﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Longevity Mon Lam
Content:
ngodrup said:
I assume there is more than lone Longevity prayer in existence for Rinpoche.
Does anyone have one?


Malcolm wrote:
Generally it is just the one at the end of the medium thun.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 4:27 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
JKhedrup said:
If laypeople lose even more confidence it does not bode well for the future of the Sangha here.

Malcolm wrote:
Arguing that the bhikṣu ordination is dispensable hardly inspires confidence.

JKhedrup said:
I have no problem with a lay priest lineage.

Malcolm wrote:
We have that in Tibet, and I am one of those.

JKhedrup said:
But a bhikshu is a bhikshu and the murkier the distinction becomes, the more danger there is of losing both the confidence of the lay community and the disappearance of the precious monastic form and discipline. I do not want to see the rules and community life disappear and the robes and outward appearance remain. That would be deeply troubling to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Agreed. If it is to be done, it ought to done right and according to the traditional form.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Jikan said:
As an aside:  Ven. Indrajala may find the practice model at California Tendai Monastery of interest, in that there's an effort being made to practice along pre-Meiji lines in terms of renunciation.

http://caltendai.org/TempleLife.html

note that the use of the word "monk" on the temple's website doesn't correspond to the usage preferred here; ordination in this sense follows the Brahma Net Sutra precepts, not the Vinaya.


Malcolm wrote:
Hence they are, to coin a phrase "Lay monks".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
JKhedrup said:
Atisha thought is was a problem. That is why he never recited posadha with other monks in Tibet. Also, he was prevented from spreading the Mahāsaṃghika lineage because all other ordination lineages were barred by royal decree.
But I am also sure you are aware of the story from Tibetan history about the ordination after the Langdarma period. Chinese Bhikshus of the Dharmagupta tradition helped make up a quorum for a Mulasarvastivada ordination

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, the Vinaya was reintroduced to Tibet twice more, making for a total of three ordination lineages as I know you are aware.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I don't reject "renunciate bodhisattvas", I simply do not accept that they are bhikṣus. As far as I am concerned, they are celibate upāsakās because they have no more than five pratimokṣa vows to observe.

Indrajala said:
You said, "I don't regard it as valid."

And the Tendai model of renunciate bodhisattvas includes ten major and forty-eight minor precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Those are bodhisattva samvara, not prātimokṣa vows.

What I do not accept as valid is that those samvaras make one equivalent to a bhikṣu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is generally a preliminary step in becoming a dge tshul, a sort of pre-novitiate probation, similar to the śikṣamāṇā and probably adapted from it in spirit.

Indrajala said:
So you accept an ordination that has no literal basis in scripture yet reject the idea of a renunciate bodhisattva of the Tendai model which is likewise adapted from scripture in spirit?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't reject "renunciate bodhisattvas", I simply do not accept that they are bhikṣus. As far as I am concerned, they are celibate upāsakās because they have no more than five pratimokṣa vows to observe. Those are the only vows that can be conferred in a refuge rite, whether it be Ṥrāvakayāna or Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:41 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The gomin is an upāsakā, his or her vows demand celibacy. And the bhramacarya ordination does as well. When you take the brahmacarya ordination, sexual misconduct for you is sex, period.

Indrajala said:
The five precepts in no scripture I've read actually define the third precept as being brahmacarya. You can have that intent, but that's not the letter of the law.

You speak of a brahmacarya ordination for laypeople. What basis is there for this in scripture? I know of the practice, but where is the third precept (of the five) defined for a layperson as brahmcarya?

Malcolm wrote:
It is generally a preliminary step in becoming a dge tshul, a sort of pre-novitiate probation, similar to the śikṣamāṇā and probably adapted from it in spirit. Basically, the idea goes, if you can maintain celibacy for a year, then they will consider letting you ordain as a dge tshul. I myself received this type of full upāsakā ordination many years ago, but I decided that I was not going to be a bhikṣu, that I was not suited for it by temperament. Since I am a Vajrayāna practitioner, I thought it was pointless. So I am a full Mūlasarvastivādin upāsakā (rather rare actually), but I let go of the intent to be celibate. Most people who take refuge in Tibetan Buddhism do so by a Mahāyāna refuge rite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Not just that, but one can take the upāsakā vows with the intent to be celibate.

Indrajala said:
Intent perhaps, but the actual wording and understanding of the five precepts in the lay context refers to sexual misconduct, never celibacy. The upāsakā cannot be defined as a renunciate based on their five precepts, because none of the precepts demand celibacy and abandonment of the home life.

Malcolm wrote:
The gomin is an upāsakā, his or her vows demand celibacy. And the bhramacarya ordination does as well. When you take the brahmacarya ordination, sexual misconduct for you is sex, period. Vows after all are mere intentions.

Anyway, the concept now of "going forth" is a little silly. Buddhist bhikṣus have not truly done so in 2000 years or more for the most part. And as you know, Chinese monks are scandalized to find so called "Mahāyāna" monks living with their wives, engaged in farming in certain hinterlands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One's status is defined by one's vows, not by one's renunciation. Upāsakās can indeed be renunciates, which is why there are celibate upāsāka ordinations.

Indrajala said:
If you mean the eight precepts and fasting, this is only temporary.


Malcolm wrote:
Not just that, but one can take the upāsakā vows with the intent to be celibate. Or for example, having received them once, one can daily take the fast day vows, or one can take them for a specified period not to exceed one's lifetime.

Anyway, full upāsakās are renunciates by definition as well, for they renounce taking life, taking what has not been given, lying, intoxication and sexual misconduct. Then of course there is the gomin ordination, but these days it exists only in Theravada.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Non-Buddhist vows do not convert to Buddhist vows even with a bodhisattva ordination. Why? Because the basis of that discipline is based on ignorance.

Indrajala said:
Irrelevant. The hypothetical sadhu might not have any vows at all initially. He would be a renunciate, however the upāsāka is not a renunciate. A sadhu cannot be defined as an upāsāka.

Malcolm wrote:
One's status is defined by one's vows, not by one's renunciation. Upāsakās can indeed be renunciates, which is why there are celibate upāsāka ordinations.
A renunciate who takes bodhisattva vows and no other vows immediately becomes a Bauddha upāsakā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If mundane śramaṇas took bodhisattva vows without undergoing ordination they would be mere upāsakās.

Indrajala said:
No, because the upāsāka is not a home leaver.


Malcolm wrote:
Non-Buddhist vows do not convert to Buddhist vows even with a bodhisattva ordination. Why? Because the basis of that discipline is based on ignorance. Such a person would not be allowed to even sit with novices, let alone bhikṣus.

Holding only the five precepts at most, they would be upāsakās. Upāsakās can be renunciants. The word just means "drawing closer to the postive [dharmas]".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A śramaṇa in a Buddhist context is just a bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera or śrāmaṇerī.

Indrajala said:
Not necessarily. A renunciate or śramaṇa need not be even Buddhist. If a sadhu aspires to bodhisattvahood and he takes on the precepts, he would be a renunciate bodhisattva.

Malcolm wrote:
If mundane śramaṇas took bodhisattva vows without undergoing ordination they would be mere upāsakās.

Indrajala said:
he would be a renunciate bodhisattva.

Malcolm wrote:
And a mere upāsāka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't.  Why? Because even lay people can receive all those vows without abandoning their status as upāsakās, etc.

Indrajala said:
A śramaṇa (and a śramaṇa is a renunciate albeit not strictly speaking a Buddhist Vinaya-based bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera or śrāmaṇerī) who receives the bodhisattva precepts is effectively a śramaṇa bodhisattva or renunciate bodhisattva, i.e., equivalent to a Śrāvakayāna bhikṣu. In other words, as a renunciate who takes on the stated set of bodhisattva precepts, you are different from the upāsakā who does, given the earlier śramaṇa lifestyle and aspirations.

Malcolm wrote:
Oh nonsense Jeff, what a load of baloney.

A śramaṇa in a Buddhist context is just a bhikṣu, bhikṣuṇī, śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera or śrāmaṇerī.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
JKhedrup said:
As for Malcolm's comment here about monks of a different Vinaya lineage reciting Posada together : As my sramanera ordination is Mulasarvastivada, and Bhikshu ordination Theravada, I asked both Lama Zopa Rinpoche and the current Jangtse Choje Rinpoche about participating in Tibetan Posada recitation. They both encouraged me to do so. Apparently HHDL has indicated this may not be a problem, but I will have to look for a source to quote on this (there were recent meetings with Burmese monks) However, it would not be good for me to act as part of a quorum in an ordination ceremony, as the lineage of the vows is different. But I am sure other more conservative masters would have different opinions.

Malcolm wrote:
Atisha thought is was a problem. That is why he never recited posadha with other monks in Tibet. Also, he was prevented from spreading the Mahāsaṃghika lineage because all other ordination lineages were barred by royal decree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Indrajala said:
It was the tonsure that made the monk really, rather than the precepts. I know that sounds insufficient to people now, but even in China up until recently it was like that. Most monks from the sounds of it didn't have even novice precepts because it was the tonsure and community recognition that made you a monk. This deviates from legal definitions, yes, but nevertheless in practice it worked like that.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is a farce.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
A bhiḳsu ordination absolutely does not exist in Mahāyāna sutra.

Indrajala said:
Not explicitly, but the meaning can be drawn out.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it can't.



Indrajala said:
The term "renunciate bodhisattva" 出家菩薩 is equivalent to a Mahāyāna bhikṣu.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it isn't.  Why? Because even lay people can receive all those vows without abandoning their status as upāsakās, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Indrajala said:
[

This is problematic from a contemporary scholarship perspective. The Vinaya is late period literature. See the above quoting of Schopen in Bronkhorst's work.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't consider Schopen an authority on anything that has to with Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There are not, there never has been, and there never will be two kinds of bhikṣus in the present dispensation of Buddhadharma.

Indrajala said:
Arguably there are more than two. A Mahāsāṃghika bhikṣu took 218 precepts, which is quite a lot less from other ordination lineages in India. They were another type of bhikṣu arguably.

Malcolm wrote:
You understand my point. In other words, apart from ordination in any of the "18" śrāvaka ordination lineages, there cannot be another kind of bhikṣu. There is no Mahāyāna bhikṣu ordination taught in Mahāyāna. One takes one's Mahāyāna training on the basis of whatever prātimokṣa vows one already posseses, and if one does not have those, they are received during the preliminary of going refuge, which is the first step in any Mahāyāna bodhisattva vow rite.

A bhiḳsu ordination absolutely does not exist in Mahāyāna sutra.

If it did exist, the Tibetans would have preferred it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 1:04 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Indrajala said:
My source in Chinese states otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
They are wrong.

Indrajala said:
They are prātimokṣa, Vinaya exists to explicate the prātimokṣa in detail.
No, the Vinaya prātimokṣa only exists because of incidents. Many of the precepts in the Vinaya do not actually relate to the five precepts (like those related to preserving the image of the sangha in the face of judgmental laypeople).

Malcolm wrote:
The Vinaya exists to explain why those precepts were enacted. The precepts came first, accreted over the lifetime of the Buddha.


Indrajala said:
While different ordination lineages have different Vinayas, nevertheless, when you take bhikṣu ordination, you are pledging to hold all the prātimokṣa vows you received, nor merely the one's that suit you.
The Buddha thought otherwise apparently. If he indeed stated the minor precepts could be abandoned, and that precepts which were inappropriate in different lands could likewise be ignored, then he certainly no hard liner as you seem to be in this discussion.

Malcolm wrote:
He made allowances for such things as fur and leather for those who lived in cold places. Of course we have to work with circumstances. But this does not mean we can just "adapt" what we want. It is no big deal that Tibetan monks wear the vest originally designed for nuns. Deciding however to do away with large portions of the prātimokṣa merely because it is inconvenient is not satisfactory.


Indrajala said:
No one has the authority to modify the pratimokṣa rules. That's why it was never done, even when the Buddha stated the minor prātimokṣa rules could be ignored.


The sangha has the right to modify the Vinaya as they see fit. In practice this actually happened in India, though perhaps unannounced. The proof for this is found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya which contains some Mahāyāna allusions and elements, which means there was significant revising of the content long after the development of the other Vinaya texts.

Malcolm wrote:
The basic prātimokṣa rules remained unaltered.

Indrajala said:
So, contrary to your assertion, the sangha in India and elsewhere clearly did modify things. We need only consider how the content and number of precepts differ among the Vinaya texts of various Indian schools.

Malcolm wrote:
They did not modify the prātimokṣa rules.


Indrajala said:
Those precepts were not as sacrosanct as you assert. This is merely your opinion, whereas in actual practice in India it was not like this at all. See Schopen:
There appears to be, however, no actual evidence that the textual ideal was ever fully or even partially implemented in actual practice; at least none is ever cited.

Malcolm wrote:
This is an argument from an absence of evidence, which amounts to no argument at all.



Indrajala said:
No, you automatically receive the five precepts, but you can elect to follow only those you are able to follow, unlike the higher ordinations.
In practice this is not always so.

Malcolm wrote:
In practice, it is always so.


Indrajala said:
This interpretation results in Sanghabheda.
No, not in the context of East Asia for the simple reason that karma proceedings were not carried out in the Sinosphere.

There are two types of schism: karma-bheda and cakra-bheda. The former was not possible in the Sinosphere. The alternative model proposed does not constitute the latter.

Malcolm wrote:
A Sanghabheda requires merely that some fully ordained monk declares he has a better idea than the Buddha, and sets up a new rule.


Indrajala said:
No one has the authority to do that. This is why bhikṣus of one ordination lineage are barred from reciting posadha with bhikṣus from another ordination lineage. Changing the pratimokṣa rules is a Sanghabheda offense.
At some point somebody changed the original rules otherwise there would not be multiple ordination lineages.

Malcolm wrote:
No, different people received their ordinations at different points in Buddha's lifetime, and began ordaining other monks in regions removed from the Buddha's immediate presence. This is sufficient to account for disparities in the number of rules as well as their language, and accounts of their elaboration.

Indrajala said:
The Chan "Pure Rules" and Tendai model worked fairly well however.

Malcolm wrote:
As institutional disciplines I am sure they worked quite well, but people who do not receive a proper Śrāvakayāna bhikṣu ordination are not bhikṣus in any sense of the word.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:


Indrajala said:
Nevertheless, the early Heian bhikṣu sangha, with state support, officially recognized Saichō's reformed model as legitimate and ultimately equal Dharmagupta ordinations.

This is why I argue that Saichō's monastic model is effectively an revised bhikṣu Vinaya based on bodhisattva precepts.

Jikan said:
This recognition is interesting; it suggests that the two forms of ordination can be functionally equivalent.  This doesn't mean that one is a revision of the other, however.  A pen and a pencil can do the same work, but a pencil is not a revised pen.


Malcolm wrote:
There are not, there never has been, and there never will be two kinds of bhikṣus in the present dispensation of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Indrajala said:
Infanticide, sati and child marriages might not be seen as a problem, but they should be halted and made criminal.

Malcolm wrote:
Infanticide, child marriage and so on existed in your Fantasy Sino-Japanese realm too.




Indrajala said:
I see, so you believe in the Strict Parent State after all. Good luck with that. It led to Mao.
No, poverty, desperation and decades of civil war led to Mao. The civil religion of communism led more to Mao than Confucian values.

Malcolm wrote:
Russia would up with Stalin because of the cultural precedent set by the Czarist absolutest state, likewise, China, another historically absolutest state, wound with Mao.



Indrajala said:
Such political arrangements worked very well in China, Korea and Japan, producing in pre-modern times societies which were rather stable over the long-term.
Seriously? What nonsense.
\

You don't think the relatively good standard of living and social stability of the Tang dynasty was remarkable given the age?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think it was that stable.


Indrajala said:
And Indian cities, by and large, are dirty, dangerous and squalid, and always have been. It is their culture. Not ours. We can visit and enjoy it or hate it, but it is not our business to tell them what to do or how to run their country.
It is virtuous to introduce civilized values and principles of hygiene as it will alleviate suffering and save lives. To argue otherwise is immoral.

Malcolm wrote:
Indian culture is very hygenic and civilized, actually. They suffer from overpopulation in the north. The squalid nature of India has many causes, mostly colonial.

Indrajala said:
The British did more good than harm in India. It is a shame they had to leave.

Malcolm wrote:
Your paternalist attitudes towards those whom you regard as your inferiors is duly noted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:


Indrajala said:
This is why I argue that Saichō's monastic model is effectively an revised bhikṣu Vinaya based on bodhisattva precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Except that it isn't and they are not bhikṣus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 7th, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Indrajala said:
You are mistaken. The first three of the seven past buddhas (Vipaśyin, Śikhin and Viśvabhū) never established any precepts as there was no need.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am not mistaken. A pratimokṣa was taught by all three Buddhas you mention. Please see Prebish, Buddhist Monastic Discipline. pgs. 110-113.

Indrajala said:
You cannot take bodhisattva vows without first going for refuge; since going for refuge automatically entails receiving pratimokṣa vows, your refutation is dismantled without the need to resort to scripture.
Prātimokṣa precepts like the five precepts which come with the refuge vows are not the Vinaya. You cannot equate refuge precepts and the five precepts with the Vinaya. The Vinaya prātimokṣa was only provisionally established given the circumstances of the time. The Vinaya is not universal.

Malcolm wrote:
They are prātimokṣa, Vinaya exists to explicate the prātimokṣa in detail. While different ordination lineages have different Vinayas, nevertheless, when you take bhikṣu ordination, you are pledging to hold all the prātimokṣa vows you received, not merely the one's that suit you.

Indrajala said:
Not so. The sangha officially condoned the reform, which is in line with the Vinaya regulations which permit modifications where necessary.

Malcolm wrote:
No one has the authority to modify the pratimokṣa rules. That's why it was never done, even when the Buddha stated the minor prātimokṣa rules could be ignored. When you take bhikṣu ordination, you agree to follow all of the rules, not merely some of the rules, based on your own judgment. For this reason there is posada, to repair any breach of the rules and confess those you have broken. People who are not ready to follow all of the prātimokṣa rules, i.e. Vinaya, should not become bhikṣus.

Indrajala said:
Of course the bodhisattva samvara is "superior" to pratimokṣa vows; nevertheless they cannot be received without first going for refuge, and the receipt of the upāsakā vows is an automatic consequence of going for refuge whether it is first done in a Mahāyāna based rite of conferring the Bodhisattva trainings or not.
This is not necessarily so. You can have refuge precepts without taking the five precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you automatically receive the five precepts, but you can elect to follow only those you are able to follow, unlike the higher ordinations.

Indrajala said:
Moreover, the upāsaka precepts are not the Vinaya strictly speaking.

Malcolm wrote:
They are prātimokṣa. The method of conferring upāsakā vows is discussed in Vinaya. Therefore, it is part of Vinaya.

Indrajala said:
The "Bodhisattva Vinaya" in the Tendai system is a heavily revised Vinaya system that effectively replaces the Śrāvakayāna model.

Malcolm wrote:
This interpretation results in Sanghabheda.

Indrajala said:
What if the vows are revised and then followed perfectly?

Malcolm wrote:
No one has the authority to do that. This is why bhikṣus of one ordination lineage are barred from reciting posadha with bhikṣus from another ordination lineage. Changing the pratimokṣa rules is a Sanghabheda offense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Prātimokṣa vows are the basis of bodhisattva vows.

Indrajala said:
No, it is the other way around in Mahāyāna. The prātimokṣa vows were provisionally established due to problematic circumstances during the Buddha's lifetime. The bodhisattva precepts are taught by all buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
So was pratimokṣa.


Indrajala said:
Consequently your statement "prātimokṣa vows are the basis of bodhisattva vows" is refuted.

Malcolm wrote:
Every Buddha recites pratimokṣa as well. Not every Buddha institutes a bhikṣu Sangha however.

You cannot take bodhisattva vows without first going for refuge; since going for refuge automatically entails receiving pratimokṣa vows, your refutation is dismantled without the need to resort to scripture.

Indrajala said:
Without one, you cannot have the other.
Prātimokṣa precepts are encompassed within the bodhisattva precepts, which comprise the three sets of pure precepts:

Malcolm wrote:
See above.

Indrajala said:
A person who follows upāsakā prātimokṣa and bodhisattva vows is still just an upāsakā. A person who follows śramaṇera prātimokṣa is still just a śramaṇera.
This is strictly speaking an orthodox Vinaya view, which is valid within the context of Śrāvakayāna. That being said it does not apply to the Japanese sangha because the sangha council in the early Heian period approved Saichō's reforms whereby a renunciate bodhisattva received alternative precepts based on bodhisattva precepts which granted him the status of a bhikṣu.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, such "monks" are merely celibate lay persons.

Indrajala said:
There is vast literature in China and Japan as well. I tend to agree with many authors of ancient times who argued for the superiority of bodhisattva precepts.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course the bodhisattva samvara is "superior" to pratimokṣa vows; nevertheless they cannot be received without first going for refuge, and the receipt of the upāsakā vows is an automatic consequence of going for refuge whether it is first done in a Mahāyāna based rite of conferring the Bodhisattva trainings or not.

Indrajala said:
You don't seem to know about or appreciate the fact that a celibate and orderly monastic model based on bodhisattva precepts was devised by Saichō and approved by the Vinaya-based sangha authorities in ancient Japan, thereby making it a valid and quite legitimate reform.

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite aware of it, for a great deal longer than you, actually [1988]. I don't regard it as valid. As I said such "monks" are celibate upāsakās in robes, no matter how realized, venerable or sublime they may be.

If you will recall, this position is what caused the Zen people to freak out on me. I still have not changed my position.

And as far as I am concerned, someone who actually goes to the trouble of receiving the vows of a śramaṇera or a bhikṣu is obliged to follow them as perfectly as they can without making excuses for not following them as strictly as possible. Otherwise, in my view, they are frauds taking advantage of the robes. Since the ordained Sangha can't seem to keep themselves honest, it is up the lay Sangha to do so by not supporting those ordained people who do not seem to be observing their vows properly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: Begging, Panhandling & 8th Major Precept (Brahma Net Sut
Content:
Zhen Li said:
If we have confidence that the panhandler won't abuse a donation, there's no excuse for holding back. Just like if you're confident that you need to eat with your own mouth, you eat.


Malcolm wrote:
Āryadeva passed a blind woman on the road. Hearing him coming she begged him for one of his eyes. He obliged, and she promptly popped the eye in her mouth, and swallowed it with satisfaction. In that moment, Āryadeva suffered a pang of regret, because of course he had intended the women use it for her own sight. Because of his pang of regret, he lost the chance to have his eye miraculously restored. This is why one of his nicknames is Ekacakṣu, "One eye".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:


Indrajala said:
Countries which perpetually let people make the wrong decisions end up like India or worse.

Malcolm wrote:
Seems like you are more than halfway to fascism. People have an innate right to screw up their lives.

Indrajala said:
In India people constantly make all the wrong decisions, like building a new house with no toilet inside or out because they think it will pollute them, and the fact nobody feels humble enough to clean it (not even their own). So, they defecate outside in public, and preventable diseases spread. They screw their own lives over and those of many other people. This is one example where hard handed political measures are necessary to overcome damaging behavior on the part of unintelligent commoners. India lacks the capacity and political will to do this, which is why half a billion people or more defecate in public around the subcontinent.

Malcolm wrote:
Dude, the toilets in Asia everywhere are abysmal. Some of the foulest toilets I have ever encountered were in Japan. The Japanese think nothing of littering their forests with cigarette cartons, beer cans, etc.


Indrajala said:
So, no people do not have an innate right to screw up their lives when their community suffers as a result.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they do, if their culture does not perceive it as a problem.

Indrajala said:
I'm actually heavily inclined to Confucian political values after reading Chinese history and philosophy somewhat extensively (minus of course the obligatory animal sacrifice if you strictly follow the Li-ji 禮記). This means a strong and well-educated leadership and hierarchy is in place to solve pressing problems and enforce proper behavior on the lower classes whether they like it or not. The leadership takes into account good advice ideally and exercises the five constant virtues (humaneness, due-giving, propriety, wisdom, and trust). State officials might need to act as parental figures to untamed people if they fail to behave like civilized human beings, but it is for their own good ultimately.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you believe in the Strict Parent State after all. Good luck with that. It led to Mao.

Indrajala said:
Such political arrangements worked very well in China, Korea and Japan, producing in pre-modern times societies which were rather stable over the long-term.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously? What nonsense.

Indrajala said:
Likewise, modern Japan and Korea are safe, clean, efficient and well-ordered societies founded on Confucian and Buddhist values. Taiwan is not far behind.

Malcolm wrote:
And Indian cities, by and large, are dirty, dangerous and squalid, and always have been. It is their culture. Not ours. We can visit and enjoy it or hate it, but it is not our business to tell them what to do or how to run their country.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Indrajala said:
In a predominately Mahāyāna society, the bodhisattva precepts take precedence over anything Hīnayāna, including the Vinaya. Consequently, implementing new precepts and procedures was warranted and acceptable even based on Vinaya law.

Malcolm wrote:
Prātimokṣa vows are the basis of bodhisattva vows. Without one, you cannot have the other. A person who follows upāsakā prātimokṣa and bodhisattva vows is still just an upāsakā. A person who follows śramaṇera prātimokṣa is still just a śramaṇera.

While it is true that receiving bodhisattva vows changes the nature of one's prātimokṣa, i.e., one is now adhering to these vows as a form of bodhisattva activity, it does not mean that one can be sloppy with them and just ignore them when convenient.

There is a great deal of Indian writing, as well as Tibetan writing on the subject of the three vows.

In general, however, it is only when a prātimokṣa vows contradict bodhisattva vows that one is to favor the latter over the former. But what is the criteria for that contradiction? In general it only covers activity that one is truly engaged in for the welfare of others.

Since a great many of the pratimokṣa rules were set down because of the complaints of laypeople about the conduct of monks, the main point is that śramaṇeras and bhikṣus and their female counterparts need to consider how they appear to lay people. When śramaṇeras or bhikṣus opines in public that their vows are not important, this leaves a very bad impression on lay people, and causes lay people to suspect (correctly) that the Sangha is degenerate and no longer worthy of respect (and so it seem to me). If one claims that only Mahāyāna vows important, than wearing robes truly is a farce, since Mahāyāna vows are the same whether one is a lay person or an ordained person.

By the way, there is nothing more new age that suggesting that prātimokṣa can be discarded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Had you seen my discussions with our friend Jeff at other occasions, you will have noted that I don't really approve of the idea that Vinaya is something that can be conveniently ignored. .

Indrajala said:
Yet it is conveniently ignored.

Like in a monastery where lunch starts at 12:00pm sharp. It is institutionally arranged so as to be actually against the rulebook.

As I keep saying, there's more to the Vinaya than the vows. There's the whole matter of karma proceedings and democratic decision making which clearly nobody feels is important.

Malcolm wrote:
To be more precise, pratimokṣa vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:


Indrajala said:
Countries which perpetually let people make the wrong decisions end up like India or worse.

Malcolm wrote:
Seems like you are more than halfway to fascism. People have an innate right to screw up their lives.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
WASW said:
Yes-  but I am questioning the idea that there are "unintelligent masses" who require the (quite cynical and manipulative, in this view) existence of institutions that are sanctioned by religions to keep them stable?

Indrajala said:
The masses are generally unintelligent and unable to properly look after themselves.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as "the masses".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 9:35 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Yeah of course.


Malcolm wrote:
Had you seen my discussions with our friend Jeff at other occasions, you will have noted that I don't really approve of the idea that Vinaya is something that can be conveniently ignored. My opinion is that if you are going to be a bhikṣu, then be a bhikṣu and follow all the vinaya rules as best as one can, do posadha twice a month with a Sangha, etc. If you cannot do that much, then remain a dge tshul. There is no shame in not taking vows you have no intention of keeping.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Okay, I read the Bhasya and it's more or less saying the same thing as you were. Again, the issue is that the Sarvastivādans did not deny that there are also cetanās related to taking the vow, so the theory being posited by Vasubandhu isn't denied. Also, that it cannot be destroyed since it is a dharma that always exists is just to take unfair advantage of the Sarvastivādan position, of course they posit that conventionally speaking it is destroyed. Imaginary? Maybe, how can we know? It's talking about a state that is non-falsifiable, I wouldn't disagree if you were to say it's meaningless - which isn't Vasubandhu's argument. But like I said before, the fact that indictative dharmas are not being denied as at play is more useful, and the notion of avijñapti might simply be one's impression of how things are, hence a vitarka/vikalpa.

The point is, the state of being a monk, be it either a continuous stream of karmas from intention, or an actual non-informative form, is more than irrational fears of Marmite.

Malcolm wrote:
There are also arguments against avijñāpti when Vasubandhu covers the eleven forms of matter in chapter one.

Vasubandhu basically says there is no such thing and that such a dharma was never mentioned by the Buddha. It is merely a speculative theory of the Sarvastivadins.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
But that doesn't have to mean automatic war.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it does. Any attack launched against US soil will immediately cause the US to go on a war footing, because attacking the US directly is an act of war. Our government will respond in kind without hesitation.


tellyontellyon said:
The terrorists on the planes came from all over the place. They could have used the same reasons to have attacked Pakistan or the Yemen or Saudi Arabia etc.

Malcolm wrote:
They operated and trained out of Afghanistan. In case you have not noticed, the US has been systematically hunting down Al Qaeda terrorists and their training camps everywhere they can find them.

tellyontellyon said:
Defending the country doesn't have to mean automatic war. There is more than one way to defend yourself, full scale invasion wasn't the only option, and given Afghanistans history of resisting invasions, was unlikely to work in the long run.

Malcolm wrote:
We had no interest in holding Afghanistan, and still don't, besides what some conspiracy theory wack jobs think. We were solely interested in Al Qaeda and other allied groups. Getting involved in the Karzi thing was an error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 8:48 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
greentara said:
Malcom, 'ok, Chicken Little'  Well I think Indrajala has made a few good points. You may not agree with them but I think they are worthy of consideration.

Nighthawk said:
I agree with him as well. Mainly on the point that feminism is to blame for the high divorce rate in western countries. Truth can be hard to swallow sometimes.

Malcolm wrote:
Utter nonsense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Perhaps inevitable with that particular administration, but a more far-sighted administration might have avoided playing into the hands of the terrorists.

Malcolm wrote:
Any US administration would have been compelled to respond exactly the same way. The job of the president is to defend the country against enemies, both foreign and domestic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:


WASW said:
Yes-  but I am questioning the idea that there are "unintelligent masses" who require the (quite cynical and manipulative, in this view) existence of institutions that are sanctioned by religions to keep them stable? I think that idea is quite patronising and doesn't really reflect the historic realities for the rise of marriage-contracts, that being the control of property and inheritance (not that I think this is the rationale of how marriages need to be conceived of now and in the future, though obviously equal marriage laws do provide homosexual couples with not inconsiderable benefits in terms of protecting bereaved spouses_.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but you must consider all those "child marriage" advocates out there who will insist that their right to wed six year olds is being infringed upon, you know, because it is all the fault of the feminazis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I'm no fan of Saddam. I hope things are better in the long term, but the price the Iraqis as well as other forces paid was extreme.
Are the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. any better?

Malcolm wrote:
So far none of them has gassed their own citizens, as far as I know.


tellyontellyon said:
In the end, these peoples will have to find their own solutions. It was always obvious that both the Iraqis and Afghans wouldn't want our troops on their soil.... anymore than you would want a foreign army to take over your government in the way it happened over there.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, America is a global power. Can't have your former puppets openly defying you on the world stage, and you can't let some pissant terrorists take out the brains of your global financial network either. In terms of real politick, what the US did is absolutely consistent with what a world power does when attacked.


tellyontellyon said:
I think we both agree a better way should have been found.

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of Iraq, perhaps. In terms of the Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan, it was never gonna happen, the minute we were attacked, Afghanistan was going to suffer punishment for harboring Al Qaeda. It was an inevitable consequence of their attack on the US.

When the Muslims attack Shambhala, The 25th Kalkin king, Rudracakravartin, will lead Shambhala in a retaliatory attack on Mecca, defeating the Muslims and making the world safe for Dharma for another 1500 years, that is, if you believe the prophecies found in the Kālacakra Tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
It is pure vikalpa, from a Sautrantika point of view.
Well, a vitarka can be vikalpa can't it? Vikalpa isn't even a dharma in Sarvastivāda.
Vikalapa = imaginary.

Whatever Sarvastivādin reasonings may be, it is thoroughly rejected by Vasubandhu in the Bhaṣyaṃ.
I don't know his argument, but I think it might just be non-falsifiable.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read the Abhidharmakośabhaṣyaṃ then. It is the preliminary argument in chapter four, Karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
War for regime change is against the Geneva convention anyway. It is by definition a war crime. The whole Iraq war was one big crime.

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't support the war in Iraq, and still don't; but toppling the Hussein regime was a good thing for Iraq in the long run.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
greentara said:
Malcom, 'ok, Chicken Little'  Well I think Indrajala has made a few good points. You may not agree with them but I think they are worthy of consideration.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I don't agree. I think they are utterly worthless for consideration and should be dismissed out of hand as pure bigotry, something you might hear on a fundamentalist Christian television station.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra, it's rūpa, albeit non-informative.

Malcolm wrote:
Whatever Sarvastivādin reasonings may be, it is thoroughly rejected by Vasubandhu in the Bhaṣyaṃ.


Zhen Li said:
That being said, I'm not opposed to the idea that it's not a useful classification and may more or less amount to pure vitarka.

Malcolm wrote:
It is pure vikalpa, from a Sautrantika point of view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Well, that certainly makes sense.

I'm not sure that it actually refutes the notion of Avijñapti Rūpa, since for it's existence one would need vāsanā anyway. But, unfortunately, I am afraid I just realised might be non-falsifiable. I think that it might be that Avijñapti Rūpa is what 'appears' to be the case, e.g. that object X 'is' in the state of monkhood, regardless of consciousness. Even if that statehood is not informative.

But,  the notion of monkhood that does away with Avijñapti Rūpa, as you related, is sufficient and more relevant to questions of value judgements about the wholesomeness and fruitfulness of the state. And the question is really, is it actually the case that the state of monkhood 'exists,' and is actually informative, i.e. vijñapti rūpa?

I am afraid this is leading a bit off topic.

Malcolm wrote:
Sautrantikas refute avijñapti, substituting intention (cetana) as being sufficient for vows.

Zhen Li said:
is it actually the case that the state of monkhood 'exists,' and is actually informative, i.e. vijñapti rūpa?

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently not, as the case of our friend Jeff (Indrajala) demonstrates, since we can't really figure out what he means by "bhikṣu".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, having translated the whole thing

ConradTree said:
What do you think of Erik Pema Kunsang's translations?

Nowadays, he translates rigpa as "knowing" and marigpa as "unknowing".

He translated a tiny bit of Gonpa Zangthal in Wellsprings of the Great Perfection.


Malcolm wrote:
eric's translations are fine, but our styles are very different. His translation of rig pa and ma rig pa are perfectly correct, though I would prefer ma rig pa as ignorance i.e. avidyā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Khyentse Wangpo opines that the Gongpa Zangthal is the most profound of the Nyinthig cycles.



ConradTree said:
Yes that's also my opinion.

Now, what is your opinion on the most profound Nyinthig cycle?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, having translated the whole thing, I think that there places where the GZ is definitely clearer than the VN, and its Vārāhī instructions are infinitely more detailed than what you find in the KN or the KYN.

But I don't have really any personal opinion about it. Its all good Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
AlexanderS said:
There is also the problem with wind energy that it is highly unreliable. When the wind doesn't blow there is no energy is produced!


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and when it blows too strongly, the turbine must be locked.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Then someone would cease being a monk when the notion is no longer at hand in their mind. Which is not to say that the intention isn't a factor.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Vasubandhu says that as long as the series is not interrupted by a contrary intention, the vow is maintained. For example, if you have taken the vow not to take life, that vow is intact in the mind stream until you decide you want to kill something. Then you lose the vow because your intention is contrary to the intention that formed the vow. But you do not need to be mindful of that vow in some persistent sense constantly reminding yourself that you have the vow. It is sufficient that you took it, and when a situation comes up that demands you either follow the vow or break it, in a person of predominately positive mental factors, the vow will be followed automatically. The Sautrantika theory is very much grounded on the notion of vasanas. The longer you do not violate the initial intent of a vow, the stronger the trace to maintain that vow is. Of course, in the beginning, that trace will be quite weak, and therefore, more active mindfulness may be required. Eventually however, mindfulness and attentiveness (saṃprajāna) become ingrained, and one is called "well trained".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


AlexanderS said:
Being caught doesn't make it any less a crime,

Malcolm wrote:
Of course not.

Anyway, we are Buddhists, we do not believe in war at all, much less wars of aggression.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Im sorry Virgo, I'm trying to stay out of these conversations, but what you are saying here is bullshit. There are several documented instances of US soldiers comitting war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. A famous example was the video leaked by Bradley Manning. US marines are people trained to kill, and while US marines might be more disciplined than some of their enemies, there is no innocence in war.

Edit - Don't forget Abu Ghraib either.


Malcolm wrote:
Soldiers have rules of engagement. When those are violated, the soldiers are generally punished. Sometimes soldiers violate rules of engagement out of frustration, when caught, they are punished.

In the Manning video, the gun crew asked their CC for permission to fire. It was granted. It was not, from the US Military or US's point of view, an illegal killing. That is was a total mistake is a fact, that noncombatants were brutally killed by the US Army is a fact. Is there any legal remedy, maybe in a court of international law, but the soldiers followed proper procedures. Are the procedures themselves flawed, certainly. But then we had no business in Iraq anyway.

Abhu Ghraib has resulted in some court martials and convictions, but none were sever enough in my opinion. War is hell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Indrajala said:
I fear these trends will result in very undesirable developments in future decades.


Malcolm wrote:
Ok, Chicken Little.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 6th, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no justifiable argument that can be produced which can show that gay marriage is disadvantageous to society as a whole.

Indrajala said:
At least nothing we can discern at the moment. The future will tell.

As I said, recognizing gay marriage sets a legal precedent for any other unrecognized group seeking legal sanction for their presently unrecognized activities. This means advocates for child marriage amongst some minorities in the west will have another precedent to refer to as far as legal matters go.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense.



Indrajala said:
Have you checked the divorce rate lately?
Actually popular feminist values likely prompted the increase in divorce over the last few decades. This was perhaps another unforeseen consequence of rapid reforms. This is why a cautious albeit generally tolerant, conservative approach has many advantages rather than rushing through changes and attempting to stamp out disagreement.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, nonsense. The divorce rate rose in the seventies because most people married in the 60's in their early 20's. This set a precedent that continues unabated. Divorce, once scandalous, became increasingly acceptable as celebrities were marrying an divorcing at dizzying rates in the fifties and sixties.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:


Indrajala said:
No, the author is suggesting that a stable institution like heterosexual marriage (which is condoned and supported by religion) lends support to the unintelligent masses.

Malcolm wrote:
Have you checked the divorce rate lately? It is still pretty high, and it is only declining because people are declining to be married at very young ages. In 2011in the US there were:

Number of marriages: 2,118,000
Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population

This is hardly what we can define as "stable marriage", for every four people that get married, two people get divorced.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Scotland becomes 17th country to approve same-sex marria
Content:
Indrajala said:
There is no historical precedent for this sort of thing. Gay marriage allows same-sex parents to raise children. Again, there is no historical precedent for such arrangements and it remains to be seen what this will eventually bring in western societies.

Malcolm wrote:
Having known many children of same-sex couples, all that I have met are heterosexual in orientation, though I am sure there are children of same sex couples who themselves are also gay, I just haven't met any.  Since gay couples actually want children and often have to jump through high hoops to have them, they are generally much more loving and supportive as a whole population than heterosexual parents are. So, my experience with the children of same sex couples is that they do extremely well in school, are highly motivated to succeed, and are well loved and turn out to be fantastic people with few problems. So what down side can there be? Added to this, same sex couples who want kids are themselves usually in good relationships and are professionally successful.

Marriage is just a business contract. Gender orientation and marriage are not coterminous. There are many gay men and women for example in history who have married for the social protections such arrangements offered. Now gay persons can marry people of their own orientation. There is no justifiable argument that can be produced which can show that gay marriage is disadvantageous to society as a whole. People who make such arguments are like those who argued against "miscegenation". In other words, they are bigots seeking intellectual justification for their bigotry.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Meeting Taiwan's new-age Buddhists
Content:
Zhen Li said:
I should also note an important abhidharmic element which is being denied by those who don't see the value of the Vinaya. It is that when one engages in ordination, as with many other types of status changes, one then engages in a certain Avijñapti Karma, which results in the possession of a certain Avijñapti Rūpa, or uninformative matter.

Malcolm wrote:
This theory is rejected by Vasubandhu actually. The Sautrantika position is that vows are intentions and do not create an avijñapti.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 9:01 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
conebeckham said:
That is samsara.  The Rabbit Hole. The Blue Pill.

shel said:
This touches on a point I made earlier but there was no response.

In both the fictional stories of Alice in Wonderland and the Matrix there is an illusory world, but behind that illusory world is a 'real' world, so in these cases there is a correct or meaningful use of the term illusory. So where is the real world in Buddhism?

Malcolm wrote:
It's illusion all the way down...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Wind, wave, solar.... these are more difficult to 'own' as such. I suspect that stockmarket investors would expect less of a return on these sorts of technologies. It's not impossible that that could change over time, but renewables need to be developed now, before more damage is done to the environment.

Malcolm wrote:
You are being naive, these things are quite easy to own, they simply are expensive technologies (dependent on petroleum based manufacturing), with short lifespans (the average wind generator has a life span of about 20 years) that no one will invest in without heavy government subsidies.

Actually, in the US, renewables are a very fast growing part of the energy economy, but there are all kinds of problems with wind depending on where it is going to be sited.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 10:26 PM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
when searched for, apart from a mere appearance, keys and other such phenomena cannot be found no matter how hard one may try.

PadmaVonSamba said:
When you say, " cannot be found ",
exactly what do mean by "keys"?
Can you be a little more descriptive?
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Just what I said. Please review the seven fold reasoning of the chariot found in Chandrakirit's Madhyamaka avatara for more detail.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That's certainly what we have been told to think ... but hold on a moment: who told us to think that?
Kim

Malcolm wrote:
It's obvious.

Kim O'Hara said:
Hi, Malcolm,
Do you mean it's, "Obvious that going after fossil fuels would destroy the world economy" or, "Obvious who told us to think that"?
I disagree with the first and can provide evidence as to its falsity, but agree with the second ... at least, I have some likely candidates in mind. You may have others and may be right about them too.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Kim,

At present our manufacturing capacity as well as our agricultural capacity is completely dependent on fossil fuels, not to mention the grids in various countries. Until someone discovers another relatively inexpensive source of consumable energy that does not itself depend on fossil fuels, at present world population levels it is irresponsible to start eliminating the use of fossil fules by fiat. Is eliminating their use a desiderata? Certainly. Does our world ecology demand it, certainly. Can we do so immediately and globally? No, our addiction to fossil fuels is so deep, that it is impossible for us to withdraw from fossil fuels at this time. Every part of global trade, manufacture and agriculture extensively uses fossil fuels.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
Drikung_Dzogchen said:
You are right, there is the Vima Nyingthig connection but Tulku Thondup says Longchen Nyingthig is also essence of Khandro Nyingthig.

Malcolm wrote:
Sort of, the Rigdzin Dupa is definitely modeled on a very similar sadhana found in the Khandro Nyinthig. But the Dzogchen teachings in the LN depend primarily on the Vima Nyinthig.

The Khandro Nyinthig is more or less a combination of Nyinthig with Anuyoga practices of various kinds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That's certainly what we have been told to think ... but hold on a moment: who told us to think that?
Kim

Malcolm wrote:
It's obvious.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
You're not making sense, all sorts of things can be found about objects besides their 'mere appearance'.

Malcolm wrote:
When you investigate one appearance, for example, "keys", you will not find "keys" in the parts, separate from the parts or in all the parts no matter how hard you try.  It is the same with a person, you will not find a person in all the aggregates, one aggregate or separate from the aggregates. A person, while apparent, is just an illusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
We've already discussed that workers are not free to simply go and work somewhere else.
Capitalists own the means of production, i.e. the places of employment. And capitalism, produces endemic levels of unemployment, ensures a never ending stream of unemployed people who would be willing to work for less. An engineered race to the bottom.

Just because somebody consents that does not mean they aren't being exploited. It really depends on what their other options are. In an extremelly unequal society, 'consent' doesn't add up to much.


E.g. Here is an article about girls being trafficked into the sex industry and questions the concept of consent. (Malcolm will love it, it's from Harvard .)
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol27/balos.pdf


Malcolm wrote:
It is simple. People go where there is work, and they sell their labor. The more skilled they are, the more they earn. So, the moral of the story is to make sure your kids do well in school if you want them to be more successful.

As for the sex trade, this is not a fair comparison.

Anyway, I am about done here. We will never see eye to eye about this so it is pointless to continue going around and around. As far as I can tell, there is no benefit to the types of politics you follow for anyone. At least, in the present economic system, people can and do with regularity and a bit of personal initiative pull themselves up out of poverty. There is a reason everyone wants to come to the States, and it is not because it sucks here.

More importantly, however, I think that Marxism, not to mention Anarchism, and Buddhism are utterly irreconcilable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Vietnam (and now Afghanistan) were/are wars aimed at controlling heroin production and distribution.

Malcolm wrote:
Never though you went in for conspiracy theories, guess I was wrong.

Sherab Dorje said:
I am not into conspiracy theories.  I worked with Afghan refugees and knew people working in Afghanistan for Medecins Sans Frontiers.  Unfortunately it is not a conspiracy theory.  You forget the guns for drugs antics of the Iran-Contra affair?    Short memory you have there Malcolm.  Was that a conspiracy theory too?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am well aware of the facts of the Iran/Contra case, but we are not in Afghanistan to control the heroin trade.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 7:10 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
oil-subsidies.jpg
Could this have something to do with why we haven't already taken strong action against fossil fuels?


KIm


Malcolm wrote:
We have not gone after fossil fuels because it would destroy the world economy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Vietnam (and now Afghanistan) were/are wars aimed at controlling heroin production and distribution.

Malcolm wrote:
Never though you went in for conspiracy theories, guess I was wrong.

Sherab Dorje said:
If Vietnam was a proxy war with the Communists then why didn't the US invade Cambodia or Laos?

Malcolm wrote:
We did, illegally. We had a secret war there.

Sherab Dorje said:
The US needed Korea to be able to maintain a foothold (military bases) on continental East Asia.

Malcolm wrote:
That was not in our planning at the time. That is a net effect, not an intention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I, on the other hand, by employing people and giving them a fair wage based on their skills, am only accruing positive karma.
And who decides if you are paying a fair wage based on their skills?...

Malcolm wrote:
The value of their labor is what they agree to sell it for. If they think they can do better, they are free to try and sell their labor elsewhere. It is the same as if I have a fish. I can try and sell for as much as I like, but the price will always be in accord with demand. That is simply the way economies work.

tellyontellyon said:
Perhaps you'll be the one with the bad Karma?

Malcolm wrote:
There is no bad karma when two people enter into an agreement of exchange and each honors their part of the bargain.

Connolly again: The capital of the master class is not their property; it is the unpaid labor of the working class - 'the hire of the laborer kept back by fraud'.
I simply do not agree that this is so. Of course employers have the option, if they choose, of profit sharing. But it is not a right that employees have, it is a privilege granted by the employer.

You cannot have a market economy under your version of Socialism where people are free to buy and sell as they wish, whatever they wish, so I do not support it. People are not free under your version of Socialism, they must do the bidding of committees and party functionaries.

I also do not agree with anarcho-capitalists, this is another extreme vision.

Markets requires sound regulations in order to keep them stable and functioning. Among those regulations may indeed be wage guarantees so that people without skills may at least make a living wage, but no more than that. We have seen in this country what happens to industries when the unions get a stranglehold on them: they become moribund, eventually sicken and then die. On the other hand, in the beginning unions were important in setting many workplace precedents, and I think that unions have positive roles to play as well. It is a delicate balance.

The fact of the matter is that my thinking comes from analyzing how I feel in these various situations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
A lot of people forget the revolutions of 1848 were fundamentally bourgeois revolutions, because while they have more economic power than aristocracies, they were barred from the tables of power. "Liberalism" in the 19th century Europe meant empowering the bourgeois politically. At least that is what I was taught at Harvard.
Yes, and the great reform movement in the UK was led by the dissenters, who were great entrepreneurs. Liberalism in Europe was protestantism stripped of god, but affirming the same "god given rights" as the Puritans, i.e. equality and democracy.

Unlike Marxists, I don't believe in any materialist force behind the past 400 years, just good intentions gone too far.

I read this today, found it a fun read, and I more or less agree with all of the positions: http://cathedralwhatever.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/premises-of-reactionary-thought-taking-stock/


Malcolm wrote:
I whole heartedly agree with this:

Libertarianism is retarded.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Once again, this underlines the futility of many of the post-colonial critiques that really have little to no grounding in economic reality - at the same time, it obviously underlines the futility of imperialist arguments.

Malcolm, what do you think of Westphalian Peace?


Malcolm wrote:
It looks like a historical model fresh on the minds the American Colonials when they forged the Republic. The constitutional congress was very much like this. Most people do not realize for example that Puritans invaded Maryland and ruled it for ten years in the 1650's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
just understand that the bourgeoisie fundamentally always leans towards the progressive, puritan, democratic, and protestant side of things in the world, and you're set.

Malcolm wrote:
A lot of people forget the revolutions of 1848 were fundamentally bourgeois revolutions, because while they have more economic power than aristocracies, they were barred from the tables of power. "Liberalism" in the 19th century Europe meant empowering the bourgeois politically. At least that is what I was taught at Harvard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We didn't steal anything from Iraq. Their oil reserves were certainly not worth an invasion. We did not steal anything from Afghanistan. They have no developed industries. Maybe some US soldiers bought some heroin. Panama has been in the US sphere of influence for a Century. We did them a favor by getting rid of Noriega, even if he was originally a CIA puppet.

We didn't steal anything from Vietnam, though we did bomb the hell out of them. If you wan to accuse someone of stealing from their, look to the French. We invested hundreds of millions, but never got anything back except 50,000 dead bodies for our troubles. We did not steal anything from S. Korea, nor Japan.

Sherab Dorje said:
So the invasions and occupations were done out of the goodness of their heart?  Just for the hell of it?  C'mon Malcolm...  Give me a break!

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it did have the net effect of injecting our manufacturing economy with increased production of weapons. After the war, in the 1970's, the bottom fell out of the arms industry in the US.

But basically everyone agrees that Iraq, Vietnam, etc. were expensive mistakes, and nothing substantial was won in these engagements.

Korea and Vietnam were just proxy wars with the Communists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Point 2) No, I don't think we are stealing anything from anyone.

Sherab Dorje said:
Iraq?  Afghanistan?  Panama?  Actually, almost any Central and Southern American country you can imagine (especially during the Reagan years), Before that it was Vietnam and Laos.  South Korea.  Japan.  Etc...  Hell, they even tried to steal from Somalia, but they got their ass whipped.  Imagine trying to steal from Somalia.  Like stealing from a beggar, really.

Malcolm wrote:
We didn't steal anything from Iraq. Their oil reserves were certainly not worth an invasion. We did not steal anything from Afghanistan. They have no developed industries. Maybe some US soldiers bought some heroin. Panama has been in the US sphere of influence for a Century. We did them a favor by getting rid of Noriega, even if he was originally a CIA puppet.

We didn't steal anything from Vietnam, though we did bomb the hell out of them. If you want to accuse someone of stealing from there, look to the French. We invested hundreds of millions, but never got anything back except 50,000 dead bodies for our troubles. We did not steal anything from S. Korea, nor Japan.

Sherab Dorje said:
China and Japan are heavily dependent on us to buy their imports.
Why?

Malcolm wrote:
In the case of China, it is because they manufacture things cheaper than can be done in the US due to labor costs. Japan has a cornered a market on cars and electronics.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:


shel said:
You have yet to offer a reason. With no reason it appears that you merely lack the ability to find.

Malcolm wrote:
I gave you a reason, which I will repeat a final time, in case you have not clearly understood.

The reason is precisely because, like an illusion, nothing can be ascertained of phenomena apart from their mere appearance. Just as an illusory elephant cannot be found when searched for, likewise, when searched for, apart from a mere appearance, keys and other such phenomena cannot be found no matter how hard one may try.

Now of course, if you wish, adhere to a belief in some species of "objective existence", but that's your problem and not mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Anyway.... What bothers you more: the karmic fate of your exploited workers?... Or your attachment to your 'capital investment'?


Malcolm wrote:
If I allow my employees to steal my business, they will certainly incur a great deal of negative karma. I, on the other hand, by employing people and giving them a fair wage based on their skills, am only accruing positive karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:

If it's all the ripening of Karma, why worry.... just accept it.

Malcolm wrote:
One has no choice but to accept one's ripened karma. There is nothing one can do about it, apart from becoming a realized person. One can however change the karma one has in future lives, buy avoiding the ten non-virtues and adopting their opposite.

Of course, taking what has not been given is the best way to ensure that you will be a pauper or worse in your next life. One simply cannot reconcile the seizure property advocated under Marxism with Buddhist ethics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Edit.... or perhaps you would be out on your ear...?

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe so, but it would be their future bad karma, but merely the ripening of my past bad karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Zhen Li:
Just to point out that Marx was talking about abolishing bourgeois property, I.e. ownership of the means of production.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, thank the founding fathers that ownership of "bourgeois property" is a right protected in the US Constitution.

I can guarantee you, if I had a small factory that manufactured, say, herbal products, and people I employed decided they owned my factory and not me, after I had made all the capital investments to build that business, they would be out on their ear and looking for another job. And if they disturbed my right to conduct my business in peace, of course I would call the police, as would any sane person.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: is there a teacher in the house? or at least some advice
Content:
rubix said:
Was only asking about books doesn't matter anymore I found out what I needed to know I'm in the 5th stage I found it in one of my BOOKS

Malcolm wrote:
You can delude yourself if you like.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: is there a teacher in the house? or at least some advice
Content:
rubix said:
I posted in personal experiences about dzogchen and got no where except backwards. I'm doing the best I can without a teacher reading lots and learning a lot too, seeing how I probably won't find a teacher just like that can anyone recommend a book that outlines the completion stage of dzogchen or can someone explain it

Malcolm wrote:
No one will help you, publicly at least, because you do not have a teacher and the necessary transmissions. It is a question of samaya, the code of conduct that governs the secrecy around these teachings. And I gave you advice in the other thread. Now it is up to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We are discussing illusions and not keys...

shel said:
So keys are not illusory, interesting!

Malcolm wrote:
Prior to analysis, even an illusion of an elephant is taken to be an elephant at face value. One can understand keys and other phenomena in the same way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
That is not a reason. You're only saying that it cannot bear your analysis. If you lost your keys, for example, and did not possess the ability to find them, it would be premature, to say the least, to declare you keys illusory.


Malcolm wrote:
We are discussing illusions and not keys: the analogy is thus, just as illusions cannot bear analysis, likewise, neither can phenomena. They are both the same in being phenomena that arise from conditions, but when subject to analysis, nothing can be found about them to indicate they are anything other than mere appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is a mere insubstantial appearance that cannot bear analysis.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Why? does it break down and start crying?
appearances can bear analysis. they just always fail the "inherently existent" test.
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
No, appearances cannot bear ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Drikung Dzogchen Lineage
Content:
Drikung_Dzogchen said:
Just wanted to clarify that Ganor Rinpoche is Nyingma and not part of the Drikung Kagyu Lineage. He is a Terton that has revealed a number of practices including a Vajrakilaya cycle. I do not know if he revealed an Achi Terma but he did have a vision of Achi Chokyi Drolma that revealed to him that Lho Ontul Rinpoches son Ratna Rinpoche was the Quality emanation of the Drikung Terton Lho Nuden Dorje. Historically Lho Ontul Rinpoche entered the Drikung Kagyu lineage in the 19th century as the older brother of Lho Nuden Dorje. But Achi Chkyi Drolma is also practiced in other lineages such as in Dujom Rinpoche's tradition. At the Khenpo brothers center in New York State her image can be seen. One of her emanations is said to be  Yeshe Tsogyal.The late  Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok when visiting Terdrom where the Yangzab Terma was revealed had a vision of a wrathful form of Achi Chokyi Drolma and composed a praise to her. Once H.E. Garchen Rinpoche gave me the transmission for the 108 Tara's and stopped at Achi Chokyi Drolma to let me know she was also an emanation of Tara before he finished the transmission. I would be interested to know if Ganor Rinpoche has revealed any Achi termas. Other Achi Termas were revealed by the Drikung Terton Osel Dorje as well as a very special Pure Vision practice of Achi Chokyi Drolma that was received by the previous H.E. Tritasab Rinpoche. This is an amazing practice that was brought out of Tibet by Lho Ontul Rinpoche in the 80's who then gave the transmission to H.H. Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche. In 2004 at the Monkey Year teachings the most current incarnation of H.E. Tritsab Rinpoche gave the transmission for this practice. In this practice Achi Chokyi Drolma can be practiced as the Lama, Yidam, Dakini, or protector. It is supplemented by many different useful concise practices. The previous H.E. Tritab Rinpoche revealed this while he was in a Chinese Labor Camp in the late sixties. It is very much a practice for these times.

Malcolm wrote:
You might try taking a breath. Paragraphs and punctuation which make for readability are nice too.

Just wanted to clarify that Ganor Rinpoche is Nyingma and not part of the Drikung Kagyu Lineage. He is a Terton that has revealed a number of practices including a Vajrakilaya cycle. I do not know if he revealed an Achi Terma, but he did have a vision of Achi Chokyi Drolma that revealed to him that Lho Ontul Rinpoche's son, Ratna Rinpoche, was the Quality emanation of the Drikung Terton Lho Nuden Dorje. Historically Lho Ontul Rinpoche entered the Drikung Kagyu lineage in the 19th century as the older brother of Lho Nuden Dorje. 

Achi Chkyi Drolma is also practiced in other lineages such as in Dujom Rinpoche's tradition. At the Khenpo brothers center in New York State her image can be seen. One of her emanations is said to be  Yeshe Tsogyal. The late  Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, when visiting Terdrom where the Yangzab Terma was revealed, had a vision of a wrathful form of Achi Chokyi Drolma and composed a praise to her. 

Once H.E. Garchen Rinpoche gave me the transmission for the 108 Tara's and stopped at Achi Chokyi Drolma to let me know she was also an emanation of Tara before he finished the transmission. I would be interested to know if Ganor Rinpoche has revealed any Achi termas. 

Other Achi Termas were revealed by the Drikung Terton Osel Dorje. Also there is a very special Pure Vision practice of Achi Chokyi Drolma that was received by the previous H.E. Tritasab Rinpoche. This is an amazing practice that was brought out of Tibet by Lho Ontul Rinpoche in the 80's, who then gave the transmission to H.H. Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche. In 2004, at the Monkey Year teachings, the most current incarnation of H.E. Tritsab Rinpoche gave the transmission for this practice. In this practice, Achi Chokyi Drolma can be practiced as the Lama, Yidam, Dakini, or protector. It is supplemented by many different useful concise practices. The previous H.E. Tritab Rinpoche revealed this while he was in a Chinese Labor Camp in the late sixties. It is very much a practice for these times.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The only thing that is true is the cognition of dharmatā. That most certainly requires some kind of direct introduction ...

dzogchungpa said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but is it supposed to be obvious that this requires some kind of direct introduction?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not obvious at all, hence the reason one is considered fortunate to meet secret mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Illusion in the Buddhist sense meaning merely impermanence has meaning, on the other hand.

Malcolm wrote:
Illusion in the (Mahāyāna) Buddhist sense means that when you see an illusion and you investigate it, the illusion you saw cannot be found.

shel said:
Because?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a mere insubstantial appearance that cannot bear analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
Drikung_Dzogchen said:
If I am correct the Longchen Nyingtig is also very related to the Khandro Nyingtig.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is related to the VIma Nyinthig.



Drikung_Dzogchen said:
And one of Jigme Lingpa's main practices was a different terma revealed by both Gyalwang Rinchen Phuntsog as well as his root student Sherab Ozer. I imagine that Jigme Lingpa could have very well received the Yangzab.

Malcolm wrote:
He did.


Drikung_Dzogchen said:
Jigme Lingpa was devoted enough to Gyalwang Rinchen Phuntsog that he composed a short Namthar (life story) of his Rinchen Phuntsogs life. So I could be wrong but the Yangzab could be the first concise Nyingtig cycle based on the Nyingtig Yabshi, in particular the Khandro Nyingtig.

Malcolm wrote:
That distinction goes to Ratna Lingpa.

Drikung_Dzogchen said:
The Yangzab contains everything necessary to traverse all the stages of Dzogchen practice. And yes it does have quite a few Wrathful practices but they are not the heart of the terma. We have to remember just how chaotic the 16th century was in Tibet. Gyalwang Rinchen Phuntsog who was equally a fully accomplished practitioner of Mahamudra and the traditional Drikung Kagyu teachings marks a turning point in the Drikung Kagyu lineage. He chose (in his Namthar was called by the Dakinis) to step down as the head of the Drikung Kagyu lineage and go to the mountains above Terdrom where he engaged in extensive retreat and revealed the Yangzab Terma. During this time period the Karma Kagyu and the Drikung Kagyu allied themselves against Ganden and went to war which proved to be a disaster for both lineages, Ganden prevailed. Though Gyalwang Rinchen Phuntsog was not involved in this war he undoubtedly had many enemies who wished him dead. Some of these enemies probably were from within the Drikung Kagyu lineage who help prejudices against the Nyingma teachings. So these wrathful practices were probably very necessary for the times he lived in. But though the Yangzab Terma cannot said to be the most popular cycle, that really matters very little. It has been maintained up to the present time. Gyalwang Rinchen Phuntsog transcended any type of sectarian lineage labels. He really is an early example of the Rime tradition. His root student Sherab Ozer who before meeting Rinchen Phuntsog was trained in the Sakya tradition, and possibly the Gelugpa to some degree. But more importantly he composed what may be the first Rime text outlining how all the lineages fit together as a whole and embody the Buddha's teachings without conflict. The great jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche of the 19th century who brought the Rime movement to full bloom references this text by Sherab Ozer. There is still much research to be done but there are many interesting questions here regarding these various connections. I would be interested in anyone's input as my knowledge is more limited. But I will finish with the following. Gyalwang Rinchen Phuntsog played a major (and not always acknowledged role) in shaping the Drikung Lineage down to the present time. Dudjom Rinpoche said that Rinchen Phuntsog helped save the Nyingma lineage when it was persecuted by the Gelugpa and certain transmissions were in danger of being broken. Rinchen Phuntsog transmitted the Nyingtig Yabshi as well as many other Nyingma transmissions to Lamas who would go on to be very important in upholding the Nyingma lineage. Also Rinchen Phuntsogs's son who was a throne holder of the Drikung lineage was the father to five Tulkus, two of which were the first HH Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang and the first HH Drikung Kyabgon Chutsang. From this time on the Drikung lineage would be led reincarnations of these two HH Drikung Kyabgon tulkus.The first HH Drikung Kyabgon Chutsang who is also known as Rigzen Chokyi Dragpa was said to be the reincarnation of Rinchen Phuntsog. His collected works comprise of about 15 volumes. He composed numerous Yangzab sadhanas based on the root Terma texts revealed by Rinchen Phuntsog making the practices clearer. The Shinje or Yamantaka practice which is very special to the Drikung Kagyu lineage entered the lineage through Rinchen Phuntsog. Rigzen Chokyi Dragpa or the first HH Drikung Kyabgon Chutsang had numerous Shinje pure visions which then became the Shinje Drubchen that is practiced down to the current day. So I know I have gone on into many different topics than what I started with but I welcome input or corrections and hope my ramblings are of some benefit.

Malcolm wrote:
You can stop advertising now...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Yangzab and Chokling tersar
Content:
Drikung_Dzogchen said:
Where does he describe the Yangzab in those terms Malcom.

Malcolm wrote:
I forget exactly where, but it is definitely in there. You can ask David Arndt also, since when I was working on these texts for him, we discussed it.

You have to understand that the outer three roots is basically just a elaborated version of the Hayagriva/Yogini sadhana in the KN.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
Illusion in the Buddhist sense meaning merely impermanence has meaning, on the other hand.

Malcolm wrote:
Illusion in the (Mahāyāna) Buddhist sense means that when you see an illusion and you investigate it, the illusion you saw cannot be found.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...the ultimate of Madhyamaka can only be established relatively ...

dzogchungpa said:
Can you expalin that a little more?


Malcolm wrote:
It means that according to Madhyamaka there are two so called ultimates, one is nominal, the other is the direct perception of emptiness.

But from a Dzogchen point of view, since all relative truths are objects of false cognitions, even the cognition of the nominal ultimate is faulty. The only thing that is true is the cognition of dharmatā. That most certainly requires some kind of direct introduction which is lacking in Sutra teachings. The main advantage to Vajrayāna teachings is that dharmatā or the example wisdom, is introduced during the time of empowerment. In the case of gsar ma, it is the introduction of bliss and emptiness at the time of the third and fourth empowerments; in the case of the Dzogchen it is the introduction of the potentiality of vidyā during anyone of the four styles of empowerment, elaborate, unelaborate and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is no contradiction.

shel said:
I never claimed a contradiction. I merely pointed out that if everything is false then nothing is false. That is also false of course, because I thought it.

Malcolm wrote:
So there you go. On the other, everything being false does not make everything true, that is a non sequitur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: Yangzab and Chokling tersar
Content:
Drikung_Dzogchen said:
Maybe if is fair to say the Yangzab is an appendix to the Khandro Nyingtig...

Malcolm wrote:
Rinchen Puntsog himself describes the Yangzab as an appendix to the Khadro Nyinthig. Hard to get more authoritative than that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
How many brands are there?

Malcolm wrote:
Count how many things there are, and that will give you the number.

shel said:
Everything is an illusion, remember, including the concept of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, there is no contradiction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
conebeckham said:
Interesting....Malcolm, do you know if the actual Indian sources are translated into English?  Haribadra's and Vimuktisena's works, I mean....?

Malcolm wrote:
You should Makransky's book, Buddhahood Embodied I believe, where he details all this. Sparham has translated Ārya Vimuktisena's commentary on AA in full. Dense reading, but worth it.

To My knowledge, Haribhadra's Aloka and Sphutartha remain untranslated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
How many brands are there?

Malcolm wrote:
Count how many things there are, and that will give you the number.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
...if everything is an illusion then nothing is an illusion.

Malcolm wrote:
You have a problem with that? You need something real in contrast to an illusion? Something non-empty so there can be emptiness?

shel said:
Emptiness is a human concept, my good man, and thus an illusion.

Malcolm wrote:
That's one kind of emptiness. But just one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Make Life Meaningless
Content:
shel said:
...if everything is an illusion then nothing is an illusion.

Malcolm wrote:
You have a problem with that? You need something real in contrast to an illusion? Something non-empty so there can be emptiness?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
conebeckham said:
Lama Gongdu has mengagde level stuff, doesn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
All of these do. Typically it is often stated there are three main Nyinthigs: the Nyingthig Yabshi is the most extensive, the Gongpa Zangthal is the middle length, and Ati Zabdon is the concise one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate.

M

Tsongkhapafan said:
This sounds like nihilism, can you please explain what is affirmed by Dzogchen? Anything?

Thank you

Malcolm wrote:
Self-originated wisdom, rang byung ye shes, svayambhujñāna, the three kāyas, everything thing else is false, thus there is no basis for establishing an ultimate since the relative is merely a delusion (and the ultimate of Madhyamaka can only be established relatively). Dzogchen texts frequently state there is only one stage, buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
As for political instability... you never know what is lurking around the corner for the US.  Anyway, wouldn't you say that its stability is based largely on gorging its population on resources stolen from other countries?  Not exactly an ecological consciouness.  And even with the amount of resources at its disposal it still has a HUGE foreign debt and the US still allows its citizens to go without universal health care, etc...

Malcolm wrote:
As to point 1) I don't think so.

Point 2) No, I don't think we are stealing anything from anyone.

Point 3) If I owe you a hundred dollars, I have to be nice to you. If I owe you a 100,000,000 million, you have to be nice to me.



US foreign debt is 5.6 trillion as of 1/1/13.

If you look, you will see most of debt is held by Other (29.3%) China (22.5%) and Japan (19.0%), in descending order.

China and Japan are heavily dependent on us to buy their imports. So, I don't really see this as a problem for us. The total external debt however is preposterous: 17,344,649,888,998 i.e. 17.3 trillion dollars. Followed by the UK and 10 trillion, followed by France and Germany, and so on. However, of the US debt, 12 trillion is held by Americans. So we are in no danger.

Point 4) The Affordable Care Act is meant to address that through the market. I think it is a bad idea, personally, and support Universal Health Care, but it seems the majority of Americans still cling to the illusion of market choices where their health care is concerned rather than understanding that health care, even if private, should be a regulated monopoly like any other utility.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, I've been to a lot of places in the world, Africa, Asia, India, Europe, etc., and while they are all have their points, and I have enjoyed being in them all, the US offers a basic political stability and natural wealth that is hard to beat in most other places in the world. I live in one of the largest contiguous forests in the world, i.e., 25 million acres of trees from Pennsylvania to Maine. Where I live it is largely eco-conscience, we have a strong tradition of social welfare, at a local level we practice direct democracy (Town meetings, invented in the Massachusetts Bay Colony), it is water wealthy because of the forests, etc. Also the Northwest, Oregon and Washington, have a culture that mirrors ours because they were initially settled by New Englanders. There are physical advantages to living here in the Northeast that you can't really find elsewhere because of the wealth of our economy (even when it is in arrears), natural resources and so on.

India, Africa and China are eco-disasters waiting to happen for many reasons. Russia, while filled with a lot of trees, is too damn cold. Europe is nice, but restrictive. Latin America is fun, but politically unstable.

Canada, on the other hand, has many of the advantages of the Unites States as well.

So, I pick the US, especially the Northeast and Northwest.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: "...but the science of Buddhism will never change."
Content:


ConradTree said:
But Rongzom says Dzogchen rejects any relative truth.

Dzogchen only subscribes to 1 truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we were talking about sutra.

Further, Dzogchen rejects the two truths, because relative "truth" is not true, being a deluded cognition. But Dzogchen does not reject appearances which appear to ignorance (ma rig pa).

Dzogchen substitutes vidyā and āvidyā (rig pa and ma rig pa) for the term "pāramārtha satya" and "samvṛitti satya".

Also one will discover that Dzogchen, in rejecting the two truths, also rejects ultimate truth, as it states in The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra:
Since there is no ultimate, also the name “relative” does not exist.
And as it says in Soaring Great Garuda:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
So not only is the relative negated in Dzogchen, so is any concept of ultimate.

M

ConradTree said:
Is there a published source on these quotes?

It would really help me out.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not these exact translations, for they are mine, but you can find them in the Supreme Source, or Dowman's Original Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Which country in the world do you think is closest in fulfilling those ideals?

Malcolm wrote:
For all the crap people give the US, I'd pick the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 8:05 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
HH Dalai Lama:

"I am a supporter of globalization"
http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/362-exclusive-interview---i-am-a-supporter-of-globalization

So what it is that we need?

Dalai Lama:

I call it a "responsible free market economy

Sherab Dorje said:
And in the another article he says he is a Marxist and had great respect for Mao... go figure.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it appears during the last decade HHDL's thinking about these things has somewhat evolved. Personally, I think what he actually means by "Marxist" is that a state should provide guaranteed minimal welfare for its citizens. This is very consistent, for example, with the recommendations found in the Ratnavali and so on. I think he also recognizes that a free market economy provides opportunities that are not possible in a planned economy. Free markets spur more than mere exchange of goods. They also spur creativity, for better or for worse.

My perspective is that in an ideal society there is a balance struck between a market economy, providing minimum support needed for citizens (health care, emergency relief, infrastructure) and the ecosystem, with the ecosystem being a dominant consideration. In other words, if a particular market has a particularly negative impact on the ecosystem, it should be be tightly regulated, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 8:01 PM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
ConradTree said:
Okay, forget about popular.

What was considered the best Menngagde cycle before Longchen Nyingthig?

Gonpa Zangthal right?


Malcolm wrote:
Khyentse Wangpo opines that the Gongpa Zangthal is the most profound of the Nyinthig cycles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no Buddhist "political theory".

kirtu said:
There is: Nagarjuna's Precious Garland.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that is a systematic political theory, Kirt. It is a Niti śastra, advice on governance, not a well constructed political theory like Kautilya's Arthaśastra, i.e. Treatise on Ends.

I would say that it is what it is, advice to a King, with come policy recommendations. However, I do agree that it contains the essentials for forming the basis of someone's political conscience.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 9:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
HH Dalai Lama:

"I am a supporter of globalization"
http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/362-exclusive-interview---i-am-a-supporter-of-globalization

So what it is that we need?

Dalai Lama:

I call it a "responsible free market economy


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 3rd, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cyc
Content:
ConradTree said:
Before Longchen Nyingthig, what was the most popular cycle?

Gongpa Zangthal right?


Malcolm wrote:
Probably Konchog Chidu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
We want to make the Buddha a capitalist, or a socialist, or an anarchist, or an authoritarian in order to justify our preferences.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and this is a problem. Buddha could not have been a capitalist, but he clearly approved of markets and trade; he could not have been a socialist, but he clearly set up temporary propertyless communes that eventually became permanent. He was not by any means an anarchist, since hierarchy clearly established in his sangha with monks, novices and lay people. And he was not an authoritarian since he recommended humanitarian values to rulers.

Like I said in the (currently locked) http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=15439 thread, it might well be that a truly Dharmic social/political reality may not satisfy liberal values at all.  Who knows?[/quote]

We can only find out by trying to live with others according to our Buddhist values and see how they play out politically. These online forums are in fact an example of just that. And if history shows anything, it shows we still have some maturity to develop in our interactions with one another, myself included.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Origins of Dzogchen
Content:
mystic author said:
The fact he received numerous empowerments and did sadhana contradicts what he wrote.

Malcolm wrote:
This merely proves that you do not understand Dzogchen.

The root tantra of Dzogchen, the sGra thal gyur states quite unequivocably:
In order to utterly purify
the body, voice and mind of migrating beings,
fortunate one's are to ripened. 
The continuums of the devoted is ripened
in four different ways;
elaborately, unelaborately, 
very unelaborately
and extremely unelaborately.
Also, for the purpose of perfuming,
the approach, accomplishment and near approach
are performed by a qualified Guru. 
In addition, construct the mandala coming from the tantras,
with the earth rite, 
the preparations, the layout and the powders. 
After that, the rite of conferring empowerment
begins from the the śravaka vehicle.
Having completed the eight stages [of vehicles[,
confer the Great Perfection empowerment of the potentiality of vidyā,
and explain the purpose of each of those [steps],
the the entry, and special power.
There are a great number of other such citations. For example, The Mirror of the Heart Tantra states:

Where will accomplishment be without relying on the empowerments of secret mantra? For example, it is like a boatman without a paddle. How will one be able to cross to the other side? If the empowerments are fully obtained, all secret mantras not accomplished will be accomplished.

mystic author said:
Did he ever describe Togal the way, say, Jigme Lingpa or Karma Chagme does?

Malcolm wrote:
In a great more detail in fact in such collections as the bLama yang tig, the mKha' 'gro yang tig, the Zab mo yang tig, as well as the Tshig don rin po che mdzod and the Theg mchog mdzod. Without Longchenpa, the brief presentations of Jigme Lingpa and Karma Chagme would not be possible.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here is what I am talking about:

You are a Buddhist: you have political choice a, b and c. What is your criteria for making a choice? How do your choices square with your practice as a Buddhist? How will your choices inform those around you? Etc.

There is no Buddhist "political theory". In absence of such a theory, how do we conduct ourselves in our political lives (we all have them, even the "apolitical") in accordance with Buddha's teachings?

Sherab Dorje said:
If we are limited in what political choice we can make then I guess the best we can do is choose the one we believe/feel will cause the least harm and the most benefit for the greatest number of sentient beings.  I would say that anything that accords with the Noble Eightfold path would be the safest bet under most circumstances.

Malcolm wrote:
We are always limited in what political choices we can make, to a certain extent.

Secondly, we all have various political convictions, how do these square with the Buddha's teachings. More importantly, is it important that they do?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Again, I am talking about personal conduct, not political parties.

Sherab Dorje said:
Dude, your opening question was: What would a middle way politics look like, one informed by the Buddha's teachings rather than those of secular authors?
A meritocracy is not (necessarily) about political parties.


Malcolm wrote:
I never said that I was talking about a meritocracy either.

Here is what I am talking about:

You are a Buddhist: you have political choice a, b and c. What is your criteria for making a choice? How do your choices square with your practice as a Buddhist? How will your choices inform those around you? Etc.

There is no Buddhist "political theory". In absence of such a theory, how do we conduct ourselves in our political lives (we all have them, even the "apolitical") in accordance with Buddha's teachings?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You missed Republican Democracy, which is what we have in the US. Capitalism, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it is not a political system.

Sherab Dorje said:
cf http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=12046&start=460 for the full twenty-something page discussion.

Republican Democracy?  You do know that the word Republic is just the Latin term for the Greek word Democracy, right?

As for capitalism not being a political system, I seems that only capitalists would like to believe that one!  They would like to have us believe that capitalism is just the natural method/law by which exchange functions.



Malcolm wrote:
Capitalism was a term coined by Marx. Prior to Marx, no one ever called themselves a "Capitalist". After Marx, people used the term to describe the economic system we still have at present. But it is not and never was a coherent political system.  People started calling Smith's thought "Capitalism" because it was his economic thought and policy suggestions in Wealth of Nations that Marx was largely critiquing.

An argument may be made that political and economic systems are mutually dependent, and it is certainly true that as the US is a product of the Scottish Enlightenment, its political values upon which our style of democracy was founded include such items as ownership of private property, "free" markets, etc. These are enshrined in the BIll of Rights, the fifth amendment of which reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is of course why Americans by and large are hostile to socialism and communism, because both systems suggest that people do not have a right to private property.
But this we are having this discussion in another thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
kirtu said:
Vermont is one of the few places where direct democracy still exists (on US soil ironically but hopefully) and in many small communities around the world.

Malcolm wrote:
Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Main actually. The town meeting system is deeply ingrained in New England. For example, in my town, we all vote directly on the budget, etc. Then there is a board of selectman charged with carrying out the agendas the town votes on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:


conebeckham said:
I've not heard the Dharmakaya broken down this way before.  Buddha's omniscient mind, what you call the Wisdom Truth Body, is a conventional truth but is an aspect of the Dharmakaya?

Malcolm wrote:
TKF is citing Haribhadra's presentation, followed by the Gelugpa's. . The presentation followed in Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma for the most part is based on Ārya-Vimuktisena's earlier presentation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
smcj said:
What I get is that in the Sakya the intellectual view is introduced/utilized at some point in tantric practice.

Malcolm wrote:
In Sakya, the intellectual view is introduced prior to tantric practice, in the three visions section. In Vajrayāna, the experiential view is introduced in the empowerment, and confirmed through a precise system of meditating on various examples.



smcj said:
The first part of the sentence seems to agree with my prior post about sutra Mahamudra. The second part of the sentence starting with what I underlined I think indicates that intellectual view is incorporated into deity practice--at least in the Sakya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not. What is incorporated into deity practice is the experiential view which comes from empowerment and is stabilized by the unique approach found in Sakya called "meditating the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana".

smcj said:
Frankly, despite polemics between Sakya and Kagyu over the issue of sutra mahāmudra, meditating the view here is not so different than sutra mahāmudra save only the name.
I think I get that you are disagreeing with my post about tantric Mahamudra not needing a view--at least in Sakya.

Malcolm wrote:
Tantric Mahāmudra has a "view", but it is experiential, not intellectual, and is based on an example wisdom at the time of empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
David N. Snyder said:
About a month ago there was a thread on Buddhism and politics at our sister site. This is how I responded:

Some of my thoughts on different political systems / economies:

Communism - A great, noble effort; promotes egalitarianism, least amount of poverty, hunger, disparities in wealth and income -- in theory. In practice, it doesn't work well. People find ways around not being allowed private property and wealth. Where there's a will, there's a way and there was always a vast underground market in every communist nation. It is also totalitarian and a poor economic system which did not alleviate poverty for the masses as it was implemented.

Capitalism - worked okay in some instances as long as it remained at the Adam Smith free market level. As it progresses to a larger more complex society, it evolves to corporatism where the government favors certain industries and businesses over others, essentially abandoning its roots. Corruption becomes rampant and politicians are bought off. You get the military-industrial-complex, the prison-industrial-complex, among others.

Monarchies, autocracies, timocracies, and other oligarchies - totalitarian, usually hereditary, not surprising that most nations have gone away from these.

Democracy - "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch" (rule by the tyranny of the majority)

Plato's Republic I always thought sounded pretty reasonable since it is based on meritocracy. Why not have political leaders who actually know a little something? But how to implement it and choose the philosopher kings [leaders]?

In the end, I guess we're stuck with democracy and to make it the most useful and effective, have some balance between socialism and capitalism. The most successful nations in terms of least poverty and warfare appear to be those with a good mix, including the Scandinavian nations and those in Western Europe.

I see there is other interest here too in meritocracy. I think Plato's Republic would meet this principle, but how to implement it? We seem stuck in democracy but as we know this is tyranny too; a tyranny of the majority and we have seen what that can do. I don't think the Buddha would like principles being thrown out the window in the name of [democratic] compromise either. So Plato's Republic / wheel-turning monarch would be ideal but the implementation would be difficult, if not impossible.


Malcolm wrote:
You missed Republican Democracy, which is what we have in the US. Capitalism, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it is not a political system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 12:38 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
A high caste Brahmin could be working in a steel works. His caste would be high, but he would be part of the proletariat.

In another factory. the factory boss and employer, a (capitalist), might go bust and end up working in Burger King cleaning the toilets (a proletarian).

But you can't just change caste like that. They are clearly different frameworks.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you define it in this way, there are almost no capitalists anymore. There are very few people who work for persons who own a factory. For the most part, corporate ownership is collective. What you are saying is that apart from the board and major stockholders, everyone else, from the CEO on down are proletariats because they do not own the means of production, and sell their labor for what they can get.

By contrast, in the nineteenth century, for the most part factories, railroads and so on were own by private persons and families, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 2nd, 2014 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
According to Je Tsongkhapa's teaching, you have to begin with a generic image of emptiness which depends upon holding a correct conceptual understanding of emptiness. If you hold an incorrect conceptual understanding of emptiness, it cannot be realised.

Anders said:
So tsongkhapa is the origin of the Tibetan notion that awakening is dependent on correctly assembling an intellectual jigsaw puzzle?

Tsongkhapafan said:
I don't think so, I doubt it.

Regarding views, if there is no correct view, there is no object of meditation and if there is no correct object of meditation, we cannot gain inner experience that pacifies delusions. All problems are caused by wrong view, so I can't agree with your dismissal of correct views which are the only antidote.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct view in Vajrayāna arises from the empowerment. This is the reason why in Lamdre, for example, one meditates the view only _after_ having received the cause empowerment where it is introduced in the section of the ālaya cause continuum (tantra) among the three tantras (cause, path and result).

Despite this, of course one also meditates a sutrayāna view using śamatha and vipaśyāna (supplemented by citations from the Mahāsiddhas) at the time of the vision of experience teachings from among the three visions (impure, experiential and pure). Frankly, despite polemics between Sakya and Kagyu over the issue of sutra mahāmudra, meditating the view here is not so different than sutra mahāmudra save only the name.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:


Nemo said:
Like any other unethical system you choose or have to participate in. You make the most sophisticated ethical compromises between the available bad options. If you were forced to order off the McDonald's menu what would you get?

Malcolm wrote:
I'd rather starve.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
This could be any of the twice born castes.
No, it couldn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvija
...is not the same thing as a capitalist.

This argument that you have that capitalism doesn't really exist is just a way of equating the classes under capitalism  with rich and poor or with status, spiritual or otherwise. Although these things can co-occur to an extent they mean different things.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, but you are using a very narrow definition of "class". It is like claiming that out of the ten definitions of Dharma there is only one valid one.



tellyontellyon said:
Both 'types' of class system can co-occur and overlap as one type of society transforms into another. This is a dialectical process. No doubt the lower caste Indians will also find themselves in a lower class in the capitalist structure, but they are two different frameworks.

Malcolm wrote:
The class into which you are born, and your opportunity for advance, lifespan, etc., whether under Marxist analysis or not, is still, and will always remain, a function of your individual karma.


tellyontellyon said:
Equating class as, Marxists use the term, with caste as the Indians used it in the Buddha's day, is an illegitimate use of the term. It is a way of stretching two different words/frameworks to mean the same thing in order to create an invalid scriptural justification for your argument.

Malcolm wrote:
Class is class.

tellyontellyon said:
Class is about a persons economic role in a capitalist society.

Malcolm wrote:
Varna or jati (caste) is about a person's economic role in Ancient Indian society. What Buddha rejected about the Caste system in ancient India is that people born in upper castes were necessarily more virtuous than those born in lower castes. What he did not reject was that idea that one's position in society, one's appearance, health, lifespan, opportunities and so on, were largely dominated by a person's actions in past lives.

tellyontellyon said:
Capitalist society operates differently than feudalism.

Malcolm wrote:
Feudalism, like capitalism, never existed. It is, like capitalism, an artificial construct of historians, and in the case of feudalism, historians who misread and misunderstood medieval documents.

tellyontellyon said:
That's what the posts about m-c-m and c-m-c were about. The economic roles under a feudal society are different, and so class means something different.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not correct to refer to ancient Indian society as "feudal", it is an anachronism.

tellyontellyon said:
If Marx coined a term for a particular phenomenon, that doesn't mean that he invented the phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is about the twice born is that any one in those upper three castes could own land, factories, shops, and so on where they employed people who sold their labor at a market value off of which the buyer could turn a profit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
i. Capitalists, or bourgeoisie, own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others

Malcolm wrote:
This could be any of the twice born castes.

tellyontellyon said:
ii. Workers, or proletariat, do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power.

Malcolm wrote:
These would be shudras.

tellyontellyon said:
iii. A small, transitional class known as the petite bourgeoisie own sufficient means of production but do not purchase labor power.

Malcolm wrote:
This could be any of the twice born castes.

tellyontellyon said:
Class is thus determined by property relations not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes.

Malcolm wrote:
It's pretty clear that Indian shudras fit the Marxist notion of proletariat; everyone else in India were either "capitalists" or petite bourgeoisie.

tellyontellyon said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Malcolm wrote:
The word was invented by Karl Marx and it did not exist in English until 1854.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:


Adamantine said:
I see, so likewise Nemo's response re: meritocracy(similar to my initial thought)is off topic, at least from your intended topic.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it does not address my interest, but any suggestions are open.

Adamantine said:
...but expressing our politics with Middle Way principles, that's another story...you are contemplating or proposing we ponder what a Middle Way political ideology might look like?

Malcolm wrote:
More or less.

Adamantine said:
Regarding personally making political choices based on our understanding of Middle Way principles, I would imagine any of us Mahayanists are trying to do this to some degree, as it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, but in political discussions here, what I notice is these political discussions tend to become polarized on a left/right axis. "Property of theft"! cries one, the other replies, "Taking what has not been given is stealing"!

What would out politics truly look like if we strictly confined our political choices to the ethics laid out by the Buddha?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are you going to run for office?

Virgo said:
I highly doubt it as Malcolm is not really concerned with the eight worldly concerns, as most politicians are.  If he were to, however, I am sure that he would do it with a pure motivation.

Also, he comes from a political family, so I assume he really knows what he is talking about.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Actually, Keven, my dad is a philosophy professor and a lawyer (retired from both).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:42 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Nemo said:
Ideally it would be a meritocracy. The most spiritually advanced in the group is given near absolute authority. People stay in the collective as long as they wish. The mission obviously transcends members personal desires. The leader need not be an expert in everything. They delegate. Their main job is to purify motivation and justify the use of resources.

The game of modern politics is about selfish elites retaining undeserved wealth and power. There is no middle way of exploitation and coercion. The Buddha's life choices seem to support this thesis. You might as well be talking about Buddhist methods of warfare.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, I am talking about personal conduct, not political parties.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
anjali said:
For those interested, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on http://www.iep.utm.edu/polphil/. It might be a good way to provide some basis for getting everyone on the same page. To quote one paragraph: Political philosophy has its beginnings in ethics: in questions such as what kind of life is the good life for human beings. Since people are by nature sociable – there being few proper anchorites who turn from society to live alone – the question follows as to what kind of life is proper for a person amongst people. The philosophical discourses concerning politics thus develop, broaden and flow from their ethical underpinnings.
Is there a middle-way ethics?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, for Buddhists such as our selves it would be either the eight-fold path or the perfections.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:38 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
'Capitalism doesn't exist', 'class doesn't exist, .... even if it does exist it's all part of some 'grand plan', the 'natural order of things' etc. .....

Malcolm wrote:
There are markets and there are classes. Buddha explains how classes arise. He does not say much about markets at all, except to encourage lay people to turn a good profit to support their families.

mbulance... We don't just say it's 'karma', and leave them there in the road!
Denial is simply ignorance.

tellyontellyon said:
I think that social class is a product of the economic system

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha didn't.

tellyontellyon said:
and the economic system is a form of behavior and can therefore be changed.

Malcolm wrote:
Good luck, no one has ever succeeded in eradicating markets.

tellyontellyon said:
Nagarjuna's advice to his friend, a king, 100's of years ago was good advice in a general sense, but we don't have to take it as a justification for having 'kings' or 'free markets' today. Buddhism enshrines the possibility of change, it is not a formula for a particular political and economic system.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a "free market". All markets are regulated.

tellyontellyon said:
Socialism isn't a panacea, but if implemented properly it could be a real step forward to a better life for everybody. Socialism is more than just regulation, it is the democratic ownership and planning of the economy. It can be done.

Malcolm wrote:
There really isn't such a thing as "democratic" ownership, the closest thing that comes to it is being a stockholder in a company.

tellyontellyon said:
Capitalism is different to simple trading, as has been explored in previous posts.

Malcolm wrote:
"Capitalism" is a Marxist construct that does not exist outside Marxist analysis.


tellyontellyon said:
We have to take responsibility for ourselves and the other life forms on this planet.

Malcolm wrote:
We do not have to take responsibility for other lifeforms, we are not "the stewards of nature" -- this is a Christian and a Social Ecological standpoint. It is shallow, not deep. What we have to do is set aside resources of land and sea and let other lifeforms do their thing. They need no help from us when left alone.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 1st, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Likwise, even in Sanskrit, the term atman has several meanings, all dependent on context.

dzogchungpa said:
Just looking at the Srimala sutra, it seems that the context for its use of atman in connection with dharmakaya is the four viparyasas. So, what would you say the meaning of atman/anatman is in that context?


Malcolm wrote:
Essence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
A specific word has a specific meaning you wouldnt call an airplane a turtle would you, why would you change the word Self to something else?

Malcolm wrote:
Words often have many meanings. For example, the word prajñā in Hinduism means something different than prajñā in Buddhism.

The word "rigs" in Tibetan translates these Sanskrit words: gotra, kula, yukti, etc., all words with different meanings.

Likwise, even in Sanskrit, the term atman has several meanings, all dependent on context.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 9:01 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And who said that socialist economic measure cannot be used for financial gain?

Malcolm wrote:
Socialists...after all, they want to eliminate markets, right?

Sherab Dorje said:
Nope, they want to control markets.

Malcolm wrote:
Then socialists are capitalists because all markets require regulation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
Anyway.  I am done here.  If you cannot accept the basic fact that Capitalism is political as well as economic, then we are wasting our time talking.

Malcolm wrote:
"Capitalism" is not a political doctrine, nor is it even an economic doctrine, though indeed theories have been invented to justify it. Indeed "Capitalism" was invented by Karl Marx.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I was not really talking so much about the role of leaders in politics, but of course this is an understandable inference. What I am really trying to get at is a means of discovering a Buddhist political sensibility which is informed by Buddha's teachings, but can be applied in how we conduct ourselves in political matters.

For example, the Buddha's original middle way was a path between indulgence and asceticism. So the real question is, "How do we Buddhists walk this path in whatever political situation we find ourselves in". That is what I mean by "MIddle Way Politics". TKfan has the right idea, this is not so much about applying political remedies as a party, but what kind of political choices we make in light of our understanding of the Buddha's teaching, based on our own personal transformation dependent on our being people who live in a "polis", who are part of a "polity". So in that case, Adamantine's question about use of force is not an issue. Obviously a key point of a middle way politic would have to include ahimsa as a guiding principle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:


Tsongkhapafan said:
I know there are people who believe that a direct transmission of experience of emptiness or enlightenment can be given...

Malcolm wrote:
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but this is not exactly what direct introduction means.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Sherab said:
why the variation in intellectual output?

Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple really: people, when in post-equipoise, resume intellectual analysis of emptiness. One could say that the only persons in whom the equipoise view and the post-equipoise view are "identical" are fully awakened buddhas since in fact they are never not in a state of equipoise.

Sherab said:
Post-equipoise, there is a resumption of intellectual analysis of emptiness.  However, wouldn't post-equipoise intellectual analysis of emptiness be informed by the experience of equipoise?  If yes, then variation in intellectual output would imply variation in the equipoise experienced.  That would mean differences in the experiences of the third and fourth empowerment.

If not, is there then no memory of the experience of equipoise?

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, the way I understand is that one's post equipoise view will be characterized by one's remaining knowledge obscuration. Supposing that Nāgārjuna, Āsanga and Candra for example were all bodhisattvas on the stages, their differences in views could be accounted for merely by this fact alone.

When we apply this to Tibetans, the same rule would apply. Of course, there is no way the realization of anyone can be validated by ordinary persons such as ourselves...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Sherab said:
why the variation in intellectual output?

Malcolm wrote:
It is very simple really: people, when in post-equipoise, resume intellectual analysis of emptiness. One could say that the only persons in whom the equipoise view and the post-equipoise view are "identical" are fully awakened buddhas since in fact they are never not in a state of equipoise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The key teaching of the Buddha is the Madhyama Pratipad, the middle way.

What would a middle way politics look like, one informed by the Buddha's teachings rather than those of secular authors?


Johnny Dangerous said:
I think it's relative depending on time, place, and circumstance..but basically one would try to help all beings achieve a state of less suffering (the suffering of suffering to be specific, since political change  and the material change it brings can't do anything at all to salve the other two), with a minimum of coercion, while encouraging both participation (and a "right" and obligation to participation in that sense), and some sense of responsibility. In addition, instead of politics based on "inherent rights" of really existing beings..I wonder if the model would not be drawn from the acknowledgment of interdependence.

I think you could make a valid argument for a number of different directions, but I think that Anarchism/Libertarian leaning ideas (on the left and right, though personally I am solidly left of center) will be a more natural fit than either statist, or statist/corporatist combinations.

If I had to pick a current party from my personal point of view, I would say to me The Green Party and similar groups are at least vaguely pointed in the right direction, simply due to advocay of things like smaller scale, cooperative tackling of problems.. even if the parties themselves are pretty lackluster right now. In Europe, it seems that democratic socialist ideals (at least on paper) fit the bill, though I gather there are plenty of complaints in practice.

However, a big part of "Dharma politics" would hopefully be honesty about what is, and is not possible, which puts it out of the running...lol. Politics runs on an unreal picture about "the future", and perpetuates itself with providing people with either fear or longing towards it..the usual endless preparation of samsara.

Malcolm wrote:
Lets not say "Dharma politics", because they should not mix. Middle Way Politics is informed by Dharma, but does not pretend to be Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 9:05 AM
Title: Re: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The key teaching of the Buddha is the Madhyama Pratipad, the middle way.

What would a middle way politics look like, one informed by the Buddha's teachings rather than those of secular authors?

Son of Buddha said:
I would say Democratic Socialism.

what would the Buddha say? hmmmm not sure ......... possibly a theocratic monarchy ran by the wheel turning King.

then again the Buddha did crush the the caste System in the Pali-Canon...but I don't remember him setting up a new view on a "future" government system.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha refuted the brahmanical theory of the caste system, but he certainly did not "crush" it.

Democratic socialism is a secular theory.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Astus said:
Enlightened beings are not infallible or omniscient.

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on what level of awakening you are considering.

Certainly stream entrants and once returners might have some faults, as well as bodhisattvas up the seventh bhumi, but above that, bodhisattvas are faultless since they have no afflictions, and tenth stage bodhisattvas have omniscience that nearly that of a Buddhas. Buddhas of course are omniscient in two ways.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 6:37 AM
Title: Middle Way Politics
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The key teaching of the Buddha is the Madhyama Pratipad, the middle way.

What would a middle way politics look like, one informed by the Buddha's teachings rather than those of secular authors?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And who said that socialist economic measure cannot be used for financial gain?

Malcolm wrote:
Socialists...after all, they want to eliminate markets, right?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Sherab Dorje]"if it wasn't for the US's socialist intervention via the Marshall plan[/quote]

The Marshall Plan aid was mostly used for the purchase of goods from the United States...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Hardly socialist at all. Its purpose was to make Europe dependent on US exports.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Nagarjuna was a Mahasiddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Which Nāgārjuna are you talking about?

There were at least two, and most probably three. We do not know which Nāgārjuna wrote this text.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Of course, the Buddhas teach through skillfull means. The former example used before was advice given to a monarch and not to a modern day democracy. What I mean about realized beings words carrying more weight is that their teachings come from their wisdom minds and not from delusion.

tellyontellyon said:
Yes, I see.

Though at the same time , there really is a lot of wisdom in ancient teachings that have been proven over many generations to still be beneficial. I was watching a video earlier by a monk who was talking about all the rules a monk has to follow. Apparently they are not allowed to wear a robe that is perfectly clean, there must be some sort of mark on it. It reminds me of the Islamic carpet makers that always put a deliberate mistake in their carpet designs.
The humility of such an act is a valuable way of remembering our 'pride' when we start to think we are perfect, or have nice clothes etc. So these instructions can go very deep and work on all sorts of different levels, not just a literal practical level. I suppose this comes about through practice and may not be self-evident from simply studying the 'rules' from an abstract, uninvolved perspective.
I really admire what these monks have to cope with in order to keep all their vows.


Malcolm wrote:
If you want to live in a true socialist community where there is no property, become a monk. That is the only way to become free from markets and market capitalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Like in the Kalama sutra? yes?

Malcolm wrote:
The Kalamas sutra is the most misunderstood sutra in the Pali canon. It was a teaching to a tribe of nonbuddhists confused about the various gurus who visited them and tried to convert them. It does not mean that once you have taken Buddhism as your path you are free to just interpret everything anyway you want. Of course, you must test everything, like one would test gold, to make sure it is authentic, but that is because you understand the value of real gold.

tellyontellyon said:
I mean, if Nagarjuna says put taxes up, or put taxes down or whatever, that is not some sort of creed or confession of faith that we must accept or otherwise not be 'proper' Buddhists, just because 'Nagarjuna says so'... you're not implying that are you?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that one does not need to inform one's politics by anything outside the Buddha's teachings, and that most political doctrines are not consistent with Buddha's teachings, increasingly the further right and left that you go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Exist = appearing to a valid mind.

Malcolm wrote:
How is a mind established as valid?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
smcj said:
Being one of the people that post those type of offenses, I'd like to thank you allowing much of my Shentong postings to go unopposed.

Malcolm wrote:
If someone is a Vajrayāna practitioner, I don't really think it matters much which post-equipoise view of emptiness they hold all that much, whether it is the "Prasanga" of the Gelugs, the view of freedom from extremes, or "gzhan stong". The view meditated in Vajrayāna depends on the experience of the third and fourth empowerments and not intellectual analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Nāgārajuna advocated a lowering of excessive tax rates of previous Satavahanas, he advocated market regulation, and so on. Everything you need to conduct yourself and construct a political conscience that accords with Buddhist principles may be found in this book.
I think there is a lot of wisdom in his words. But we have to have some caution too. There is a lot of general good advice here that is generally applicable, but some of the advice was particular to the person he was talking to and the time and situation he was talking about. He was a great philosopher and practitioner, but as Buddhists we don't accept anything as 'god given' absolute truth for all time.
Buddhism isn't a 'revealed' religion and Nagarjuna wasn't a prophet. So we can learn from Nagarjuna and all the great teachers, but we have to think and find out for ourselves too. Every day is a new day, and we can't be bound by a formulaic approach to anything.
My own teacher, Lama Rabsang (Palpung), says the Buddha gave 84'000 teachings, meaning that there are lots of ways of approaching practice, and life. For me, it is important to always keep this in mind when approaching any teachings, scripture, or teachers. It's just good sense.
I think the same must apply to engaged Buddhism.

p.s. thanks for the links.

Malcolm wrote:
The meaning is that there are 21,000 Dharmas to eliminate ignorance, 21,000 Dharmas to eliminate desire, 21,000 Dharmas to eliminate hatred, and 21,000 Dharmas to eliminate the three afflictions in combination, and that's all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Buddhism isn't a 'revealed' religion...

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna Buddhism most certainly is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
smcj said:
I didn't realize it was the three natures that was so much of an issue, and will remember to keep that in mind when researching.
It's an issue for Malcolm personally. It's his bugaboo.

I believe that Malcolm has the kind of expertise that could argue either side of the issue effectively if he wanted to. For personal reasons he chooses to subscribe to non-Gelug Madhyamaka. That's perfectly ok, but just know that he has a strong bias and doesn't always identify it as such.


Malcolm wrote:
No, you are wrong, the three natures is a major polemical issue between the Madhyamakas and Yogacaras in India, one upon which there are hundreds of pages written. Because of this, it has become a major polemical issue in Tibet too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I understand the above phrase is translated quite literally from Tibetan, but it really does not make sense in English. In English that literally reads:

The nature of the mind is phenomena,
the nature of emptiness is mind.

What is really should say:

"The nature of all phenomena is the mind,
The nature of the mind is emptiness."

rob h said:
That seems to merge both schools really well, thanks, and thanks again Tsongkhapafan.
But yeah it's interesting that others have tried to make them work together in various ways, and nice quote in relation to that Tsongkhapafan. It seems like if you synthesize these two schools, or take out the extremes from both of them, then maybe there's something that can work very well.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, in fact the Yogacara Madhyamaka that Tsongkhapa is referring to is Śantarakṣita's. Śantarakȋta's sole concession to Yogacara was that it was allowable to say that all phenomena are established as mind as a conventional truth. But he never goes into some lengthy analysis via the three natures, which he must therefore regards as being rather clumsy and leading one astray from Madhyamaka. Indeed the three natures theory is the main thing that comes under attack from Madhyamakas.

When it comes to the three natures theory in Tibet, this is the main thing about the Jonang presentation that Tsongkhapa attacks in his Legs bshad. He asserts their presentation deviates from how it is presented by Asanga and Vasubandhu and that they misuse it.

rob h said:
Thanks for this too, that's a great help. I didn't realize it was the three natures that was so much of an issue, and will remember to keep that in mind when researching. To be honest I don't really think about those that much either, but I do think the eight consciousness model works well, even if it isn't perfect and is just a concept that eventually has to be dropped with the others eventually. Will try to remember to read up on Santaraksita and the Madhyamakalamkara as well, it'll probably help clear a lot of things up.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the eight consciousness model is also critiqued by Madhyamakas, and indeed Śantarakṣita does not address it much, as far as I recall.

There are basically three trends in scholastic thinking about the five treatises in Tibet: one, that they are all definitive [gzhans stong]; two, that of the five, only the Abhisamyālaṃkara can be considered definitive dge lugs]; three, that Abhisamyālaṃkara is definitive, and that properly understood, the Uttaratantra is definitive; the rest are not.

Then there is my unique point of view, which I have often stated. Asanga's teacher, Ācarya Maitreyanath's own point of view is Yogacara (cittamatra) and his identity as Bodhisattva Maitreya is a Tibetan misattribution that has gained such wide currency as to have become a "fact". He wrote five texts in order to clarify the three mains streams of Mahāyāna sutras. For Prajñānpāramitā he composed the Abhisamyālaṃkara in order to detail its path structure. For the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras he composed the Uttaratantra. And for Yogacara he composed Madhyantavibhanga, being an attempt to correct a perceived Madhyamaka extremism, and the Dharmadharmatāvibhanga, being a detailed treatment of the topic found in the Samdhinirmocana. He composed a treatise synthesizing these three sūtra streams from a Yogacara prespective, the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
But yeah it's interesting that others have tried to make them work together in various ways, and nice quote in relation to that Tsongkhapafan. It seems like if you synthesize these two schools, or take out the extremes from both of them, then maybe there's something that can work very well.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, in fact the Yogacara Madhyamaka that Tsongkhapa is referring to is Śantarakṣita's. Śantarakȋta's sole concession to Yogacara was that it was allowable to say that all phenomena are established as mind as a conventional truth. But he never goes into some lengthy analysis via the three natures, which he must therefore regards as being rather clumsy and leading one astray from Madhyamaka. Indeed the three natures theory is the main thing that comes under attack from Madhyamakas.

When it comes to the three natures theory in Tibet, this is the main thing about the Jonang presentation that Tsongkhapa attacks in his Legs bshad. He asserts their presentation deviates from how it is presented by Asanga and Vasubandhu and that they misuse it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
This all seems very intellectual!

The union of the Prasangika and Chittamatrin views was praised by Tsongkhapa as pre-eminent and is very important for Tantric meditation.

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone in Tibetan practices Vajrayāna according to this view.

Tsongkhapafan said:
It is expressed simply by Milarepa:

You should know that all phenomena are the nature of mind
And that mind is the nature of emptiness.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand the above phrase is translated quite literally from Tibetan, but it really does not make sense in English. In English that literally reads:

The nature of the mind is phenomena,
the nature of emptiness is mind.

What is really should say:

"The nature of all phenomena is the mind,
The nature of the mind is emptiness."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
This is difficult, because although I'm trying to point out that there is something there, because there can't possibly be nothing

Malcolm wrote:
There can't be nothing since there never was something which could become nothing.

dzogchungpa said:
Why, for there to be nothing, must there have been something to become nothing?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing always indicates the absence of something, in common language.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
This is difficult, because although I'm trying to point out that there is something there, because there can't possibly be nothing

Malcolm wrote:
There can't be nothing since there never was something which could become nothing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 8:04 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Indrajala said:
It begs the question how do modern liberal Buddhists reconcile such sentiments with their own values?

I don't think you can write these statements off as mere engrained cultural habits. Assuming Nāgārjuna actually wrote these (and let's assume he did), these are the words of a realized bodhisattva with only benevolent intentions..


theanarchist said:
I guess since this was mainly aimed at male monastics he wanted to paint women in the worst possible light to make renounciation easier for the poor, desire-plagued sods.

I bet dharma texts aimed at nuns would do the same with men


Malcolm wrote:
It is not really a Dharma text, it is an ancestor to Sakya Pandita's Legs bshad (subhāśita), indeed Sapan cribs a verse here and there from this text. These verses would gave been read by educated persons whether monks or not. As I said it is a kind of literary sport in being clever, often at the expense of others, indulged in by Sanskritist literati back in the day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But then again, I have found many male monastics to have a fair bit of misogyny, so he could have learned this in his Vihara.

Indrajala said:
So a realized master is capable of misogyny? If that's the case, a lot of moral issues are entirely separate from realization of, say, emptiness, though that's problematic. A bodhisattva who has realized emptiness probably should not feel ill will towards anyone, including women. We would at least hope Nāgārjuna had the best of benevolent intentions in writing these verses.

Malcolm wrote:
If he wrote it, perhaps he penned it when he was a younger man, not in possession of realization. After all, we commonly find texts composed by teenagers and in the their twenties in the various collected works of Tibetan masters. Often texts such as this serve as demonstrations of skill in composition, as you know, this being a genre called "subhāśita". In subhāśita wit at the expense of others is a desiderata, it is part of the form.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:


rob h said:
It isn't an attempt to be substantialist, it's meant to try to convey the idea that there is "something" there...

Malcolm wrote:
And that is the problem, nothing there is found.

rob h said:
If it's all going to be taken literally though, doesn't this ring true also?
Since all finite concepts are negational, the concept of "middle" (madhya) is equally negated, and so one should not even try and abide in a Middle View (madhyamaka).

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:


Indrajala said:
Basically, what I'm getting at is that modern liberal values are often quite incompatible with older Buddhist ones, yet this is usually conveniently ignored or just dismissed as unimportant or simply backwards thought that we've moved beyond.

Malcolm wrote:
One must distinguish Dharma from culture, yes, even in sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Was Nāgārjuna a misogynist?
Content:
Indrajala said:
In the Tree of Wisdom (Tib. She-rab Dong-Bu ) attributed to Nāgārjuna there are the following verses:
63. A conqueror, a water channel, a creeping plant,
Women and the blind, these five,
How they are led by the crafty!
And this leading places them in the power of others.

182. A woman's appetite is twice (that of a man),
Her deceitfulness four times (as much),
Her shame six times,
And her passions eight times--so it is said.

194. When milk is got from a horn,
When the reed-flower drops honey,
Then, when a woman is true,
The lotus will grow in dry ground.

246. An evil man, gold, a drum,
A wild horse, women and cloth
Are controlled by beating.
These are not vessels for elegant doings.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/srdb/srdb.htm

It begs the question how do modern liberal Buddhists reconcile such sentiments with their own values?

I don't think you can write these statements off as mere engrained cultural habits.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they certainly are -- they are quite commonly found across the board in Indian literature and the same metaphors are found across the board in Sanskrit texts, Buddhist and Hindu.

As he states in one place here "so it is said."

But then again, I have found many male monastics to have a fair bit of misogyny, so he could have learned this in his Vihara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 30th, 2014 at 12:07 AM
Title: Re: The Idea of Madhyamaka and Yogacara as Equally Correct
Content:
rob h said:
Yogacara...says that when looking at the whole and not individual parts, there's something there that can "be said" to have some type of existence, reality, substance, and so on, because there's actually something there ultimately when all things are seen without division.

Malcolm wrote:
This is substantialist perspective and will inevitably collapse because of its internal contradictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M.

Are there similar instructions for Theravadin monks?

Could you elaborate please, what part of Nagarjuna's text are you thinking of; what are the actual instructions?

Malcolm wrote:
You will have the read the book yourself, I am afraid, but in brief he encourages kings to eliminate capital punishment, provide healthcare, charity, etc.

tellyontellyon said:
We have a Queen here in the UK; however, she is a Christian and head of the Church of England. Also, there are many countries, e.g. the USA that are Republics and so don't have a king. What if you have a king that is very hostile to Buddhism? Perhaps his social policy could be damaging? So I could imagine some difficuties arising there.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhism declined in India largely due to the hostilities of Hindu kings. The life stories of the Mahāsiddhas are full of such events.

tellyontellyon said:
What is the actual word that Nagarjuna used for 'king'?

Malcolm wrote:
Rājā.

He probably authored the text for this king:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satavahana_dynasty#Gautamiputra_Satakarni_.2878.E2.80.93102_CE.29

This person was the 23rd ruler of the Satavahana dynasty that ruled major portions of India from 230 BCE to 220 CE. You can see how large this kingdom was on the map.

tellyontellyon said:
So these are instructions that both monarchs and ordinary Buddhists should follow. Everybody.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed they are.

Nāgārajuna advocated a lowering of excessive tax rates of previous Satavahanas, he advocated market regulation, and so on. Everything you need to conduct yourself and construct a political conscience that accords with Buddhist principles may be found in this book. Not only that, but of course by following the instructions in this book, you will become a perfect bodhisattva.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: Peak oil
Content:


kirtu said:
The graphic is in millions.  15000 million = 15*10^9.  They then avoid the difference between US and British definitions of billions (anyway Brits favor discussing things in thousands of millions).

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
I am reporting (sans typos) what an article cited from the UN report that accompanied this graph.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
As for lay Buddhists, I guess we can follow the guidelines for monastics if we can work out what they are ...
Kim

Malcolm wrote:
Or more simply, we can look at texts like the Ratnavali by Nāgārjuna which set out in some detail how kings are to set out social policies. .


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
I was going to point tellyontellyon towards http://www.ecobuddhism.org but it seems to have been taken down. Does anyone know why, or whether it has just moved?

TIA,

Kim


Malcolm wrote:
It loads for me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Peak oil
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Also, you mean 'billion' not 'trillion'.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Title: Re: Engaged Buddhism... what is it?
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
What is Engaged Buddhism? What are it's aims, and how should Buddhists engage, generally speaking?

Malcolm wrote:
The term was coined by Thich Nhat Hahn. You can read his precepts of Engaged Buddhism here. You will particularly like precept 5:

Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.

http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/14_precepts.html

Joanna Macy is another person who has written about this quite a bit:

http://www.joannamacy.net/engaged-buddhism.html

Engaged Buddhism is basically Deep Ecology with a Buddhist perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
I can quote Madhyamakavatara too to support dependent production:

If you say that causes do not produce effects, then so­-called effects do not exist;
And without an effect there is no reason for a cause, and they do not exist.
Since both of these are just like illusions, we are not at fault;
And worldly people's things exist.

VI. 170


Malcolm wrote:
Conventionally, of course. Then you have to understand that conventions will not bear analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Peak oil
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... indeed, world population appears to be declining on the whole.

dzogchungpa said:
svg

Malcolm wrote:
Right, it means that according to UN estimates, word population in 2150 could be as high as 25 trillion, the red line, or as low s 3.5 trillion, the green line. According to the report, the mathematical model favors the low number.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 29th, 2014 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Which is to merely say that they are objects of false cognitions, which when examined cannot be found to exist or be produced in anyway at all.


PadmaVonSamba said:
Since your argument is thus, too, an object of false cognitions,
can it be found to exist or be produced in anyway at all?

If they are not produced in any way at all,
even as hallucinations, then there is no samsara,
not even relatively.
If that's the case, why practice Dharma
since it too cannot be
"... found to exist or be produced in anyway at all. "
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
I can but cite Candrakirti on this point:
Reflections are not real, but using them we smarten our appearances.
In just the same way we should understand that arguments
That have the power to to cleanse the face of wisdom,
Unlike your limping sophistries, engender the realization of the goal.

But if the reasoning that proves our point were something were truly real,
and real also the point itself that should be understood,
then arguments of contact and the rest indeed would have some truth.
But this is not the case, Your own fatigue is all you have achieved.

But we can demonstrate with easy cogency
That all phenomena lack a real intrinsic being.
The contrary indeed you cannot prove,
So why ensnare the world in webs of false logic?
(MV, verses 175-177, Introduction to the Middle Way, Shambhala, 2002.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I support genuine Socialism..... like many US citizens have in the past...

Malcolm wrote:
Primarily first generation Germans, German Jews, and Italians.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 9:35 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Nemo said:
Banks should be nationalized. Period. They were traditionally 1-2% of GDP. Now financial services are around 11% and a drain on the real economy. As are speculators. Didn't Adam Smith think speculators should be hung or at the very least taxed out of existence?.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, the repeal of the Glass-Stegal act was a huge mistake. But investment banks have a legitimate role in the economy, just as as "venture" capitalists do (they are really the same thing).

That is the beauty of having different countries, each nation is free to try out its own policies and see how it works out for them. Other nations can see the outcomes and decide to follow suit or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Unknown said:
As you well know I am talking about Private Property not Personal Property. Private property is the mans of production. The Equipment and resorces that we all depend on as a community to live. E.g. the sewer system, the electricity stations and grid, factories, roads, rail systems, banks. Society should not be held to ransome by a tiny percentage of individuals. These things should be both communally owned and communally managed democratically.

Malcolm wrote:
Toto:

One of the things that is nice about the US is that things are not centralized to the degree you imagine by "capitalists".

All the roads in the US are maintained in this order buy the states and by the towns or counties.

In many places in the US utilities are in fact owned by the municipality, in other places they are not, where in fact they operate as tightly regulated monopolies.

In every city in the US, water treatment is something run by the local communities.

The rail system in the US, while originally built with private capital in the 19th century, is a now mostly a joint venture between the Feds and what remains of the rail companies that went bankrupt in the 1960's. There do remain a couple of rail systems that continue to operate independently of Amtrak.

In my view, the single biggest financial experiment that went wrong in the US was the dissolution of the long established barriers between savings and loans banks and investment banking in 1999, as well as the increase in credit offerings by the credit card companies and banks in the 1980's. Encouraging people to go into debt is short sighted economic policy. The same thing is now happening in China.

When it comes to financial markets, the main issue is how to insulate the whole of the economy against speculative risk while permitting those who wish to use their money in risk laden ventures. We ought to have learned our lesson in the 1929, but we didn't.

I strongly disagree with you that factories and so on should be "communalized" by force. Anyway, in the US it will never happen. If other countries want to experiment with such socialist remedies, more power to them, but I think that history has shown that such experiments are doomed to failure.

I do believe however that the 1819 Supreme Court Decision on Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward should be reversed, or legislated out of existence. Obviously, corporations are not persons and should not be treated as such. This ruling is actually the seed of neoliberalism (which I am opposed to, of course). Naturally, I think the EU, a neoliberal experiment, should be dissolved. Britain was absolutely correct to keep its distance and currency, and in fact it should never have joined at all.

I think at base, Toto, what we have here is just a cultural difference, in addition, I do not think you have understood Buddhism really very clearly. Nor have you understood the POV of HHDL very clearly. Much is made of his preference for socialism. However, he recently wrote, in his 2009 book, The Leader's Way:

I have come to put my faith in the free-market system.... The fact that it allows for freedom and diversity of thought and religion has convinced me that it is the one we should be working from," he wrote.

He argues in this book that capitalists can learn from Buddhism. But I am sure it surprises you to learn that he supports open markets.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:


Malcolm wrote:
You are responding to Zhen li, not me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
The fact that half of those countries now calls themselves "Peoples Republic of ____" or "Democratic Socialist Republic of ____," and are now suffering in immense poverty, is quite germane.

Malcolm wrote:
It is germane to other issues, but not to my immediate point with SD, i.e., that the British empire was not "overcome" per se by anyone. It "fell apart", because Britain had no stomach nor money to keep armies fielded to control its colonies.

SD, Canada remains a part of the British Commonwealth and the Queen is the head of state.

The British relinquished Egypt after WWI because they revolted, etc., but even so, most of the former British Empire remain commonwealth territories, sharing the Queen as their head of state, and what's more, the cultural influences of the Empire are enduring.

When I say "bequeathed", the areas formerly dominated by the empire came to be dominated by American economic policy and military power, rather than direct colonization. A former colony, we Americans are traditionally allergic to expanding our powers through direct colonization. Our attempts at foreign intervention sadly have wrought far more harm than long term good, as far as I can tell.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Feudalism (a wholly inaccurate historical construct) never existed. The English empire was not overcome, it was bequeathed to the United States after two dreadful wars that managed to ruin its economy.

Zhen Li said:
Rule by colonies is replaced by rule by development grants and loans. Which really develops the countries more?

Malcolm wrote:
Good question, but it is not germane to my point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
That's the problem with the Capitalist view, its adherents always express of sense of entitlement to that which is not theirs, whether it be wealth, factories. etc.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not advocating a capitalist view. I am pointing out, as I have over and over again, that the only way you can secure your goals is with lethal violence. I do not condone that, I am utterly opposed to it. I do not share your conviction that "workers own the factories in which they work", unless in fact they do, done so properly, legally and with the full protection of the law. I do not support your view again that the wealth of the ultra rich should be seized, because such a seizure itself would involve catastrophic international conflicts, and because such people have the means to simply remove themselves from your reach. In other words, more harm than good would arise from their temporary (seriously, what's forty years?) control of such wealth. So lets say you do give everyone in the world $49,000 [233 trillion / by world population]. How are you planning to do this? Actually you aren't. You are going to completely disrupt the economy and destroy everyone's wealth, just like the Bolsheviks did in Russia. Honestly, on this score, I think you are completely naive. But lets say we did, the same thing would happen all over again; some people, most people will squander their wealth, some people will be better at managing it, and eventually the same disparities that have arisen will just arise again.

The socialist democracies that Kirt is so fond of are a kind of rapprochement between a moderate (non-marxist) socialist view and the market economy we live in. However, they are only feasible because they are floating in a sea of money.

I guess the point is, I am not opposed to strict market regulation, it is necessary actually for a whole host of environmental reasons and social reasons. But what I am totally opposed to is the idea that we try to abolish the market economy we have now, because another one, a black one, will just take its place.

Anyway, I really don't think your revolution is ever going to happen anyway. The way global wealth is distributed, you would have to have a revolution in the US first, and that will never happen until we have a poverty crisis. Americans are completely allergic to communism.

You don't seem to have any idea what the eighteen qualities of a precious human birth are, even though you are British and a Buddhist. You should maximize your precious human birth and practice Dharma, not waste all your time on obsolete political religions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:
That so much wealth is concentrated into the hands of so few at this juncture in history represents a fundamental failure of market regulation brought about by the "liberalization" of the world economy which represents a failure on the part of the various governments in the world to understand the proper role regulation in the market place, so that open markets can function healthily.
You seem to have abandoned your Karmic view that the wealthy got rich via meritorious former lives? Now your argument sounds more like Glenn Beck.

Malcolm wrote:
Those people who managed to receive that wealth had merit to do so, it is not like there is a dollar figure placed on merit. For example, the same person born in the Soviet Communist world would be rich in status, part of the elite, extremely powerful, one of the 40 most powerful people in the country, a Putin.



tellyontellyon said:
It is not up to you or anyone else however to change that apart through fair taxation policies.
Nobody is asking your permission.

Malcolm wrote:
That's the problem with the Marxist view, its adherents always express of a misplaced sense of entitlement to that which is not theirs, whether it be wealth, factories. etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
they have a relative degree of reality.

Malcolm wrote:
Which is to merely say that they are objects of false cognitions, which when examined cannot be found to exist or be produced in anyway at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: Peak oil
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
We can be much smarter about energy efficiency, for instance - and it's already happening.

Malcolm wrote:
Jevons observed that England's consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced his coal-fired steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of Thomas Newcomen's earlier design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

So no, I don't share your technological enthusiasm. I am rather skeptical of it, actually.

Kim O'Hara said:
We can slow our population growth - and that has already happened in the West and I see no reason the developing world won't naturally follow the same path as it follows us through the same developmental sequence.

Malcolm wrote:
This is certainly a desiderata. And indeed, world population appears to be declining on the whole.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:36 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:
Because some people have the karma to become super wealthy and others do not. Rather than bitching about the super wealthy, attend to your own causes of merit.
I'm not bitching about the rich.I don't hate the rich or envy their wealth. I am just pointing out a disparity. I am also pointing out that the rich are rich because the poor are poor.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, the rich are rich and the poor are poor because of their karma.

For example, there was a yogi who supplicated the Dorje Legpa, one of three main protectors of the Dzogchen teachings. He was a very good practitioner, so when he summoned Dorje Legpa, Dorje Legpa appeared to him in person. One day the yogi said to Dorje Legpa, "I am tired of being poor, bring me as much wealth as you can." The next day Dorje Legpa returned, but he only had a small brass coin. "What's this", the yogi, said, "Why did not you not bring me more?" Being a wisdom protector, Dorje Legpa replied,  "I am sorry but you do not have the karma to be wealthy so I could only bring you this much".

tellyontellyon said:
Under capitalism, the rich get rich at the expense of the poor.

Malcolm wrote:
It seems that way, but it is not really that way.

tellyontellyon said:
But even that isn't the most important thing:
If society could progress under capitalism, if the system was stable and allowed us to tackle the worlds povert and address the environmental problems effectively then it wouldn't matter all that much if the rich were rich. Thats not what bothers me really.

In it's early period capitalism was progressive, it moved the world forward, and its benefits made its faults tolerable.
But now, in late capitalism, capitalism's problems outweigh its diminishing benefits. It is a chaotic system that is leading us to barbarism.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said before, this state of affairs represents a fundamental failure of world governments to properly regulate the markets because of neoliberal policies which began to be put into place in the 1970's.

tellyontellyon said:
I feel sorry for the super-rich actually. Many of them are decent people and are just as trapped in this corrupting system as the rest of us. However, I do think a very privilaged lifestyle can cut people off from what is happening to others, or they start making up rationalizations to justify the enormous differences in society.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not up to you or anyone else however to change that apart through fair taxation policies. Actually, in the US, in the 1950's all income above $100,000 a year was taxed at something like 90 percent. It provided incentive for reinvestment rather than profit taking.

tellyontellyon said:
I will have to take exception to what seemed to be a suggestion that the poor are somehow more desirous than the rich.

Malcolm wrote:
They have more desire because their need is greater. It does not mean they want to screw everything to moves.

tellyontellyon said:
It seems to me that wealth can act like a drug to some people. It is strange how the people I know with the most money hang on to it more tightly than people with less money. Perhaps they rely on it so much for their sense of value or self-esteem?

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, the wealthy, like asuras, are primarily dominated by anger and pride.

tellyontellyon said:
That's one of the things about a system that measures value in dollars and cents rather than in smiles and a meaningful existence. Marxists don't want to make everybody rich, they want to make a world where wealth doesn't matter.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Buddhist, wealth matters only inso far as it assists your practice. But there will always be wealthy people and poor people. Some trees will always get more nutrients and sunlight, and others less, that is just life. So get used it.

tellyontellyon said:
Maybe Karma can create a situation where some people are born rich and others poor. I'm not sure that that means that people who are born rich therefore have earned more merit in a previous life.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it absolutely does.

tellyontellyon said:
Many Tulku's are born into increadibly poor families. Perhaps 'wealth' can mean something different to filthy lucre?

Malcolm wrote:
Having a high Tulku in a poor family is a sure fire way for that family to gain wealth and prestige. Such families are treated like the nouveau riche are treated in the West however.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Geez Malcolm, that is the most Hindu sounding view of karma I have heard for a long time.  Next you'll be arguing in support of the caste system.


Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, karma is unerring. This is the Buddha's teaching.

Sherab Dorje said:
I agree that karma is unerring and that the situations that individuals find themselves in are due to their karma.  But that does not mean they have to remain trapped there.  That does not mean they cannot work to change their situations either individually or through collective effort.  But that does not mean they have to remain trapped there. That does not mean they cannot work to change their situations either individually or through collective effort.

Malcolm wrote:
And I never maintained that they should not try and improve their situation. Of course they should, and will. That is what all sentient beings do constantly, i.e. try an improve their situation. They are merely held back by three mental non-virtues, malice, greed, and wrong view and so their attempts, in the end, always, always fail.

Sherab Dorje said:
Feudalism was overthrown.  English imperialism was overcome.  Capitalist exploitation will become a thing of the past.  Etc...  There is present karma too.

Malcolm wrote:
Feudalism (a wholly inaccurate historical construct) never existed. The English empire was not overcome, it was bequeathed to the United States after two dreadful wars that managed to ruin its economy.

It is always a desiderata when any exploitation is becomes a thing of the past, whether it is exploitation by capitalists, communists, fascists, racists and other kind of "ist" you can imagine. This does not mean that markets can be abolished (they can't), and that people should not be be free to sell their goods or their labor to the person or company that will pay them the most for it. When you "abolish" open (rather than free, since there is also no such a thing as a "free" market) markets, you create the conditions for black markets, where indeed the likely hood of criminal participation is elevated, for example, the Prohibition in the United States. It is also true is that some kinds of goods are deemed criminal, such as heroin, etc., and some kinds of labor are deemed criminal, such as protection rackets.

Therefore, markets require regulation, and that is the principle economic role of a government. That so much wealth is concentrated into the hands of so few at this juncture in history represents a fundamental failure of market regulation brought about by the "liberalization" of the world economy which represents a failure on the part of the various governments in the world to understand the proper role of regulation in the market place, so that open markets can function healthily. Markets cannot regulate themselves. They need a stern hand to guide them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 6:18 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Tsongkhapafan said:
Matter cannnot be found in dreams either, but it exists and functions. Our perceiving it and its functioning is not a wrong awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the matter which appears in a dream is recognized to be unreal. Do you call that which is recognized to be unreal something that exists. I don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Geez Malcolm, that is the most Hindu sounding view of karma I have heard for a long time.  Next you'll be arguing in support of the caste system.


Malcolm wrote:
Not at all, karma is unerring. This is the Buddha's teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course, I am not Buddhist so I cannot predict anything,

Should be:

Of course, I am not Buddha so I cannot predict anything,


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
Was the struggle to end apartheid "forcing people to be virtuous".

Malcolm wrote:
No, because, having been to South Africa myself, I can tell you that people are just as non-virtuous as they were before, and apart from a rising black middle class, the apartheid system still exists more or less as before, with the main difference being that most of the cops are black, as is the government.

Johnny Dangerous said:
and if not, and you consider it positive, how do you categorically differentiate something like that from any attempt to change the economic system, revolutionary or otherwise? is it just the violence, and idea of taking by force that makes something a wrong headed attempt to make people be virtous?

Malcolm wrote:
People are free do what they like and most people are ignorant of karma in any case, they don't believe in it. We don't accept fate in Buddhadharma any more than we do God as an explanation for the state of things. But we do accept karma as an explanation for the state of things, both individually as well as collectively (aggregated individual action). The Buddha makes it exceedingly clear that all who engage in any sort of lethal violence will experience negative results in both this life and in future lives.

All political discussion by so called Buddhists must have the view of karma in mind.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I am detecting a hint here  that a belief in karma negates the possibility of trying to create a world of with more just conditions at all, albeit impermanent ones;)

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you can try, but then more unjust situations will replace the one you have solved. I am not saying "don't try", I am saying that we need to understand the limitations of being sentient beings in samsara.

Not all persons are Buddhists, and not even Buddhists act carefully with respect to karma, as we can see in Burma, Shri Lanka and elsewhere.

We can also be confident that all unjust actions will be met with karmic ripening for the perpetrators of those actions. As long as people engage in the activities motivated by the three or five afflictions there will be injustice and inequality in the world. However, you cannot remove the root of negative karma, malice, covetousness and ignorance, from people minds with a scalpel.

But what you can do is act more justly with people around you. You can act kindly, you can exemplify the virtues of our practice. But you cannot change others to your liking, and more importantly, it is very difficult to change samsara. And in particular I am saying that trying to bring the edifice of the capitalist economy crashing down artificially will merely result in more negative karma for the people who engineer it because if you think there is suffering now, you haven't seen anything.

Johnny Dangerous said:
if you aren't saying this in any way, sorry for misinterpreting you..this is why i'm asking for specifics regarding the difference between forcing people to be virtuous, and creating the conditions for people to be virtuous - from a Buddhist standpoint. I think one can see that today, in terms of our society, we are in a place that does not promote people being virtuous with their wealth..so i'm asking, again from a Buddhist standpoint, should that be entirely left alone - is that your position, or are you saying something else?

Malcolm wrote:
We do not have a Buddhist king who can advise people wisely. And I personally do not want a Socialist dictatorship directing my life. Perhaps it is because I am an American, and we Americans in general are pretty much historically opposed to Communism. Indeed, even when Socialism was popular in the US, it was popular mainly among first generations immigrants at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, not amongst those who had been born and bred here, and for the most part, second generation immigrants, horrified by the excesses of Stalin, eschewed it.

The anti-facist Socialist idealism of the thirties in in the US pretty much died when we understood that there is structurally no difference between Marxist-Leninist Socialism and Fascism in terms of outcomes, both have planned economies, both use secret police to terrorize dissent, etc.

85 people may own 1/2 the worlds wealth, but so what? They will die, inheritance taxes will be applied, this state of affairs is very impermanent. All we need to worried about is that our own wealth is gotten virtuously, without stealing it from another.

And we need to understand that in general we cannot change the disparities between people since people have their own karma. This is the reason for example that Buddha did not give his golden alms bowl to a poor family living by a river because he saw that due to their latent afflictions they would all take rebirth in lower realms as a result of such a sudden influx of wealth. Of course, I am not Buddhist so I cannot predict anything, so I have no idea what would happen of 1/2 the world's wealth was suddenly "redistributed". But who would adjudicate it to make it fair?

You see, this is all just a bunch of proliferation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Correction, these Gelugpa teachings do not do. Since the reality of matter, etc., cannot be established other than conventionally, what is the use of defending their reality at all? The Gelugpas tie themselves into knots and wind up becoming quasi realists.

Tsongkhapafan said:
No, there's no problem from a Gelugpa point of view. Form is empty of inherent existence, not empty of itself, otherwise it wouldn't exist at all - where's the problem with that?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it is because also the existence of matter cannot be found.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
He would explain it as karma.


Johnny Dangerous said:
Sure, but this does not mean he would condone a system that encourages people  who have accrued such merit to work mainly in their own self-interest, and thereby exhaust their positive merit while amassing stores of demerit.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot force people to be virtuous.


HHDL has in fact spoken often about the bad repercussions of a world full of the super-rich, and the super poor - as i'm sure you know.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I'm staying out of the greater conversation re: Marxism etc., but I feel like you are being a bit cloudy by implying (far as I can tell) that something being acknowledged as a result of Karma means that no one should do anything.

Malcolm wrote:
I am trying to point out that these various political theories of the left are not panaceas for the excesses of right.

First of, while people pair off communism and capitalism, Zhen Li was quite right in pointing out that there is no "Capitalism" per se, it is not a political ideology, unlike Communism.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I was just listening to an audiobook with Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche and Pema Chodron where this very subject is brought up, and the Civil Rights movement was used as a specific example of people changing their Karmic circumstances in a  positive way, that was beneficial to many.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, this can happen, but you must bear in mind that all positive, negative and neutral sensations in samsara are a result of karma.

Johnny Dangerous said:
just pointing out that something being a result of Karma in no way limits acting to change it in a positive manner

Malcolm wrote:
And I never made such a claim to the contrary, had you read the thread more closely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
You see, Buddha wanted people to become wealthy.
I don't think he was saying that in the sense of the sort of wealth I'm talking about, i.e. 85 individuals having as much wealth between them as the poorest 50 percent of the worlds population.


Malcolm wrote:
He would explain it as karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Sherab said:
If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I am not saying that emptiness or suchness is conditioned.  I am merely pointing out the consequence of saying that emptiness is also empty.

PadmaVonSamba said:
To quote HHDL from that same book:

"...We should not, however, understand this self-emptiness or emptiness of self-nature to mean that form is empty of itself; this would be tantamount to denying the reality of form, which, as I have been repeatedly emphasizing, these teachings do not do."
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Correction, these Gelugpa teachings do not do. Since the reality of matter, etc., cannot be established other than conventionally, what is the use of defending their reality at all? The Gelugpas tie themselves into knots and wind up becoming quasi realists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 28th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
Actually, my quarrel is with the application of mutually exclusive terms of conditioned and unconditioned to describe one and the same thing because it creates confusion.

Malcolm wrote:
Take it up with the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
When I was with the Gelugpas, I hear the phrase emptiness of emptiness quite a lot.  To me, if one says that emptiness is also empty, one is actually saying that emptiness is conditioned and not unconditioned.  I am not sure if the Gelugpas realize that though.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that emptiness is empty is to merely say that emptiness does not arise, not that emptiness is conditioned. If emptiness is conditioned, so is suchness. This kind of reasoning will cause all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to turn their backs to one.

Sherab said:
If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I am not saying that emptiness or suchness is conditioned.  I am merely pointing out the consequence of saying that emptiness is also empty.

As an aside, to say that Buddhas and bodhisattvas turning their backs to one just because of a logical argument is to belittle their compassion and patience isn't it?  I for one would not have respect nor have confidence in such buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Malcolm wrote:
Its figurative, it means if you explain the Dharma poorly, without recourse to citation and reasoning, without understanding how to apply this argument this tenet system and that one to that one, one is committing an error of leading others astray. Buddhas and bodhisattvas won't condone such actions. It does not mean that will abandon you in samsara.

As I pointed out, your arguments are fundamentally an argument from substantialist reasoning whereby the conditioned must be one thing, and the unconditioned another. I have already removed those qualms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
A thing and its nature are not separate.  Saying a thing arises is not different from saying the nature of the thing arises.  It has to be if inseparability is to make any sense.  Therefore when a thing arises, its emptiness arises with it.  When a thing ceases, the emptiness of that thing ceases because there is no emptiness of that thing to point to.  So there is actually no two arisings as you have asserted.  There is only one arising of the phenomenon and its nature and there is only one ceasing of the phenomenon and its nature.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, from the perspective of Madhyamaka a thing and its nature are identical. This is not so for those in lower schools.

To elaborate, conditions are merely an appearance. The notion of conditioned and unconditioned arises out of the substantialist roots of the substantialist tenet systems. By showing that the essence of phenomena is unconditioned, you are essentially showing that phenomena are in truth unconditioned. This is why the Prajñāpāramita makes statements like:

Any teaching by the Bhagavan that matter lacks inherent existence, does not arise, does not cease, is peace from the beginning and is parinirvana by nature, all such teaching are not the indirect meaning, nor the intentional meaning, but must be understood literally. (Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
It's pretty clear that Marx's opposition to capitalism didn't come from pure reason, it came from his emotional hatred of money and Jews.

Malcolm wrote:
People often hate what they don't have. But I thought Marx was himself Jewish.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
But, if you then defined emptiness as being unconditioned and say that phenomenon A, which dependently arisen, is therefore conditioned, and is also unconditioned because it is empty, an inherent contraction in terms between conditioned and unconditioned is introduced.

I hope it is now clearer where I am coming from.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it was understood from the beginning where your qualm was coming from. It's only a contradiction in terms for substantialists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The mind essence is like space, it does not arise.


theanarchist said:
Not so sure if modern astrophysics agrees with that claim about space.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of space detailed in Buddhist texts, unconditioned space, which is what is meant by the above, the absence of obstruction, and conditioned space, i.e., cavities and dimensionality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
What you are arguing is that the world the Buddha was talking about, and the way profit was made in the Buddha's time is fundamentally the same. I am saying it is not. That is why I posted those quotes about the capitalist means of production a few posts back.
.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure it was, there were factories, there were owners, there were workers, and there was profit.

The wise and virtuous shine like a blazing fire.
He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways
like to a bee that honey gathers,[6] 
riches mount up for him
like ant hill's rapid growth.

With wealth acquired this way,
a layman fit for household life,
in portions four divides his wealth:
thus will he friendship win.

One portion for his wants he uses,[7] 
two portions on his business spends,
the fourth for times of need he keeps.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html


You see, Buddha wanted people to become wealthy. There are many places in the sutras where he gives recommendations for how laypeople may virtuously maximize their wealth. We have already established too that one's social position depends on one's karma, and therefore, one access to initial wealth and opportunity. Of course, we must try our best to extend opportunity to everyone. The construction of schools, hospitals, roads, etc., these things are costs society must bear for everyone's benefit. But it is impossible to provide everyone with the exact same economic parity. Some people are lazier than others. Some people are more talented than others. Some people are more industrious than others because of their karmic dispositions. In reality, social classes tend to driven by the five afflictions: the lower classes tend to be dominated by ignorance and desire, the middle classes tend to be dominated by desire and jealousy and the upper classes tend to be dominated by anger and pride (which is one reason why those from the upper classes tend to more easily fall into lower realms).

You cannot regulate how people accumulate karma, and cannot fix people's karma by regulating society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
In the modern world, the 85 richest people on the planet have accumulated as much wealth between them as half of the world's total population. I'm sure things were different in the Buddha's day.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. Why? Because some people have the karma to become super wealthy and others do not. Rather than bitching about the super wealthy, attend to your own causes of merit.

When contrasted with the endowments of the beings of the deva realms, for example, all the wealth of the earth is just a pauper's bauble, the richest person is less than a beggar.

But since you do not seem to have a view that takes into consideration the six realms of samsara, you are myopically focused on this human life and its endowments, focused on material relations rather than Dharma practice. The ability to practice Dharma is the true wealth of Jambudvipa. If you want to help beings in a concrete way, it is better to spread Dharma that things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 8:14 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If Mind's original nature  is also composite,
as your statement, "Nothing exists that does not arise from conditions" implies,
then it also cannot be the source of the perfect cessation of suffering.
How does that work for you?

Malcolm wrote:
The mind essence is like space, it does not arise, so it cannot be counted as an existent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 8:11 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
When I was with the Gelugpas, I hear the phrase emptiness of emptiness quite a lot.  To me, if one says that emptiness is also empty, one is actually saying that emptiness is conditioned and not unconditioned.  I am not sure if the Gelugpas realize that though.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that emptiness is empty is to merely say that emptiness does not arise, not that emptiness is conditioned. If emptiness is conditioned, so is suchness. This kind of reasoning will cause all the Buddhas and bodhisattvas to turn their backs to one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 8:09 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
So what is the meaning then of "whatever arises in dependence, that in truth does not arise"?


Malcolm wrote:
It means simply that when you examine dependently originated phenomena you cannot ascertain that they ever arose. A phenomena that never arose is defined as "unconditioned", for example, space, which is the primary metaphor used to describe the actual nature of things. Thus, when we examine phenomena for essences we cannot find one, because phenomena do not arise by virtue of an essence, they in fact, or in truth, never arise. This is what it means to say that conditioned phenomena possess an unconditioned nature, no more and no less.

If conditioned phenomena possessed a conditioned nature, that nature would also have to arise, leading to dual arising for same phenomena, which is absurd. However, since conditioned phenomena possess an unconditioned nature their arising is only apparent, not actual, merely conventional, similar with an illusion, etc. This covers all qualms you may have.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Under REAL socialism, production is for need, and doesn't need to be profitable.


Malcolm wrote:
Under Marxist socialism, all factors of life would be centralized and planned.

I simply don't agree with that model of politics and I never will.

I don't want to wear the same uniform you are wearing, the same clothes, shoes, etc. That is the consequence of "production out of the need" in a large industrial society.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is, since it comes with a sense "me and mine", i.e. "I have the right to use this place, you do not".

Sherab Dorje said:
Nope, it is not the same as ownership.  Simple example:  when you rent a car you have rights over its use, do you own it?  No.  Now a rented car belongs to somebody, but the land, it did not belong to somebody.  It did not belong to everybody either.

Malcolm wrote:
False, like an apartment you have signed a contract to own the car for a period, with all responsibilities that ownership entails.


Sherab Dorje said:
Necessarily, otherwise it would require "oppressive social/political and economic models". BTW, I am not suggesting that we can reduce the population by any moral means, merely that population reduction is a desiderata. This is a key point of the Deep Ecology platform.
Deep Ecologist were being accused of Malthusian misanthropy since the inception of the particular ideology.

Malcolm wrote:
Malthus is unfairly accused of Misanthropy. He was not a misanthrope, he was a pessimist.


Sherab Dorje said:
A subsistence economy, or steady state economy, can contain all forms of technological production, doing so with respect to environmental impacts, but only if human populations never exceed 100,000,000.
Who comes up with this magical number?

Malcolm wrote:
Arne Naess.




Sherab Dorje said:
Again, total nonsense. All economies function by producing surplus value...
While it is true that, historically, they try to, it is not a necessary function of an economy.


Malcolm wrote:
It is simply true that they do, and always have, and always will.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Tom said:
Are you suggesting Jay asserts dependent origination from an ultimate stand point? I'm just not sure how you are using ultimate analysis here?


Malcolm wrote:
I do not think that is what Jay is saying. Jay and I have a disagreement over what constitutes a "satya". I maintain that as a satya is an object of cognition, what is important is whether the cognition is veridical or non-veridical. But Jay asserts that the object (veridical or non-veridical) is what is important, and thus, he concludes, wrongly in my estimation, that there is no ultimate truth, or as you have stated, that the ultimate is that there is no ultimate truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Yes, that is very nice.
but what is your opinion?
Do you think anything arises which is not a composite?
and do you regard space as a phenomenon
or as something that phenomena arise in,
or both?
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
My opinion is stated in the quote.

Space is a phenomena. It is an unconditioned phenomena therefore it does not arise. It is actually merely nonobstruction.

Nothing arises which does not arise from conditions. Nothing exists that does not arise from conditions. Space is in fact a non-existent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Unknown said:
The (collectively arrived at) right to use is not the same thing as ownership.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course it is, since it comes with a sense "me and mine", i.e. "I have the right to use this place, you do not".



Unknown said:
Not necessarily.  I am sure you are aware of countless societies with sustainable human population levels that were based on oppressive social/political and economic models.  With current population levels it would require a drastic reduction in the "quality of life" for "first worlders" and a radical shift in ideology praxis.  Misanthropism is not a solution.

Malcolm wrote:
Necessarily, otherwise it would require "oppressive social/political and economic models". BTW, I am not suggesting that we can reduce the population by any moral means, merely that population reduction is a desiderata. This is a key point of the Deep Ecology platform. A subsistence economy, or steady state economy, can contain all forms of technological production, doing so with respect to environmental impacts, but only if human populations never exceed 100,000,000. Since world population is slowly crashing anyway, and will crash much more quickly once petroleum resources are no longer practical to extract, we can anticipate this with planning that encompasses centuries, rather than decades, or years.

Unknown said:
Who said that the Buddha was a Marxist/Anarchist?  "Surplus value" is theft and cannot be generated without a supporting system of coercion.  That is why/how economies are political.

Malcolm wrote:
Again, total nonsense. All economies function by producing surplus value, the difference is that Communism and Capitalism both regard the non-productive destruction of surplus value as immoral. They both destroy surplus value productively using different ideologies.  But all economies produce surplus value, even natural communities generate surplus value until their resources are exhausted, then they die back. This is very different from your admired primitive societies, and festival societies (like old Tibet) where the non-productive destruction of surplus value was regarded as desiderata (the potlach, gilding stupas, etc.).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for example, true existents.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Do you regard space as a true existent?
Hmmmm....come to think of it, do you regard anything at all as a true existent?
Do you assert that "true existent" is an impossibility?


Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are not bound by anything.
If one recognizes that true existence is inherently nonexistent, 
taints are purified intrinsically,
like muddy water self-purifying.
All phenomena are the same in lacking inherent existence.
-- The String of Pearls Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 27th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


theanarchist said:
Cough cough... Rabbit horns..

Malcolm wrote:
Āryāṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitāpañjikāsārottamā:
All phenomena do not arise, 
that is the non-existence of the inherent existence of all phenomena, 
therefore, that absence of arising is like the horns of a rabbit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
"For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible"

PadmaVonSamba said:
Everything can't be possible, because if everything were possible, then it would also be possible for some things not to be possible.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for example, true existents.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
BTW one of the twenty or so capitalist powers that was viciously and ruthlessley intervening in Russia at that time was you country, the USA. The USA can be ruthless, but the Bolshevik supporters are condemned for being ruthless in response?

Malcolm wrote:
While it is true that the US covertly funded opposition to the Bolsheviks, whom the Americans regarded as being under the control of  and rightly so, our military presence in Russia was confined to fighting Cossacks along the trans-Siberian railway.

Anyway, you need to read this, it provides a clear account of our military presence in Russia:

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/us-army-in-russia-1.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
[
Merely saying that emptiness is defined as unconditioned does not addressed my question, which was how is it possible to have a thing that is both conditioned and unconditioned at the same time.  Perhaps, you are saying it is possible as long as it is defined as possible.

Malcolm wrote:
"For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible, for those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible"

If emptiness is a synonym for dependent arising, that would imply that dependent arising is unconditioned.  Or to put is more starkly, it would mean that dependent arising does not arise dependently.
There is no entity "dependent arising", there are only phenomena that arise in dependence. Space, the two cessations and emptiness do not arise at all, so they are by definition phenomena that do not arise in dependence. Of course, this does not mean that they are not relative, for both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative. Since both conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are relative, their relationship is strictly a matter of definition.

As for dependently origination phenomena being unconditioned, the Prajñāpāramita states "Whatever arises in dependence, that in truth does not arise". The argument can be made that even so called dependently originated phenomena are unconditioned in reality, since their production cannot be ascertained at all when subjected to ultimate analysis. Again in this respect there is no contradiction between a conventionally conditioned entity having a conventionally unconditioned nature since in reality both are merely conventions. While the former bears the latter as its nature, in reality neither the former nor the latter can stand up to ultimate analysis. In other words there are no phenomena at all that can stand up to ultimate analysis.

Yes, unconditioned things can be truly existents or false existents that are not dependently arisen.  But unconditioned things cannot include false existents that are dependently arisen, don't you agree?
Of course I do not agree: for example, space, an unconditioned phenomena, permeates all conditioned phenomena, and neither obstructs conditioned phenomena nor is obstructed by them. Emptiness, another unconditioned phenomena, likewise permeates all conditioned phenomena, neither obstructing them nor being obstructed by them.

It is precisely because of such contradictions that Garfield and Priest were forced to conclude from their study of Nagarjuna that ultimately there is no ultimate and that dependent arising is all there is.
Jay Garfield is a lovely guy, and an excellent analytical philosopher (he is a professor in the Philosophy Department at Smith college, along with my father (now retired)), however, he is wrong in so far that there isn't even dependent origination in the ultimate analysis.
Again, I don't think that giving a definition as an answer will resolve the logical contradiction that my question raises.
Your question presumes an entity/entity relationship, therefore your very question is flawed. Emptiness is not an entity, neither are phenomena, other than conventionally.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:
I am telling you, all this Anarchist and Marxist thinking just does not fly when you view the world through a Buddhist lens.
...

Capitalsm can't fly and we must... MUST find a better way of living on this planet, and of overcoming the coercive stranglehold that capitalists have over our planet.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as human beings are under the sway of the three poisons, for that long there will always be "I and mine".

But to be frank, TOTO, I would never want any state telling me how I can best live my live, how my labor is best disposed of. I prefer all the uncertainty under this capitalist system to a certain dreary gray totalitarian future under Communism. You may want to be a zek, but I sure don't.

tellyontellyon said:
You would need a powerful state to maintain any dictatorship.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat is envisioned as being so ruthless.

tellyontellyon said:
Whatever you think the solution might look like, the capitalist mode of production is standing in the way of it.

Malcolm wrote:
The capitalist mode of production is not the problem, according to you Marxists. The problem, according to you, is who owns that means of production.

The only political theories out there that actually call into question the validity of the capitalist mode of production itself, as opposed to the question of ownership of that means of production are  certain strains of anarchist thinking, Bookchin's Communalism and Deep Ecology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: Western geshes and khenpos
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
because his views came under such harsh criticism from Sakya scholars such as Gorampa.

Konchog1 said:
Such as?

Malcolm wrote:
Gorampa, in his commentary on the Madhyamakāvatara lists over a hundred points where he thinks Tsongkhapa erred.

The standard summary of Gorampa's critiques of Tsongkhapa are to found in his famous "Differentiation of Views".

Thus far, Gorampa's views have not been effectively countered by any Gelug scholar I know as they generally refuse to read Gorampa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
I did address the claim in other posts, since it comes up a lot. I'll be to the point here:

Nozick is an outlier in libertarianism, the mainstream is probably better defined by Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty (and some Rand), in that he rejects the natural inalienable rights accepted by the American Revolutionaries. This sits better with me, since I think that the main weakness of libertarianism is that people overlook the obvious theological roots of Lockean rights. It's all protestant drivel to me. However, I do not understand why you still place me in the same camp as Nozick, since fundamentally he agrees with mainstream libertarians in believing that the solution is "limited government." After what I have written, I think it is clear that I think this notion is absurd. Government can't be limited by itself, and if it's limited by something higher, then it's not a government in my use of the word.

Malcolm wrote:
I take it back.

As for Nozik, as far as I can tell, in his ASU he is making a moral argument, not a practical one. For him the state is only valid inso far in that is has a monopoly on violence. When it exceeds its responsibilities in this respect, it begins to engage in immoral redistribution which people's rights.

He merely takes the Lockean state of nature as preferable to the Hobbsian one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
greentara said:
Right meditation...

Malcolm wrote:
...follows right view, that is why right view is listed first in the eightfold path of nobles.


theanarchist said:
I doubt that anyone can have a truely right view without a direct experience of emptiness nature.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of right view: mundane and supra mundane. One uses the former to realize the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 10:06 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
So it is possible for an conditioned thing to be unconditioned?  If so, then are you not essentially implying that the thing is one thing and the nature of the thing is another thing?

Malcolm wrote:
Emptiness by definition is unconditioned. In Mahāyāna, space, the two cessations and emptiness are all defined as unconditioned.

This is a contradiction, something truly existent can have no relative modes at all because a true existent, be unconditioned and uncaused, cannot express itself as a causal process.
A true existent is unconditioned as you have stated above and cannot express itself as a causal process.  Yet if you say that dharmin and dharmata are inseparable, then you are saying that the nature of an unconditioned thing can be in a thing that is a casual process or the result of a causal process.
The four unconditioned phenomena defined by Mahāyāna are all empty. This is why one of the 18 emptinesses illustrated by Candrakirit is called the emptiness of the unconditioned.

All proposed true existents are unconditioned, but not all unconditioned phenomena are true existents (such as space, the two cessations and emptiness). Therefore, in this respect, since dharmatā refers to the nature of things, which is their emptiness, dharmatā and dharmin are inseparable, yet one is unconditioned and the other, conditioned. I.e. the emptiness of things is not created, and is not subject to decay. It does not arise because things arise, and does not disappear because things disappear. Everything is empty, and that is not something subject to conditions. Therefore, emptiness is not subject to conditions.

Further, if emptiness, which is by definition unconditioned, were to be different than that conditioned thing it is the emptiness of, the thing would not be empty and the emptiness itself would not be an emptiness.

Further, emptiness is not a true existent for it itself is also empty.
If emptiness is not a true existent, then it cannot be unconditioned.  Yet you have said earlier that clarity is conditioned and emptiness is unconditioned and are inseparable.
Obviously it can, since emptiness in Mahāyana is not only defined as empty (cf the emptiness of emptiness), but also as unconditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Zhen Li said:
By proposing basic responsibility that the Buddha advocates, in this thread I have already been called a libertarian and conservative many times. I have even been called a jingoistic American exceptionalist. It's really laughable how quickly the blind see devils.

Malcolm wrote:
You are a libertarian and a conservative. I would be surprised if you had any serious disagreements with Nozik, for example.

These days, however, most people gloss neo-conservative as "conservative", which is of course a mistake.

We can't call you a "jingoistic American exceptionalist" because you're Canadian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Zhen Li said:
I really can't see why people don't see the basic principle of the fact that communism (and anarcho-communism), imply immorality from the Buddhist perspective. People need to stop being blinded in the first place by ideology, and question every belief they have from first principles.

Malcolm wrote:
Probably because most people in the West come to their political views fairly early in life, and Buddhism only later. Especially leftists have a bit of retrofitting to force Buddhism into a leftist model.

This is why I am an advocate of deep ecology. Deep ecology does not require any retooling to fit with Dharma. It just requires an extension of rights to the biosphere as a whole, with the corresponding consequences of that, i.e. maintaining world population at levels that do not exceed the "income of the household" (impractical, I know, just saying).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Western geshes and khenpos
Content:
smcj said:
[
Very common.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, as time grew on later Gelugpas needed to cover up the fact that Tsongkhapa started out as a Sakyapa because his views came under such harsh criticism from Sakya scholars such as Gorampa. But you must remember, Tsongkhapas main Guru was Rendawa Zhonnu Lodo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 7:38 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
The unenumerated ultimate is simply the direct perception of emptiness
Hmmm. You're sounding very Yogacarin there (using the Mind Only definition).



Malcolm wrote:
This is straight out of "Prasanga" Madhyamaka texts. No Yogacara here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Western geshes and khenpos
Content:
Tom said:
I think the Kadampa masters first used the title Geshe. It seems that Bon teachers also use the title Geshe. Does anyone know if that has a long tradition? And are there any Western Bon pa Geshes?

smcj said:
Gelupas are the descendants of the Kadampas. Same DNA with a bit of Kagyu and Sakya thrown in.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a common myth. The historical facts are however that Tsongkhapa was  Sakyapa originally, studied at Sakya, and refers to himself as a Sakyapa in some early commentaries. Further, his two main students were Sakyapas. It is indeed true that since his first master was a Kadampa Geshe, he always maintain an obvious affection for Lam rim, but in his training he was a Sakyapa. Most of the transmissions in Gelug come through Sakya because it is a little know fact that the Sakyapas were and still are the richest school in terms of total number of gsar ma tantric lineages from India. Probably because they were among the wealthiest religious families in Tsang. The Kagyu sngags mdzod is quite small when compared to the rgyud sde kun bdus.

Initially, Gelug was called Sakya gsar ma, i.e. new Sakyapas, until it was renamed Ganden pa after Tsongkhapa's monastery in Lhasa.  "dge lugs" is a corruption of i.e. dga' lugs, short for dga' ldan pa'i lugs, i.e. "the school of the dga' ldan pas." The proper name for the Gelug school is actually "Ri bo dga' ldan pas", those of Tushita Mountain.

It is also true that Tsongkhapa received important transmissions from Drikung as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
This is central to one's ontological experience of the world. Every sensation gives rise to a feeling.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, either pleasurable (profitable), painful (unprofitable) or neutral (tending toward unprofitable).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
greentara said:
Right meditation...

Malcolm wrote:
...follows right view, that is why right view is listed first in the eightfold path of nobles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, all human beings have notions of ownership, they simply are alien or do not correspond to the current Roman property law concepts of ownership that are actually at the root of the property law system which generally dominates capitalist countries. These societies generally instead have/had the concept of "right of use" (usufruct) for example, East Coast Native Americans in the Continental US, I.e. they would negotiate with each other about who would own the right to use this or that fishing ground, hunting territory and so on. It is true that ownership of these rights were very plastic, and could easily change since they were not tied to "property" as we understand the term, but also wars were waged when one tribe felt another tribe was violating their rights of use.

Sherab Dorje said:
You go from saying that all human beings have the notion of ownership to giving an example where human beings functioned without the notion of ownership.

Malcolm wrote:
No so, ownership of a usufruct right is ownership, plain and simple. I assume here you are excluding clothes, weapons, horses and so on from your definition of "no ownership".


Sherab Dorje said:
...but only if there is a grand catastrophe involving a shocking reduction of population to levels that were current at the beginning of the agricultural epoch.
Not at all necessary.  It would, though, require a radical shift in ideology/praxis.

Malcolm wrote:
Necessarily.

Sherab Dorje said:
Merit arises from positive acts not because one wants to benefit from (capitalise on) the action but because wholesome actions bring wholesome outcomes.

Malcolm wrote:
Merit arises from positive intentions, which can include positive benefits for oneself.

Sherab Dorje said:
It has NOTHING to do with exchange (though it is true that some people think it does).  The benefits arising from an act of (seeming) generosity (for example) can be reduced to zero if one's motivation behind an apparently generous act is just to gain merit.

Malcolm wrote:
No, that is not true, but what is true that in Mahāyāna parlance, that merit can be exhausted, as opposed to the merit created by an objectless dedication, which is inexhaustible. There is no comparable notion in Nikāya Buddhism.

Sherab Dorje said:
In marketplace transactions, on the other hand, deception can (and normally does) bring profit since selling an item for more than its production value is essentially theft via deception.

Malcolm wrote:
Total nonsense. Even Buddha encouraged his lay disciples to invest and make profits on their labor, so you just accused Buddha of encouraging theft.

I am telling you, all this Anarchist and Marxist thinking just does not fly when you view the world through a Buddhist lens.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
As much as you Buddhist modernists hate to admit it, in Buddhism there is an even greater manifestation of non-tangible exchange in Karma and Merit.

Malcolm wrote:
I wouldn't say that SD is a Buddhist modernist, but his political POV is more in line with the libertarian municipalism of Bookchin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
a true existent, be unconditioned and uncaused, cannot express itself as a causal process.

PadmaVonSamba said:
Are you saying that relative truth does not arise within the context of ultimate truth?

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth and relative truth are respectively the objects of correct and incorrect cognitions of the same thing. For example, take a pot: relative truth is the perception of its color, shape, size, etc. Ultimate truth is the perception of its emptiness, that's all. The ultimate truth of a pot cannot be found apart form the pot. The enumerated ultimate is also a conventional, relative truth. The unenumerated ultimate is simply the direct perception of emptiness. Since the emptiness of one thing is like the emptiness of all things, realizing the emptiness of one thing is realizing the emptiness of all things.

Further, emptiness is not a true existent for it itself is also empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
And, I would suggest that (what I am calling) "awareness" truly exists which precludes any differentiation, simply because it cannot be denied since it manifests as consciousness, and later, as personal experience.
.


Malcolm wrote:
This is a contradiction, something truly existent can have no relative modes at all because a true existent, be unconditioned and uncaused, cannot express itself as a causal process.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
If the conversation is about what the broader Karma Kagyu view is, I suggest asking somebody authoritative.

Sherab Dorje said:
And white guys/gals cannot be authoritative?  Like, authority comes with skin colour???

smcj said:
Ok, ask a white khenpo. To the best of my knowledge one does not exist.

Malcolm wrote:
That is because to be a Khenpo, you must be a monk. A loppon on the other hand has the same education but is not necessarily a monk.

However, I seem to recall that Karl Brunholz was given the title Khenpo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
What I am suggesting (and perhaps this is merely a suggestion, extrapolated from my vague understanding of dharma, but perhaps, I'll admit, not supported by sutras or tantras) is different from the Hindu or vedic concept, because that "pure, uncaused knower" also arises in it.

.

Malcolm wrote:
Your view here is completely incompatible with any form of Buddhism I have encountered. Buddha rejects this type of ground completely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 26th, 2014 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Many societies (both historically and currently) do not have the notion of ownership within their social/political/economic paradigms.

Malcolm wrote:
No, all human beings have notions of ownership, they simply are alien or do not correspond to the current Roman property law concepts of ownership that are actually at the root of the property law system which generally dominates capitalist countries. These societies generally instead have/had the concept of "right of use" (usufruct) for example, East Coast Native Americans in the Continental US, I.e. they would negotiate with each other about who would own the right to use this or that fishing ground, hunting territory and so on. It is true that ownership of these rights were very plastic, and could easily change since they were not tied to "property" as we understand the term, but also wars were waged when one tribe felt another tribe was violating their rights of use.

At base, ownership is a concept that arises from the three afflictions, and more specifically the delusion "I" and "mine", and this is why as long as human beings are driven by afflictions, we always will move from simpler ownership paradigms, such as those of nomadic and semi-nomadic bands (usufruct rights) to the more complicated property-based economics of the grand civilizations of Europe, African, The Americas and Asia. We could conceivably move back to such a notion of usufruct, but only if there is a grand catastrophe involving a shocking reduction of population to levels that were current at the beginning of the agricultural epoch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I should confess I have not studied Shakya Chogden in detail, and it is generally said that while Shakya Chogden's views are somewhat problematical, he was perhaps the most brilliant philosopher the Sakya school ever produced, apart from Sapan. While I am no Shakya Chogden, one of the things that annoyed people about him is that he changed his views over the years. I do that too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


smcj said:
The fact that Khenpo Tsultrim and other modern Karma Kagyu writers use Yogacara=Shentong is painfully confusing the issue though.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this is because the Sakyapa writer Shakya Chogden, upon whom KTG relies heavily, basically argues that Yogacara is a kind of Madhyamaka, and goes to some lengths to reinterpret Dolbuba's gzhan stong approach so it is less eternalistic.

Shakya Chogden's view would have become the main view of the Sakya school but for a divination that was done in front of Four Faced Mahākala, the protector of the view in Sakya. The mo came out in favor of the treatises of Gorampa, and the latter's Mahdyamaka perspective has been considered orthodox ever since. Indeed, I myself for the most part follow Gorampa's reading of Madhyamaka even still.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 9:05 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
So, is your awareness undifferentiated or is it individuated, i.e. a personal continuum? If the former, your view is no different than Advaita. If the latter, that is acceptable within Buddhism.
As I read it, the Yogacara/Cittamatra is the latter, and Shentong is the former.

However I must say that this understanding of mine is only a week or so old, so it is subject to change without notice.

The fact that Khenpo Tsultrim and other modern Karma Kagyu writers use Yogacara=Shentong is painfully confusing the issue though.

Malcolm wrote:
No, Yogacara/cittamatra insists forcefully that awareness/consciousness, whatever you want to the call it is individuated. There really is no Buddhist school that argues for an uniform uber-consciousness out of which individual consciousness are instantiated.

Basically, folks like Tony Page really are faced two alternatives, either their "true self" is like Purusha of the Saṃkhya school, a totally unconditioned individuated knower, as opposed to the nonsentient evolutes of prakriti (buddhi, ahaṃkara, manas, five sense organs, five organs of action, the five subtle elements (sound, etc.) and the five coarse elements; or it is like brahmin of the Vedantins and so on. They really have only these two choices if they insist on a literal interpretation of the term "atman", bdag nyid in texts like the Nirvana Sutra and so on.

In Saṃkhya there are an infinite number of purushas, while in Advaita, using the basic model of Saṃkhya, proposes that purusha and brahmin are synonymous and further, that there is only one purusha, and that further, prakriti and its evolutes are also included in purusha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
While the topic is still fresh, I found this nice quote from the same book about the Trotskyist conception of the state:
To sum up [Trotsky wrote], “the road to Socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State ... The State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction” ([The Defence of Terrorism] p. 157). It would be difficult indeed to put the matter more plainly. The state of the proletarian dictatorship is depicted by Trotsky as a huge permanent concentration camp in which the government exercises absolute power over every aspect of the citizens’ lives and in particular decides how much work they shall do, of what kind and in what places. Individuals are nothing but labour units. Compulsion is universal, and any organization that is not part of the state must be its enemy, thus the enemy of the proletariat. All this, of course, is in the name of an ideal realm of freedom, the advent of which is expected after an indefinite lapse of historical time. (Vol. II pg. 512)

Socialism in general must descend to this ultimately:
Bukharin, like Lenin, regarded the system of basing economic life on mass terror not as a transient necessity but as a permanent principle of socialist organization. He did not shrink from justifying all means of coercion and held, like Trotsky at the same period, that the new system called essentially for the militarization of labour – i.e. the use of police and military force to compel the whole population to work in such places and conditions as the state might arbitrarily decree. Indeed, once the market is abolished there is no longer any free sale of labour or competition between workers, and police coercion is therefore the only means of allocating “human resources”. If hired labour is eliminated, only compulsory labour remains. In other words, socialism – as conceived by both Trotsky and Bukharin at this time – is a permanent, nation-wide labour camp. (Vol III. pg. 28-9)

Malcolm wrote:
Well, this was the state of Tibet until the early 1980's under communist rule, and is the state of North Korea even today.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Socialism in general must descend to this ultimately:
Bukharin, like Lenin, regarded the system of basing economic life on mass terror not as a transient necessity but as a permanent principle of socialist organization. He did not shrink from justifying all means of coercion and held, like Trotsky at the same period, that the new system called essentially for the militarization of labour – i.e. the use of police and military force to compel the whole population to work in such places and conditions as the state might arbitrarily decree. Indeed, once the market is abolished there is no longer any free sale of labour or competition between workers, and police coercion is therefore the only means of allocating “human resources”. If hired labour is eliminated, only compulsory labour remains. In other words, socialism – as conceived by both Trotsky and Bukharin at this time – is a permanent, nation-wide labour camp. (Vol III. pg. 28-9)

Sherab Dorje said:
Not necessarily, people do have the capacity to share, you know.

Malcolm wrote:
I imagine that under this totalitarian scenario your labor does not belong to you any more, since it has been socialized. Therefore, sharing your now "valueless" labor could be construed as a crime against the state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 7:34 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The latter black gzhan stong is pretty much heterodox from a Buddhist point of view. SOB adheres to the latter.

Sherab Dorje said:
His confessed adherence to a belief in an Atman puts him well outside the ballpark of any kind of Buddhism I have ever encountered.

Malcolm wrote:
His confessed un-nuanced position does. But it is important to recall that terms like bdag nyid chen po [mahātma] etc regularly show up in Tantric texts all the time.

As I read gzhan stong, the emphasis is not on promulgating a belief in an ultimate self, but rather the focus is on proving that ultimate [as opposed to relative] buddha-qaulities are innate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that would be consciousness, no matter what words you want to use, like awareness, etc., it is still consciousness.

So, is your awareness undifferentiated or is it individuated, i.e. a personal continuum? If the former, your view is no different than Advaita. If the latter, that is acceptable within Buddhism.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I regard "consciousness' as arising from causes...

Also, I am not clear about what you mean by 'undifferentiated'.

Malcolm wrote:
Does "awareness" arise from causes? If it does, how is it different than consciousness? If it does not, how is this different from a number of Hindu positions that maintain the existence of pure, uncaused knower?

Undifferentiated means for example, like an ocean, or SOB's bowl of milk; individuated means like streams or rivers, individual continuums.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 10:11 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Sherab said:
No amount of analysis using mutually exclusive terms on one and the same entity can ever hope to come to a sensible conclusion.  That is why the Samdhinirmocana sutra practically sneers at the argument and debates among certain people.

Malcolm wrote:
The salient point is that dharmin and dharmatā are inseparable. The nature of conditioned things is unconditioned, that is the entire point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I'm not sure that just quoting that one line gives the gist of what is being said so here it is in full

Malcolm wrote:
It explains the basic point that I was making, social class, what kind of family you are born into, is result your past karma.


tellyontellyon said:
We can help people in the here and now, we can actually change our present situation..., and in turn our actions can come back to us as positive karma in the future.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, provided we act with wisdom and in accordance with the Dharma. If we abandon the Dharma by adhering to some non-Buddhist principles, we will come to nothing but grief.

For example, if someone accumulates a great deal of money or property, this is a result of their karma. We can encourage them to use it in a socially responsible way, but if we "liberate" it for the "people", believing that a factory for example "belongs" to its workers, then we will be in for some very heavy negative karma of poverty in our future life. On the other hand, if we believe a factory is engaged in unfair practices, and we picket, and protest, appealing to the government to step in, there is no problem with this. Buddhist Vinaya has long established that in terms of matters of law, the civil law of the country you are in handles civil matters and must be obeyed.

So, I am all for people trying to make the world a better place as long as they do so civilly, non-violently and without engaging in force to achieve their ends. I can understand when people react with extreme violence to heavy oppression, understand it, but this also is really just samsaric behavior. At a certain point in your life, you have to give up attachment to samsara and your own selfish liberation and instead cultivate bodhicitta and a view which is free from grasping.

If you read and follow what is taught in Mahāyāna you will have perfect prescription for how to benefit sentient beings in this life and the next with no need to resort the theories of doctrines of materialists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... because the mind and the mind essence are inseparable, the former conditioned and the latter unconditioned.

Sherab said:
Since mind and mind essence are inseperable, mind and mind essence cannot be separate entities but merely aspects of the same entity, whatever that is.  But if mind and mind essence are aspects of the same entity, whatever that is, then that entity is both conditioned and unconditioned.  In other words, that entity is both a dependent-arising phenomenon and a non-dependent-arising phenomenon.  That clearly makes no sense without twisting the meaning of dependent-arising so much as to make it completely unrecognizable.

Malcolm wrote:
Ah, well, to understand how this works, you must read the Analysis of how phenonomena and their nature are neither the same nor different in the Samdhinirmocana sutra. Then you will understand. Otherwise, you are left with the conclusion that the dharmtā of a given thing is conditioned, i.e. that emptiness is conditioned. But emptiness is clearly unconditioned, nevertheless all conditioned things are empty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 8:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I think some ideas around Karma might be worth thinking about. What do people think of these idea:
(sorry, more Wiki.... I did say I'm no scholar.
Loy argues that the idea of accumulating merit too easily becomes "spirtitual materialism," a view echoed by other Buddhist modernists,[105] and further that

"Karma has been used to rationalize racism, caste, economic oppression, birth handicaps and everything else. Taken literally, karma justifies the authority of political elites, who therefore must deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those who have neither. It provides the perfect theodicy: if there is an infallible cause-and-effect relationship between one's actions and one's fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it's already built into the moral fabric of the universe. In fact, if there is no undeserved suffering, there is really no evil that we need to struggle against. It will all balance out in the end."[104]

While some strands of later Buddhist thought did attribute all experience to past karma, the early texts explicitly did not, and in particular state that caste is not determined by karma.[106]
Does anybody know about these early texts that explicitly state that caste is not determined by Karma? Apparently the source for this statement on Wiki came from this reference:
Matthews, Bruce (1986), "Chapter Seven: Post-Classical Developments in the Concepts of Karma and Rebirth in Theravada Buddhism", in Neufeldt, Ronald W., Karma and Rebirth: Post Classical Developments, State University of New York Press,

I will also throw in this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

http://buddhism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=buddhism&cdn=religion&tm=60&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=3&bts=80&zu=http%3A//www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html

Malcolm wrote:
The earlier sutta citation I provided for you comes from the Majjhima Nikāya. Clearly, Buddha there states that one's social position, whether high or low is a result of karma.

From the article you shared:

From the standpoint of karma, though, where we come from is old karma, over which we have no control.

We only have control over where we are going, not what family we were born into and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
smcj said:
So, is your awareness undifferentiated or is it individuated, i.e. a personal continuum? If the former, your view is no different than Advaita. If the former, that is acceptable within Buddhism.
Beautifully put!

So the question then becomes; do you believe that the Shentong, of say either Kongtrul or Dolpoba, is the same or different than Advaita?

Malcolm wrote:
Like the Dalai Lama put it, there is a "white" gzhan stong" and a "black" gzhan stong. Following Rongton Shejya Kunrig, the former would be a transitional view between Yogacara and Madhyamaka, for in reality there is little difference between the false aspectarian Yogacara school in India (Ratnakarashanti) and gzhan stong. The latter black gzhan stong is pretty much heterodox from a Buddhist point of view. SOB adheres to the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 8:19 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
On class, I think the  Buddha's idea of class or caste is different to the Marxian definition. It isn't really the same as how wealthy you are or based on culture/attitudes etc.

Malcolm wrote:
"“Under the patriarchal system, under the caste system, under the feudal and corporative system, there was division of labor in the whole of society according to fixed rules. Were these rules established by a legislator? No. Originally born of the conditions of material production, they were born of the conditions of material production; they were raised to the status of laws only much later. In this way these different forms of the division of labour became so many bases of social organization.” ‘Poverty of Philosophy’, 118.

Marx's idea is precisely this. The Buddha would say no, people are born into social stations based on their karma. The two views are therefore incompatible.

tellyontellyon said:
When Marxists talk about class they are referring to particular economic roles that only really exist under capitalism.

Malcolm wrote:
In Capital he writes:

“Manufacture, in fact, produces the skill of the detail labourer, by reproducing, and systematically driving to an extreme within the workshop, the naturally developed differentiation of trades which it found ready to had in society at large. On the other hand, the conversion of fractional work into the life-calling of one man, corresponds to the tendency shown by earlier societies, to make trades hereditary; either to petrify them into castes, or whenever definite historical conditions beget in the individual a tendency to vary in a manner incompatible with the nature of castes, to ossify them into guilds. Castes and guilds arise from the action of the same natural law that regulates the differentiation of plants and animals into species and varieties, except that when a certain degree of development has been reached, the heredity of castes and exclusiveness of guilds are ordained as a law of society.” (p. 321. Moscow edition 1974).

I see no real distinction that can be made apart from that fact that, put in Marxist terms, these castes arose as a result of primitive accumulations which were then capitalized.

tellyontellyon said:
So Capitalism as defined by Marx is a new phenomenon.

Malcolm wrote:
Specifically, modern Capitalism is a post colonial evolution based on the discovery of gold and silver in the Americas and so on.

If you take the broader view, there have been many waves of capitalism since ancient history, like a trees in a forest, beings compete for resources, some are more effective at gathering resources, other's less. Eventually, the whole forest becomes moribund and is either replaced with new species of trees, or it dies altogether.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, your positing consciousness as an undifferentiated field, which amounts the same thing as positing a self.

PadmaVonSamba said:
When did I ever suggest "consciousness as an undifferentiated field"?

I said  "awareness", but that may not be the right term. is that what you are referring to?
As a matter of fact, I am not sure of the specific term for what I am talking about, but it is not consciousness (which is a composite). I am talking about a "context"  which precedes cognition, from which cognitive experiences such as thoughts, notions of self, etc. arise when interacting with objects of awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that would be consciousness, no matter what words you want to use, like awareness, etc., it is still consciousness.

So, is your awareness undifferentiated or is it individuated, i.e. a personal continuum? If the former, your view is no different than Advaita. If the latter, that is acceptable within Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
tobes said:
Nonetheless, I see how certain traditions - Dzogchen, Zen - can read Nagarjuna as denying all forms of causation.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen does not reject causes and conditions conventionally, in fact it elaborates a whole elaborate scheme to explain the cause of samsara as well as consciousness, memory, etc.

tobes said:
Let me re-phrase: I see how certain interpreters of Dzogchen, Zen, can read Nagarjuna as denying all forms of causation....



Malcolm wrote:
The main point being made is that causality itself cannot withstand ultimate analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
causation can be said to operate conventionally in the same way that a person with defective vision sees hairs: in each case the appearance is accepted at face value, as in a dream.


Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, yet it appears.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I'm confused here.  Are people conflating Anarchism with Marxism?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all.

Sherab Dorje said:
Weird, coz just a couple of posts earlier tellyontellyoff was saying that Marxists are somehow in opposition to states.

Malcolm wrote:
well, in terms of their utopia, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Awareness does not cease.
No 'self' arises unless awareness arises with objects of awareness again,
and produces another experience of 'self'.

Malcolm wrote:
You're a Vedantin too.

PadmaVonSamba said:
I am not asserting any valid, intrinsically arising self
merely the experience of a self
such as the one reading this post,
which arises from the interaction of (ground of) awareness and objects of awareness.
Vedantins assert an intrinsically existent self (atman).
I don't.
.
.
.

Malcolm wrote:
No, your positing consciousness as an undifferentiated field, which amounts the same thing as positing a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Are you saying that the body is the matrix?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. Where else can consciousness be located?

dzogchungpa said:
OK, then I'm a little confused. If I'm not mistaken 'matrix' = 'garbha', which, according to your Gorampa quote is unconditioned. Is the body then considered to be unconditioned?


Malcolm wrote:
Garbha means something that holds, what is being held, tathatā. Who holds tathatā? Sentient beings.

Sugatagarbha is a short hand way of saying "the dharmakāya encased in afflictions".

What becomes afflicted, clarity. What is the nature of clarity? Emptiness. Tathatāgarbha is just a way of saying that sentient beings have the potential for awakening because the mind and the mind essence are inseparable, the former conditioned and the latter unconditioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Awareness does not cease.
No 'self' arises unless awareness arises with objects of awareness again,
and produces another experience of 'self'.

Malcolm wrote:
You're a Vedantin too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Using a horrible analogy you are ceral in a bowl of milk(Enlightenment)
The milk is all around the ceral and has soaked into the ceral....the ceral starts to disentagrate(defilements are being removed)
When all the defilents have been removed the ceral disentigrates entirely and and all that is left is the milk.
(sorry horrible analogy)

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, you are definitely a Vedantin in intent if not by name.

Your view is not really very relevant, as long as you practice the sadhana methods properly, you will achieve realization.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
OK, so there's one matrix etc. for each being?

Malcolm wrote:
Each being is a matrix. This is illustrated by such statements like the Hevajra Tantra:

Great wisdom is present in the body,
perfectly free from all concepts,
pervading all things,
present in, but not arising from the body.

dzogchungpa said:
Are you saying that the body is the matrix?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. Where else can consciousness be located?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
I'm confused here.  Are people conflating Anarchism with Marxism?

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Will said:
Here is Buddha (MN 2) saying that Page's 'the Self is real' is one among several wrong views:

Malcolm wrote:
They will merely reply that the Nikayas were a provisional teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Your second question is misphrased, sentient beings are tathāgatagarbha, without them there is no possibility of Buddhahood, they are the matrix, nexus, locus etc. of tathatā.

dzogchungpa said:
OK, so there's one matrix etc. for each being?

Malcolm wrote:
Each being is a matrix. This is illustrated by such statements like the Hevajra Tantra:

Great wisdom is present in the body,
perfectly free from all concepts,
pervading all things,
present in, but not arising from the body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 25th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddhist point of view is that states and classes arise inevitably because sentient beings are afflicted and driven by the three humors. In Buddhist legend, anarchy prevailed in the golden age when afflictions were very latent in humans. The golden age degenerated after humans began hoarding grains and their afflictions became activated, and thus protection societies emerged, kings were elected, classes were formed and it degenerated until the present epoch.
Should have written "poisons".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I don't completely understand Buddhism either, do you?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I pretty well think I do. Others of course may disagree. Of course, there are many details I can learn, some I have forgot, have gone through periods of doubt and intense questioning, but yes, I really do understand the Buddha's teachings. But, then I have done little else for the past 25 years but study and practice it. Am I a realized person, of course not. Understanding and realization are two entirely different things.

You should reflect very carefully on what I wrote above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

dzogchungpa said:
If I understand what you've written above, the clarity referred to is conditioned? If so, how can the
Sugatagarbha, which is unconditioned, be the union of a conditioned part and something else?

Also, does each being have it's own Sugatagarbha?

Malcolm wrote:
Is emptiness conditioned or unconditioned? It is unconditioned. Are all conditioned things empty? Yes. Therefore, the conditioned and the unconditioned are actually non-dual.

Your second question is misphrased, sentient beings are tathāgatagarbha, without them there is no possibility of Buddhahood, they are the matrix, nexus, locus etc. of tathatā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M.

To Marxists the state IS violence. It is a tool for one class to control another. There is an ever present threat of violence that becomes overt if you step outside the limits that are acceptable to the ruling class. Sometimes the cage is bigger, sometimes smaller, but there is always an armed guard.

Malcolm wrote:
States form out of protection societies, in general. We can see this in the case of the Buddha, who in a past life as the Bodhisattva, was appointed the first human king, or so the legend runs, and was appointed a sixth share of the harvest for his troubles.

But as long as human beings are subject to desire, hatred and ignorance, then for that long there will be classes of people, discrimination and so on. There is a reason Buddhists refer to themselves as "insiders". This means that we seek the solution to social ills and problems through personal transformation. There is no way you can remove the three afflictions merely through altering a given set of material relations. The proof of this is the psychological misery of the wealthy. Wealth does not make anyone happy. Of course this does not mean you cannot use material things to entice people into entering the teachings. The four means of converting beings to the Dharma are generosity (which itself as four aspects: giving material gifts, conferring fearlessness, loving kindness and teaching Dharma), pleasant speech, conduct and setting an example.

However, Marxist psychological theory, in contrast with Buddhist teachings, holds that all psychological states are fundamentally  a result of social conditions fostered by material relationships, i.e. it is entirely materialist in its perspective. We can see that this perspective is deeply flawed because in fact as long as sentient beings like ourselves are driven by the three afflictions, there can be no happiness anywhere. Even if your Marxist utopia were possibility, it would swiftly degenerate because humans are driven by afflictions.

The Buddhist point of view is that states and classes arise inevitably because sentient beings are afflicted and driven by the three humors. In Buddhist legend, anarchy prevailed in the golden age when afflictions were very latent in humans. The golden age degenerated after humans began hoarding grains and their afflictions became activated, and thus protection societies emerged, kings were elected, classes were formed and it degenerated until the present epoch.

So in fact it really seems that a doctrine of Anarchy cannot squared with Buddhist teachings, in otherwords, from a Buddhist perspective a stateless society is completely impossible apart from the upper golden age.

It also appears that the uptopia Marx imagines is also impossible as


tellyontellyon said:
But if lethal force is being used against a movement... would they have the right to self defence? That is another question?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha explained very clearly in the Mahaparinibbana sutta that if a country is abiding by its laws, maintaining its own boundaries, and so on, then one it would be hard to attack, and second, if attacked would be difficult to defeat.

He of course understood that countries needed defense forces. But he also clearly demonstrated that no matter what side of a conflict one were on, engaging in lethal violence of any kind would condemn one to hell. Vasubandhu clearly explains that if one belongs to a group of one hundred persons, and that group kills someone, all in that group earn the negative karma of the entire group, i.e, all the Buddhists who recently killed all those Rohingyas all will experience the ripening of murdering those people times the number of people who approve of that action. Karma is unrelenting.

tellyontellyon said:
Before Chinese rule, the Dalai Lama's and the High Lama's would resort to the use of violent force to defend their society. They armed and sent off to war young men just like every other state, and even got into arguments about arms spending.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Army

Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out, the principle of karma is unrelenting. For as many Tibetans who violently resisted the Chinese occupation, many thousands more resisted it non-violently in accordance with Buddhist principles. And many were simply cut down in battle by machines guns since the Tibetans had not comparable arms. I cannot say that I know for a fact that they had lower rebirths, and there certainly are one or two scarce passages in Mahāyāna literature that appear to justify violent force to protect the Dharma, but in general, the tenor of Buddhist texts is that lethal violence is unacceptable.

The Dalai Lama freely admits that Tibet fell because the policies of the Tibetan government had fallen into corruption and abuse, therefore, Tibet could be attacked and defeated successfully because of the lack of merit of his own government.


tellyontellyon said:
Even on a mundane level, if you caused trouble or broke the rules in a monastery you could expect to be treated quite roughly by some muscular dob-dobs, who were not at all gentle or sanctimonious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dob-dob

Malcolm wrote:
Dobdobs habitually indulged in what we would term child sexual abuse, i.e. rape.

tellyontellyon said:
I never said the Marxists were pacifists... (though it appears neither were the Tibetan lamas!)

Malcolm wrote:
Some Lamas aren't, but in general Buddhism is pacifist in orientation.

tellyontellyon said:
If that is too offensive for you, then please, shake the dust from your sandles and turn your back on the world....
But the fact is the world is a violent place, we can't demand perfection of those we associate with if we are going to get involved with trying to change the world.... but as Buddhists we may use our input to at least mitigate the worst of it and encourage less violent forms of coercion.

Malcolm wrote:
The message of the Buddha is that you cannot change the world in any substantial way through external force. You can only change the world by changing yourself.

tellyontellyon said:
No, I can't answer them very well myself, I don't have the skill, brains or time to do justice to a complex and difficult subject.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would you possibly buy into a doctrine you do not completely understand?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: "the Self is real" according to T. Page
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
If there is a true self, what experiences this true self?    Does this true self experience itself?   If so, by what means? If the true self exists outside of phenomena and thus any points of reference, what  ultimately does the true self  experience?  If the true self does not actually experience anything, then is it a rock?  What self experiences samsaric existence?    If the samsaric self can be shown to have no true existence, then is it the true self that experiences samsara?   Does a being with no mental capacity have a true self? If that being with no mental capacity is essentially made of phenomena (physical matter) such as carbon, and yet has a true self, then does all carbon have a true self?
The 'true self' theory raises all sorts of conundrums.
It is essentially no different that believing in god, except that in this case, instead of saying "god" one says "true self".
.
.
.


Malcolm wrote:
The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.

There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:

In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.

The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:

Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.

Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Friend or Foe.
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
And, just for the record, sometimes I don't even agree with myself.

Malcolm wrote:
Typical liberal...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
tobes said:
Nonetheless, I see how certain traditions - Dzogchen, Zen - can read Nagarjuna as denying all forms of causation.

Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen does not reject causes and conditions conventionally, in fact it elaborates a whole elaborate scheme to explain the cause of samsara as well as consciousness, memory, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Jigme Tsultrim said:
Nagarjuna rejected causes.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, yes; conventionally, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
All markets, for all time, have worked according to value and mediation with commodities of exchange (i.e. money, the earliest forms of which were things like cattle).

Malcolm wrote:
That and credit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
To Marxists...the bourgeois state won't simply whither away, therefore it must be removed by force (the ruling class are unlikely to give it up without a struggle).

Malcolm wrote:
So you finally admit it, Marxists advocate violence, because you certainly cannot exercise force without recourse to violence.

tellyontellyon said:
Therefore, the state must be smashed, overthrown, dismantled.

Malcolm wrote:
How can this possibly be non-violent? Even the language you use is the language of violence and coercion.

tellyontellyon said:
A workers state, a sort of temporary semi-state is established to replace it, and the task of changing society so that eventually there will no longer be two classes is begun. Therefore no longer any need for a state.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean, there will no longer be any need for protection? It will be impossible that human beings will act out of desire, hatred and ignorance?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 24th, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Hiya Malcolm,
This is a key question. Marx and Engels addressed this and Lenin really focussed on this in the first chapter of his book: The State and Revolution.

He goes into what the 'State' is from a Marxist perspective, what maintains it, and why, undercapitalism, it will not 'whither away'; he explains the need for revolution and how the state would 'wither away' only after that. I guess it will not be your 'cup of tea', but if you can grit your teeth and get through the whole of the first chapter then you will have your answer.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/


Malcolm wrote:
But I wanted you to summarize it for us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
By the way, to return the thread to its original topic, Robert Nozick maintains that it is inevitable that out of anarchy, a form of minimal state will arise from the creation of protection organizations.

TOTO, Is the utopia you imagine managed or unmanaged? If it is managed, how is this a stateless society? If it is managed, how is this management different than the minimal state imagined by Nozik?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Do you accept this as an accurate description of an entire race?
Not of an entire group of people, but I would not be surprised if beneath the stereotype there was not some truth to it. In other words, I would not be surprised if indeed there were gangs of criminal Roma wandering around conning people and stealing.

For example, there is the American TV show, The Richs, starring the English comedian Eddie Izzard, and the equally English actress Minnie Driver, who portray a family of Gypsies in the Deep South who engage in one scam after another until it all catches up with them. Certainly the stereotype is international, just as there is the stereotype of the corrupt capitalist. After all, you are very quick to condemn "counter revolutionaries", "capitalists", etc., whole groups of people. But I am sure you will say "It's different".

Sönam said:
This concernes a minority. We have that discussion in France, because a lot of Roms are migrating to it. It does exist few gangs of organized robbery in main towns (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, ...). It's generally organized from Romania (gangsters) and commited by very young peoples (which are immediately relaxed because of their young age ...). But that represents only a couple of groups. Majority of Roms just try to survive and improve their living condition ... in Romania they are considered as untermensch. So we have to be careful not to propagate this kind of much exagerated information which only serve the right and extrem-right propaganda.

Sönam

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The point is that this is a problem. And it's related to failed immigration and integration politics, one of many symptoms of just this.
No, this is not a 'symptom' of failed immigration.

Malcolm wrote:
He said immigration politics, meaning that immigration policies of Norway are finding disfavor among Norwegians these days. You really do need to watch Lilyhammer. It will put how Norwegians feel about these things and shows the deep ambiguity Norwegians feel about "doing the right thing" in contrast to their very real and deep cultural conservatism. Until very recently, Norway was a very homogenous country, and these things we are seeing are problems Norwegians have only recently had to deal with. Of course the former British empire, we have more experience with diversity so some of the growing pains we went through over a hundred years ago seems obvious as well as their solutions.

tellyontellyon said:
This represents a very small proportion of the migrants living in Norway,

Malcolm wrote:
It seems to be sufficient to cause anxiety. Of course this is an old story around the world, immigrant population moves in, or are even invited, the local people become uncomfortable after a while, tensions brews, violence breaks out between the two groups, and eventually, if they can avoid genocide of one another, they all settle down peaceably enough.

tellyontellyon said:
It says more about a lack of tolerance to people who "..refuse to live how you are supposed to live'". Like say if a muslim woman want's to wear a headscarf etc. etc.. It's just intolerance of difference that the 'right' are trying to build into hatred and fear with scare tactics'.

Malcolm wrote:
I suppose you extend this liberalism to female circumcision then?

tellyontellyon said:
'Gypsies' are a traditional target for the 'right' in Europe. Sometimes this has overflowed into pogroms and even organised genocide.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is completely true. Nomads are often viewed with suspicion since they are considered at the margins. Even in Tibet, nomads have a terrible reputation, while at the same time they are idealized, just as Gypsies have been here in the west.

tellyontellyon said:
It is wrong to downplay these crimes.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not downplaying these other crimes. I was clarifying for you precisely what Norwegian was talking about, i.e. assault rapes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
But there were only 6 assault rapes out of something like 152 rapes.

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't matter. What is defined as rape in Norway is a little different:

In Norway, rape is defined under the Norwegian Penal Code[40] § 192 as either:
1. engaging in sexual activity by means of violence or threatening behaviour,
2. engaging in sexual activity with somebody who is unconscious or for any other reason incapable of resisting the act, or
3. by means of violence or threatening behaviour compelling any person to engage in sexual activity with another person, or to carry out similar actions with him- or herself.

Further, the same section defines aggravated rape as a rape committed
a. by multiple persons in cooperation (gang rape)
b. in a particularly painful or offensive manner
c. by a person previously convicted of rape under § 192 or of sexual activity with a child under the age of 14 (as per § 195 of the penal code)
d. in such a way that the victim either dies or receives grievous bodily harm.
The section recognizes sexually transmitted diseases (defined in the Infection Protection Act) as grievous bodily harm.

So, if person A has herpes and does not inform person B of this fact, and person B contracts herpes, person A can be accused of rape in Norway.

Or if person A manages to cause pain, or is offensive to person B, this can also be defined as rape.

Basically, the bar for "rape" in Norway is much lower than it is in other countries. In the US, giving someone herpes is offensive, but the onus is on person B to protect his/her own health.

tellyontellyon said:
What about what he said about the Roma? Did you read it?
They are criticized a lot by people, because they have zero interest in behaving in accordance with Norwegian norms and laws. They don't want to work (although that's their excuse used in order to be here and beg for money). They steal, and they treat wherever it is they're staying as if it is an open toilet, defecating and urinating everywhere, be it in a kindergarten property, people's backyards, the forests, open parks, or what not (and when at one point they were given toilets to use, they shat down the toilets as well). People get fed up with the police not doing anything about them shitting everywhere, or stealing.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course I read it. The question is, did Norwegian personally witness such behavior or is he merely repeating hearsay. What we can understand from this, however is that Norway's push for integration is a laughable failure in many respects, and has provoked a backlash of resentment.

tellyontellyon said:
Do you accept this as an accurate description of an entire race?

Malcolm wrote:
Not of an entire group of people, but I would not be surprised if beneath the stereotype there was not some truth to it. In other words, I would not be surprised if indeed there were gangs of criminal Roma wandering around conning people and stealing.

For example, there is the American TV show, The Richs, starring the English comedian Eddie Izzard, and the equally English actress Minnie Driver, who portray a family of Gypsies in the Deep South who engage in one scam after another until it all catches up with them. Certainly the stereotype is international, just as there is the stereotype of the corrupt capitalist. After all, you are very quick to condemn "counter revolutionaries", "capitalists", etc., whole groups of people. But I am sure you will say "It's different".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Anyway people can read for themselves the police report and make up their own minds about what you are up to.

Just taking this claim about rape:
The actual police report is here:
https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/oslo/Vedlegg_1309.pdf

The English translation of pages 51-56:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76695373/Excerpt-From-Oslo-Police-District-Report-on-Rape

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the report states that assault rapes in Norway are overwhelmingly committed by people with non-Norwegian backgrounds. In the US, for example, apart from statutory rape, i.e. sleeping with a minor, there are no other kinds. I am quite sure that is what Norwegian is talking about, not the all the other kinds of rape defined under Norwegian law that would not even be recognized as rape, in for example, England.

What Norwegian is talking about is the fact that the immigration and integration policies are such failures in Norway that these Norwegian policies are hugely lampooned by Norwegians in such shows as Lilyhammer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
kirtu said:
[Therefore, markets are unreliable: they produce unpredictable and unanticipated phenomena (which is why I started in with Goedel in that post).  Therefore regulations cannot anticipate all undesired phenomena and some regulations that guard against undesired phenomena may constrain markets unnecessarily over the lifetime of a business cycle.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand all of this. But there is no alternative.

kirtu said:
There is indeed a ready made alternative: social democracy.  There is a secondary alternative: small scale communes where resources are shared and equally divided according to need (this has the actual advantage of being historically an American solution, but I am addressing the general alternative to capitalism).  There is a third alternative: an economic system derived from computer simulation where alternatives are tried based on maximizing various values and selecting for long term stability and prosperity.  These systems can then be integrated into the actual world economy.

Kirt
Social democracy is a political ideology that officially has as its goal the establishment of democratic socialism through reformist and gradualist methods.[1] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a policy regime involving a universal welfare state and collective bargaining schemes within the framework of a capitalist economy.

Malcolm wrote:
What is outlined in red is what "social democracy" is today.

Your second scheme won't scale.

Your third scheme requires political coercion, being yet another form of planned economy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
kirtu said:
The main problem in the US is that the economy has become non-functional primary due to cultural reasons and the refusal of a dead-locked government to take further action, even to acknowledge the problems.  The reason that "leaders" go not acknowledge these issues is because they are counter to the received ideology and solutions tend to lay outside the scope of market forces and Keynes has been sidelined.   If you have market fundamentalists at nearly every level of every institution, there isn't much to be done when market fundamentalists face a reality that shouldn't exist.  You also have the hype-pragmatic stance of Americans: most trends show a slow, slow recovery (U-3 unemployment ~ 6%) by the end of 2014 so the boat seems to be righting itself without further action.  The problem is that the replacement jobs are low wage and not secure.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
The economy functions, kirt, it may not function according to what you would like, and I understand your frustration, but your comments are a bit out of line with my personal experience of living in the US and traveling abroad extensively.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
kirtu said:
[Therefore, markets are unreliable: they produce unpredictable and unanticipated phenomena (which is why I started in with Goedel in that post).  Therefore regulations cannot anticipate all undesired phenomena and some regulations that guard against undesired phenomena may constrain markets unnecessarily over the lifetime of a business cycle.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand all of this. But there is no alternative.

kirtu said:
Capitalism historically fails after some period of expansion.

Malcolm wrote:
This is true of _any_ economy. I did not say that a capitalist economy was a desiderata. I said that at this point, it is better this than some socialist revolution for the time being.

kirtu said:
Americans are often blind to the diversity of political views, for good and ill, that exist outside of their country (or even next door to them).  Many have nted this.

Malcolm wrote:
Some Americans, not all. There are know nothings in every country. You fantasize so much about how awesome it is in Europe, well, go live there. I have met many stupid people, and as far as I know, there are just as many stupid Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, Brits, etc., as there are stupid Americans.

kirtu said:
Black people had complete freedom in Massachusetts well before 1964-1968.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually they did.

Even in Norway and Sweden, there is racism and discrimination against blacks, Laplanders and so on. Not to mention discrimination against "guest workers" in Germany and so on. In fact, racism is on the rise in Europe.


kirtu said:
No, aside from the final line what I have written is factual.

Malcolm wrote:
No it isn't.

kirtu said:
As I said, America is Rome. Rome was not noted for its innovations, but for the fact that it wielded the most power. Of course Rome fell, and so too will America, but it will be a long time coming.
Rome was noted for it's innovations but it's military and political power overshadowed their achievements making the recognition difficult.  For example a couple of decades ago it was shown that a Roman structure in Spain, that people thought was a kind of elaborate fountain, was the water power plant for a factory.  Secondly I have heard that it took the world to the mid-20th century to reinvent all of Roman engineering knowledge, particularly with respect to concrete.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, America has its innovations too, but I am too polite to list them all.

kirtu said:
However you have just made Azimov's observation on anti-intellectualism in the US.  Do you really want the US to follow the slanted model of Roman brutishness?

Malcolm wrote:
America is not anti-intellectual. But we have had this boring conversation before. You just have a huge chip on your shoulder, I wish you would get over it, and your prejudices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Norwegian said:
We have failed immigration politics, and we have failed integration politics..

Malcolm wrote:
One word: Lilyhammer...if you haven't seen it you ought to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Sherlock said:
America is Rome for now, and it will be for some centuries yet. So you better get used to it.

M
Is your thinking on this influenced by Spengler by any chance?

I thought his https://archive.org/details/PrussianismAndSocialism of Anglo-American capitalism vs Prussian/German-style socialism was pretty spot-on. He also identifies Marxism as a failed attempt to formulate a Prussian-style system based on Anglo-Saxon assumptions. This prediction, written in 1920, seems quite accurate:
"Instead of authoritarian socialism, the English or American billionaire adheres to an impressive form of private socialism, a welfare program on a grand scale which turns his own personal power into pleasure and morally vanquishes the recipient of welfare funds.The flashy techniques for distributing these millions are an effective cover-up for the methods used to obtain them in the first place. It is the same attitude as that of the old corsairs who, while banqueting in the castle just conquered, threw their table scraps to the prisoners: the voluntary surrender of property increases the value of what remains. The question whether or not such voluntary acts should become a legal duty is the chief point of contention among the economic parties of the future in England and America."

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not specifically, but I have read Spengler, but years ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


kirtu said:
It's safe to say that without trade their economies could not function.  All economies must act on the global stage to grow beyond a certain level.  Trade does not necessarily imply capitalism however.  There was active trade with Soviet Russia from 60's-90.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, capitalist trade.


kirtu said:
I am not making personal comments at all.  However there are very deep flaws in American culture that people born and raised here do not tend to acknowledge.  I do want the US to in fact live up to it's ideals and become the greatest country on Earth.  Sadly, I'm still waiting.  It was only in my lifetime that African-American people were accorded liberty for example.  If American's believed their ideals this wouldn't have been an issue for long.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you are making personal comments. It is becoming rather disgusting.

You have to understand one important point about "American" ideals. They are really the ideals of two groups: New Englanders and small group of educated Virginians. There was a compromise reached with the Deep South, which was not one that was easily made.

However, I can state with confidence that states like Massachusetts, and NE in general along with New York, as well as the left coast states really do live up to "American" ideals. But America is not just one country, it is in fact a nation historically comprised of 11 distinct cultural groups. Unfortunately, people in the culture sphere of the Deep South, Appalachia and the "Western States" have rather different ideas about things. The people in the Mid-West tend to be more conservative than New Englanders, but more liberal than the latter groups.

For example, Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1781.

So don't paint the whole country with a broad brush.


kirtu said:
BTW, it's not just me who thinks that American culture is severely flawed - most citizens like myself who I have met who were born with US citizenship but were raised significantly in northern or western Europe also see this.  This was confirmed a few years ago when a report came out about differences in perception among many so-called "military brats", "corporate brats" and "diplomatic brats": oftentimes they felt like de facto aliens in the US and were initially mystified at the many self-contradictions in US culture once they came to live in the US.   You can read about this in the literature concerning trans-culture/third culture children.

Malcolm wrote:
This simple means that you do not understand Americans, nor the subtleties of American history.




kirtu said:
There are no shortages of toilet paper in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland or Finland for starters.

Malcolm wrote:
These countries are all signatories to the WTO. They have neoliberalized economies.



kirtu said:
It's not a tautology.

Malcolm wrote:
To say that markets are chaotic and capitalism is unreliable is a 1= 1 kind of statement.


kirtu said:
That is the exact situation.  There is a narrow, non-diverse spectrum of political thought in the US focusing on conservatism.  Almost all people born and raised in the US are some kind of narrow political conservative.  People here are simply blind to this fact.

Malcolm wrote:
This is total nonsense. As I said before, this is a symptom of the fact that you live in a culturally conservative part of the US. If you lived in Massachusetts, VT, etc., you would have a very different perspective.



kirtu said:
Actually a report for the Dept. of Defense was published recently noting American decline on the international stage as a result of the perception of inadequate dealing with economics.  I'll see if I can find that report.

America has throw a great deal away as a result of the complete failure of it's educational system over at least two generations and, as part of it's cultural flaw, it's slavish adherence to forms of ideology over reasoning and analysis.  It has stagnated scientifically and technologically although this is not apparent (nor is the stagnation universal - this is not a controversial statement within some tech corporations but a counter statement is that the US has the strategic people and projects it needs and can continue to acquire [buy] what it does not currently have and that some scientific and tech stagnation is not broadly relevant).  It will retain it's militarial dominance but may not retain economic dominance.  With an incompetent response to a contrived economic depression it has become Belgium.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all rhetorical irrelevance. As I said, America is Rome. Rome was not noted for its innovations, but for the fact that it wielded the most power. Of course Rome fell, and so too will America, but it will be a long time coming.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
smcj said:
China is swiftly exhausting its environment, in a mad push to become equal to the west in industrial capacity.
They are buying up all the natural resources they can in Africa. My neighbor goes there a lot and says there are Chinese all over the place.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 23rd, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
M:
American dominance on the world stage will last for centuries
What about the development of the BRICS?

Malcolm wrote:
India lacks natural resources. Their main resource is labor.
China is swiftly exhausting its environment, in a mad push to become equal to the west in industrial capacity.
Brazil has mainly oil.
Russia is insane and effectively landlocked.
South Africa is definitely the economic engine of Africa, but it is socially incredibly unstable.

Of these, only Russia and China has anything like the ability to challenge American dominance. But I don't think they really can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


kirtu said:
Not just (Norway is certainly of course).  Germany isn't dependent upon guest workers for manufacturing, etc.    But the chief point is that these social democracies are not propped up by capitalism but have safely put it in a terrarium where it can be tightly controlled to actually benefit people rather than being left to run amok and become a cancer like it is in the UK and the US.

Malcolm wrote:
Without the global capitalism, their economies could not function.

kirtu said:
I'm sorry you see it that way.  I do not sling invective at the US or it's culture at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you kidding? You do it every chance you get.

kirtu said:
I just want it to live up to it's stated ideals, esp. those egalitarian ones (of course Americans have confused those ideals with others like a fantasied right to bear arms in extreme circumstances [like all the time for some people]).  American ideals are fantastic.  Hopefully one day Americans will become Americans.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, we all have different ideas about what those stated ideals are. The Supreme Court has ruled that second amendment does indeed mean the right to carry a weapon. The court has also decided that the exact way this is carried out can be adjudicated locally. If you don't like guns, live in Massachusetts.

And again you make personal comments "Hopefully one day Americans will become Americans" as if there is some character flaw in Americans, it is really too much.


kirtu said:
Okay so you fall short of the throttling of the market in European social democracies.  Please examine Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem: any sufficiently complex system has true statements which can nonetheless not be proven true within that system.  Sufficiently complex means as complex as arithmetic.  Certainly placing checks and balances on a capitalist economic system is far more complex than arithmetic as both can be modeled as rule based systems and the rules in capitalism far exceed the rules in arithmetic.  Therefore unanticipated capitalist events will continue to occur.  We don't know for sure what they are, but historically they are periods of increase followed by busts.  This is a regular albeit unpredictable cycle.  Another aspect is that economic markets are chaotic (in terms of chaos theory).  Mathematics indicates that capitalism in the long is unreliable.

Is this problem mitigated by the social democracies tight control of it? No, but they can keep it from becoming a cancer and destroying society.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think experience has proven that throttling markets winds up with shortages of things that people want, like toilet paper.

"Another aspect is that economic markets are chaotic (in terms of chaos theory).  Mathematics indicates that capitalism in the long is unreliable." This is a tautology.

kirtu said:
The main problem as I see it, in the USA, is that corporations have too much access to power, and regulations are unfairly applied to small businesses making it impossible for them to compete against large corporations in almost every area.
That's a problem but by far not the main problem.  The complete denial of people's access to labor is one of the main problems within the system.  A means of mitigating that is in fact supporting small business and permitting (helping) people who have been locked out of the labor market to start small businesses.

Malcolm wrote:
These things can all be changed and should be changed. I was thinking of farming in particular. One place I think we can all agree is that the financial services industry needs to "throttled".


kirtu said:
The main flaw that I see in the US is the unwillingness of Republicans and Democrats alike to see that their policies together are moving the US to a corporatist state ala Gentile.
In fact there is only the one National Conservative Party, whose two wings have arbitrarily labeled their positions "Republican" and "Democrat".

Malcolm wrote:
This is nice rhetoric at a cocktail party, but in reality it is not like that.

kirtu said:
Who is Gentile?

Malcolm wrote:
Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini's intellectual.

kirtu said:
Rome fell in 2008 with the contrived and ongoing Second Great Depression.  Americans don't know it yet.

Malcolm wrote:
Hardly, American dominance on the world stage will last for centuries. This country is far more resilient than you imagine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
In fact Malcolm, from just this little piece.... I'm not sure he really was that smart... Hey, but if you support him, that's your business.

Malcolm wrote:
I do not agree with Hayek, actually. You totally miss my point. My point is that capitalists must read Marx, and Marxists must read libertarians, etc.

You should read Nozick, Rawls (main philosopher articulating social justice, and a large government to bring that about), Bookchin, Naess, etc.

No one person's ideas are complete. It is folly to pick one person's book and say "This is my bible". One must read opposing views.

As I told you, my political beliefs are Deep Ecology/Left Biocentric and as a Buddhist I am committed to nonviolence, I cannot support any ideology which even permits the idea of violent revolutionary struggle. Naess has six principles for public debate which I generally adhere to naturally, but also fail at from time to time. They are:

Avoid tendentious irrelevance
Examples: Personal attacks, claims of opponents' motivation, explaining reasons for an argument.
Avoid tendentious quoting
Quotes should not be edited regarding the subject of the debate.
Avoid tendentious ambiguity
Ambiguity can be exploited to support criticism.
Avoid tendentious use of straw men
Assigning views to the opponent that he or she does not hold.
Avoid tendentious statements of fact
Information put forward should never be untrue or incomplete, and one should not withhold relevant information.
Avoid tendentious tone of presentation
Examples: irony, sarcasm, pejoratives, exaggeration, subtle (or open) threats.

These would be very good to adopt as personal commitments for online Buddhist discussions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Nemo said:
I don't know what planet you live on Malcolm but your claim that capitalism as practiced has moral constraints is ludicrous. Oligopoly, monopoly, monopsony and plutocracy are inevitable. Capitalism is a revolutionary force that naturally frees itself from constraints. It will devour the entire ecosystem and then devour itself.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am making a similar claim to the Marxists, i.e., that the capitalism founded by Smith had a moral theory. Likewise, Marxist style Socialism has a moral theory.

In both cases the the beast unleashed has shaken off the collar of its moral theory every time. We all accept that the Soviet Union and Communist China represent the failure of Marx's theories of economics. No one can possibly claim that any capitalist government has murdered as many people as the communists did in the 20th century. Not even the Nazis murdered as many people as Stalin did alone.

What we have is capitalism, we do not, at present, have another economic system.

What I argue is that trying to change this economic system through revolution will be more harmful than the harm it is presently causing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 9:51 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
On the subject of workers being 'free' to make contracts with employers:
(todays cut'n'paste from Wiki contribution - because I'm a bit lazy.... )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism


Malcolm wrote:
The problems with all of these criticisms of capitalism is that they assume that all value comes solely from labor. This is fine for Smith, Ricardo and Marx, but in fact economists have found the LTV inadequate for explaining all kinds of things in economics.

I guess one of the things I find annoying about the Marxist rank and file is their amateur economics, they all act as if they really understand economics, but what they really do is just recite chapter and verse. And what I also find is that they rarely read contrary points of view. For example, have you read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia? Or Hayek? Even you will never agree with what these fellows say, they are just as smart, if not smarter than Marx and co. Time to expand your horizons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But rejecting capitalism is foolish and extreme. We merely need to place limits on resources that can be exploited. Capitalism and a steady state economy can co-exist. But it requires checks and balances.

kirtu said:
The only places where capitalism works are the social democracies, all of which are in Scandinavia and central/western Europe and it took them 50 or so years after WW2 to iron out problems (youth unemployment for example).

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the northern European social democracies (Denmanrk, Sweden, Norway) are propped up by North Sea oil. Germany, manufacturing on an imported labor force. These social democracies are propped up by capitalism.

kirtu said:
Personally I am skeptical of capitalism working in any native English speaking country because of the inherent culture of aggression, domination and exploitation that accompanies English.  I would like to be proven wrong but so far history bears this out.

Malcolm wrote:
You have some deep prejudices, my friend. You never avoid a chance to sling invectives at the country you live in and of which you are a citizen.

kirtu said:
However I doubt that you mean social democracy as an instrument placing checks and balances on capitalism.    The very notion of checks and balances is the quaint 18th century language dealing with reigning in the powers of King and Parliament, etc.   Capitalism left to itself is harmful and will always, *always*, eventually lead to economic failure, just as it has in these United States and the UK repeatedly.

Malcolm wrote:
When we say checks and balances we mean exactly that, the use of the government to check corporations so the market can function in a balanced way. Until we manage to arrive at an internationally agreed upon system of population reduction and a steady state economy, the Keynesian approach seems to be most sensible, at least here in the USA.

The main problem as I see it, in the USA, is that corporations have too much access to power, and regulations are unfairly applied to small businesses making it impossible for them to compete against large corporations in almost every area.

The main flaw that I see in the US is the unwillingness of Republicans and Democrats alike to see that their policies together are moving the US to a corporatist state ala Gentile.

kirtu said:
Anglo-American/French capitalism is historically a clear failure and a danger to civilization.

Malcolm wrote:
America is Rome for now, and it will be for some centuries yet. So you better get used to it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: HHST 2014 North America & Europe Schedule
Content:
kirtu said:
http://hhthesakyatrizin.org/schedule_2014_all.html

supermaxv said:
I am so excited, anyone else headed out to the New York teachings?

Malcolm wrote:
I will be attending the empowerments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Unknown said:
If this is what Buddhists must believe then I am a very bad Buddhist. I believe all life is precious, even non-Buddhist beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Stop being so petulant and you might learn something.

All life is precious, but a precious human birth has eighteen unique characteristics which make it "precious", the so called eight freedoms:

http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/eight_freedoms

And ten endowments:

http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/ten_endowments


Unknown said:
But rejecting capitalism is foolish and extreme. We merely need to place limits on resources that can be exploited. Capitalism and a steady state economy can co-exist.
The proof is in the pudding.............

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Of course, and I would not expect otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
HHDL wrote: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability.

Malcolm wrote:
Capitalism, as portrayed in Smith's Wealth of Nations, is also founded on moral principles. Indeed, the latter book must be read alongside Smith's Moral Sentiments.

Please examine this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/08/adam-smith-on-csr/8665/

However, the moral principles upon which Smith founds his vision of capitalism and a labor theory of value is not utopian.

The point is while Smith's systems isn't perfect, indeed it is very 18th century, but to loudly proclaim capitalism hasn't any moral theory is grossly wrong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm says:
Further, making offerings to the Buddha (a pure object) is far more metitorious than relieving all the poverty of the world.
Perhaps we could do both?



Malcolm wrote:
How are we going to do both without violently relieving someone of their possessions?



tellyontellyon said:
We are not going to agree about Marxism, which in the modern day includes much more than just what Marx happened to say and write. We can learn from what is right and reject what is wrong and doesn't work. I don't want to be ruled by a committee, I want 'power from below', the whole of society being able to contribute to economic planning. Democracy wider and more effective than we have now.

Malcolm wrote:
How is the "whole of society" going to be able to contribute to economic planning? Running a society takes skills. Skills require education.

You want to contribute to economic planning? Then grow food, like I do. Learn a pre-industrial era skill, like I did.

tellyontellyon said:
Marxists consider marxism to be a science, not a faith. Science learns from experience and improves.

Malcolm wrote:
I am aware that Marxists consider Marxism to be scientific, a proposition I take no more seriously than I take the idea that Buddhism is science, and rather less, actually.

tellyontellyon said:
Yes in the name of Marxism terrible things have been done, also capitalist authorities have done terrible things. Stalinism was a nightmare we all know. But there can be a new Marxism... or call it what you will. You know I am not talking about violent revolution, or a repeat of previous mistakes.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not interested in Marxism at all. The proof is in the pudding, it is a failed theory.

tellyontellyon said:
Perhaps your Deep Ecology will be the future? But I don't think it will be attained under a system that requires 2% to 3% compound economic growth annually forever. That is what capitalism must have to work. Capitalism has been very progressive, but that just can't keep going on forever, the planet just can't take it. Capitalism has to go.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree, the notion of infinite growth of the economy is based on the notion of infinite resources, which of course we do not have.

But rejecting capitalism is foolish and extreme. We merely need to place limits on resources that can be exploited. Capitalism and a steady state economy can co-exist. But it requires checks and balances.

tellyontellyon said:
Global warming is happening now.. in all sorts of ways capitalism is just as bad for the very wealthy... people who could be using their precious lives to attain Buddhahood are starving and dying of AIDS in numbers far greater than needs to be:

Malcolm wrote:
Human birth only becomes precious if you have met Buddhadharma.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 10:45 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


muni said:
How can the Buddha be pure and the sentient beings impure? How can those be two?

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas have no afflictions, sentient beings are defined by afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Chinese Buddhism and the Anti-Japan War
Content:
Indrajala said:
The holy people who torched themselves in Viet Nam didn't seem to make much of a difference. Plenty of people still died and the communist regime won the war.
.

Malcolm wrote:
They made a huge difference. That image from Vietnam is one of the most enduring images in history. It will live on when most of the details of what caused it have faded from memory.

Indrajala said:
The war still continued, the communists won and America lost, only to engage in wars again and again in the following decades.

Malcolm wrote:
That image was one of the main things that caused the anti-war movement in the US. The US lost because of the US anti-war movement, not because the communists "won".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Wrong Malcolm it is not just "more Marxist whinging", I'm actually talking about the misery of peoples lives. I don't claim any kind of realization, and the injustice of the current system can annoy me from time to time, but you are also wrong if you think that is my mindset and motivation is based on anger.

Malcolm wrote:
It is evident from the words that you write, your complaints on unfairness. Jealousy is still jealousy, even if on behalf of another. You really need to study Bodhicaryāvatara. Instead of rejoicing in people's wealth, and thereby sharing in their merit, you actually create negative karma for yourself by wanting to deprive them of that wealth.

Perhaps you should go to a Buddhist college and properly study Buddhism rather than rotting your mind with Marxist crack.

tellyontellyon said:
No Malcolm, I think we have to help people in a conventional way, that is a part of building merit. It is not enough to visualise yourself and all other beings as compassionate Buddhas... but then not actually do anything compassionate. We can do something about our Karma right now. Karma needs action as well as intention if it is to ripen.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not accumulate danapāramita by giving everyone all that they wanted, it was sufficient for him to sincerely wish that they had all their wants and needs fulfilled.

In fact, Buddha had a golden begging bowl, given to him by the gods. But he thought it ostentatious and so he threw it away in a river. Before throwing it away however, he noticed an impoverished family nearby. He thought to give it to them, but then, through his clairvoyance, he saw that this sudden wealth would merely cause this poor family all to be reborn in hell. So he threw it away. For centuries Hindus have criticized the Buddha for this act.

Further, making offerings to the Buddha (a pure object) is far more metitorious than relieving all the poverty of the world. The sentient beings of the six realms are the impure merit field. We make offerings to them out of compassion.

And, it is actually quite enough to imagine oneself and all sentient beings as buddhas. That is the Vajrayāna way of rapid Buddhahood. So yes, you even have to visualize all those capitalists, all those 300 or whatever number of wealthy people, as Buddhas. And in their guise as sentient beings, you should want them to have all the wealth that they have and rejoice in it. If they use it improperly, then that is a pity, but they had the merit to gain that wealth in this life and no one should take it away from them. If they are dodging their taxes, well, that is a different issue.

tellyontellyon said:
The socio-economic system is not something that just 'happens' to us, we are the ones doing it. Our socio-economic system is a form of activity, of action, of behaviour. But the socio-economic behaviour that we engage in under capitalism is damaging; and it pits one individual against another for survival destroying equanimity and encouraging a 'me', 'me', 'me' mentality.

Malcolm wrote:
The socio-economic behaviour under Marxism is just as damaging, as I have explained to you already, because it merely transfers ownership of production. Marxism also pits people against each other, you just don't see it yet because you are blinded by ideology.

tellyontellyon said:
I want a far more equal society, a world where one persons gain is not another persons loss.

Malcolm wrote:
There will always be loss and gain. This natural. Increase here, a decrease there. This is just how conditioned things are.

The Marxists say they want an equal society, equal for who, and who decides what is equal? A committee? A bunch of bureaucrats? Who votes them in? Unions, the "proletariat"? Like all Marxists, you speak out of both sides of your mouth at once. Someone has to run things -- I prefer the randomness of American Democracy any day, even if it is propped up by capitalism, to the rule of a committee.

Your rhetoric is just like that of free marketeers who want unrestricted free trade, well, free for who? You are just one side of the same coin. Neither Marxism or Capitalism for are adequate solution. But of the two, I will favor capitalism, because it is the present system and it should not be brought down by a violent revolution. It cannot be brought down by a peaceful one. You must understand that this is reality. Bringing down capitalism will cause untold suffering for billions, worse suffering than there is even now.

In order for things to change, people must personally evolve, and that is the only solution to our present situation. And you cannot force people to evolve.

So, unfortunately my friend, while you are standing behind barricades fighting with the police, I will be doing what I do anyway, practicing, translating, teaching and seeing patients, fixing the bodies you break in your so called "revolution".

tellyontellyon said:
HH Dalai Lama favours the socio-economic system of socialism/Marxism as this is a better way of behaving on this planet. So I must reject your point of view. I base this not only on my own ideas and experience, but also on the fact that I give more weight and authority to HHDL's point of view than yours.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am well aware of HHDL's views on the matter, and I don't think you really understand his point. He does not want a revolution. 

We all agree in principle that everyone deserves a fair shake and that capitalism as it stands now has problems. However, what he does not agree with is violence and revolution, and you have yet to show one single Marxist revolution that has not degenerated into total bloodshed. 

Socialism and Marxism are not the same thing. There are many socialisms. Why a Buddhist picks the most evil materialist form of it is totally beyond understanding.

But beyond that, if you think a Marxist party should be in power, than vote one in. Good luck with that, because as far as I can tell, very few countries want that kind of Government.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
more Marxist whinging

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to be wealthy, accumulate merit.

Basically, your view of the world is completely unBuddhist in every respect.

You are completely attached to material things. You completely lack any equanimity, your mind is a festering lagoon of resentment and anger, or so it appears.

You really need to give up this Marxist nonsense and turn your mind to Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
I haven't got a problem with capitalism simply because a very small minority are super rich. The richest 300 persons on Earth have more money than poorest 3 billion combined... though it is pretty awful when we consider a statistic like that.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, wealthy has no relationship to happiness. In any case, you have the example of Bill Gates, who has taken his money and is trying to good works with it.



tellyontellyon said:
The real problem is how that wealth is wielded. In capitalism, the wealth, and control of the major levers of society, is wielded in a way that is very destructive and is leading us to social and environmental disaster. Is taking that power out of the hands of that tiny minority really so bad?


Malcolm wrote:
There are indeed problems with neoliberlism, but they will not be solved by Marxist Socialism. Its a dead end.


tellyontellyon said:
Buddhist ethics...

Malcolm wrote:
Never include taking the properties to which others lay claim without it being given to oneself freely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
tobes said:
Having said that, I think if you had Shankara around for tea one afternoon, he'd happily acknowledge that, and probably celebrate it.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so, after all, he shrilly denounced those who claimed Gaudapada was cribbing Buddhist arguments.

tobes said:
As well, he proposes that Buddhism at his time had degenerated into nihilism. But nonetheless, he is very careful to avoid denouncing particular views or methods, whereas Buddhists tend to proceed via a rather intense philosophical methodology of denouncing. It is an interesting difference.


Malcolm wrote:
Saying that Buddhism degenerated into nihilism is a pretty damning statement, no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:


bob said:
At least on the internet, we can't literally kill each other...

Malcolm wrote:
We're working on that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Socialism will confiscate the property of the capitalist and in return will secure the individual against poverty and oppres- sion; it, in return for so confiscating, will assure to all men and women a free, happy and unanxious human life.

Malcolm wrote:
Promises, promises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 21st, 2014 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
You still have the problem of how an inert object, or an object not somehow connected with consciousness, could exist without an essence. If something exists without depending upon mind, it will be inherent. You need to deal with this problem in a way other than just asserting your point.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a problem in the slightest. Anything that arises from causes and conditions has no essence. Being nondependent on mind does not render something inherently existent.

cloudburst said:
In that case you can give an example of an object that is not and has never appeared to mind.  If it is an object, it is an object of mind, or an appearance. What else?

Malcolm wrote:
No, because that would be an object that appeared to a mind. This does not however rule out the existence of things that have never appeared to any mind, which nevertheless are product so their own inert and nonsentient causes and conditions, and therefore, not inherently existent and nevertheless, not products of karma.
Mental objects are one class of objects, material objects are another class of objects. You are conflating the two. A mental object (part of the dharmadhātu) is an object for the mano dhātu. A material object is an object for the other five dhātus, form for eye, etc.
sure, all objects, mental and material, are objects of consciousnesses, sense or otherwise. You get nowhere differentiating mental consciousness from sense consciousness as they are all consciousness, or mind. I appreciate your presentation of the 18 elements, please explain how an object exists independently of mind without implying an essence. Before a mind is generated, if an object exists, it must exist independent of mind. Vasubahandu's presentation is finally a realist one. I am assuming you want to do better than that.
Vasubandhu's presentation is the one that Madhyamakas subscribe to conventionally. The point is that even Candrakirti accepts that for an eye consciousness to be generated, the eye consciousness depends on an external form. According to your presentation, forms depend solely on consciousness and could never be asserted to exist externally, and as you stated, would not need eyes to be perceived. This would then render all sense organs nonfunctional and unnecessary. But there are so many negative consequences to this I could not possibly list them all.
It is not the intention of Madhyamaka to undermine this or that conventional presentation of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, but merely to show that they are not paramārtha dharmas.
good.
I am interested to see if you can give an explanation of how a thunderstorm could exist that did not arise from karma, without employing a realist ontology.
[/quote]

You need to explain the karmic cause of such a storm.

Simply put however, thunderstorms arises from atmospheric causes and conditions. There is no necessary precondition for a mind to generate those causes and conditions, and you equally cannot demonstrate how karma causes a thunderstorm.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:


kirtu said:
Two examples spring to mind: the total banning of references to Phabonhka Rinpoche at one point..

Malcolm wrote:
We never did that.

kirtu said:
The other thing is the banning of Zen people who said controversial things that are nonetheless in the mainstream of Zen - mainstream may be too strong, views that are acceptable in Zen but are not really mainstream Mahayana Buddhism (I remember this more as a discussion over the historical Buddha or what constitutes Buddhahood although the monk issue was there was well).

Malcolm wrote:
No one was ever banned for saying controversial things. People were suspended for their behavior, and banned for double-nicking, when they tried to go around suspensions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 10:06 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
smcj said:
Maybe if I'd learned Tibetan it would be less confusing.


Malcolm wrote:
Here is a fact -- among Indian authors there is very little disagreement about these things. Among Tibetans, there is great disagreement. That should clue you into something.

That some Tibetans consider Yogacara = vijñāptimatra/cittamatra is based in Indian sources. Fellows like Shtiramati were definitely classic "mind-only" proponents. He was a direct disciple of Vasubandhu. Further, another immediate, if not direct disciple, of Vasubandhu, Aryavimuktisena, criticizes Vasubandhu for his substantialism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
tobes said:
Having said that, I think if you had Shankara around for tea one afternoon, he'd happily acknowledge that, and probably celebrate it.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so, after all, he shrilly denounced those who claimed Gaudapada was cribbing Buddhist arguments.

tobes said:
But if you ever assert that a Buddhist master has been influenced by an orthodox Indian school, that is a charge of heresy.

Malcolm wrote:
We are not influenced by, we appropriate from, or reframe. There is a difference.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
smcj said:
What are your feelings about maggot or insect mind?
I've often seen flys buzzing against a pane of glass in frustration. They can't see and can't understand what the obstruction is. I cannot think of a better analogy for a stifled Dharma practitioner.

Funny you should ask.


Malcolm wrote:
The three planes of existence blaze with suffering of aging and illness,
here there is no protection from the intensely blazing fire of death,
migrating beings born in the world are always confused,
revolving like bees stuck in a pot.
--Lalitavistara Sūtra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
dharmagoat said:
The point that I have been making is that suffering/liberation is a solely human preoccupation. A maggot most likely has no concept of its suffering and therefore can't be considered to be suffering as a human would. As humans we can only guess how a maggot suffers, and so all we do is project our own experience. We falsely assume that a maggot has a bad life. But for a maggot, how can life be bad if there is no good life to compare it to?

Virgo said:
Surely maggots are not free of the three types of suffering?

dharmagoat said:
Actually, it would seem that maggots only suffer the first kind of suffering, that associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying. I would doubt that they have the capacity to experience the conceptually-based forms of suffering.


Malcolm wrote:
Dukha is not a feeling at base, that is the point of the third suffering, which refers to the fact that conditioned things decay.

Maggots definitely suffer. They feel pain, they feel hunger, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Zhen Li said:
4. Who is really disenchanted with capitalism? People vote with their feet, and they prefer coming to a country ruled by law, where they can keep property without it being stolen by the government. There isn't mass migration to Venezuela or Cuba, quite the opposite, and anyone with half a brain and cerebellum has already left those countries for one where they can live and work in safety

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but you know, all those people are counterrevolutionaries.

Zhen Li said:
If Socialists just want that transformation in the market, then they need to answer for the simple fact that if you spend more than you're making in returns, then that is unsustainable. If you haven't noticed, the US debt means it won't make it into the 22nd century as it is today.

Malcolm wrote:
It is an interesting question, as of right now, today, each US Taxpayer is 150,000 "in arrears" because of the (as of this moment) $17,336.595,xxx,xxx.xx debt the feds have wracked up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 7:45 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm wrote
And you are not the rightful owner of my house
Marx would have called that personal property. When he talks about private property he is talking about the means of production. E.g. Power stations, oil companies, the pharmaceutical industry, roads, railroads, factories, banks and so forth.

Malcolm wrote:
So no free enterprise of any kind. Well, planned economies really don't work well at all, at least not at the population levels we have world wide.



tellyontellyon said:
Zhen Li wrote
Also adharmic is the notion of an "inherently right" view of a conditioned set of thoughts, known as Marxism or Socialism. They have no svabhāva, self-existence -- we can only define them according to convention, and conventionally the picture is pretty bleak for Marxism, Socialism and Communism.
Conditioned thoughts: True, but you couldn't you say the same about any written down theory, e.g. Quantum mechanics, existential philosophy, Deep Ecology, Buddhist scripture, or any conditioned set of thoughts about anything I suppose?

Malcolm wrote:
The salient point here is effectiveness. Marxist socialism has not proven to be effective,
I simply think their system is unstable, results in huge inequality and condemns us to follow the course of greatest profit rather than what is best for the whole planet and the beings that live on it.
And Marx defines capitalism as progressive and a necessary phase of historical evolution. What Marx predicted was that socialism could only succeed in an advanced capitalist economy. Well, we are not there yet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
That doesn't make it ok. Land that was there for everybody, for communal use, was acquired by force by individuals.

Malcolm wrote:
This process is described by the Buddha.

Until humans beings eliminate the three afflictions from their minds (becoming Buddhas) there is no hope of your utopia.


tellyontellyon said:
To say that the Dharmic consequences have been suffered does not alter the fact that the stolen property has still not been given back to communal use. To its rightful owners .... all of us.

Malcolm wrote:
You did not define the commons. There is a commons to be sure.

But I am sure you have heard of the tragedy of the commons as well.

And you are not the rightful owner of my house. No one is but me, unless I cannot pay the taxes on its, and then the Government will seize it. So you see, there is already common ownership of everything. Governments basically grant a license of ownership. There is no such thing as absolutely ownership in our system of property law.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:


tobes said:
I can understand why you'd be a touch defensive about this - but note that I have not in any way singled out the mods for this; I have said nothing at all about policies or techniques of moderation.

Malcolm wrote:
Ok, my apologies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Well, as I said before, there is a difference between personal property and private property.

Malcolm wrote:
And how is this distinction drawn? My clothes are my personal property, but my land is private property?



tellyontellyon said:
I think you are conflating violence with the aims of socialism.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I am merely pointing out the fact that communist revolutions tend to be long drawn out bloody affairs.

tellyontellyon said:
Ultimately it supports a society with no state, no money where we all contribute to each others welfare.

Malcolm wrote:
We are not headed into a utopia, my friend, we are heading into the age of strife. This imaginary stateless society you imagine will never exist. It is a pipe dream, it is a fantasy.

tellyontellyon said:
Theft: When Europeans turned up in the America's and started 'claiming' ownership of the land.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, for the most part first English settlers at any rate, bought and paid for lands they used. Granted however they did allow themselves to take land they perceived as being unused and justified it under Lockean principles.

Then the King of England decided he owned the whole lot and started giving land grants.

tellyontellyon said:
Committing genocide against the native people who, so I've heard' had no concept of owning the land, or the sea or the sky for that matter...

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, indeed there was a cultural clash, with Indians having very different concepts of property than we did and do. The Indians lost. A human tragedy to be sure, but that happened in Britain as well. It happened to my Scottish ancestors who were pushed off their lands when the Highlands were fenced off. British soldiers murdered entire Scottish villages for resisting the fencing of the Highlands.

It has happened everywhere in the world. No one living anywhere in the world today, save a few peoples in the Amazon [and even then it is questionable] are the first people there who did not push someone else off their land.

tellyontellyon said:
When Europeans turned up and took that land... now that was theft. They have been dealing in stolen property ever since.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. If no one owns it, it is free for the taking. Thats what Europeans thought and that is now they behaved. I am sure that whatever nonvirtues the PIlgrims for example did, they experienced the ripening of their karma. I don't condone what they did, but I also don't feel responsible for it either.

I doubt very much you folks over in England of Norman blood are going to be paying reparations to the Saxons anytime soon, nor the Saxons to the Celts and so on. Or me for that matter, since you bloody Brits stole my land.

In reality, we need to remember the words of the Buddha:
"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,"--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease. 

"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,"--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.
The basic problem with Marxist socialism is summed up nicely in the first line.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
poor and rich people
Perhaps being born rich or poor is a matter or Karma? But that doesn't mean that they can't do something about it.

It is not the same as say being born with one leg... that is a fate you have to accept.

Malcolm wrote:
I nowhere said that one needed to accept the class into which one was born. You can work hard, get an education and improve your circumstances honestly.

What I said was that classes in society were a result of karma, not capitalism.

Also when your socialist brigades begin stealing people's houses "for the people", and closing their bank accounts "for the people", etc., this is just stealing, and it is a non virtuous act. Nationalizing the banks is theft. Theft results in poverty, not prosperity.

When you compare the Buddha's teachings with that of Marx, you will discover than nearly everything a revolution seeks to accomplish by Marxist methods are considered non-virtuous methods in Buddhadharma.

Incidentally, this does not mean that Buddhism regards modern capitalism as wise or virtuous, for it doesn't. It is just the other side of Marxist materialism. That was my point originally, you guys don't reject the capitalist means of production, you just want to own it. But it is that very means of production itself which is pernicious.

Frankly, my friend, I get the impression your education in Buddhadharma is rather limited.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcome

Malcolm wrote:
That would be "Malcolm"


tellyontellyon said:
As stated several times already. Real socialists do not consider Mao to be a socialist. He was really a Stalinist.
As with Stalin, it suited his regime to portray themselves as Marxists, in the same way that it suits the cheerleaders of capitalism to portray them as Marxists. But they are not.
Mao thought that power came from the barrel of a gun, rather than from the solidarity of the 99%

Malcolm wrote:
You sound like Christians "Real Christians do not worship Pope", etc.

Mao was most certainly an ardent student of Marxist-Leninism. But you Trotskyists think you are the only "true" communists because it serves your purposes to place distance between you and the acts of your coreligionists. But Trotsky was also a murderer so as long as you support his acts, you will inherit the result of them, which is saddening for you.



tellyontellyon said:
Edit: You have a fatalistic view of Karma.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I have the Buddha's view of karma:

Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"

3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel248.html#shorter

Buddhism and Marxism are incompatible not least because their view of the creation of social classes is radically different. For Buddhists, social class is a result of karma. For Marxists, it is result of material relations. The two views cannot be reconciled.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 2:10 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I am afraid this is the more familiar picture of a revolutionary:

"The sign of a true revolutionary was his desire to kill."

Mao


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
It is capitalism that produces the class divisions and antagonisms.


Malcolm wrote:
No, it is karma that create class division. Any Buddhist should be able to understand this with ease. I think you really need to study the Buddha's teachings on karma more in depth.

Class divisions existed long before capitalism, and will exist long after. The classes of the six realms were not created by capitalism. The various classes of animals were not created by capitalism. The classes of devas were not created by capitalism. etc.

Antagonism results when people whose karma landed them in inferior positions become jealous and wish to take from others who are more fortunate [for example, just as the asuras became jealous of the devas]. Likewise, when those who are more fortunate act selfishly and do not properly care for the less fortunate, this too causes class antagonism [for example, when the devas refused to share ambrosia with the asuras].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[quote="Zhen Li"] it's just that they tend to be successful in the sense of not requiring gross injustice to maintain order.[/quotes]

In this degenerate age, that is a good start.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You have a film on a movie projector. As you focus the image on the screen, the image appears to become brighter and more clear. But you have not changed or altered the film inside of the projector in anyway.
Likewise, though the visions appear to increase and decrease, they are not actually increasing and decreasing.
You can consider them to the visible expression of the mind essence, this is why these appearances are termed wisdom appearances since they do not arise from mind.

Astus said:
Are you saying that one always experiences the same visions, except that there are times when one properly focuses and times when not?


Malcolm wrote:
No, Astus.

It is really useless to try and explain this to you over the internet. If you want to understand this, you must seek out a teacher and learn. Someone who can put the sugar in your hand and then have you taste it. Until you do that, you will not understand why Dzogchen makes the claims that is does.

Astus said:
That is, every experience is the same vision, but without the right eyes, they look like the ordinary five elements, but with the right eyes, they are the buddha families? Personally, I always thought of such a connection between elements and buddhas as rather symbolic, and not in a literal way that instead of a green recycle bin I see green Tara.

Malcolm wrote:
The connection between Buddha families and elements is not symbolic. It is actual. The element of air is Samayatara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 20th, 2014 at 12:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
I think I have pointed out that even Marx thought that a socialist transformation of society could come about peacefully:

Malcolm wrote:
It has not succeeded yet, since it pitches classes of humans against each other.


tellyontellyon said:
I believe that the capitalist system is not capable of making the changes that society needs and that unless we make these changes we are heading towards barbarism.

Malcolm wrote:
The most barbaric period of human civilization was precisely when the communists were most active in trying to foment revolution all over the world, i.e. most of the 20th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
The nature of mind is without beginning or end, the visionary expressions are not. As they have beginning and end, they are dependently arisen, and as such, they are fabrications.

Malcolm wrote:
Astus: this is not correct.

You may think of this way. You have a film on a movie projector. As you focus the image on the screen, the image appears to become brighter and more clear. But you have not changed or altered the film inside of the projector in anyway.

Likewise, though the visions appear to increase and decrease, they are not actually increasing and decreasing.

You can consider them to the visible expression of the mind essence, this is why these appearances are termed wisdom appearances since they do not arise from mind.

But this is just explaining sweet to someone who has obviously never tasted sugar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
No, but the visions are not objects of the senses. If you close your eyes, they arise anyway. They arise in the dark where your senses cannot perceive anything. They are not objects of the senses.


Malcolm wrote:
Just to elaborate a point here: they are an entopic phenomena which arise based on a very precise kind of subtle anatomy which is unique to Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 10:28 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
They do, but very few people understand what they are.

Astus said:
Shouldn't it be widespread at least within Tibetan Buddhism then? Many mahamudra teachers were and are familiar with dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
There are a lot of people who teach one thing but practice another.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:


Astus said:
Then it should occur to everyone...

Malcolm wrote:
They do, but very few people understand what they are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm says: "Hands up! We are looking for volunteers! .....Only a few billion."

The rest of the world says: "You first Malcolm".

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have children, and I don't intend on having children. One reduces population by not reproducing, not by executing sentient beings.


tellyontellyon said:
Well, as I said, I don't want socialists to seize political power by any means, period. Since there will be many people like me, if you try to seize power, you will be meet with resistance, and you lot will start murdering everyone who does not go along with your revolution, and it will be another red terror.
Why would they murder anybody? A revolution in a real Marxist sense is not carried out by a small band of 'reds', it is a movement involving and supported by the vast majority of the population. It is inherantly democratic.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, that is why it has been so successful in the past.

tellyontellyon said:
E.g. The insurrection phase of the Russian revolution happened with barely a shot fired. The ministers of the constituent assembly were called taxi's and sent home!
The bloodshed came about when the counter-revolutionaries, provoked and supplied with money, equipment and troops by the US,UK, France,Japan etc. etc. attacked.

Malcolm wrote:
It was not a democratic revolution. No one had a vote. The Bolsheviks nationalized all the banks, confiscated all private accounts, etc. Additionally the Cheka defined as counterrevolutionaries a very broad swath of persons, people who were wealthy were defined as counter revolutuionary merely for being wealthy. This is the kind of logic that under the cultural revolution had the communists murdering high rinpoches in Tibet. My teacher, HH Sakya Trizin, still cannot return there. He was defined as a counter revolutionary when he was a young teenager.

tellyontellyon said:
That was when Russia degenerated into the brutal  totalitarian democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
??? "totalitarian democracy"? This a contradiction in terms.

tellyontellyon said:
What about the democratically elected socialist govt. in Chile? Supported and cheered on by Reagan and Thatcher, a brutal dictatorship came to power and killed tens of thousands of trade unionists and socialists. Disgusting.

Malcolm wrote:
No argument there. But I have to be honest with you, compared to the millions murdered by Stalin and Mao, this pales.


tellyontellyon said:
In a genuine democracy people should be able to vote on what the laws are. Under capitalist systems (at least the ones that attempt to maintain some semblence of democracy) we still don't have real democracy. If a govt. doesn't do what international monopoly capitalism tells them to.... the generals suddenly appear.

Malcolm wrote:
It really depends on what you are defining as a democracy. For example you term the early Soviet state as a "totalitarian democracy", only the bizarre logic of Marxists could coin such a phrase. 

The main point about all of this is that you, as a Buddhist, will not absolutely repudiate violence as a means to a political end. I think you have some reflection to do on the lack of suitability trying to mix Marxism with Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:50 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra and Yogacara
Content:
conebeckham said:
and the assertion, if I recall, was that the dependent, purged of the imaginary, was the perfect nature...which would lead to the conclusion that the dependent "exists."  I may be remebering this incorrectly....but for those of you interested in concepts and polemics, have at it....!!!

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is how Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu uniformly present the three natures. The idea that perfect is empty of both the dependent and the imagined is very late in Indian exegesis (10th century).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Chinese Buddhism and the Anti-Japan War
Content:
Indrajala said:
The holy people who torched themselves in Viet Nam didn't seem to make much of a difference. Plenty of people still died and the communist regime won the war.
.

Malcolm wrote:
They made a huge difference. That image from Vietnam is one of the most enduring images in history. It will live on when most of the details of what caused it have faded from memory.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
tobes said:
I'll be honest: the internet gave me a massive wake up call about the state of Buddhism in non-traditional places.

The e-sangha days were remarkable in the history of Buddhism - when ever before have practitioners from every kind of existing tradition been able to communicate so effortlessly with each other?

And yet, it must be concluded that the balance between pluralism, openness, mutual learning and spiritual conceit, dogmatism, sectarian superiority, was decided in favour of the latter.

Malcolm wrote:
That is total bullshit, tobes. You really have no idea why E-Sangha evolved as it did. Most of the so called perception of sectarianism arose out of the need to ascertain who was a qualified ordained person. It was over this point that the rain of charges that we were sectarian fell.

The Theravadins split largely because they had already siloed themselves off on E-Sangha itself, and resented any perception of incursion on their turf by the moderating staff in general.

The confrontation between the ZFI folks and the board was over the question of "what is a monk".

In the end, everyone blames the moderating staff. But in the end, the failure of E-Sangha was a failure of its users, not our policies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Internet Buddhism
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Well yea, the internet is not real communication because there's no energy exchange.
No one will successfully receive the pointing out instructions over the internet.

Malcolm wrote:
So you means ChNN's webcasts are useless?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 7:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
reddust said:
I looked up studies through Universities on "Deep Ecology."  Deep Ecology and UN's Agenda 21 are usually studied together with a bunch of other economic stuff, both want drastic reduction of human population.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the easiest way to manage a general global population reduction would be subject parenting to licensure, which seems to me to be a good idea anyway.

Drastic (peaceful) reductions in human population will ensure there are resources for many future generations of humans, plants and animals to come. It will ensure cultural diversity amongst humans, etc. There are no downsides, only upsides.

reddust said:
I think there would be downsides because people aren't perfect and those who hold the power to license won't be perfect. I've found a lot of books on Deep Ecology, 6 of them so far and I am going to read up. I looked the theory up on the net and will do some deep study before I form an opinion. Thanks for the data Malcolm, I really appreciate new (for me) ideas and views.

Malcolm wrote:
“	Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

(In his writings, a wise Italian
says that the best is the enemy of the good)	”

-- Volataire


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Population might collapse without any push from governments.


Malcolm wrote:
It might. But it would be good the manage the process no?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
reddust said:
I looked up studies through Universities on "Deep Ecology."  Deep Ecology and UN's Agenda 21 are usually studied together with a bunch of other economic stuff, both want drastic reduction of human population.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the easiest way to manage a general global population reduction would be subject parenting to licensure, which seems to me to be a good idea anyway.

Drastic (peaceful) reductions in human population will ensure there are resources for many future generations of humans, plants and animals to come. It will ensure cultural diversity amongst humans, etc. There are no downsides, only upsides.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population.
How much smaller and how are you planning to reduce it.

Malcolm wrote:
Ideally human world population should never exceed the world population of the late eighteenth century, so around 100,000,000.

Of course, this population reduction must be voluntary, because everyone understands the importance of a steady state economy and world.


tellyontellyon said:
Buddha was not a revolutionary in any sense that you would recognize.
That is self evidently not true as my post indicated that I do indeed consider the Buddha a revolutionary.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha did not intend to change society, he did not seize political power, in fact, Buddha impressed upon his disciples the need to maintain the status quo.

tellyontellyon said:
Perhaps you should reconsider your narrow view that revolution=violence.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, as I said, I don't want socialists to seize political power by any means, period. Since there will be many people like me, if you try to seize power, you will be meet with resistance, and you lot will start murdering everyone who does not go along with your revolution, and it will be another red terror.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Basically, I prefer the present world order with all its warts and inconstancies to a world order that would be run by totalitarians such as yourself.
This tells me two things:
1) You are happy with the status quo. 2) You think I am a totalitarion.

For point 1... then why are you posting in engaged Buddhism.
On point 2.... you are simply wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
Please describe to me your "workers democracy" and how it would be different than the present democratic order. How will you bring it about? By force if necessary?

As for being happy with the status quo, that term does not apply. I am neither happy nor unhappy about it. As Arne Naess puts it:
Should the world’s misery and the approaching ecocatastrophe make one sad? My point is that there is no good reason to feel sad about all this. According to the philosophies I am defending, such regret is a sign of immaturity, the immaturity of unconquered passiveness and lack of integration.
Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 125). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

What I said was that I prefer the status quo to a totalitarian regime. But I am under no illusion about the fact that things must change deeply.

tellyontellyon said:
As I said earlier, the corrupt, violent and destructive capitalist system is going to lead to even greater problems in the future including more wars, starvation, environmental disaster. Also it was economic problems and the capitalistic quest for power, markets, land and resorces that led to the wars, not the other way around. Billions will die if we don't respond.

Malcolm wrote:
If you respond with force, you will just hasten the bloodshed.

The first thing we need to do is revoke the Treaty of Rome, Naess again:
Economic globalization is somewhat misleading. A better term might be globalization of the four freedoms, referring to the so-called four freedoms of the Treaty of Rome, which was the basis for the European Common Market and is still at the core of the present-day European Union (EU). The document’s style of globalization implies successive expansion of its “four freedoms” until it also covers trade among the three giants, the European Union, the United States (and Canada), and Japan, and reluctantly over the rest of the globe. The term four freedoms refers to the free (duty-free) crossing of goods and materials through borders, the free flow of services, the freedom to compete for jobs anywhere (people), and the freedom of capital to flow across any borders. The four freedoms imply four prohibitions, the violation of which will be punished by the authorities. Namely, the freedoms involve strong, adequate protection—for social, medical, ecological, or other reasons of cultural relevance—against the import of certain goods or services, or against certain kinds of flow of foreign capital into a local, regional, or any other limited area, for example, the Arctic coast of Norway.
Naess, Arne (2009-05-01). The Ecology of Wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess (p. 287). Counterpoint. Kindle Edition.

In other words, we need to start undoing, legally, neo-liberal policies. But while doing that, we need to understand, as Vandana Shiva eloquently writes:
Today, we need to overcome a much wider and deeper apartheid, an eco-apartheid based on the illusion of separateness, of humans from nature, in our minds and lives. This is an illusion because we are part of nature and earth, not apart from it...Today, we need to overcome a much wider and deeper apartheid, an eco-apartheid based on the illusion of separateness, of humans from nature, in our minds and lives. This is an illusion because we are part of nature and earth, not apart from it. Redefining the economy by embedding it in society and nature is the first step in a paradigm shift. Shifting from GDP and GNP to measures of real wealth, welfare, well-being and happiness is another. Wealth is derived from “weal” (well-being), its original meaning is “condition of well-being”.
She also writes:
Commodification and privatisation are based and promoted on the flawed belief that price equals value. However, all those working for justice in land and water rights and preventing the ecological abuse of land and water, are asking for the opposite – the inalienable right to resources, and in the case of common property resources like water, the inalienability of common rights. The second paradigm of the green economy is earth-centred and people-centred. The resources of the earth vital to life – biodiversity, water, air – are a commons for the common good for all, and a green economy is based on a recovery of the commons and the intrinsic value of the earth and all her species. It would put nature’s ecological cycles as the drivers and shapers of the economy, it would put people first, not investors, and build on women’s core contributions to create economies of sustenance and care that enhance the well-being of all. The industrial/ corporate system of food production uses ten times more units of energy as inputs than it produces as food. It wastes 50 per cent of the food produced; it uses and pollutes 70 per cent of the water on the planet; it has destroyed 75 per cent of the biodiversity in agriculture; and it contributes 40 per cent of the greenhouse gases that are destabilising the climate and further threatening food security. By contrast, earth-centred agriculture produces twice as much food as the inputs it uses; it conserves biodiversity; it mitigates and adapts to climate change; it protects the earth; farmers and public health.
Shiva, Vandana, Pluto Press. Kindle Edition.


My basic point here is that classical Marxism, with its narrow minded materialism and so on is just not up to the job of an ecological transformation of humanity. That transformation must spring from the world spiritual traditions.

tellyontellyon said:
Me, Karl Marx and HH Dalai Lama all believe that a non-violent transformation of society to a socialist/marxist may be possible. You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you ought to leave HHDL out of it. I am quite sure he is not a socialist revolutionary. We need an ecological evolution, not a workers revolution. We need to reject the very industrial economy that lies at the heart of all our environmental, social and political troubles, and we need to do so globally and non-violently.

tellyontellyon said:
You said my view is anthropocentric? If by that you mean that I am saying the problems on this planet are caused by the humans then I would agree and don't really see why you object to that?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I mean that your view is not biocentric.

tellyontellyon said:
What then is the bio-centric or Deep Ecology way of looking at things? I must confess to not knowing about this.

Malcolm wrote:
The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.

Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires a smaller human population.

Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.

Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
http://www.haven.net/deep/council/eight.htm

tellyontellyon said:
Wasn't the American constitution born out of a revolution? Wasn't the Buddha also revolutionary in his own way, he challenged the status quo, he wasn't happy to leave things as they were.

Malcolm wrote:
The Constitution was born out of centuries of Jurisprudence. It was not born of a war. The Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation, which was the constitution of the wartime government, was inadequate.

Buddha was not a revolutionary in any sense that you would recognize.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
In a genuinely socialist/marxist society you would not be ruled by the working class.

Marx never idealised the working class. He just thought that because of their key role in production that they were in the position to overthrow capitalism.

His view was that it is capitalism that produces the different classes. His desire was for us all to be treated equally, a society without class.
If we want to get rid of the class and caste systems then I think we have to get rid of the system that produces and perpetuates them.

Malcolm wrote:
We never going to be rid of different classes in this world because the karma of sentient beings is what creates disparities, not economics. I just explained this to you.


tellyontellyon said:
Your view of Karma sounds a bit fatalistic, surely we can through our actions make a better world, and of course improve our karma for future lives.

Malcolm wrote:
My view of karma is directly based on Buddha's teachings.

tellyontellyon said:
The truth of Karma doesn't just mean we can hang our boots up and not try to do anything.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, no one is suggesting that.

tellyontellyon said:
If Buddhist monks are getting caught up using scripture to justify nationalistic violence... well, it's still violence?

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, but it is not Buddhist violence, it is nationalist violence. There are no Buddhist scriptures at all that advocate nationalist violence on any level. There are also no Buddhist scriptures which advocate revolution either.

tellyontellyon said:
I'm not in any way suggesting that that is the fault of Buddhism, I simply make the point that Karma is produced by action rather than ideology as such. I also wanted to make the point that mischievous people can take even a peaceful ideology and use it to their own ends.

Malcolm wrote:
Karma, my friend, is volition and what comes from volition. The fruit of karma arises from that.

tellyontellyon said:
As far as Deep Ecology is concerned. Democracy is fatally skewed by the power of the super-rich and big corporations, hedge-funds etc. "He who calls the piper calls the tune". If we want control over our environment then we need collective ownership. You can't control what you don't possess. The track record so far shows big business is guided by the profit motive, not by the needs of the many or by environmental considerations.

Malcolm wrote:
Ownership is an anthropocentric concept. It is not a biocentric concept. So your statement right there is flawed from a DE perspective.

You will not achieve collective ownership ever. In order to bring that about you will have to fight a long, bloody war with billions dead. The notions of property rights are too deeply embedded in our legal systems.

In order to change those you will have to overthrow entire governments and social orders.

Basically, I prefer the present world order with all its warts and inconstancies to a world order that would be run by totalitarians such as yourself. You will kill billions in your idealogical zeal to create a "classless" society [but of course there are always classes and always elites]. It would be better for you just to pray for rebirth in a pure land, there are no classes there.

Western Democracies at this point are too stable for your kind of revolutionary politics to ever be successful (Thank Buddha). The only reason why the Russian Revolution had a prayer of success is that the war footing of the western powers created serious economic instability worldwide. The same was true of China forty years later.

The only solution to the world's problems is the abandonment of violence at all costs, and slowly educating people one person at a time. Inner evolution is the only key to the world's problems, not outer revolution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Trots are and have always been religious fanatics. They are the Shia of the Communist world.
Malcolm, again why are you picking on muslims, in this case Shia muslims. All the muslims I have met are decent people, peaceful and not fanatics.

Malcolm wrote:
I wasn't picking on Muslims, I was making a comparison. Trots are a minority, have a charismatic leader who was killed, etc.

tellyontellyon said:
I'm sure that it is not possible to reconcile Trotskyist (orthodox marxist) ideology with Buddhist ideology. But in practice, the modern party I am involved in is involved in arguing for peace, ending wars, standing against nuclear arms.

Malcolm wrote:
There are a lot of political parties that argue for peace, ending war, and are anti-nuclear, you know, like the Green Party of the UK.

tellyontellyon said:
Despite Buddhist pacifist ideology, that same ideology has at times also been used as a justification for violence. We see that in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand. Most countries with Buddhist majority populations have the death penalty, all have armies. Look how Zen Buddhists priests relied on scripture to justify genocide during WWII.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you know they didn't really. Zen Priests in Japan got mixed up in nationalism. The same problem exists in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. This is the fault of nationalism, not Buddhism.

tellyontellyon said:
Like this from the Upaya-kaushalya Sutra, a Mahayana text that’s name literally means ‘skillful means.’
While on board a ship, Shakyamuni [Buddha] discovers that there is a robber intent on killing all five hundred of his fellow passengers. Shakyamuni ultimately decides to kill the robber, not only for the sake of his fellow passengers but also to save the robber himself from the karmic consequences of his horrendous act. In doing so, the negative karma from killing the robber should have accrued to Shakyamuni but it did not...

Malcolm wrote:
You do understand that the bodhisattva in this story possessed clairvoyance and was able to read the thief's mind? Correct? Do you possess such clairvoyance?

Without taking this fact into account, the story becomes skewed. The story in the  Ārya-upāyakauśalya-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra is not intended to demonstrate that Buddhists should engage in violent interventions. It is intended to demonstrate the amazing capacities of a bodhisattva on the stages. There is another story in the Jatakas where the bodhisattva, when he was reborn as Viśvaṃtara, gave his wife and children away to a brahmin in order to practice the perfection of giving.

tellyontellyon said:
You posted some of the most inflammatory things that marx wrote. But Marx's ideas developed over his lifetime and must be taken in the context of the historical situation and in the context of what violence others were doing at the time. Marx also said that he thought in advanced counties, with well developed democracy that a genuinely socialist society could come about without revolution.
The fact is when we are talking about Marx we have to ask: which Marx?

You also have to use marxist language with care, for example 'Dictatorship of the Proleteriat' simply means workers democracy. They used words differently in the 1840's.

Malcolm wrote:
Marx was:

a materialist (Charvaka)
argued that violence was acceptable, and even necessary
was a proponent of forced wealth redistribution (theft), which is and always has been bad economic policy. Taxation is always a better solution.

You have to understand I have read Marx. Marx can be amusing, for example his critique of colonialism at the end of Capital.

tellyontellyon said:
For example, revolution sounds pretty nasty but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_socialism
The term revolutionary socialism refers to socialist tendencies that subscribe to the doctrine that social revolution is necessary in order to effect structural changes to society. More specifically, it is the view that revolution is a necessary precondition for a transition from capitalism to socialism. Revolution is not necessarily defined as a violent insurrection; it is defined as seizure of political power by mass movements of the working class so that the state is directly controlled by the working class as opposed to the capitalist class and its interests.[1] Revolutionary socialists believe such a state of affairs is a precondition for establishing socialism.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't want the state to be controlled by the working class, per se.

I have no confidence whatsoever that a workers state will have a Deep Ecological outlook. Marxism and Deep Ecology are at odds because the former is anthropocentric and the latter is biocentric.

In the end, I think that, as far as it goes, American Democracy and its analogues in other countries is the best system of government we humans have yet come up, and I do not see Marxist socialism as any improvement at all.

I am a Buddhist. Just as the Buddha did not believe in caste, I do not believe that one "class" has an inherent moral superiority to another class: this is materialist thinking.

Buddhist thinking maintains that people are born into poverty or wealth because of their karma. There are social classes because people's actions in past lives define where they are born in this one, just as their past actions define whether sentient are born as animals or devas.

tellyontellyon said:
In any case, wouldn't it be far far better to talk about what actually needs to be done rather than focus on abstract ideology and throwing quotes back and forth?

Malcolm wrote:
Marxists have very Marxian ideas about what needs to be done, and as part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, they tend to the have the view that the planet is here to serve humans, its resources rightly belonging to humans. This is not only contra Buddhist principles, it is contra deep ecological principles.

tellyontellyon said:
It is our actions that really matter.

Malcolm wrote:
It is meritorious to want to help people, of course, but one must not lose sight of what actually creates diversity in this world: it is not economics, it is karma. You can be sure that those super wealthy people who do nothing to benefit others are exhausting their karma. There is nothing to be angry about. They are to be pitied because in their next life, they will be worse than paupers. Nāgārjuna says:
If one becomes a king through long veneration, 
one does not pursue wealth, family, and friends;
also no matter where people go or live, 
action follows just like a shadow.
If you accumulate positive actions in this life, in the next life you not need to struggle for your wants and needs. If you find you are in place of leisure and wealth in this life, use it for Dharma practice and to help those you can.

tellyontellyon said:
As for saying that Buddhists whould be better off not getting involved in politics... well, thats not really possible. Unless you live alone in a cave (and I'm not knocking that btw), then you have a responsibility to contribute to the communal activities of living in a community. That includes working out how you are going to live together, treat each other etc. etc. Restricting contact to members of the Sangha or only to non-materialists is not always possible if you are not a monk. It certainly isn't possible where I live in Wales.

Malcolm wrote:
The commitments of refuge to the Sangha does not mean that one does not mean that one does not do business and cultivate friendships with non-buddhists, etc., it means that one avoids those who would seek to harm Buddhism or who are engaged in very non-virtuous lifestyles.

tellyontellyon said:
Even if you are a monk, then I still think that monks need to have a think about the food and donations they recieve in their alms bowl: I think it is not enough simply to have gratitude... What did the worker have to go through to be able to make that donation?

Malcolm wrote:
As long as your focus is one class, you will have a biased view. Your focus needs to be on all sentient beings.

tellyontellyon said:
Think how many young women, even underage girls in places like Thailand feel pushed into prostitution in order to put meals on the family table.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is a pity, so of course the education of women is a desiderata around the world.

tellyontellyon said:
When monks are meditating on loving kindness, they should spend some time meditating on what some of the poorest and hardest working people in the world have to go through in order to keep them well fed.

Malcolm wrote:
Making donations to the Three Jewels is the best way to ensure one's rebirth will be higher in the next life, with more opportunity. Encouraging others to do so is also meritorious. It is also meritorious to help others as much as one can. It is not meritorious to foment social revolutions when the result is so often death, destruction and war.

tellyontellyon said:
Anyway, whether you agree with me or not. Please, Please stop having sideways stabs at the Muslims, it undermines your own argument and makes you look intolerant.

Malcolm wrote:
I have nothing personal against Muslims. It is their karma to be born Muslims, with animal sacrifice as a major and important part of their religion. In my opinion, part of the reason that Islamic countries have such a high level of violence is that their religion condones animal sacrifice. There is an observable level of poverty and violence that afflicts every nation in which there is a major religion that sanctions animal sacrifice. This is one of the reasons why Southern Hemisphere countries have such problems. You might object, what about the 60 billion animals a year that are slaughtered for meat to feed the North? The karmic cause is different, therefore the effect is different.

I have a lot of issues with both Islam and Christianity in general. They both are authors of great destruction and havoc in the world. I don't trust Islamic states, or indeed any religious state (including "Buddhist" ones) on any level in general. Thanks goodness one of the effects of the American Constitution was the elimination of state religions in Western Democracies for the most part.

In fact, Marxism and Islam have many structural similarities, similarities noted by George Bataille in his work, The Accursed Share. You should read it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
shel said:
So before humans evolved all sentient beings were stuck in a 'narrow' existence, and no existence at for billions of years before life evolved in the universe.


Malcolm wrote:
You are following a "just so story". You have no idea when life first appeared in the universe, if indeed it "first appeared".

shel said:
Yeah, and the universe revolves around the earth...

Malcolm wrote:
My point is that someone told you that there was no life in the universe a x time and you believed them. You have no evidence of such a fact. As you know, the Buddha taught that universe expands and contracts cyclically. This accounts for the appearance increasing complexity, etc. if we are being completely honest, we just admit that we don't know beyond what we can observe and trust the accounts that make the most sense to us for those things we cannot observe. So for example, I don't think that Meru cosmology is particularly true as a "fact"; it is a hierarchical metaphor with roots in ancient mythology.

Evolution is something I accept because it is can predicted. Karma and rebirth is something that I accept because I do not find the materialist presentations of consciousness especially compelling. If I did, I would not bother to be a Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
shel said:
So before humans evolved all sentient beings were stuck in a 'narrow' existence, and no existence at for billions of years before life evolved in the universe.


Malcolm wrote:
You are following a "just so story". You have no idea when life first appeared in the universe, if indeed it "first appeared".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 19th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Sanskrit for Nang-wa Tha-yay?
Content:
pemachophel said:
Thanks for the responses. Just to be clear: so are Nang-wa Tha-yay and Od-pag-med synonyms? Are they simply two different Tibetan translations of Amitabha? IOW, when translating these into English, should both terms simply be translated as Amitabha?



Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they are alternate translations of the same Sanskrit word.

Amitābha.

Amita = dpag med, immeasurable, etc.
abha = 'od, light, splendour, etc.

You can clearly see this in titles translated in the tengyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
[

For the record, this was what Astus wrote, not me.


Malcolm wrote:
My bad, I did not notice your name in there, I wrote the first post on my Ipad...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
I trust the translation, but to interpolate that this means the "consent of the people" in the modern sense of that phrase, I would not. This was the extent of your claim, and I don't accept it.

As regards the idea that the monarch is supposed to be "enlightened," no I don't believe in this either, not in the sense of buddha. However, speaking in terms of practical management of a kingdom, the rule of one who is unenlightened but selected for perceived management capacity, is wiser than the rule of all indiscriminately, who all at the same time are unenlightened. There really is such a thing as too many chefs in the kitchen, i.e. more than one. So, be careful with how far you think my claims are extending -- they may not encompass the breadth you imagine them to. However, I do appreciate your comments, they are by far the most constructive so far.

Malcolm wrote:
as you will recall, Mahā-sammata (an earlier incarnation of the Buddha, and also the Buddhist Manu) was appointed king by farmers who wanted to protect grain they had begun to store. Walsh clearly translates the Buddha explaining that the title Mahasammata means "The People's Choice" and he would only do so based on a commentarial gloss. Also you can find this explained in this alternate translation:

‘He is appointed [agreed to] by the people (mahā,janena sammato),’114 Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja; therefore, he is called “the great elect” (mahā sammata.
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.19-Agganna-S-d27-piya.pdf


Zhen Li said:
No it doesn't. There are many nuances about democracy as it exists today that don't exist in monarchy. For one, the king is elected by those who have a real stake in the value of the kingdom, not everyone you can find (definitely no baby suffrage here).

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a valid argument, when we say "people", we obviously do not mean babies, we mean adults in full possession their faculties, not those under the authority of others such as children.

Zhen Li said:
Okay, I don't quite see your point. I thought this was about whether monarchy is actually democracy.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that Kings derive their authority from the people, not from heaven.


Zhen Li said:
To reconsider the possibility that I might reply to tellyontellyon's post from earlier, I now think that the main problem is that tellyontellyon might be viewing Marxism in too religious a manner, interpolating all of his own desires of what he thinks the ideal Marx is, that he's unable to see that the reality of Marxism and Trotskyism is not just as he so pleases. With such faith, in place of potential reason, I don't believe it currently possible to engage in any constructive or deconstructive dialogue with regards to Marxism and Trotskyism with tellyontellyon.

Malcolm wrote:
Trots are and have always been religious fanatics. They are the Shia of the Communist world.

Zhen Li said:
However, to address the small matter of an accusation of misrepresentation on my part with regards to the title of one of Trotsky's books, the 1921 Labour Publishing Co. and Allen & Unwin, London edition is indeed named The Defence of Terrorism. Indeed, the idea that Marxist terrorism consists purely of general strikes and paper cuts from leaflets is to ignore and turn a blind eye to the millions of people who died in the name of Communist Terror as most vocally advocated and organised by Leon Davidovich Trotsky.

Malcolm wrote:
Terrorism was not invented by Marx, but he certainly considered it a valid tool to use in a revolution. And you are right, Trotsky was a mass murderer who from a Buddhist point of view is certainly suffering in a lower realm because of his own actions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Astus said:
The process is a removal of afflictions, and the visions are a sign of that, so they don't appear simply because of the natural state, and thus their disappearance is the final accomplishment. I didn't think dissolution here means total nothing, otherwise it wouldn't be the achievement of buddhahood for the benefit of all beings. Just as in mahamudra non-meditation is not about absolute non-activity. However, it seems to me that thogal and its visions is only one possible method of purification, and not the culmination of everything else, therefore other paths don't need it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not really a process of removing afflictions, it is more of a process of afflictions becoming undone on their own.

Some people assert that the increase of the visions occurs separately from the karmic winds, using this as an example of why for example thogal is superior to other completion stage practices, but too is also not precisely correct. The movement of karmic vāyus in the body is a result of affliction, and it is precisely these that hinder the development of the thogal visions. The postures are meant to still these vāyus which is why you have to remain in them for long periods.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
...but that doesn't mean that they don't follow the same process of the build up of a vision and then the vision's dissolution. That's why I said it is like creation and completion.


Malcolm wrote:
The visions in dzogchen are not conceptual constructs like visualizations of the creation and completion stage.

The vanishing of the visions is likened to bands of light returning into a prism, i.e, the colors are inherent in the crystal, but there are no more conditions which cause the potentiality (rtsal) of the crystal to manifest externally.

Thus the buddhaforms and so on that one sees always exist in oneself as the potentiality of the threefold wisdom of the basis, original purity, natural perfection, and compassion. Of these three what actually appears to be an external vision is the compassion aspect.

The Sakyapa explanation of the cause of the appearance of the visions of the first stage of the six branch yoga resembles the explanation of the genesis of the thogal vision of dharmatā. The similarities seem to end there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 10:35 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
shel said:
Yes that's the point, there's no hierarchy in evolution, whereas there's a fixed hierarchy Buddhism. That constitutes an irreconcilable difference.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no "hierarchy" in terms of karma. You land where you have the karma to land and that's it.

shel said:
You're saying it's no better to land a maggot than to land a saint?

Malcolm wrote:
Quantitatively yes, qualitatively no in so far as both are sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
smcj said:
The seminal text for the Yogacara and subsequent views is the Uttara Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, it is the seminal commentary on the Tathāgatagarbha school (viz total absence of reference to concepts like ālaya-vijñāna.

Madhyantavibanga, Dharmadharmatāvibhanga and Mahāyānasutra alaṃkara are the Yogacara commentaries.

In India there were three major trends in Mahāyāna:

Prajñāpāramita --> Tathāgatagarbha --> Yogacara

The later two incorporating and modifying ideas found in the earlier.

smcj said:
S.K. Hookam's book traces Yogacara/Shentong to the Uttaratantra. That's what I'm going by.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacara is an Indian school; gzhan stong is a Tibetan school based on Kalacakra. They are really completely different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... This is the reason why vase breath is used extensively even in so called sems sde.

dzogchungpa said:
Why "so-called" ?


Malcolm wrote:
Because the term sems sde only begins to be used in the Vima sNying thig, and the later criticisms of sems sde from the point of sNying thig are more political than anything else. After all, Longchenpa's Chos dbying mdzod is pretty much a commentary on the view of the bodhicitta texts, but it is praised as being the dharmakāya in book form.

In some respects, I am sympathetic to Astus's statement that man ngag sde is a return to "tantrism", but he has it slightly wrong. man ngag sde represents a desire to ground Dzogchen in its own completely independent system of empowerments, and one can see that it takes a page out of the Kalacakra system of the common four empowerments and then a system of the "higher four empowerments". Please do recall that famed Three Words of Garab Dorje did not even exist until the 1120's when the Vima Nyingthig was revealed by Zhangton Tashi Dorje. Prior to this was the seventeen tantra system of the four empowerments [elaborated, unelaborated, etc.]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Its not only those two systems, it is merely articulated most clearly in those two systems.

Astus said:
You mean you know some teachings from other schools too that give similar methods?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the ṣaḍaṇgayoga system is actually rather widespread and not confined to Kalacakra, though it is mostly clearly articulated in that system.


Astus said:
Yes, the criticism of the White Self-Sufficient Remedy.

Malcolm wrote:
No, dkar po gcig thub is not the same as the system of the four yogas of mahāmudra, they are actually critiqued by Sapan seperately and for entirely different reasons. The former is a sudden awakening scheme (which Sapan calls "Chinese Dzogchen"), and Sapan criticizes the latter as a misapplication of Ratnakaraśanti's presentation of of four "yogas" in his Madhyamakālaṃkara.


Astus said:
I'd rather like to understand the reason behind considering the appearance of drops and buddhas - that result in their return to the natural state anyway - is the necessary next step.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know the Kalacakra system well enough to opine about this; but in thogal the four visions appear not because the "natural" state is somehow lacking; they appear in their sequence because persons possess affliction and afflictions attenuate the visions as as they naturally unravel the visions first increase and then vanish. However, the idea that at the end of the four visions there are no appearances is a complete misconception. I will merely quote the beginning of Shabkar's discussion of the fourth vision on this point:
It so happens that in the past some Dzogchenpas
have asserted that the kāyas [visible forms] and wisdoms [expressed as the five lights]
do not exist within the state of original purity, but this is a great error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 8:05 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The problem I have always had articulating the unique feature of Vajrayāna view to you sutra guys is precisely summed above: wisdom merged into emptiness is the basis [sthana, gzhi], and this is what accounts for the visions in both Dzochen [klong sde and man ngag sde] as well as Kalacakra.

Astus said:
But that's only those two systems. And even in thogal the fourth vision is the total dissolution, like going through creation and completion stages again. Mahamudra is complete with non-meditation, and there is no point in repeating the whole process of mandalas, mantras and buddhas based on the final realisation. So, I don't think I base my understanding on sutra, since that's how it looks like to me in Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Its not only those two systems, it is merely articulated most clearly in those two systems.

Also Astus, the four yogas are sūtra mahāmudra. If you do not practice the completion stage, mahāmudra according to the upadeṥas is a slow path, or so it is asserted by the Sakyapas. This is the reason why vase breath is used extensively even in so called sems sde.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: Sanskrit for Nang-wa Tha-yay?
Content:
pemachophel said:
What's the Sanskrit for Amitabha's epithet, Nang-wa Tha-yay?



Malcolm wrote:
Amitābha.

Amita = mtha' yas, limitless
abha = snang wa, light, splendour, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Title: Re: giant pressure in between my eyebrows
Content:
threeyears said:
For the last three years I have felt a pressure in between my eyebrows. It doesn't go away when I get off the cushion, it is always there. When I watch it, it moves around. It goes to the back of my head, the sides, into my eyesockets making them twitch, into my nose, up to the top of my head, but it always comes back to the center in between my eyebrows. And it grows incredibly big whenever I watch my thoughts. I stopped meditating for a while because it was becoming so big that I thought my head was going to explode. Its not painful, its just confusing. So for the sake of avoiding brain damage, I put my faith in the people of dharmawheel. Can you please help me?


Malcolm wrote:
Sounds like a disorder of wind -- go see an ayurvedic or tibetan doctor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
smcj said:
The seminal text for the Yogacara and subsequent views is the Uttara Tantra.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really, it is the seminal commentary on the Tathāgatagarbha school (viz total absence of reference to concepts like ālaya-vijñāna.

Madhyantavibanga, Dharmadharmatāvibhanga and Mahāyānasutra alaṃkara are the Yogacara commentaries.

In India there were three major trends in Mahāyāna:

Prajñāpāramita --> Tathāgatagarbha --> Yogacara

The later two incorporating and modifying ideas found in the earlier.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
So, thögal in tantric mahamudra?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so it seems.

Astus said:
Interesting. I have always had this impression that thögal with its channels and visions is a "step back" to tantra from the direct simplicity of trekchö and mahamudra.


Malcolm wrote:
The problem I have always had articulating the unique feature of Vajrayāna view to you sutra guys is precisely summed above: wisdom merged into emptiness is the basis [sthana, gzhi], and this is what accounts for the visions in both Dzochen [klong sde and man ngag sde] as well as Kalacakra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
Well, familiar terms jump out like "gaze at a garland of thigles in cloudless space" and so on.

heart said:
So, thögal in tantric mahamudra?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, so it seems.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
shel said:
Yes that's the point, there's no hierarchy in evolution, whereas there's a fixed hierarchy Buddhism. That constitutes an irreconcilable difference.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no "hierarchy" in terms of karma. You land where you have the karma to land and that's it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:


Jesse said:
Psychology works with intangibles, experiences, emotions, thoughts, and habits, and that is exactly why it is considered a soft science.


Malcolm wrote:
That really depends on which program you are in, what school, etc.

For example, UVM's psychology program is pretty much hard science all the way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
Seishin said:
I don't disagree Malcolm, which is why I said "preferred" not "correct".

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, I just think that the preference itself is based on a misconception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 18th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:
Seishin said:
The reason "reincarnation" is not preferred in Buddhism is because it is understood throughout the English speaking world, to mean the transmigration of the soul or spirit.

Malcolm wrote:
All terms in Sanskrit or Pali which refer to this phenomena can also be construed in this way [i.e. as transmigration of the soul], which is why there is debate about it between Buddhists and Hindus. Therefore, I reject that there is a valid distinction between "rebirth" as opposed to "reincarnation". They are in fact synonyms.

The distinction was first introduced in the early 70's by Trungpa, incidentally.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Evolution and reincarnation
Content:


Seishin said:
I wasn't saying that Buddha did not teach literal rebirth, I am saying he did not teach "reincarnation" because he did not use the word according to the suttas, essentially refuting your earlier point that Shakyamuni taught "reincarnation". Please re-read what I wrote.

Malcolm wrote:
He did not teach rebirth either, since he did not use that word, according to the suttas.

Actually the term rebirth and reincarnation are just alternate translations of the same term, punarbhāva.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Just like deep ecologists, I'm afraid. (And I'm saying that as a huge fan of DE).

Malcolm wrote:
Oh definitely, DE is an intellectual movement in many respects. There is nothing to be gained by Deep Ecologists joining party politics. In the US Green Party, the DE voice has been completely suppressed by the Bookchin faction.

As David Orton points out:

Green parties have become shallow ecology defenders of industrial capitalist society, even if Arne Naess was supportive of them. The German Green Party theoretician Rudolf Bahro resigned from the party in the early 1980s, and pointed out that green party shallow ecology  is content to “brush the teeth” of industrial society.

And:

There is arrogance among socialists who think that they should be leading the ecological movement, because they have a “class analysis” and are anti-capitalist. What comes across is that the Left believes it is entitled to intellectual hegemony in the green and environmental movements, by virtue of prior knowledge. The Left does not seem to be able to absorb the pluralism of green and environmental politics – as Naess informed us, “the front is long” – let alone accept the earned leadership of others by virtue of their practical or theoretical work. Ed Abbey noted, through the character Doc Sarvis in The Monkey Wrench Gang, the importance of practical involvement in actual environmental struggles: “Let our practice form our doctrine, thus assuring precise theoretical coherence.” (p. 68) The idea that deeper environmentalists and greens can come to an anti-capitalist critique based on their own experiences, without studying Marxism or social ecology, but based on field experience, seems, apparently, difficult to grasp for the Left.
https://deepgreenweb.blogspot.com/2011/01/deep-ecology-and-left-contradictions.html

If you are curious as to what my "practical involvement in actual environmental struggles" are, it is precisely my study of traditional medicine, in part in inspired by the anarchist writer Laurel Luddites piece, Anarcho-herbalism:

Medicine is just one part of the machine that we have to take back and re-create into a form that works for the society we will become. Every herb, pill, and procedure should be judged on its sustainability and accessibility to small groups of people.
http://www.swsbm.com/HOMEPAGE/Anarcho-herbalism.html

As for my definition of Marxism, Marxism, as we know, is a failure. Of course the Socialist revolutions of the early 20th century were important in their contributions to shorter work days, etc., all kinds of things we take for granted today in modern post-industrial countries.

But the issue here is defining those features that make Marxism an unsuitable political philosophy for Buddhists. Its advocacy of violence is one reason, the trenchant materialism of the majority of Marxist philosophers is another.

We really do need to get beyond these eighteenth and nineteenth century political models. That is what Deep Ecology is for.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course there are differences in the two systems, but it is my present opinion (which could change tomorrow based on some reliably datable text) that it is unlikely that thogal developed until after the Kalacakra was introduced to Tibet (1027). My speculation is that these entopic visions were given a context by the elaborate internal anatomy presented in Kalacakra, and this was further developed by yogis in Dzogchen circles.

mutsuk said:
Both Geluk and Jonang authors concur in saying that the source of the night-time and day-time yogas is in the Prajnaparamita. It's the same in Bon.


Malcolm wrote:
We will see what the Sakyapas have to say about it when I get that far.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
If you wish to be a follower of the Buddha, you will practice avihimsa.
What if you come across something that is violent, harmful and destructive, but your intervention could also be hurtful.

You intervene > harm.
You don't intervene > harm.
You sit on the fence > harm.

What is the solution?

Malcolm wrote:
If you participate in a violent revolution, advocating its aims, causing people, etc., to die, you will assuredly take rebirth in a lower realm. As Marx states:

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

There can never be any harm to anyone through following ahimsa. Non-violent struggles based on ahimsa will never bring harm to anyone. People engaged in non-violent protest may be harmed, but such protest will never being harm to others.

Then there is the knotty issue of associating with people who have a negative view of Buddhadharma. It is not consistent with one's commitment of refuge to the Sangha to associate with those who are hostile or negative towards Buddhadharma. Therefore, since Marxism is avowedly an enemy of Dharma, as it is the enemy of all religion, it is not appropriate for Buddhists to belong to Marxist political parties (indeed, it is probably better we don't belong to any political parties at all).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I thought you're a fan of the  Frankfurter.s

Malcolm wrote:
I like Adorno, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Jikan said:
Sorry to go temporarily off-topic, but if anyone can direct me to a copy of the translation of Mipham's commentary on the Kalacakra that Malcolm just referenced, I'd greatly appreciate it.  Thank you.


Malcolm wrote:
If you participated in the recent Longsal Kalacakra, you can apply for membership in the international kalacakra website and you can find it there among the restricted texts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 9:40 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
mutsuk said:
In the Kalacakra daytime and nighttime yogas, the so-called "visions" are not described as "visions" but as signs (rtags).

Malcolm wrote:
Tagtsang Lotsawa makes the argument, and a very interesting one at that -- he asserts that if wisdom is not the basis, the visions of pratyāhāra will not arise. He then states it is because wisdom is merged with emptiness that the visions can arise:
"Great bliss and empty forms [śunyatābimba, stong gzugs] are shown to exist in the basis with this wisdom element of the basis [gzhi]...and it is established through the citation of the root text and commentary of “wisdom merged into emptiness." The reasoning is that it is because the visions of the empty forms when mediating on withdrawal [pratyāhāra, so sor sdud pa] and so on will therefore be without a cause."
I find this to be a credible account for explaining the genesis of thogal visions as well.

Mipham states in his commentary on the Wisdom Chapter of Kalacakra (as translated by Ives Waldo):
Depending on the great perfection, the path of thod rgal is still a procedure of the completion stage that involves effort. In general establishing the kāya of illusion etc. teaches the display [rtsal] of the illusory body, a teaching which also arises in the father tantras and in the mother tantras. Depending on bliss and bindu, it is taught relying on luminous display. In the Dzogchen tantras there is insight from emptiness the natural state, the wisdom of reality. From mere direct resting in luminous appearance, the conventions of the illusory body etc. are taught.

In all these [teachings], by practicing the intrinsic radiance of the luminous nature of mind as the special pith of the quick path of mantra, both dharmakāya and rūpakāya, in their respective ways are made into real objects, and one seems to enter into them. However, by the distinction of [this experience] having or not having subtle contaminations of karmic prā.na, whichever it may be, there is the ultimate of all completion stages, the effortless great perfection, the secret path of the Oral Instruction Class, up to the four appearances of thod rgal, with paths ever higher and higher, the vast way of attaining truth that cannot be taken away. There is that explanation, but it is not presented by many writings.

I agree that the daytime yoga in Kalacakra is not thogal, but they even describe buddhaforms showing up in the center of thigles, use of postures and gazes, etc.

Of course there are differences in the two systems, but it is my present opinion (which could change tomorrow based on some reliably datable text) that it is unlikely that thogal developed until after the Kalacakra was introduced to Tibet (1027). My speculation is that these entopic visions were given a context by the elaborate internal anatomy presented in Kalacakra, and this was further developed by yogis in Dzogchen circles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I do have three seconds though to point out that the vast majority of contemporary Marxism...


Malcolm wrote:
is a bunch of old ladies sitting around wondering why their theories don't work and why no one listens to them, so they endlessly squabble amongst themselves.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Hiya, Treehuggingoctopus, I like the avatar and the name! I've also got Terry Eagleton's book "Why Marx Was Right". It's a great book. I think he is a Christian if I'm right, and quite influenced by the SWP in the UK?

I'll repost this as well:
http://isme.tamu.edu/ISME07/Meadors07.html

It's a paper about Buddhist Perspectives on the use of Force, and touches on the Upaya-kaushalya Sutra. Though what this sutra says and how it has been interpreted is certainly open to question. I'm not saying the article 'proves' anything, but it raises interesting points and is well worth a read.


Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to be a follower of the Buddha, you will practice avihimsa. If you do not wish to be a follower of the Buddha, you can follow the violent creeds of any number of other religions, including the materialist religion of Communism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 9:19 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Malcolm. You are seriously having a fantasy. Look at the countless millions who died under Stalin and Mao, a direct result of Marxist/Leninist principles.
They were a disgusting distortion of Marxism as explained here (for the second time)
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/

Malcolm wrote:
I am quite familiar with Trotskyist apologetics. They are screed of the losers. I have no doubt that a Trotskyist regime would have been as brutal and murderous as Stalin's, even more so, in fact, since Trotsky was bent on permanent revolution, spread to every corner of the planet, regardless of whether his attentions were wanted or not. That is a great problem with you Marxists -- the complete lack of ability to respect others when their lack of compliance to your "forces of history" compels you to rob them of their homes, goods, and even their labor all in the name of your completely heartless proletariat revolution. Well thanks but no thanks. I do not want to live in a workers paradise. I do not want to have a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is not inevitable. I do not want to live in the ruined world that will be left after your lot burns down what is left after the failure of "advanced capitalism".

tellyontellyon said:
Oh, and yes. Marxism is materialist, true. So is the theory and practice of most scientists and engineers. Maybe it's all an illusion, but an illusion that us unenlightened folk have to try and live in on a daily basis.

Malcolm wrote:
My point, simply put, is that the thinking of Karl Marx is incompatible with Buddhism. There are all kinds of socialisms that are not, but Marxism most definitely is.

tellyontellyon said:
Sorry, I'm not going to sit by and watch people starve or die of thirst, or get murdered...

Malcolm wrote:
You are doing it right now; right now you are sitting by idly, gossiping on the internet, while people are starving, dying of thirst and being murdered. So spare me the self-righteous rhetoric.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Hell, there have been crossovers between deep ecology and Marxism, too - as any recently published ecocriticism reader should prove.

Malcolm wrote:
To the detriment of Deep Ecology...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 5:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
The real weapon of the working class is the General Strike!

Malcolm wrote:
I see, so you are actually a Sorelian.

tellyontellyon said:
Are Marxists totally committed to pacifism, no. They are willing to defend themselves against attack. I mentioned that in an earlier post too.


Malcolm wrote:
Trotsky clearly defines red terror as justifiable. You have to be blind not to see it.

tellyontellyon said:
Name the Buddhist country that has no army? Most have the death penalty, something I totally disagree with.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no Buddhist Governments. The reason for that has already been provided. Seeking to be leaders is the business of fools.

tellyontellyon said:
I would hope nobody or the smallest possible number would die in the transition to democratic socialism. If people are killed it will be in self-defence.

Malcolm wrote:
You are seriously having a fantasy. Look at the countless millions who died under Stalin and Mao, a direct result of Marxist/Leninist principles.

tellyontellyon said:
But what is the alternative under a degenerating capitalism? Imperialist war for profit; for land, power, water and food as the worlds becomes unlivable.

Malcolm wrote:
Marxism proposes no alternative because it will do nothing whatsoever to change what it regards as progressive, i.e. industrial civilization (which is entirely consistent with its materialist philosophical position).

tellyontellyon said:
But as Buddhists you say we should not lift a finger. We should sit on our thumbs while billions die of war and starvation and thirst and just watch while the world burns because we are oh so compassionate.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the Buddha did passively watch the Shakya tribe, his kin, being slaughtered and enslaved by the  Kosalians when his verbal discouragement failed to move the Kosalian leaders.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:


theanarchist said:
I met a Tibetan lama who grew up with nomads, and he told us that before he met westerners he didn't even know that something like depression exists. He hadn't heard of anyone there who had that sort of emotional problem.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, nomads just have problems managing not to kill each other at the slightest pretext.


theanarchist said:
I have also been told that Tibetans usually didn't have so much trouble doing long term solitary retreats.

Malcolm wrote:
Not that many Tibetans actually do solitary retreats.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
thigle said:
Another point is "thögal", which you can not find in mahamudra...

Malcolm wrote:
Not so fast, Kimosabe. My recent studies of Kalacakra and sadaṇgayoga have caused me to revise my opinion about this.

Please examine Ornament of Stainless Light by Norsang Kalsang Gyatso, the section on the daytime withdrawal yoga.

heart said:
Could you elaborate a little Malcolm?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Well, familiar terms jump out like "gaze at a garland of thigles in cloudless space" and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
thigle said:
Another point is "thögal", which you can not find in mahamudra...

Malcolm wrote:
Not so fast, Kimosabe. My recent studies of Kalacakra and sadaṇgayoga have caused me to revise my opinion about this.

Please examine Ornament of Stainless Light by Norsang Kalsang Gyatso, the section on the daytime withdrawal yoga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Marxism does not advocate terrorism. I have already answered that.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it does. Trotsky quite explicitly states that is perfectly acceptable for communists to engage in terrorism, based on a just war theory.

Marx advocates violent revolution in his manifesto. He certainly is not an advocate of non-violence.

Not only this, but of course Marx is a complete materialist on every sense of the term. So how can Marxism in truth be a fit doctrine for a Buddhist to hold?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Hiya Malcolm.

Well, it does seem that capitalism is inherently unstable and leads to crises. Those crises' also seem to be affecting the whole world. Globalisation, the power of corporations seems to be expanding, and overides democracy and morality and common sense. As one stock market trader said, "Goldman Sachs Rules The World". Another way of saying that is "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA
I think if we want to change how we produce things and use the planets resources, then we can not leave our economic system in the hands of such people. You can't control what you don't own... so ownership needs to be collective.. (at least when it comes to the important/big things). That does not mean owning everything or every small/medium business.

~~

Marx didn't only talk about industrial capitalism, he understood financial capitalism.
Here's a leaflet:
It's pretty short... for marx.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

~~~

Again, people confuse what happened in the Bonapartist Soviet Union with what genuine Marxists today stand for.
This document gives Trotsky's view from 1937.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm

Malcolm wrote:
Marx says nothing about banks and stock markets not already enunciated by Smith, et al.

Trotsky advocated terrorism. How can you admire such people?

Marx and Communism advocate violence and terrorism as valid means to end. This is repugnant.

No Buddhist should advocate Marxism in a real sense. Supporting the goals of Marxism without condemning its explicit advocacy of violent revolution is supporting that violence itself and bears all the karmic consequences of belonging to an army.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Not quite sure why you are having a pop at Islam? All the muslims I have ever met were decent peaceful people. Don't believe everything (or anything) you hear on Fox News.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't pay attention to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I watch the Daily Show for my infotainment, and not very regularly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 17th, 2014 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Hiya Malcolm.

Well, it does seem that capitalism is inherently unstable and leads to crises.

Malcolm wrote:
Marxist economies are not stable either. Since Marxist economies are predicated upon industrial capitalist means of production, they will be inherently unstable as well.

The problem again is how things scale. low level local capitalism is fine and healthy. What you are talking about is over centralized concentration of wealth. Well, that can happen just as easily in a Marxist workers paradise as a capitalist dystopia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Longchenpa at TBRC
Content:
Alex Hubbard said:
Thanks, I did that and found two versions, the one from 1973 opened in the reader but not the one from 2000.

Do you know if there are any substantial differences? I'm guessing these are different editions.

Alex.


Malcolm wrote:
No, I doubt it. The 200 edition is the same block prints, AFAIK.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Longchenpa at TBRC
Content:
Alex Hubbard said:
Malcolm, yes that's it, thanks so much.

Unfortunately there something wrong as I can't access the reader. It says the RID is invalid. I'll email them. In any case, if you get round to finding your translation I'd really enjoy a read.

Alex.


Malcolm wrote:
just search on this title.

bdud rtsi zil mngar ma


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Longchenpa at TBRC
Content:
Alex Hubbard said:
You're a gent, I appreciate it muchly.

According to 'Sources of the Tibetan Tradition' (which has a pretty idiosyncratic translation) it's in vol.2 pages 328.3– 331.6, but that section on TBRC has the title 'byang chub kyi sems kun byed rgyal po'i don khrin rin chen gru bo' which gave me the impression that the TBRC collection might be a different edition.

Alex.


Malcolm wrote:
dri med 'od zer. " bdud rtsi zil mngar ma/." In gsung thor bu/_dri med 'od zer/(sde dge par ma/). TBRC W23504. 2: 332 - 335. paro, bhutan: lama ngodrup and sherab drimey, 1982. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O00EGS1013837%7CO2CN67002CN87712CN91062CN91092CN91112CN91122CN91162CN91191PD121506$W23504


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
AlexanderS said:
Ok, thank very much for clarifying that for me


Malcolm wrote:
Another example might be transient depression due to depleted vata as opposed to a longterm depression caused by the depletion of tarpaka kapha (located in the brain; tshim byed bad kan for the Tibetophiles out there), etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Longchenpa at TBRC
Content:
Alex Hubbard said:
That's great, thanks.

I saw that name but mistook him for one of Dudjom Lingpa's sons.

I'm looking for the original tibetan of his homage to chang. It's in his 'Miscellaneous Collected Works' apparently, I'll go take a look and see if it's there.

Alex.


Malcolm wrote:
I translated it. I'll dig it up later today, it is on another computer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 9:46 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Aagin this is very true, but it still provides no evidence regarding the "accusation" of hyper-realism in regards to the model of the functioning of mind.  And, anyway, again, all that is happening is that you are displaying a preference for one conceptual framework over another.  Unless, of course, you are saying that Theravada is not Buddhadharma, then we are getting into a whole different conversation.

Malcolm wrote:
What Kevin is saying is that for Theravadins Dharmas are real but persons are not. Perhaps "hyper" is a bit of an exaggeration, but their view is still realist, so far as it goes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
It is not capitalism per se that is the problem. The problem lies in how corporations are structured, as well as neo-liberal globalization.
But, the nature of capitalist competition itself leads to monopolies, globalisation, hierarchy, a growing disparity between rich and poor. All of this Marx predicted.

Malcolm wrote:
Marx considered capitalism progressive. One of the glaring failures of Marx's theories was his failure to perceive that the industrial capitalist mode of production itself was and is the core of the problem. But not all capitalist enterprise suffers from that because not all capitalist enterprise is necessarily industrial.

Competition, even in capitalism, is not necessarily a negative thing, either. For example, my point of view is "anti-capitalist", but not universally so. A certain amount of capitalism in an economy is necessary, it keeps people invigorated. Even the Buddha supported the notion of profitable investing.

tellyontellyon said:
Wheter you agree with anything else he says it appears he was right about that. Even if you don't think marxism is the solution, I don't think capitalism can be either. Just look.

Malcolm wrote:
Marxism has been an utter failure as a solution. Its primary successes all occurred prior to WWI.

tellyontellyon said:
If you think capitalism can be fixed... ok how? What do you think could be done that could solve this? Keynes is a step in the right direction. It was tried in Europe ... and is being torn to pieces before our eyes. Global capitalism continues to become more powerful everywhere.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a question of fixing capitalism. We already have the means to control it, we simply need to be diligent about making sure that capitalism is properly regulated in ensure the healthy competition upon which it is based. For example, Obama administration's claim that this or that bank is too big to fail is utter nonsense. On the other hand, we need to guarantee small banks.

The fact of the matter is that we already have the means and understanding the balance the social good against the excesses of capitalism. The pity is that you Marxists spend all your time reading Marx, but he is really just tearing a page out of Smith and trying to merge that with Hegel. Marx is a remarkably unoriginal thinker, with a journalists mentality. You should read Smith, thoroughly. His concept of capitalism is really well thought out and socially as well as environmentally sound in many respects. He in fact would be horrified at the modern corporatocracies we are spawning today. He writes very scathingly of those who speculate in the stock market.

However, Smith's views are also unduly enthusiastic about the newly forming industrial economy, and he too, like Marx later, fails to see that the very means of production themselves drive economic forms of life and therefore, drives politics.

The Luddites understood this quite well, and revolted because of the destruction of cottage industries (which in part arose because of the shuttering of the commons on the 16th and 17th centuries, forced a lot of subsistence level farmers in the British Isles into the trades) that occurred as a result of the burgeoning textile mills.

One of the main points of Deep Ecological thinking is that how we make things is as important as what we make. Centralized production leads to centralized economies. Industrial production is summum bonum of centralized production.

If we want to change our politics, we must change our economy. If we want to change our economy, we must change how we manufacture what we need. If we want to change how we manufacture goods, we must in the end change ourselves.

The Marxist solution is bankrupt precisely because it proposes that all we need to change is our politics and policies, and then everything else will fall into place. This sadly, is the great shortcoming of the Green Parties, who have become little more than a retread of the old left, ala Social Ecology (Murray Bookchin), attempting to foster change at the policy level, rather than at the root, how we manufacture and produce what we use and eat.

tellyontellyon said:
I'm all for reforms of capitalism, but eventually all that gets torn down. At least that is Marx's prediction... what do we see?

Malcolm wrote:
If I were you, I would be more worried about the rise of Islam as a global political force.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Longchenpa at TBRC
Content:
Alex Hubbard said:
Hey folks,

sorry to be a complete dunce but I've tried searching for Longchenpa material over at the TBRC and come up with nada. Could anyone more savvy than me point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Alex.


Malcolm wrote:
You need to search on his name, i.e. Dri med 'od zer

http://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=P1583


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:


AlexanderS said:
When you say that psychosis and bipolar disorder are physical diseases is that exclusive to these 2 or does it also apply to most "psychiatric illnesses"? Arent most illnesses in TBM a mixture of mental and physical imbalances?

Malcolm wrote:
From a Tibetan medical perspective, emotional disorders must be distinguished from actual psychiatric disorders. The former are fundamentally caused by imbalances in the three humors which arise from the three afflictive emotions. The latter are caused by very serious derangement of either "vata" or "pitta", along with demons. For the most part, the mental illness chapters cover various kinds of demonic causes.

M

AlexanderS said:
Could you give me a brief example of a emotional disorder contra a psychiatric disorder? I simply ask out of curiosity.

Best Alex

Malcolm wrote:
For example, a person who expresses anger compulsively due to an excess of pitta (fire element humor) as opposed to someone who is hallucinating, for example.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 8:31 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
3. authorized, selected, agreed upon d iii.93 (mahājana˚) vin i.111; iii.150.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the sense of the term.

Zhen Li said:
I don't think we need to do a philological study here, it's pretty clear to anyone that "majority" isn't in the word.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahā...

Certainly you are not going to argue with Āryadeva that the power of the king depends on the consent of the people.
I'd like a quote or reference.
You can find this in his Catuḥśataka, v. 77
Societies servant, paid with a sixth part, 
Why are you so arrogant?
Your becoming the agent of actions
depends on being placed in control.
And:
Those who act at others insistence,
Are called fools on this earth.
There is no one else at all 
So dependent on others as you.
He also says, v. 88:
The sensible do not acquire kingship.
Since fools have no compassion, 
These merciless rulers of men, 
though protectors, are irreligious.
As far as enlightened rulership goes, he opines that while once it may have been possible, it is no longer possible, v. 90 states:
Virtuous rulers of the past
Protected the people like children.
Through the practices of this time of strife,
It is now like a waste without wildlife.
(Yogic Deeds of Bodhisattvas, Snow Lion, 1994).

I certainly think that history has certainly demonstrated that rulers, especially sovereign monarchs, are in general completely incompetent. The ideal of the wise, awakened kings is a myth, like the unicorn.
That just lands you smack dab in the lap of democracy again.
No it doesn't. There are many nuances about democracy as it exists today that don't exist in monarchy. For one, the king is elected by those who have a real stake in the value of the kingdom, not everyone you can find (definitely no baby suffrage here).
Athenian Democracy for example, was the province of an elite, a practice initially followed by the framers of the constitution who were unwilling or unable to fully implement the Seven Nations model of direct democracy they had encountered and admired. This also likely had to do with a conflict created by culturally embedded European notions of property rights inherited from the Romans as opposed to First Nation ideas about usufruct rights.
For another, the king has absolute authority. I can elaborate when I have some more time.
Not from a Buddhist point of view. See the above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 8:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
tellyontellyon said:
Even the Dalai Lama doesn't lay this at the door of Marx. I believe the Dalai Lama has great wisdom and compassion and should not be brushed aside so easily.

The world is facing an environmental crisis that threatens the life of everybody on this planet. There will be food shortages. Mineral shorteges. Fuel shortages. Communities will be displaced by changing weather patterns and rising seas.
I have no faith whatsoever in capitalism to solve this, I only see the powerful grabbing all they can. I see war and famine. We must find a new way to live together on this planet and it will not be capitalism... even the Taoists may feel the need to act.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not capitalism per se that is the problem. The problem lies in how corporations are structured, as well as neo-liberal globalization.

Of course the state capitalism of the Stalinists and the CCP just turns the State into a corporation.

In fact, there is very little difference in the structure of totalitarian states whether right or left.

Totalitarianism is a scourge, whether it is in the form of a Marxist regime or a Fascist corporatist regime.

All you guys squabbling about the relative merits of worldly political systems need to step back and understand that as followers of Buddhadharma, it is not our job to solve samsara for anyone but ourselves. We cannot solve samsara for anyone else.

We can add our voice, and we can witness, but we are not going to change the behavior of worldlings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 9:38 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Stage nine: abandoned political theories as useless and took up learning Buddhist primary languages and used all that intellectual talent for study and practice...

Zhen Li said:
Well, I started learning primary languages in stage 7 because it doesn't take much time to figure this stuff out - it takes a lot of time to write about it... and many espressos...

More or less, being a reactionary is abandoning politics. It is saying that all politics is useless, and the natural orders and functions of the world should take over because they're more efficient and yield better results. That includes having a monarch

Malcolm wrote:
Mahasammata means, i.e., "Elected by the majority".

Certainly you are not going to argue with Āryadeva that the power of the king depends on the consent of the people.

That just lands you smack dab in the lap of democracy again.

As Churchill quipped  “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Nemo said:
I honestly think the story behind Zhen Li's beliefs would be infinitely more interesting than debunked Austrian praxeology.

Zhen Li said:
Stage 1: Became interested in Marxism based upon the appeal of the goal appearing to be justified.
Stage 2: Decided to base my views on a logical analysis and proceeded to read the Collected Works of Marx and Engels.
Stage 3: Found that transition to Socially Direct Labour isn't explained properly by Marx, found that the Maoist model of experimentation made some sense.
Stage 4: Moral disenchantment with communism through a deeper understanding of the bloody history, and my inability to find anyone who was a pacifist or wasn't bloodthirsty in communist parties. Reduced to intellectual Marxianism.
Stage 5: Found the price-value equation to be nonsense, thus discredited the labour theory of value. Found that Marx stopped advocating historical materialism due to it's lack of empirical concordance. Found that experimentation makes no sense if historical materialism makes no sense.
Stage 6: Conditionally accepted notion of social democracy - improve conditions through government action. Was liberal/social democrat.
Stage 7: Found economically social democracy doesn't work. Was libertarian - also liked the morality in libertarianism.
Stage 8: Found that libertarianism can't work due to inherent problems with democracy. Discovered Carlyle and neo-camerialist formalism and became a reactionary dinosaur.

Malcolm wrote:
Stage nine: abandoned political theories as useless and took up learning Buddhist primary languages and used all that intellectual talent for study and practice...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: What if Buddhism had become the dominant faith of Europe
Content:


jeeprs said:
The key background factor in all of it was the influence of the nominalists and the overthrow of medieval scholasticism...

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhist pramāṇa is nominalist. But it did not help much at all in overthrowing Buddhist medieval scholasticism -- for example, rational people who insist that Meru cosmology is valid.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 2:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And no, mental illnesses are not automatically attributed to demons. A hefty distortion of the wind energy will be sufficient.

I did not say they were I said "...as well as demons." Demons are the last place we go when we diagnose any kind of illness, when we have exhausted other options of diagnosis and treatment.

However, there are eighteen kinds of bhūtas ('byung po) described in chapter 77 of the man ngag rgyud and chapter 4 of the Uttarasthāna of the Aṣṭāṇga hṛidāya samhita.

See my post here for why Tibetan Medicine practitioners ought to use vata, pitta and kapha:

http://www.bhaisajya.net/2010/10/bad-humors.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The latter are caused by very serious derangement of either "vata" or "pitta", along with demons.

theanarchist said:
Vata and pitta are concepts from Ayurveda, not Tibetan medicine.


Malcolm wrote:
Would it surprise you to learn that རླུང་is how vata is translated into Tibetan? Or that མཁྲིས་པ་is how "pitta" is translated into Tibetan? Or that བད་ཀན is how kapha is translated into Tibetan? Or that four tantras (rgyud bzhi a.k.a Amritāṇgaṣṭāghuya-upadeśatantra) is heavily based on the Indian Ayurvedic treatise, Aṣṭāṇgahṝdayasaṃhita? Or that the terms vata, pitta, and kapha (which are in fact rlung, mkhris pa and bad kan) are used in sutras and tantras such as Suvarnaprabhāsa, Kālacakra, etc?

The principle difference between classical Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine is their view: Ayurveda is based on the Saṃkhya school, Tibetan medicine is based on Buddhist sutras, tantras as well as Ayurveda treatises composed by Buddhists such as Vagbhata (author of the Aṣṭāñga hṛidāya samhita), Nāgārjuna and so on. But they both use share the schemes of the tridośa (nyes pa gsum), saptadhātus (lus bzung bdun pa), etc.

As such, they are theoretically nearly identical. In fact, the chapters on mental illness the four tantras are cribbed nearly word for word from the Aṣṭaṇgahṝdayasaṃhita.

Further, I have crossed trained in both, though my degree is in Tibetan Medicine (Shang Shung/Qinghai University).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:


AlexanderS said:
When you say that psychosis and bipolar disorder are physical diseases is that exclusive to these 2 or does it also apply to most "psychiatric illnesses"? Arent most illnesses in TBM a mixture of mental and physical imbalances?

Malcolm wrote:
From a Tibetan medical perspective, emotional disorders must be distinguished from actual psychiatric disorders. The former are fundamentally caused by imbalances in the three humors which arise from the three afflictive emotions. The latter are caused by very serious derangement of either "vata" or "pitta", along with demons. For the most part, the mental illness chapters cover various kinds of demonic causes.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Virgo said:
They are an outgrowth of the view of certain logicians that ascribed to a certain view.  The purpose of their being described and reasoning for their being taught must be understood within the greater framework of the view of the work from which they come.  Specifically, it is a work, dealing with the emptiness of persons, which drives home the same (never touching on the emptiness of all phenomena) by painstakingly describing in great detail, every phenomena which actually does arise and their causation, to show that things arise but people do not.  In order to do this effectively and convincingly, it has to go into the utmost detail of the process of a mindstream, to show how none of it is a person, and yet there are mental and physical phenomena which arise.

It is realist in it's nature, not taking mental and physical phenomena as dreamlike, but as quite solid, and real.

Kevin


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 16th, 2014 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: The Three Bodies of the Buddha Sutra
Content:
sherabzangpo said:
I translated this sutra in November 2012. I believe my translation is a better in some ways (I think there may be some mistakes in the 84000 version), but I have yet to do a thorough comparison. Here is the link:

http://sugatagarbhatranslations.com/2012/11/28/the-three-kayas-sutra/


Malcolm wrote:
The fact you take ālaya as the ālayavijñāna is an (understandable) error in your translation (not to mention rendering ālaya as "storehouse"). There is no evidence from the Tibetan text that such a literal reading is warranted.

Finally, in both translations, neither of you have rendered "gnas su dag" perfectly. Hence it would be better to render it as "the purified ālaya is...", "the purified afflicted mind is...".

My point is that there is no such a thing as a finished translation, and all translations are subject to scrutiny and correction, as well as differences of opinion. I have found it to be unprofitable to make bold statements about other translators work unless they are completely incompetent, and neither of you are incompetent.

Will said:
It is a short one Malcolm - give us your version please.

Malcolm wrote:
There is little point, both are fine as far as they go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
Marxist analysis is...

Malcolm wrote:
...antiquated and irrelevant, fit now only as a subject of literary criticism.

tellyontellyon said:
...but there has to be some way of living on this planet together.

Malcolm wrote:
Go Deep:


The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology#Principles


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


Zhen Li said:
The US is socialist as per the idea that the government can fix stufff.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the US is a republican democracy based on Locke's notion of the social contract. It is in fact a product of the Scottish Enlightenment.

Zhen Li said:
Capitalism as per Mises is grounded in morality and the nonaggression principle. Only a capitalist economy a la Mises can minimise violence and coercion.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said you are a libertarian. Only libertarians waffle on, insisting that governments are merely about violence and coercion. And you have your head in a bag if you believe capitalism minimizes violence and coercion. Capitalist countries exports violence and coercion to provide comfort at home, generally supporting totalitarian regimes to maintain economic advantage in the market.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
The US has been socialist for decades.

Malcolm wrote:
This is pretty silly.

US has been Keynesian for decades.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Buddhist Anarchism
Content:


tellyontellyon said:
You have decided that you support something called "Enlightened Despotism", but don't tell us what it is... and then you complain people won't debate you!

Malcolm wrote:
The term is self-evident. The only part I question is whether despots can ever be awake.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Because all the five sensory consciouness have to pass through the mano vijnana, which is why I said that this is probably where the mix-up occurs.

Malcolm wrote:
All six sense consciousness are actually one [momentary*] consciousness operating through the five sense gates when those gates meet their objects. This consciousness moment is so brief as to lend the illusion that we are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking at the same time. We don't, when consciousness functions as an eye consciousness it cannot function as a nose consciousness and so on.
M

The most fundamental unit of time in Abhidharma is the duration of a concept, approximately 7 nanoseconds.

xabir said:
Nice.

Are there any moments where consciousness is not seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking?

Malcolm wrote:
In Madhyamaka, no. Shantideva states:

"When there neither an object or a non-object before the mind, at that time, since there is no other possibility, the mind is pacified"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: The Three Bodies of the Buddha Sutra
Content:
sherabzangpo said:
I translated this sutra in November 2012. I believe my translation is a better in some ways (I think there may be some mistakes in the 84000 version), but I have yet to do a thorough comparison. Here is the link:

http://sugatagarbhatranslations.com/2012/11/28/the-three-kayas-sutra/


Malcolm wrote:
The fact you take ālaya as the ālayavijñāna is an (understandable) error in your translation (not to mention rendering ālaya as "storehouse"). There is no evidence from the Tibetan text that such a literal reading is warranted.

Finally, in both translations, neither of you have rendered "gnas su dag" perfectly. Hence it would be better to render it as "the purified ālaya is...", "the purified afflicted mind is...".

My point is that there is no such a thing as a finished translation, and all translations are subject to scrutiny and correction, as well as differences of opinion. I have found it to be unprofitable to make bold statements about other translators work unless they are completely incompetent, and neither of you are incompetent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: Medicine Buddha Sutra translated from Tibetan?
Content:
sherabzangpo said:
Here is the link to my translation of the Concise Medicine Buddha Sutra:

http://sugatagarbhatranslations.com/2013/04/23/the-exalted-lapis-light-dharani-that-generates-the-power-of-the-tathagatas-meditative-absorption-the-short-medicine-buddha-sutra/


Malcolm wrote:
One observation:

In Tibetan Materia Medica Vaidurya is not lapis lazuli , it is sapphire, and more specifically star sapphire (which accounts for the checkerboard pattern of the ground in refuge visualizations.

There are blue, white and yellow Vaiduryas. There can never be a white or a yellow Lapis.

Lapis on the other thand is very clearly the stone called mu men (མུ་མེན). Please consult འཁྲུངས་དཔེ་དྲི་མེད་ཤེལ་གྱི་མེ་ལོན་ -- this is the standard text reference for materia medica used in Tibetan Medical colleges.

Your reference about beryl is possible, but not definitive.

I should also add, that the word is a generic name for gems that are very shiny and catch light in very specific ways, for example, cat's eye (chrysoberyl) is also called Vaidurya.

Here however it is བཻདུརྱ་སྔོན་པོ༷, which is in fact star sapphire, as opposed to the more common indranila, regular blue sapphire.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Can we clarify our terms here ?
Psychiatry is the branch of medicine that deals with so called 'mental illness'. A psychiatrist is an M.D. Who has undergone further training in psychiatry..

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, this is what I am discussing.

Simon E. said:
You are Loppon. But others are conflating promiscuously .


Malcolm wrote:
Totally sounds like The Dowager:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Simon E. said:
However many see C.B.T. As being very compatible with the development of Mindfulness.

Malcolm wrote:
CBT was developed by a Zen practitioner, so it is not suprizing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Can we clarify our terms here ?
Psychiatry is the branch of medicine that deals with so called 'mental illness'. A psychiatrist is an M.D. Who has undergone further training in psychiatry..

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, this is what I am discussing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 15th, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
Because all the five sensory consciouness have to pass through the mano vijnana, which is why I said that this is probably where the mix-up occurs.

Malcolm wrote:
All six sense consciousness are actually one [momentary*] consciousness operating through the five sense gates when those gates meet their objects. This consciousness moment is so brief as to lend the illusion that we are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking at the same time. We don't, when consciousness functions as an eye consciousness it cannot function as a nose consciousness and so on.
M

The most fundamental unit of time in Abhidharma is the duration of a concept, approximately 7 nanoseconds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 14th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
theanarchist said:
Then you had a bad experience and therefor you have a bone to pick with the whole profession and are running a smear campaign...

Malcolm wrote:
Psychiatric medicine, for the most part, cure nothing. They are palliatives only, useful in helping modulate destructive behaviors, of course, useful in suppressing psychotic ideation, of course, but in the end they are also highly destructive substances as well that often merely replace one kind of suffering with another, such as Tardive Dyskenesia, and so on. Often such drug therapies are little more than chemical straight jackets.

I have watched many people go through the diagnostic mill, one psychiatrist's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia is another's diagnosis of rapid cycling bi-polar disorder, etc.

There is very little evidence-based science in the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, since they are generally diagnosis from transient behavior rather than empirically justifiable data. Further, the effects of many drugs used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders are poorly understood. Recent studies show that SSRI's are largely ineffective:
They conclude that, "compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13375-prozac-does-not-work-in-majority-of-depressed-patients.html#.UtVYp3nHFFw


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 14th, 2014 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...

funny, last time I checked, I was a doctor.

Motova said:
Doctor of Medicine, MD?

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Medicine


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...for example, cognition of smell could arise from the eye dhātu meeting the form dhātu, etc.

anjali said:
Oddly, something like that does happen with sensory cross-over (synesthesia). For example people seeing sound or hearing light, or seeing touch, etc. How to explain this in traditional teachings? Which makes me wonder if this phenomenon might be a general property of sense consciousness, but one unrecognized and unexplored in traditional teachings.

Sherab Dorje said:
I would hazard a guess and say the mix up occurs when one of the five sense consciousness passes on the info to the mind sense consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
It happens when one of the neural pathways in the brain floods and overloads, it is a physical issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


pueraeternus said:
But the end result is still the same. From another angle, the sutra could be seen as easier, since it does not require empowerment nor direct introduction. Of course, teachings and guidance on the path by enlightened teachers and Buddhas are still needed to learn the path.

Malcolm wrote:
If you consider three incalculable eons "easier


pueraeternus said:
But even in the Sravakayana, the path is never taken as "producing" the result - the path leads to the city of Nirvana; it doesn't build it.

Malcolm wrote:
The key distinction here is qualities. Buddhahood is not merely pacification of affliction as in Sravkayāna.


pueraeternus said:
The result does not arise from a cause.
Intimate instructions do not depend on texts.
Buddhahood is not found in the mind.
I am aware of this. It is so like Chan.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

There are some superficial similarities, but Chan does not have direct introduction, since it is sutra path.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We taxpayers pay dearly for waste all the time-- that is what you claim is immoral. You claim that endless research is wasteful and immoral. So is externalizing the cost of the pollution of a massively polluting industry, for example, tar sands, onto governments.

Zhen Li said:
If you're buying the waste it's not an externality...

Malcolm wrote:
That is the point, no one is buying tons of garbage being sunk into the ocean, no one is buying arsenic and heavy metals that flow into the environment, but nevertheless, we taxpayers pick up the costs of disposing of this waste.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Books on the kalachakra teachings
Content:
AlexanderS said:
I was wondering whether any of you can recommend me some good books that includes or provides commentary's on the kalachakra teachings.


Malcolm wrote:
There are many:

Vesna Wallaces three books.

Norsang Kasalng Gyatso's books.

Glenn Wallace has a book of translations

etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Greg: you presented nothing about formless realm beings.

Sherab Dorje said:
By formless realm you mean arupavacara?

Malcolm wrote:
The arūpadhātu with the four āyatanas.

Sherab Dorje said:
Also, nothing you presented contradicts the basic Buddhist principle that an eye for example cannot produce the cognition of smell.
Either you seriously misread what I have been saying thus far, or you are waving around red herrings.  Neither bodes well.

Malcolm wrote:
The point of the discussion was to demonstrate to cloudburst that one needs more than a manovijñāna indriya to account for various different kinds of sense cognitions.



Sherab Dorje said:
Also, you seem to be under the impression that bhavanga is as fully articulated as the Yogacara ālayavijñāna, but it is not.
It may not be as fully articulated at a theoretical/philosophical level, I agree, yet I have read accounts that conflate the bhavanga with the alayavijnana.  (ie they basically stated that both terms describe the same phenomenon)

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

The most the Yogacarins say about it is that it is a Nikaya doctrine which proves that ālayavijñāna is valid. Cloudburst, being some sort of strange hybrid of Sautrantika following reasoning and Yogacara rejects the ālayavijñāna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, these diseases are still mislabeled.


theanarchist said:
They are not.

How many people with severe mental illnesses have you ever met and talked to about their symptoms and problems? Not many I assume.

Malcolm wrote:
You would assume incorrectly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you are not going to take the discussion seriously then I will ignore your further contributions since they only steal my time.

Sherab Dorje said:
I am taking the discussion seriously, just not deadly seriously (ie I don't really have a horse in the race). On the other hand, if you are willing to examine what you should examine, then it is worth my time to pay attention to your contribution here.
I do examine what I need to examine.  Anyway, no need to get bent out of shape just because it doesn't accord to what you believe. We must always respect other people's time, since their time is their life.
It took me plenty of time to dig up the info. that I presented here. Having said that, if you want to be useful, dig up what Theravadins say about formless realm beings.
Well, gee, since you asked so nicely...


Malcolm wrote:
Greg: you presented nothing about formless realm beings. Also, nothing you presented contradicts the basic Buddhist principle that an eye for example cannot produce the cognition of smell. Also, you seem to be under the impression that bhavanga is as fully articulated as the Yogacara ālayavijñāna, but it is not.

Also I have a mild head cold, so I am a little grumpy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
These are mislabeled -- they are not "psychiatric illnesses", they are physical diseases


theanarchist said:
Again wrong. The field of psychiatry covers neurologically caused mental illnesses as well as envionmentally or intrapsychologically caused mental illnesses.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I understand what psychiatry is. Nevertheless, these diseases are still mislabeled.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Diagnosis, especially of mental illnesses, reflect cultural norms, not scientifically established pathologies.



theanarchist said:
No, they don't. Criteria for the existance of a mental illness is mainly the suffering. And suffering from a state of psychosis, depression, bipolar disorder etc is the same in every culture, even if the interpretations of the unusual behaviour might be different.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to read "The Normal and the Pathological".


theanarchist said:
Those symptoms DON`T reflect cultural norms.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually they do.

theanarchist said:
So again, if you have no knowledge about these things, I suggest you stop writing nonsense about them claiming that nonsense to be the truth.

Malcolm wrote:
funny, last time I checked, I was a doctor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Sure you can. People take that kind if money and sink it into luxury commodities all the time.

Malcolm wrote:
This isn't equivalent. Most luxury commodities, except in the homes of millionaire bureaucrats, are not bought by tax dollars. [/quopte]

That's what you think.

No one pays for waste. That's why it's an externality. You are suggesting making it the product you buy.
We taxpayers pay dearly for waste all the time-- that is what you claim is immoral. You claim that endless research is wasteful and immoral. So is externalizing the cost of the pollution of a massively polluting industry, for example, tar sands, onto governments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 13th, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We were discussing Madhyamaka, etc. Throwing Abhidhamma into the mix just makes things more complicated to discuss since its concepts are largely irrelevant to the mainstream of Indian Buddhism.

Sherab Dorje said:
What's wrong with complicated?  Though I fail to see how Abhidhamma is irrelevant to...

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have time for it.



Sherab Dorje said:
I'm not saying that is how Theravadins view formless beings, nor am I interested in proving or disproving their view, I am just proliferating my speculations on the basis of my limited knowledge (ie adding another view to the discussion).

Malcolm wrote:
If you are not going to take the discussion seriously then I will ignore your further contributions since they only steal my time. On the other hand, if you are willing to examine what you should examine, then it is worth my time to pay attention to your contribution here.

We must always respect other people's time, since their time is their life.

Having said that, if you want to be useful, dig up what Theravadins say about formless realm beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So you admit that you are also proliferating a view?

Malcolm wrote:
We were discussing Madhyamaka, etc. Throwing Abhidhamma into the mix just makes things more complicated to discuss since its concepts are largely irrelevant to the mainstream of Indian Buddhism.

Sherab Dorje said:
Here is how Theravadins see a mind sense door process:

Malcolm wrote:
You need to find the specific description in this literature for a formless realm beings cognitions, sense organs, lifespan, propelling karma, etc. That's up to you, since you brought it up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:



theanarchist said:
That's really nonsense. Back then there was not even a standard for diagnosing psychiatric illnesses and there was no evaluation of the outcome of the treatments. That guy probably had a zero cure rate with those means with anyone truely suffering from a psychiatric illness. It might have helped with some psychosomatic problems that respond well to placebo effects.

Malcolm wrote:
Diagnosis, especially of mental illnesses, reflect cultural norms, not scientifically established pathologies.


theanarchist said:
Then there are those psychiatric diseases that don't respond to psychotherapy that well, that depend on medications in their treatment, like psychosis and the bipolar disorder.

Malcolm wrote:
These are mislabeled -- they are not "psychiatric illnesses", they are physical diseases


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Is Psychotherapy Better Than Astrology?
Content:
Virgo said:
I don;'t think Astrology was ever really used for therapeutic purposes historically.  It was more functional, ie. this is a good day to do this, this isn't; this is a good time to plant crops, this isn't; this is a good time to have a child, this isn't, etc.

Kevin


Malcolm wrote:
Astrology has been used as a diagnostic tool in medicine for centuries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The caveat is that it doesn't necessarily produce results which can be capitalized.

Zhen Li said:
Well they do, otherwise no one would do it.

Malcolm wrote:
The operative word is "necessarily".


Zhen Li said:
I'm not sure we can really say that there's any significant private sector research outside of engineering and technology.

Malcolm wrote:
What kind of research are we talking about?
On the other hand, publicly funded research does not need to demonstrates short term results to continue. There may a lot of waste, but so what?
So you are suggesting a model which drones on forever with low output.

Research needs to demonstrate results, that's the point. If your model is inaccurate to the level of Hansen, you would be fired in the private sector because it could mean the survival of the firm.
Not necessarily -- look at Microsoft -- worst operating system every invented.

In the public sector, you have people like that who simply say "more research is needed" whenever they come up without being able to confirm their own theory. This is the fundamental flaw in their understanding of the scientific method. You don't say more research is needed if your expected dataset isn't found to fit your theory - you change the theory. Science is pretty simple in this regard - you take what data exists, and you explain how it first together, that is your theory. Then you have positive results no matter what data you find! Problem solved - but the public sector doesn't allow this to happen. If you are saying to the public, "we need 30 more years of observation and funding," you're saying that your current theory is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. Collecting data and making measurements is fundamentally not science, that's data collection. Science is the explanation of the data, and your opinion of that explanation. That doesn't take a 30 year project, if it does, you haven't learned anything in university.
Science ought to be an open ended inquiry.
And fundamentally these kinds of attitudes are just immoral. You can't justify taking the money of productive labour to fund standstill results.
Sure you can. People take that kind if money and sink it into luxury commodities all the time.
Paying for waste can't be justified, that's just the kind of lazy and immoral mentality that one would expect from a Marxist, not a deep ecologist.
We, Joe Public, pay for waste constantly. Waste is one of the principal externalities of modern capitalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Theravada Abhidhamma is completely irrelevant to discussions regarding Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Vajrayāna, Mahāyāna and so on.

In any case, none of what you describe demonstrates that formless realm beings are capable of more than a single cognition during their lifespans.

In fact, your citation merely supports this view, "While a mind-door process can also take any of the five sense data as object, mental object is listed to show its distinctive datum", this means that a sense organ related to the sense datum is required for the requisite cognition of that object to take place. The mind operates through any of the six indriyas, taking the name of that sense gate when it is operating through that sense gate. But the mind cannot smell a form when it is operating through the eye gateway. Since formless realm beings only have a mental indriya, they do not perceive any material objects and since they have no input, they only cognize the concept that propels their rebirth.

If you want to prove this view of the Sautrantikas incorrect, you have some work to do.

It is better to study Abhidharma if you want to understand the context of Indian Buddhism.

Abhidharmakoshabhasyam, AFAIK, there is no different explanation given in Yogacara or for that matter in the Abhidharmasammucaya. You can understand it in the following way: without physical organs, the mental organ can only have a single object present before it, the thought that propels its rebirth into that āyatana.

You see, this is why people should study Vasubandhu in detail -- then they will have less proliferation and speculation about many things.

M

Sherab Dorje said:
Vasubandhu is merely one take on the matter.  Acariya Sangaha states in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (2000), p152 that for a mind process to occur the one needs the following conditions to be present:

1)The heart base (hadayavatthu)*
2)A mental object (dhammarammana)
3)The bhavanga
4)Attention

*"For the mind-door process, the heart-base is only required in those realms where matter is found. While
a mind-door process can also take any of the five sense data as object, mental object is listed to show its
distinctive datum."

He goes on to say that:  "The six types of cognitive processes are conveniently divided into two groups —
(1) the five-door process (pañcadvāravīthi), which includes the five processes occurring
at each of the physical sense doors; and (2) the mind-door process (manodvāravīthi),
which comprises all processes that occur solely at the mind door. Since the bhavanga is
also the channel from which the five-door processes emerge, the latter is sometimes
called “mixed door processes” (missaka-dvāravīthi), inasmuch as they involve both the
mind door and a physical sense door. The processes that occur solely at the mind door
are then called “bare mind door processes” (suddha-manodvāravīthi), since they emerge
from the bhavanga alone without the instrumentality of a physical sense door. As will be
seen, the first five processes all follow a uniform pattern despite the difference in the
sense faculty through which they occur, while the sixth comprises a variety of processes
that are alike only in that they occur independently of the external sense doors. "

I see your proliferation and speculation and raise you a pedantry.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
pueraeternus said:
prajna is probably a better candidate if we were to favour any of them.

Malcolm wrote:
They are actually progressive in the beginning, one builds on the last.
Direct introduction is what it claims to be: a direct introduction to your own state of liberation. You have always had that state, otherwise, you could not be introduced to it. This is why the state of liberation itself is not produced from causes -- it is innate. If it were not innate, if it were something created from causes and conditions, it would be perishable, and therefore, Buddhahood would be something temporary, part of the six lokas
I do not dispute this. Such an idea is found in the earliest strata teachings on nirvana and (later on) tathagatagarbha (the uncompounded, unconditioned, uncreated, etc), so I don't think its really that groundbreaking.
The difference between sutra and tantra is empowerment. There is no direct introduction in Sutra. There are also important differences in terms of how the result is contextualized in sutra and tantra in general, and dzogchen specifically.
The path of Dzogchen is exactly what it claims to be: a path upon which there is no progress since the state of liberation is introduced to oneself from the start; the sole stage since all living beings are on it; the result that does not arise from a cause, etc.
The result that does not arise from a cause, except that you do need the eight indriyas? If the result really does not arise from a cause, then even sraddha won't be needed?
The eight indriyas do not produce the result. For example, gold is present in ore. But you still may need to process the gold with mercury and other substances in order to extract it. You would never say the gold was the result of the process, merely that the process is used to extract it. Likewise, in Dzogchen the path is used merely to extract the result, but you never say that the path produces the result. Indeed, not is the path taken as the result, as in the path of transformation, the result is the path.

I did (study) and I still do (erm, more or less) .
Then it is important to be clear about the six special features of Dzogchen teachings:

The result does not arise from a cause.
Intimate instructions do not depend on texts.
Buddhahood is not found in the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Formless realm beings have only a mental organ, they therefore have only one thought, which is the concept which propels their birth in the four formless āyatanas.

Sherab Dorje said:
Not wanting to be a stick in the mud, but what is your source for this?


Malcolm wrote:
Abhidharmakoshabhasyam, AFAIK, there is no different explanation given in Yogacara or for that matter in the Abhidharmasammucaya. You can understand it in the following way: without physical organs, the mental organ can only have a single object present before it, the thought that propels its rebirth into that āyatana.

You see, this is why people should study Vasubandhu in detail -- then they will have less proliferation and speculation about many things.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Mental objects are one class of objects, material objects are another class of objects. You are conflating the two. A mental object (part of the dharmadhātu) is an object for the mano dhātu. A material object is an object for the other five dhātus, form for eye, etc.

Sherab Dorje said:
That is one view/theory.  From my understanding Theravadins put the mind as a sense organ at the same level as the other five, yet a component in the functioning of the "material" sensory process too.  So it has two roles:  the sensing of mental objects and the sensing of mental objects produced by the other five sense consciousness.

Malcolm wrote:
The function of vijñāna is really best comprehended by understand the complete presentation of skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus. There is no significant different between how these are presented in the Vibhanga, for example, and the Koshabhasyaṃ.

In both systems, manovijn̄ānadhātu arises from the contact of the mano-indriya dhātu and the dharmadhātu.

12 āyatanas, the manoāyatana covers all sense perceptions because the emphasis is different.

In brief, the emphasis of the presentation of 5 skandhas is on the sense organs, the presentation of the 12 āyatanas emphasizes the sense objects, and the presentation of the 18 dhātus emphasizes the sense consciousnesses.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
so you are saying madhaymikas do not accept the existence of formless-realm beings?

Malcolm wrote:
I addressed this above, so I am not sure why you are asking this question.



cloudburst said:
I am interested to see if you can give a coherent explanation of external object without positing or implying an essence. So far, I don't think you've done so.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure I have, external objects are composed of the inert five elements, arising from causes and conditions, lacking any intrinsic nature.


cloudburst said:
In that case you can give an example of an object that is not and has never appeared to mind.  If it is an object, it is an object of mind, or an appearance. What else?

Malcolm wrote:
Mental objects are one class of objects, material objects are another class of objects. You are conflating the two. A mental object (part of the dharmadhātu) is an object for the mano dhātu. A material object is an object for the other five dhātus, form for eye, etc.

When for example the manodhātu meets an object that is part of dharmadhātu, a manovijñāna is generated. Before a vijñāna can be generated, the object must appear to the appropriate sense organ (indriya).

When the cakṣudhātu meets the rūpadhātu a cakṣuvijñāna is generated. If it were the case that there are only mental objects any sense consciousness could arise from any sense objects, for example, cognition of smell could arise from the eye dhātu meeting the form dhātu, etc.

It is not the intention of Madhyamaka to undermine this or that conventional presentation of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, but merely to show that they are not paramārtha dharmas.

Of course, as I said, if you prefer to follow the Yogacara presentation of conventional truth that's ok with me, but it was rejected by Candra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 12th, 2014 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
This is why government is a hopeless manage...


Malcolm wrote:
Your libertarianism is showing. In reality, publicly funded research is far more productive than private funded research. The caveat is that it doesn't necessarily produce results which can be capitalized. Private sector research is at the mercy of the same sorts of people that public sector research is: the only difference is their name -- in the private sector they are called "managers"; in the public sector they are called "bureaucrats". On the other hand, publicly funded research does not need to demonstrates short term results to continue. There may a lot of waste, but so what? Compared to how much money is spent on means to kill people, it is nothing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Unknown said:
The climate change counter-movement is lavishly funded by dark money to prevent policies limiting carbon pollution that drives man-made climate change

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.ecobuddhism.org/science/cover_up/1bycdm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


PadmaVonSamba said:
Rebirth is different from reincarnation.

.


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, many people over the years try to make this distinction, but I think it is a reach.

As far as I am concerned reincarnation and rebirth mean the same thing.

In reality, the term in Sanskrit is punarbhāva, which literally means "repeated existence".

For eternalists, this "repeated existence" happens because of an essence, as you rightly observe. For us, it happens because of continuing nexus of action and affliction. In both case, a body is appropriated repeatedly, hence they are both theories of reincarnation. In both cases, one is born repeatedly, hence they are both theories of rebirth.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Ivo said:
In textual terms, the earliest dzogchen material would be the Dunghuang manuscripts. I am not aware of any tantric references in these texts, are there? On the other hand:

Malcolm wrote:
Part of the confusions arises from the fact that Dzogchen is consistently framed as part of secret mantra (which it is). It is not however a path of renunciation or transformation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Malcolm, if we need sense organs and contact to have cognition, how does that relate to the appearance of sensory phenomena in dreams or hallucinations? I'm thinking also of things like phantom limb syndrome or the lights that appear in sensory deprivation tanks.

Malcolm wrote:
Dreams are a product of waking impressions on the mind.

Hallucinations are a product of defective or deranged sense organs (through drugs, etc.).


conebeckham said:
In the case of Hallucinogens, is it the case that it is the sense organs, or the sense consciousness(es), or the mental consciousness itself, that is "altered" (defective or deranged, to use your words)??


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because what is affect by hallucinogens are various different paths in the brain connected with the sense organs.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


pueraeternus said:
The 15th-19th indriyas (sraddha, virya, smrti, samadhi, prajna) are requisites for purification (vyavadana) and faculties for praxis. They all need to be present and balanced for praxis to be possible in a proper manner. I don't see how this leads to "Direct introduction always works in someone who possesses devotion" - you have to explain better. If you mentioned the 3 pure indriyas - anajnatamajnasyamindriya,ajnendriya and ajnatadvindriya, then you might have a point somewhere there, but sraddha? This sounds so much like, at best, the most strident strain of Pureland faith, or at worse, evangelical Christianity.

Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty straightforward: you need to have interest, diligence, etc., for direct introduction to be of any real use. If you have interest, diligence, etc., it undoubtedly works. These eight indriyas beginning with sraddha are path dharmas yes? Since this is so, they are necessary for being on a path, even a Dzogchen path. Also this was never disputed.

Direct introduction is what it claims to be: a direct introduction to your own state of liberation. You have always had that state, otherwise, you could not be introduced to it. This is why the state of liberation itself is not produced from causes -- it is innate. If it were not innate, if it were something created from causes and conditions, it would be perishable, and therefore, Buddhahood would be something temporary, part of the six lokas

The path of Dzogchen is exactly what it claims to be: a path upon which there is no progress since the state of liberation is introduced to oneself from the start; the sole stage since all living beings are on it; the result that does not arise from a cause, etc.

If you want to understand Dzogchen concretely, you need to study and practice Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
duckfiasco said:
So is the difference here then that Yogacara asserts that every sense consciousness is a form of mind consciousness, whereas Madhyamaka holds the mind to be a facet of cognition along with other elements?

Sorry to ask such a basic question but I only recently came across the idea that experience is literally a manifestation of the mind in this thread: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=11280

Trying to pick up the pieces of my blown mind here and there. Not sure how they fit back together!


Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamakas such as Candra consistently maintain that a mind will not be produced in absence of a sense organ or an object.

Sherab Dorje said:
Surely though, a being  born without sense organs would still posses the mind sense organ and have experiences based on past sensations.  I am thinking here of beings without a physical body.

Malcolm wrote:
Formless realm beings have only a mental organ, they therefore have only one thought, which is the concept which propels their birth in the four formless āyatanas.

Bardo beings have a subtle body with a complete compliment of sense organs. It is said however in Abhidharma they do not see the sun and moon because of not being born of male a female elements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
duckfiasco said:
So is the difference here then that Yogacara asserts that every sense consciousness is a form of mind consciousness, whereas Madhyamaka holds the mind to be a facet of cognition along with other elements?

Sorry to ask such a basic question but I only recently came across the idea that experience is literally a manifestation of the mind in this thread: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=11280

Trying to pick up the pieces of my blown mind here and there. Not sure how they fit back together!


Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamakas such as Candra consistently maintain that a mind will not be produced in absence of a sense organ or an object.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Malcolm, if we need sense organs and contact to have cognition, how does that relate to the appearance of sensory phenomena in dreams or hallucinations? I'm thinking also of things like phantom limb syndrome or the lights that appear in sensory deprivation tanks.

Malcolm wrote:
Dreams are a product of waking impressions on the mind.

Hallucinations are a product of defective or deranged sense organs (through drugs, etc.).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
don't need organs for appearances, but do need object. Appearances (objects) and minds are non dual, that's why appearances are not independent, so a thunderstorm other than mere karmic appearance cannot reasonably posited.

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a Yogacara, you only need a mental organ (and traces, etc.). If you are a Madhyamaka, however, you need a sense organ in order to have a cognition of an object. For example, Candra's definition of the two kinds of relative truth explicitly depends on possessing a healthy or defective sense organ.

Its ok with me if you want to abandon Madhyamaka, but it is a little surprising to see a Gelugpa do so.

The assertion that appearances and objects are identical is mistaken. If this were the case, there could be no common basis for the imputation of liquids by beings of the six realms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
if objects were more than mere appearances, they could be found upon investgation, don't you think?

Malcolm wrote:
They can be found conventionally upon investigation, don't you think? That is, they can be rationally inferred by ordinary persons.

cloudburst said:
sure, but a whatever we have found in a conventional search is always mere appearance, so you have made no progress

Malcolm wrote:
There can be no subjective pole without the establishment of an objective pole. Therefor it is reasonable to assume that in addition to mind, external objects are required for appearances. You are placing all the primacy of this arrangement on mind. But equal weight must be given to the object and sense organ. For example, a blind man can not see color. He cannot even have the appearance of color. We can see color, he cannot. We can see color because all three things required for a cognition of color are present, an undeluded mind, a healthy sense organ and an external object. Madhyamakas in this respect never make mind the primary factor in cognition because that mind cannot even arise in absence of the object and the organ. So in this respect, you have to admit that the appearance is also dependent on the organ and the object, not just the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
if objects were more than mere appearances, they could be found upon investgation, don't you think?

Malcolm wrote:
They can be found conventionally upon investigation, don't you think? That is, they can be rationally inferred by ordinary persons.

Of course, then we enter the knotty complexity of the Gelug assertion that objects are only to investigated for their ultimate nature, without negating their conventional status.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
dude said:
So the physical world does not exist.


Malcolm wrote:
According to Cittamatra school, this would be their assertion. All that exists are minds.

I must say, you do sound pissed off most of the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
cloudburst said:
The cognition of the object arises, and because this object is not itself mind, we can correctly say it is external,

Malcolm wrote:
Since you admit the existence of objects that are external to the mind, you are also admitting that thunderstorms, mountains and so on are not necessarily products of karma, regardless of whatever other products they might be.

If objects are products of karma, they are necessarily mental in nature since their cause is intention (cetana), which is another name for karma.

cloudburst said:
they are external in the sense of not being clarity that is aware, they are appearances and so and arise in dependence upon the mind. Therefore they precisely are the products of karma. If they did not arise from imprints, or mind, they would have to arise from something independent of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
It seems to me you are conflating the appearance of an object with an object itself.

I have no problem with the idea that how objects appear to us is based on our own karmic traces. I have a problem with the assertion that Madhyamakas like Candrakirti are asserting that objects are nothing other than appearances.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 4:52 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
cloudburst said:
The cognition of the object arises, and because this object is not itself mind, we can correctly say it is external,

Malcolm wrote:
Since you admit the existence of objects that are external to the mind, you are also admitting that thunderstorms, mountains and so on are not necessarily products of karma, regardless of whatever other products they might be.

If objects are products of karma, they are necessarily mental in nature since their cause is intention (cetana), which is another name for karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 4:31 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:


cloudburst said:
how do you square that with the fact that when you search for something with wisdom, it vanishes? If something is not merely an appearance, it would be found upon investigation.


Malcolm wrote:
According to your school (Gelug), the only thing that vanishes in that instance is the mistaken perception of inherent existence, but not the conventional appearance of a given phenomena which is posited as necessary in order in order for its emptiness to be established.

According to Madhyamaka in general, there may indeed be no appearances during equipoise, but in post-equipoise, of course there are appearances (which are illusory and unreal).

M

cloudburst said:
so in both cases, nothing is found to exist independent of mind. How does that square with the fact that you have posited that Chandrakirti accepts thunderstorms that are not mere appearances?

Malcolm wrote:
A mind will not  find any appearances independent of itself, since it is axiomatic that all appearances to a mind belong to that mind, whether veridical or deluded.

On the other hand it is clear Candra accepts external things from the following statement in the commentary to Intro to the Middle Way: "The intrinsic nature of all external things is of two types, relative and ultimate."

Since a cognition of an object (which is what an appearance is) cannot arise in absence of an object external to the mind (according to Candra, recall any sense cognition requires the meeting of three things, a mind, an organ and object), it is suitable to infer that there are phenomena external to the mind, such as thunderstorms and so on. Even in the case of the appearance of the six realms there must be an object (for example, a liquid) which can form the basis of the six kinds of imputations of water, ambrosia, etc.

As far as I am personally concerned, it matters little to me whether you wish to take the Yogacara view of relative truth, which you are advocating here, or the Sautrantika view  of relative truth which is the POV advocated by most Indian Madhyamakas including Candra (for whom objects are held to be external to the mind arising through their own causes and conditions, albeit not necessarily karmic causes and conditions).

I already clarified that for Yogacara in general all appearances are generated by the activation of traces from past karma. It is a nice theory, but not one that finds much favor in Madhyamaka until Shantarakshita's Yogacara Madhyamaka synthesis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
cloudburst said:
There is no thunderstorm that is not a mere appearance to mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, as I said it depends on what tenet system you want to follow. If you want to follow Yogacara for your relative truth claim, I have no objection.

cloudburst said:
You are not positing a container that exists separately from our perceptions?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not positing anything, but definitely, Sautrantikas (and indeed some Yogacarins) posit a container that is independent of our perceptions. Therefore, if you are following Sautrantika presentations of relative truth (as indeed both Bhavaviveka and Candrakirti do), there are indeed thunderstorms that are not merely appearances to minds.

M

cloudburst said:
how do you square that with the fact that when you search for something with wisdom, it vanishes? If something is not merely an appearance, it would be found upon investigation.


Malcolm wrote:
According to your school (Gelug), the only thing that vanishes in that instance is the mistaken perception of inherent existence, but not the conventional appearance of a given phenomena which is posited as necessary in order in order for its emptiness to be established.

According to Madhyamaka in general, there may indeed be no appearances during equipoise, but in post-equipoise, of course there are appearances (which are illusory and unreal).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
pueraeternus said:
Really, the guidelines about pure meat is only relevant if you are begging for it (like mendicants as it meant to be applied to), not shopping at the supermarket.

Malcolm wrote:
Bhavaviveka reviews all the arguments against meat-eating in Mahayāna. His conclusion is that as long as the meat that you eat is pure in three ways, it is karma free.

pueraeternus said:
Sadly, many seems to have forgotten that the pursue of Buddhahood is for the sake of all sentient beings, not a self-centered goal of attaining Buddhahood, whatever that means by the time it gets to this sad state of affairs.

Malcolm wrote:
Others seem to have forgotten that followers of Buddhadharma are not Jains, nor followers of Devadatta.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 3:36 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
pueraeternus said:
[

So more cause and effect then.

Malcolm wrote:
As noted, meeting the teachings depends on meritorious causes. Liberation however does not.
Oh you mean those indriyas. But how did you get from that to "Direct introduction always works in someone who possesses devotion"? I suppose you are assuming this based on, erm, faith?
The first of eight indriyas of nirvana is śraddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 11th, 2014 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
cloudburst said:
There is no thunderstorm that is not a mere appearance to mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, as I said it depends on what tenet system you want to follow. If you want to follow Yogacara for your relative truth claim, I have no objection.

cloudburst said:
You are not positing a container that exists separately from our perceptions?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not positing anything, but definitely, Sautrantikas (and indeed some Yogacarins) posit a container that is independent of our perceptions. Therefore, if you are following Sautrantika presentations of relative truth (as indeed both Bhavaviveka and Candrakirti do), there are indeed thunderstorms that are not merely appearances to minds.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: Karma and Reincarnation
Content:
jianblade said:
Does one need to accept the concepts of reincarnation karma and the wheel of samsara to follow the teaching of the Buddha? I don't feel comfortable believing
In said things...


ajohn4717 said:
A gross misunderstanding of about Buddhism exists today, especially in the notion of reincarnation. The common misunderstanding is that a person has led countless previous lives, usually as an animal, but somehow in this life he is born as a human being and in the next life he will be reborn as an animal, depending on the kind of life he has lived.

This misunderstanding arises because people usually do not know-how to read the sutras or sacred writings. It is said that the Buddha left 84,000 teachings; the symbolic figure represents the diverse backgrounds characteristics, tastes, etc. of the people. The Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual. For the simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of reincarnation was a powerful moral lesson. Fear of birth into the animal world must have frightened many people from acting like animals in this life. If we take this teaching literally today we are confused because we cannot understand it rationally.


Malcolm wrote:
Of course reincarnation or rebirth can be understood rationally. As a matter of fact, the four kinds of realized persons (stream enterers, etc.) are defined precisely by how many lives they must undergo until they attain nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Could you share a few examples of such ways to introduce beings to Dzogchen when they have never come into contact with it before?

Malcolm wrote:
This is covered in the teaching call the six liberations, liberation through seeing, hearing, taste, touch, smell and recollection. These are six means to create conducive conditions for beings to meet the teachings.


pueraeternus said:
Noted. Mind refreshing my memory?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes sraddha is one of the five indriyas, which becomes the five balas, powers and so on along with recollection, prajñā, samadhi, etc.

Look into the 22 indriyas as discussed in the second chapter of the Koshabhasyam. The first fourteen are indriyas of samsara, the final eight are the indriyas of nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, there are causes and conditions related to achieving a precious human birth, who ever said otherwise.

pueraeternus said:
So ultimately the practice of the path still depends on cause and effect. Successfully introduction to the natural state is akin to the path of seeing, and even after that there is need to engage practices (even if it is just simple guru yoga) to stabilize. Not that much different from vanilla Bodhisattvayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Meeting the path depends on cause and effect, but this was never denied.


Direct introduction always works in someone who possesses devotion. That devotion will be based on past contact of the with the teachings. If someone has not had contact with Dzogchen teachings in the past, there is no chance they will even hear the word Dzogchen in this life.
If someone has no contact in the past, and hence can't even hear the word Dzogchen in this life, that would means they will never ever be able to hear it in future lives. I didn't know there are teachings on icchantikas in Dzogchen. Just kidding - but I am sure you have thought of this illogical loop before?
There are all kinds of ways devised to ensure the beings contact with Dzogchen teachings. And the Dzogchen tantras themselves assert that all sentient beings will be liberated in the end, so no, Dzogchen does not support the concept of icchantikas.
I am afraid this is just pious fiction. Sraddha and jnana are not cognate, or relates that way. The success rate is just not very high.
I am afraid you must revisit the first of the nirvanic indriyas and revise your point of view.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen practiced on different solar systems?
Content:
Ivo said:
It is traditionally said that there are in existence more than 6 400 000 Dzogchen tantras and only a fraction of those have been taught on Earth.

Malcolm wrote:
According to tradition, there were 6,400,000 slokas of Dzogchen, not tantras.

Those shlokas were all taught by Garab Dorje.

However, the tradition holds that not all the 6,400,000 shlokas were translated into Tibetan, for example, the bkod pa chen po in 500,000 shlokas was never translated into Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 11:06 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
pueraeternus said:
So how do one attain this non-dual view?

Malcolm wrote:
You receive direct introduction to your own state.

pueraeternus said:
So there is cause and condition to attaining this view?

What if the direct introduction didn't work?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course, there are causes and conditions related to achieving a precious human birth, who ever said otherwise.

Direct introduction always works in someone who possesses devotion. That devotion will be based on past contact of with the teachings. If someone has not had contact with Dzogchen teachings in the past, there is no chance they will even hear the word Dzogchen in this life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 11:03 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
heart said:
[ Accumulation of merit is not done to gain realization it is done to assure the continued auspicious circumstances of such a practice that "abides in liberation, even if those moments of liberation are incredibly brief" until it is continuous.

Malcolm wrote:
I addressed this above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


pueraeternus said:
So what is that dependent on?

Malcolm wrote:
Whether you have the non-dual view or not.
As samsara was abandoned for something else,
nirvana will not be realized
-- Hevajra Tantra

pueraeternus said:
So how do one attain this non-dual view?

Malcolm wrote:
You receive direct introduction to your own state.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 7:42 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
smcj said:
The point is that where you think you are does not matter [snang lugs], its where you actually are that counts [gnas lugs].
Well I think I don't like to suffer. If someone tells me that my suffering is ok they'd better not be within punching distance, otherwise they will quickly find out if their suffering is ok.

Malcolm wrote:
Your suffering is the ripening of your karma. There is nothing you can do about suffering you are presently experiencing or have experienced. There is something you can do about the suffering you have yet to experience, but it does not involve complicated schemes involving purification of infinite past causes of suffering.  Even if you could purify the causes of suffering for 10 to the 100th power of past lives, the amount of causes for suffering left over dwarf this number.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


theanarchist said:
They are like the train to Paris. If you are already in Paris, then it wouldn't make sense to take the train to Paris. But if you are not there, you will need that train to get there.


Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen perspective is that we are all in Paris and always have been.

theanarchist said:
Yeah, but we have a VERY hefty, substantial hallucination of being in Rome. Or New York. Or Vladivostok. And the hallucination is so persistant that the buddhas in their wisdom had to give us illusory transports that we could take to get to Paris.


Malcolm wrote:
The point is that where you think you are does not matter [snang lugs], its where you actually are that counts [gnas lugs].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
theanarchist said:
Rituals etc are skillful means. If you can rest in the nature of mind, then you don't need them.

heart said:
Rituals also gives opportunity to rest in the natural state, if you are capable.

/magnus


theanarchist said:
Yeah.

A vajrayana ritual on the relative level is something you can still actually do, even if you are not in a nature of mind state and it doesn't bring you into a full nature of mind state either, they have an effect.


They are like the train to Paris. If you are already in Paris, then it wouldn't make sense to take the train to Paris. But if you are not there, you will need that train to get there.


Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen perspective is that we are all in Paris and always have been.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: What is the Largest Buddhist Sect on Earth Today?
Content:


Astus said:
What defines Vajrayana?

Malcolm wrote:
Empowerment (abhiṣeka) as the entryway into the teachings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


pueraeternus said:
So what is that dependent on?

Malcolm wrote:
Whether you have the non-dual view or not.
As samsara was abandoned for something else,
nirvana will not be realized
-- Hevajra Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
anjali said:
Are you of the opinion that people can do things to help thin the clouds and eventually get a glimpse of the ever-present Sun?

Malcolm wrote:
The sun is perfect, clouds are perfect, where can there be anything which is not already perfect?

anjali said:
Indeed. There is either knowing or not knowing, but it's sure easy to get distracted by those clouds.

So, are you of the opinion that people come by knowing through grace (not in the Christian sense, but more in the sense of spontaneously and unmerited)?

Malcolm wrote:
Its possible, but I think they are not able to articulate it very clearly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The sun is perfect, clouds are perfect, where can there be anything which is not already perfect?

pueraeternus said:
Is suffering perfect?

Malcolm wrote:
That depends on who you are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Listen, if you want to believe that Buddhahood arises from causes and conditions, there is not much I can say except to point you in the direction of Dzogchen texts that deny this. Then it is up to you.

But if one should assert to people that Dzogchen is a gradual path for developing realization then one would be both misleading people and misrepresenting Dzogchen teachings.
There is no progress in the core, the essence itself.
-- Rigpa Rangdrol Tantra

heart said:
It is quite easy, without a master and the auspicious coincidence of actually recognizing the natural state there is no Dzogchen. This come about through causes and conditions. The natural state itself has no causes or conditions but when you are in mind everything has causes and conditions.

Of course there is no progress in "the essence itself". When have I ever said that?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
The essence itself is Dzogchen. Dzogchen does not depend on direct introduction. If it did, it would be produced from causes and conditions.

I already addressed this issue above, where I clarified that attaining a precious human birth certainly comes from gathering merit, etc.

In Dzogchen, buddhahood does not come from mind. The Dzogchen perspective is that a liberation based on causes and effects is incoherent.

Dzogchen is a path where one abides in liberation, even if those moments of liberation are incredibly brief:
The suffering of samsara, cannot be removed by using this stake of grasping
but will be removed if [the stake is] let go. 
If fabricated phenomena are abandoned, one will achieve relaxation.
Abandoning all thoughts, the ocean of wisdom does not stir.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Since there is no cause for buddhahood in the beginning, 
in the end it cannot be created through a condition. 
Emptiness possesses a core of wisdom.
-- Rigpa Rangshar Tantra
Wisdom is merged into emptiness: uniform in taste, unchanging and permanent.
-- Kalacakra Root Tantra

If you do not understand the view, you cannot practice Dzogchen. So first you must understand the view. The above is the view of Dzogchen.

anjali said:
Are you of the opinion that people can do things to help thin the clouds and eventually get a glimpse of the ever-present Sun?

Malcolm wrote:
The sun is perfect, clouds are perfect, where can there be anything which is not already perfect?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Adamantine said:
However I am keen to know your take on this (without going into detail about togal of course!)

Malcolm wrote:
You either have confidence in Dzogchen view or not. If not, it is better for one to practice according to the vehicles of cause and result until you have developed such confidence.
M

heart said:
And confidence is not related to causes?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Listen, if you want to believe that Buddhahood arises from causes and conditions, there is not much I can say except to point you in the direction of Dzogchen texts that deny this. Then it is up to you.

But if one should assert to people that Dzogchen is a gradual path for developing realization then one would be both misleading people and misrepresenting Dzogchen teachings.
There is no progress in the core, the essence itself.
-- Rigpa Rangdrol Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 2:57 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Adamantine said:
but from an outer or relative POV it certainly still has the appearance of A—> B—> C  in that these are Dzogchen methods applied to body speech and mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Since there is no cause for buddhahood in the beginning, 
in the end it cannot be created through a condition. 
Emptiness possesses a core of wisdom.
-- Rigpa Rangshar Tantra
Wisdom is merged into emptiness: uniform in taste, unchanging and permanent.
-- Kalacakra Root Tantra

If you do not understand the view, you cannot practice Dzogchen. So first you must understand the view. The above is the view of Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Adamantine said:
However I am keen to know your take on this (without going into detail about togal of course!)

Malcolm wrote:
You either have confidence in Dzogchen view or not. If not, it is better for one to practice according to the vehicles of cause and result until you have developed such confidence.


M

Adamantine said:
I'm not sure I understand: are you implying togal practice is a vehicle of cause and result?

Malcolm wrote:
No, it definitely is not. But I am not going to talk about thogal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 10th, 2014 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Adamantine said:
However I am keen to know your take on this (without going into detail about togal of course!)

Malcolm wrote:
You either have confidence in Dzogchen view or not. If not, it is better for one to practice according to the vehicles of cause and result until you have developed such confidence.


M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 9th, 2014 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Since Dzogchen is the result that does not come from a cause, how can we say that realization of one's natural state can come about from causes and conditions?

Adamantine said:
What's always amazing though, is how much can be said about it. . . Not to split hairs, but there's an awful lot of texts and talk and verbal pointing out and internet forum discussion on the natural state. .

Malcolm wrote:
All of which is just discussions about the taste of sugar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 9th, 2014 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: In the KUNJED GYALPO says it is of no use to do rituals
Content:
Manju said:
Malcolm: Dzogchen realization does not depend on accumulating causes of any kind.
Am new here and this was probably discussed a hundred times but still....:

How does the ability to realize the primordial/natural state, let`s say during a pointing out instruction, NOT depend on the accumulation of causes ?

About my background:
Am a Vajrayana practitioner since 3 years and under the impression that the development/completion stage practices (Maha Ati) I am doing will be helpful once the opportunity for a face to face direct introduction with my master comes.

Am I wrong ?

Manju


Malcolm wrote:
One, if by ability you mean " human birth with leisure and endowment", this absolutely depends on accumulating causes to be reborn as a human being, etc.

If you are doing completion stage practice, you have already received direct introduction through the fourth empowerment. So you should contemplate that and what it means to give rise to self-originated wisdom (rang byung ye shes).

You must recall that Dzogchen is:

The result that does not arise from a cause
The intimate instruction that does not come from a text
The buddhahood that does not come from mind.

Since Dzogchen is the result that does not come from a cause, how can we say that realization of one's natural state can come about from causes and conditions?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 11:16 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
John Huntsman, — Twitter, Aug. 18, 2011 said:
I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

Malcolm wrote:
Huntsman said this during his run in the primaries, knowing full well that these two issues go against the general grain of current Republican sentiment in the bat shit crazy bible belt states.


Romney, Oct 27th, 2011:
"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us."
Seems like he changed his mind between june and october of the same year...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 10:23 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
RE: Malcolm
Women and Gender Studies is a different topic altogether (and I didn't even mention children so I don't know why you brought that up).

Malcolm wrote:
You cannot mention women without mentioning children.

Zhen Li said:
Libertarians in the US want to wind back the government to adherence to the constitution of 1789.

Malcolm wrote:
And what a fricking nightmare that would be. It shows their total ignorance of the Constitution and its function.



Zhen Li said:
This is actually quite incorrect. The US spends $1.042 Billion under the EPA for the promotion of climate change, and the government issued billions more in loans for renewable energy corporations with the justification of anthropogenic global warming, the most famous of which was the $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee to Solyndra.

Malcolm wrote:
Conservative estimates place subsidies of the oil interest around 10 billion dollars a year. So, the US Government spends one dollar to prevent global warming for every nine it spends promoting the very industries that are propelling climate change.


Zhen Li said:
I really don't think you can call opposition to AGW a cult, because there's no end goal like there is in AGW, and it comes almost entirely from individual scientists, rather than activist groups.

Malcolm wrote:
This is total nonsense.

Zhen Li said:
Right now, you can't deny AGW and get elected,

Malcolm wrote:
Are you dreaming? People run on this platform in conservative parts of the US all the time and reelected again and again. If you look at the polls, if you are a Republican, you don't accept AGW. If you are a Democrat, you do. In the US this issue is completely split down party lines, unlike in other nations where conservatives tend to be more sane.


Zhen Li said:
Even Tony Abbott believes in AGW.

Malcolm wrote:
If he were an American Conservative, he could not get elected if he stated he accepted AGW.

Zhen Li said:
You see, the trend over history is that progressive causes always win.

Malcolm wrote:
You only think this because you do not live in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: Peak oil
Content:
Zhen Li said:
But really, before peak oil is reached, the nature of the market is such that the transition will be made by the logic of the system - this is why the peak is actually shifted further and further back year by year

Kim O'Hara said:
This is a good point. What I've said about renewables can be taken into account in this way, too, with the advent of cheap renewables slowing down the exploitation of remaining oil reserves and pushing "the end of oil" ever further into the future.


Kim


Malcolm wrote:
The peak shifts year by year since the oil industry is subsidized heavily by the government, making it possible for them to extract increasingly more expensive (and tragic for the environment) "oil" reserves.

Renewables are also a farce, I am sad to say, dependent as they are on rare earths which also come at an environmental premium, and entirely dependent on an industrial infrastructure which depends on oil.

The only realistic solution to the world energy crisis is to stop using so much energy. However, the free market fundamentalists, convinced that growth is a desiderata and that the market is "intelligent", are nothing more than pied pipers leading us all down a path of destruction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 1:27 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Within the rite of empowerment itself, yes.
Otherwise how can we understand something that transcends the mind?

Malcolm wrote:
If you do not attain awakening during empowerment, then you have sadhana practice, cause that's what it is for, i.e., sadhopaya, "method of accomplishment".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The path of Varjayāna is taught so that a common, ordinary person can traverses all the paths and stages in a single life, and ideally, within the rite of empowerment itself, or at least so I have been taught (I am someone who has done a three year retreat).

smcj said:
If this is not too personal a question, may I ask in which tradition you practiced in your retreat? For some reason I have the impression it was Sakya. But if it is too personal, never mind.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it was in Sakya. Most of my training in Sutra and Tantra is in the Sakya school. The rest in Nyingma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
In the bone yard said:
Well that's true but the tantras are teachings for those on the path (after realization).
There is outer tantra (Ngondro), but it should be taught by a lama when we are closer to the path.

And the meaning (or view) of prajna is different after realization.  The true meaning of prajna won't be realized until after realization.
You might have read Chogyam Trungpa talk about prajna.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two kinds of prajñā, contaminated, and pure. The former exists in common practitioners, the latter in realized practitioners.

As for this distinction:
Well that's true but the tantras are teachings for those on the path (after realization).
There is outer tantra (Ngondro), but it should be taught by a lama when we are closer to the path.
The path of Varjayāna is taught so that a common, ordinary person can traverses all the paths and stages in a single life, and ideally, within the rite of empowerment itself, or at least so I have been taught (I am someone who has done a three year retreat).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Sutra Mahamudra, Tantric Mahamudra, & Mahamudra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Read Kongtrul's encylopedia on practice lineages, he describes it perfectly.

fckw said:
Malcolm, what exactly do you mean with "Kongtrul's encyclopedia"? Are you talking about this: http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Mahamudra? Or is there also some book with that title?

Malcolm wrote:
Specifically, Treasury of Knowledge, Esoteric Instructions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
smcj said:
$53. I'm not doing it. I've got enough Dharma books unread on my shelf.

Malcolm wrote:
It's actually about 25 bucks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Have you ever tried applying for research grants?

I had a look at the process with my provincial government a few months ago, and there are boxes of key terms which you can check. If your research deals with key terms in these areas, you're more likely to get funding. One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic.

People don't set out to do a project which makes or breaks massive theories like AGW, they research specific topics and collect data in specific areas. But convincing the government to keep funding such research means convincing them that this is a matter which the government both needs to take seriously because it may be responsible, and needs to take action which can work. The grant process is, in fact, highly political, and each project provides parliament with brief lay-terms summaries.

If studying climate were just business as usual from day to day, like, say, recording migratory patterns, then it'll probably still get funding, but those numbers are not likely to make you a millionaire like this fellow: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5036333/Multi-millionaire-climate-change-scientist-jailed-for-child-abuse.html and this fellow http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/

Not to mention the book deals and movie sales from the hype. Then there's of course the fact that before the hype the stocks of renewable energy sources and electric car companies was relatively equal to its value, compared to the height of the hype a few years ago, when they would have made any investor a small fortune. Of course, I do support renewable energy, but that's beyond the point. If you are just investing in oil stocks, you know you won't be making much more than they're currently worth.

There are many incentives to promoting the idea of AGW. Even accepting all the AGW premises, you still have uncertainty due to the unpredictability of the system -- let's face it, there has been, and probably never will be, reliable ways of predicting climate change. Some people won't be convinced that the premises of AGW don't hold up to scrutiny until we really do have too little carbon based energy sources to utilise and they still see CO2 levels rising and falling with no help from us.

In the end, remember that this is almost all government led. The millions made by Hansen are mostly from government funded institutions, prizes and grants. People in government benefit with jobs and money, that's the bottom line. So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation. Is there a solution to this problem? Not immediately, no. But vox populi vox dei. It doesn't matter what the real state of science is, it doesn't matter that there isn't a real consensus in institutions of higher learning, what works, works according to the simple equation of: public opinion + potential bureaucratic profit = public policy.

Malcolm wrote:
"One of the boxes was for women and gender studies, and there was a box for climate change research too. These are two of the topics which get some of the highest funding, no surprise then that now climate change is also a feminist topic."

Yes, because women and children will be the mostly heavily impacted by the negative effects of climate change, since they are still largely invisible.


"So long as government as it currently works exists, bureaucracy will keep increasing, and they'll keep paying themselves more and more because they have the monopoly on violence through taxation."

That is a common libertarian point of view.

But this is not a proof, this is fallacious reasoning at best, paranoia at worst.

Sorry, but I don't buy into conspiracy theories, right or left.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
In the bone yard said:
I couldn't agree more with respect to intellectual learning but it must be applied intelligently (to sutra not tantra).

Malcolm wrote:
It must be applied to both, that is why I cited a Dzogchen tantra as well as a Dzogchen master.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: Does one of the Lotus Sūtra based schools really teach t
Content:
rory said:
there are Buddhas in hell realms for goodness' sake.

Malcolm wrote:
Not because they experience afflicted thoughts. They emanate there out of compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
There really is no difference here, it's the same dishonesty.

Malcolm wrote:
What could their motive possibly be?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Nemo said:
America is very sick. Everyone else in the world understands climate change. How is climate change a plot? It's simply the consensus. It was a theory in the 80's and has turned out to be confirmed. Being an unknowing sock puppet of global energy conglomerates is creepy.

Malcolm wrote:
It was even a theory in the nineteenth century, and now it is confirmed. However, some people, for whatever perverse reasons they may have, insist against all reason that we are being duped by a grand conspiracy, the purpose of which they can never clearly articulate.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahāmudrā & Dzogchen
Content:
In the bone yard said:
There is only one path, and it must be "pointed out" to us.
Then we will understand what we cannot understand intellectually and was not meant to be understood intellectually.

Malcolm wrote:
All Buddhists teachings have three prajñās: the prajñā of hearing, when one listens to the teachings and understands them intellectually; the prajñā of reflection, when one integrates what one has understood; and the prajñā of meditation, where the meaning one has gathered through hearing and reflection is brought to realization.

To claim that we are not meant to intellectually understand the path does not correspond with my education and training. The Tantra of the Union of the Sun and Moon states:
Prajñā is three-fold: the prajñā of hearing severs external reification; the prajñā of reflection severs internal reification; and the prajñā of meditation severs secret reification.
Vimalamitra states:
The characteristics of prajñā: 
The characteristic of the prajñā of hearing is a great quantity listening and understanding words without interpolation. 
The characteristic of reflection is investigating the words and meanings of the mind, and giving explanations. 
The characteristic of meditation is distancing oneself from afflictions through meditation.

We should pay respect to intellectual learning, not dismiss it.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 10:25 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/01/polar-vortex-causes-hundreds-of-injuries-as-people-making-snide-remarks-about-climate-change-are-pun.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Does one of the Lotus Sūtra based schools really teach t
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course such a teaching is total rubbish.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Unknown said:
As the Arctic rapidly heats up, however, there's less of a temperature difference between the equator and the poles, and the downhill slope in the atmosphere is accordingly less steep. This creates a weaker jet stream, a jet stream that meanders more or, if you prefer the new analogy, staggers around drunkenly. "As the Arctic continues to warm, we expect the jet stream to take these wild swings northward and southward more often," says Francis. "And when it does, that's when we get these particularly wild temperature and precipitation patterns, and they tend to stay in place a long time."

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/did-global-warming-get-arctic-drunk
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/21/researcher-defends-work-linking-arctic-warming-and-extreme-weather/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 3:44 AM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
conebeckham said:
As far as my reading and study are concerned, on the relative level it is specific to every individual...but again, it's not truly existent in the first place, but is within the realm of conditioned phenomema.  Just as a "specific individual" is.  However, the underlying, essential, "pure" element is presented by many as the Tathagatagarbha, or, when fully purified, the Dharmakaya.  This is, of course, hotly disputed by those who feel the Tathatgatagarbha doctrine is expedient, even by those who posit a conventional alayavijnana.

Malcolm wrote:
Asanga argues somewhere that the bhavanga doctrine in the Nikaya schools and the ālayavijñāna have the same meaning. This makes ālayavijñāna personal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
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: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
it's the way science always works, you'll always find issues with data analysis.
.


Malcolm wrote:
You can disagree where a hurricane is going to land, but the hurricane is definitely going to land in this case.

Then of course there is the Pascal's wager approach to all of this: there is no downside to being wrong about climate change (saving rainforests, changing from fossil fuels to renewables, etc.), in fact there are positive upsides. But there are severe consequences to being right about climate change and then doing nothing (or too little too late, the present scenario).

As for you my friend, well, "Contrarians gonna contradict..."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Well, Malcolm, I think you made up your mind before you considered the argument.

It's undeniable that billions of dollars are invested in the validity of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

And most critiques I've seen are really blatant simplifications of the opponent's arguments. The majority of scientists who have dissented from the consensus definitely do not deny climate change (as I don't), but do deny that humans have the deciding role in it.

Of those who dissent, there are two kinds, those who believe that it is too soon, not enough data, or not possible to draw conclusions about precisely what causes climate change, and those who believe that there are clear causal links elsewhere.

There's absolutely NO reason to treat people who believe there is a reasonable doubt in a scientific theory like Crypto-Nazis.

The politically and financially motivated trolls behind Anthropogenic Climate Change wouldn't make so much energy to refute doubts if money wasn't involved.

Do you realise that there are huge doubts as to what theory of plate tectonics is correct? Where are the critique and bashing sites in the realm of geophysics?

Why doesn't the mainstream media spend millions of dollars on documentaries about these controversies?

Why doesn't NASA have a bashing site critiquing MOND in favour of General Relativity?

It doesn't take a scientist to understand how the system works.

(By the way, glad you liked my analysis of Marxism, I always had the impression that you were a Marxist)

Malcolm wrote:
Ben Franklin has an awesome analysis of anthropogenic climate change. He observed that whenever you cut down a lot of trees, the area would get warmer. Well, multiply this, add burning petroleum to the mix and you get what have today: acidification of oceans, increasingly intense storms, constantly rising global average temperatures, etc.

You appear to think that because there are uncertainties in one area of science, there must uncertainty in all.

As for marx, no -- as i said, I am a deep ecologist. Social ecologists (basically Marxists) consider us bourgeoise and reactionary.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 11:31 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
smcj said:
Stepping out of the theme of this thread, but in keeping with the theme of this website, I'd like to point out that climate change is an example of what Dharma calls "the suffering of change". This means that the answer to any problem, such as the industrial revolution, will in time create its own problems. This is why I say that Dharma does not allow for Utopias, either civic or personal.


Malcolm wrote:
Tell that to Amitabha!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 11:22 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Unfortunately Anthropogenic Climate Change is all politics and no facts.



Malcolm wrote:
The preponderance of research simply does not support your opinions in this matter. I read with interest your analysis of Marx and largely agree with them. But here, you are just on the wrong side of both scientific consensus and history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
smcj said:
Granted, it will change in a thousand years or so after we either stop burning oil for energy or we run out...
How so? The carbon will still be there. It took millions of years for the carbon to be scrubbed out of the atmosphere by plants to get it to the point it is at.


Malcolm wrote:
Grasses sequester more carbon than trees, actually...you can easily find estimates about how long it will take carbon outputs to to be "put back in". Anyway, we will be long dead before there is even anything like a rational social response to the climate crisis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 11:17 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Do you need any more evidence to prove that opinions on this are almost always politically motivated than this?: Perhaps we are not as stupid as you presume. We simply have not bought into right wing climate denial.
I am not a conservative, and political opinions have nothing to do with evaluating arguments. Science can't be based on politics, it's based on empirical observation!

Don't all you biased politically motivated liberals understand that ALL of your stock high school-level arguments from websites have answers. Even that stupid graph you posted. And every answer has an answer in reply equally as smarmy and unctuous.

You can only argue science based on facts! It's so simple...

Malcolm wrote:
Unfortunately climate denial is all politics and no facts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 11:09 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
reddust said:
I dont buy into the left-right agenda and I am a skeptic of man made climate change argument. I don't want spend my time arguing about this. Time will be the decider on this debte.  Lets stop trying to fix samsara (sarcasm) I've been told...don't leave. Lets have some good Dharma debates


Malcolm wrote:
Closed biosystem + increasing carbon inputs from burning petrochemicals = warming.


Granted, it will  change in a thousand years or so after we either stop burning oil for energy or we run out...

Of course it will come as no surprise to any one that I am a deep ecologist/left biocentric ala  The late David Orton.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/lbprimer.htm


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
conebeckham said:
So perhaps it's appropriate to say the Alayavijnana is neither separate from, nor entirely defined by, the  Karmic seeds.

anjali said:
That's my take on it. At the eighth level, consciousness (vijnana) and habit energies (karmic bijas) are not the same, nor are they different.

I've read that the function of the alaya-consciousness is one of projection (fabrication)--bringing forth appearances (apprehended objects and apprehending subject). The apprehending subject and the apprehended objects are just two aspects of a single appearance that haven't been dualistically "solidified" yet (the function of the seventh consciousness).

The eighth consciousness is just the ignorant outward-looking consciousness encountering it's own energy patterns, with no sense of self and other.

Malcolm wrote:
Read Mahayanasamgraha by Asanga.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Zhen Li, you are getting perilously close to being insulting.
Yes, I noticed that too.

For my own good, and for everyone else's, I'm going to stop using this site.

I can't get anywhere with anybody. It's not benefiting me, and it's not benefiting others. It's a prime example of a waste of time.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps we are not as stupid as you presume. We simply have not bought into right wing climate denial.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:


Unknown said:
This story can be summed up very simply: a group of retired NASA scientists with no climate science research experience listened to a few climate scientists and a few fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists, read a few climate blogs, asked a few relatively simple questions, decided that those questions cannot be answered (though we will answer them in this post), put together a very rudimentary report, and now expect people to listen to them because they used to work at NASA.  It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-retirees-letter2.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Extreme weather events, including extreme cold snaps are consistent with a warming climate. In other words climate and weather are not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 9:58 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The scientific consensus is that human caused climate instability is a fact.

Zhen Li said:
Nice evidence.


Malcolm wrote:
Get real, my friend, you want evidence:

http://climate.nasa.gov

You've got your head in the sand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 9:48 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Zhen Li said:
The main issue is that the topic is extremely politicized...


Malcolm wrote:
The scientific consensus is that human caused climate instability is a fact. Politicians are the only reason we, as a global civilization, are not effectively responding to this state of affairs.



M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 6:53 AM
Title: Re: Climate Change: We're Doomed
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/18/7_ways_to_shut_down_a_climate_change_denier_partner/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 5:49 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
tatpurusa said:
by the way, does anyone know how he does this?

dharmagoat said:
He doesn't, his disciples do.

Everyone loves a Lama.


Malcolm wrote:
What a bunch of idiots.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
dude said:
If there are not nine consciousnesses, what is there?

Malcolm wrote:
The so called ninth consciousness, amalavijñāna, is rather late innovation that never gained currency in India, thought it had some popularity in Chinese Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Alaya consciousness - many questions.
Content:
conebeckham said:
In effect, the karmic "seeds" which are said to "reside" in the Alayavijnana, are NOT the Alayavijnana itself.....

Malcolm wrote:
In reality, there are two Yogacara interpretations it seems.

One: ālayavijñāna is a consciousness which retains seeds. This is the later interpretation.

Two: ālayavijñāna and the seeds are coterminous: exhausting the latter eliminates the former. This seems to be the position of Asanga in Mahāyāna Samgraha.

The Nyingma approach to this is that there really are not nine consciousness at all. Consciousness derives its name based on its function in a given operation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Guty said:
...the scriptural accounts are nothing but exaggerations and mistranslations.

Malcolm wrote:
They might be exaggerations, but they are not mistranslations.

Refer to the Vibhuti chapter of the Yoga sutras. Flying, for example, is the result of attaining power of the udaṇā vayu, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
For example, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has said that if anyone of his students can place his hand in fire without beings harmed, ChNN would like to have that person as his teacher. Otherwise, he said, don't call yourself realized if you do not have power over the elements.

dmr82 said:
Glad you confirmed ChNNR believes the abilities manifest as sign of having power over the elements.

That's all the confirmation I needed.

Malcolm wrote:
Just bring a fire extinguisher in case your samadhi is not up to par.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 2:18 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...they prevent people from claiming total buddhahood in absence of such demonstrable abilities.

Even if such abilities are real, they are mundane, having nothing to do with actually gaining realization.

dmr82 said:
You are contradicting yourself. First you say realized beings can demonstrate them, then you say having them has nothing to do with having realization.  Also there is nothing mundane about them as sentient beings can't display them except through fakery and deception.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, actually, you have to accept that they are mundane because Buddhists and Hindus like are supposed to be able to manifest them with sufficient practice of Samadhi.

None of these powers are transcendent in the least.

What I am suggesting is that placing such impossible expectations on what can be expected of a realized individual makes it easy to spot fakes. For example, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has said that if anyone of his students can place his hand in fire without beings harmed, ChNN would like to have that person as his teacher. Otherwise, he said, don't call yourself realized if you do not have power over the elements.

Of course, the problem with this is that Hindus sages, etc., also claim to have power over the elements and so on.

Thus, these things, power over the elements, the ability to swim through the earth, fly in the sky and so on, are a common stock set of magical abilities common in India literature. We need not take them literally any more than we take Meru literally. The pursuit of such abilities will not lead us to liberation, Buddha was exceptionally clear about this.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 6th, 2014 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Scientifically satisfactory evidence for the rainbow bod
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All of these things remain anecdotal, as I am sure will you will admit.

dmr82 said:
Nope there is footage of the master from The Magus of Java.

Malcolm wrote:
Sleight of hand.

dmr82 said:
Just because modern dzogchen practitioners don't demonstrate these abilities doesn't mean they are not real. And their absence in modern dzogchen practitioners doesn't devalue dzogchen as the highest vehicle for achieving enlightenment. I think the oral transmission and highest ati yoga instruction manuals didn't set out to deceive people when they mention the abilities that manifest upon completion of the visions.

Malcolm wrote:
No, I don't think there is any intended deception either. Quite the opposite, actually, they prevent people from claiming total buddhahood in absence of such demonstrable abilities.

Even if such abilities are real, they are mundane, having nothing to do with actually gaining realization. People who think otherwise are going down a rabbit hole.


