. During the pointing-out instructions there is outlined a number of instructions and questions that the teacher should ask the student and also a number of possible answers and what the further instructions should be for a student answering this or that. Never seen anything similar in any other text.

Astus wrote:
I see, so it's more elaborated there, just as you said: a teacher's manual.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Self-Ordained Monks
Content:
Huseng said:
This just goes to show you how some crazies signed up for the early sangha and as a result many many rules had to be laid down as a result.

Astus wrote:
Many such cases in the Vinaya were invented by the writers rather then actual cases remembered by tradition. See on this Bernard Faure's "The Red Thread", first few chapters where he discusses Vinaya.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
heart said:
I got the book, some part of it contains remarks that makes it more in to a teachers manual rather than a disciples manual. Such as what the student is supposed to answer to certain questions if they got it and if they didn't get it.  Apart from that it cover the same things as his shorter texts. I

/magnus

Astus wrote:
Isn't that supposed to be the part of the pointing out instructions, as a next point after analysing, just like in Wangchuk Dorje's other two manuals? Clarifying the Natural State also has the "correct answers".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
heart said:
I got the book, some part of it contains remarks that makes it more in to a teachers manual rather than a disciples manual. Such as what the student is supposed to answer to certain questions if they got it and if they didn't get it.  Apart from that it cover the same things as his shorter texts. I

/magnus

Astus wrote:
Isn't that supposed to be the part of the pointing out instructions, as a next point after analysing, just like in Wangchuk Dorje's other two manuals? Clarifying the Natural State also has the "correct answers".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:26 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
Chaz said:
It should be noted that it's a restricted text.

Astus wrote:
While at the same time you can get a couple of to the point and in depth explanations without any problem. Strange thinking, perhaps it's a marketing thing to make it look more important and more esoteric.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:26 PM
Title: Re: Classic Kagyü Mahāmudrā Texts
Content:
Chaz said:
It should be noted that it's a restricted text.

Astus wrote:
While at the same time you can get a couple of to the point and in depth explanations without any problem. Strange thinking, perhaps it's a marketing thing to make it look more important and more esoteric.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
PadmaVonSamba,

What I meant is simply the life of renunciation, the life of a sramana, not any special mental training in that.

DN,

I think I don't have many illusions about monastic life, not because I've ever lived like one but because I like reading about history of Buddhism. What I see as the great appeal of a monastic lifestyle is the relatively more freedom it provides compared to a family or even a lay life without marriage and children. Not that monastics can't be busy with their different duties and other things, but it's still less than working all day and other necessities that most worldly person has to do. I don't think in the way that renunciation is about struggling with the longing for all the pleasures of life but as a conscious choice to dedicate one's time to the Dharma. Yes, this is idealistic in a sense and there were and are monastics who live like that not for the Dharma but for other reasons. Still, if you think about it, if the many Vajrayana teachers that travel around had to sit in an office 8 or more hours a day they would hardly be going from a lecture in Germany to a retreat in California. Having a job, doing work, this is not the result of modern society. Actually, because there is a middle class there are more people who have the freedom to think about the Dharma and occasionally go to a retreat.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
mindyourmind said:
I remember reading it somewhere in some Soto booklets I received from a friend many years ago. I still have the teachings, I will have a look over the weekend.
Or maybe the old memory is incorrect as to where I saw it

Astus wrote:
Enni was a Rinzai teacher, contemporary of Dogen.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 4:13 PM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
LastLegend said:
So how do Zen beginners practice?

Astus wrote:
It is not a gradual practice where you can have beginners and advanced students. See you nature, that's the single essential point.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: Meditation practices for the layfolk
Content:
Astus wrote:
"In this there are no distinctions between the sharp and the dull, the rich and the poor, mendicants and lay people, Easterners or Westerners, ancients or moderns. It only depends upon whether or not the will for enlightenment is there, and whether instruction and guidance are mistaken or accurate."
(An Elementary Talk on Zen by Man-an)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
Astus wrote:
Because I've found no Google link to this text and I find it a very interesting piece of work I posted it here. If anybody happens to know the actual source of this translation it'd be appreciated. Discussion on it is also welcome.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:43 AM
Title: Zazen Ron by Enni
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zazen Ron -
"Discussion of Zazen"

by Zen Master Enni (1202-1280)


The Zazen school is the way of great freedom. All myriad things come from this gate. All myriad practices are mastered in this way. The mysterious workings of prajna and psychic powers are born from within it; the world of gods and men have also come from this. Thus, the Buddhas live in this gate, and the Bodhisattvas practice to enter into this way. Even the Hinayana and infidels practice it, but are not yet in harmony with the true way. All the outer and inner (esoteric) schools have their validation by attaining to this way. Thus, the Patriarch says “All the wise ones in the 10 directions enter this school.”

Q: Why is it that you say this Zen gate is the source of all the teachings?

A: Zen is [just] the Buddha mind. Precepts are its outward characteristics, the teachings are its elucidation, and the recitation of the Name is the tool. These 3 religious practices all come from the Buddha mind. Thus, I say this school represents the source [of all the teachings].

Q: The Dharma of Zen has a signless essence. How does it account for the manifestation of spiritual qualities, and by what does one take as a verification of seeing one’s nature?

A: Your own mind is Buddha. What spiritual qualities are there beyond that? And what verification should we look for beyond the recognition of the mind?

Q: When we cultivate the mind, this is only one practice. But if we cultivate many practices and meritorious deeds, how could the merit from these be inferior to that of the one practice?

A: An ancient said, “At the time you suddenly see the Tathagata Zen, the six paramitas and the different [spiritual] practices are complete in your own body.” So, the one Dharma of Zen includes all things. Even in the world they have the saying, “Many talents are not as good as One Mind.” So, even though we cultivate different practices, if we cannot end the delusion of our One Mind, we will not be Enlightened. And, not being Enlightened, how could we become a Buddha?

Q: Why should we cultivate the Buddha-mind school? We cannot be certain we will be Enlightened even if we do, and if we can’t be certain what use is there in cultivating it?

A: As this school is the way of incomprehensible freedom, the one who lends ear to [it’s teaching] gives rise to an exceedingly [good] cause of Enlightenment, and if he then cultivates the school it will represent the ultimate Buddha Mind. The Buddha Mind is fundamentally free from ignorance and enlightenment; the mysterious practice of six years of sitting erect in the Snow-covered Mountains [Buddha’s practice] is evident in this school. Although you may not have attained the way, when you do Zazen for even as little as one sitting, you are a one-sitting Buddha. If you do Zazen for a day, you are a one-day Buddha. And if you do Zazen for a lifetime you are a one-lifetime Buddha. To possess such faith is to have very keen faculties, and to be a great vessel of Dharma.

Q: When we practice this way, what do we do with our minds?

A: The Buddha Mind is signless and free from attachments. The Diamond Sutra says that Buddhas are free from all characteristics. So, when we have no-mind and no-thought while walking, standing, sitting and lying down, this is what should be done with the mind, and is the true concentrated effort.

Q: It is hard to believe this type of cultivation and it is very hard to practice. What if I were to seek merit by reading sutras and reciting dharanis, keeping precepts and being mindful of Buddha by calling his name?

A: The sutras and dharanis are not words, but are the Primordial Mind of all beings. Though they are speech, they are intended only for those who have lost [sight of] the Primordial Mind, and teach us in different ways so as to bring about Enlightenment to this Primordial Mind and end the cycle of birth-and-death which is caused by delusion. If we just recite words with the mouth and say this is the highest, does it not also follow that we should get warm by saying “fire” or cool off by saying “wind”? When we are hungry, would we just say the name of the food we want and get it? So, even though we may say “fire” all day, we will not get warm. Even though we say “water” all night, our thirst will not be quenched. Words and speech are like the picture of a rice cake: though we say them with our mouths our whole life, our hunger will not be satisfied. It is a true pity that the ordinary person, having ignorant ideas of birth and death running very deep, is constantly thinking of attainment in regard to the Dharma. This is very foolish! To practice all things without thinking of attainment is called the Prajna of Mahayana. This is the Buddha Wisdom, pure and without thoughts. Because this wisdom cuts away the source of birth and death, it is called the Prajna-sword.

Q: But if we don’t gain merits and plant good spiritual roots, how can we arrive at Buddhahood which is endowed perfectly with the various virtues?

A: He who seeks Buddhahood by gaining merit and planting good spiritual roots might become a Buddha after 3 kalpas, but one who cultivates the direct pointing at one’s own mind, seeing into one’s nature and becoming a Buddha, knows that one is a Buddha from the very beginning. It is not that he attains the fruit of Buddhahood.

Q: Then do those who cultivate Zen reject the value of merits and good roots?

A: Even though such a one cultivates good roots to help others, because such a one has no aspirations one doesn’t seek any merits at all. He has no-mind at all times.

Q: If no-mind is represents the ultimate, who is it that knows the seeing of his nature and Enlightenment to the way?
A: The ultimate no-mind means to put a stop to all false knowledge and wrong views - all the discriminating activity of thought. As it does not give rise to a view of cultivation, it does not does want to become a Buddha. As it does not give rise to a view social engagement, it does not delight in praise and high standing; as it produces no such view of love or hate, it does not discriminate between closeness or aloofness between self and other. Don’t think of good & evil - such a one is called the one on the no-thought path. This path is not something that the ordinary person knows about, or even those of the two Vehicles.

Q: In the teachings (sutras), the merit derived from various good deeds and practices are explained many times; why then is the merit of no-mind not explained directly?

A: Because the Bodhisattvas of the Original Enlightenment already hold it in high esteem and understand it [directly], it isn’t explained. This is why the Lotus Sutra says, “Do not preach this sutra to those lacking wisdom.” Even though the teachings contain 84,000 dharma gates, if we trace them back to their source [we find] they do not go beyond the two things of form and emptiness. “Form” means the substance of the four great elements and five aggregates; “emptiness” is the true nature of affliction and enlightenment. Since this body has shape, it is called “form”; because mind has no shape, it is called “emptiness.” In all the worlds, there is nothing to be spoken of beyond this very body and mind.

Q: Are the shape & substance of the four great elements originally deluded or enlightened?

A: From the beginning there is no distinction between ignorance and enlightenment in body or mind. All things appear conditionally, like a dreams and hallucinations. Have no thought concerning the myriad things.

Q: The two-Vehicles also teach no-mind, along with enlightenment and Nirvana. How is the Mahayana different from them?

A: Originally, the Arhats of the sravaka and pratyekabuddha vehicles consider body and mind as an affliction and have aversion for them. They desire to extinguish body and mind and become like dead trees, bricks and rocks. Even though they practice like this, in the end they only become gods of the formless realms. This isn’t the true Dharma, but is rather the fruit of Hinayana. The no-mind of the Mahayana is not the same.

Q: Do Bodhisattvas of the Mahayana also have this way of no-mind?

A: Bodhisattvas have many defiling and obscuring obstacles in their consciousness and do not yet accord with no-mind until they reach the tenth Bhumi. These “defiling obstacles” means that, until the tenth bhumi, they still desire to seek the Dharma, and they do not accord with their original way. It’s only when they arrive at the tenth Bhumi and the virtual enlightenment that they arrive at the way of no-mind.

Q: If it is so difficult for even a Bodhisattva to accord with, how then could beginners so easily accord with this way?

A: True Dharma is inconceivable. The setting up of the Bodhisattva path is for those of dim spiritual vision. Those who are clear-sighted realize the true enlightenment of no-mind when they first give rise to the aspiration.

Q: One who see’s one’s true nature and awakens to the Buddha way is called a Buddha. Why then do they no also have psychic powers, show radiant lights, or perform the mystic feats of the Buddha which would distinguish him from a regular person?

A: Since this body has been built from ignorant thoughts from the past, even though we see our nature it does not show off the psychic power and radiance. Yet, is it not psychic power to be master over the six dusts of the senses and deluded thoughts? Without resorting to hard & painful practice, without passing through the 3 great incalculable eons, to cut off birth and death, see straight into one’s nature and become a Buddha - this are the mystic feats [of a Buddha]. And to employ the light of prajna that is the pure Dharmakaya to save all beings from the darkness of delusion - what other kind of radiant light do we need? To desire psychic powers other than great wisdom and understanding is the way of Mara and the infidels. Even foxes have these psychic powers and ability to transform themselves - but should we pay homage to them? Just cultivating no-mind, we can extinguish at once the three incalculable eons and suddenly see our nature, becoming Buddhas.

Q: What kind of wisdom should we use to awaken to the true meaning of “Seeing one’s true nature, becoming Buddha.”?

A: Knowledge you gain by studying sutras and shastras is called the knowledge of the senses. This might be considered knowledge to the ordinary, ignorant person, but it is not true knowledge. To recognize this inherent Buddha-nature by turning the light around and shining it back is called the Eye of Prajna. We use this prajna eye to see our natures and become Buddhas.

Q: What is this inherent Buddha-nature? And what is meant by “turning the light around and shining it back.”?

A: All being have self-nature (svabhava). This nature is intrinsically non-arising and non-ceasing; it always abides without change. Thus it is called the inherent self-nature. Both the Buddhas of the past, present and future and all beings have this same nature as the Dharmakaya of the Original Ground. The radiance of this Dharmakaya fills the entire Dharma realm, turning the light and shining it back on the darkness of delusion of all beings. Where this light does not reach is called Mara’s realm of ignorance. In this realm of Mara dwells the spirit of the afflictions, seeking to devour the Dharma nature. Those beings who are damaged by this spirit, taking their deluded thoughts as their Original Mind and enjoying the seeds of desire, constantly spin in the four kinds of birth and three evil destinies. When will they ever cut off birth and death?

Q: Since birth and death arise from deluded thoughts, when one awakens to the source from which these deluded thoughts arise, will birth and death naturally stop?

A: Throughout all hours of the day, beings are tainted by deluded thoughts, and their Original Buddha Nature is buried by afflictions. It can be compared to the bright moon hidden behind clouds. Once they have awakened to the source of these thoughts, it is like the bright moon emerging from out the clouds. It is like a mirror that, once cleaned, clearly reflects the myriad images. It has full mastery over all things and, though facing myriad objects, suffers not even a hair’s breadth of defilement. This is because the Original Buddha Nature has the freedom of psychic power.

Q: What does it mean that, while directing our mind in Zazen, we “should not think of good or evil.”?

A: This saying will directly cut off the root source of birth and death. Do not imagine that it is limited only to Zazen! One who arrives at this saying is a Buddha without beginning or end, and is practicing Zazen whether walking, standing, sitting or lying down.

Q: What are big and small thoughts?

A: Small thoughts are thoughts which arise from conditions, whereas big thoughts are desire, hatred and delusion since beginningless births and deaths. One who only puts an end to these thoughts while in Zazen - big or small - is one who lacks the true mind of the way, does not discern the root source of beginningless birth and death, and does not exhaust the consciousness characterized by desire, hatred and delusion. But when one has discerned this root source, afflictions are Bodhi, the three poisons are the three precepts, birth and death become Nirvana without beginning, and the six dusts become the six psychic powers.

Q: The mind of one who has long practiced Zazen will clearly be pure, but how does a beginner practice to put an end to the taint of deluded thoughts?

A: Don’t feel repulsed by the taint of deluded thoughts; just discern the mind’s nature. Because we are confused about the One Mind, we think that there is the taint of deluded thoughts when, in fact, it is originally pure. For instance, when sleeping we see various things in our dreams, but when we wake up from the dream all these are recognized as simple deluded thoughts. When we awaken to the One Mind, everything is empty, with nothing remaining.

Q: What does it mean to say, “affliction is Bodhi, birth and death is Nirvana.”?

A: Afflictions are foolishness and ignorance; Bodhi is the Buddha-nature of everything. Beings, not recognizing their own Buddha-nature, look for it outside themselves; they look at good and evil outside themselves and give rise to attachment to the aspects of these things. This is great foolishness! And then when those who manage to leave these things behind and seek out their own Buddha-nature give rise to some view of this awakening, distinguishing themselves from ordinary people, they will become proud of themselves and fall back into Mara‘s way. This is ignorance! Unaware that the One Mind is originally no-mind, we rouse the mind to seek the mind and, in doing so, give rise to the present taints. This is the seed of birth and death. But once we have awakened to the truth that from the beginning the One Mind neither arises nor ceases, then there is no difference between self and other, good and evil, love and hate; we are completely with no-thought and no-mind. This is what is meant by “birth and death is Nirvana.” Failing to awaken to the root source of the One Mind, we lose our permanent self and obscure our true Buddha nature. If we look back to the source of afflictions, they are like dreams, illusions, bubbles and shadows. Realizing the truth that the One Mind is originally pure is what is meant by “the afflictions are Bodhi.” And when we arrive at the source of the One Mind, the radiance of our inherent wisdom will be manifest to us. At that time, the myriad things will be at rest, and we will attain the ultimate emptiness of all Buddhas. For instance, suppose there is a dark cave, into which the light of the sun and moon does not go; yet when we take a lamp into it, the darkness of many years is naturally illuminated. In the same way, when the dark night is touched by the light of the moon, space naturally becomes bright without changing its substance. The mind’s things are like this; when beings, lost in the darkness of ignorance and afflictions, encounter the light of wisdom, they are naturally purified without changing body and mind. This is what is meant by “the afflictions are Bodhi, birth and death is Nirvana.”

Q: Even though the nature of mind constantly abides changelessly, and Buddhas are sentient beings are one and the same, sentient beings who have yet to master and realize this truth cannot avoid suffering and, because of this, must cultivate the way. But once they have seen their nature, should they still cultivate?

A: That Buddhas and sentient beings are one and the same is what is pointed out by wisdom. The teachings of the sutras are but fingers pointing to the moon. If we don’t see the moon, you should rely on the finger; after you’ve seen the moon, the finger is useless. When we have yet to awaken to the Buddha Mind, we should rely on the teachings; when we recognize the Buddha Mind, the eighty thousand dharma gates are all clearly apparent in one mind. After we have awakened to the one mind, there isn’t use for even a single teaching. The words of the Patriarchs are like a brick used to knock on a gate. Before you enter the gate, you take up the brick; once you’ve entered the gate, what still hold the brick? Thus, so long as we have yet to awaken to the original meaning of the Buddhas and Patriarchs, we should take up and investigate the phrase, “see your nature and become a Buddha.” But once we’ve already opened the gate of the great liberation and completely awakened to the original meaning of the Buddhas and Patriarchs, seeing one’s nature is nothing special and become a Buddha can’t be grasped. There is no Buddha, no sentient beings; from the beginning there is not a single thing, and the three worlds can’t be grasped.

Q: When we face the end of our lives not having clarified the important point of “seeing our nature and becoming a Buddha,” how should we direct the mind at the last?

A: When one mind arises, there is birth and death; when there is no-mind, there is no body that is born, and when there is no-thought, there is no mind that ceases. When there is no-thought and no-mind, there is no birth and death whatsoever. This body is like the dew that forms on grass; the dew is originally without a self. When we stop the mind that thinks we have a body and turn toward the truth that from the beginning there is not a single thing, when we no longer think that there is either birth and death and have no-mind and no-thought, this is equivalent to the Great Nirvana of the Buddhas of the past, present and future. Although the good and evil attributes of things appear to us in their variety, we should take no notice of them. If we give rise to even a hair’s breadth of mind, it is seed of Samsara. If we just cultivate no-mind and don’t forget it, whether walking, standing, sitting or lying down, there is no special way to direct the mind at the last. When we truly abide in no-mind, we depart like blossoms that fall and leaves that scatter in the wind; like frost which melts in the morning sun. What is there that directs the mind in such events as these? When we truly arrive at no-mind, there are no three realms of being or six paths of rebirth, no pure or defiled lands, no Buddhas, no beings - not a single thing.

Of this mind that abides in the path of no-mind and makes an end of birh and death, the Buddha said at his death (in the Nirvana Sutra), “All compound things are impermanent; their nature is to rise and fall. When both rising and falling cease, their calm cessation is joy.” The phrase “all compound things are impermanent” refers to the conditioned things of all beings; they are like dreams, illusions, reflections, like the moon in a puddle. “Their nature is to rise and fall” means that, from sentient beings to plants, all things that are born must necessarily die. The mountains, rivers and great earth of this world will break down and disappear in the end. All things, wherever they may be, are things that arise and cease. This is merely birth and death from the continual transformations of one thought; none of it is real. “When rising and falling cease” means that when, because the true state of all beings is pure and signless, we reach the source of our signlessness, the beginningless, endless birth and death, coming and going, cease all at once, and the openness of the mind is like empty space. “Their calm cessation is joy” refers to the truth that Buddhas are no-mind, sentient beings are no-mind, mountains and rivers and the great earth, all the different phenomena arrayed are no-mind. When all beings are no-mind, hell is no-mind, heaven is no-mind; there is neither joy nor sadness. Trusting in the way like this, we see all things without seeing them in mind, and we hear all things without hearing them in the mind, and so too with the minds of tasting, smelling, etcetera. Just have no-mind in all circumstances. The mind of no-mind is the original teacher of all the Buddhas of the past, present and future. It is the fundamental Buddha. The realization of this original Buddha of no-thought is what is called the Supreme Perfect Enlightenment of the Buddhas. To wake up to the meaning of this is what is called “their calm cessation is joy.” Trusting in the Dharma like this and leaving the body behind, we should not think of anything for a single thought.

With all respect.

(A discussion of Zazen intimately revealed to the Prime Minister Kujo by the National Teacher Shoichi)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
One thing that doesn't seem to have occurred here is to question what renunciation stands for. It's used here like something very bad and painful, a great struggle against the sins of the flesh. But as I see in the Buddha's teachings, renunciations is because one realises the futile and harmful nature of indulging in different worldly pleasures. So renunciation is not about "I have to be good, although I feel bad" but "I'm fed up with this crap, I better just leave it". Renunciation is not forcing yourself to leave your family but realising that family life is so much senseless trouble. Therefore, when it is said that one chooses "fun and pleasures" instead of renunciation, well, that is the confusion of seeing something painful as blissful; while of course, calling renunciation hard and tiresome and impossible is conceiving what is blissful as painful. So Sthiramati said, "You see, the vehicle of the bodhisattvas, the great beings (mahasattvas), is actually the Great Suffering Vehicle."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra - The Moonlight
Content:
Astus wrote:
Yesterday I was re-reading the http://www.dharma-media.org/media/kagyu/drigung/garchen/mamamudra-trans_khenchen/mahamudra.pdf by Garchen Rinpoche.

"Regarding the manner of imparting the profound path [of Mahamudra], the venerable Gampopa considered it to be an independent path of tantra. So he did not make the esoteric empowerment a prerequisite for receiving the Mahamudra teachings. He spoke about the method of directly guiding the disciple toward the intrinsic reality of the mind." (Mahamudra: The Moonlight, p. 123)

connected to that statement, from Shenpen Ösel:
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Authors/Gampopa/Mahamudra%20-%20The%20Very%20Essence%20of%20Mind/Mahamudra%20-%20The%20Very%20Essence%20Of%20Mind%20-%20By%20Gampopa.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: An independent Mahamudra forum?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Some of us were given Mahamudra pointing out instructions before we even took refuge let alone started ngondro!

Astus wrote:
So much for karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: An independent Mahamudra forum?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There it is. Use it well.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 at 6:58 PM
Title: Re: An independent Mahamudra forum?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As Greg said, the Kagyu section could be used for discussion on Mahamudra. It is unfortunate that there is rarely any discussion here on it, especially as I'm quite fond of this wonderful teaching. But if there are special reasons why a separate Mahamudra forum would be worth a try I have no objections against it.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Nirvana Sutra
Content:
Astus wrote:
So you say it will eventually become a deep analysis with wide ranging arguments? Perhaps I skip then the boring stuff...


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Taoist Origin of Tantric Energy System
Content:
Astus wrote:
What you say is one of the reasons that such Chinese connection surprised me. Perhaps I will contact him for clarification.

update: Except that I couldn't find any contact info for him...


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Title: Taoist Origin of Tantric Energy System
Content:
Astus wrote:
In the introduction of Peter Alan Roberts' new book "Mahamudra and Related Instructions" it says that the energy system as it appeared in India with the chakras and nadis originates from Central Asia and it has a Taoist source. Anyone to provide more information on this?

The text says,

"The candali practice also involves the physiology of sexuality, generally described from a male perspective. It corresponds with far more ancient Taoist practices, which have a greater number of pressure points in breath control, called jade locks, and a specific female morphology that has the retention of menstruation as the parallel to the male retention of ejaculation. Candali and the cakra system appeared in the Buddhist tradition subsequent to a period of Buddhist and Taoist coexistence in Central Asia. The cakras, literally "wheels," are the points where subsidiary channels branch off into the body, but they were unknown in India before the latter centuries of the first millennium, when they first appeared in both Saivism and Buddhism."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
mr. gordo said:
Hi Astus, can you clarify?  I thought Honen also believed all practices were ineffective except for Pure Land in his day.  Granted, he didn't support the withdrawal of funds from other Buddhist schools or believed in a proactive type of conversion.

Astus wrote:
There is difficult and there is easy, but not impossible and possible. Honen emphasised that the exclusive Nenbutsu is a valid and easy way, not that all the others are wrong. Honen also recognised the validity of auxiliary practices for Pure Land followers. Indeed, how could the Buddha's teaching be false? The attitude is shown here very clearly,

"Supposing that followers of other schools ridicule us by saying that the Name is meant for those of low intelligence and that this teaching is shallow and inferior, we should avoid any dispute and reply: “As we are convinced that the ignorant who are poorly gifted and illiterate like ourselves will be delivered by faith, for us this is the supreme doctrine, even though it may seem contemptible to those of higher ability. Although other teachings may be superior, we cannot practice them because they are beyond our powers. Since the original intention of all the buddhas is to free everyone from birth and death, we request those of other views not to interfere with us.” If we treat them without malice, who then will harm us?"
(Tannisho, 12)

And here the problem is addressed in detail,

"To attain buddhahood while still in this body is the essence of the secret teachings of Shingon and is the result of the three esoteric practices. The purification of the six senses is taught by the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra, and this is attained by practicing the four peaceful observances. But these are all stages along the difficult path, which can be followed only by those specially endowed and belong to the enlightenment attainable only by meditational methods. The basic principle of the other-power teachings of the Pure Land school is to gain enlightenment in the next life, since it follows the path of the assurance of faith. Besides, it is the easy way that can be followed by those of poor ability and is a teaching that does not discriminate between good and evil adherents.
Because, moreover, it is almost impossible to eliminate defilements and hindrances during this lifetime, even the holy monks who practice Shingon and Tendai methods still look forward to reaching enlightenment in the next life. How much truer is this of those of us who lack in discipline and wisdom! Yet even we can cross over the painful ocean of birth and death on board the ship of Amida’s Vow. As soon as we have reached the shore of the Pure Land, the dark clouds of the defilements will instantly be cleared away and the enlightening moon of buddhahood will at once appear."
(Tannisho, 15)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see. Thanks for the info. Then in Tibet Vajrayana was truly the only viable teaching for the majority.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation not Impossible
Content:
Nangwa said:
The monasteries were the economy.

Astus wrote:
You mean they served as manufactures, etc. to produce goods? Or they were commercial centres and stock markets? I thought Tibet had a very feudal economy.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 at 12:14 AM
Title: Re: Renunciation not Impossible
Content:
Will said:
Why not? Since oodles of tantric Geluk adepts have followed the vajrayana (based in renunciation) with success up to the present, they would have dropped teaching renunciation by now if they agreed with Namdrol.

Astus wrote:
Indeed, why the huge monastic order in Tibet if it's pointless. They could have done better building economy and such.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Namdrol said:
More evidence for my case -- did I say this was a 21st century problem? It has been true since the 5th century C.E.

Astus wrote:
I doubt there was such a start date.

"What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"
"That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn16/sn16.013.than.html


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Namdrol said:
For example, even in Theravadin countries, most of the monks do not actually practice renunciation -- they have property, cars, money, debit cards, etc.

Astus wrote:
But that is not a new development. It's not that monks got lax in the last centuries only.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is like saying that it's impossible to learn Sanskrit. Just because only few people have the motivation and perseverance to actually master the language. There are thousands of Buddhist monks who live every day by the precepts. There are even hermits living in remote mountains. To say that these are the ending days of the Dharma and the only path to salvation is Vajrayana and the others are pointless is pretty radical. Well, even Honen were a bit more sophisticated in claiming almost the same thing. But this is very much in the area of "praising oneself and criticizing others".


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 8th, 2011 at 6:48 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Chang Buddha III
Content:
Astus wrote:
"living buddha" is the Chinese equivalent of Tibetan tulku. It should be based on the teachings that a group is rejected or accepted and not subjective lists of "Buddhist Cults".


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 7th, 2011 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Do any ancient Tibetan Buddhist texts give practical advice?
Content:
Luke said:
No, that statement is very beneficial, and in the long run, practical because of its benefits.  What is not practical is "You are forbidden to ever kill any sentient being in any situation ever, and if violently attacked, you must throw yourself down and let yourself get massacred like a Buddhist saint."  Such a statement is more like Jainism.

Interesting.  I guess this is another problem of Tibetan Buddhism first being spread by only the elites in a new country.

Astus wrote:
No one forbids anything in Buddhism. They just tell you if you kill you'll end up in hell or in some other bad situation.

The whole of Buddhism is spread by the elite to the elite. Buddhism is still a foreign, exotic and strange religion/philosophy/therapy/psychology/WTF in the West. Simple people has all the different Christian sects, or New Age, or Physicalism if they want to believe in something. Buddhism will remain an elite religion until you see villagers praying for health to Medicine Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Do any ancient Tibetan Buddhist texts give practical advice?
Content:
Astus wrote:
How about "Ordinary wisdom: Sakya Pandita's treasury of good advice"? There are also numerous works on ethics, like Tsongkhapa's "Tantric Ethics",  Sakya Pandita's "A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes", Ngari Panchen's "Perfect Conduct: Ascertaining the Three Vows" and the not so ancient Jamgön Kongtrul's "The Treasury of Knowledge: Buddhist Ethics". One should also look into Indian texts like Nagarjuna's Ratnavali and Suhrllekha, or Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara and Siksasamuccaya.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2011 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Renunciation Impossible?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Because the power of afflictions is too strong.

Astus wrote:
What exactly is it that made afflictions any stronger than a hundred years back? Or is it geographical, or cultural perhaps? I don't see any apparent reason why living as a renunciate now would be more difficult than any time before. True, Buddhism doesn't have the same level of support as in Asian countries, however, that is a different matter that can change with time.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2011 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: My Spiritual history and a plea to young Buddhists
Content:
Astus wrote:
Topic Split: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=4935


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 6th, 2011 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Book of Bodhisattva Precepts
Content:
Astus wrote:
Very interesting. Thanks for the notification Will.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 4th, 2011 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:
Sönam said:
From a non-American point of view it's simply unbelievable ... even the interpretation of the dharma to justify that cow-boy culture. Sorry David, but something is certainly wrong in the empire of the United States.

Sönam

Astus wrote:
Indeed there is a big difference here between how American's view guns and how others where guns are not something just anybody can buy in a supermarket. That is a reason why I'm not really in the position of telling if it is OK to own a gun for self-defence in that particular case. Generally speaking, when one has to think of defending him/herself it is about fear, and fear is a source of lot of bad stuff.

"If even a hundred-thousand rapists came across me like this, I wouldn't stir a hair. 
I'd feel no terror, and I'm not afraid of you, Mara, even alone like this. 
Here — I disappear. I slip into your belly or stand between your eyebrows, and you don't see me. 
I have mastery over the mind, have well-developed the bases of power.
I'm released from all bonds, and not afraid of you, my friend.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "Uppalavanna the nun knows me" — vanished right there."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.005.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: The "Indian" Mahayana Tradition
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are studies you can look into (although it may not be what you were looking for):

Buddhist thought: a complete introduction to the Indian tradition by Paul Williams
Figments and fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: more collected papers by Gregory Schopen
Nāgārjuna in context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and early Indian culture by Joseph Walser
Power, wealth and women in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism: the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra by Douglas Osto
A history of Indian Buddhism: from Śākyamuni to early Mahāyāna by Akira Hirakawa
Indian Buddhism by A. K. Warder
The continuity of madhyamaka and yogācāra in Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism by Ian Charles Harris


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Why is possible to achieve Buddhahood?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are many texts describing systematically the stages how buddhahood can be attained. Some of them are available in English. One example is Ven. Yinshun's " https://books.google.com/books/about/The_way_to_Buddhahood.html?id=W2RSDTGGQJEC " ( http://wisdom.buddhistdoor.com/huifeng/2011/07/27/yinshun-the-way-to-buddhahood-verses-%E6%88%90%E4%BD%9B%E4%B9%8B%E9%81%93-%E9%A0%8C-english-chinese/ ). Other works, like Gampopa's "Jewel Ornament of Liberation" and Tsongkhapa's "The Great Treatise On The Stages Of The Path To Enlightenment" are great and you can also get modern commentaries on them.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 at 2:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I have mentioned before, there is generally no problem in Buddhism with ordinary lay people owning weapons. Even more, we could cite here the involvement of Buddhism in military culture - where that is relevant, of course, in Asia. There are different levels of practitioners. As you may well know from European history, religious views don't necessarily make people morally better. One can be a serial killer and a Buddhist, that's because in that case being a Buddhist is only a weak idea. Also, one can be a living saint without being a Buddhist.

About the levels of practitioners, it is up to each and every one's commitment to the Dharma. Many think only about the benefit in this life so they use Buddhism to get some peace - this is the most common Western view. Many think about the immense suffering in the lower realms (hell realm, ghosts' realm, animals' realm) and about the benefits and pleasures of the higher realms (humans, gods), so they try to avoid the lower and gain birth in the higher - this is the most common among culturally Buddhists. Then there are those who understand that samsara is a big waste of time and effort where there is no lasting peace ever. So the three important levels are those living for this life, those living with the perspective of past and future lives, and those who want to go beyond all kinds of births.

In the case of those who think only of the present life, owning a gun is no big deal. It could be even positive. That's because it makes little difference. Such people only consider if they feel all right or not. From the Buddha's teachings they may understand the benefits of harmlessness and how it relates to mental calm, so it is possible to say that since a weapon is a source of violence one should avoid such things. Just think about how the USA and the USSR raced against each other in creating nuclear bombs, all because of fear. Fear is "what if something bad happens?", so they "prepared for the worst".

In view of past and future lives, the present one is the result of past deeds and the future is formed by the present decisions. If I am robbed, harmed, beaten or killed, those are all the consequences of my past actions. On the other hand, my violence brings harm to me in the future. This is understanding the causal relationships between my acts and my experiences. In order to avoid harm I have to be harmless myself.

"Whoever takes a rod to harm living beings desiring ease, when he himself is looking for ease, will meet with no ease after death. 
Whoever doesn't take a rod to harm living beings desiring ease, when he himself is looking for ease, will meet with ease after death."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.than.html )

To attain ultimate peace, nirvana, one has to practice peace. It is actually one of the http://www.shantideva.net/guide_ch6.htm. It is not just a matter of avoiding the extreme pains of the lower realms, it is developing perfect inner peace. Because here one understands that true peace doesn't exist in samsara. Here is a short discussion between Punna and Buddha.

"Well then, Punna. Now that I have instructed you with a brief instruction, in which country are you going to live?"
"Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live there."
"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone."
"But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."
"But if they hit you with a clod...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with a stick.'..."
"But if they hit you with a stick...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with a knife.'..."
"But if they hit you with a knife...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife.'..."
"But if they take your life with a sharp knife...?"
"If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.'  That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone."
"Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see fit."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.088.than.html#sunaparanta )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2011 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism & Guns?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Technically having a weapon is forbidden in Buddhism only to ordained people and those who have taken all the bodhisattva precepts in the Brahmajala Sutra that has a precept against possessing any kind of weaponry. What is to be avoided is killing, the ultimate expression of anger. That is the minimum for lay people who want to train on the path and become free from the pains of the three lower realms.

On the mental side it is as Master Yoda said to young Anakin, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." I don't know what form of Buddhism you practice but there are many methods in all traditions to use in order to alleviate fear. This means that instead of acting upon the feeling (more defence, more power, stronger walls, etc.) you face it within yourself. Perhaps the easiest step halfway between outer and inner is to get protection from the beings of non-material realms like different gods, protectors, bodhisattvas, buddhas. On the inner level you can look up meditation techniques of your choice. A selection of texts is found in " In the Face of Fear: Buddhist Wisdom for Challenging Times " by Barry Boyce. Also you may like this book by Tsoknyi Rinpoche, " Fearless Simplicity: The Dzogchen Way of Living Freely in a Complex World ". And one by Thich Nhat Hanh, " No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom for Life ".


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2011 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Introductory Texts
Content:
Will said:
Most of these downloadable 10 Kalavinka Press PDFs are good introductions to the Mahayana:

http://ifile.it/t3aqukl/MahayanaPDFs.zip " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Astus wrote:
Unfortunately that file is gone. If anyone could upload it it would be a great help.

Will said:
This title has been around since the 1920s, but it is free from BDK: https://www.bdkamerica.org/default.aspx?MPID=53 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Astus wrote:
It presents a Japanese perspective of what constitutes the Buddha's teachings. I'm not sure if it really fits for the category of introduction since it contains many different levels of teachings without explaining the connection.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 1st, 2011 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Namdrol said:
Piss poor reasoning.

Astus wrote:
That is not a reasoning at all.

Besides the one already mentioned it is possible to relate it to the teachings of the Tedai school's "ichinen sanzen" and the Huayan school's Dharmadhatu of unhindered interpenetration of phenomena. But as I said, not all agreed with the idea that buddha-nature is universal on that level, for instance the teachers within the Hongzhou (Zen) school.

"The Dharmakaya (Dharma-Body) has no form, but it assumes different forms according to the needs of sentient beings. Thus, some say that green bamboo is the Dharmakaya and that the fragrance of yellow flowers is Prajna. If green bamboo really were the Dharmakaya, then the Dharmakaya would merely be like wood or grass. Thus, a person eating bamboo shoots could say that he was eating the Dharmakaya. If one talked like this, would there be any possible benefit for anyone in recording it? Such a person is really quite confused about the Buddha, who is right before him, as well as about his substance, which permeates all things; and so he seeks him elsewhere, outside, in error, kalpa after kalpa."
( http://www.ymba.org/TaChu/tachu3.htm )

An essay by Robert Sharf discussing the whole issue: http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/koan/Robert_Sharf-e.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
The reasoning is quite simple. All is mind - mind is buddha - rocks and trees are buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 31st, 2011 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dogen's explanation:

In “all living beings” spoken of here on the way of the buddha, those with minds are “all living beings”; for the mind is living beings. Those without minds are similarly living beings; for living beings are mind. Therefore, all minds are living beings, and living beings all “have the buddha nature.” The grasses, trees and lands are mind; because they are mind, they are living beings; because they are living beings, they “have the buddha nature.” The sun, moon, and stars are mind; because they are mind, they are living beings; because they are living beings, they “have the buddha nature.”
( http://hcbss.stanford.edu/research/projects/sztp/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html )

A classical story:

Dongshan asked Yunyan, "Who can hear the teachings of the insentient?"
Yunyan said, "It can be heard by the insentient." Dongshan asked, "Do you hear it, Master?" Yunyen said, "If I heard it, then you would not hear my teaching." Dongshan answered, "That being the case, then I do not hear your teaching." Yunyan replied, "You don't even hear my teaching, how could you hear the teachings of the insentient?" Dongshan was enlightened on hearing this and responded in verse:

    Wondrous! Marvelous!
    The teachings of the insentient are inconceivable.
    If you listen with the ears, you won't understand.
    When you hear with the eyes, then you will know.

http://hcbss.stanford.edu/research/projects/sztp/translations/shobogenzo/translations/mujo_seppo/translation.html
http://www.mro.org/zmm/teachings/daido/teisho11.php


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Tantra of the Tachikawa-Ryu
Content:
Namdrol said:
It also does not make it "tantric".

Astus wrote:
Depends on definition. When it has the characteristics of tantric teachings it could be called that, even if from the perspective of traditional(ist) Vajrayana they are heretics.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Categories in Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
The lists by numbers are used to sum up the teachings of the Buddha. It is an ancient method that also appears in one of the primary collections of the Buddha's teachings, the Anguttara Nikaya.

A useful picture of the essential teachings:
http://www.leighb.com/mid_way.htm

A very basic list:
http://www.leighb.com/listlist.htm

Improved list:
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Miscellaneous/Buddhism_by_Numbers.html

Huge list:
http://www.thedhamma.com/buddhaslists.pdf by David N. Snyder, Ph.D. (founder of this forum)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Tantra of the Tachikawa-Ryu
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think you should contact Stevens to provide his sources.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: Rocky Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen is not a single doctrine, both interpretations of buddha-nature exist.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Tantra of the Tachikawa-Ryu
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jikan,

All the sources I've quoted above maintains that it has disappeared as a school. The practices themselves, since the texts are still available, maybe done by a few, but that doesn't make it a tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
Namdrol said:
Natural state is not rigpa. Rigpa is one's knowledge, or recognition, of the natural state.

Astus wrote:
That makes sense.
There is a problem then with the use of the word.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 30th, 2011 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Tantra of the Tachikawa-Ryu
Content:
Astus wrote:
Yuukai (1345-1416) also played an important role in purging what was known as the Tachikawa school. ... The Tachikawa teachings were extirpated by orthodox Shingon: Yuukai burned all the writings of the Tachikawa school at his temple on Kouya-san, saving only a list of the texts destroyed.
(Taikou Yamasaki: Shingon - Japanese Esoteric Buddhism, p. 44)

The Tachikawa school appears to have indulged in the sexual rites practiced by the somewhat similar Shaktist sects of Tibet. In 1335, as the result of a memorial submitted by the Mount Kouya mongs against the Tachikawa school, its leader was exiled and books expounding its principles were ordered to be burned. Traces of its doctrines still survive, however, in existing Buddhist sects.
(Yoshiko Kurata Dykstra: Sources of Japanese Tradition, p. 180)

This Tachikawa school later spread to the province of Etchuu. In successive generations, two teachers, Kakumei and kakuin, lived on Mount Kouya [and taught Tachikawa doctrine there]. At this time, many secret manuals and texts of this heretical school were in circulation, often called "oral transmission of the secrets of esoteric doctrine." To this day, there are ignorant people who study such works and believe them to possess the loftiest thoughts. In truth, they are neither exoteric nor esoteric but merely so many stones wrapped in jade. ... Many people studied these teachings, but they did not meet with devine favor, and for the most part, both the teachings and the men have perished. A few are left, but i do not know how many.
(Sources of Japanese Tradition, quotes from Yuukai's Houkyoushou: "TD 77, no. 2456:847-849", quote on p. 189)

It is in Shingon and Tendai Buddhism that we find for the first time two movements that have been commonly labeled "heresies" (jakyou). For all its radical criticism of established Buddhism, even the Nichiren school was not disqualified by this label, and it remained a powerful trend within Buddhism. The Shingon and Tendai traditions, however, tried for centuries to assert a rather problematic distinction between "esoteric Buddhism", or "pure esotericism," and Tantrism (or "mixed esotericism"), that is, a form of Tantrism unexpurgated of its darker magical (and in particular sexual) elements.
The Tachikawa branch is said to have emerged during the Kamakura period, with the teachings of Ninkan (d.u.) and Monkan (1281-1357). It advocated sexual union as the fusion of the two mandalas and as the technique leading to the apotheosis called sokushin joubutsu ("becoming a buddha in this very body"). Certain aspects of the Vajrayana, which were considered if not entirely orthodox at least acceptable in Tibetan Buddhism, came to provoke strong reactions on the part of conventional Japanese Buddhists. Consequently, the Tachikawa movement was forbidden during the Muromachi period. Despite its formal disappearance, however, its influence lingered and was felt in many places, in the imperial house as well as in Shingon and Zen monasteries.
(Bernard Faure: The Red Thread, p. 126-127)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: Doubt about Pure Land and Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
As Yinguang said, these are methods. When I say there was and is no Pure Land school outside of Japan I mean that in the sense of an institution, a separate church, organisation. Monks follow the same precepts, get ordination in the same way. The differences are between local rules of a monastery. But there is hardly any monastic community dedicated solely to one form of practice or doctrine. Focus on a single method exists on an individual level so there are teachers emphasising their favourite way. But that is really an individual thing and not institutional. In a monastery some monks study sutras, some do recitations, some do meditation, some do administrative tasks, etc. They are all monks living in the same monastery under the same rules and doing the same ritual procedures.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Doubt about Pure Land and Chan
Content:
rory said:
So you will find critiques. Pure Landers will say 99 out of 100 who practice Pure Land succeed, 1 out of 100 who practice Ch'an succeed.

Astus wrote:
That saying is attributed to Yongming Yanshou - well, he actually wrote it - who was a great master and wrote extensively on Chan and how Chan is in harmony with the other teachings. I'm mentioning this only to point again to the fact that while there are practices used widely by all sorts of Mahayana practitioners there is no such thing as a Pure Land school outside of the Japanese tradition. That means that the opposition between Pure Land and Chan followers is virtually a myth. Chinese Buddhists greet each other with "Amituofo" (Amita Buddha) - I think it says a lot.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Did the Lotus Sutra render all previous sutras invalid
Content:
Astus wrote:
You may not be aware of it that Nichiren followed the Tendai chronological order where the Lotus Sutra is said to be preached in the last 8 years of the Buddha's life and then finally he taught the Nirvana Sutra just before his passing. This of course has nothing to do with actual history as we understand it today but a sectarian classification of the teachings made originally in China. Nichiren tried to create a purified Tendai with his own modifications added. Other, non-Tendai based schools provide their own reasons how a different sutra or teaching is superior. Zen - in its radical form - says that relying on an scripture is an inferior view. The Jodo school says that the only way to reach liberation in the final age of Dharma is relying on Amida Buddha's power. The Shingon school differentiates between the exoteric and esoteric teaching, esoteric being superior and definitive. And if you look outside of Japan you find that the distinction between sects is almost non-existent. You should also see how Nichiren was fighting against every other established Buddhist school in order to be recognised and accepted by the ruling class of the country. The Lotus Sutra is similar in spirit to the struggles of Nichiren in the sense how it repeatedly praises itself without much deeper content compared to other more philosophical and meditative texts. This naturally made the Lotus Sutra a good choice for Zhiyi - the original founder of the Tiantai school, known in Japan as Tendai - to use it as the organising principle of the Buddha's teachings and a way of authenticating his own ideas that he projected into the sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Did the Lotus Sutra render all previous sutras invalid
Content:
Astus wrote:
Many other sutras claim to be the ultimate and final teaching of the Buddha. In the end it is one's personal choice which text one should take the highest of all, as the source of distinguishing the true from the provisional. There is also no rule in Buddhism that one has to take only one sutra above others or that there must be an ultimate teaching. In fact, it is possible to interpret the Lotus Sutra in a way to say that every teaching is a skilful means to conform with sentient beings and there is no such thing as the "one true doctrine".


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2011 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: and again ... Jesus is a bodhisattva
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
The story of Jesus tells the story of a person whose behavior was that of a bodhisattva.
But that doesn't mean that any person(s) on whom the stories of Jesus may be based was a bodhisattva.

Astus wrote:
And I think it is totally irrelevant. Saying that "Jesus was a bodhisattva" is subordinating the figure of Jesus - as the most popular Western deity - to a Buddhist order of the universe. It is a way of religious conquer to change the view of people and emphasise aspects that agree with Buddhism (kindness, non-harming, self-sacrifice, patience, etc.) and downplay those that are important in Christianity (son of God, forgiveness of sins, sacrifice for God, resurrection, etc.).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 25th, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: and again ... Jesus is a bodhisattva
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jesus was a bodhisattva, that is definite. Why? Because Amaterasu is an emanation of Vairocana, etc. It is common Buddhist practice to "tame the local spirits". How is that a problem from a Buddhist perspective?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 24th, 2011 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Doubt about Pure Land and Chan
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think it highly misleading to conceive Chan and Pure Land as separate sects (except in Japan). Chan and Pure Land are merely different practices. It is meaningless to distinguish practitioners' views based on whether they prefer walking, sitting or bowing as primary meditation practice. Why is it said that Chan is superior than Pure Land? It's because using the name of Amitabha as the focus of attention to calm the mind is generally easier than not having any particular point of focus as in Chan. It is easier to conceive an ideal realm where one can attain liberation than to understand how one can already be a buddha. The real proof of this is apparent in the West too when you see all the phony crazy speaking Zen followers and those who could choose the Pure Land path with all sincerity.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 23rd, 2011 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Use of the term 'Hīnayāna'
Content:
Nangwa said:
His translations are all agenda based.

Astus wrote:
Show me one he has no agenda. You can't. From the point of deciding to translate, in the process of choosing what to translate up to the point of polishing that translation is all influenced by the views of that translator. And if you say there is an "orthodox" and an "unorthodox" view, it just means you have your chosen agenda.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2011 at 3:20 PM
Title: Re: Use of the term 'Hīnayāna'
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Actually, many of these practices are probably remnants of ancient Mahayana practices, which existed in the region before the advent of Theravada as a state religion. Some of these practices are in no way endorsed by Theravadin orthodoxy, which stems from the Mahaviharin commentarial tradition. Hence, I am not sure if it is correct to assert all of these teachings under the rubric of Theravada.

Astus wrote:
I think it should be noted that there was a "purification" of Theravada in the 19th century. So when people think of Theravada as a "pure Buddhism" it is because of a modern development, a bias generated also by Western influence.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2011 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't think that Buddhism is much different from any other field of knowledge. You learn about it, you understand it, you put it into practice. Trying to put something into practice what one has no or minimal information of is simply ineffective. So when it is said, "do meditation", it has to be clear what that meditation actually means and what the process of it is. If one knows only as much as to count the inhalation and exhalation that it is that much one can develop and attain. If one knows how to go from counting breath to eventually gaining insight into emptiness then that path one can go through. Ignorance is the root of suffering, on every level.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 22nd, 2011 at 4:43 AM
Title: The Passing of Chan Master John Crook
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is with great sadness and sense of loss that we announce that Chan Master Dr John Crook has died suddenly at his home at Winterhead Hill Farm in Somerset, UK.



John was the first Western Dharma Heir of the late Chan Master Sheng-yen. He was the founding Teacher of the Western Chan Fellowship which is a lay Chan Buddhist community with members and associates in UK and Europe. He was a pioneer who brought great wisdom and creativity to the translation of Chinese Chan Buddhism into a Western context. Through the establishment of the WCF and the training of its leaders he has ensured that this work will continue.
( http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/news-item+M5b5ed9f8ce5.html )



http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/news-item+M5a90884dfd4.html
http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/news-item+M52557a6a91f.html


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 21st, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
LastLegend said:
You are trying to verbalize the mind?

Astus wrote:
That's what is called "teaching" and "studying" in Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Title: Re: Use of the term 'Hīnayāna'
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Recently, many diverse Theravada practices were brought to Spirit Rock through the visit of Achaan Jumnien, a sixty-year-old monk from the jungles of Southern Thailand.  In the course of nine days he taught thirty different practices. These included chakra practices (opening of the wisdom-eye and the heart center), skeleton practices (on the nature of the body), and meditations with the elements of earth, air, fire, water and space. He trained people to understand emptiness by resting in what he called the “Original Mind” or the “Natural State” and he offered practices unifying participants’ consciousnesses with his own. He also performed many kinds of blessings, described exorcisms, taught chants, and offered protection rituals, visualizations and vows (including bodhisattva vows, practice vows and refuge vows).  Throughout, he emphasized that freedom and emptiness and joy can be found in all circumstances. And this in only one week from one Theravada teacher!

It is essential to understand that “Theravada Buddhism” has no fixed definition.  If we claim that the only true and complete locus for the tradition is the monastic sangha, then it is all too easy to undervalue the religious expression and practices of the “Theravada” laity. Regardless of how we choose to define Theravada Buddhism, we do not want to accept the label “Hinayana” for the tradition. The term itself is even more pejorative than the usual English translations of “the Small Vehicle” or the “the Lesser Vehicle.” Hinayana could more literally be translated as the “crummy or lousy vehicle.”  (The Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary gives “inferior” and “defective” as translations for Hina.) When the word “Hinayana” was first used in Buddhist India it did not refer to any particular school of Buddhism, but rather to a selfish and arrogant attitude of particular practitioners. It is mostly through the quirks of history that it became a label used to contrast the Theravada with the Mahayana tradition.

It is also commonly assumed that the Theravada has different goals from the Mahayana. That is, the Theravada teaches the path to arhathood (a path to full enlightenment which neither develops all the qualities of a Buddha nor cultivates a vow to save all beings), while the Mahayana teaches the bodhisattva path to buddhahood that involves the altruistic vow to save all beings. Though often overlooked by writers on Theravada Buddhism the bodhisattva path has remained available within the Theravada tradition from before the rise of the Mahayana down to the present time.  A small but significant number of Theravadan monks and teachers, some of whom were popularly considered to be arhats, have chosen this difficult option as their own."

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/the-treasures-of-the-theravada/


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 3:22 PM
Title: Re: Chinese Buddhist canon
Content:
Jnana said:
Doctrinally, all of the early texts are very similar. The only major differences are in word choice and how the basic pericopes are strung together to form larger units, and then how these larger units of sūtras are arranged into Āgamas/Nikāyas.

Astus wrote:
And that similarity led people to conclude it is the Theravada school that could preserve the best the original teachings, or the closest to the original ones, as a living tradition.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Chinese Buddhist canon
Content:
some1 said:
However, English translations (e.g. http://www.fodian.net/world/sutras.html ) from the Chinese canon are still far less extensive or complete compared to the Pali canon. I think that is partly due the bigger difference between Chinese and Indo-European languages, and the larger volume of Mahayana text in general.

Astus wrote:
I think there are significantly more people who speak Chinese, Korean or Japanese than those who know Pali. However, there are lot more Western monks within Theravada than those in East Asian traditions and also more Western followers of Theravada generally than those of Chinese or Korean Buddhism. So it is the number of followers that makes the real difference. (Zen followers don't really count as only a handful of them consider themselves Buddhists.)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Military Sangha (U.S.)
Content:
Astus wrote:
Greg,

Indeed. A story of a man I personally know who was conscripted (conscription was abolished in Hungary about 9 years ago) but didn't want to leave his wife and baby daughter for years because they needed the money he earned went to the dentist and had most of his teeth pulled out because then he was not eligible for service. So yes, there is always a way out.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Military Sangha (U.S.)
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'm not in the US but I seriously doubt that young men can chose only between the military or crime. What about young women first of all? They could join the military too but for some reason most of them don't make such a choice. Also, if for poor people the military is a good option then poorer countries would have lot bigger armies than the US, especially when they have a higher population. It is also an interesting phenomenon compared to the option of a military career that in many Buddhist countries poor families send a few children to the monasteries to ease their financial burden; this practice was also common in Europe before the materialist era. It would be a lot nicer if all those desperate young people joined the community of Buddha instead of a group meant for killing and conquer.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Military Sangha (U.S.)
Content:
Astus wrote:
I see little problem with having a Buddhist chaplain and community in any military until it is meant to represent the Three Treasures. It seems contrary to Western ideas about Buddhism that it is all about peace and serenity but as a major religion it is no different in its cultural and political presence from Christianity and Islam. When emperors, dictators and warlords took/take Buddhism as their preferred state religion the military is obviously included. Even gangsters can be Buddhists! And if those who commit evil acts understand that there are serious consequences in this life and the subsequent ones they may eventually reform themselves. If they realise that samsara is the place of suffering they might even turn their minds toward higher goals.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Use of the term 'Hīnayāna'
Content:
Namdrol said:
He did, but he was corrected on this point by Gorampa.

Tsongkhpa is not Candrakirti.

Astus wrote:
OK, so it is not that there isn't such form of Madhyamaka but rather that you take a view that doesn't accept it just like many others don't agree with the Gelug interpretation (not to mention those who have never even heard of it). No big deal really, there are many views in Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 19th, 2011 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Use of the term 'Hīnayāna'
Content:
Namdrol said:
We don't agree that a certain Madhyamaka teaching teaches this.

Astus wrote:
Didn't Tsongkhapa argue that even sravakas realise the emptiness of both personality and phenomena?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 19th, 2011 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Use of the term 'Hīnayāna'
Content:
Astus wrote:
Hinayana is an illusory teaching attributed to deluded ascetics who pretend to be the true Buddhists. In reality such Hinayana has never existed but served well to conceive a Mahayana and build arrogance in those who felt insecure. Based on a certain Madhyamaka teaching if we agree that arhats realise the same emptiness as bodhisattvas and buddhas and that emptiness is inseparable from compassion, the self-absorbed lowly sravaka is clearly a fantasy monster only.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 19th, 2011 at 6:39 PM
Title: Re: Chinese Buddhist canon
Content:
Astus wrote:
Another book to look into:

The fundamental teachings of early Buddhism: A comparative study based on the Sutranga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama by Mun-keat Choong

Also interesting:

Metaphor and Literalism in Buddhism The Doctrinal History of Nirvana by Soon-Il Hwang


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 15th, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Jikan,

An important point of the Pure Land teaching - as it has developed in East Asia, especially by Honen - is that it is for deluded beings who are profoundly attached to their samsaric existence. The difference between being a PL follower or a non-Buddhist here is that one is very much aware of one's existence as a deluded being and that samsara is the place of suffering. The land of Amita Buddha itself thus is meant to be understood as simply as one can, a wonderful place without any pain where one can eventually attain enlightenment and liberate all beings. In order to conform with common people it is absolutely all right to say that one reappears there in the body one took refuge in Amita Buddha's vow. Whether it actually happens like that or not, how could anyone tell? And that's an important point here. Neither Honen, nor Shinran, nor most of the Pure Land teachers claimed to be enlightened, they had no direct knowledge of the Pure Land itself. They have simply relied on the teachings that say anyone can attain birth through relying on Amita Buddha's vows. It is an inclusive doctrine where sinners and saints can both attain enlightenment.

It is no big problem to come up with different theories about how and why there would or would not be genders. But it's losing the primary goal of the teaching itself, that is, to comply with the karmic inclinations of ordinary humans. This is part of the skill in means of the teaching of Pure Land. Therefore it seems appropriate to say that men and women can be born there in a perfect body, whatever they think a perfect body is. What difference does this faith means? That they have less worries about what is the Pure Land like and if it is really what they want or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 15th, 2011 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Besides the Buddha's male genitals he also has half of his chest out of the robe.

A guess it is possible to tell the difference between who's male and who's female:


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 15th, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
rory said:
As to my keeping a woman's body, why not? Why would there be hang-ups in Sukhavati?  Kannon has a female body.

Astus wrote:
Also, how does a neither male nor female body look? Like a small child or a very old person?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
Astus wrote:
How strange that self-aware wisdom is originally not self-aware.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 13th, 2011 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Tantric sexual bliss vs. dhyanic bliss
Content:
Huseng said:
The claim, though, that I'm trying to understand is that the nirvikalpa samādhi achieved in tantra is superior to the one achieved through conventional dhyāna.

Astus wrote:
If it is non-conceptual (nirvikalpa), how could it be in any form higher or lower? They agree in Vajrayana that the emptiness of Madhyamaka and Tantra are not different, the paths/methods are distinct however.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 12th, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Tantric sexual bliss vs. dhyanic bliss
Content:
Astus wrote:
Vitarka and vicāra don't exist in the 2nd dhyāna already, how could then it be called conceptual? Nirvikalpa-jñāna also exists in common Mahayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 12th, 2011 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Aemilius,

The Pure Land practices as understood in East-Asia does not involve Tibetan phowa, while phowa is not restricted to birth in Amita Buddha's land. The general view of the Pure Land school in East Asia is that it is the optimal path for deluded sentient beings who have little time and capacity to engage in complicated practices. This is the difference made by Shandao about the Path of Sages and the Path of Pure Land. Tantric methods are clearly within the Path of Sages. And all this confusion of different traditions have little to do with the original topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 11th, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Expulsion for raped Buddhist nun ?!?
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+is+a+position+of+a+bhikkhuni+being+raped%3F-a0158093981

"The Vinaya, a voluminous collection of rules for the monks and nuns first written down in the fifth or sixth century CE, says she [Uppalavanna] was raped, completely disregarding the foregoing poem and her power of iddhi. (31) This story is told to make the point that if a nun is not willing to have sex and is raped, there is no fault on her part, and she has not broken the rule of celibacy. The same story is told in the commentary on the Dhammapada, which says she was raped while meditating alone in the forest, adding that as a consequence nuns were thereafter required to live together."
( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-169176308.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 11th, 2011 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
So, are you on the position that beings in the Pure Land are without gender, they have a non-human body?

Aemilius said:
One obvious thing that is forgotten these days is the tantric visualisation process where you start with lotus & moon seat, then seed syllable and so on... this describes birth through transformation.
Birth through transformation is present in Theravada and the Mahayana,  it is described in detail in tantras, and in the sadhanas. There are some variations in  birth through transformation as it is visualised in different classes of tantra.
According to a tantric teaching of the 12 links of dependent origination, the process of visualisation transforms the 12 links, it transforms the links of your present life,  and your future life; in the the 11th link  you attain the birth throúgh transformation and you become a Sambhogakaya.

Astus wrote:
What does all that have to do with Pure Land teachings? I see no connection. People who are born in the PL are not sambhogakaya buddhas and they don't do any tantric techniques beforehand.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 7th, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Title: Re: Agganna Sutta - human origins
Content:
Astus wrote:
Will,

An expression is defined by context. Birth in heavens is always spontaneous, mind-made birth. Generating a mind-made body in meditation is a different context. The word connects them in the sense that both are mentally generated, one by ignorance, one by conscious effort.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 6th, 2011 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Nosta,

1) Sexism can be applied to both sexes.
3) Fortunately there is no such thing as "Buddhism's eyes" but a large variety of teachings and interpretations.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: Directory of European Dharma magazines?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'm not familiar with the topic but here are one French and one German magazine:

http://www.bouddhisme-actu.net/
http://www.buddhismus-aktuell.de/


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
rory said:
Oops I posted in the wrong thread. Anyway, Pure Land is older than either Tibetan or Ch'an schools. The Pure Land sutras are some of the oldest in the Mahayana canon.

Astus wrote:
It is a bit strange to say the Pure Land "school" since while the practices and teachings were present for long there was no specific organisation until Honen called themselves such a school. Indeed, even today it is only in Japan we see such churches.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Thanks Rory, great job.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Belincia, so it is!

"The working of blind passion also causes us not to want to go to the Pure land and makes us feel uneasy worrying about death when we become even slightly ill. Impossible it seems to leave this old house of agitation where we have wandered aimlessly since the beginning of time, nor can we long for the Pure Land of peace which we have yet to know. This is due to blind passion so truly powerful and overwhelming. But no matter how reluctant we may be, when our life in this world comes to an end, beyond our control, then for the first time we go to the land of Fulfillment. Those who do not want to go immediately are the special concern of true compassion. For this very reason the Vow of true compassion is completely dependable, and our birth in the Pure Land is absolutely certain.
If our hearts were filled with joyful happiness and we desired to go swiftly to the Pure Land, we might be misled to think that perhaps we are free of blind passion."
( http://www.livingdharma.org/Tannisho/TannishoChaptersI-X.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Will said:
The Pure Lands are ideal places for further practice, not pleasure palaces.

Astus wrote:
Well, in a sense it is the penultimate pleasure palace, the Land of Pleasure (Sukhavati).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Ryoto said:
Monks also don't live in mansions, get to eat whatever food they want whenever they want etc. According to Buddhist teachings this may also be counter productive so I don't think this is a very good argument for no sex.

Astus wrote:
The beauty/purity of the Pure Land is something one may contemplate without much emotional disturbance. The beauty of the body is, on the other hand, the opposite of meditating on the impurity/ugliness of the body.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: "On White Women and Buddhism"
Content:
Astus wrote:
daelm,

That is news to me. Is there a policy change in FGS?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Aemilius said:
People here seem to think  that attaining enlightenment is like acquiring a car or a new house or an estate, they themselves remain the same, they only get a new thing added to their identity, a thing that is called "liberation" or "enlightenment".
This is contrary to the actual truth of the matter.
If you become a new being, a higher being, your previous identity as a man or a woman dissolves and dies.

Astus wrote:
So, are you on the position that beings in the Pure Land are without gender, they have a non-human body?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2011 at 8:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana Mantras
Content:
Astus wrote:
The https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=235 used commonly in Chinese Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land "Buddhism" contradictory to Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhism as something that matches with science and rationalism is a modern myth, a way of presenting Buddhism to those conditioned by such thoughts. But as you have noticed yourself, there is lot of "religion" going on in this religion too.

There are people who have difficulty conceiving an actual Pure Land and so they say it is symbolic. It is a similar argument when some think rebirth, gods, spirits and buddhas are only symbolic and not real at all. Of course, many teachings do have a symbolic value but that is just one level. Reducing seemingly irrational elements into comfortable theories is on one hand a creative way of adapting, on the other it is being blind to the different facets and layers.

Why no sex is mentioned in the Pure Land while other delicacies are there? Basically because monks live in celibacy and it might be counter-productive if they meditated on lustful acts. That is because meditation and most of the Buddhist teachings are primarily/originally for monastics.

The teaching of Pure Land, just like all the other teachings, are expedient means to guide people to liberation. Until liberation is attained the practitioner should hold on tightly to the method just like one would grasp firmly on the raft in the middle of a dangerous river. Only after one has left behind the perilous waters it is wise to let go of the vessel.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 4th, 2011 at 3:34 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rory,

Arhats and bodhisattvas can be either males or females but not buddhas, it is because of the mentioned hindrances (五障 - pañca āvaranāni) of women that they can't become Brahmā-kings, Indras, Māra-kings, Cakravarti-kings, or Buddhas. Later Mahayana (especially Vajrayana) did overwrite that theoretically.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 3rd, 2011 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: The fate of Arhats?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The small problem with an eternal world is that we practically arrive at a sort of dynamic Hindu philosophy where the ultimate aim is to arrive at the universal dharmadhatu - the realm of the eternal buddha. Thus we arrive at the problem of eternalism that was avoided by the early teachings.

"However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html

Whatever samsaric or non-samsaric realm we would conceive falls within the domain of the six sense media. That's why I said that the Mahayana conception of the non-abiding nirvana - the basis for eternal buddhas - is virtually the nirvana-with-remainder.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 1st, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
MP,

Indeed, more reasons why people have thought that there can be no women in Pure Land.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 1st, 2011 at 6:08 PM
Title: Re: The fate of Arhats?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Question 1: Is there an end of samsara or there is existence beyond that?
Hinayana and some Mahayana teachings say there is an end, other Mahayana says there isn't. If there is an end there is parinirvana from what there is no return. If there is no end nobody can finish existence only change a samsaric to a nirvanic existence.

Question 2: Without an end what is non-samsaric existence?
The four kinds of lands of nobles (arhat, pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva, buddha) is an option. What exactly those are and how they differ from the usual six realms is something I have no definite information on besides the usual descriptions of specific buddha-lands. Or, as some sutras suggest, it is this realm we are in now with the difference being in the perspective of the beings thus it is very much like the case of nirvana-with-residue in Hinayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 1st, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
rory said:
in the Lotus Sutra, the dragon king's daughter attains buddhahood in her female form.

Astus wrote:
Actually the dragon princess had to change first into male, a classical case.

Śāriputra spoke to the daughter of the nāga king, saying:
“You say that you will soon attain the highest path. This is difficult to believe. Why is this? The female body is polluted; it is not a fit vessel for the Dharma. How can you attain highest enlightenment?
“The buddha path is long. One can only attain it after diligently carrying out severe practices, and completely practicing the perfections over immeasurable kalpas. Moreover, the female body has five obstructions. The first is the inability to become a great Brahma. The second is the inability to become Śakra. The third is the inability to become Māra, and the fourth is the inability to become a universal monarch (cakravartin). The fifth is the inability to become a buddha. How can you with your female body quickly become a buddha?”
...
Then the assembly there all saw the daughter of the nāga king instantly transform into a man, perfect the bodhisattva practices, go to the vimalā world in the south, sit on a jeweled lotus flower, and attain highest, complete enlightenment, become endowed with the thirty-two marks and eighty excellent characteristics, and expound the True Dharma universally for the sake of all sentient beings in the ten directions.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 1st, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Aemelius,

Tell me, if gender doesn't matter, why is it that Amitabha is male and Guanyin is female?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 30th, 2011 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think there is an important point that some have missed. The path of Pure Land is not only for those who can detach from the body and say that there are no sexes and this body is just a momentary conglomeration of the four elements. This path is also (or as Shinran would say: especially) for those who are fully loaded with attachments and karma and so identifying with our present sex is nothing extraordinary at all. Indeed, if we didn't do that we would be free from all our lust toward others. So to say that no women but only men are born there is explicit chauvinism - not that it doesn't exist in many Buddhist texts - and it is also a projection into the three essential Pure Land sutras as they don't exclude women at all, not to mention the part of Vaidehi in the propagation of this teaching by the Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 30th, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana Mantras
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mantra sources:

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/mantra0.html
http://www.visiblemantra.org/


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 30th, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Madhyama Pratipada said:
The doctrine that a woman must be reborn as a man in order to attain Buddhahood - 変生男子之説 (Japanese: henjo nanshi setsu; Chinese: biàn shēng nánzǐ zhī shuō) - is not at all unfamiliar to Pureland Buddhism. To dwell in Sukhāvatī, the female form must be shed and transformed into male form. In the Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra, the Buddha refers to the Pureland as being devoid of women, but there is no mention of it being devoid of men. Why is this so?

Astus wrote:
The Lotus Sutra says,

If there is any woman who hears and holds to this chapter ‘Ancient Accounts of Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyarāja,’ she will never be reborn with a female body. If there is any woman five hundred years after the pari nirvāṇa of the Tathāgata who hears this sutra and practices according to the teaching, she will immediately reach the dwelling of the Buddha Amitāyus in the Sukhāvatī world, surrounded by great bodhisattvas, and will be born on a jeweled seat in a lotus flower. Never again troubled by the [three poisons] of greed, anger, or ignorance, by arrogance or jealousy, he will attain the bodhisattva’s transcendent powers and the acceptance of the nonorigination of all dharmas.

First of all, there is no need to take the Lotus Sutra as definitive from a Pure Land perspective. In fact, it isn't. There are some other sutras that have no problem with female buddhas, not to mentioned tantras (that are also part of the Chinese Canon). Also, Guanyin is female.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Quotes from the Larger Sutra:

Vow 38: "If, when I attain buddhahood, humans and devas in my land should not obtain clothing as soon as such a desire arises in their minds, and if fine robes as prescribed and praised by the buddhas should not be spontaneously provided for them to wear, and if these clothes should need sewing, bleaching, dyeing, or washing, may I not attain perfect enlightenment."

"those born in that buddha land are endowed with such bodies of purity and provided with various exquisite sounds, supernatural powers, and virtues. The palaces in which they dwell; their clothing, food, and drink; the wonderful flowers; and the various kinds of incense and adornments are like those naturally provided in the sixth heaven of the world of desire."

"The śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, heavenly beings, and humans there have lofty and brilliant wisdom and are masters of the supernatural powers. They are all of one form, without any differences, but are called ‘heavenly beings’ and ‘humans’ simply by analogy with states of existence in other worlds. They are of noble and majestic countenance, unequaled in all the worlds, and their appearance is superb, unmatched by any being, heavenly or human. They are all endowed with bodies of naturalness, emptiness, and infinity."

"Devas and humans in the land of Amitāyus are each provided with robes, food and drink, flowers, perfume, ornaments, silken canopies, and banners, and are surrounded by exquisite sounds. Their abodes, palaces, and pavilions are exactly in accordance with the size of their bodies. One, two, or even innumerable jewels appear before them, as soon as they wish. In addition, beautiful jeweled fabric covers the ground where all the devas and humans walk."

So, from this sutra we learn that the beings there have uniform bodies but at the same time their sizes are different. They have no desire but at the same time wish for food, clothes, water temperature, music, etc. They have brilliant wisdom and supernatural powers while at the same time they have to spend aeons to attain any sort of enlightenment.

If we think about it a bit then we can come to the conclusion that the Pure Land appears to those who are there according to their individual needs and perspectives to eventually help them attain liberation. That makes any fixed interpretation of the Pure Land impossible and contrary to the intention of Amita Buddha to accept all kinds of beings with all kinds of karmas.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 at 4:20 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sukhavati is advertised in the sutra with incredibly luxurious features from food and clothing to baths and music. Pretty heavenly. Then how could there be no sex?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Aemilius said:
What would they need them for ?

Astus wrote:
No eunuch or hermaphrodite can take the higher ordination. Even if there is no use of such organs within the sangha. Also, only gods of the lowest heavens use their sexual organs but none above. I assume it is not about the use of them but the integrity of the body.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011 at 7:57 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Aemilius,

That 35th vow says that if women want to be born as men it can be done. It doesn't say sexless nor does it talk about attaining birth in the Pure Land. On what do you base your interpretation?

Gods are also born through transformation and they still have their genitals all right.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
A source of the concept that there are no women in the Pure Land:

"Women, the disabled, and those of the two vehicles
Are never born in the Pure Land of happiness as they are;
The sages of the Tathagata's pure lotus
Are born transformed from Dharmakara's lotus of perfect enlightenment."
( http://www.shinranworks.com/shorterworks/gateways1.htm by Vasubandhu)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2011 at 10:39 PM
Title: Re: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Aemilius,

Only the 35th vow addresses the issue of women and doesn't state anywhere there are no females there. Also, the vow gives only the option of changing sex, it doesn't say women have to do that.

"If, when I attain Buddhahood, women in the immeasurable and inconceivable Buddha-lands of the ten quarters who, having heard my Name, rejoice in faith, awaken aspiration for Enlightenment and wish to renounce womanhood, should after death be reborn again as women, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Title: Women in Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems to be a common idea that there are no women in Sukhavati because they have to change sex. I the three primary sutras I have found no such statement, unlike in the Medicine Buddha Sutra where it is explicitly stated there are no women. In commentary literature it is indeed said that no women exist in the Pure Land (see: Visions of Sukhavati, p. 299). At other places it is understood that while the doctrinal position was that there are only males, women often believed they need no sex change to be born there.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 27th, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
kirtu said:
Check again the reasoning - we have visible manifestations of bodhisattvas even if they aren't Buddhist and their actions come from their minds and their intentions.

Thought is a conditioned phenomena, Buddha activity (conditioned) comes from Buddha-mind which can be seen in Huayen and Cittamatrin thought as possessing reality (or as being real).

Bodhisattva activity and Buddhahood are real because they ease or eliminate the real experience of ultimately illusory suffering  of apparently real sentient beings who also don't truly exist and just abide in the mode of sentient beings.  But such verbage does not cool their thirst.

Astus wrote:
Manifestations are the work of the deluded minds of sentient beings grasping at forms and sounds. What activity is there then? So it turns out that whether it is conditioned or unconditioned, buddhas and bodhisattvas are illusions. If the real buddha is the mind what is there to conceive as buddha or mind? Nothing really. Free from ideas all words and phrases can be used at one's will. That is buddha activity. Conditioned and unconditioned are labels to assist the readers. This is not negating the conditioned but saying that if buddha-mind is understood as something conditioned it will be just another concept. And if we understand it is unconditioned it reveals that all forms of ideas are still within the realm of conditioned. Then it is not logical to say that any activity of a buddha is conditioned.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 26th, 2011 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land beyond Samsara?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is a matter of making difference between consciousness (識) and mind (心). In the Faxiang/Hosso school of Xuanzang there is no buddha-nature but only the eight consciousnesses and everything arises from the defiled alayavijnana. In other schools (like Huayan) they accept universal buddha-nature and ultimately everything arises from the pure dharmadhatu, i.e. buddha-mind. So there are consciousness-only and mind-only.

No Pure Land dedicated community in Hungary except for Chinese groups where it is a major part of their Buddhism. The closest one is Adrian Cirlea's Shinshu temple in Bucharest that I know of.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 26th, 2011 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
Could we say then that mind is a result of causes and conditions just as any common thing? If so, buddhas are nothing but cheap tales for kids.

kirtu said:
Really?  Bodhisattvas are cheap tales for kids?  Paul Rusesabagina, Irena Sendler, Dr. Martin Luther King, Cheif Joseph, Thich Nhat Hahn - these are cheap tales for kids?

Pure mind, perfect mind, holding the precepts purely - these are cheap tales for kids?

Kirt

Astus wrote:
Check again the reasoning. Buddha-mind being only a conditional phenomenon invalidates buddhahood.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 25th, 2011 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land beyond Samsara?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Rory,

Nice to see you add new perspectives here.

A few things. The teaching of "mind only" is very much in line with Huayan as well as Chan, Tiantai and Chinese Pure Land. Yogacara, i.e. Faxiang is understood as the "consciousness-only" (vijnaptimatra, 唯識) school while the others are "mind-only" (cittamatra, 唯心). More on this: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/lai4.htm, http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/lai.htm.

It is useful to see how in China there has never been any separate Pure Land School, that was something Honen created/started for the first time in history. In China (+ Korea and Vietnam) Pure Land and Chan are not separate schools but only different practices that are used together most of the time. More on this: http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf2003.%20TP%20Chan%20and%20Pure%20Land.pdf.

It was PadmaVonSamba who brought up intellectuals and recitation as a remedy.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 25th, 2011 at 12:40 AM
Title: Nirvana Sutra
Content:
Astus wrote:
I've been reading the Nirvana Sutra this week and now I finished about 20% of it. So far one of the things I've been wondering about is that how could this text could gain such a fame. It keeps repeating its only message that the Tathagata is eternal but otherwise nothing of importance. I'd like to ask those who have found this sutra deep and interesting what exactly it is that caught their attention. Because so far it is pretty boring in my view.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 5:08 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land beyond Samsara?
Content:
Sönam said:
This is not vajrayana pov ...

Astus wrote:
I meant it as an explanation not as a representation of Vajrayana. Pure Land is not a Vajrayana school anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 3:36 PM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land beyond Samsara?
Content:
Astus wrote:
In the Pure Land there is no suffering, no compulsory birth and death (生死 "birth-death" is a synonym of samsara), guaranteed enlightenment, created by a buddha. That's why it is not considered samsara. Also, as mentioned, the four holy realms are above samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 3:13 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
Jinzang said:
Emptiness and cause and effect are not contradictory. It is only because phenomena are empty that cause and effect are possible.

Astus wrote:
Then is mind within the realm of causality or not? And buddhas? Emptiness is equated with dependent origination by Nagarjuna. Could we say then that mind is a result of causes and conditions just as any common thing? If so, buddhas are nothing but cheap tales for kids.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
LastLegend said:
How can there be truth and false when it is empty?
How can there be caused or not caused if it is empty?

Astus wrote:
So with calling it empty you can avoid actually verbalising it. That's sneaky.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land beyond Samsara?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sönam,

East Asian Buddhism uses the Ten Realms (十界) system. In brief:

The lowest six realms are known as the Six Paths or Six Realms. These six states of existence are subjected to birth and death, and then rebirth for many lives. One's state of existence depends on one's karmic activities. With evil karmic power, one will be born in the lowest three realms, known as Three Evil Path (of transmigration). With good and kind karma, one will be born in the upper three realms, known as Three Good Paths (of transmigration).
The upper four realms are known as the Four Holy Realms. These four states of existence are beyond birth and death and liberated from the Samara.
http://www.buddhistdoor.com/oldweb/bdoor/archive/nutshell/teach4.htm

More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_spiritual_realms, http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/DharmaRealm.htm, http://ronaldc.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/buddhism%E2%80%99s-ten-spiritual-realms-in-simple-terms/, http://www.cttbusa.org/dharmatalks/10drealms.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
LastLegend said:
Because it is empty, it can and not at the same time.

Astus wrote:
If it can produce something from nothing, that is a violation of causality. If it can't produce anything it is not true that the Buddha is made by mind. If both are true then both faults apply.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 24th, 2011 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Is Pure Land beyond Samsara?
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. Pure Land is beyond samsara as it is a realm created by a buddha and not by deluded sentient beings' karma.
2. Direction is understood in our normal everyday understanding. Even today when we say west we don't think about its cosmological relativity, how much less thousands of years ago.
3. We could say it is a planet, however, that would be mixing our current cosmology with a traditional one. Also, planets and such are modern human concepts and not the views of those outside of this paradigm.
4. Understanding Nirvana as total extinction is not the Mahayana understanding.
5. The Pure Land is only mind and it is as real as our realm which is also only mind. There is no disagreement between Chan and Pure Land on this, only people who can't see how these are not contradictory at all.
6. I assume your question was why Shakyamuni isn't as honoured as other Buddhas. That is not actually true, Shakyamuni's statues and paintings are found in many temples and there are Mahayana schools where he is the main buddha.
7. Saha world is a reference to this human world we now live in. If we happened to colonise the whole solar system then that'd be the Saha world.
+1 Recitation itself can have a positive effect on one's mind. That is not the criterion of being a Pure Land Buddhist. The definitive thing is the intention, i.e. having faith in Amita Buddha's vow and wishing to be born in his Pure Land. To reinforce that attitude and maintain the right view is what practices are for. Also, when recitation (and possibly visualisation) is used to purify the mind, it is the thought of Amita Buddha that takes over the thoughts of samsara, thus forming a connection between us, the Buddha and the Pure Land.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2011 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
LastLegend said:
The mind is empty.

Astus wrote:
Then how can it produce anything?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 23rd, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
So, Buddha is the product of mind. The mind is the product of what?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?
Content:
caveman said:
Sir, the teaching state that nirvana is just as much an illusion as is samsara.

"But see that it is only pain".  DUALITY, DUALITY.

No PAIN no PLEASURE you are talking DUALITY ( ).

"Then way live in marriage at all" .

You are joking aren't you.

Astus wrote:
Which teaching state that nirvana and samsara are both illusions? Mahayana, of course. Mahayana teachings also say that the whole life story of the Buddha was only for the education of beings. Mahayana also has the teaching that the Buddha is never born and never begotten a son.

The Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra (ch. 7),

"Everybody says that Rahula is my son, that Suddhodana was my father and Maya my mother, that I carried on a secular career in my life, that I enjoyed peace and happiness [as a young prince], and that I abandoned all such things and sought the Way. People further say: "The prince of this king, of the great clan of Gautama, renounced worldly pleasures and sought the supramundane." But I had long since been away from worldly love and desire. I merely displayed all such things. Everybody says that I am a man. But truth to tell, I am not. O good man! I manifest myself in Jambudvipa and often enter Nirvana. But in truth I do not enter Nirvana at all. Yet all people say that the Tathagata is now dying. But the nature of the Tathagata, truth to tell, eternally does not die out. So you should know that I am one Eternal and Unchanging."


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?
Content:
caveman said:
Can you or anyone address the REAL LIFE ACTIONS of the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
Real life actions must go along with real life teachings, I assume. From such teachings one understands that desire is an affliction and the root of samsara. Those who have attained nirvana have no sensual desire but see that it is only pain, then why live in marriage at all?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 19th, 2011 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Serenity509 said:
Jesus told his disciples to follow the teachings of the Pharisees but not their example. There are New Testament scholars today who contend that Jesus himself was a Pharisee. Muhammad recognized Jews and Christians as "people of the book." Hinduism regarded the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu. Buddhism incorporated the folk beliefs and practices of the different areas where it spread. Jainism recognized the multifaceted nature of truth as part of its philosophy. The appreciation for different religious viewpoints has existed among the world's religions for centuries.

Astus wrote:
You seem to mistake subjugation of other religions' elements to accepting their teachings. Sure, you can find ancient Indian gods in Buddhism, but in the position of being mortal and incapable of any assistance to attain enlightenment. Buddha is an avatar in Hinduism but only in the form of being a trap for non-believers and a preacher of ahimsa. Saying that, for instance, Jesus was a teacher of moral discipline from a Buddhist perspective does not equate him even to a stream-enterer, not to mention a bodhisattva.

Guifeng Zongmi - Chan and Huayan master of Tang dynasty China - writes this of Confucianism and Taoism:
"the essential meaning of the outer teachings merely lies in establishing [virtuous] conduct based on this bodily existence and does not lie in thoroughly investigating the ultimate source of this bodily existence. The myriad things that they talk about do not have to do with that which is beyond tangible form. Even though they point to the great Way as the origin, they still do not fully illuminate the pure and impure causes and conditions of conforming to and going against [the flow of] origination and extinction. Thus, those who study [the outer teachings] do not realize that they are provisional and cling to them as ultimate."
(Inquiry into the Origin of Humanity, tr. Peter Gregory)

From Ven. Sheng-yen:

Do Buddhists Believe in the Existence of God?

The word God or god has many definitions. There is the God of religionists and the God of philosophers. In fact, there are many different "Gods" in religion, and many different "Gods" in philosophy. Depending on the standpoint taken while viewing God, God changes according to the requirements of that standpoint.
Some Christians say the Confucian tian or shangdi is the same as the Christian God. But in fact, the supreme Confucian God is only a philosophical, pantheistic god loved by humans but without the capacity to reciprocate. It si similar to the God of the agnostics. In contrast, the Christian God has a human personality, and he is the Creator, existing separately from the cosmos he created; he is the omnipotent sovereign of everything that exists.
...
The Daoist supreme deity is the Jade Emperor, who is a different God from those of Confucianism, Christianity, and Hinduism. From the Buddhist cosmological perspective, God in both Daoism and Islam is equivalent to the Lord of Trayastrimsa Heaven, the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods. The Christian God (from Moses, Jesus, St. Paul, to St. Augustine, the status of God was elevated several steps) is equivalent to the Lord of the Great Brahma Heaven. And the Hindu God is equivalent to Mahesvara, the ruler of the Heaven of Ultimate Form. The Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods is the second heaven in the realm of sense desire, so it is very close to the human world. The Great Brahma Heaven is in the First Dhyana Heavens in the realm of form. The Heaven of Ultimate Form is the highest heaven in the realm of form. ... Anybody interested in gaining a thorough understanding of this issue is urged to compare the concept of God in different religions to the twenty-eight heavens of the three realms in Buddhist literature. ...
The ruler in each heaven has some propensity to arrogance, and likes to tell his ministers and subjects that he is the one and only creator or sovereign god. This is similar to an earthly monarch [in ancient China] who, despire calling himself "this person of little virtue" (guaren), nevertheless thinks he is the greatest king on the earth second to none. ... The same attitude motivates the lords in various heavens to call themselves the one and only sovereign-creator. Some of them even bragged to the Buddha. Is any one of these gods really the creator of our universe? Hardly so - it is impossible for a single god to have the power to create the universe. Rather, the universe is engendered by the karmic energies of sentient beings and takes its form according to multiple conditions.
From what is written above, we can see that Buddhists do recognize the existence of Gods, but not as the creators or rulers of our cosmos. As for the Gods of philosophers, Buddhists do not believe in their existence, because such Gods are only theoretical constructions based on suppositions and inferences without empirical verification.
...
Buddhists do not believe that God is the creator, nor do they think any God has the authority to control the fortunes of sentient beings. To Buddhists, a God is merely one kind of being within the six destinies.
(Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, p. 41-43)

Also see:
Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/259.htm
Access to Insight: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#comparative, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#god


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
Serenity,

Explain this to me. If all religions and spiritual traditions teach ultimately the same why is it that no prophet, philosopher or enlightened master who were founders and outstanding teachers of a particular doctrine never said that the others before them and contemporary with them teach the same? Shakyamuni Buddha did not agree with any of the other religions whether it was the Jains, brahmins or other sorts but rather refuted their views? Abraham could have just say that those of other faiths are fine, Moses could have accept the Egyptian religion, Jesus could have praised the Pharisees and Samaritans, Mohamed could have get along fine with the Jews and Christians, etc. But none of them did that. Shankara and other Hindu masters were eager to refute the Buddhists and vice versa. When Chinese Buddhists met Christian priests they composed treatises to refute their faith and correct their understanding of Buddhism while the priests were eager to convert the misguided idol worshippers they saw in Buddhists. And then today when we have those who claim all religions are the same in essence are not accepted in the organised religions and they don't agree with the orthodox doctrines of any religion. It is rather that those who believe in the unity of religions simply form another, although very loose group of people among all the others. So, why is it that Buddha, Jesus and Mohamed, instead of going along with the existing religions, started new ones and refuted the others as mistaken? At least they should have known that it's all the same truth everywhere.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2011 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the opening page of the site most of the quotes are from:

"Imagine a religion without original sin, judgment, a wrathful God, a multitude of gods and saints, an eternal hell, Satan, a sense of guilt, a personality cult, idolizing a book, a blood sacrifice for atonement, a rejection of personal experience, holy wars, hypocritical rules, sexism, a cultish mindset, and money and power obsessions. Luckily, a religion without all of this negative core baggage does exist and it is called Shin Buddhism."
http://buddhistfaith.tripod.com/beliefs/index.html

And you still maintain that Shinshu and Christianity are "ultimately" the same. It's just that apparently they are not.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 18th, 2011 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Karmamudra-the reality, the myth
Content:
Astus wrote:
An interesting case of karmamudra:
There is another reason vetalas were so important. Sexual practice (“karmamudra”) was central in Indian Tantra. It was said to be the swiftest and surest Tantric method, for those capable of it. A difficulty was finding someone willing to do engage in it with you—since the early forms of karmamudra were considered utterly disgusting. The usual approach, for men, was to hire a low-caste prostitute. Not everyone was able to do this, due to lack of funds or other practical problems. If you were a monk, there were also tiresome issues of vinaya—the monastic vows, which prohibit sex with women.

An alternative was to raise a vetali (female vetala). At a certain point, an official ruling was made that for a monk to practice karmamudra with a vetali was not a violation of vinaya. This made the practice extremely popular. Or, at any rate, there was considerable demand for information on how to raise vetalis.

Authentic sexual practice necessarily benefits both parties. You wouldn’t know that from reading some of the male-oriented literature on the topic; but any attempt to “use” a prostitute, slave, or corpse for karmamudra, in a one-sided way, is entirely self-defeating. Clueful Tantrikas understand this, and practice accordingly. Vetalas and vetalis are often malevolent—like humans—but can be transformed by Tantric practice—just as we can. All sentient beings have Buddha-nature; the undead are no exception. Mainly due to karmamudra, it seems that there were many highly-realized vetalis in India at the time of the Mahasiddhas. No doubt some were famed as teachers as well as consorts.

In fact, at the dawn of Tantra, at least one vetali became fully enlightened in this way. She is Vajra Vetali, Queen of the Vampires, who attained Buddhahood as the consort of Yamantaka. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche wrote a hair-raising invocation of her that is regularly practiced in his Shambhala centers: “You enjoy drinking the blood of ego . . . As night falls, you cut the aortas of the perverters of the teachings.”

http://buddhism-for-vampires.com/the-tibetan-book-of-the-undead


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Namdrol said:
There is pretty clear indications that Amitabha literature and modes of conceiving and writing Amitabha's pure land are very influenced by Persian culture.

Astus wrote:
The most important parts are the vow and the buddha-land as a safe place for liberation because these are the essentials for attaining enlightenment in that way. Other details make little or no difference at all. And the Pure Land school with focus on recitation and the 18th vow is quite an East Asian thing.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 17th, 2011 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is a bit funny that God can be seen in the Shin school of Buddhism. What I mean is that Shinshu is a very, if not the most simplified form of Buddhism where the primary goal is to attain birth through faith. Now, this whole God concept is a load of misguided interpretation that has nothing to do with attaining birth in the Pure Land of Amita Buddha. Since it has nothing to do with it there is no point in assuming any relevance to Jodo Shinshu. The Pure Land sutras don't talk about any God, neither do the seven patriarchs. What basis is there of this abstract conceptual proliferation within the Pure Land context? Nothing.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2011 at 4:14 PM
Title: Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
This argument on that the Mahayana sutras and tantras were taught by the Buddha because the omniscient lama says so is very much like "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." That isn't an argument at all.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 16th, 2011 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Shin Buddhism a 'spiritual path for busy people'
Content:
Astus wrote:
I believe Shin Buddhism has a profound message, however, it is to be understood strictly within the Mahayana context and no other way. Unlike most of the other Buddhist school, Shin Buddhism doesn't have a practice to offer to non-believers. It is also interesting to note how Shinran and his followers were against non-Buddhist practices like worshipping gods.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Are you a buddhist when...
Content:
Astus wrote:
Do you often think about being human? Nevertheless, it is a good question you made. Without establishing a concept there's no identification with it.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 7:33 PM
Title: Re: Shin Buddhism a 'spiritual path for busy people'
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't really see yet how Shin Buddhism could become even the most popular among Buddhist schools, not to mention in a whole country. That's because of three reasons: 1. requires faith not just in rebirth but in external buddhas too, 2. has no meditation practices that are so popular today and promises no immediate results, 3. reminds many people of Christianity.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Title: Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana
Content:
muni said:
No practice without guidance of "those who understand", or without teachings.

Astus wrote:
Thus the reason for investigating what the correct teaching is, that may include historical validity too.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
The idea that the proof lies simply in personal testing is a bit risky. Followers of every other religion have loads of testimonies how God, gods, angels, saints, etc. helped the faithful in myriad ways. Also, as the Buddha explained in different texts, like the Brahmajala Sutta, followers of other doctrines base their views on what they have experienced.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Title: Re: Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
Looking for evidence? Should try some reading first.

A history of Indian Buddhism: from Śākyamuni to early Mahāyāna by Akira Hirakawa, Paul Groner
Introduction to the History of Indian Buddhism by Eugène Burnouf, Katia Buffetrille, Donald S. Lopez
Indian Buddhism by A. K. Warder
Figments and fragments of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India: more collected papers by Gregory Schopen
Bones, stones, and Buddhist monks: collected papers on the archaeology, epigraphy, and texts of monastic Buddhism in India by Gregory Schopen
Bodhisattvas of the forest and the formation of the Mahāyāna: a study and translation of the Rāṣṭrapālaparipr̥cchā-sūtra by Daniel Boucher
Indian esoteric Buddhism: a social history of the Tantric movement by Ronald M. Davidson


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sherab,

The http://www.buddhistdoor.com/oldweb/resources/sutras/6_Patriarch_Platform/sources/platform_sutra_10.htm has an answer, "Those who grasp at emptiness slander the Sutras by maintaining that written words have no use. Since they maintain they have no need of written words, they should not speak either, because written words are merely the marks of spoken language. They also maintain that the direct way cannot be established by written words, and yet these two words, 'not established' are themselves written."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2011 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sherab,

What I've found as the answer to the question is that transmission is defined as a live connection between teacher and student. It is like saying that swimming is moving in the water by the movement of one's body. It is a matter of definition and that's all, nothing more.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2011 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Serenity509 said:
In the doctrine of theosis, Christ provides the grace for the path, but he doesn't do all the work either.

Astus wrote:
In theists religions men are completely in the hands of God. That is not the case in Buddhism, including Pure Land Buddhism. That is quite an important difference. The idea of grace itself relies on the concept that it is God who has to be merciful. Saying that Amita Buddha provides a grace toward deluded beings is nothing but a Westernised simplification of the idea that Amita Buddha gives the opportunity because of his vows to beings to relatively easily attain birth in his buddha-land. Buddhas have nothing but compassion toward beings, God can be just as loving as wrathful. In theist religions one's salvation depends on God, in Buddhism enlightenment is available both with and without buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 14th, 2011 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Serenity509 said:
"God became man so that man could become God." - Athanasius of Alexandria

In the ancient Christian church, it was taught that God became man in Christ so that humans could attain Christhood. That's somewhat similar to the view that the eternal Buddha became man in Siddhartha Gautama so that we could attain Buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
Certain similarities doesn't make two things the same, like ducks have two legs just as humans do. In case of your example, they don't really match in many aspects. From the perspective of three bodies the Buddha never became human, it is not some sort of incarnation but only an illusory display that appears because of sentient beings' karma, while the birth and death of Christ was part of the divine plan of God to sacrifice himself in exchange for the sins of mankind. Shakyamuni taught the Dharma but the birth and death of the Buddha is not in itself the solution of men's problems. If you take things out of context and give them a new interpretation it is easy to make bold statements about religions being the same. It is being able to think within the appropriate context that can show the actual meaning of a teaching. Even in case of Amita Buddha, he simply provides the optimal environment for completing the bodhisattva path, that is hardly the same as bestowing liberation upon beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 13th, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
From the Jodoshu website ( http://www.jodo.org/about_plb/what_plb.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

"On the other hand the Christian God has a different nature from Buddha. God is the creator of the universe, the absolute existence, the highest being, etc. God is quite different from man. He is the creator and man is the created. God is perfect good and man is a sinner. Man cannot become God however hard he may try. God and man are totally different from each other by nature, different ontologically. While God is perfect truth, man cannot attain the perfect truth of God. God is far from us. He is beyond our apprehension. God and man differ from each other epistemologically.
Thus the difference between God and Buddha in relation to man would be as follows: God is different from man epistemologically and ontologically, whereas Buddha is different from man epistemologically but not ontologically."

And what you've quoted already from there: "Amida Buddha is not the creator or ground of all being."

Buddhas are not like any Absolute God other religions and philosophies have. That is because: 1. any being can achieve buddhahood and buddhas all went through such a path, i.e. no beings are born buddhas 2. buddhas are not the substrata of the universe, they are not omnipotent nor omnipresent 3. the sole purpose of buddhas is to help beings become free from samsara 4. there are infinite number of buddhas with different attributes 5. when buddhas are talked about in an ultimate sense what is meant is the true nature of all beings and not a single being or even a being or a thing.

Here is a collection of different forms of refutations: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jackson.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 13th, 2011 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Monks can't get full enlightenment?
Content:
Astus wrote:
For those unaware of the nature of everything,
Great bliss is attained in sexual union;
As if thirst-ridden, chasing after water in mirage,
They die from thirst, and do they ever drink the sky-water?
Whoever frolics in this bliss,
Living between vajra and lotus,
What for? This has no capacity for truth,
So {where} in the three worlds will you be complete?
The bliss of means is the moment,
And this itself becomes both;
Through the kindness of the master,
A handful in a hundred will understand.

( Saraha in Dreaming the Great Brahmin, p. 166)

The Kalachakra-tantra states:
Out of critical determination, one dissociates from the female consort (karmamudra)
And abstains from the inner consort of manifest awareness (jnanamudra).
By concentrating on that which is supreme and immutable,
One meditates on Mahamudra.

Padmavajra in the Guhyasiddhi advises:
The female consort of transformation is tumultuous and devious.
So is the inner consort of manifest awareness.
Abandon these, which are replete with discrimination,
And meditate on Mahamudra.

Manjusri, in his Tawai Döpa Dortenpa, says,
Crazy and malignant is the female consort;
The inner consort of manifest awareness is the same.
Abandon these in the dualistic realm
And practice Mahamudra.

(Mahamudra: The Moonlight, p. 98)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 13th, 2011 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Psychedelic Buddhist Dharani on Electric Guitar
Content:
Astus wrote:
I really liked this one:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, June 11th, 2011 at 8:43 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Namdrol,

Thanks for http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&p=43958#p43958, I think it has all the answers for the question of transmission. I may not be as strict about living communication since there were and are people who realised the Dharma without direct contact, but those instances are the exception rather than the rule. Buddhism, just like any other religion, exists within a community and as such can live as long as the community does. And sometimes there are revivals of a dead tradition, another known phenomenon within Buddhism, religions and other philosophies and traditions. I consider such revivals just as legitimate as the continued lineage, not to mention the creation of new schools and appearances of new teachings. That's how I see no problems in accepting modern historical views about Buddhism where most of the living traditions have little basis to claim Shakyamuni as the founding teacher of the doctrine and practice as it exists now.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zerwe,

What you say is very understandable. However, such enthusiasm and connection with a teacher is not restricted to any school or even to Buddhism. That doesn't mean it is not great or anything like that. And perhaps one may feel similarly toward certain teachings too regardless of the source.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
What do you prefer:  being told by somebody face-to-face that they love you or hearing a recording of it on your cell phone message service?  Which of the two do you reckon gets the point across more clearly?

Astus wrote:
Both get the point across clearly. Or an e-mail, a video, a postcard, a piece of paper on the fridge, etc. Both tell the same thing and I understand the same thing. There are of course possibilities to make it sound/look more emotional, aesthetic, passionate, and so on, but the message remains the same. For some unknown reasons that can't be done with a few specific (but obviously not all) Buddhist teachings. If I read the 5 precepts and keep them is not the same if I hear and then keep them - no reason why. But if I watch a video about the Diamond Sutra is just as good as if I were present at the teaching.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Nangwa said:
The question has been clearly answered in this thread and others over and over again.
Its not others avoiding the question, its your strong aversion to the answer.

Astus wrote:
What has been said again and again is that transmission happens within a personal contact between master a student where the student "receives the transmission" (tautology). But what makes personal contact special is not answered. What makes something a transmission and not just learning something about Buddhism, again, not answered. If you think it was already answered, please point to the post. I have collected all the answers the best I could from this thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
This is why direct personal contact is needed and not just a book or a record, because a book or record doesn't know if you are ready or not.  "Ready" means that at that moment it is the right time, just as planting a seed must be done when the soil is receptive, when the conditions are right for growing and so forth. You can read a book or hear a recording about the "evils of alcohol" but if you are not ready, it won't stop you from drinking.

That is the 'something else' mentioned above.

Astus wrote:
If it is only that a teacher gives the teaching when the student is ready the teachers who give different kinds of transmissions should personally know the students. That can't really be true when the Dalai Lama gives a Kalachakra empowerment to thousands of people, or when dozens (maybe hundreds) of monks receive ordination together (in case of ordination the idea of "ready" is strange a bit anyway). One could also say that those who go to lectures, retreats and study from books - i.e. continue training themselves - may understand something deep at any time, and there are a couple of Zen stories where people got enlightened reading/hearing a sutra, or just experiencing something ordinary. So the teacher knowing the situation of the student's mind doesn't sound like the thing that explains the need of face-to-face transmission.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
For a review here are the answers to "What is Transmission?" so far in this thread. As far as I can see, none of them specifies what it is that makes transmission qualitatively different from any other kind of study.

Nangwa:
The transmission/introduction to this state is a state of knowledge that one receives from another being. Its direct, applicable, and perceivable.
The transmission is like guru yoga in the sense that you enter into that state by being introduced to it by someone who has the capacity to share it with you directly.

Zerwe:
transmission is something that plants the seeds that will later ripen in our own understand at deeper and deeper levels. Thus, transmission becomes essential for removing obstacles to understanding and the achievement of realization. So, transmission could be thought of as essential to our realizing the dharma on the ultimate level.

Kyosan:
I think of transmission as actualization of the dharma and acknowledgement by the teacher that the student has actualized it. That's what it means in Zen.

PadmaVonSamba:
Transmission is love. It goes by the same rules.

adinatha:

If I hold up a mirror, and you hold up a mirror while standing nearby one another, we will reflect one another. And so it goes on down the line through space and time. The master/disciple dynamic is just this with regard to body, speech and mind of Buddha.

Namdrol:
A common example is a seal and its impression.

transmission means a teacher speaks, in words and similes according to his realization. You actively listen and understand. That is transmission. This why, for example, at the end of transmitting vows, the officiating upadhyaya asks you "Are you happy"? This means, "did you really participate in this ritual of transmitting the precepts?"

This is all there is to transmission. It cannot be gained from a book. It must be gained from another living, breathing human being.

Will & adinatha:

If you have ever been in presence of someone you did not know at all, yet you were irritated or inspired far beyond anything said by them; that is their aura affecting yours. Did you think all those paintings with discs of light around buddhas & bodhisattvas are just artistic flourishes? The best proof is being in the silent atmosphere of someone and recalling later that one's racing, worrisome mind was calmed.

Yes. This is right. Part of transmission of ultimate realization involves this.

Namdrol:

There is no magical "transmission" fairy dust.

PadmaVonSamba & Namdrol:

So, are you saying that anyone who ever went to any sort of teaching or public talk by a lama received a transmission?

Yes. Listening to a recording however has no transmission.

Namdrol:

No. Recorded words are not the same. They are a recording of an act of speech, but not the act of speech itself. Teaching and bestowing transmission are acts.

The words recorded are divorced from the act of speech. They are relics, not alive.

It is the act of speaking and the act of listening happening together at the same time that constitutes a transmission.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I think you'll find you got a lot of answers, just that you don't want to agree with any of them!

Astus wrote:
True, because I don't see them as answering the question, but rather avoiding it.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: God in Buddhism
Content:
Serenity509 said:
What do you think of this video's idea of God?

Pandeism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQRCsbO_rk4 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think that many people are opposed to the idea of God because of the image that's been given them from Abrahamic faiths, not because of personal experience.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism first spread in India. When the Buddha and later Indian teachers talk about rejecting the existence of an Absolute God they refer to Hindu gods primarily. Christian and Muslim contact with Buddhism happened later.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Somebody who understood or somebody that agreed with your point?

Astus wrote:
I didn't propose a point but asked a question that few seemed to even understand so far, not to mention answering.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Fu Ri Shin said:
So if every other tradition has as little emphasis on meditation as Zen, what are they a tradition of then?

Astus wrote:
I think the point is that Zen is not The Meditation School. Meditation does not even define Zen. Meditation is one of the many religious practices in Buddhism and it is practised in all traditions. However, just as prayer doesn't define a theist or a denomination, so meditation doesn't define any particular school.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 4:14 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Sherab said:
If all that is involved in a transmission is that the teacher speaks and one listen and understand, then as Astus mentioned previously, one should be able to get transmission from a recording.

If the presence of the teacher is required in a transmission, something else (other than the teacher speaking and the students listening and understanding) must be happening that cannot happen in a recording.

Therefore to say that a transmission is that a teacher speaks and the students listen and understand and then to insist that a transmission can only be a transmission when the teacher is present just does not gel.

Astus wrote:
Thanks. Somebody who understood my point.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 4:13 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Correct. There is an unbroken lineage. In Vajrayāna is goes Dharmakāya, Sambhogakāya -- then some mahāsiddha, etc.

All these lineages are unbroken. Chan did not invent the idea of "lineage" until they were put in competition with Vajrayāna in the late seventh century.

N

Astus wrote:
As for Vajrayana, I don't know if there is evidence for such lineage or not. Chan didn't invent the idea of lineage, true. It first appeared in Chinese Buddhism in the Tiantai school. Connection to any Vajrayana lineage idea can't be established. That is, if we look at the Buddhist context. Otherwise ancestor worship and such existed in China long before Buddhism arrived there.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen being a literary movement should be understood as something that makes Zen special among other forms of Buddhism is their literature and language. That means that Zen doesn't really have its own philosophy but has a way of speaking about common Buddhist teachings in a special way. Besides this literary part Zen monks do practically same as any other monk does. It might also be considered that almost every monastery in China and Korea is nominally a Zen monastery, thus being a Zen monk means nothing more than being an ordinary monk. And then there were times when Zen became especially popular and that resulted in new Zen texts in large numbers, texts that later became the classics. In that sense Zen is largely a literary thing, because outside of such literature there is nothing specifically Zen one may find.

As for the emphasis on meditation practice, it'd be interesting to enumerate the actual number of meditation handbooks. In the Song dynasty there were only two written, both of them quite brief. Compare that to other schools' manuals and it'd appear that Zen people never even meditated - which is of course not true. But meditation itself, just like all the other common monastic practices, were nothing "Zen specific".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 5:46 AM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Namdrol said:
This has been explained already a hundred time: a teachers talks from his experience and realization using words and similes. You actively listen and understand.

That is all there is to transmission. It's not telepathic, it is not a substantial "something" you can put in a box.

Transmission means direct communication from one person who has some knowledge (in this case, creation and completion stage, dzogchen, etc) to someone who wants to develop that knowledge themselves. There are different methods for giving transmission. But they all share one thing in common -- a realized teacher communicates using words and similes and a student listens and understands at the same time. This is really not so fricking hard to understand. So I don't see why you are wasting people's time with this inane question anymore.

N

Astus wrote:
If that was it all I wouldn't raise the issue at all. But then there's exactly what Cone said about an unbroken lineage. I'm not so familiar with other kinds of Buddhism as with Chan, and while the common rhetoric is that there is an unbroken lineage from Shakyamuni to the present masters, historically speaking that is just simply wrong and nothing more than a religious concept. There was no unbroken lineage in the 9th, 13th, 17th or 20th century, there wasn't even an unbroken lineage between these eras. And with all the messing around with ordination it is not at all unfounded to consider that precept lineages are not unbroken either. It might be that in other countries politicians and kings were all pious Buddhists, that monks were all holy people, but in China it was not unusual to sell ordinations, make the nobleman's son the abbot, and sometimes exile, disrobe or even execute monks just because somebody didn't like them. Also, the common practice of mass ordination - as it has been in practice for a thousand years - is against Vinaya IIRC.

The other, not historical part is that I see no special benefits and sanctity in a lineage. This extra importance of a lineage is what makes me ask: what is transmission then? It is obviously not just receiving teachings from educated and experienced people. It is not just comprehending the words and symbols but receiving The Lineage, the transmission. What is that lineage then? Is that just a list of names people should believe in as their spiritual ancestors? It is this kind of transmission that I don't see as something so important and essential.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 10th, 2011 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Astus wrote:
The following quotes show how Chan Buddhism was reinvented in 17th century China - Japan's Obaku school comes from this phenomenon - through the strong influence of the literati and based solely on texts. A summary of it is found in the last quote.

"In particular, the literati were deeply immersed in reading and writing Buddhist texts. In their religious reading and writing, the literati displayed a unique spiritual orientation that shaped their understanding of Buddhism. For most of them, reading and writing Buddhist, especially Chan Buddhist, literature was one of the many cultural pastimes in which they dabbled during their leisure time. Because their entry into Buddhism did not begin with faith in the Buddhist belief system, they tended to emphasize the supreme and most sophisticated expressions of philosophical wisdom rather than precepts and devotional activities. Many of them simply dismissed the Buddhist teaching of retribution and reincarnation because for them this coarse reasoning of punishment and reward was obviously designed for the unsophisticated minds. Even in their meditation practice, the literati preferred to use Dahui Zonggao’s method of meditating on the key phrases ( huatou ), a spiritual exercise transformed from the attentive contemplation on doubts that have been aroused from intensive koan study. This practice has a clear trace in their habit of religious reading because of its origins in textual study. Because their spiritual experience was largely generated and fostered during the process of reading, writing, and discussing, without leaving a carefully constructed textual realm, I tend to call such a religious experience “textual spirituality” to distinguish it from a more devotion-based religious experience. Exploring the characteristics of textual spirituality is important in this study because, through reading and writing, a shared mentality took form in some literati’s communities, in which Chan monks were members and were deeply influenced by such a text-based spiritual orientation."

"In this sense, the textual authority generated from a kind of textual spirituality would invest the literati and the literati-turned-monks with a particularly advantageous position in the Buddhist world, especially in Chan Buddhism, which is largely textually constructed."

"Here, the issue of religious reading looms large because the literati’s understanding of Chan was largely a romantic imagining based on their leisure reading of Chan texts. Some of these Confucian literati, without serious interest in everyday monastic routines, such as liturgical services, observance of precepts, and ordination, envisioned Chan as iconoclastic and antinomian, exactly as the authors of numerous Chan texts wanted their readers to believe. Evidence shows that some members of Wang Yangming’s movement played pivotal roles in nurturing Chan ideals in monastic communities. I tend to call the religious experience generated purely from reading and writing religious texts “textual spirituality” to distinguish it from a more devotion-oriented type of religiosity."

"As I have pointed out, Chan texts served as the source of new interpretations and inventions for Chan monks and the literati. Their religiosity is therefore a type of textual spirituality, as I called it in chapter 2, because it is largely textually based and nourished by activities such as reading and writing. Along with the rise of such textual spirituality was a conscious search for a new hermeneutic strategy to approaching texts. Depending on the hermeneutic strategy that was chosen, the meanings of these texts could be understood in different ways: A metaphorical reading could regard all occurrences recorded in Chan texts as if “real” or, in other words, as “pedagogical devices” to induce enlightenment experiences for students of these texts. Or, as Bernard Faure suggests, Chan texts are basically products of a “writing-act,” which follows the rule of textual production and thus must “be read as [a] self-referential literary work” (Faure’s emphasis). 8 A more literal understanding, however, could lead one to the belief that the events, or textual precedents, created in Chan texts were distinctively “real.” The implication of this reading is that the idealized events are considered performable and realizable.
This literal hermeneutic strategy became the way that Chan masters recreated reality. The fact that Chan Buddhism in the seventeenth century lacked any spiritual innovations comparable to those in early periods shows exactly that Chan Buddhism intended to be loyal to Chan’s past as reflected in Chan texts. The controversies reveal that, in the seventeenth century, Chan monks advocated exactly this literal mode of interpretation, which considered the events recorded in Chan literature to be real and practical. For example, encounter dialogue, a seemingly real occurrence, was imitated and repeated; a strict definition of dharma transmission, based on the principle of face-to-face instruction and authentication by evidence, was put into practice. In short, the Chan monks read Chan texts literally and intended to revive an imagined past in the present."

source: Jiang Wu: Enlightenment in Dispute, p. 53-54; 67; 82; 248


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
I am not saying that you need a transmission. But if you want a transmission, then this is what it is. That's just the route you take. "Transmission" suggests something that is passed from one to another. In this case, it isn't something that you don't already have. It's just that the person who is transmitting to you (notice I didn't say 'transmitting IT '  to you) had the transmission to them, so they know how and when.

Maybe, instead, you will be walking along, deeply absorbed in the meditation of all the dharma you have ever learned and then a truck drives by and honks its horn and BOOM! You are enlightened.  It's not very likely to happen, but if it slices your apple open, why not?

Astus wrote:
What you described fits any kind of discipleship, Buddhism or not. Transmission, when understood as something occurring on a ceremony, is not really that. And I'm asking about this second form, whether it's the transmission of precepts (as in the Fundamentalists? topic) or the transmission of something Tantric.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Compared to that, insisting on a personal transmission


Namdrol said:
Without personal transmission, you will never practice Vajrayana or Dzogchen. Ever. Instead, you will lead yourself and your students into hell.

N

Astus wrote:
I neither practise nor teach any of that.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
adinatha said:
Your body is not the mirror. Your mind is exactly a mirror. There are even "mirror neurons." This is why when you see someone experience a sensation, you also experience it to a degree; your brain will light up as if it were in first person. You can google "mirror neurons."

Astus wrote:
Mind is also said to be like: space, light, water/ocean, monkey, sky, sun, tree, etc. I wouldn't rely so heavily on a metaphor for mind to explain something else. And even if you got it with a metaphor, how do you explain in terms of actual events?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Padma,

Your analogy is all right, it is the meaning of tradition and how customs are passed down the ages - although never without modification. Cultivating apples can be learned from the old apple farmer, sure. It can also be learned at university where you study things from a scientific point of view and learn not just a few things a single farmer may tell you but knowledge collected, tested and proved by large number of people. That does make a difference between medieval and modern agriculture. And the old farmer and a university are not the only two possible sources of how to manage an apple orchard. Compared to that, insisting on a personal transmission is saying that all who want to learn cultivating apples must find an apple farmer whose father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. were also apple farmers; or that the apple farmer was a disciple of another apple farmer who was also a disciple of an apple farmer all the way back to the inventor of apple farming.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Notice how nowhere in this apple is there a discussion about the taste of an apple?  Why?  Because it cannot be defined through concepts, it has to be experienced.  So does that mean that there is no such thing as the  taste of an apple?  Just because it cannot be defined?

Astus wrote:
A large number of words refer directly or indirectly to sensory experience without which we would have little to talk about. But if you're up to some apples, try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_apple_cultivars where they give some hint on the taste of different varieties. And I assume those who are really into the apple business can go on and on about the different tastes and textures of apples. Think about those wine and cheese experts.

gregkavarnos said:
Really? So a lecture on ethics that makes you decide to follow a certain code of conduct is contrary to common sense and karmic integrity?  I mean really the lecture is just sounds, ideas and visual images, it is nothing really substantial yet it causes you to change your whole way of seeing...

Astus wrote:
A lecture on ethics may transform people, yes. But that doesn't mean it was because the lecturer had a special aura, was part of a lineage thousand years old, was initiated and anointed by a group of ethics lecturer, not even because the lecturer lives and ethical life. It is simply through being able to conceive the words said and through understanding them puts it into practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
adinatha said:
Group karma is similar results from similar causes. Each individual has its own continuum, suffering alone. It is like a mirroring effect. The nature of awareness is mirror-like. If I hold up a mirror, and you hold up a mirror while standing nearby one another, we will reflect one another. And so it goes on down the line through space and time. The master/disciple dynamic is just this with regard to body, speech and mind of Buddha.

Astus wrote:
The nature of awareness being mirror-like doesn't mean that we keep reflecting everything we see. Reflecting to whom, anyway? But this is just a metaphor and it may not necessarily be about the reflective attributes of mirrors. If I sit in front of a person that person's body won't appear as my body, nor will that happen with speech or mind. Where is the mirroring effect then?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Namdrol said:
A common example is a seal and its impression.

Astus wrote:
Would that mean that the teacher/preceptor directly inputs certain mental patterns from his mind to the receiver of the transmission? That would be like reprogramming somebody's mind. That sounds to me contrary to common sense and karmic integrity.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Since you have not "perceived" transmission so how can you understand it?  Through metaphor of course!  Everybody here is using metaphors to try to explain to you what transmission is otherwise the conversation will be kind of like this:

Astus:  What's an apple?
Everybody else:  It's an apple!

Kinda stoopid, huh?...

Astus wrote:
So you say that it can't be explained what is being transmitted because "you have to experience it"? Even about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple there is quite a lot to say, and this is just Wikipedia. If somebody asks about selflessness it would be a weak and dismissive answer to say "you have to experience it" or give a few metaphors as if one were talking about human reproduction to little children. Fortunately there are many teachings on selflessness to provide a clear and lucid explanation to anyone interested. Anything even close to that on transmission?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Huseng said:
To borrow a term from Jan Nattier it is the "spiritual elite" that engage in those yogic endeavors that result in realization.

Astus wrote:
Sudden enlightenment is a teaching that makes yogic/ascetic practices also unnecessary, an important feature of Zen. The huatou practice is an obvious combination of literary works and meditation in daily activities.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 6:29 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Jñāna said:
Yes, and some do choose it. And some also choose to enter into longer solitary retreat.

Astus wrote:
And that is all right. But there are two things to see here I believe: 1. Zen is not mainly about meditation practice, 2. meditation practice (up to its ascetic form) is not restricted to Zen but is present in all traditions (including Pure Land).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Astus wrote:
I'm sure there were Zen teachers (abbots) without insight into the depths of Buddhism, however, that I would rather not generalise. Many of them were monks for one or two decades already when got into the position of Zen teacher, so technically they were elders. Also they were supposed to be outstanding people within the community and that's why they were chosen to serve as leaders. They had the necessary education and understanding to maintain the quality of the monastic training. Of course, when we think of thousands of temples and convents where each of them needed an abbot (member of the Zen family) it is natural that some Zen teachers were better than the others.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Greg,

He said enlightened people, and enlightened people exist and existed in the different Buddhist schools. And those enlightened people could even debate with each other.

Whether alayavijnana exists or not, and how, I'd rather put that aside for a different thread to discuss it.

What I meant this topic for is to clarify transmission. Unfortunately, most of the posts here talked about something else. I assume that is because there is just this word "transmission" but nothing more to put our finger on.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 4:46 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Adinatha,

So you would establish transmission based on the existence of a group karma? We can try that way, of course. Then it first needs to be established what is group karma. Does group karma exists within each members' mental continuum or is it somewhere else? If it is within the members' mind and people can't share their minds to make a single consciousness it turns out that group karma means nothing but common features among individuals. So we can say that we're all humans, that's a group karma. We have either black, brown, blonde or red hair (or perhaps white), another group karma. We can have blue, brown, green or grey eyes, still, you don't see what I see. Another question is, if there is group karma, what creates it and what suffers it? If a member of the group does something, does that affect everyone even if they don't know about it? If one Ukrainian gives a dollar to a beggar does the whole nation share the merit? If a Belgian beats a French in Amsterdam will the Belgians share the demerit and the French the pain? If one member's acts have no consequences for the group than how can anyone's act affect the group? By the way, what makes somebody a German or Austrian? Citizenship? Birth? Culture? Language? Personal choice? And there are a few other problems I can find with it.

But this still doesn't address what transmission actually is.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Kyosan said:
But you know that the fundamental doctrine of Buddhism says that people are deluded and don't experience the world as it really is. And through practicing Buddhism one is able to overcome the delusion. Suppose that both of us became enlightened. Don't you think that your experiencing the world as it really is would be the same as my experiencing the world as it really is? And don't you think that we would agree on what the true nature of the world is? I think we would.

Astus wrote:
Do you find that Buddhists throughout the world agree on what ultimate reality consists of? I don't.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Astus wrote:
I agree very well that Zen is a "literary movement", meaning that it's full of rhetorical methods and relies heavily on written materials. Also, as you mentioned, lineage and Zen masters were/are the matter of leadership, the abbots of monasteries who are busy with obtaining lay support and organising the community. There are now a couple of studies investigating in depth the development of the Zen school throughout the centuries in terms of socio-political events.

Geoff, what you mention in Korea is their system of dividing the year into three months periods where summer and winter are for retreats, spring and autumn are for wandering. But retreat doesn't necessarily mean one has to sit in the hall, it is just one of the options a monk/nun can choose.

But besides that Zen has little to do with rigorous meditation, meditation retreats are usually done once in a while by many monastics as part of their training. Although there's not much specifically Zen in that.

I think there are three important factors in Zen that made it the most successful form of Buddhism in East Asia: sudden enlightenment, dharma lineage and literary style. These three proved to be useful in organising monasteries and involving the literati to give ample support for the Zen people instead of others when they had to vote for the new abbot in a public monastery.

side note: the "dharma lineage" idea that created the Zen family (禪家) - besides its resonance with EA culture - makes it look like a mafia group...


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
adinatha said:
There is both individual and common karma, right?

Astus wrote:
Only beings can have karma. A group has no karma of its own only its members, since a group is not a being to have a will.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Will said:
True enough, but you are shifting your query.  The question was not, was X objectively holy etc, but if the alleged source of the transmission was extra-sensory or mystical how could that source affect one?  I pointed out that our mind is beyond the 5 regular senses and thus mystical & extra-sensory itself.  Are thoughts, feelings, ideas, imagination etc. confined to the 5 senses - no.

If you think the mind is identical with the brain, then say so; if not, then it appears to me that the non-physical mind is ideal for knowing the extra-sensory.

Astus wrote:
I said six senses not five. The mind is not extrasensory since it is something I am very much aware of, how could it be otherwise? I'm not talking about physical or non-physical. However, one can't just implant a thought or feeling into another being's mind directly, without the use of the other sensory perceptions.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Greg,

I find the eight-consciousness model a provisional one. Same for tathagatagarbha. I've never taken part in a Tantric initiation in order to be empowered to practice it - it would require faith in it on my part to do that. Curiosity is a different matter.

Nangwa,

Sharing directly, in my understanding that would require something like telepathy. It is another thing that one generates the appropriate mental state, that is the work of the faithful within the context of a religious event.

Kyosan,

We might share the experience of eating apple. Still, you have no direct access to my taste-consciousness to compare it to your taste-consciousness. Same goes with other kinds of experience. It is also because of the impossibility of accessing others' experiences directly that I find transmission a rhetorical means only.

Adinatha,

You can't transmit your karma to me and I can't transmit my karma to you. Of course, if such thing were possible fulfilling the bodhisattva vows would be pretty simple.

Will,

Yes, one can have the feeling and the idea that one has received blessings, transmissions or curses as well. But do you feel blessed when sprinkled by holy water? Do you feel ecstatic when meeting XY celebrity? Do you feel moved when hearing the national anthem? Even if you don't, many do. And some others feel and think the very opposite. Should we then say that the holy water is truly holy, the celebrity is charismatic and the national anthem is beautiful?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Knowledge is conceivable and perceivable by mind. It can also be spoken of and written down. Transmission beyond the six senses, that is the mystical part I was talking about.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Zen the Literary Movement
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is called 文字禪 (wenzi chan), Literary Chan. While literacy and culture has a lot to do with Chan that is not the only thing there is to it. Besides those of high status who composed many works you should consider the hermits and forest monks too - who of course seldom left anything to future generations. One exceptional person is Miyun Yuanwu from 17th century who was from a lowly family and had minimal education. But then his simplistic "hit and shout" Chan was ridiculed and attacked by Hanshan Deqing and many others while at the same time he revived Chan throughout China.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Title: What is Transmission?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Based on two previous topics I'd like here to discuss the notion and meaning of transmission within Buddhism. By transmission there are three versions I can think of now: transmission of precepts (ordination), transmission of Dharma (as in Zen), transmission of empowerment (as in Tantra). The concept of transmission always involves a lineage behind it that goes back to Shakyamuni or some other major figure (human or non-human). My problem and cause of disbelief in the concept of transmission is based on two points: lack of historical basis and lack of anything perceptible that could be transmitted beyond the apparent texts and rituals. But, there are those who believe transmission is real and important. How so?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?
Content:
Namdrol said:
Based on this statement, and your confusion about Dzogchen in the other thread, one thing is clear: you do not understand the concept of transmission. You cannot get transmission from a book.

Astus wrote:
Indeed. I was thinking about starting a separate topic on transmission.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?
Content:
Namdrol said:
The key point is this: the Mūlasatvastivadas, the Theravadins and the Dharmaguptakas all have their own Vinaya tradition. They are not interchangeable, though some wish it were so.

Traditionally, each vinaya tradition came from one of Buddha's arhat disciples. So for example, Mulasarvastivada came from Rahula; Thervada from Upali, and so on.

Each vinaya has its own oral tradition and explanations of the vows, as well as procedures for ordination. They are not interchangeable.

Astus wrote:
That can be said supposing that there is something more to those precepts besides what is actually written down. But there isn't.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 4:26 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Geeez, and here was me, dumb ass that I am, thinking that enlightenment is enlightenment until a bunch of academics came along and proved me wrong.  Now ordination is not ordination and somebody is gonna come along and say to me that Buddhism is not Buddhism.

Can somebody please remind me again exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

While I agree that there must be some kind of continuity in the ordination lineages isn't it enough to just get three or more precept holders, regardless of lineage, to bestow the vows?  What would happen if you got two precept holders from one lineage and one from another lineage together to give you the vows (for lack of three plus from a single lineage)?  Would that mean your vows are not valid?  I know it's highly hypothetical (or maybe it isn't really) but I am interested in what the answer is.

Astus wrote:
It isn't hypothetical since that's what happened at nun ordinations for Theravada and Tibetan groups. You can also see now how Vinaya can be not much different from the Canon Law of the Catholic Church and how fundamentalism - or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_%28theology%29 - is very much present in the debate over ordaining nuns. But I think it's not difficult to find other incidents similar to that.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist fundamentalists?
Content:
Namdrol said:
All the vows come from the Buddha, they are just different transmissions.

Astus wrote:
Since the vows are different the transmissions are corrupted - although the different pratimokshas are like 95% identical. We could say that since the Dharmaguptaka vows only have a few extra and minor rules compared to Theravada it is no big thing to make Dharmaguptaka a Theravada version. The idea of a transcendent "spirit of transmission", well, I better leave that to abhidharmikas.


