﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Matt J said:
I'm not proposing subjective idealism.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Well, you said

Matt J said:
Without a doubt, Model B is much cooler.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Since

Malcolm wrote:
Model B is internally triadic, holds that percepts are the actually the activation of traces that provide the content of the world that we perceive as external.

treehuggingoctopus said:
I dare say you do belong in some sort of idealist camp. (Little wonder, too. I also think Model B is cool.) It might be the Kantian one, where you will find Longchenpa, or the Yogacarian one (which is Longchenpaless. I still like it more.)

Malcolm wrote:
Lonchenpa and Dzogchen in general does not reject external objects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Political discussions on Dharma Wheel
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

IMO to discuss politics here aboard is not at all a good case.

Dharma
and
left and right winged, (is the middle way here possible ?)
based on discrimination,
illusions and political preferences

are not at all Dharma orientated, whereas i understand that they belong to Dharma in the sense of phenomenons or emptiness.

Therefore i want to suggest to forbid political discussions here aboard and discuss only Buddha Dharma matters, which go beyond politics, left and right winged idiots and the middle.

Maybe new TOS possible ?

KY

shaunc said:
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think it'll ever happen here though. I just tend to ignore the conversation once it gets too political for me.

Malcolm wrote:
as Shantideva points out, it is better to wear shoes than to try and cover the world in leather.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Matt J said:
What is the source of the models, anyway? I assume that most people don't actually see bijas in the alayavijnana forming into material things, or seeing objects contacting sense organs leading to visual consciousness. Are these models established inferentially, with yogic perception, or simply through scripture?

krodha said:
Like Malcolm mentioned, there are two models. The latter model is indeed that there is no substantial external world, and that the appearances that are misconstrued for an external condition are generated by the minds of sentient beings with like karmic constitutions.

This means everything you experience is an appearance of mind, and there is no actual artifact-like world that lies beyond said appearances.

Malcolm wrote:
The former is a theory taught in the sutras. The latter is simple conventional truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it is.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The are the foundation of the Vajrayāna path.

Grigoris said:
I think he is more interested in the "why" it is the foundation of the Vajrayana path.

Malcolm wrote:
If they a protected, all qualities of the path arise swiftly, if they are neglected, one experiences obstacles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Tradition shmadition, lineage shmineage
Content:
JMGinPDX said:
To be fair, my post was moved from the original thread to a new one, and taken out of that context seems to be more absolute than I intended it to be.

I'm all for tradition and lineage - my point was that it is counterproductive to hold too tightly to the notion of tradition, glorifying tenets of one while denigrating others (or at least not addressing them at all), worrying too much about whether one belongs in the tradition one is in, or if one should switch traditions, etc. etc.

As was stated elsewhere (including the original thread and here: https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=27756 ), various highly respected teachers in different traditions have admiration for and utilize parts of "other" traditions - Thai Forest master Ajahn Amaro and Dzogchen, Ajahn Chah himself and Zen, various Vipassana/Secular/IM teachers combining elements of Theravada, Zen, and Tibetan, etc. etc.

Rather than worrying about being "true" to a specific tradition, and especially dismissing other traditions' teachings as impure or irrelevant simply because they are not echoed in one's own tradition, is the exact type of clinging to concepts that is the "enemy" of ALL Buddhist paths.

My point to the OP was - why worry about Mahayana vs. Theravada vs. Vajrayana?  Find what resonates and works, and keep looking.

Malcolm wrote:
In general, this approach does not work well. Find one tradition, find a qualified teacher in that tradition, learn the practice. If you study separate traditions, still you must keep their approaches separate. You cannot mix Dzogchen with Vipassana, for example.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it is.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is a set of commitments one makes to the guru, one's vajra siblings, and the path in general. Though they are in fact secret, they are openly discussed by many people here all the time.

Anders said:
karma-mechanically speaking, it is more than that though, right? What role do they play as an essential component of tantra practise? What it is, technically speaking, that makes it so crucial?

Malcolm wrote:
The are the foundation of the Vajrayāna path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
krodha said:
And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.

Coëmgenu said:
By having us look at the suggested chariot at the level of its constituents rather than at the level of the suggested compounded object.

Quite literally deconstructing the suggestion.

Malcolm wrote:
The question is, where is the chariot?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Unknown said:
Everything is emptiness, emptiness is not just a concept, the nature of all phenomena does not truly exist.

Malcolm wrote:
-- Khenpo Sodhar


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2018 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it is.
Content:
Anders said:
I do wonder why it is so difficult to give a straightforward explanation of it. It seems like something that ought to be taken on with clear comprehension.

Malcolm wrote:
The samaya vows are actually secret and technically, should only be explained during or after the empowerment.

M

Anders said:
Ok, so that's the content of Samaya. I guess you can work around that by investigating the guru that bestows them.
Is the nature of it also secret? Ie, what is samaya actually, technically speaking?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a set of commitments one makes to the guru, one's vajra siblings, and the path in general. Though they are in fact secret, they are openly discussed by many people here all the time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Everybody speaks about samaya, but nobody knows what it is.
Content:



Anders said:
I do wonder why it is so difficult to give a straightforward explanation of it. It seems like something that ought to be taken on with clear comprehension.

Malcolm wrote:
The samaya vows are actually secret and technically, should only be explained during or after the empowerment.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
Content:
⊙ Fimbul ⊙ said:
Does this come in two physical volumes, one for each tantra, or just one? I am curious since the picture of the cover displayed on amazon seems to only be the Rigpa Rangshar.

Malcolm wrote:
Two volume box set


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 12:34 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Wayfarer said:
A bank robbery was foiled when the robbers, having grabbed the cash, fled the building, only to find that their getaway car didn't actually exist.  'I was sure I had parked it there and left the engine running', said the driver, as he was hauled off in the police paddy wagon, 'but when we came back out, it couldn't be found. It turned out that it had only ever been an imputation, although it beats me how we used it to get there in the first place'.

Malcolm wrote:
What a car is, is not the question. We all know what a car is. Where the car is in what we think a car is, is a separate question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: What place does pilgrimage have in Buddhist practice?
Content:
Aryjna said:
Kailash seems to be an important place to visit. I am curious if it would be considered a priority over Bodh Gaya, Sarnath, etc. for Vajrayana practitioners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kailash


Malcolm wrote:
Buddha was not born at Kailash, nor did he attain awakening there, nor did he teach there, nor did he die there, nor is there any sūtra or tantra that mention it is an important site, even though it is one of the 24 places mentioned in the Cakrasamvara cycle, etc. So, no, it is not more important than these traditional four sites.

Aryjna said:
It is slightly disappointing that it is not mentioned more in the tantras.

Malcolm wrote:
It is mentioned in Sūtras, but not as a place of any special significance, just as a prominent geographical location. On the other hand, the lake near Kailash is held to be the home of Nagaraja Anavatapta, who is held to govern the rivers in India. And of course Kailash has been a common object of veneration for Indians and Himalayan’s for many millennia.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 10:03 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
krodha said:
Yet there are no parts or pieces to an entity that was never there in the first place. Hence why Nāgārjuna asserts that even constituent aggregates are merely inferential conventions.

And Candrakīrti isn't suggesting one break down the chariot, rather he is challenging you to locate the chariot in general.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. The question isn’t, as some mistakenly suppose, what the chariot is, but rather where the chariot is. One finds it isn’t anywhere at all, it’s just an imputation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2018 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: What place does pilgrimage have in Buddhist practice?
Content:
Aryjna said:
Kailash seems to be an important place to visit. I am curious if it would be considered a priority over Bodh Gaya, Sarnath, etc. for Vajrayana practitioners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kailash


Malcolm wrote:
Buddha was not born at Kailash, nor did he attain awakening there, nor did he teach there, nor did he die there, nor is there any sūtra or tantra that mention it is an important site, even though it is one of the 24 places mentioned in the Cakrasamvara cycle, etc. So, no, it is not more important than these traditional four sites.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
You argument did not address correctly how analysis of the relative is done.  As I mentioned before, analysis of the relative will hit a limit.  But it does not mean that the limit cannot be breached through direct perception.  Until you address this, your reasoning does not hold.
This is so simple really. Can there be an ultimate truth separate from relative truth? No. There is no ultimate independent of the relative. If you say that there is, you have not understood the Buddha's distinction of the two truths. There is no ultimate truth other than the absence of inherent existence in conditioned phenomena.
The Buddha spoke from the perspective of having penetrated to the ultimate but using conventions.  It does not mean that there is no ultimate.  But because your position is that there is no ultimate, I have argued that your position cannot withstand a deist/theist assertion that the Buddha claim that there is no Creator God cannot be true.
You made an assertion, you have not proven it because your thesis is faulty in toto.
Of course there is an external world and it is all because of dependent origination.
That was a typo, meant to say, "there is no external world at all."
Your position in this discussion was that the ultimate truth is the conventional truth.  We have all along been debating this position of yours.
Correct, ultimate truth is a conventional truth because it is efficient in bringing about a result. That is what makes the ultimate truth conventional, as I have explained repeatedly. If you claim the ultimate truth is not conventional, the consequence is that it is also nonfunctional.
My position is that within the constraints of the two extreme of existence and non-existence, there is the ultimate and the relative.  Your position, to put it another way, is that within the region constraint by the two extremes, there is only the relative.  Agree?
My point of view is that within the constraints of the four extremes (there are four, not only two), the relative is not established, and therefore, the ultimate is also not established since it too cannot be established according to any of the four extremes.
Sure, but there is the mind of white appearance, mind of red increase, mind of near attainment.
It is very inappropriate to mix Vajrayāna into a sūtric conversation.
Of course, you would argue that these are not different layers but different degree of subtlety of the mental consciousness.
I am not going to discuss these here: apart from mentioning these experiences are not different kinds of minds.
Even then, there is at least a difference between the sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness.  The sense consciousnesses depends on the elements.  When the elements dissolve, they dissolve but the mental consciousness remains.  The sense consciousnesses are therefore not fundamental.
The sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness are the one and same, that is, the "eye-consciousness" is merely consciousness operating though the eye organ, taking form as an object; likewise, the mental consciousness operates through the mental organ, taking the dharma-āyatana/dhatu as its object. All consciousness are included in the vijn̄āna-skandha. There is therefore no distinction between a "fundamental consciousness" on the one hand, and secondary sensory consciousnesses on the other hand. We don't in fact have six consciousnesses, we have only one, given different names when it performs different operations. Likewise, all the vāyus in our body are actually the prāṇa vāyu, but it is given different names depending on whether is assists speech, movement, digestion, circulation, or sense perception.

The more you talk, the more misunderstandings you introduce.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
WeiHan said:
What i want to say is that the main method employed in treckchod is shamatha which is a sutric method.


Malcolm wrote:
No, you have a misconception. Trekchö is not sutric śamatha. In order to practice trekchö, one has to have experiential knowledge of the nature of the mind.

In Sūtra śamatha, one always takes some object. Not so in trekchö, etc.

WeiHan said:
This makes sense but it is still samatha. Moreover, sutric method also combined Shamatha with Vipassana and look into nature of mind at some stage.

Malcolm wrote:
You are really missing the point, so I am not going to continue this discussion with you. One, this in the Gelug forum. Two, trekchö is not "still śamatha." You have seized on the word, but you seem not understand the meaning.  In order to engage in trekchö there are many preliminary practices one needs to complete before hand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
WeiHan said:
What i want to say is that the main method employed in treckchod is shamatha which is a sutric method.


Malcolm wrote:
No, you have a misconception. Trekchö is not sutric śamatha. In order to practice trekchö, one has to have experiential knowledge of the nature of the mind.

In Sūtra śamatha, one always takes some object. Not so in trekchö, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:


Aryjna said:
But it does not make much sense to say 'practicing with a conceptual understanding'. In that case that is not practicing trekchod in the first place. I don't think anyone is claiming people should be practicing it before they are ready for it.

WeiHan said:
I suppose you should read what Malcohm has wrote. The concepts one gets from the introduction is just left aside temporarily. When in actual practice of treckchod, one simply rests on awareness without holding any concepts such as "this is empty" etc..one just rest on the clarity aspect.

Malcolm wrote:
One previously ascertains emptiness conceptually through rushan and semzin exercises so that one has a correct inferential understanding of emptiness. One's rigpa, knowledge, is that this mind is inseparably clear and empty. One's rests one's mind on that. One does not, as in the Sakya approach, "seal" emptiness with clarity, or seal clarity with emptiness. Right from the beginning one rests in simple unfabricated consciousness based upon the confidence one has gained from Dzogchen preliminaries —— the complexity or simplicity of the guru yoga was does is irrelevant to the main part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:


WeiHan said:
Correct. And they are all conceptual under usual circumstances.

The Gelug is very clear about what the HYT practices are for. The other lineages is not so explicit but that doesn't mean their tsa Lung, tummo etc don't produce similar effects.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference between the example wisdom (jñāna) and the discerning wisdom (prajn̄ā) born of analysis is that one in the former one is introduced to a moment of unfabricated consciousness, where as in mundane discerning wisdom born of analysis one only has a generic image of emptiness.

This moment of unfabricated consciousness is the actual view meditated in trekchö (and mahāmudra, the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, etc.). The view mediated in trekcö, etc, and so on is not a conceptual view born of analysis. Thus, when you see trekchö described as śamatha plus the view, you really need to understand here that view does not refer to the mundane discerning wisdom born of analysis.

Thus, there is a very great difference between trekchö and sūtrayāna. However, the reason it is said that all Mahāyāna schools practice something similar to trekchö is that in the Prajñapāramita, it is said, "There is no mind in the mind, but the mind's original nature (prakrti) is luminous." The Gelugpas term this unfabricated mind "the mind of clear light" in English translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2018 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
WeiHan said:
Under usual circumstances, empowerment, pointing out instruction or direct introduction in Dzogchen only  gave the students a conceptual view and not direct experience. after that, it is samatha resting on ordinary naked awareness-a sutric meditation.


Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not correct. The example wisdom of the Dzogchen direct introduction or empowerment is the same as the example wisdom pointed out in the word empowerment.

You are positing things from a strictly Gelug framework (subtle minds and so on).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Matt J said:
The question is when no one is looking. I would like to experience your colorless, silent, unfelt, Antarctica. I think you are basically positing naive realism. Even conventional science and neurology agrees that the world we experience is mentally generated--- in the case of science, by the brain.

Grigoris said:
Give me a quotation where science says that things only exist when a consciousness is perceiving them.  I dare you.

Matt J said:
Should I? Should I? Tempting, but I don't want to go down the quantum physics road. But as pointed out, stating that all of our experience is mind doesn't mean that mind is a substratum or that my individual mind generates the universe and so on. It is a statement about what we know.
So you experience objects apart from colors, sounds, feeling sensations, etc.? I doubt it.
You can doubt whatever you like.  Buddhist models of perception posit three factors:  the sense organ, the object of perception and the sense organ's mind.  Notice how the object of perception is one of the three and not included in the sense organ's mind?  I wonder why?
An object is nothing more than a bundle of perceptions plus a conceptual label. Unless some one can show me an object apart from perceptions.

Where did I say there were absolute boundaries?  All I am saying is that I do not believe that the mind-to-form relationship is a one way street, as you are implying.  Non-dualism does not mean that one overrides the other, but that they mutually influence each other.
What I'm positing is that mind is fundamental because that is what we experience--- we never experience matter. Again, if I'm wrong, please point out what matter is like independent of mind and perception. "Matter" is usually based on some sort of enduring, underlying substance--- in ancient Buddhism, it is the atom-like Dharmas. In the modern West, it is atoms. Both have been refuted.

Malcolm wrote:
There are two Buddhist models of perception: Model A is externally triadic, that is, a percept arises based on the contact of a sense organ with an external sense object. Model B is internally triadic, holds that percepts are the actually the activation of traces that provide the content of the world that we perceive as external.

Madhyamaka is happy with either model. Both are relative, not ultimate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 at 12:54 PM
Title: Re: Guru Devotion
Content:



Josef said:
It could.
We often make the assumption that upaya and pure view etc is limited to one side of the teacher student coin.
There may be times when the circumstances of wisdom and method require unorthodox behavior from both the teacher and or the student.
It's about the individual relationships and circumstances.

Thomas Amundsen said:
Assuming you have samaya with a teacher, how could you do this without damaging or breaking that samaya?

TharpaChodron said:
I was really talking about false gurus not being above reproach, as opposed to genuine lamas.  Patrul Rinpoche talks about all the fake lamas in Tibet, the ones with greasy lips from eating meat and such.

As for breaking samaya with ones teacher, yeah, I think criticizing your guru after already making commitments and examining them and finding them to be not false teachers, that is a no-no.

But in our wonderful practice, we do believe in examining a teacher for a while and not merely accepting someone with a title or fan base as a great Lama.  sorry I'm beating a dead horse with this old topic.

Malcolm wrote:
Appearances are deceiving. When one recognizes one has been deceived by this or that guru, it is perfectly fine to withdraw one’s devotion. After all, following a guru is not a catholic wedding with no hope of divorce if things go south.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 at 12:32 PM
Title: Re: What place does pilgrimage have in Buddhist practice?
Content:
Thomas Amundsen said:
stupas and large statues in North America

Fortyeightvows said:
like where?

Thomas Amundsen said:
http://www.vajrayana.org/namdrol-pemay-gatsal/ stupa garden at Pema Osel Ling in Watsonville, California (near Santa Cruz). The 35 foot Vajrasattva statue and others at the https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/panorama-from-the-interior-of-a-building-in-mandala-garden-news-photo/542615198#/panorama-from-the-interior-of-a-building-in-mandala-garden-at-the-picture-id542615198 near Ashland, Oregon. And the http://www.ewambuddhagarden.org/ in Arlee, Montana.

Malcolm wrote:
You need to do Khandroling and Mahasiiddha. There is a very beautiful Peace Pagoda quite near us as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no ultimate layer, there is an absence of an ultimate layer. When sought, it cannot be found.

Sherab said:
This is merely an assertion (unreasoned argument) in response to my reasoned argument.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative. Therefore, the ultimate depends on the relative. Since the relative has no nature, the ultimate has no nature. Both are therefore merely conventions.

Sherab said:
There is a serious consequence of this argument.  It implied that the Buddha cannot claim that there is no Creator God because of the Buddha's inability to find the relative and therefore concluded erroneously that there is no ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
This consequence is invalid since it implies that the inability of relative truth to bear analysis validates causeless arising.


Sherab said:
This would leave the Buddha opened to the counterargument that how then can he claimed that there was no Creator God?  The Buddha can claim that there is no Creator God because he knows what the ultimate is and it is not a Creator God.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha only asserts that there is no causeless arising. A creator ipso factor is a causeless cause. The Buddha never rejects this on the basis of an analysis of the relative, but only on the basis of common appearances everyone is witness too, to whit, no one ever perceives any thing at any time any where that arises without a cause. This does not require ultimate analysis at all. Therefore, your pervasion is faulty.

Sherab said:
If the ultimate is the inability to find the relative, the Buddha and all of us could be brains in vat, or living in the Matrix, or in a simulation, and can never look beyond that.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is the Yogacāra school, which will happily agree there are is external world at all.
Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
Of course.  Otherwise, how could I have pointed out that it leads to the logical incoherence/inconsistency/contradiction, which you conveniently evaded by claiming that you have all along equated words "ultimate truth" as referring to "enumerated ultimate truth".  But this evasion did not hold up to scrutiny.
Of course it holds up to scrutiny. This is why you are unable to rebut my arguments — you have a position and I do not.
No, this is irrelevant.
Not in my view.  I made this assumption because when I look at the description of the death process, it would appear that there are layers of consciousness, and sense consciousnesses seemed not to be fundamental.


"Sense consciousness" is merely a name for one's consciousness when it is operating through a sense organ. When it is not, it is mental consciousness. There are no layers of consciousness beyond that.
From all your responses, I conclude that you do not consider your position as wrong.
I don't have a position with regard to the ultimate, that's your problem, not mine. All I have done is show that there is no ultimate apart from the convention, "ultimate."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: What place does pilgrimage have in Buddhist practice?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Pilgrimage has arguably had a prominent place in Buddhist practice, particularly lay practice, from very early on. In Japanese Buddhism with which I am most familiar, it is a significant practice even today, and it seems important in other places around Asia, too. In the West it does not seem to figure into practice much... Perhaps because we don't have significant places to visit, yet.

How do you view pilgrimage practice? Is pilgrimage part of your practice?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha enjoined all followers to visit the four main sites: Lumbini, Bodhgaya, Sarnath (Deer park), and Kushinagara where he passed away.

I would opine that pilgrimage is very important to all Buddhists. We should all make an effort to visit these four crucial places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, March 7th, 2018 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The relative is indescribable as well. If it were describable, it would not be empty of the four extremes.

Sherab said:
How do you examine the relative to come to the conclusion that it is indescribable?  By examining what underlies the appearance.  Therefore, you can only come to the conclusion that it is indescribable after examining all the layers underlying an appearance.  So, you can only conclude that the relative is indescribable only after you come to the conclusion that the ultimate layer is indescribable and not the other way round.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no ultimate layer, there is an absence of an ultimate layer. When sought, it cannot be found.
The ultimate is the nature of the relative. Since the nature of the relative cannot be ascertained, there is no ultimate to ascertain, in other words the ultimate is simply the ascertainment of the absence of inherent existence of the relative, nothing else.
It is the nature of the ultimate that cannot be ascertained that makes the relative indescribable.  The nature of the relative is ultimately the nature of the ultimate and not the other way round.
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative. Therefore, the ultimate depends on the relative. Since the relative has no nature, the ultimate has no nature. Both are therefore merely conventions.
No, you have not established that the ultimate is nondeceptive, acutally. You have only shown that the ultimate of a lower tenet system is the relative of a higher tenet system, that's it. You have not even shown the ultimate is inexpressible. The only way to show that the ultimate is inexpressible is to show that nothing relative is expressible. In fact, the ultimate depends on entirely on the relative. When the relative is not found, the ultimate vanishes.
If the ultimate truth is deceptive, then no wisdom or knowledge of reality is possible.
Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

It is not possible to have a direct perception without sense media.
It all depends on whether one assumes the eye consciousness etc is an emergent property or not.  If it is, then that would impose a limitation on what can be perceived through it.
No, this is irrelevant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
“Malcolm” said:
Science is good for blowing shit up.

Wayfarer said:
Also for making useful devices, such as those used by yourself to make that remark on the global network of interconnected users.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, good for blowing shit up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 6:14 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


Sherab said:
Do you interpret that "do not exist" in the nihilistic sense where there is no possibility of a continuum of the meditator or the dharmadhatu (in other words, no possibility of freedom from the two extremes)?

Malcolm wrote:
In (ultimate) reality there is no meditator nor a dharmadhātu. All such distinctions are conventional. I don't negate these things conventionally speaking, but ultimately they cannot be established at all.

With respect to this issue, I follow the position of the Jetsun Sakya Gongma who declare, "there is no reality (gnas lugs med pa)" and always have. In other words, since the four extremes cannot be established for relative phenomena, there is no way the four extremes can exist in the ultimate either. This being so, there is no reality as there isn't anything established which can be free from the four extremes. The ultimate is considered inexpressible not because it is something free from the four extremes, it is inexpressible because nothing can established by way of the four extremes either relatively or ultimately.

As the Samputa Tantra puts it:

Nothing empty, nothing not empty, and nothing to perceive in the middle.

Sherab said:
This seems to be a rather evasive reply.

My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this.  If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent.  If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description.  If the ultimate cannot be described, then it truly cannot be described.  And all we can say is what it is not and not what it is.  Also, since we can say what the relative is, and since we cannot say what the ultimate is, the ultimate and the relative cannot be the same.

Malcolm wrote:
The relative is indescribable as well. If it were describable, it would not be empty of the four extremes.


Sherab said:
In brief, my view is that Buddhist ontology is simply that reality is constraint within the two extremes.  Within this constraint, there is the ultimate reality and there is the relative reality.  The ultimate is not deceptive but the ultimate [sic] is.  The nature of the ultimate is the nature of the relative, so one can say that ultimately, the ultimate truth is the same as the relative truth.  But we cannot say that the ultimate is the relative.

Malcolm wrote:
The ultimate is the nature of the relative. Since the nature of the relative cannot be ascertained, there is no ultimate to ascertain, in other words the ultimate is simply the ascertainment of the absence of inherent existence of the relative, nothing else.

Sherab said:
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance.  So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules.  The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules.  The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple.  Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms.  At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance.  When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.  Science has managed only to penetrate to this level of reality.  Beyond that, it is still speculative.  Taking the analysis to its logical conclusion, we come to the ultimate reality which is the basis of all the relative realities above it.

Malcolm wrote:
All this shows is that an "ultimate" is just a limit of one's analysis. Glad we agree on that —— though it is a little odd to say that a limitation of analysis is the basis of anything at all.

Sherab said:
Therefore, the ultimate is not deceptive and all the various levels of relative realities above it are deceptive.  According to the Buddha, this ultimate cannot be described.  He did not say that it exists or did not exists.  This is all we can say.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you have not established that the ultimate is nondeceptive, acutally. You have only shown that the ultimate of a lower tenet system is the relative of a higher tenet system, that's it. You have not even shown the ultimate is inexpressible. The only way to show that the ultimate is inexpressible is to show that nothing relative is expressible. In fact, the ultimate depends on entirely on the relative. When the relative is not found, the ultimate vanishes.

Sherab said:
It seems to me that for this reason, the approach of Buddhism to reality is apophatic and that it holds that the only way to know what reality really is is through direct "perception" without the intermediation of any sense media.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not possible to have a direct perception without sense media.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 5:47 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.

PSM said:
Hi Malcolm - what is the specific semdzin(s) you are referring to here? Something like yeshe zangthal?

Malcolm wrote:
In the classical tradition of seven semszins, the two final ones are gradual and sudden emptiness. You can find them described elsewhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Guru Devotion
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Guru devotion does not entail following political leaders.

SunWuKong said:
Well, you and the Dalai Lama can argue about that.

Malcolm wrote:
No need, he has already made this abundantly clear in many places.

SunWuKong said:
As I said he has an entire nation of followers, in Europe, who have been loyal to him for centuries.

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to Kalmiyaks. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a guru is in Tibetan Buddhism. If you have not received empowerment from someone, that person cannot be considered your guru no matter how much faith and devotion you have for them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: A Western Philosopher's Take on Buddhist Violence
Content:



Queequeg said:
There are a couple points I would make.

1. Dharma is not a set of commands.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, that is what Vinaya is for, governing our conduct.

Queequeg said:
So, when Buddhists commit violence, its not understood as a breaking of some commandment, but rather, the expression of our tendencies flowing from the three poisons.

Malcolm wrote:
When Buddhists commit acts of violence, they are breaking the precept of refuge in the Dharma, ahimsa. The Hinayāna vows govern our physical and verbal actions, while Mahāyāna precepts govern our intention.

Queequeg said:
And maybe the real disconnect here is not the surprise that Buddhists commit violence, but the real issue is the misunderstanding of what Dharma is and how the problems of violence are understood within the tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many traditions— how violence is to be understand varies from tradition to tradition, which is apropos to your introductory statement.

Queequeg said:
2The authors seem to fall a little too heavily on the side that regardless of the dharmas, human beings will act out their nature, and that dharmas only serve as a rationalization after the fact.

Malcolm wrote:
I think this is a perfectly fair observation on the part of the authors, and is born out by many centuries of Buddhist authors parodying their less than diligent coreligionists and bitterly claiming since the fifth century C.E. (i.e. the fall of the Gupta empire) at minimum that we live in a degenerate age, which is only going to get worse, with the Dharma becoming more and more corrupted as time moves on.

Queequeg said:
IMHO, Dharmas do matter - maybe they don't have the precise impact of a meticulously followed set of commandments, but they have profound impact in ordering reality, establishing tropes and normative behaviors.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem the authors are pointing out is when a culture uses Dharma to normalize pathological behavior which is not consistent with ahimsa, for example Myanmar, Shri Lanka, Japan in WWII, and so on. In this case, the Dharma is being used specifically to target Muslims for harm. This is really far worse than a bhiḳsu murdering a hundred people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:



WeiHan said:
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.

Malcolm wrote:
Empowerment.

Sennin said:
Is gting gsal explained  in vehicles beside Dzogchen?

Malcolm wrote:
I have not encountered it in other traditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Grigoris said:
If they have eyes and understand English then of course they can read it, but it won't mean much to them and it may not be all that helpful.

fuki said:
Shoot! I have the book (haven't started yet)
I'll read it but when unhelpful, is there any place I can donate it too? All books I'm "done with" I give away if the "right person" appears. But having no Vajrayana  introduction (apart from sitting with the Maitreya institute a few times which I assume doesn't count) is that institute a good place to donate it too?

Malcolm wrote:
Give it to someone who practices Dzogchen. I am sure there is someone here who may want it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.

WeiHan said:
If there is really no difference between perfection of wisdom, Chan/Zen etc..What is the element in Treckcod that separates it from the rest as an extremely swift path? At least I have never heard that perfection of wisdom, chan/zen which are sutrayana practices can attain rainbow bodies in this very life.

Malcolm wrote:
Empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2018 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Guru Devotion
Content:
SunWuKong said:
who is telling you how to have regard for a guru? goes unanswered except "everyone here" and that won't resolve the issue of how one pays due respect.

Malcolm wrote:
There are many instructions for this in both sūtra and tantra.

SunWuKong said:
Buddha is sufficient as a guru for me.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha passed away 2,500 years. When did you meet him?

SunWuKong said:
Let me give you an example of what i think guru devotion means. There is a Buddhist nation in Europe. Did you know this? It's called Kalmykia. They en masse relocated to the Volga region of Russia when Islam invaded Mongolia. They, as all Mongolians who remain Buddhist are loyal to the Dalai Lama, by a binding treaty between their people and the Dalai Lama's government of Tibet. The current status of the treaty is probably no longer legally binding, because they are now living in Russia, and the exiled government is not ruling. None the less they are all followers of Dalai Lama's teaching. So there's no thrashing around trying to figure out what or who to believe. Its a given.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru devotion does not entail following political leaders.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 12:41 PM
Title: Re: Guru Devotion
Content:
TharpaChodron said:
Yes, yes Buddhadharma is not immune to scandal, but practitioners have a broader view than merely believing gurus are always above reproach.  That sort of black and white thinking is best left to other faiths and Trump voters, not Vajrayana Buddhists.

Malcolm wrote:
The black and white approach seems pretty deeply entrenched in the Tibetan scene.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 12:34 PM
Title: Re: Alternative Aroma Offerings Besides Incense?
Content:
catlady2112 said:
My housemate has an allergy to incense and I am trying to find a replacement for an offering with an aroma.  I've heard of people using perfume offering.  I was thinking of some simple way to do this with perfume, such as everyday putting a drop of essential oil into something like a sponge which would allow it to give an aroma for about an hour, but a sponge seems kind of unpleasant to put on an altar.  I prefer *not* to light candles because I live in earthquake country and I'm nervous I might forget to put it out. Any suggestions?

Malcolm wrote:
Essential oil, sandalwood would be best, using an aromatherapy diffuser is just fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 11:20 AM
Title: Re: Guru Devotion
Content:


SunWuKong said:
I thinks it’s mostly important concept in India and Tibet, you’d have to prove its efficacy in Vajrayana elsewhere, I’m open to it but skeptical.

Malcolm wrote:
There really is no Vajrayāna anywhere but among Himalayan and Mongolian people, apart from Western and Chinese devotees. Shingon is Mantrayāna, not really Vajrayāna. There is no practice of what is known as "unsurpassed yoga tantra" in Shingon. Shingon preceded the transmission of unsurpassed yoga tantra to countries outside of the subcontinent.

SunWuKong said:
And I’m almost sure it’s only in lineages that transmit mahasiddhi transmission, because you don’t need a guru to gain enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure you do. Everyone does. It is axiomatic, even in sūtra.

SunWuKong said:
But some of your Tibetan transmissions are about other things, as I’m sure you know, and without a guru you’d probably be reduced to ashes or something.

Malcolm wrote:
Have you studied Tibetan Buddhism? I am really not sure what these "other things" are. Can you enlighten us as to what these "other things" might be?

SunWuKong said:
It’s not an everyone everywhere issue. In fact I bet there’s a lot of Tibetans that wouldn’t give a crap about it one way or the other

Malcolm wrote:
How is this relavent to the discussion?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
SunWuKong said:
To be precise, your trying to make a broad generalization about all human minds? In Buddhism, it’s thought that there is a commonality that the entire species shares. So if by “mind” you refer to the sentient knowing, understanding that takes place you might call that mind. But it doesn’t define the difference between the knower and the known. To say that matter is really only mind is an unprovable statement. There are empirical tests that can betermine the presence of matter independent of ones mind. In fact science itself is all about empirical proof. So the theory crumbles. And m not sure why this question is important. If it’s to posit some kind of short cut to Nirvana by putting forth that matter is really only mind, the answer is no, it doesn’t work that way.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a question of method —— different conventional truth frameworks have differing applications—none are universally effective, otherwise they would not be methods.

Science is good for blowing shit up. Buddhadharma is good for liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Guru Devotion
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
Again and again we are reminded that Devotion to one's teacher is essential to vajrayana practice.
But what does it mean?
Tibetans histories are filled with examples, of course,
but what if one simply cannot develop what they imagine is required?
What if a teacher never really expresses a demand for it?
Is it an absolute concept? Is it different for different people?
Can one in fact be devoted, but simply not realize it, because, for example, it doesn't seem like anything exceptional?
There are also so many examples in various Indian (Hindu) traditions.
It's a concept that is difficult for many in the west. It sounds "cultish".
Is this a concept that needs to, itself, be a translated concept?
I have my own thoughts about this, but I just wondered...
What do you think?
.
.
.

TharpaChodron said:
My understanding is that "Western culture" has an issue with what it sees as cultish obeisance to gurus because it misunderstands devotion in the guru-disciple relationship.

Malcolm wrote:
In all fairness, the 60's, 70's, and 80's were witness some pretty horrific gurus, and even now there are many pretty horrific gurus. Buddhadharma is also not devoid of scandal, as we know.

Devotion boils down to how many hours a day you spend on Dharma,such as 1 hour? 2?, 3?, 4?, 5?, 6?...? Of course, as Vajrayãna people, we are supposed to practice 24/7/365.  Easy to say...

TharpaChodron said:
One has to realize that the guru's enlightened nature is none other than our own true nature, and is not separate from or above from us.

Malcolm wrote:
All fires are hot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


Sherab said:
Do you interpret that "do not exist" in the nihilistic sense where there is no possibility of a continuum of the meditator or the dharmadhatu (in other words, no possibility of freedom from the two extremes)?

Malcolm wrote:
In (ultimate) reality there is no meditator nor a dharmadhātu. All such distinctions are conventional. I don't negate these things conventionally speaking, but ultimately they cannot be established at all.

With respect to this issue, I follow the position of the Jetsun Sakya Gongma who declare, "there is no reality (gnas lugs med pa)" and always have. In other words, since the four extremes cannot be established for relative phenomena, there is no way the four extremes can exist in the ultimate either. This being so, there is no reality as there isn't anything established which can be free from the four extremes. The ultimate is considered inexpressible not because it is something free from the four extremes, it is inexpressible because nothing can established by way of the four extremes either relatively or ultimately.

As the Samputa Tantra puts it:

Nothing empty, nothing not empty, and nothing to perceive in the middle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
In normal usage, one would expect that when we see the words "ultimate truth", we would take the words as a holder for the entity that the words are pointing to.  For example, when we see the word "apple", we see it as pointing to the entity apple.  If we want to indicate something that deviate from the convention, we would qualify the word used.  For example, we want to refer to an apple of a specific colour, we would use the words "the red apple".

Therefore, when we see the word "ultimate truth", it would be reasonable to expect those words to point to the actual entity of ultimate truth.  If we want to indicate something that deviate from the common understanding, say we want to point to an ultimate truth that is a concept, we would use the words "conceptual ultimate truth".

So when come across the word "ultimate truth" or "the ultimate" in the sutras, it would be reasonable to take those words as pointing to the entity of ultimate truth or the entity of ultimate.  If not, the sutras, will not make any sense.  If the conceptual understanding of the ultimate is being referred to, this should be obvious based on the context.  For example, the Buddha said in the Samdhinirmocana that

"the ultimate is realized individually by the Aryas"
    "the ultimate belongs to the signless realm"
    "the ultimate is inexpressible"
    "the ultimate is devoid of conventions."


Malcolm wrote:
Another citation (and this is as far away from Hua Yen as one can get), because it is useful— Mipham, commenting on Mañjuśrīmitra's Meditation of Bodhicitta states:


Since neither the state of affliction nor of purification [10/a] is established, because awakening (buddhahood) and non-awakening (sentient beinghood) are the same in terms of being equally without characteristics, there is no buddhahood to accept or sentient beinghood to reject.

Also, if the ultimate is not established, where will one see words that state “It is like this?” If there is an analysis in accordance with the meaning of how it is explained, all of those explanations for the so called “nominal ultimate”, “absence of arising and ceasing”, “sameness”, “nonduality”, “beyond thought”, “emptiness”, “the dharmadhātu”, and so on are didactic conventions. In the true definitive meaning, they are neither ultimate nor are they relative. If there is the perception, “The path is like this in accordance with the ultimate (which  is not a convention),” then that is relative, but not ultimate. In reality, where is there a “relative and ultimate” that are inseparable as the two truths?

Mañjuśrīmitra's very next passage states:


Do not abandon or dwell in any Dharma at all, with or without doubt. 
Since the meditator and the dharmadhātu do not exist, there is nothing to doubt and there is nothing to perceive as ultimate.

MIpham expands on this:

Since the Dharma of those with doubt who have not seen the true meaning and those without doubt who have seen it in realty is neither true nor false at all, do not abandon the false nor dwell in the true. If it is asked why, in reality, because the meditator and the dharmadhātu do not exist, who has doubts about something? [10/b] Therefore, there is also nothing to perceive as ultimate in the Dharma that is without doubt because in scripture it is said that it is necessary for one to abandon craving to conducive Dharma and aversion to unconducive Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2018 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: Mind
Content:
Queequeg said:
In East Asia, they relate it to the Amalavijnana which I understand is a development either in China or along the silk road... Not found in traditional yogacara.

Malcolm wrote:
The so-called amalavijñāna is the innovation of the Indian monk, Paramārtha. Sally B. King's Buddhanature discusses this in some detail.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:


heart said:
Rigpa is utterly non-conceptual. If you can rest in rigpa for half a day, you are on the path of seeing. But ordinary Dzogchen practitioners can't rest in rigpa longer than a few moments at a time.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like "this is empty." We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.

WeiHan said:
OK. The difference is probably between analytical or not. While we are at it, maybe we can clarify the dzogchen ati practice. Does an authentic trechok practice requires one to be resting non-conceptually in Rigpa? if If it is so, then all genuine practitioners of Trechok are necessarily at least on or above the path of seeing?

Malcolm wrote:
The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in trekchöd is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:



Matt J said:
The problem with positing a mind-matter duality are many: first, the essence of everything is the same (i.e. emptiness), so there is no foundation upon which to posit a duality.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, not conventionally.


Matt J said:
If everything is empty, then so are boundaries, walls, divisions, and so on.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimately, not conventionally.

Matt J said:
Second, if things were truly separate, they could not interact or have any relationship. If they did, they wouldn't be separate. This is why Samkhya philosophy collapses, and why materialists love to take on Cartesian dualism--- it is logically inconsistent.


Malcolm wrote:
Samkhya has two problems: one, all effects exist in the cause. Permanent knower that is passive. But Samkhya is really more of a phenomenology than an ontology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Read on the Kayas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
love is the wish that sentient beings be happy. Compassion is the wish that they be free from suffering. Aspirational bodhicitta is based on compassion; engaged bodhicitta is carrying out the first four perfections.

weitsicht said:
This is about wish only, it doesn't advise on actions.
so Malcolm, compassion is absent of any guidance as concerns action (speech or body)?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, without wisdom, compassion in general is blind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:


weitsicht said:
Is that contradictory to what Malcolm said?

Are Dzogchen and Mahamudra outside the samaya frame or not?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the person who wrote that has no idea what they are talking about.

No, Dzogchen and Mahāmudra are not outside of the samaya framework at all. It is a misconception which goes back to at least the 12th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


Sherab said:
None of the citations that you provided support your contention as I have mentioned before although you may insist that they do:

Nāgārjuna states:
Without depending on convention, the ultimate cannot be explained;
without realizing the ultimate, nirvana will not be obtained.
"Without depending on convention, the ultimate cannot be explained" does not imply that you can say "the ultimate = the conventional" or "the ultimate truth = the conventional truth".  You depend on the Dharma boat to get to the shore of liberation, but this does not entail that the Dharma boat is the shore of liberation.

Malcolm wrote:
The teaching of ultimate truth is the boat, not the other shore. This is why it a conventional truth.

Sherab said:
Candrakīriti states in the Madhyamakāvatāra:
"Because all entities can be seen correctly and falsely,
entities possess a dual nature;
the correct perception of any object is true;
the false perception is called "realtive."
Also false perception is asserted to be of two kinds,
clear sense organs and faulty sense organs."
There correct perception (1), false but unfaulty perception (2),  and false and faulty perception (3).  It does not follow that (1) = (2) or (2) = (3) or (1) = (3) or (1) = (2) = (3).  In fact, it is patently incorrect to make such equations.  You will have no problem in disagreeing that (2) = (3), yet you seem to have problem in rejecting the others.

Malcolm wrote:
I never stated that 1 = 2. In other words, I never stated that veridical perceptions equalled non-veridical perceptions. I cited that so you would understand what an ultimate truth was since I was not, and am still not certain that you do not have a realist position with regard to suchness. For example, Advaitans deny that brahmin falls into the two extremes, and yet, they are still realists. The same applies to Yogacāra. Your comment about "other shores" leads me to believe you think nirvana is something other than the simple cessation of afflictions that cause rebirth.

I stated that ultimate true has to be a conventional truth in order to be functional for the worldly people. See next point.

Sherab said:
Candrakīrti states in his commentary on the 70: 
Relative truth and ultimate truth are conventions used by the noble ones.
And:
Here, these are true through the power of a worldly, undistorted consciousness, and are defined as ultimate truth through the power of this absence of distortion.
And:
"Uimate truth" is expressed on the basis of worldly convention."
What is the purpose of using conventions?  So that you can convey the meaning.  Just because the worlds "relative truth" and "ultimate truth" are used to convey meaning, does not mean that you can equate the meanings carried by the two sets of words.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, we are conveying meaning with words. This is why Bhavaviveka distinguishes two kinds of ultimate, enumerated or nominal, which is conventional, and an unenumerated ultimate which is not within the range of convention since it cannot be experienced by worldlings, but only by āryas.

A true relative truth is the apprehension of a functional object that is mistaken about the object's nature (self of phenomena). Such a relative truth is called conventional to indicate its functionality. Thus, when we describe emptiness, ultimate truth, this description, while ultimately true, is nevertheless part of conventional truth. When we cognize emptiness as an object below the path of seeing, it is only nominally an ultimate, thus, it is still conventional because it is not a direct perception of emptiness, but only an approximation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
krodha said:
Your position is that phenomena are established an an external environment and that we as sentient beings merely inhabit and encounter this pre-existing environment?

Grigoris said:
Nope.  I believe that we are just as much a part of this environment as other phenomena (we are just a phenomenon anyway, we differ in that we possess sentience too:  form AND mind).

Malcolm wrote:
I think what he is asking you is of you think the universe exists independently of minds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Whatever the case may be, the issue is not addressed at length in the Nikayas/Agamas.

Astus said:
So it is.

Malcolm wrote:
Another thing is that since the issue is not sufficiently addressed at length, people were able to invent these intrinsic characteristics and so on -- no wonder Mahāyānis had doubts about an arhat's awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Vasectomy
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Recently my wife floated the idea of me getting a vasectomy once we've either had our second and last child, or once we've decided we're gonna be one and done. She wasn't insistent, so that's not an issue, and I can't help but sympathize with her position of all other methods of birth control being basically all on her. But my concern is whether a surgery like this would be damaging to practice of Secret Mantra in general, and Dzogchen in particular. What say you, Malcolm, and others? Anyone spoke to their lama about this? I know my wife would take yet another one for the team if I told her it would be harmful to my practice. But would it?

Sonam Wangchug said:
Not only is the advice that it's fine to get Vasectomy grossly inaccurate, it's also incredibly harmful.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? You should present a reason, not merely an assertion. I will be interested to see your reasoning. I expect citations, not merely the opinions of this or that lama.

Sonam Wangchug said:
I was present once when one of the Nyingma lineage heads was talking about various karma's of sexual actions according to the view of the Mantrayana, when it came to the topic of Vasectomy, He said "You don't even want to think about the karma of a Vasectomy" He said that across the board, not only for individuals who are into the yogas.

Malcolm wrote:
How can receiving a vasectomy be a negative karma? This is like claiming the use of birth control is negative karma. Such a position does not make any sense at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
it is not extensively mentioned in these texts.

Astus said:
And the reason for that is that dharmas are not taught to have/be svabhava in them either, furthermore, even the concept of dharma as a fundamental element is missing. And according to Bhikkhu Bodhi (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p 3): "Even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself the dhamma theory is not yet expressed as an explicit philosophical tenet; this comes only later, in the Commentaries."

Malcolm wrote:
I think you mean that the Mahāyāna taught extensively on absence of self in phenomena as a remedy to Sarvastivadin, etc., assertions of svalakṣana and svabhāva, assertions absent in so-called Early Buddhism. Whatever the case may be, the issue is not addressed at length in the Nikayas/Agamas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:



WeiHan said:
I don't think other schools use the clear light mind attained through HYT to meditate on conceptual emptiness previously arrived at analytically. I only find this approach in Gelug's teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
Sakyas and Nyingmapas do not use the terminology, no.

WeiHan said:
Terminology aside, I do not see Sakya, Nyingma or Kagyu uses accomplishment state in completion stage to meditate on a conceptual emptiness derived through Madhyamika reasoning. Only Gelug.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think I agree. For example, when one, a beginner, dissolves appearances into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? When at the end of a sadhana one dissolves the deity into emptiness, is that emptiness conceptual or nonconceptual? If one is below the path of seeing, it is conceptual by necessity. The difference is that emptiness is based on the example wisdom of the empowerment rather than analysis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All Tibetan schools holds that a correct, inferential understanding of emptiness is necessary. Where they disagree is mostly on pedagogy. For example, the Gelugpas claim that even if one is practicing Vajrayāna, one must nevertheless still engage in analytical meditation based on identifying the proper object of negation according to Madhyamaka reasons.

Sakya, on the other hand, maintains that the example wisdom demonstrated during empowerment corresponds with a proper inferential understanding of emptiness, and it is on the basis of this one practices.

WeiHan said:
I don't think other schools use the clear light mind attained through HYT to meditate on conceptual emptiness previously arrived at analytically. I only find this approach in Gelug's teaching.

Malcolm wrote:
Sakyas and Nyingmapas do not use the terminology, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All Tibetan schools holds that a correct, inferential understanding of emptiness is necessary. Where they disagree is mostly on pedagogy. For example, the Gelugpas claim that even if one is practicing Vajrayāna, one must nevertheless still engage in analytical meditation based on identifying the proper object of negation according to Madhyamaka reasons.

Sakya, on the other hand, maintains that the example wisdom demonstrated during empowerment corresponds with a proper inferential understanding of emptiness, and it is on the basis of this one practices.

Jeff H said:
Yes, I agree there's a difference in pedagogical approaches, but with the same ultimate outcome. I don't think you are disagreeing with that, right? When Josef says, https://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=40&t=27883&p=438421#pr438417, if he means sufficient to result in direct realization of emptiness or enlightenment, that's what I'm objecting to. I don't think Gelugpas claim that. And I'm quite certain they don't believe Buddhas have dualistic minds.

Malcolm wrote:
According the Gelug school, Buddhas can think thoughts, recognize objects, and so on. It is the position of the Sakya school that Buddhas are utterly free from thought at all times.

What the Sakyapas object to most about Gelug view is the statement that clinging to an intellectual representation of emptiness is acceptable and even necessary. Thus, there is some disagreement about what it means when Nāgārjuna says, "Without relying on the conventional, the ultimate will not be understood."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All Tibetan schools holds that a correct, inferential understanding of emptiness is necessary. Where they disagree is mostly on pedagogy. For example, the Gelugpas claim that even if one is practicing Vajrayāna, one must nevertheless still engage in analytical meditation based on identifying the proper object of negation according to Madhyamaka reasons.

Sakya, on the other hand, maintains that the example wisdom demonstrated during empowerment corresponds with a proper inferential understanding of emptiness, and it is on the basis of this one practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, March 4th, 2018 at 1:20 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This the selflessness of the person, not of phenomena.

Astus said:
The selflessness of person is that there is no person, only the aggregates, while the selflessness of phenomena is that the aggregates themselves are without essence. The sutra talks about how phenomena themselves are dependent and without any will of their own, so it matches what the Lankavatara Sutra (2.24, tr Red Pine) says: "And what does it mean to know that dharmas have no self? It means to be aware that the self-existence of the skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas is imaginary, that the skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas are devoid of a self or anything that belongs to a self, that the skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas are assemblages tied to desire and karma and that they arise from the interplay of conditions but are themselves passive, and that all dharmas are like this."

Malcolm wrote:
The main point, Astus, is that even though the selflessness of phenomena may be briefly mentioned in Agama and Nikaya texts, it is not extensively mentioned in these texts. On this point, Candrakīrti cites Nāgārjuna's Lokātītastava:

You have said there is no liberation without realizing the signless, 
therefore, you have taught this completely in the Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


Sherab said:
As to your argument quoted above, are you saying that:
(1) It is not possible to gain insights from meditation when the meditator merely follows the meditation instructions from his teacher?

Malcolm wrote:
That depends on the instruction -- for example, there is no reason to assume anyone will give rise to vipaśyāna solely on the basis of śamatha instructions.

Sherab said:
(2) The so-called village meditators in Tibet were purportedly illiterate ordinary folks were not really illiterate ordinary folks and the stories have not even the tiniest element of truth?

Malcolm wrote:
Even the greatest scholar is ordinary if they have not realized the path of seeing. If those stories contain instructions which present the enumerated ultimate, it is possible that such illiterate folks will awaken if they meditate accordingly.

Sherab said:
(3) Those who do not comprehend tantric sadhanas should not have any expectation of realization when they are given the sadhanas as a practice commitment?  If so, why did the guru bother to give the commitment in the first place?

Malcolm wrote:
Insights gained from tantric practice are based in the example wisdom introduced at the time of the third and fourth empowerment, but this example wisdom is conceptual; not nonconceptual— hence the term "word empowerment."

Sherab said:
(4) Faith by itself can never be a valid path even if that faith is placed on an enlightened being?

Malcolm wrote:
Faith is part of the merit accumulation, so, it is an indirect cause.

Sherab said:
(5) If all beings have Buddha nature, that nature cannot be accessed in any other way except through intellectual comprehension?  (I am assuming here that by comprehension as regards to mundane people, you are referring to intellectual comprehension and no other form of comprehension.  If you are indeed referring to other form of comprehension, then you should have made it clear from the start.)

Malcolm wrote:
Tathāgatagarbha cannot be seen by any one other than buddhas. It is clearly taught it is something we are to have faith in. It is not something we can directly perceive.


Sherab said:
As to the root of our argument, this is how I see it:
(1) When you say that the ultimate truth is a conventional truth, while you are using conventions in your argument, your argument as I see it, is a statement of ontology.  Your statement points to the what ultimate truth actually is.  Your statement says that ontology of ultimate truth is the ontology of relative truth.  If so, your statement should be amended to "the nature of the ultimate truth is the nature of the relative truth".  Here veridical cognition is required to ascertain both the nature of the ultimate truth and the nature of relative/conventional truth.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not making an ontological statement, and neither is Nāgārjuna, it is rather a statement of pedagogy.

Sherab said:
(2) If by ultimate truth, you are referring to the enumerated ultimate truth (the intellectual understanding of ultimate truth or ultimate truth as a concept.  Here non-veridical cognition is all that is required.), then yes, the statement that the ultimate truth is a conventional truth can apply.

Malcolm wrote:
I have provided adequate citations that indicate that the only ultimate truth which can be referred to is the enumerated ultimate. The non-enumerated ultimate cannot be put into words.

Sherab said:
The questions I have for you then are:
(1) When you make your statement that "the ultimate truth is conventional truth", were you referring to the actual inexpressible ultimate truth or were you referring to the enumerated ultimate truth?

Malcolm wrote:
Since I was using words, I was referring the enumerated ultimate. Of course, even the non-enumerated ultimate is merely the direct perception of the emptiness of a given conventional thing.

Sherab said:
(2) If you were referring to the enumerated ultimate truth, are you saying that that is the conventional use of the term ultimate truth?  That when the label ultimate truth is used, it should always be treated as enumerated ultimate truth unless otherwise stated?  If so, any reader should be able to go to any sutras and commentaries and substitute every instance of the label "ultimate truth" with "enumerated ultimate truth" and the sutra or commentary will still make sense?

Malcolm wrote:
Anytime you see the ultimate truth expressed in words, it needs to be understood as an example ultimate.

The term "ultimate truth" simply represents a limit of analysis, btw. This is why the ultimate truths of śrāvakas are overthrown by Madhyamaka. Madhyamaka is the only school also which uses no affirming negations but only non-affirming negations.

The main thrust of my point however is that without intellectual comprehension of the example ultimate, the actual ultimate truth cannot be realized. Thus, we have to accept the conventional ultimate as necessary since it is functional in the production of the result, nirvana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Matt J said:
In fact, the idea of some sort of enduring matter may be another form of selfing.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea of some enduring anything is a a self-view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One can infer the selflessness of phenomena from teachings in the Agamas, but it is not directly taught there.

Astus said:
Nor is it taught that they are self-existent, hence nothing to oppose the emptiness of appearances to. And as far as the aggregates and sense-areas go, they are taught to be without self many times.

Malcolm wrote:
This the selflessness of the person, not of phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 9:07 PM
Title: Re: Is Mind Fundamental?
Content:
Simon E. said:
Cough.

Define 'mind'.

Malcolm wrote:
Clear and knowing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Great Discourse on the Emptiness of Dharmas and it analogue do not really discuss the emptiness of phenomena, it refers to the emptiness of persons.

Astus said:
It might not be the best example, but that's how it is interpreted in the MPPS. And there is a reason to say that it confirms the emptiness of appearances, because it talks of how there is no self in dependent origination, in other words, appearances are empty.

Malcolm wrote:
One can infer the selflessness of phenomena from teachings in the Agamas, but it is not directly taught there.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Question on right livelihood
Content:
ydnan321 said:
Would that type of work generate any negative karma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, any weapons business is wrong livelihood.

ydnan321 said:
Could you please elaborate more this? Personally, one could argue that since it is built for protection it is at times necessary. It could be used to prevent thousands of people from getting killed by a ballistic missile that carries a nuclear head, for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Weapons themselves breed violence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Question on right livelihood
Content:
ydnan321 said:
Would that type of work generate any negative karma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, any weapons business is wrong livelihood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the field of sentient beings is called the sattvadhātu and the field of emptiness is called the dharmatā-dhātu ( dharmadhātu for short).

Coëmgenu said:
Why is the sattvadhātu then not the sattvatādhātu?
The only attestation I can find of the internet for the usage of the term dharmatādhātu is in your own translation of Treasury of Ati. I am not doubting the term, but I am wondering its source.

There is https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=25259#p383673 on DharmaWheel that I found that addresses this. The Tibetan chos nyid dbyings is specifically dharmatādhātu not dharmadhātu, correct?

Could the poor attestation of dharmatādhātu on the internet be because of the availability of Sanskrit texts available romanized? Are the texts that contain usage of dharmatādhātu only extant in Tibetan? Do you know if any of these texts would also be in Chinese? I am wondering how they translated the term.

Malcolm wrote:
The term itself is mainly confined to the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, but you can see many sūtras where the term dharmatā is systematically related to dharmadhātu. For example, the Bodhisattvapitika sutra among others makes the following statement:

That dharmatā should be understood to be a place, therefore, the dharmadhātu is called "a place."

Or, The Sarvabuddha-viṣayāvatāra-jñānālokālaṃkāra-sūtra states:

Whether the tathāgatas arise or not, dharmatā, dharmasthitikatā, and this dharmadhātu are only places.

The equivalence of this trio is repeated over and over again in the order, dharmatā, dharmadhātu and dharmasthitikatā.

There are further uses in Tantric literature but I generally exclude those here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the field of sentient beings is called the sattvadhātu and the field of emptiness is called the dharmatā-dhātu ( dharmadhātu for short).

Coëmgenu said:
Why is the sattvadhātu then not the sattvatādhātu?

Malcolm wrote:
It is collecting sentient beings, not the nature of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:



WeiHan said:
The nuance in argument is so subtle that I can't stop wondering if the point of dispute is simply semantic.

Did the traditional interpretation before Tzong Khapa negates relative truth i.e. the cup? Or Tzong Khapa's point is that the traditional interpretation self contradicts by maintaining that there is a relative yet it does not exist?

Thankyou Malcohm for your clear synopsis.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but the four-fold negation can make it seem like conventional appearances are being negated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:



conebeckham said:
Fair enough! So, "Bumpa" should henceforth be "Pitcher?"  Works for me.

Malcolm wrote:
Not suggesting we change things at this point, but in reality...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Gur
Content:
conebeckham said:
Vase Empowerment

Malcolm wrote:
It really should be called the "PItcher empowerment."

This is not a vase:



This is a vase:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
tā makes it a nature. dhātu makes it a field.

Coëmgenu said:
If you will forgive me a point-counter-point: dhātu makes it a nature, kṣetra makes it a field, if we have "Buddha" instead of "Dharma" in front of it.

Buddhadhātu is generally translated as "Buddha-nature", even though a better translation might be "Buddha-constituent" or "Buddha-element", even "Buddha-characteristic", yes? No?

Malcolm wrote:
The Tibetans translate the term dhātu as either khams (element) or dbying (a nature or a source) depending on whether it is Mahāyāna or not. Tibetan masters expert in Sanskrit such as Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen gloss it as source ( ākara, 'byung gnas ), and so does Longchenpa in its Mahāyāna context.

The term dhātu itself is a term that denotes a collection. A field of poppies could be called a poppy-dhātu; just as the field of sentient beings is called the sattvadhātu and the field of emptiness is called the dharmatā-dhātu ( dharmadhātu for short).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Grigoris said:
It seems like a fine distinction based on the fact that there was no conception of an atman in phenomena so the Buddha's teaching on anatman was not enough to cover the emptiness of phenomena too.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is the observation made about Nikaya/Agama sūtras.

Astus said:
The view that sravakas do not know the emptiness of phenomena is more a Yogacara interpretation than a universal one. After a number of quotes - e.g. https://suttacentral.net/en/sa297 ( https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.035.than.html ) - from the Agamas the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81praj%C3%B1%C4%81p%C4%81ramit%C4%81upade%C5%9Ba states:

"In place after place within the sutras of the Śrāvakas are discussions such as these which explain the emptiness of all dharmas."
( http://kalavinka.org/Jewels/book_excerpts/N6P_excerpts/N6P_X-Bk4_X-15.pdf, http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T25n1509_018#0193c01 )

Malcolm wrote:
The Great Discourse on the Emptiness of Dharmas and it analogue do not really discuss the emptiness of phenomena, it refers to the emptiness of persons.

For example, this passage actually refers to the selflessness of persons:
What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this: Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises. That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this whole mass of suffering.

“Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises, someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does aging-and-death belong?

“And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Looking for Dzogchen Semde material
Content:
Dharmasagara said:
A question to all in the know:

In my quest for getting some idea about the system(s) of Dzogchen presentation I am finding out that knowledge on mind class (semde, sems lde) is quite hard to come by. All the world talks about the instruction class - threkchö and thögal - but the mind class is seems forgotten. Due to some remarks here and there I even suspect that in the Nyingmapa tradition as a whole there is not so much left in active practice.
To make it short: If there is some good presentations of the mind class path out there could you please give me some hint where to look for?

Thanks so much in advance!
Sagara

Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has extensive materials on sems sde in his SMS program.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 10:53 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
Here is another way to look at the ultimate truth - conventional truth conundrum that I have pointed out:

If ultimate truth is conventional truth, then since conventional truth is deceptive, the ultimate truth must also be deceptive.  If the ultimate truth is not deceptive, then the conventional must also be not deceptive.  If the ultimate truth is both deceptive and not deceptive, then the ultimate truth is an incoherent truth.  If the ultimate truth is neither deceptive or not deceptive, then the ultimate truth is indeterminate.



Malcolm wrote:
If the ultimate truth is not a conventional truth, the former could not be comprehended by mundane people, and therefore, there can be no buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Response to Bernie
Content:


Sherab said:
It is really puzzling for me how someone like you who clearly understands that in terms of strength of an argument, the least is one that relies on authority, followed by one the relies on logical and valid reasoning, with the strongest being one that relies on direct perception.

Malcolm wrote:
I think you not really understand well the content of the authorities in our discussions, preferring instead to rely on your own musings— this is why with you, I insist on bringing up the texts, because you never reason based on citations. As Āryadeva notes in the 400, since we share the same school, citations are appropriate. If we did not, I would not use citations at all.

Now, from what I can see, you seem to think that an ultimate truth is something other than a cognition of an object. Thus we have a basic disagreement over terminology.

1) An enumerated ultimate truth can only be a conventional truth, and this is something that all Madhyamaka masters accept. The so-called non-enumerated ultimate truth cannot be explained in words at all since it is the ārya's direct perception of emptiness.

2) When an ordinary, worldly person engages in analysis to ascertain emptiness, that enumerated ultimate truth, their perception of an inferential emptiness, is simply a convention which means, "I have reached the limit of my ability to analyze this object, and all I can come up with is that it is empty of inherent existence." That perception of emptiness, while designated an ultimate truth, is confined to conventional truth because it is the inferential perception of a mundane person. Thus, even this ultimate truth is non-veridical since it is an inference and not a direct perception. How are inferences non-veridical? for example, it is like mistaking mist for smoke and inferring there is a fire, or perceiving a mirage and inferring there is water. Even the common direct perceptions (mist, mirage) of the worldly are no insurance that their cognitions are veridical.

3) When an ārya explains their yogic direct perception of emptiness to worldlings, this ultimate truth is still a conventional truth i) because it is expressed in words and ii) because the perception of worldlings is by definition non-veridical. Why do we call this ultimate truth a conventional truth? Because it is functional in assisting the direct perception of emptiness. Āryas use either consequences or syllogisms to induce conceptual understanding of emptiness — but that is still an enumerated ultimate truth and thus, by definition, is a part of conventional truth. But as already stated, it is not part of false relative truth because conventional truths are functional. When we see a car, we can drive it. When we study the path, we can traverse it

If the enumerated ultimate truth is not a conventional truth, there is no way ordinary people can realize the non-enumerated ultimate truth, in other words, there is no way they can move from an inferential perception of emptiness on the path of application to the direct perception of emptiness on the path of seeing because ordinary people's cognitions are always deluded with respect to the true existence of things— even after they have analyzed phenomena and found them to be conventionally empty. That conventional emptiness is an ultimate truth, but as it does not have the power to still proliferation on its own, hence, it is also part of conventional truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:



Coëmgenu said:
Yes. This is what I said. I made a joke about "its" ātman having been emptied by "someone".

Malcolm wrote:
I wish there was an emoticon which clearly indicated that one was humorless.

Perhaps

Coëmgenu said:
I'm more curious about the division between dharmadhātu & dharmatā you have drawn up than if you find me funny, IMO I am very funny.

Nothing about dharmatā, in the word itself, signals it out as referring exclusively to the emptiness of any "particular" dharmāḥ instead of just "dharmāḥ in general", à la dharmadhātu. From where does this distinction come?

Dharmatā & dharmadhātu are completely identical, functionally, afaik, in their translated Chinese correspondences (i.e. they are synonyms in Chinese, more or less), but Chinese does all sorts of "interesting" things to Indic grammar & semantics.

Malcolm wrote:
tā makes it a nature. dhātu makes it a field. In this usage, dharmatā means emptiness. Of course, the term has many different uses, for example, it indicates the predicate of an argument in Logic, whereas dharmin represents the subject.

You should consult the Dharmadharmatāvibhanga by Maitreyanātha for a Yogacāra take on this, based on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, which itself has a whole section on the distinction between dharmas and their dharmatā, and how they can neither be the same nor different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Its called dharmadhātu...

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. The dharmadhātu, in Mahāyāna terms, is the emptiness of all phenomena.

Coëmgenu said:
Yes. This is what I said. I made a joke about "its" ātman having been emptied by "someone".

Malcolm wrote:
I wish there was an emoticon which clearly indicated that one was humorless.

Perhaps


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Toenail said:
If I ask a Lama to give me the Lung for this book, how much time would he need for it?

Malcolm wrote:
About three hours.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Grigoris said:
atman in phenomena

Coëmgenu said:
Its called dharmadhātu...

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. The dharmadhātu, in Mahāyāna terms, is the emptiness of all phenomena. Dharmatā is the emptiness of a specific entity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 3:34 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Grigoris said:
So it is talking about the emptiness of characteristics when referring to phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
Another way of understanding it is that proliferation occurs because of not seeing the selflessness of phenomena. Bhavaviveka writes in his MMK commentary:

Whatever concepts cause karma and afflictions, since those arise from proliferation, those are called "from proliferation," that is, they arises from the proliferation of the characteristic of strong attachment to conventional truth.

If it is what can stop that proliferation, proliferation, as it is said,  "is stopped by emptiness."... it is stopped by realizing the characteristic of the selflessness of phenomena."

He says more but I don't have time to translate it for you.

Grigoris said:
Thanks for the effort.

It seems like a fine distinction based on the fact that there was no conception of an atman in phenomena so the Buddha's teaching on anatman was not enough to cover the emptiness of phenomena too.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is the observation made about Nikaya/Agama sūtras.


Grigoris said:
Seems to me that the emptiness of persons is covered by the emptiness of characteristics of phenomena, like it is a subset of this conception of emptiness.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, I think this difference is that a person never arose; there is no such thing as an atman, which is why Jñānaśribhadra compared an atman with something permanent that does not arise, hence it does not exist at all, like the son of a barren women, etc. The selflessness of phenomena on the other hand is the recognition of that karma and affliction arise from proliferation due to clinging to conventional truth, i.e. clinging to functional phenomena. The first, the absence of self in persons is coarse; realizing it eliminates the afflictive obscuration; the second, the absence of self in phenomena is more subtle, and when realized, eliminates the knowledge obscuration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
bfaus said:
Will there be an online broadcast of this event?  I would be interested if that were possible and would still be happy to pay the donation fee.  Thank you!

Malcolm wrote:
I cannot promise anything, but if you attended the online lung, then I think I can make the recordings available.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Mr. G said:
I don't use facebook.  Is there an alternative way to register and pay?

Malcolm wrote:
You are registered. Make your donation at the door.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Grigoris said:
So it is talking about the emptiness of characteristics when referring to phenomena?

Malcolm wrote:
Another way of understanding it is that proliferation occurs because of not seeing the selflessness of phenomena. Bhavaviveka writes in his MMK commentary:

Whatever concepts cause karma and afflictions, since those arise from proliferation, those are called "from proliferation," that is, they arises from the proliferation of the characteristic of strong attachment to conventional truth.

If it is what can stop that proliferation, proliferation, as it is said,  "is stopped by emptiness."... it is stopped by realizing the characteristic of the selflessness of phenomena."

He says more but I don't have time to translate it for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2018 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The two selflessnesses are the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena.

Coëmgenu said:
If I may, how does the literature in question differentiate between these two selflessnesses?

Grigoris said:
My guess is that the selflessness of persons refers to the lack of an essential self in the five skandha whereas the selflessness of phenomena has to do with their dependently arisen nature, but naught to do with the skandha.  One could argue that the selflessness of persons is also included in the selflessness of phenomena.

Oh, but you asked for an example from literature, so you must excuse my interjection.

Malcolm wrote:
Citing the commentary on this sūtra by Jñānaśribhadra:

"All of that which exists is momentary, like the sound of a finger snap or a waterfall. There is no self in persons since the permanent does not arise, it cannot be held to exist, that is, like the son of a barren women and so on. The absence of self in phenomena is the qualities of form and so on such as thick and thin that are analytically destroyed with discerning wisdom (prajñā) and become empty like a house, a village, a forest, and so on."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Can you practice Tibetan Buddhism without ever had a Guru?
Content:
drdoorma said:
What is the goal of your practice? Enlightenment? If so, anyone who says "you must have a teacher" must first show how their own teacher was indispensable in their attainment of enlightenment. If they cannot, their answer is only a suggestion. At best, they can explain how their guru devotion has not led them to enlightenment, but explain the benefits of where it has led them instead.

Malcolm wrote:
The necessity of having a guru is even spoken of in Sūtra, for example, in the 84th chapter of the Perfection of Wisdom in 18,000 lines it is said:

129. A bodhisattva residing on the stage of a beginner
altruistically enters [the path of] the supreme awakening of the Buddha.
Those excellent students devoted to the guru
should always rely upon virtuous mentors. 

130. If it is asked why, the qualities of learning arise from them
because they teach the perfection of wisdom.
The victor who possesses the supreme of all qualities has said,
“Rely on the virtuous mentor for the buddhadharmas.”

Thus, the Buddha has said a teacher is indispensable for awakening.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Buddhahood in This Life
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhahood in This Life Seminar, Santa Fe, May 4-6


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: What are the General Mahayana Teachings?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Lankāvatāra summarizes this succinctly:

All Mahāyāna is included in
five dharmas, a nature, 
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses.

The five dharmas are name, sign, concept, correct knowledge, and suchness. Those are divided into the three natures: name is the imputed nature; sign and concept are the dependent nature; correct knowledge and suchness are the perfected nature.

The nature is the dharmadhātu.

The eight consciousnesses are the six sense consciousnesses, the afflicted consciousness, and the all-basis consciousness.

The two selflessnesses are the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
climb-up said:
If I want to start including the Sang offerings regularly in the mornings, is it okay to add it to the short Thun after the dolpa?
If so, where would it go in the medium Thun?

Lastly, is Frankincense or Sandalwood acceptable as Sang until I get some official Tibetan incense?

Thank You!

Malcolm wrote:
Sage Smudge is better if you are in the US.

climb-up said:
hmm, but the others are temporarily acceptable?
I can get some sage, but I'm a little worried about absolutely filling the house (no windows or ventilation in my converted-closet-meditation-room).

Malcolm wrote:
Sang generally is done outside.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
It's kind of amusing that a thread which began with a reference to the idea that all phenomena are expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind has proven to be so contentious.

coffeebeans said:
Difficult to blame anything other than our own Western culture for that.

Malcolm wrote:
Have you studied Buddhist polemics?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 9:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
climb-up said:
If I want to start including the Sang offerings regularly in the mornings, is it okay to add it to the short Thun after the dolpa?
If so, where would it go in the medium Thun?

Lastly, is Frankincense or Sandalwood acceptable as Sang until I get some official Tibetan incense?

Thank You!

Malcolm wrote:
Sage Smudge is better if you are in the US.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Response to Bernie
Content:


Sherab said:
Refute the above argument if you can.  If not, do not make wild allegations of misrepresentation of your position as it only serves to diminish your status.

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna states:

Without depending on convention, the ultimate cannot be explained;
without realizing the ultimate, nirvana will not be obtained.

Candrakīriti states in the Madhyamakāvatāra:

"Because all entities can be seen correctly and falsely,
entities possess a dual nature;
the correct perception of any object is true;
the false perception is called "realtive."
Also false perception is asserted to be of two kinds,
clear sense organs and faulty sense organs."

The point here is that one must have an entity in question in order to have a correct or incorrect perception. And those entities are themselves established on the basis of worldly convention which we are not supposed to contravene. The two truths are also conventions, as Candrakīrti states in his commentary on the 70:

Relative truth and ultimate truth are conventions used by the noble ones.

And:

Here, these are true through the power of a worldly, undistorted consciousness, and are defined as ultimate truth through the power of this absence of distortion.

And:

"Uimate truth" is expressed on the basis of worldly convention."

The reason we can say that ultimate truth is conventional is that is it is functional. If ultimate truth was not functional, its perception could not lead to liberation.

I suspect that you are conflating "truths," which are subjective perceptions, with emptiness. All objects have an ultimate nature, emptiness, which is a truth for those who can see it and is conventionally expressed as such. Also emptiness can be an object of distorted consciousness, which is why there are warnings about not apprehending it incorrectly.

Moreover, Candra says:

Any fabricated entity which appears as true
is that which the Muni called relative truth."

In other words, the perception that entities that arise from cause and conditions are true is what we call relative truth. The perception that they are not true because they are empty is what we call ultimate truth.

Below the path of seeing that ultimate truth can only be a conventional truth because that perception is merely an approximation of the actual lack of inherent existence or absence of the four extremes for a given thing. Such a mundane perception of the ultimate truth of emptiness may be tinged with delusion because it is relative, but since it is functional in bringing about realization, it is conventional.

Finally, the two truths are in union because they exist as aspects of any given entity. There is no ultimate truth beyond entities that are known to the world.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Response to Bernie
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
Presumably many contemporary lamas, e.g. DJKR, are vajra siblings with Sogyal and this might explain their reluctance to publically criticize him.

Malcolm wrote:
Criticizing vajra siblings out of anger, not ok. But if there is a constructive beneficial purpose, it is ok.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, even nonconceptual minds are conditioned and relative.

Grigoris said:
I disagree.  I believe that one can have glimpses of the unconditioned but then reverts to conditioned means to express this experience (language), or relies on conditioned means to recall it (memory).  Doesn't mean that the experience, or what was experienced, was conditioned.

Malcolm wrote:
All experiences are conditioned. A mind by definition cannot have an unconditioned perception since perception requires an object, a subject, and the act of perceiving.

Grigoris said:
I believe that the notion, or characterisation, of Nirvana is conditioned, but Nirvana itself...  If Nirvana is conditioned, then it means it is temporary.  But we have had this discussion before, only we were on opposite sides of the discussion last time.

Malcolm wrote:
Nirvana is the cessation of afflictions due to the realization of the absence of the true existence of a self in persons and phenomena. That's it. Nirvana isn't conditioned, but it is a convention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: death
Content:


Jesse said:
Honestly I feel that the worst part of dying absolutely will be the anxiety and fear. If we can manage to tame those in our lifetimes death will not be that bad at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. Having been declared dead on arrival once, I understand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, March 1st, 2018 at 12:13 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
justsit said:
Dick’s, Major Gun Retailer, Will Stop Selling Assault-Style Rifles
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dicks-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

A step in the right direction, as a direct result of Parkland:
"...immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in its stores.
The retailer also said that it would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that it would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws...."

“When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” Mr. Stack said in an interview Tuesday evening. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘enough is enough.’ It got to us.”

He added, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.”


Malcolm wrote:
And he also said today on CNN one is his motivating factors was the fact that Cruz bought a shotgun from them, even though it was not used in the shooting. The mere fact that he was one of their customers motivated him to cease selling to those under 21 and all assault/tactical rifles.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Grigoris said:
When reduced to functional phenomena via conceptualisation.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no other kinds of functional phenomena.

Grigoris said:
I am not really disagreeing except to say that one's experience, if non-conceptual, is not relative/conventional until one starts to conceptualise it.  Post-meditation, for example.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it is, even nonconceptual minds are conditioned and relative. There isn't anything other than conventional phenomena, even space and nirvana are conventional. Space is how we designated nonobsruction; cessation is how we designated the absence of cause for a series to continue. Emptiness is how we conventionally designate absence of inherent existence, but none of these exist from their own side.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


Sherab said:
I deny that.  I used your own words to demonstrate the incoherence/internal contradiction of your own words.  Perhaps, you misrepresented yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you didn’t. You don’t seem to comprehend what truths are.

Sherab said:
Whatever.  It is clear to me that you simply can accept the fact that your own statements are contradictory.  You can declare yourself victorious for all I care.

Malcolm wrote:
And you seem unable to accept the fact that you are a realist who accepts the ultimate is an inherent existent.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 at 9:12 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... you have misrepresented everything I said ....

Sherab said:
I deny that.  I used your own words to demonstrate the incoherence/internal contradiction of your own words.  Perhaps, you misrepresented yourself.

Malcolm wrote:
No, you didn’t. You don’t seem to comprehend what truths are.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
You said

You also said previously that "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth".

So according to your own words, "even ultimate truth (the veridical perception of a given entity) is merely a conventional /relative truth (a non-veridical perception of a given entity."

Or to put it more starkly, you have effectively said  "even the veridical perception of a given entity is a non-veridical perception of a given entity."

Malcolm wrote:
All functional phenomena are conventional.

Sherab said:
Your reply is a non-reply since that which is veridical (ultimate) and that which is non-veridical (conventional) are both functional (in the context of this discussion).  But your position effectively implies that what is veridical is non-veridical, which is incoherent.


Malcolm wrote:
Your rebuttal missed the barn by miles since you have misrepresented everything I said. More later.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
All functional phenomena are conventional.

Grigoris said:
When reduced to functional phenomena via conceptualisation.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no other kinds of functional phenomena.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 28th, 2018 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Sherab said:
You said
Malcolm wrote:
An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity.

Sherab said:
You also said previously that "even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth".

So according to your own words, "even ultimate truth (the veridical perception of a given entity) is merely a conventional /relative truth (a non-veridical perception of a given entity."

Or to put it more starkly, you have effectively said  "even the veridical perception of a given entity is a non-veridical perception of a given entity."

Malcolm wrote:
All functional phenomena are conventional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 10:09 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"One Mind" is an English mistranslation of 一心 (cittamatra), i.e., mind-only.

You can clearly see this if you examine the Sanskrit and the Chinese side by side.

https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index... xt&vid=441

Dharma Flower said:
Whether it's termed the One Mind, the Universal Mind, or the Big Mind, it's been a concept in Ch'an/Zen for over a thousand years, regardless of its scriptural basis or lack thereof:

Malcolm wrote:
If you imagine there is really some transpersonal overmind, you are far outside the Buddha's teachings.


Dharma Flower said:
The One Mind is also a concept in Tibetan Buddhism:
Ālayavijñāna (Skt., Tib. kun gzhi rnam par shes pa) - the unified field of consciousness in the Universe. This universal mind is each individual's higher consciousness. Each living being is an individual "spark" of this one vast whole, in which we breathe and move and have our being. This whole universal consciousness is the living Cosmos itself, constantly evolving through the totality of all experience, and growing ever more "aware" over billions of years. Like a great ocean, the lives of all beings, planetary worlds and star-systems leave their impressions, or imprints, within the whole, which become stored, as it were, in the total body of Universal Mind. Ultimately this is the meaning of life, for we are all contributing our lives to the conscious whole, and the conscious whole is a growing entity moving towards eventual self-reflexive awakening. This is an uniquely mystical doctrine perceived through direct insight by the Masters of the Yogācāra tradition.
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/essays/buddhist-glossary.htm

Malcolm wrote:
This definition is very mistaken. Whoever wrote this is completely ignorant of Yogacāra. No educated Tibetan scholar of any school would accept this definition.

The ālayavijñāna is personal, not transpersonal. The ālayavijñāna is a description of consciousness which possesses traces. When traces of afflictions are removed, the ālayavijñāna ceases.

Please read the Mahāyāna Samgraha by Asanga for an authentic presentation of this concept.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth is the perception of the emptiness of dependently origination phenomena …

Sherab said:
You mentioned earlier that even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth.  This would mean that the ultimate is a convention just like the relative.  As the ultimate truth is also a conventional truth, and since you said that the ultimate truth is the perception of emptiness of dependently originated phenomena, that very perception is not a perception of emptiness etc. but is merely labeled as a perception and is every bit as illusory as any perceived relative phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not follow since truths in the specific usage of Buddhist texts are cognitions of objects. An ultimate truth is the veridical perception of a given entity, a relative truth is the non-veridical perception of a given entity.

Sherab said:
So even perception of emptiness cannot be trusted as a true perception.  In fact, nothing can be trusted as true whether relatively or ultimately once the statement that the ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth is accepted.  This is the circularity that I was alluding to.

Malcolm wrote:
This consequence does not apply.


In response to my argument that time becomes central to dependent origination when it is taken as causal chain, you replied It isn't. Dependent origination operates in three modes simultaneously: serially, momentarily, and
simultaneously.
But serially, momentarily and simulatneously all carry the idea of time.  So it is incorrect to say that they are not dependent on time.
Pretty clearly, you seem not to understand that in Buddhadharma, time is considered dependent on objects. Time is also something conditioned and relative.


Dependent origination taught by the Buddha is simply, "When this arises, that arises; with the arising of that, this arose."
The teaching looks simple, but it is that simplicity that gave it a generality that enables dependent origination to encompass various forms, from serially, momentarily, simultaneously and even atemporally.  In other words, while dependent origination is often understood as a temporal chain, it does not rule out the possibility that it can also be understood as atemporal chain.
Simultaneous dependent origination is atemporal, all links functioning at once and together. However, dependent origination is also merely a convention we use to describe causal appearances.

Now, this mini-doversion is off-topic for the thread.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 12:19 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Moreover, even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth....

Sherab said:
This to me looks like an over negation.  It creates a circularity and/or contradiction to dependent origination that invalidate all modes of existences.  In other words, if ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth, none of us can even be here debating about it.

Malcolm wrote:
This argument does not make any sense. It also contradicts Nagārjuna, "Without relying on convention, the ultimate will not be understood."

Sherab said:
What does dependent origination refers to?  Dependent origination relies on the idea of causes and conditions.  But conditions can be understood as a subset of causes.  Therefore, many if not all, understood dependent origination as referring to a causal chain of one sort or another.  But causal chains are temporal chains.  And the flow of time is in my opinion what distinguished the relative from the ultimate.

Malcolm wrote:
That is your private idea, one which you will never find in any Dharma text. According to Candrakīrti, ultimate truth is the object of an unmistaken cognition, that's all.

Sherab said:
So, if the ultimate is merely a conventional truth, it would mean that the ultimate is the endless linear temporal chain of causes and effects.



Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth is the perception of the emptiness of dependently origination phenomena, nothing more and nothing less. Arising from conditions itself is beginningless, logic of dependent origination demands it.

Sherab said:
Alternatively, one must somehow argue that the endless chain is a closed loop.  Such a position necessarily imply that the endless temporal chain of causes and effects ITSELF is real while the phenomena on this endless chain are not.  If the closed loop of causal chain is accepted, it would mean accepting that phenomena hold itself up by its own bootstraps.  Neither position seems satisfactory to me.

Malcolm wrote:
None of these consequences apply.

Sherab said:
If time is central in dependent origination,

Malcolm wrote:
It isn't. Dependent origination operates in three modes simultaneously: serially, momentarily, and simultaneously.

Sherab said:
then that in itself contradicts what is understood in the Special Theory of Relative by Einstein, a theory that has withstood all experiments so far.  In Special Relativity, all frames of reference are valid.  But the photon ( a light "particle") experiences no time in its frame of reference.  So an atemporal frame of reference is also valid.  Causality as commonly understood only applies in frame of references other than that of the photon.  That is why the speed of light can be understood as the speed of causality.  Also, more theoretical physicists are now thinking that like space, time may not be fundamental.

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent origination taught by the Buddha is simply, "When this arises, that arises; with the arising of that, this arose."


Sherab said:
One can read in various places in the sutras how the state of enlightenment is really not something describable.  I think dependent origination is similar and not easily describable ultimately by unenlightened beings like ourselves.

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent origination is profound, but it is also eminently describable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"One Mind" is an English mistranslation of 一心 (cittamatra), i.e., mind-only.

You can clearly see this if you examine the Sanskrit and the Chinese side by side.

https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index... xt&vid=441


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 4:15 AM
Title: Re: Translatorhood
Content:
jake said:
Can you provide any evidence for this claim? Perhaps some of the posters here who have translated works would like to speak to how best we can support their efforts?

Malcolm wrote:
Support us directly, this puts money in our pocket and buy our books in a legal way, as this supports the companies that publish our works. We translators receive very little remuneration for our work, and publishers can only give us very small advances. Thus, without direct support from you, the interested reading public, there sure won't be many texts published.

jake said:
Thanks Malcolm. In regard to an earlier comment regarding patrons/taxes and your comment here about "support us directly" can you expand a bit? Do you mean a direct cash contribution to you as an individual or rather a charitable donation to a registered not-for-profit that works on supporting translators/translations. I ask because I would like to find a way to further support the important translation work needed for some specific Buddhist traditions.

Malcolm wrote:
In the United States, anyone may gift anyone else up to 13,000 (the amount changes yearly) without either you or the person who is receiving the gift needing to report it to the Feds. It is thus better to make gifts directly. If you pass it through a nonprofit, the amount the nonprofit tenders the recipient is treated as earned income and taxed accordingly.


jake said:
The economics of getting an established publisher to edit, layout, print and distribute books in traditions with a limited Western audience can be a real headache. I imagine this is what lead to the establishment of some of the publishers you've mentioned previous?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, though of course Wisdom is a non-profit, Shambhala is a regular corporation, and then Universities have their own thing.

If you want to support the general publication of Dharma books, a donation to Wisdom is a good idea,  and if you want to support a given tradition, an earmarked donation is what I recommend. If you want to support a translator directly, then, directly gifting them money up to the untaxed amount is the way to go.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Translatorhood
Content:
jake said:
I'd also like to say how disheartening it is to see people so readily sharing PDFs of books online. An act which certainly doesn't support the important work of translators.

PeterC said:
Re online PDFs. Completely agree that copyright theft of this kind both undermines the fragile economics of translation-to-publish and accrues negative karma.

Pero said:
You've fallen for the anti-piracy propaganda put forth by the entertainment industry. In fact, at worst, it does not not support them, it is more likely that the outcome is simply neutral, and at best it provides higher likelihood of more people actually buying the book.

jake said:
Can you provide any evidence for this claim? Perhaps some of the posters here who have translated works would like to speak to how best we can support their efforts?

Malcolm wrote:
Support us directly, this puts money in our pocket and buy our books in a legal way, as this supports the companies that publish our works. We translators receive very little remuneration for our work, and publishers can only give us very small advances. Thus, without direct support from you, the interested reading public, there sure won't be many texts published.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Read on the Kayas
Content:
weitsicht said:
I am quite confused about the three (plus one?) kayas and would like to read a bit closer into it.

Understanding seems to be utmost necessary on various levels also due to their interconnectedness  to the dzogchen visions, the abhishekas, probably overall the path and the fruition.

I tried the dharmawheel search function but that didn't bring me anywhere. I'd appreciate any advice on a good read. Thanks.

Just to add: the same counts for compassion. A basic term I also don't get applied easily. When should I take action? Or not? In German we have Mitleid (co-suffering) whilst compassion in the dharmic context is translated as Mitgefühl (co-feeling). Does it mean just being empathic, abstaining from any action is the way to go?!


Malcolm wrote:
love is the wish that sentient beings be happy. Compassion is the wish that they be free from suffering. Aspirational bodhicitta is based on compassion; engaged bodhicitta is carrying out the first four perfections.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: How to Generate Merit?
Content:
WeiHan said:
This thread is many years old but it is worth adding more.

Besides the many amazing skillful means already mentioned that generate merit, I'll like to add recitation of King aspiration prayer of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra. I don't find many teachings in English but that are many in Chinese language. Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok said that if there is anything that he was still attached, it is the merit that everyone of his sangha member will recite this prayer at least once a day. The late Yangthang Rinpoche said that this is the most powerful prayer in sutrayana while Prayer of Kuntuzangpo is the most powerful prayer in tantrayana and there is an urgency to recite the former prayer many times these days. One eminent Sakya lama (name not specified) as mentioned by Khenpo Sodargye taught that reciting this prayer 3 times a day together with a short pureland practice will guarantee transference to western pureland at death (even more certain than powa practice).

This prayer is recited by all Monlams at Bodh Gaya each year, so the merit must really be fantastic.

Malcolm wrote:
The seven-limb prayer is the basic structure for all Buddhist practice in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. It is built into most sadhanas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 27th, 2018 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Tiantai Meditation
Content:
Seishin said:
This single seamless meditation is called 'Endon Shikan' which means 'Perfect Sudden Shamatha/Vipashyana' (see Rory's post above for a description). The Endon Shikan can be described as the pinnacle of Tendai meditation. I have found the idea of Endon Shikan to be not too dissimilar to the idea of Japanese Zen (or Chinese Chan for that matter) in that Zen patriarchs often describe Chan/Zen as a meditation that encapsulates both Shamatha and Vipashyana.

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of ultimate bodhicitta, unified śamatha and vipaśyāna is or should be the goal of all practitioners of Buddhadharma.

SunWuKong said:
Assuming that this is the case, how do we propose that a history of a single practice such as shikantaza or koan introspection arises? Does this only happen in Japan or does it also happen elsewhere in Zen/Ch’an/Seon/Thein? Or does it fact arise? Could it be omissions in translation or understanding? Or does a unified practice simply encompass what both practices previously encompass? It’s an interesting question from a historical perspective, because one could assume no teacher from India could have proposed it? It could simply be that Zen represents a mashup of things on more than one level?

Malcolm wrote:
The goal of śamatha and vipaśyāna is to unify them. Some people have the capacity to unify them from the beginning, i.e., leaping with both feet; but most people can't leap very far and make more progress by first taking one step (śamatha), then another step (vipaśyāna) and so on, gradually developing their abilities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 26th, 2018 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Oh yeah, our system has a really great record with fairly implementing stuff like that and being prudent with uses of executive power, especially as regards marginalized groups. Oh wait no, the complete opposite is true.



Witb that, I'm done with the conversation, have fun.

Grigoris said:
So you do not trust "the system" to do it and you don't believe "the people" can do it.  It seems you prefer rolling over and dying (or being shot, the choice is yours) to any attempt to change?

I wonder what would have happened in the U$ if slavery abolitionists had the same attitude as you?

Johnny Dangerous said:
No, I want it to change. But, since I actually live in the country in question, and have experience with it's justice system....I find the idea of a total ban presumably implemented by the executive ridiculous. Malcolms suggestion seems more sensible.

On the abolition thing, not only is hyperbolic, it's a bizarre comparison.


Malcolm wrote:
It is also another Mason-Dixon line thing. States that fought for the Union have, overall, far better gun control laws, and are also generally more prosperous. States that fought for the Confederacy have an interest in promulgating a revisionist history of the Civil War, and while the NRA was originally formed by former Union Officers, it has been largely coopted by those in this country who imagine that the 2nd Amendment was put into place to in order that we can protect ourselves from tyranny. This point of view is in fact extremely unpatriotic, though it poses as patriotism of the highest order.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 26th, 2018 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:


Grigoris said:
I wonder what would have happened in the U$ if slavery abolitionists had the same attitude as you?

Ricky said:
I wonder if the holocaust would of ever happened had Hitler not taken away all guns?

Malcolm wrote:
Most of the Jews Hitler killed were not German Jews, so this is a specious question. The largest number of Jews killed by the Nazis was in Poland, 2,900,000 88% of the total population of Jews. By contrast, the number of German Jews killed by Nazis was only 130,000, 55% percent of the total population of Jews, and less than 1% of the general population.

http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-US/bronnenbank.asp?oid=20747

In response to this popular, but ridiculous argument, history professor Alan E. Steinweis wrote in a New York Times opinion piece:
The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/ben-carson-is-wrong-on-guns-and-the-holocaust.html?_r=0

He also points out that Nazis did not enact any new gun legislation until 1938, and when they did, it only concerned handguns, not rifles. In general Ricky, stop watching Fox News, it is rotting your ability to think objectively. Further, Professor Steinweis notes:
The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what happens when ordinary citizens with small arms go up against a well-equipped force.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 26th, 2018 at 12:12 AM
Title: Re: Karma of the Shakya clan
Content:



PeterC said:
Look for the sutra that discusses that hypothetical.  But it’s very, very important to remember that that story was about a bodhisattva who could perceive perfectly the karmic effects of both action and inaction in that situation. A non-Arya being has no business trying to make this sort of judgement. And that’s where Greg’s comment is important. This sort of speculation doesn’t help a practitioner in any way.

Malcolm wrote:
A non-ārya, a pṛthagjana, absolutely has business making these sorts of judgements. If not, then you are basically arguing Mahāyāna ethics are only for āryas, and that is patently false.

PeterC said:
I meant judgement in the sense of deciding on that course of action. Of course a non-omniscient non-arya would still have to decide whether to act or not to act. If they genuinely believed that the man was about to commit mass murder, then that takes you back to the OP’s hypothetical.

I thought the point of the story was that the arya, perceiving that the man was about to commit murder and thereby condemn himself to a long period of suffering, pre-emptively kills the man and takes upon himself the negative karma thereof but by so doing prevents the man from suffering a worse fate. An non-arya would have lacked the ability to perceive the mans future actions and their consequences correctly and would therefore be unable to do the required karmic calculus. It was for that reason that I said that a non-arya has no business making that choice.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't need to do any karmic calculation.People are being threatened? You stop the person threatening them. No one trying to kill 50 people is up to any good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 26th, 2018 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:


Fa Dao said:
ummm...no...AR-15's are semi-auto not full auto, in other words one pull of the trigger = one round fired thereby making it virtually impossible to fire 13 rds per second...you must be thinking of the M-16 which can be fired full auto and is actually a military weapon. An AR-15 is not a military weapon...it was designed by Colt to look like an M-16 and sold to LE and civilians..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15


Malcolm wrote:
Huh? The AR-15 is was not designed by Colt at all. It was designed by Armalite Rifles for the Army. It is absolutely a military weapon by design. The M-16 was Colt's rebranding of the AR-15. The M4, the present iteration of the AR-15, is merely an updated version of the original AR-15.

The stat of 13 RPS is based on its engineering specs. Practically speaking, fire rates of more than 2 RPS are unrealistic for any sustained amount of time.

That means a person can unload a 30 round clip at a crowd in one minute with ease. It takes about fifteen seconds to eject an empty clip and insert a full one. One can therefore plausibly get off a 120 rounds in three minutes and 30 thirty seconds.

This rate of fire is unnecessary for any civilian application.

The M-16 only ever fired on full auto for suppressive fire, because it is not a very accurate automatic weapon. It overheats and quickly jams. In fact, in most military uses, the M-!6, and now M4, is switched to semi-automatic for accuracy since it is presumed you are aiming at a human being.

Fa Dao said:
Back in the mid-1980s -- before the shift to the M16A2 and the three-round burst -- active-duty infantry units kept to a strict rule that rifleman only fired their M16A1s on semi auto. Today's combat-experienced infantrymen are even more disciplined.

Malcolm wrote:
https://www.military.com/kitup/2011/12/full-auto-battlefield-necessity.html

The only difference between the M-16 class of rifles and the AR-15 is that without a cheap modification, the AR-15 only fires on semi-auto. Therefore, this idea that the full auto mode is the important distinguishing feature in a rifle is nonsense. In reality, soldiers rarely use the full auto mode, and generally only when ordered to do so, which is rare.

There is little difference in the kind of round an AR-15 is designed to shoot as opposed to the M-16/M-4 (5.56 NATO round based on the .223 Remington). The main difference, ironically, is that civilians rounds are designed to cause MORE damage to the target since it is assumed the target will either be an animal or someone trying to harm you. Military rounds are FMJs, and do not cause as much terminal damage as civilian rounds are able to do.

So, frankly, your rebuttal is flawed for many reasons. You neglect to note:
Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.
If you read further on the page, you will discover two things: 1. The AR-15 sold by Colt today is exactly the same design that Stoner created and patented for Armalite when they developed the weapon for the US Military.

2. Since the patent elapsed, many other gun manufacturers have been designing tactical rifles that either are based directly on the AR-15 or design tactical rifles with significant modifications in design and ammunition. Nevertheless, all of these use civilian rounds which are much more damaging even than FMJ military rounds. And all of these rifles can fire military rounds, which the military sells as surplus.

We really must stop pretending that the single shot Remington bolt action Model 700 hunting rifle is as dangerous as an AR-15.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 25th, 2018 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Translatorhood
Content:
PeterC said:
If you’re a patron, it can actually be frustratingly hard to find a way to finance translation projects, due to the way that most Dharma charities tend to work.

climb-up said:
What!!??? That is really weird!
This seems like something that could be fixed ( ...I assume  ...by someone) and have some sort of portal or space for potential patrons and translators to connect.

I don't really now anything about patronage or on-line dating, but it seems like someone in the know might be able to make something happen.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is, as always, taxes, among other things. Patrons can only give support up to a certain amount before either they or their client has to pay taxes. Things just are not as simple now as they were.

Even then, there is little guarantee of the quality of the work. There are dishonest translators out there, who will bilk you of your cash, leaving you with badly rendered and poorly edited translations, if they even finish the job. There are translators, who while knowing Tibetan, are terrible writers in English, or whose English leaves much to be desired, either by translating too literally, or whose translations are far too interpretive and "poetic," etc.

At least with projects like the 84,000, and books published with Shambhala and Wisdom one is assured that the works have been vetted and peer-reviewed for quality and accuracy, properly edited, and so on, not to mention books published by academic publishers such as Cambridge, Oxford, Columbia, Princeton, Brill, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 25th, 2018 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
A total ban of guns is  a ridiculous, and draconian idea, when has that actually been proposed?

Malcolm wrote:
seems pretty reasonable to me, apart from law enforcement and the military, civilians really do not need firearms for more than hunting and sport.

Johnny Dangerous said:
How would it be enforced here, short of violating the 4th amendment more than we already do? How would such a law been applied even across economic classes? The answer of course, is that it would not be. That being the case, there is basically no chance of an actual 'gun ban' short of empowering federal or state governments to militarize even further, bust down doors etc. Not sure why anyone would even entertain the idea that the ececutive apparatus of this country could fairly enforce anything like that within the confines of our system.

Malcolm wrote:
We first repeal the second amendment, since it is archaic and has no relevance anymore (plus it was really put into the Bill of Rights to protect militias that would pursue runaway slaves). That is where we begin. We repeal and replace the second amendment with an amendment that details the specific rights and regulations with respect to the kinds of arms civilians can reasonably own for hunting and self-defense.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 25th, 2018 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Karma of the Shakya clan
Content:


MatthewAngby said:
Hmm... yes yes. I have a really huge question on killing too. Suppose you know someone who is going to kill a group of 50 men, but you refuse to kill him that person because you are scared you will gain bad karma. But if you kill him, you save the 50 men. So like who gains the bigger “bad” karma in this situation.

PeterC said:
Look for the sutra that discusses that hypothetical.  But it’s very, very important to remember that that story was about a bodhisattva who could perceive perfectly the karmic effects of both action and inaction in that situation. A non-Arya being has no business trying to make this sort of judgement. And that’s where Greg’s comment is important. This sort of speculation doesn’t help a practitioner in any way.


Malcolm wrote:
A non-ārya, a pṛthagjana, absolutely has business making these sorts of judgements. If not, then you are basically arguing Mahāyāna ethics are only for āryas, and that is patently false.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 25th, 2018 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Karma of the Shakya clan
Content:
Sherab said:
Buddha Sakyamuni was undeniably an atheist.  He stated clearly that there is no Creator God.  That being the case, Buddhist ontology must be founded on natural laws.  There are no two ways about it.  From a buddhist viewpoint, the law of karma is therefore a natural law akin to a conservation law in science such as the conservation of information.

Therefore it should not be surprising that the Buddha taught that one should not engage in the killing of any sentient beings.  If you do intend to kill any sentient being, you will have to face the consequences, whether immediate, in the future or in a future life.

As to the eating of fish out of starvation, the state of starvation that one finds oneself in would be a ripening of one's past karma.  By resorting to killing fish in order to fend off one's starvation is to create new karma for oneself that will ripen in future.  (Of course, if the fish died naturally, then there is no negative karma associated with eating that fish.)  This is a decision that one has to make, and what that decision will be depend on how much one has internalized the Dharma.

MatthewAngby said:
Hmm... yes yes. I have a really huge question on killing too. Suppose you know someone who is going to kill a group of 50 men, but you refuse to kill him that person because you are scared you will gain bad karma. But if you kill him, you save the 50 men. So like who gains the bigger “bad” karma in this situation.


Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna ethics in general would hold that you should kill the man intent on killing the other fifty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
A total ban of guns is  a ridiculous, and draconian idea, when has that actually been proposed?

Malcolm wrote:
seems pretty reasonable to me, apart from law enforcement and the military, civilians really do not need firearms for more than hunting and sport.

fuki said:
Well civilians hunting is illegal in my country, I'd love to see it go too in other areas, but that's a bit too much to ask for concerning the differences in culture, any government who thinks it's allright to kill animals for sport yet frowns upon innocent people getting shot I find a bit shady.
Ah well, one step (planet) at a time I guess.

Malcolm wrote:
The Netherlands is a tiny country, go hunting there you are likely to accidentally hit a tulip.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Some questions on Karma and Merit
Content:
pael said:
In which case the motivation or view is supramundane, not the karma itself?  For example: giving without conceiving of the three objects (the giver, the thing being given and the receiver of the thing) vs giving based in a dualistic view; where the karma in both cases is giving, whereas the view/motivation differs?

Malcolm wrote:
How do you give without conceiving? Is it when you give thinking: ''there is no three objects''? How does differ from nihilism or from wrong view according to Maha-cattarisaka Sutta
pael said:
And what is wrong view? ' There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed.

Malcolm wrote:
.
[/quote]

The difference is the two truths; relatively, there is a subject, object, and action; ultimately, there is no subject, no object, or action —— subject, object, and action are free from inherent existence.

This passage is criticizing materialists:

There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
A total ban of guns is  a ridiculous, and draconian idea, when has that actually been proposed?

Malcolm wrote:
seems pretty reasonable to me, apart from law enforcement and the military, civilians really do not need firearms for more than hunting and sport.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: thugs kyi dgongs pa
Content:
conebeckham said:
ཐུགས་ཀྱི་དགོངས་པ་རིག་པ་རང་ཤར་གྱི་ངོ་བོ་བདག་ལ་

Keep in mind that the first phrase refers to the honorific "thugs"   which is not just "mind," but potentially "Buddha's Mind," or Enlightened Mind.  It can, however, refer to one's own mind in some instances, esp. when one is contemplating something.

This is not a full sentence, so the full context is missing.  As for "rig pa rang shar kyi ngo bo"  "the quintessence of self-manifest awareness"  is okay, but I would gloss the whole phrase as "taking as the object of contemplation, (Or as the "intent of contemplative mind")  the essence of one's self-manifest Vidya...."      Not merely "Awareness," but a knowledge of a specific sort of awareness.

Malcolm wrote:
dgongs pa here is not "intent," abhipraya. but samanvāhāra, which means something like "focuses on," "directed to," etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Republicans crack me up with their oblivious hypocrisy. Obama deficits bad! Trump deficits good! I could go on, but I won't.

Got a problem with gun violence in schools? Obviously the solution is adding more guns!


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Nicholas Weeks said:
Part of the solution is making soft targets like schools, businesses etc. harder.  Many kinds of door blockers are available and are being used now in some schools.

This is one kind: https://www.bilco.com/Store/ProductDetailPage/1DSI-1/Barracuda_Intruder_Defense_System_-_Model_DSI

Malcolm wrote:
RIght because that is so much easier and far less expensive than getting rid of guns from our civil society in the first place.

The second amendment is not sacred. It is an amendment, and its needs to be repealed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 24th, 2018 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Samaya in Vajrayāna
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
how far do you take that?
I strive to keep samaya, especially since many people have their own feeling about tibetan buddhism and vajrayana it is better to do so. but what about things like images of one's yidam on the home shrine?  or books on the bookself?

Malcolm wrote:
I do not allow people without empowerment in my shrineroom.

I keep my images covered when common people are around as much as possible.

HE Ratnavajra gave me an image once with explicit instructions never to show it to someone who had not had the empowerment itself. So I largely try to observe this principle myself.

Tenma said:
Uh oh.  So if I made a history project on the classical period and drew pictures of the Buddha, Green Tara, Manjushri, Vajrapani, Chenrezig, and Saraswati, I  am officially breaking my samaya and blessing the images with "Om Ye Dharma" and Om Ah Hum was a bad idea?  What does one do if they already turned their project in and they now wish to purify this obscuration?

Malcolm wrote:
You are fine, these bodhisattvas are from lower tantra.Om ye dharma is a general mantra, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 23rd, 2018 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Khandro Thugtig preliminaries - confused!
Content:
Konchog Tashi said:
Slightly off topic, but has anyone noticed that Dudjom Rinpoche's commentary on the mandala offering in this text is almost word for word identical to Jamgon Kongtrul's explanation in The Torch of Certainty?

I am not finding fault anywhere, I have always just been struck by this.

Malcolm wrote:
Traditionally, plagiarism was not a sin in Tibetan scholarship, not only is it not a sin, but innovation is frowned upon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 23rd, 2018 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Some questions on Karma and Merit
Content:
Grigoris said:
Supramundane karma?  Can you give some examples/sources please?

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty sure he means inexhaustible merit which arises from making dedications knowing there is no one dedication, no dedication, and not object of dedication in ultimate truth. For example, the Verses Summarizing the Perfection of Wisdom ( Saṇ̃cayagathā ) state:

If that is made into a sign, there is no dedication.
If there is no sign, it is a dedication to awakening. 
The victor has said that the perception of positive phenomena
is just like eating good food mixed with poison.

Grigoris said:
In which case the motivation or view is supramundane, not the karma itself?  For example: giving without conceiving of the three objects (the giver, the thing being given and the receiver of the thing) vs giving based in a dualistic view; where the karma in both cases is giving, whereas the view/motivation differs?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the view differs. Again from the Verse Summary:

Having understood such an accumulation of merit is 
empty, hollow, vacant, and lacking a core,
as such, if one practices the sugatas’ perfection of wisdom,
one holds inestimable merit when it is practiced.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 23rd, 2018 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Some questions on Karma and Merit
Content:



sth9784 said:
Thanks for the reply.  That actually makes sense of the passage in http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra34a.html, where in Chapter 3 it  mentions that the Bodhisattvas can not progress without their 'garland of merits' (as this translation has it).

Nyedrag Yeshe said:
There is mundane Karma and supramundane karma. In Mahayana, we generate supramundane karma with bodhicitta aspiration in mind in order to free ourselves and all beings from suffering. This kind of action leads to supramundane results that is Buddhahood!

Grigoris said:
Supramundane karma?  Can you give some examples/sources please?

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty sure he means inexhaustible merit which arises from making dedications knowing there is no one dedicating, no dedication, and not object of dedication in ultimate truth. For example, the Verses Summarizing the Perfection of Wisdom ( Saṇ̃cayagathā ) state:

If that is made into a sign, there is no dedication.
If there is no sign, it is a dedication to awakening. 
The victor has said that the perception of positive phenomena
is just like eating good food mixed with poison.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 23rd, 2018 at 10:19 PM
Title: Re: Eido roshi passes away in Japan
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The first Dharma teacher I ever sat with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 23rd, 2018 at 11:23 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
DGA said:
Important context:

Gun ownership in the US is actually not so popular as you might think, even though there is a metric shit-ton of weaponry piled up.  How so?  The Guardian did a good job laying this out some months ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics

Less that one-third of US households own a firearm today.  That's less than it has been in decades past.  So proportionately fewer households own guns.  How, then, to explain the trend of increased gun ownership?  About 3% of the population are hoarding weapons and ammo.

And these aren't sport weapons anymore.  The "tactical turn" is a real problem.  This is a change in US gun culture that has happened over the last twenty years or so.  When I was in my early 20s, most of the guns for sale at your local sporting goods outlet would be explicitly for hunting or basic home or self defense.  Think of the typical 30-06 Springfield hunting rifle with a walnut stock, or your grandfather's duck gun.  These pieces are more fun to shoot than a "tactical" weapon like an ar-15, but they have fallen out of favor with the macho-insecurity set.

PeterC said:
Thanks for posting that article. The numbers do raise the question of how, exactly, the NRA became so politically powerful. Before Wayne LaPierre it really wasn't - GHB publicly cancelled his membership and criticized them over LaPierre's behaviour during his presidency, which is something unthinkable for a republican today. They've clearly done a remarkably good job of mobilizing the small, paranoid minority for whom this is an important issue. This segment - disproportionately rural, white and lower-income - was also very badly covered by the democrats over the past few decades.

Malcolm wrote:
The NRA is a cult with a wide following. Guns and Jesus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 23rd, 2018 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Mantrik said:
How long, I wonder, before you can get arrested in the US for not having a gun; clearly abberrant behaviour.

Malcolm wrote:
There are towns in the US where the head of household is legally required to own and keep a gun in the home, for example, Kennesaw, GA.

Mantrik said:
Understandable in Switzerland, where they are military reservists, but in US households one wonders how many intruders are shot and how many are used to kill each other.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 10:32 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Mantrik said:
How long, I wonder, before you can get arrested in the US for not having a gun; clearly abberrant behaviour.

Malcolm wrote:
There are towns in the US where the head of household is legally required to own and keep a gun in the home, for example, Kennesaw, GA.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Not quite - the Trikaya predated Maitreyanath as well. For example, in the Lankavatara, the Sambhogakaya is known as the Nisyandabuddha.

Malcolm wrote:
What I said was, " the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha." This systemization was his elaboration.

There is no doubt sambhogakāya was elaborated to solve certain problems raised by "real buddhas" attaining buddhahood in Akaniṣṭha in the Lanka, but the point is that there was no systematic presentation of three kāyas prior to Maitreyanatha, hence my point stands.

pueraeternus said:
But the eight consciousness, etc were also systematized and elaborated by Yogacarins and laid the groundwork of how later Buddhists understand and debate these topics, so why focus only on the three kayas?

Malcolm wrote:
Because the three kāyas were the only doctrine that were basically adopted by Madhyamakas like Candrakīrti following the Maitreyan synthesis; the eight consciousnesses and so on were not universally accepted by Madhyamakas, and even today are not.
With respect to the so called niṣyandabuddha = sambhoghākāya, this is really only Suzuki's opinion.

The commentary on the Lanka by Jñānaśribhadra states this concept in only one place: a buddha produced from ripening is a form that arises from the ripening (nisyanda) of the merit and wisdom accumulations, while the buddhas of emanation are those who show nirvana.

And the Lanka is the only sūtra which uses the term "niṣyandabuddha," so I think that is a pretty weak position of Suzuki's, very tentative and not proven at all.
Asvabhava equates the nisyandakaya as the sambhogakaya. So this is not just Suzuki's opinion. Unless you want to quibble about the words -kaya and -buddha.
Well, it is Asanga who does that, in the closing words of the Mahāyānasamgraha, where niṣyanda is used as an adjective to describe the sambhogakāya where the issue of the impermanence of the sambhogakāya and nirmanakāya are raised. So I am still not convinced it is the intent of the Lanka that one can claim that niṣyandabuddha = sambhogakāya since the person who wrote down the Lanka seems to ignore the term entirely, where as nirmāṇa used in association with the rūpakāya of the Buddha has an old history.

Niṣyanda means "corresponding cause," rgyu mthun pa, though in the Lanka there is still come influence from an earlier Chinese translation where the term is translated as rnam smin, ripened, which is normally reserved for vipaka.  Interestingly, this term is completely absent from any of the five treatises, nor can it be found in any of the works on Abhisamayālaṃkāra.

Thus, I think it is still fair to say that the Yogacāra school really was responsible for the elaboration of the three kāyas over the older two kāya model, and it was elaborated to explain issues the two kāya model was not equipped to deal with. Most interestingly, Maitreyanatha imposes the three kāya model on the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras, in which the terms sambhogakāya, niṣyandabuddha, etc., are completely absent. There is something there to consider.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: Looking ahead...(split from ZFI topic)
Content:


Dan74 said:
I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk",

Malcolm wrote:
You don't recall the context. So let me recall it for you. In a diverse forum with many different traditions, people were becoming quite confused as to what constituted a "monk." Many people were showing up on the forum claiming ordination and teacher appointments in this and that school and we felt an obligation to force them to verify their ordinations/lama/teacher status to prevent misrepresentation and fraud.

There was a great deal of public discussion of whether wine-drinking, non-celibate westerners who had received shukke tokudo were equivalent to bhikṣus or not. This naturally caused some wine-drinking, non-celibate Zen priests frequenting the forum to become upset. But these are the kind of issues that must be addressed. However, there was no "censure" of Zen monks, merely a very heated discussion of what "monk" ought to mean. Ultimately, of course, one disgruntled member threatened to sue us and put up a ridiculous anti-Esanga Website.

I still maintain that if one is a wine-drinking non-celibate, one ought not refer to oneself as a monk.

In other words, we had Huifeng, Khedrup, and Dhammanando on the one hand, all ordained as either śrāmaneras or bhikṣus/bhikkus who did not like the work monk being used for Soto priests, etc., and the other, we had Jundo, Nonin, and so on, noncelibates with day jobs who still wanted to be called "monks," as absurd as that sounds to me even now.

Someone at the SZBA must have been listening, since in this http://szba.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidelines-for-the-Formation-of-Soto-Zen-Priests-in-the-West.pdf they studiously avoid referring to people with shukke tokudo or shiho as monks, referring to them solely as priests.

You have no idea how difficult it is when you have a forum of 50k+ registered users. DW does not compare in either volume or complexity.

Dan74 said:
Malcolm, I don't hold any grudges and it is clear that people have different recollections of the events. At one stage a former ESangha admin shared with me his impression of how Zen folks were being mistreated, while another asserted that no such thing ever took place.

Let bygones be bygones, I say.

_/|\_

Malcolm wrote:
You brought it up,  not me.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:


pueraeternus said:
Not quite - the Trikaya predated Maitreyanath as well. For example, in the Lankavatara, the Sambhogakaya is known as the Nisyandabuddha.

Malcolm wrote:
What I said was, " the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha." This systemization was his elaboration.

There is no doubt sambhogakāya was elaborated to solve certain problems raised by "real buddhas" attaining buddhahood in Akaniṣṭha in the Lanka, but the point is that there was no systematic presentation of three kāyas prior to Maitreyanatha, hence my point stands.

With respect to the so called niṣyandabuddha = sambhoghākāya, this is really only Suzuki's opinion.

The commentary on the Lanka by Jñānaśribhadra states this concept in only one place: a buddha produced from ripening is a form that arises from the ripening (nisyanda) of the merit and wisdom accumulations, while the buddhas of emanation are those who show nirvana.

And the Lanka is the only sūtra which uses the term "niṣyandabuddha," so I think that is a pretty weak position of Suzuki's, very tentative and not proven at all.

When we examine sūtras by when they were translated into Chinese, not one sūtra translated into Chines predates the Maitreyan synthesis containing the term "saṃbhoga" with one or two possible exceptions. The Ārya-dharmasaṃgīti-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra mentions a Sambhogabuddha -- this was translated by Gunabhadra between 412-421. It says:

If it is asked what is a sambhogabuddha, a sambhogabuddha is
equivalent in enjoyment and practice with bodhisattvas, equivalent in
aspects, food, speech, procedures, and conduct.

Maitreyanatha actually uses this term as well. He says in the MSL:

Because pristine consciousness is the cause of everything,
pristine consciousness is similar to a great source;
it is the sambhogabuddha
because it produces the reflection of pristine consciousness.

The longer Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra in Tibetan also has a chapter on the three kāyas, however, it seems quite likely that this chapter was a later addition, added after the time of Vasubandhu.

So in this case, if there is a canonical source for the term saṃbhoga, it would seem to be the reference to it in the Dharmasaṃgīti. Even so, it is not systematic, and it is a very slim basis for the elaborated system of three kāyas we find in the Maitreyan synthesis. Thus, I still stand by my observation that the most significant addition to Dharma by the Yogacara school is the doctrine of three kāyas

pueraeternus said:
Then there is this http://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-068-017.html that explicitly talks about the three kayas, but I do not know if it pre or post dates Asanga.

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite late. It was never translated into Chinese.

pueraeternus said:
If we are talking about innovations, then with regards to the three kayas, I would say it is the addition of the svā­bhāvika­kāya as the fourth kaya. Was the svā­bhāvika­kāya ever mentioned elsewhere prior to the Abhi­samayālaṃkāra?

Malcolm wrote:
Only Haribhadra holds svabhāvakāya and dharmakāya are distinct, he is eight century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Looking ahead...(split from ZFI topic)
Content:


Dan74 said:
I remember a great deal of displeasure and censure of things like a modern Zen understanding of "monk",

Malcolm wrote:
You don't recall the context. So let me recall it for you. In a diverse forum with many different traditions, people were becoming quite confused as to what constituted a "monk." Many people were showing up on the forum claiming ordination and teacher appointments in this and that school and we felt an obligation to force them to verify their ordinations/lama/teacher status to prevent misrepresentation and fraud.

There was a great deal of public discussion of whether wine-drinking, non-celibate westerners who had received shukke tokudo were equivalent to bhikṣus or not. This naturally caused some wine-drinking, non-celibate Zen priests frequenting the forum to become upset. But these are the kind of issues that must be addressed. However, there was no "censure" of Zen monks, merely a very heated discussion of what "monk" ought to mean. Ultimately, of course, one disgruntled member threatened to sue us and put up a ridiculous anti-Esanga Website.

I still maintain that if one is a wine-drinking non-celibate, one ought not refer to oneself as a monk.

In other words, we had Huifeng, Khedrup, and Dhammanando on the one hand, all ordained as either śrāmaneras or bhikṣus/bhikkus who did not like the work monk being used for Soto priests, etc., and the other, we had Jundo, Nonin, and so on, noncelibates with day jobs who still wanted to be called "monks," as absurd as that sounds to me even now.

Someone at the SZBA must have been listening, since in this http://szba.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidelines-for-the-Formation-of-Soto-Zen-Priests-in-the-West.pdf they studiously avoid referring to people with shukke tokudo or shiho as monks, referring to them solely as priests.

You have no idea how difficult it is when you have a forum of 50k+ registered users. DW does not compare in either volume or complexity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 5:48 AM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.

pueraeternus said:
There are many other important contributions as well, such as the eight consciousness model, Buddhist epistemology (pramanavada), the detailed path laid out in the Bodhisattvabhumi, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
The model eight consciousnesses existed in the sutras prior to the Yogacara elaboration of the three kāyas. Bodhisattvabhumi is basically a commentary on the Sūtra-alaṃkāra, but those paths and stages are also laid in in sūtra prior to Maitreyanath, but what isn't laid out and what appears to be a novelty introduced by Maitreyanatha is the doctrine of three kāyas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 2:07 AM
Title: Re: Two solutions for karma and not-self paradox
Content:
fuki said:
so where should the notion of not-self (or self) come from, unless such notions where conditioned by reading a book about not self and thoughts become a string called thinking and one believes theres something called a "thinker" with any substantial past, present, or future.

Malcolm wrote:
"I, me, and mine" are the connate ignorance. That connate ignorance does not depend on reading a book, or some implanted belief, or some condition other than the mere fact of being a sentient being.

It is the basic mistaken we make which contradicts dependent origination. Even if we have an intellectual understanding of dependent origination,  this is not sufficient to eradicate this connate ignorance. There is only one way to chip away at that connate ignorance, and that is through realizing the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena. There isn't really any other way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Grigoris said:
There is really no reason at all for civilians to be carrying concealed weapons.

Malcolm wrote:
There is little need for them to carry them openly either. However, frankly I would rather that people carry their pistols concealed. I really don't want to see their penis extensions.

Grigoris said:
I meant that they should not be carrying pistols at all.  I wonder how people packing pistols would react if they saw you wandering around with a dildo stuck in your belt.  I wonder if that would cause more outrage than walking around with a pistol stuck in your belt?  It would be telling...

Malcolm wrote:
Most def, it could get you arrested in some places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Grigoris said:
There is really no reason at all for civilians to be carrying concealed weapons.

Malcolm wrote:
There is little need for them to carry them openly either. However, frankly I would rather that people carry their pistols concealed. I really don't want to see their penis extensions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 at 12:50 AM
Title: Re: Two solutions for karma and not-self paradox
Content:


Supramundane said:
To complicate things, there is no sutra exclusively on Karma as far as I can see: the info seems to be scattered through various texts and is never consolidated. I am starting to think it may be a key part of Buddhism, at least, a key part in forming my overall understanding of Buddhism.

Oh, this is not true at all. Here are some sutras in the Tibetan canon:

karma-vibhaṅga
karma-vibhaṅga-nāma-dharmagrantha
karma-vibhaṅga
karma-śataka
karma-prajñapti

Not translated yet, but some Pali equivalents are:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.145.wlsh.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

The Diamond Sutra has some references to karma, as it sets out how we can overcome the fear of birth and death. A diamond itself is a composite of various materials and conditions coming together. The diamond was created in a sense by the earth itself and vice versa(!). Without gravity, specific elements, pressure, a certain geology, it couldn’t have developed into what we now term a diamond. We ourselves are aggregates that coincide. The five skandhas are reborn every moment of time/space. yet that they lack any permanence/essence. All is empty, as in the quote on empty phenomena you provided, Malcolm.
You should should understand that the title Vajracchedika means "Diamond cutter," i.e. it is a reference the perfection of wisdom which cuts through even the hardest things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: Best book on the Bardo Thodöl or Death in general
Content:


Thomas Amundsen said:
Too late for rainbow body? Sure. But not too late to be liberated into a Samboghakaya or Nirmanakaya buddhafield.

Malcolm wrote:
You don't need Liberation through Hearing in the Bardo for that.

Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent text, as is Karling Zhitro in general. But sometimes, the essence gets lost in such details.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In reality, the most important contributions of the Yogacara school was not the doctrine of mind-only, but rather, the doctrine of three kāyas which was first systematized by Maitreyanatha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Fa Dao said:
As I said earlier we as a nation need to make a conscious effort to change the narrative from one of the hero shooting his way out of overwhelming odds to one of the hero against all odds showing an unflinching reverence for all life. If at all possible this changing of the narrative needs to be done in such a way that is not viewed as being confrontational. I really don't believe that creating even more laws is going to change much of anything until the dominant narrative is changed. Unfortunately this will take at least a couple of generations of diligent effort....sadly I don't think there is any "quickfix" for this problem. Take for example Chicago..they have some of the most stringent gun control laws in the entire country, yet they in a weekend have had more gun deaths than the rest of the country combined...

Malcolm wrote:
Nah, we just need to get rid of assault rifles (for civilian use) in general. They have no value other than as weapons for hunting humans, for which they were specifically designed. We should also limit semi-automatic pistols as well for people who cannot demonstrate a legitimate need for them. We need to force gun owners to carry liability insurance on each weapon they own. And we need to have a national gun tracking database.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Best book on the Bardo Thodöl or Death in general
Content:


Thomas Amundsen said:
Birth, Life, and Death by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is an incredible book generally speaking, but doesn't have as much material on death as the other two.

Malcolm wrote:
Read it again more carefully.

Thomas Amundsen said:
I just skimmed through it again. It really depends on what OP is looking for. For a more generalized pithy overview, Birth, Life, and Death by Rinpoche probably is better. Everything is in there, that is for sure. But Karma Lingpa does go into a lot more detail. Where Rinpoche simply mentions "Buddhas of the five families", Karma Lingpa goes into explicit detail about their colors, hand implements, etc. I guess for students with some capacity, Rinpoche's instructions really are all you need

I'm currently studying Karma Lingpa's text with my teacher in LA, so I might be a little biased towards appreciating that.

Malcolm wrote:
If you see hands and faces in the bardo, it is too late for you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 10:04 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:


PeterC said:
He teaches using that language.  But we could interpret that in various ways, for instance that it is a form of upaya manifested by his omniscience. An unexcelled nirmanakaya Buddha wouldn’t have the mundane experience of self-awareness in the same way that afflicted beings have - would he/she?

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? They have the same basic capacity for consciousness. Why would we consider self-awareness de facto afflictive?

PeterC said:
Does a Buddha, after demonstrating achieving enlightenment, ever dwell in dualistic perception?

We need to define terms - what in Buddhist terminology are we referring to by self-awareness?

Malcolm wrote:
Svasaṃvedana seems to fit the bill, which, according to Madhyamaka reasonings, is an inference derived from memory. Pretty hard to be self-aware in absence of memory.

As to your first question, just what do you mean by duality? How can the Buddha have the two kinds of omniscience if a buddha is incapable of memory?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 9:04 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:


PeterC said:
He teaches using that language.  But we could interpret that in various ways, for instance that it is a form of upaya manifested by his omniscience. An unexcelled nirmanakaya Buddha wouldn’t have the mundane experience of self-awareness in the same way that afflicted beings have - would he/she?

Malcolm wrote:
Why not? They have the same basic capacity for consciousness. Why would we consider self-awareness de facto afflictive?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:
PeterC said:
And your suffering is not imagined?

fuki said:
I consider it to be. For instance 2 years ago I went through extreme pain for 3 days leading to a hospitalization. But during that pain there was no suffering, only pain (and a hour of Bliss) if that would have happened 5 years before the pain would have been suffering too. I also see suffering in the past was due to imagination and I see family and friends and other beings suffering, but to them it's real the suffering as it was to me. So to me pain is inevitable but suffering is optional, then again I also see it's not optional for so many poor souls. Things I once called suffering are now figments of imagination, though I might experience suffering in the future I do realize what I called suffering in the past was an imagination.

Malcolm wrote:
There are three kinds of suffering taught by the Buddha: The first is the suffering of suffering, which generally involves intense pain, mental or physical. The second is the suffering of change. These first two are related to sensations. The third is called the pervasive suffering, which is the simple fact that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent and in a constant state of disintegration. This is the most difficult suffering to overcome since it is not related to sensation at all. The only way to overcome this suffering is to attain nirvana.

It appears you think that dukkha is an emotional involvement with pain, but this is not so. All pain is dukkha, since it is the ripening of negative karma on the body (and negative karma only ripens on the body). All pleasure or bliss is the ripening of positive karma, and positive karma ripens only on the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:
Motova said:
I'll settle the debate.

If computers can demonstrate clairvoyance and/or siddhis then they are sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not even we can demonstrate this, ergo, we too are not sentient beings.

Motova said:
People have psychic experiences all the time, it's pretty common.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not a demonstration of actual clairvoyance.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 12:26 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:
Motova said:
I'll settle the debate.

If computers can demonstrate clairvoyance and/or siddhis then they are sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not even we can demonstrate this, ergo, we too are not sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 21st, 2018 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
The question then seems to be, do brains, biological or mechanical, provide the necessary mechanisms for self-awareness? Or is there something else required for self-awareness?

PeterC said:
That is the question.  Without resorting to “it depends what you mean by...” games, it’s difficult to answer as self-awareness is neither transpersonal nor objectively observable. So how does one assert its existence or not.

In the extreme case, self-awareness cannot simply be the self being aware of the self, in complete isolation from external phenomena.  Even the formless realms posit more stimuli than that. Awareness of self this has to be awareness of the self as distinct from other objects of awareness. In which case the brain alone is insufficient.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no stimuli at all in the formless āyatanas since there are no physical sense organs for beings of the formless āyatanas. Without vitarka and vicara, they cannot switch objects and remain focused solely on the conceptual samadhi that propelled their birth, without any other stimulation. It is doubtful they are self-aware except in the most basic sense that their innate grasping at self assisted their afflictive rebirth in this realm.

PeterC said:
I’m struggling with this because the only type of self-awareness that we can posit to answer this question is the unenlightened dualistic awareness. You’d have to answer the question in a very different way if we were talking about non-dualistic awareness, I think.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha apparently exhibits self-awareness, since he frequently uses the pronoun, "I."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Two solutions for karma and not-self paradox
Content:
Supramundane said:
I read a short note on karma that states there is a 'non aggregate self ' or a self beyond the 5 aggegates to explain the concept of karmic rebirth.

"The Buddha, however, postulates transcendent consciousness or Buddha consciousness beyond the aggregates. He does not limit the analysis to impermanent properties. The non-aggregate being is a Buddha who has achieved detachment from the aggregates... This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is a Buddha."

But i don't think this is accurate in the context of Mahayana buddhism. If there were a non-aggregate self, the Buddha would have said so clearly and succinctly, right?

Malcolm wrote:
This is just the Pudgalavadin heresy poking its head up.

In short, there is no self that is all the aggregates, one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. "Self" is just a label we apply to the aggregates of a person, but it is nothing other than a designation and does not signify anything real.

Supramundane said:
Hi Malcolm, may i ask, is the rebirth real then? Or is it too just a label?

Malcolm wrote:
Nāḡārjuna's Verses on Dependent Origination state that while the aggregates are serially connected between this world and the next, nothing transfers from this world to the next:

Empty phenomena are produced 
only from empty phenomena.
Phenomena are without a self and not of a self.
Though the aggregates are connected in a series,
the wise understand that nothing transfers.


This verse eliminates eternalism.

The following verse eliminates annihilationism:

Someone conceiving annihilation,
even for extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of "arisen from conditions."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 10:01 PM
Title: Re: Best book on the Bardo Thodöl or Death in general
Content:


Thomas Amundsen said:
Birth, Life, and Death by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche is an incredible book generally speaking, but doesn't have as much material on death as the other two.

Malcolm wrote:
Read it again more carefully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:



PeterC said:
Haven’t seen it - life’s too short to watch sci-fi.  But the arguments against the validity of machine sentience, and that biological sentience is somehow different and superior, are essentially all arguments from intuition.  Nothing wrong with believing that provided we don’t pretend that it’s demonstrable.

Malcolm wrote:
So far, computers seem to lack the potential for autopoietic self-awareness. This would seem to be the real stumbling block when considering sentience for a given software/hardware platform. At this point, it is relatively easy to show that machines have not developed such self-awareness.

PeterC said:
Is autopoiesis as a theory of cognition sufficiently elaborated to serve as a standard for awareness?

That aside, at this point, yes, machines with that capacity have not been developed. But we are already able to replicate in silico most of the lower-level mechanisms of biological brains, albeit on a much smaller scale. What is often overlooked about artificial neural networks is that as the name suggests, they were abstractions of how we thought biological neural networks function, and the former have done a progressively better and better job of emulating and in some cases surpassing the functionality of the latter. It's therefore quite possible to imagine a machine of sufficient complexity being developed within the next half-century that would meet the standard for awareness.

An old joke in machine learning used to run: what does AI stand for? 'Almost implemented'.  Every time someone said they'd 'solved' an AI problem, someone would argue that that wasn't 'real' AI, it was just an implementation of an algorithm that solved a particular instance of a problem. As the problems being solved become more and more complex, that argument will seem increasingly unpersuasive.

Malcolm wrote:
The question then seems to be, do brains, biological or mechanical, provide the necessary mechanisms for self-awareness? Or is there something else required for self-awareness?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 9:56 PM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:



fuki said:
The links Astus posted should be enough I reckon

After Buddhism was brought to China from India, the initial focus on sutra translation gradually evolved into the eight Chinese schools of Mahayana Buddhism: the Three Treatise (Sanlun), Pure Land, Tian Tai, Consciousness-Only (also known as Yogachara), Huayan, Vinaya, Chan, and the Tantric schools. The late Chan Master Sheng Yen (1930–2009) compared the approaches of the eight schools to modern fields of study, stating: “The approach of the Consciousness-Only school resembles that of science, and the Three Treatise school is akin to philosophy. The approaches of the Huayan and Tian Tai schools parallel literature. The mantra school (Shingon shū) and Pure Land can be considered forms of aesthetics. Meanwhile, Chan embodies the core teachings of the Buddhadharma. Master Taixu [1890–1947] also said, ‘The crux of Chinese Buddhism is Chan,’ where the teaching of any of the other schools can be reduced to the spirit of Chan. As for the disciplines (Vinaya) school, it is the foundation of Buddhism.” (Master Sheng Yen 2007, 128)

Malcolm wrote:
And the essence of Chan be further reduced to Prajñāpāramitā, the quintessence of the Buddha's teaching and its source.

ItsRaining said:
Hello, can you please recommend a version of the Madhyāntavibhāga? I'm interested in reading it and there seems to be three versions available: one from the Khenpo Shenga from the Nyingma school, another from Thrangu Rinpoche of the Kagyu Shentong tradition and the last one is a commentary from Sthiramati who Xuanzang lists as one of the ten great masters of the Yogacara and according to some people author of the commentary on the Uttaratantra which I read. The Kagyu one seems to be most recent whereas the Sthiramati is from 1936 so I don't know how accurate the translation will be.

I don't know much about Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, I'm more familiar with Chan and general Mahayana sutras so is there a particular one I should read?


https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Beyond-Extremes-Madhyantavibhaga-Commentaries/dp/1559392703

https://libgen.pw/item/adv/5a1f04ea3a044650f5081ab5

Malcolm wrote:
I think the one by Mario D' Amato is the probably the best. Maitreya’s Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga) Along with Vasubandhu’s Commentary (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāsya): A Study and ... (Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 1:59 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:


Lindama said:
rest easy tho, the supreme court has just upheld a ban on vegetable gardens in the front yard in Miami.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article199431784.html

Malcolm wrote:
Well, It's  Miami.

Norwegian said:
Like taken out of a dystopian novel...

Malcolm wrote:
I assure you this is quite normal for places in the US like Miami. But not everywhere is like that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 11:47 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:


Lindama said:
rest easy tho, the supreme court has just upheld a ban on vegetable gardens in the front yard in Miami.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article199431784.html

Malcolm wrote:
Well, It's  Miami.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Patrul Rinpoche advice question
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
Hello all,

You see, in Patrul Rinpoche's "Nine Considerations and Criteria for Benefiting Beings" says in the 6th point "Consideration of the pros and cons of generosity" the next:
4. Consideration of the pros and cons of giving protection from fear
If bodhisattvas possess the power to protect sentient beings from danger, they should act to do so. But if they do not, they should not act. If you have the power but it would cause harm to yourself, you should not act. Even if your power is small, if it would not harm yourself or others, you should act to protect and defend endangered beings as much as possible.
so i was wondering why mr Patrul Rinpoche gave advice on giving material things and performing actions, but in this very case (underlined text) protection from fear is not to be applyed at our own expenses.

this made me think that maybe i don't understand what "protect from fear" really means.

can anyone send some light on this? i found it very very interesting, but i don't get why the criteria here is different from other activities.

pd: Source: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/patrul-rinpoche/nine-considerations


Malcolm wrote:
For example, you should NOT run through a gun battle just to save a small dog. This is what it means. In other words, in order to benefit others one needs to protect oneself. Martyrdom is a Christian thing, not a Buddhist thing. We are supposed to attain buddhahood to benefit others, not uselessly throw away our lives out of some savior delusion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:
PeterC said:
and if one day we should encounter a machine seeking the same, I’m sure we would not withhold transmission on the grounds that it was unqualified.

Malcolm wrote:
You've been watching too many episodes of Humans.

PeterC said:
Haven’t seen it - life’s too short to watch sci-fi.  But the arguments against the validity of machine sentience, and that biological sentience is somehow different and superior, are essentially all arguments from intuition.  Nothing wrong with believing that provided we don’t pretend that it’s demonstrable.

Malcolm wrote:
So far, computers seem to lack the potential for autopoietic self-awareness. This would seem to be the real stumbling block when considering sentience for a given software/hardware platform. At this point, it is relatively easy to show that machines have not developed such self-awareness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Tiantai Meditation
Content:
Seishin said:
This single seamless meditation is called 'Endon Shikan' which means 'Perfect Sudden Shamatha/Vipashyana' (see Rory's post above for a description). The Endon Shikan can be described as the pinnacle of Tendai meditation. I have found the idea of Endon Shikan to be not too dissimilar to the idea of Japanese Zen (or Chinese Chan for that matter) in that Zen patriarchs often describe Chan/Zen as a meditation that encapsulates both Shamatha and Vipashyana.

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of ultimate bodhicitta, unified śamatha and vipaśyāna is or should be the goal of all practitioners of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 20th, 2018 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:
Matt J said:
I don't know about that. The prime text of Chan used to be the Lankavatara.

Malcolm wrote:
And the essence of Chan be further reduced to Prajñāpāramitā, the quintessence of the Buddha's teaching and its source.
I wasn't referring to a book.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Recommendations for Yogacara works?
Content:
ItsRaining said:
Hey! I wanted to get to know a bit more about the Yogacara do you guys suggest any works? I've read Living Yogacara, the Sandinirmocana, as well as the 20+30 verses with a short commentary and wanted to know a bit more.

fuki said:
The links Astus posted should be enough I reckon

After Buddhism was brought to China from India, the initial focus on sutra translation gradually evolved into the eight Chinese schools of Mahayana Buddhism: the Three Treatise (Sanlun), Pure Land, Tian Tai, Consciousness-Only (also known as Yogachara), Huayan, Vinaya, Chan, and the Tantric schools. The late Chan Master Sheng Yen (1930–2009) compared the approaches of the eight schools to modern fields of study, stating: “The approach of the Consciousness-Only school resembles that of science, and the Three Treatise school is akin to philosophy. The approaches of the Huayan and Tian Tai schools parallel literature. The mantra school (Shingon shū) and Pure Land can be considered forms of aesthetics. Meanwhile, Chan embodies the core teachings of the Buddhadharma. Master Taixu [1890–1947] also said, ‘The crux of Chinese Buddhism is Chan,’ where the teaching of any of the other schools can be reduced to the spirit of Chan. As for the disciplines (Vinaya) school, it is the foundation of Buddhism.” (Master Sheng Yen 2007, 128)

Malcolm wrote:
And the essence of Chan be further reduced to Prajñāpāramitā, the quintessence of the Buddha's teaching and its source.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
justsit said:
The kids are going to march on Washington. Maybe someone will listen to them.

https://www.ravelry.com/forum-images/sydnie7/2z47x-fr2kae

Pretty ironic - I just realized we have a shoot 'em up icon here.

Malcolm wrote:
Depicting AR-15 assault rifles, no less.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Grigoris said:
I see on facebook that various individuals are starting to voluntarily hand in their assault rifles.  People should be standing behind these personal initiatives.

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, I saw a guy saw his AR-!5 in half this morning on CNN. The Republican congress has been feckless so far, so maybe they will do the right thing, but I would not place money on it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Prajñāpāramitā and it's most influential commentaries.
Content:
Sennin said:
Thank you. I was unaware of the Nyingma commentary.

Losal Samten said:
Paltrul's is mostly a slightly edited down version of Tsongkhapa's, from what I recall.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for the most part. Tsongkhapa's commentary is quite representative of the Sakya tradition coming from Yag ston, who was the pre-eminant commentator on this text in Tibet. His commentary is in eight volumes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Prajñāpāramitā and it's most influential commentaries.
Content:
Sennin said:
Hi,

I'm interested in the most influential sutras and commentaries of the Prajñāpāramitā teachings. I am leaning towards studying the Abhisamayalamkara.
https://www.amazon.com/Gone-Beyond-Prajnaparamita-Realization-Commentaries/dp/1559393564/ref=pd_sim_14_6?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1559393564&pd_rd_r=MXQ6P699NAXWENT518EW&pd_rd_w=jlVpX&pd_rd_wg=fjihf&psc=1&refRID=MXQ6P699NAXWENT518EW


Also I am interested in any resources you would recommend.

Thanks

Malcolm wrote:
Best to get Gareth Sparham's 4 volume translation of Vimuktisena and Haribhadra's commentaries. No point in studying later Tibetan systems of this until one has studied that. Also, among Tibetan commentaries available in English, Tsongkhapa's is probably the best in terms of clarity of the translation. It is also translated by Spareham.

https://www.amazon.com/Abhisamayalamkara-Vrtti-Aloka-Vol-1/dp/0875730116/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0875730116&pd_rd_r=SJQSQWS8RT7YVDNCMV4P&pd_rd_w=EfVS3&pd_rd_wg=qVhaf&psc=1&refRID=SJQSQWS8RT7YVDNCMV4P

https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Garland-Eloquence-Vol-1/dp/0875730159/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0875730159&pd_rd_r=5GYF808P2WN4002R6PX2&pd_rd_w=9hmnG&pd_rd_wg=C0atd&psc=1&refRID=5GYF808P2WN4002R6PX2


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
TharpaChodron said:
Since people think it's a mental health issue, my idea is a required psychological evaluation and background check for anyone trying to purchase these guns.  In addition to a criminal background check, access to your mental health history, academic record, employment, social media history...which all goes into the psychologist's bio-psycho-social investigation, as well as an in-depth interview.   And you pay for it.  If you can't do this, do you really need an AR-15?  Your probably what Trump would call a "loser" who doesn't "deserve" an AR-15.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a public health issue at this point—and of course the CDC is forbidden to research it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: How do we know if our predominant state of life is that of Buddhahood?
Content:
Minobu said:
everything is Buddha

Malcolm wrote:
Even Trump?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
There is another ekayāna narrative concerning the liberation of the Arhantaḥ, from the Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite unlikely that the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra is a composition of Nāgārjuna. See Bronkhorst, Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, from page 56 on.

Coëmgenu said:
Apologies. I was simply going with a traditional attribution. We can call him Pseudo-Nāgārjuna until there is consensus on who authored it, I suppose.

Malcolm wrote:
No need to apologize. As far as who the author is, we will never know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 19th, 2018 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Best book on the Bardo Thodöl or Death in general
Content:
Tiago Simões said:
What's the one you would recommend to gain more knowledge on death and dying?

Malcolm wrote:
The best description of the death process can be found in ChNN's Birth, Life, and Death. It is the clearest and most profound resource in English.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Would advanced AI possess Buddha-nature?
Content:
PeterC said:
and if one day we should encounter a machine seeking the same, I’m sure we would not withhold transmission on the grounds that it was unqualified.

Malcolm wrote:
You've been watching too many episodes of Humans.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Fa Dao said:
I am sure that a lot of people here are going to strongly disagree with this but what worked in Australia will not work here in the US...period. American culture is too deeply entrenched with heroes, guns and violence going all the way back to the founding of this country. "Shot heard around the world", Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, The Alamo, The wild west, cowboys and indians, the quickdraw gunfighter, Tombstone, Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, Bat Masterson, Louis and Clarke, Have Gun Will Travel, Hopalong Cassidy, The Rifleman, Bonanza, all of the various cop shows, all of the various war movies and shows, Lethal Weapon, The Terminator...I think you all get the picture. Glorifying the hero who goes against all odds and prevails has been the narrative for over 200 years in books, folk stories, TV, movies, etc etc.
Bottomline is that making more and more laws will not work either...there is no quick fix for this...it will take at least a couple of generations of concentrated effort to change the narrative to a deeply held reverence for all life to the point that it trumps the longstanding narrative of the hero, guns, and violence....
just one mans opinion....

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, the idea that the 2nd Amendment meant that everyone had a right to own an individual firearm is really a post-Civil war interpretation by the SCOTUS. Prior to this, the idea that everyone was entitled to gun was highly contested, and the 2nd Amendment was broadly understood to mean that the right to bear arms was for the purpose of mustering state militias, since there was no professional army in the United States until 1791, shortly after the Constitution was ratified. Prior to the civil war, rifles and pistols were very expensive, costing a year's salary, and most people did not own firearms. However, there was also the Bliss decision in Kentucky that argued that the right to bear arms was personal. However, the Arkansas Buzzard decision, known as the Arkansas Doctrine, came down on the side of the militia interpretation. The turning point came after the Civil War over the question of whether freed slaves had the right to bear arms. At the same time, the availability of inexpensive, mass-produced firearms fostered catalogue sales of pistols and rifles during the westward expansion of the US, and advertising campaigns to sell these weapons were widespread. This is really the source of the "gun culture" of the US -- it was manufactured by marketing people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Two solutions for karma and not-self paradox
Content:
Supramundane said:
I read a short note on karma that states there is a 'non aggregate self ' or a self beyond the 5 aggegates to explain the concept of karmic rebirth.

"The Buddha, however, postulates transcendent consciousness or Buddha consciousness beyond the aggregates. He does not limit the analysis to impermanent properties. The non-aggregate being is a Buddha who has achieved detachment from the aggregates... This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is a Buddha."

But i don't think this is accurate in the context of Mahayana buddhism. If there were a non-aggregate self, the Buddha would have said so clearly and succinctly, right?

Malcolm wrote:
This is just the Pudgalavadin heresy poking its head up.

In short, there is no self that is all the aggregates, one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. "Self" is just a label we apply to the aggregates of a person, but it is nothing other than a designation and does not signify anything real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
LolCat said:
I remember reading that every meal should be a Ganapuja, that is what sparked my question.


Malcolm wrote:
You can accomplish that merely by reciting om ah hum over your food and then seeing it as the five meats and five nectars. No need to get meat or booze.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
There is another ekayāna narrative concerning the liberation of the Arhantaḥ, from the Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra

Malcolm wrote:
It is quite unlikely that the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra is a composition of Nāgārjuna. See Bronkhorst, Language and Reality: On an Episode in Indian Thought, from page 56 on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
Wayfarer said:
Worldly life and mundane concerns are meaningless. I think that's all that is being said.

fuki said:
What's meaningless today might be meaningfull tomorrow, it's relative, and not letting go of relative thinking too binds one to the wheel of life and death.

To me meaningful and meaningless are fantasies the conditioned mind adds to perception, I woke up and fed the cats, meaningfull/meaningless? Such things I would only think about when suffering some existential crisis.
Also seperating meaning depending on "worldly life" and the dharma reeks a bit of self-importance. We all have jobs to do, the "worldly" and the "holy" one should fullfill them and not dwell so much on the meaning or meaningless of activities, again feels a bit too self-important. But if one needs meaning to let go of relative thinking then say its meaningfull and get on with it, if one needs no meaning to let go of both meaning and non-meaning then say its meaningless and go on with it.


Malcolm wrote:
You are spending a lot of time spinning words you don't believe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
fuki said:
Glad to be a Zenny, we dont give birth to concepts and then discuss if they have meaning haha

Malcolm wrote:
Zen forums must be very silent then.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:


aflatun said:
But the cessation of, and the pursuit of the cessation of-affliction --> action --> suffering --> affliction- is meaningful, isn't it? Perhaps we're using the word "meaning" in different ways though.

Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma is meaningful. Life isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 12:21 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
Wayfarer said:
As I note above, ‘I wonder if the question as to whether ‘life has a purpose’ was ever really articulated in traditional Buddhist narratives...
I still say the statement that ‘life has no meaning’ is nihilistic, and nothing said here will persuade me otherwise. Over and out.

Malcolm wrote:
As to your first point, this question was never articulated at all in any traditional Buddhist narrative.

As to your second point, things have meaning until one discovers they don't. Over and out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 12:20 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
TharpaChodron said:
What about falling into the trap of extreme views? The argument that life has no meaning seems to fall into one of the two extreme views: nihilism.

that life's meaning is relative and subjective is not to say it has no meaning.  It has many meanings, perhaps.

Malcolm wrote:
Life has no meaning because life by definition is just affliction --> action --> suffering --> affliction.

In reality, questions like, "Is there meaning" are not Dharma language. From the point of view of Dharma, life has no meaning. This is why we have compassion for sentient beings who engage in constant meaningless toil life after life. We have compassion for sentient beings because life is meaningless. There is no point to it at all.


TharpaChodron said:
Personally, I feel everything and every action is deeply meaningful.  I think this attitude corresponds to what I have been taught re: karma, etc.  So, I have a difficult time accepting that the four seals of Buddhism includes thinking that life is meaningless, even on an existential level.  I guess if one thinks that Samsara is pointless is the same as saying life is meaningless, maybe then that makes sense.

Aren't we warned against falling into the two extreme views of nihilism and eternalism?  If not thinking of life as either ultimately meaningful OR meaningless, what does that exactly mean?


Malcolm wrote:
Understanding that life is meaningless is not nihilistic, it is how things are. The four summaries of the Dharma actually prove that life has no meaning. Everything compounded is impermanent. Everything compounded is suffering. All phenomena lack self. Nirvana is peaceful.

Since there are no aggregates in nirvana, how can life be meaningful?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 10:42 AM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
TharpaChodron said:
What about falling into the trap of extreme views? The argument that life has no meaning seems to fall into one of the two extreme views: nihilism.

that life's meaning is relative and subjective is not to say it has no meaning.  It has many meanings, perhaps.

Malcolm wrote:
Life has no meaning because life by definition is just affliction --> action --> suffering --> affliction.

In reality, questions like, "Is there meaning" are not Dharma language. From the point of view of Dharma, life has no meaning. This is why we have compassion for sentient beings who engage in constant meaningless toil life after life. We have compassion for sentient beings because life is meaningless. There is no point to it at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 10:38 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpas
Content:



heart said:
I might go along with that, but I am not sure that is what Joesph means. Anyway, I thought there was a lot of special teachings needed for giving other people transmissions?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on the teaching. But anyone who has been a chöpön, knows everything they need to know to give empowerments. Empowerments, in essence, are just ritual manuals.

heart said:
If an empowerment was just a ritual performed well, what would be the point of receiving it?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
It gives one permission to practice a specific path, that is the point of it. Basically, empowerments are a means of awakening. But if one does not awaken during the empowerment, than one has the sadhana method.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpas
Content:
pemachophel said:
"When sentient beings ask for teachings, a bodhisattva gives them."

Yes, but wouldn't you also say depending on whether the Teacher thinks the student(s) asking are ready for and capable of holding those teachings. One doesn't give a loaded gun to a toddler. In some cases it may be compassionate not to give certain, particular teachings to certain sentient beings.


Malcolm wrote:
A teacher has to judge what a student is ready to receive. For this reason we default to the gradual path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpas
Content:



heart said:
So, are you saying that there is no need to get the permission the give empowerments from the master that actually gave you the empowerment? You can just decide for yourself when you are ready?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on circumstances. When sentient beings ask for teachings, a bodhisattva gives them. The exception would be if one's own teacher was easily accessible.


heart said:
I might go along with that, but I am not sure that is what Joesph means. Anyway, I thought there was a lot of special teachings needed for giving other people transmissions?

/magnus


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on the teaching. But anyone who has been a chöpön, knows everything they need to know to give empowerments. Empowerments, in essence, are just ritual manuals.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpas
Content:
Mantrik said:
So, advice here is that there may be  the need for either retreat or permission of your teacher before giving someone a lung of a mantra which is not sutric, and one Lama's recommendation of at least 100,000 repetitions.

I wonder what would happen if the clear stipulation was that you must have signs of attaining the function of any mantra before you are allowed to give to others.

And that, of course, brings us full circle back to having a teacher who can tell you when you have.

Josef said:
Many sadhanas indicate the signs, responsible and genuine practitioners should be able to determine for themselves what they are experiencing etc.
Im not saying that one shouldnt consult their teacher but I think we have a tendency to over-rely on our teachers when it comes to our practice and responsibility for upholding the transmission of the dharma.
If a practitioner receives empowerment, does the practice, and has signs of genuine experience, is asked to give the transmission, then they shouldnt be able to make the decision on whether or not to do so based upon their own relationship with the individual requesting and their willingness to take on the responsibility.

heart said:
So, are you saying that there is no need to get the permission the give empowerments from the master that actually gave you the empowerment? You can just decide for yourself when you are ready?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
It depends on circumstances. When sentient beings ask for teachings, a bodhisattva gives them. The exception would be if one's own teacher was easily accessible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
fuki said:
This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies.
Really? this was not my intention. I agree with everything you say above perhaps there's an error in my speech or that I struggle translating everything in English, I don't know. Where did I negate appearances or implied non-function?

Malcolm wrote:
You said:
you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove"
Please examine your statement in light of the explanation above of how these metaphors are used or misused.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:



ItsRaining said:
Relying on conventional truth to cultivate is what relying on illusion to cultivate illusion means I believe. Illusion may be used to refer to only deceptive truths in certain traditions but in Chan it covers all conventional truths.

Malcolm wrote:
If the example of an illusion is being used merely to demonstrate arising from causes and conditions, this is a correct usage. If it is being used to negate appearances, it is being used incorrectly.

ItsRaining said:
The dharma when taught and practiced is in the realm of the conventional truths and relies on causes and conditions making it ultimately illusionary.



Malcolm wrote:
If one is using the example of illusion to claim that Dharma paths and practices are not effective or functional, this is a nihilistic interpretation and is incorrect.

ItsRaining said:
Since both practices and the fruit is said to be empty. I think the user you were responding to coming from a Zen POV will refer to to all relative truths as illusion. So there are sayings in Chan like "The Buddha taught all Dharmas to cure all minds - I have not any of those minds, what need is there for the Dharma?"

Malcolm wrote:
The basis, path, and result are all empty. Of what are they empty? nature/inherent existence. This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies.

Moreover, even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. There is no ultimate truth per se, apart from correctly apprehending a given thing's absence of true existence. When we see things correctly, we see that they exist without any true existence. For this reason awakening does not arise randomly. Awakening only arises for those people who have correct view, and that correct view is profound dependent origination.

For example, when a magician manufactures the illusion of an elephant, we do not negate the appearance of the elephant, we negate only its functionality to do things an elephant does independently. But the cause and conditions through which that illusory elephant also cannot be negated. If they are, one cannot account for the appearance of the illusory elephant at all. If one declares the appearance of the elephant does not exist, then one is directly contradicting the evidence of one's own sense organs. Only sophists and fools will negate the evidence of their own, healthy sense organs.

ItsRaining said:
I'm not sure what is you mean by "its appearance is not a negandum.", don't appearances get negated in Madhyamaka as non-nonsensical? I remember reading Nagarjuna refuting distinct appearances and shared appearances (arise, stay, change, cease).

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka does not negate appearances, it negates true existence or inherent existence. (It also goes further and negates the four extremes, but that is a technical point not needed here.)

ItsRaining said:
The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment says this, is that the same as saying perception corresponds to suchness as both existence and non-existence is dispelled?
"Good sons, in the practice of Perfect Enlightenment of the causal stage of the Tathāgata one understands these 'sky-flowers,' thus there is no transmigration, nor body/mind to undergo life-and-death. But they are not caused to be non-existent. It is because they lack original nature. Now, this [prior] awareness is in itself void, like empty space. Yet since this awareness that perceives it to be like empty space is none other than the appearance of sky-flowers, you also cannot say that there is no nature of awareness. Existence and non- existence both being dispelled is called 'according with pure enlightenment.' "
I agree the mind that comprehends the arising from causes + conditions isn't deluded and corresponds to suchness but it doesn't make it substantially existent which is what being illusionary meant in this case.

Malcolm wrote:
As long as we understand examples such as sky flowers, etc., to mean that all phenomena from matter to omniscience do not ultimately exist, then there is no problem, because they have no essence. But if we use such examples to negate phenomena which arise from cause and conditions, we run into the problem that conventional phenomena arise from causes and conditions; sky flowers and so on do not arise because they have no causes.

The only place where use of such metaphors is acceptable is when we are making a case about the ultimate truth of a given thing. Ultimately, inherent existence and self are like sky flowers and so on because they have no cause, therefore, they do not arise, therefore they are utterly unreal, not even conventionally real. But there is a right way to realize this in accordance with suchness and ultimate truth, and a wrong way to realize this, which causes one to negate cause and condition in the relative. Thus, when we correctly observe phenomena, we see that in them there is no inherent existence and no self. The appearance of inherent existence and self is like the appearance of sky flowers, and so on, a complete delusion.

Illusions, mirages, and so on illustrate arising from causes and conditions. Thus, this class of metaphors needs to be distinguished from the class of metaphors involving sky flowers, hair on tortoises, horns on rabbits, and so on, which illustrate phenomena which do not arise from causes and conditions, and which are thus conventionally impossible.

The former set of metaphors indicates how conventional appearances arise in relative through cause and condition.
The latter set of metaphors describes how the imputation of self and natures (which never have any cause or condition) onto any phenomena which arise through cause and condition is utterly mistaken, even conventionally.

To put it most simple: when we see the example of illusion, we are seeing an example of arising from cause and conditions. When we see the example of a sky flower, we are seeing an example of the negation of self and nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 18th, 2018 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:


Wayfarer said:
The only way I can rationalise it is that I think what is being rejected is the idea of ‘meaning’ in the sense of life being thought of as having a script with a definite meaning. If that is what is being rejected as ‘meaning’, then sure, I agree. Otherwise, I don’t understand the postings in this thread at all. Someone please straighten me out on this.

Malcolm wrote:
Meaning is relative, not intrinsic.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If you want to understand how these terms are used in Dzogchen texts, I refer you to the book in my signature.

fuki said:
It will be a pleasure to read and get a better understanding of the terminology in Dzogchen, thanks.

It's even available on a dutchy site

https://www.bol.com/nl/f/buddhahood-in-this-life/9200000058855905/

Malcolm wrote:
Best if you go sit at the feet of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Does such a thing exist? How?

fuki said:
Since it is not permanent you already know the answer to that one.
Awareness is mental factor, conditioned and dependent. I have no idea what you mean by ‘true awareness.’

Is this enough? I could also quote some Zen, or Advaita, or pseudo-zen-advaita-sickness for you


Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with the translation of the term rig pa, vidyā as awareness. It has unfortunately become commonplace, but it is mistaken.

RIg pa principally means knowledge or knowing. Also translating the term rang rig as self-awareness is generally mistaken in a Dzogchen context.

The term "timeless awareness" is a translation of the Tibetan term ye shes, which itself is translation of the Sanskrit term jñāna. It also really means a kind of knowledge in general. But please do not quote to me different translations of different Dzogchen texts by different translators. You are not qualified to judge these texts, and you clearly do not understand what you are reading. If you want to understand these texts, you will need to study under a qualified Dzogchen master for some years.

If you want to understand how these terms are used in Dzogchen texts, I refer you to the book in my signature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no point in returning one's attention to something transient and ephemeral like awareness, unless it is to observe that it is empty and dependently originated.

fuki said:
Quite the nitpick again Malcolm trying to seperate sunlight from the sun again, you cognize awareness depending on how it makes sense to your conscious efforts in the comfort zone of a literalist. Not from true awareness as Lin Chi put it; "focus on the one that does not move".

Not everything posted is food for analysis and philosophy.

Malcolm wrote:
Awareness is mental factor, conditioned and dependent. I have no idea what you mean by ‘true awareness.’ Does such a thing exist? How?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
Queequeg said:
Isn't samsara due to the fact that we mistakenly project subjective significance on to something that is empty of any significance?

Malcolm wrote:
Samsara is the experience of suffering caused by karma that is motivated by affliction, that's all. When all those afflictions cease entirely due to insight, one becomes one of three kinds of buddhas: arhat, pratyekabuddhas, or samyaksambuddha, At that point, one is completely freed of birth, and that is the sole point of awakening. The innate grasping at a truly-existing self is the root of the three poisons. That innate grasping at a truly-existing self is a very subtle delusion. But it is the basic delusion that informs all of our cognitive choices and discriminations. The only thing that has meaning is the correct recognition of this deluded, innate grasping at a truly-existing self so that this delusion can be extirpated from one's continuum. We are not even projecting something on to another thing, such as imputing a self upon the aggregates. The innate grasping at a truly-existing self needs no object of imputation to be imputed. It is naturally imputed as the mere thought, 'me' or 'I.'


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 12:07 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
How would you counter the average gun nuts arguments made against Chicago's failed gun laws,  and in particular the honest guys are the only ones that will turn in the guns leaving only the criminals armed?

Malcolm wrote:
Canada
Britain
Australia
New Zealand
France
Germany, etc.

This is the best argument there is, just like Universal Health Care. The United States probably needs to shift its economic model from a liberal market economy which emphasizes growth, to a coordinated market economy which emphasizes stability. The problem is that it will very hard for the US to make this transition for cultural reasons.

In other words, the US would have to go into gun addiction counseling for a decade before gun laws are really going to change in the whole country.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
QQ said:
the quality of emptiness is the lack of object-ness. Am I missing something?

Wayfarer said:
Not lack of ‘object-ness’ - absence of own-being, svabhava. Nothing is ‘self-originated’ i.e. existing from its own side. But if I throw a rock through your window, it will still break, and that will definitely mean something, like it not being able to keep the rain out.

Malcolm wrote:
Only if it happens to be raining, but I personally would be more worried about mosquitos, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 11:54 AM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:



boda said:
The topic has never been about this. Even newbies know that grasping BAD!



A curious question for someone who just claimed:


Jesse said:
I distinctly remember someone was having trouble reconciling the idea of meaning, with the reality of emptiness.

boda said:
Emptiness is meaningful, at least it is to me. I don't see what there is to reconcile.

Malcolm wrote:
Personally, I am glad life has no meaning -- it would be completely depressing if it did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 11:51 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
ItsRaining said:
It is using illusion to remove illusion.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference between conventional truth and false or deceptive relative truth is that the former is strictly common perception, whereas the latter also includes hallucinations, and other deluded states which are nonfunctional.

The point of this is that without resorting to conventional truth, one cannot understand and then realize ultimate truth, and therefore, nirvana is impossible.

The point of the illusion example is that an illusion, a deceptive relative truth, is understood to arises from causes and conditions, a veridical relative truth. And further, since this illusion arises from causes and conditions, it is natureless and lacks true existence, but its appearance is not a negandum.

The mind that apprehends the arising of phenomena from causes and conditions cannot be a deluded mind in anyway, since this perception corresponds with suchness. Whereas, the mind that apprehends an illusion can be deluded if it misapprehends the source of the illusion as something other than causes and conditions, i.e. permanent or annihilated.

Thus, illusion cannot be used to remove illusion since illusions are part of relative deceptive truth, rather than conventional truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: The Unbearable Lightness of Anatman
Content:
fuki said:
It's in the nature of mind to create subject/object where there is none, its only when we take the phenomenal center we imagine to be, which rides on the bus to go from A to B as something substantial or graspable that errors come into existence, like birth and death, being, not being, becoming, a past and a history, daydreams! It's sufficient to stop pretending it is otherwise and return (one's attention) to awareness,

Malcolm wrote:
There is no point in returning one's attention to something transient and ephemeral like awareness, unless it is to observe that it is empty and dependently originated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


fuki said:
you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove" illusion.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not correct. Buddhadharma does not foster illusions in any way. It merely points them out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:


Johnny Dangerous said:
That does not make sense to me, if matter ultimately arises from the lights which arise form the basis, at what point does matter become completely "cut off" from awareness?

Malcolm wrote:
Matter is a an appearance of ignorance, not knowledge (rig pa).

Johnny Dangerous said:
How would it be possible to achieve the rainbow body etc. if that were so? Mind is present in some appearances but not in others? How is that explained?

Malcolm wrote:
The appearances of ignorance are the mutual traces of sentient beings appearing to one another. When that ignorance is removed, one can manifest rainbow body.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: New Translation: Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This perfection of wisdom of the victors is a great mantra of knowledge,
pacifying the misery and suffering of many kinds of sentient beings.
The guides of the ten directions, past and present,
having trained in this great mantra of knowledge, become unsurpassed physicians.

— Sañcayagatha


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 2:54 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:



florin said:
These figures are insane.
I don't know what to say...
I mean, any percentage of gun owners that is above zero that live in places where gun control legislation is nonexistent or very lax, is a potential for dangerous and deadly situations.
It is not too dramatic to think that people living in these places could expect to be shot dead any moment.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it sounds worse than it is. More than 60 percent of deaths from guns in the US are suicides.

Grigoris said:
And the second largest group of killings is from domestic violence incidents.

Malcolm wrote:
And believe it or not, deaths from guns overall are down precipitously since 1990, along with crime, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpas
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no real problem with encouraging people to recite things like the six syllable mantra or Arapacana since they are from sūtra and so do not require any special transmission.

However, it is more useful for such beginners to recite the Heart Sūtra.

Grigoris said:
Indeed, but practicing a (any) mantra like your life depends on it is exactly what is needed in the case of every mantra.  You are overlooking the pedagogical aspect of my post in order to focus on procedural issues (irrelevancies in the case of tenma, who cannot focus on one thing for more than a millisecond).

Now instead of focusing on the mantra mentioned, they will start to ask a string of useless questions regarding the Heart Sutra mantra and any chance of them applying themselves properly to a practice will vanish up their cavity once again.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, the real issue here is not whether to recite mantras, or not, but whether they have a teacher or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 1:47 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:



florin said:
I fear that there will be lots of people that having built a personal arsenal for very long time, and worked very hard at creating a warped mentality that justifies an insane amount of firearms,  will resist and refuse to give in and surernder, even with the most prohibitive type of legislation.

Malcolm wrote:
They are only three percent of the population. I.e., in the US three percent of the population own 50 percent of the guns. Which means that 3 percent of the US population owns 22.5 percent of all the guns in the world, since 45 percent of the world's guns are owned in the US. It has been pointed out before that in the US most states require one to carry car insurance. This kind of legislation will have to go state by state, since there is no way it will pass on a federal level. For example, where I live, in Massachusetts, there is very low level of gun violence in general because our gun control laws are very strict, and AR 15's are illegal for civilians to buy. Most gun violence in the US take place in states with lax gun control laws Across the border, in Vermont, the rate of gun violence rises precipitously because gun control laws are very relaxed in Vermont.

All of these guns have been illegal to possess or buy in Massachusetts since 1994:
Assault weapons are defined (with no exceptions, except pre 1994 models) as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models), Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil, Beretta Ar70 (SC-70), Colt AR-15, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC, SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12, Steyr AUG, INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22, revolving cylinder shotguns, Street Sweeper, and the Striker 12.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts

florin said:
These figures are insane.
I don't know what to say...
I mean, any percentage of gun owners that is above zero that live in places where gun control legislation is nonexistent or very lax, is a potential for dangerous and deadly situations.
It is not too dramatic to think that people living in these places could expect to be shot dead any moment.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, it sounds worse than it is. More than 60 percent of deaths from guns in the US are suicides.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
If the  Five Light arise from the basis, and all matter is ultimately the Five Lights, doesn't this mean that in fact, in some sense all matter is pervaded by awareness, just simply not "from it's own side"?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the reason for this is that such appearances are a result of traces, i.e., all appearances may be mind, but that does mean that a mind is present in every instantiated appearance. Hence, even though out of ignorance the five lights are reified into the five elements, rocks nevertheless do not possess minds or rigpa. As florin points out, the five lights are just symbols for the qualities of the five pristine consciousness, but even here it is important to remember that the five pristine consciousnesses are 'relative,' as opposed to the three pristine consciousnesses of the basis (essence, nature, and compassion) which are 'ultimate.'


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Ngakpas
Content:
Tenma said:
Uh oh!  I gave a ¨lung¨ of Chenrezig(Om Mani Padme Hum) to one of my friends who wished for it while I gave the Aa ah sha sa ma ha script to a friend as a charm to be taken care of including the Simhamukha written on a script(all these in gold, I didn´t say the Simhamukha mantra nor told how to pronounce) as something to where due to her having a ghost in her house.  If this happens, what can I do to fix this?

Grigoris said:
Giving a printed version of protection mantra is not a problem.  For the lung you gave I would recommend you practice the mantra like your life depends on it and don't do it again.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no real problem with encouraging people to recite things like the six syllable mantra or Arapacana since they are from sūtra and so do not require any special transmission.

However, it is more useful for such beginners to recite the Heart Sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 17th, 2018 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The only way the market can force people to give up their guns is by putting legislation in place which forces all owners of guns to carry insurance policies on each and every gun they own.

florin said:
I fear that there will be lots of people that having built a personal arsenal for very long time, and worked very hard at creating a warped mentality that justifies an insane amount of firearms,  will resist and refuse to give in and surernder, even with the most prohibitive type of legislation.

Malcolm wrote:
They are only three percent of the population. I.e., in the US three percent of the population own 50 percent of the guns. Which means that 3 percent of the US population owns 22.5 percent of all the guns in the world, since 45 percent of the world's guns are owned in the US. It has been pointed out before that in the US most states require one to carry car insurance. This kind of legislation will have to go state by state, since there is no way it will pass on a federal level. For example, where I live, in Massachusetts, there is very low level of gun violence in general because our gun control laws are very strict, and AR 15's are illegal for civilians to buy. Most gun violence in the US take place in states with lax gun control laws Across the border, in Vermont, the rate of gun violence rises precipitously because gun control laws are very relaxed in Vermont.

All of these guns have been illegal to possess or buy in Massachusetts since 1994:
Assault weapons are defined (with no exceptions, except pre 1994 models) as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models), Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil, Beretta Ar70 (SC-70), Colt AR-15, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC, SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12, Steyr AUG, INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22, revolving cylinder shotguns, Street Sweeper, and the Striker 12.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 16th, 2018 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: deadliest mass shooting in the U.S.
Content:
Queequeg said:
I think we keep this thread open as long as these shootings continue.

This is a shameful thread.

florin said:
Yes, that is what i meant.
It is sad and hopeless.It will happen again.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, for as long as Americans have easy access to guns, there will be mass shootings, even though gun violence in the US has in fact been decreasing steadily for years. What has increased however is the number of mass shootings. This is simple a function of there being too many guns in the US. The one variably present in all countries when it comes to mass shootings is the presence or absence of guns per capita. It is obvious the problem in the US is solely the ease with which guns can be purchased.

The only way the market can force people to give up their guns is by putting legislation in place which forces all owners of guns to carry insurance policies on each and every gun they own.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 16th, 2018 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: what do we mean by faith?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I was taught that the Buddhist word for faith, ‘sraddha’, means ‘to place ones’ heart upon’. Another definition I found helpful was ‘confidence in the principles of Buddhism’.

Malcolm wrote:
It's is more useful to rely on native Buddhist definitions for terms. Śraddha, as I mentioned already is a mental factor. It does not really correspond to the idea of belief, but it does somewhat correspond to the idea of confidence or trust.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 16th, 2018 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:


ItsRaining said:
I think One Mind used in the Awakening of Faith is often used to contrast with it's two aspects or the various dharmas we perceive. It defintely doesn't teach an universal mind.

Malcolm wrote:
We ought to be concerned with the fact that the term, "one mind," especially when it is capitalized for emphasis, carries ontological and philosophical connotations in English that may  not be be present in Chinese.  In particular, it seems to trap people who have a naive understanding of the term "nondual," who assume when they see the term nondual or "without duality" in Buddhist texts that it means precisely the same thing as the nonduality spoken of by Advaitan and Neo-Advaitan exponents.  This is why I referred to the term as "quasi-Vedantic."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 16th, 2018 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
Meido said:
Upon further reflection, though, it is clear to me he was right. Many Buddhist types who reject "God" really just reject that which is easily rejected: the crudely anthropomorphized tribal deity. But they continue to hold tightly to a less-defined spiritual "oneness" or "source" of reality, and to view the goal of practice through the lens of atonement, "returning to" something, or "becoming one with" something. Even the choice often made to capitalize "One Mind" and "True Self" perhaps speaks to this. It's a factor worth acknowledging when discussing dharma in these parts.

fuki said:
Rejecting "God" or "Self" only creates a framework and thus asserts the "thing" in the very rejection.

Malcolm wrote:
"God" is not rejected out of hand, it is just that unconditioned creators contradict dependent origination.



fuki said:
...the source of the smile on Buddha's face and its unfanthomable gifts are not a product of practise or correct buddhadharma.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it, as well as they, are indeed the product of correct buddhadharma, which is why the Buddha found his two teachers teachings limited and incomplete.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 16th, 2018 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Kyab Rig
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
So I often hear "rocks and stones don't have Buddha nature" where Kyab Rig is concerned, or something along those lines, Makes sense, kind of an obvious thing to say, but here is my question:

If the  Five Light arise from the basis, and all matter is ultimately the Five Lights, doesn't this mean that in fact, in some sense all matter is pervaded by awareness, just simply not "from it's own side"?

If not, can someone explain the apparent contradiction, how/where is this concept precisely explained?

Malcolm wrote:
According to JLA, https://khyungmkhar.blogspot.com/2012/07/khyab-rig-final-word-from-drenpa-namkha.html is a Bonpo term for tathāgatagarbha, that has been misunderstood to mean that inanimate things like rocks have rigpa. Read the series of posts in the posted link above.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 15th, 2018 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Illuminating Quotes by Malcolm Namdrol-la
Content:
Vasana said:
What causes and conditions would result in the cessation of the appearance of Buddhahood if there are limitless appearances of (illusory) beings ? End of universal cycle?

I'm sure you mean this in a very Diamond/Heart Sutra way, Malcolm, but just checking I understood the implications of the above quote of yours.

Malcolm wrote:
The end of sentient beings is the end of the appearance of buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 8:13 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:



thecowisflying said:
Hmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.

Malcolm wrote:
You would have to review Suzuki to see what I am talking about.

ItsRaining said:
I mean you said Quasi-Vedanta use in Chinese Buddhism which I will disagree with. I don't see the point of reading Suzuki to understand Chinese Buddhism. Do you read Chinese?


Malcolm wrote:
No.   But I have seen over time a lot of westerners following Zen in particular who seize terms like one mind with vedantic spins. The source of this problem is a) Suzuki  b) Paul Reps.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Translatorhood
Content:
Motova said:
To be honest there is no money in anything related to Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
If I were in it for the money, I would have picked either Yoga Hinduism or Evangelical  Christianity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm kind of feeling the need to justify my alienation from 'ordinary' life, so I thought I might leap into the discussion with the entry from "The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism" on this topic:


Malcolm wrote:
The problem with this entry is that the term "ekacitta" is not attested in the Lanka, existing nowhere in the Sanskrit text or its Tibetan translation. It appears that the term ekacitta is used by Suzuki on page 269 of his study of the Lanka, but it is not listed as term appearing in his Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan glossary.

The quasi-Vedanta use of the term in Chinese Buddhism causes a lot of problems for westerners.

thecowisflying said:
Hmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.

Malcolm wrote:
You would have to review Suzuki to see what I am talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 6:46 AM
Title: Re: Suttas/Sutras on smoke offering
Content:
Tiago Simões said:
What scriptures mention smoke offerings or the ritual burning of incense?

Malcolm wrote:
You mean sang? No sūtras mention Sang, since it is a native Tibetan custom.

Incense is mentioned frequently.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I'm kind of feeling the need to justify my alienation from 'ordinary' life, so I thought I might leap into the discussion with the entry from "The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism" on this topic:


Malcolm wrote:
The problem with this entry is that the term "ekacitta" is not attested in the Lanka, existing nowhere in the Sanskrit text or its Tibetan translation. It appears that the term ekacitta is used by Suzuki on page 269 of his study of the Lanka, but it is not listed as term appearing in his Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan glossary.

The quasi-Vedanta use of the term in Chinese Buddhism causes a lot of problems for westerners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 14th, 2018 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Translatorhood
Content:
csmorg96 said:
How does one support themselves as a translator of Sanskrit/Tibetan?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, getting a day job helps a lot.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: New Rigpa letter
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The kleśas are not something to remove from the mind, the wisdoms are not something to add to the mind; the kleśas are themselves self-liberated wisdom when one cuts through grasping even though there is nothing to cut.

Therefore, cutting through grasping is the actual practice of all paths, from hinayāna to atiyoga. The only difference between the yānas, lower to higher, is the coarseness of the grasping one cuts through.

Rinchen Samphel said:
Wait, so are you saying that if we cut through grasping, our afflictions will naturally liberate? So, is it the nature of things to self-liberate?

Malcolm wrote:
Things are neither liberated nor unliberated, The nature of self-liberation is total nongrasping.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 11:23 PM
Title: Re: Questions on Buddhas in Vajrayana
Content:



heart said:
The goal in Vajrayana is not to become a supreme Nirmanakaya but rather to fully realize our natural state. This is possible in one life and have been done by countless Vajrayana masters and their students in the past, right this moment and will be done in the future as well.


Malcolm wrote:
Have to disagree with you here, old friend. The goal in Vajrayāna is to attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi, unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, i.e., the state of full buddhahood, for the benefit of all sentient beings. Does not mean one manifests as a full-on supreme nirmāṇakāya in our next life. But eventually, in some world system, in some eon, we have that responsibility.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Content:



Admin_PC said:
三界唯一心
Basic Definition: the triple realm is nothing but the one mind
Senses:
- The triple world is but one mind.


Malcolm wrote:
This is a citation of the Avatamska:

/'di ltar khams gsum 'di ni sems tsam ste/

Thus, the three realms are only mind.


It uses very similar phrasing to the Lanka:

/'di ltar khams gsum 'di ni rang gi sems tsam ste/

Thus, the three realms are only one's mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: Upāya (continued from another thread)
Content:


DGA said:
And if I understand the quotation that you refer to, the answer isn't that a particular text or canon of texts is to be regarded as definitive.  It must instead be a particular view.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. I have always maintained this to be the case.

BTW, Candrakīrti's true brilliance is not just that he honed certain points of Madhyamaka, though that is what he most famous for. His true brilliance and best contribution is that he explains how to correctly understand Yogacāra doctrines from a precise and uncompromising Madhyamaka perspective, taking into account the Maitreyan synthesis. Candrakīrti represents the pinnacle of late Indian Buddhist Mahāyāna thought.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 3:28 AM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:


Fortyeightvows said:
Yes I know that tibetans translated everything and I know that what this thread is talking about tibetan texts, so maybe following tibetan translation rules is the right way to go, but then it raises the challenge of how to translate certain words and because many of these tects are being translated at the same time by different people you'll have several different translations given for the same term.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and eventually this will be ironed out. In the meantime, "let a thousand flowers bloom."


Fortyeightvows said:
I mainly advocate for the standardized translations of liturgy. It seems crazy to me that if I memorized in english very common prayers or sutras (heart sutra, 21 taras, amitabha sutra, even the tibetan refuge and dedications) there is almost no chance that I would be able to go and chant with another english speaker who memorized the same prayer because we would have memorized a different translation.


Malcolm wrote:
This is mainly an institutional problem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Medicine and Tinnitus
Content:
florin said:
I would be curious to know how does TM view this condition and whether it knows ways of alleviating it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is considered a wind condition, oil treatments for the ears are recommended, but not if your eardrum is perforated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:



Sentient Light said:
Also worth pointing out that Bhikkhu Bodhi's teacher practiced the Bodhisattva path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_Ananda_Maitreya_Thero

The idea that Theravada rejects the path of bodhisattvas is a very recent one. What they reject is the Mahayana sutras, which is why their view of the bodhisattva path consists of ten perfections rather than six... Their bodhisattva path comes from a different literary tradition than ours.

Malcolm wrote:
We also have ten perfections. As far as I can tell, the Theravadin bodhisattva literature, what they have of it, is derivative of early Mahāyāna.

Thomas Amundsen said:
Loppon, would you have any idea why the six perfections are most commonly heard of in East Asian Buddhism (or maybe just Zen) and not the ten? Was it the later Indian scholars like Chandrakirti that emphasized these? I know I never heard of 10 perfections in Mahayana before studying Chandrakirti, and any Zen practitioner I've ever talked to only speaks of six perfections.


Malcolm wrote:
The six perfections are emphasized because they are the practice of the bodhisattvas of the impure stages. The remaining four are practices of the bodhisattvas of the pure stages.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: To what extent do hell beings inhabit our world of physical objects?
Content:
Motova said:
I thought they could be reborn into chairs, tables, brooms, etc etc....

Malcolm wrote:
Those are temporary hells, but the hells realms do not, according to Mahāyāna thinking, have physical existence.

Tiago Simões said:
I am also a bit confused by this one Loppön, what do you mean with "temporary hells"? Aren't all hells temporary?

Malcolm wrote:
The temporary ( nyi tshe ba ) hells are called "temporary" or "day hells" because they are solitary (pratyeka), and generally last for a very short period.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 2:15 AM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Following Tang Xuan Zang's five rules would be an excellent start.

DGA said:
Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?  I'm not familiar with those five rules.


Fortyeightvows said:
He said that there are five instances where a word should be left untranslated (literally 五種不翻)

-If the word has multiple meanings (like arhart and bhagavat)

-Esoteric terms like mantras, incantations, etc

-Terms of reverence, if saying the word has some resonance (prajna-paramita, manjushri, amitabha, vairocana)

-Terms with no local equivalent/words for things that don't exist outside of india (no precise english word that really means the exact same thing)
This is why words like yaksha were not translated.

-Words that have been left untranslated by previous translators (in other words there is a precedent)  (Following the spirit of this we could also arrive at the conclusions that words like refuge and empowerment have precedent.


Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans did not follow these rules, they translated everything. Thus, while these may be good guidelines, and I am in agreement with them, there is precedent in Tibetan translation standards for total translation, even names.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 2:12 AM
Title: Re: To what extent do hell beings inhabit our world of physical objects?
Content:
Motova said:
I thought they could be reborn into chairs, tables, brooms, etc etc....

Malcolm wrote:
Those are temporary hells, but the hells realms do not, according to Mahāyāna thinking, have physical existence.

Motova said:
I don't understand.

Malcolm wrote:
Hell realms only exist in the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: To what extent do hell beings inhabit our world of physical objects?
Content:
Motova said:
I thought they could be reborn into chairs, tables, brooms, etc etc....

Malcolm wrote:
Those are temporary hells, but the hells realms do not, according to Mahāyāna thinking, have physical existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: To what extent do hell beings inhabit our world of physical objects?
Content:
Motova said:
To what extent do hell beings inhabit our world of physical objects?

Malcolm wrote:
They don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 13th, 2018 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:



Fortyeightvows said:
Nikaya buddhism of the pali suttas and mahayana...


Malcolm wrote:
This is not true. The evidence of this is that bhikṣus who followed Mahāyāna lived side by side with non-Mahāyāna bhikṣus.

Sentient Light said:
Also worth pointing out that Bhikkhu Bodhi's teacher practiced the Bodhisattva path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_Ananda_Maitreya_Thero

The idea that Theravada rejects the path of bodhisattvas is a very recent one. What they reject is the Mahayana sutras, which is why their view of the bodhisattva path consists of ten perfections rather than six... Their bodhisattva path comes from a different literary tradition than ours.

Malcolm wrote:
We also have ten perfections. As far as I can tell, the Theravadin bodhisattva literature, what they have of it, is derivative of early Mahāyāna.

The main point is that arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas are all equal with respect to the eradication of afflictions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:


ItsRaining said:
Thanks for clearing things up. But when someone perceives something to be existent like a cup, normally they wouldn't be projecting inherent existence but rather just existence in general. Or am I getting them mixed up somehow?

Malcolm wrote:
There is a controversy here. Tsongkhapa maintains that it is very important to identify what he terms the subtle object of negation, inherent existence, because the coarse object of negation, existence, is an over-negation.


In other words, the cup is designated dependent on its parts. If you negate the existence of the cup, you are contradicting your own perception of the cup. If you negate only the cup's inherent existence however, you can maintain the conventional value of the cup that you perceive, but by understanding its lack of inherent existence, you can also acknowledge the cup is something which arises from conditions, since nothing that arises from conditions can be held to inherently exist—arising from conditions is simply a convention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
thecowisflying said:
Why do Gelugs claim this

Malcolm wrote:
They do not claim that things exist without self-nature. They claim that things exist dependent on imputations made upon a collections of parts.

They claim that the emptiness taught by the Buddha is simply the emptiness of true existence that is the absence of the inherent existence of things.

thecowisflying said:
So from what I Kbow about TB much of it is focused on Nāgārjuna so how does Tsongkhapa explain non-arising as only the absence of inheritent existence? If something is non-arisen how can it exist at all even if it does so without inherent existence?

Malcolm wrote:
Arising from conditions means nothing arises inherently, that is, without a cause. Arising from causes is imputed upon parts. Things exist as dependent designations, thus, they are still nonarising.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:
Motova said:
Why would any Mahayana practitioner ignore Amitabha's Pure Land?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that Nichiren was telling people to ignore Sukhavati.

DGA said:
This is an interesting topic.  I don't know if he did or if he did not.

I do know that many of the contemporary Nichiren Buddhists I have engaged with do not view an aspiration for rebirth in Sukhavati as a good way to use the current lifetime one has.  (Am I off base here?)

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently, one of Nicjhiren's beefs with Honen was not that Honen followed pure land sūtras, but rather, that he viewed Honen as advocating the discarding of all other sūtras besides the three pure land sūtras.

As for your second point, I agree with you that in conversations I have had with Nichiren Buddhists in the West, they generally deride Nembutsu as a false practice or irrelevant practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Can you list some more forms of Buddhism which are incompatible with other forms of Buddhism?

Fortyeightvows said:
Nikaya buddhism of the pali suttas and mahayana...


Malcolm wrote:
This is not true. The evidence of this is that bhikṣus who followed Mahāyāna lived side by side with non-Mahāyāna bhikṣus.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Keith Dowman's argument for his "interpretive free" translation style
Content:


Crazywisdom said:
Not if the translator is realized.

Malcolm wrote:
Hahahahahaahahahhaha, the Buddha was a buddha, and people were still confused as shit by his teachings, and he taught them directly in their own language.

A realized translator is a desiderata, but go ahead and show me one, and then tell me how it is that you know they are realized. And further, if the translator is realized, what is the point of his or her making translations when they can just teach directly from their experience?

weenid said:
Scriptural evidence and teacher's authority showing a realized translator:...

Vairotsana made translations because he knew that in the future some translators in the west will translate his translations.

Malcolm wrote:
I was talking about modern western translators.

weenid said:
To a part of a little bit of the knowledge of Vairotsana.

Malcolm wrote:
Vairocana was trained from the time he was a young kid to be a translator.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:


Ricky said:
Without any sort of practice and realization its not easy to believe. I admire those who entertain no doubts.

Dharma Flower said:
I have doubts about the more extravagant claims of the sutras. Did the Buddha literally emit a beam of light from between his eye brows? I have no idea. What I feel certain about is, in the very least, that the Buddha taught the path to Buddhahood, rather than just mere arahantship alone.

Ricky said:
I have no idea as well but Theravadins argue that the historical buddha only taught the path to arhatship and that there can only be one buddha per eon. Many contradictions between theravada and mahayana. I think both should be seen as separate religions rather than different vehicles.


Malcolm wrote:
It is pretty clear that Indian Mahāyāna Buddhists regarded arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas as equivalent with respect to liberation. From a Mahāyāna point of view difference between the three lies in cultivation of merit and the depth of their omniscience. Considering Mahāyāna to be a separate religion from the Śrāvaka schools is a big mistake. They merely did different things with the raw material the Buddha left us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land teachings from a Zen perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no One Mind in the Lanka or any other sūtra.

Dharma Flower said:
This is from D. T. Suzuki's translation of the Lankavatara Sutra, which I am currently reading:
It is like an image reflected in a mirror, it is seen there
but it is not real; the one Mind is seen as a duality by the
ignorant when it is reflected in the mirror constructed by
their habit-energy.
From not knowing that all that is seen is of mind-only,
there takes place discrimination and hence duality; but when
it is known that it is nothing but Mind, no discrimination
evolves.
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/Suzuki_Studies_in_the_Lankavatara.pdf
According to the above passage, there is not only the One Mind, but there is also nothing but Mind.

Malcolm wrote:
This passage says in fact:

Just as a reflection in a mirror
appears but does not exist,
the immature dualistically perceive
concepts in the mirror of the mind. 

Not knowing the mind and perceptual objects,
dualistic concepts arise. 
When the mind and objects are thoroughly known,
concepts cannot arise.

The mind becomes a diversity,
but when characteristics and the basis of characteristics are abandoned,
also the appearance of activity does not appear,
and are likewise just designations of the immature.

Since the three realms are mere concepts,
outer objects do not exist,
but are the appearance of diverse concepts:
this is not understood by the immature.

As such, the term "One mind" does not appear in the passage at all. The commentarial literature on states that citta here refers to the eighth consciousness, the ālyavijñāna. The ālyavijñāna however is personal, rather than transpersonal.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Why does Gelug school claim emptiness means things exist without self nature?
Content:
thecowisflying said:
Why do Gelugs claim this

Malcolm wrote:
They do not claim that things exist without self-nature. They claim that things exist dependent on imputations made upon a collections of parts.

They claim that the emptiness taught by the Buddha is simply the emptiness of true existence that is the absence of the inherent existence of things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 12th, 2018 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:



Coëmgenu said:
Ven Zhìyǐ identifies ekayāna as the totality of the refined elements of three periods of teachings: vaipulya (corresponding to Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣa-cinti-brahma, Laṅkâvatāra, Śūraṃgama-samādhi, Suvarṇa-prabhāsa-sūtra, Śrīmālā, etc., (http://www.acmuller.net/kor-bud/sagyoui.html)), prajñā (the prajñāpāramitā sūtras), & the period of the Lotus Sermon.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tien Tai school's use of the term ekayāna has come to dominate discourse around it, since ekayāna is such a central term in their system. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the way the term is used by Buddhist scholars in Buddhism's native home, India, has been somewhat eclipsed. No one in India seems ever to have thought to make the term a centerpiece of their hermeneutics based on a historiographical idea of the three turnings (or five periods), just as the three turnings themselves are virtually ignored by Indian scholars, but are important to Tibetan scholars.

From the point of view of text critical methodology, there are a couple of points to bear in mind. Taking Chinese translations of Mahāyāna Sūtras as an approximate gauge of the date of their initial composition, there are no sūtras that use the terminology of the three kāyas that can be dated prior to Maitreyanatha ((ca. 270-350 CE). Thus, trying to use the term sambhogakāya with respect to sūtras earlier than Maitreyanath is anachronistic. These sūtras describe the kāyas of the buddha solely as rūpakāya and dharmakāya. The earliest depictions of the sambhogakāya are in Maitreyanatha's texts, where "sambhogakāya" principally refers to the 32 signs and 80 marks. Moreover, there are no sūtras that I can find where the two terms, rūpakāya and sambhogakāya, can be found together.

It seems the earliest sūtra to fully embrace the terminology of three kāyas is the proto-tantric Suvarnaprabhasa Sūtra, first translated into Chinese by Dharmakṣema between 1414-421. (The question of why Maitryeanātha found it useful or necessary to elaborate the concept of the sambhogakāya, and possible influences is an interesting question, but there is no room for it here.)

Given this, we come across an important distinction: any sūtras which use the terminology of three kāyas were composed after Maitreyanātha's dates, that is, they must have been composed after 275-350 CE.

There is no discussion of ekayāna in Indian treatises that can be found in the Tibetan canon which can be dated earlier than Maitreyanatha as well (I have no idea about what can be gleaned from the Chinese canon). Given the fact that there is no distance between what Vasubandhu reports about ekayāna and Candrakīrti, it is clear that for Indian paṇḍitas, Maitreyanatha, Asanga, and Vasubandhu pretty much set the tone for how ekayāna, as well as the rest of Indian Buddhology, was to be discussed from then on. Given that this is the case, and given that the ekayāna is pretty much described as being the identical liberation of arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas in both Yogacāra and post 6th century Madhyamaka sources, it is not surprising then that Tibetan scholars themselves devoted virtually no attention to the concept.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Title: Re: What are the most important/widely studied sutras in Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
Javierfv1212 said:
As the title states, I'd like know which are the most widely cited, studied and important sutra texts in Tibetan Buddhism. My understanding is that TB study generally focuses on the study of Sastras for the understanding of exoteric Buddhism. And yet there does seem to be at least some sutra study as the references to sutras in Mahayana sastras shows. Does anyone have a good collection or listing of major Mahayana sutras which are studied in the various Tibetan Buddhist schools? I have only found this link to an FPMT site which lists various sutras and dharani:

https://fpmt.org/education/teachings/sutras/

Is this a good indication of the main sutras studied in Tibetan Buddhism? If not, which sutras would be studied or at least referenced and cited by Tibetan monks during their education?

Malcolm wrote:
Perfection of Wisdom Sutras studies are a speciality of Tibetan scholastics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 11:10 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Short answer, since I lost a detailed post of sūtra citations.

1) Buddhayāna, Ekayāna, Mahayāna and Bodhisattvayāna are absolute synonyms.

2) The teaching of three vehicles is a skillful means. The trio Śrāvakayāna, Prayetyekabuddhayāna and Mahāyāna are more more common in sutras than the trio Śrāvakayāna, Prayetyekabuddhayāna and Buddhayāna, however, the last is always equated with Mahāyāna.

3) The teaching of Ekayāna is in no way unique to the Saddharmakpuṇḍarīka Sūtra. In the Tibetan Canon it is mentioned 145 times, only 19 of those times is in the aforementioned sūtra.

Queequeg said:
Round and round.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it’s much better not to read sutras after all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:



Tlalok said:
The truth is that the second the North got a warhead onto a rocket they completed their nuclear program. NK is now a nuclear power, and unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do to change that. They are never going to give up their nuclear weapons program. We have to learn to live in this world.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I agree.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land teachings from a Zen perspective
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no One Mind in the Lanka or any other sūtra.

Dharma Flower said:
This is from D. T. Suzuki's translation of the Lankavatara Sutra, which I am currently reading:
It is like an image reflected in a mirror, it is seen there
but it is not real; the one Mind is seen as a duality by the
ignorant when it is reflected in the mirror constructed by
their habit-energy.
From not knowing that all that is seen is of mind-only,
there takes place discrimination and hence duality; but when
it is known that it is nothing but Mind, no discrimination
evolves.
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/Suzuki_Studies_in_the_Lankavatara.pdf
According to the above passage, there is not only the One Mind, but there is also nothing but Mind.

Malcolm wrote:
Bad translation, unfortunately. You'd be better off with Red Pine's.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 5:58 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Short answer, since I lost a detailed post of sūtra citations.

1) Buddhayāna, Ekayāna, Mahayāna and Bodhisattvayāna are absolute synonyms.

2) The teaching of three vehicles is a skillful means. The trio Śrāvakayāna, Prayetyekabuddhayāna and Mahāyāna are more more common in sutras than the trio Śrāvakayāna, Prayetyekabuddhayāna and Buddhayāna, however, the last is always equated with Mahāyāna.

3) The teaching of Ekayāna is in no way unique to the Saddharmakpuṇḍarīka Sūtra. In the Tibetan Canon it is mentioned 145 times, only 19 of those times is in the aforementioned sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:


fuki said:
That depends any grasping that it is so or not so on a conceptual level is falling into error, hence if understood no questions arise and theres nothing in need of explaining. Hence understanding the arising of the inquiry is sufficient and leaves no room for grasping "correct dharma"


Malcolm wrote:
Can you parse this out more?

fuki said:
Sometimes giving everything away is poison.

Malcolm wrote:
I meant write it in grammatically-correct English.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
Tlalok said:
You do understand we are mobilizing for a war there?
If the US is seriously gearing up for a nuclear exchange with North Korea they are doing it terribly.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you surprised?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 4:25 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:
fuki said:
If you wouldnt have read this thread, how would thoughts about inherent existence arise?

Kunga Lhadzom said:
I have thought about this many many times..before the thread....last night i was thinking (again) about WHAT IS LIFE ?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a faculty sentient beings are born with. It's duration depends on their merit.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE THAT MAKES SOMETHING ALIVE ?  Christians would call it GOD.  But what IS it that is LIVING ?  And what IS it that leave the body, and that body is considered DEAD ?

WHAT IS THE LIFE FORCE ?
Atoms are even vibrating inside of rocks.

Malcolm wrote:
The substance that gives us life is called "life," prāṇavāyu, and it is the oxygen in the air you breath in and out. No air, no life. Very simple. Fish use gills to take oxygen from water, but the principle is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:


fuki said:
That depends any grasping that it is so or not so on a conceptual level is falling into error, hence if understood no questions arise and theres nothing in need of explaining. Hence understanding the arising of the inquiry is sufficient and leaves no room for grasping "correct dharma"


Malcolm wrote:
Can you parse this out more?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:
markatex said:
What prompted this question? The answer is no. There is no way the two are compatible.

Malcolm wrote:
What an amazing world we live in, where one form of Buddhism is incompatible with another. Truly a degenerate age.

markatex said:
Oh, give it a rest. Lots of forms of Buddhism are incompatible with each other. I like DGA, but I feel like he’s trolling with these questions.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you list some more forms of Buddhism which are incompatible with other forms of Buddhism?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:
Motova said:
Why would any Mahayana practitioner ignore Amitabha's Pure Land?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think that Nichiren was telling people to ignore Sukhavati. His axe to grind was against Honen, the founder of the Jodo-shu sect (Honen acknowledges he founded a new school of Buddhism in his seminal Senchakushū ), who he believed was leading people away from the Dharma with an undue emphasis on Nembutsu, reciting the name of Amitabha Buddha, Namo Amida Butsu.

A significant factor in his conviction about this was his belief that people in Japan had forgotten about Śākyamuni Buddha (of course they hadn't, but that is a different story), and thus he advocated for the elimination of Pure Land Buddism, which he considered a "one-sided teaching" as it was being practiced by Honen and his disciples.

NIchiren tied some of his polemics to his belief that the practice of Pure Land Buddhism has earlier caused the suppression of Buddhism by the Taoist Emperor Wuzong (814-846) during the Tang Dynasty in China, and later on, the death in 1221 of the cloistered Japanese emperor Go-toba after he led an unsuccessful rebellion against the Kamakura Shogunate and was exiled.

The interesting thing about this is that Go-toba actually banned Honen's Pure Land school, ordering the execution of some its adherents and the banishment of Honen. There was eventually a rapprochement, where Honen signed a pledge to reign in some of his more radical students. Despite all of this, clearly Nichiren held Honen's teaching and people response to it as being responsible for the death of Go-toba.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
What Inherently exists then ?

fuki said:
On what does this question depend?

You "should" come to see why such questions are false and are unapplicable and not conducive to awakening.

Malcolm wrote:
Such questions are very good, and are easily answered, requiring no speculation at all, and are in fact very conducive to awakening. As Candrakīrti notes in the Madhyamakāvatāra:

Phenomena's lack of inherent existence,
is conventionally termed "emptiness" by the wise.
That emptiness is also asserted
to be empty of an empty entity.
That emptiness of so-called emptiness
is asserted to be the emptiness of emptiness,
taught in order to repel the grasping
of thinking emptiness is an entity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 3:00 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
What Inherently exists then ?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing at all.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
Nothing is something....lol...what is nothing ?
Don't tell me nothing is everything...lol

oh that's right...everything IS nothing...so nothing IS everything...

Malcolm wrote:
There is no entity, either compounded or uncompounded, which inherently exists. Hence, nothing exists inherently. Everything that exists, arises from conditions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
What Inherently exists then ?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:
markatex said:
What prompted this question? The answer is no. There is no way the two are compatible.

Malcolm wrote:
What an amazing world we live in, where one form of Buddhism is incompatible with another. Truly a degenerate age.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Garchen Nyingtig Yabshi Germany 2018 Questions
Content:
Yeti said:
When someone asked Tulku Pema Wangyal about the benefits of this transmission... he said... the benefits will appear during one's journey in the bardo.

fckw said:
I don't mean to sound dismissing, but when I hear someone tell me that the benefits of a given practice will be reaped during bardo - I am not interested at all. What help is this to me in this current form? Why should I care more about a bodyless form in the bardo realm who, according to Buddhist theory, is not even "me" anymore, but just some karmic imprints traveling through the bardo like a lonely asteroid is travelling through space and time? Why should I care more about that form during bardo than about the current form in this body?

(Of course you're going to tell me that I got it all wrong, and that it's not at all what said tulku really meant and so on. But is it really?)

Malcolm wrote:
When one is in the bardo, during the first three weeks, one definitely remembers who one was, etc. When we talk about waking up in the bardo, it is means that when we become aware during the bardo of dharmatā, which happens scant moments after we are dead from a Buddhist pov, we still have knowledge of our practice, our identity in this life, etc.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:
dude said:
Too much head tfipping.  Of course it s etetnal.  You were never born.  You willl never die.  And you don,t really exist at all

Malcolm wrote:
Why the qualifier "really?" Is there some sense in which we do exist, are born, and die?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 12:43 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Queequeg said:
Somebody, at some point, has to tell the kids who still don't get it by 5th grade that Santa Claus is mom and dad. The age of enchantment is wonderful - I'm living it with my 2 and 5 year olds right now. At some point, the age of enchantment ends. But not before they're ready for it to end.


Malcolm wrote:
What an impoverished view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 11th, 2018 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Is dependant origination eternal?
Content:
mechashivaz said:
Buddhism rejects eternalism regarding all compound things, but what about the flow of karma, cause and effect ever moving myriad things? Even after kalpas upon kalpas it would seem that it's posited that the process of being and non-being will continue indefinitely, thus creating an eternal system of flux.

Malcolm wrote:
Since the past is not established, since it has perished, and the future is not established, since it has yet to come to be, the present cannot be established either. Therefore, dependent origination is not an eternal process because no processes can be established, other than as conventions.

Further, dependent origination is about the afflicted processes that drive samsara, affliction, action, and suffering. When affliction is removed, action has no cause; and when action has no cause, the result, suffering cannot be produced. From this perspective too, dependent origination cannot be seen as eternal, since when one attains realization, one becomes free from that process entirely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 11:57 PM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:



Queequeg said:
I addressed the limits of Maitreya's knowledge above.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no limits to Maitreya's knowledge, the omniscience of a tenth stage bodhisattva is equal to that of a buddha's. This is why your idea about limits to Maitreya's knowledge can't be taken seriously.

Queequeg said:
No substantive response to the quote? A blanket declaration without citation and remarks about the scope of my knowledge?

Sigh. Par.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean the same quote you keep trotting out?

With respect to Maitreya's or any another tenth stage bodhisattvas omniscience, the Buddha had this to say about it in the Perfection of Wisdom in 18,000 Lines:

If it is asked how a bodhisattva mahāsattva abiding on the tenth stage is called a "tathāgata," because such a bodhisattva mahāsattva has throughly completed the ten perfections, thoroughly completed the eighteen unshared buddhadharmas up to the omniscient knowledge of aspects, has totally relinquished traces, connections, and afflictions, and totally completed all buddhadharmas, Subhuti, a bodhisattva mahāsattva abiding on the tenth stage is called "tathāgata."

Thus, your idea that Maitreya's comment in that passage shows some limit to his knowledge is completely refuted.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:



Queequeg said:
I addressed the limits of Maitreya's knowledge above.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no limits to Maitreya's knowledge, the omniscience of a tenth stage bodhisattva is equal to that of a buddha's. This is why your idea about limits to Maitreya's knowledge can't be taken seriously.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Queequeg said:
These bodhisattvas until that point still believe that Shakyamuni first attained enlightenment in Gaya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they don't. Whatever gives you this idea?

Queequeg said:
I made reference to the basis of this remark above.

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, it can only be rhetorical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
This is a questionable assertion. While it may accurately represent what the schools you mention maintain, it is not an easily defensible assertion.

DGA said:
I'd like to go back to Qq's assertions.  There are two.

1. the three yanas are not real paths in themselves, but are instead upaya.  Means to an end.  Hold that thought.

2.  in themselves, they do not lead to annuttarasamyaksambodhi.

OK, if 1 is true, and I think it is, then you have to consider what the objective of that upaya may be.  I think they are means to the end of bringing  beings to the Mahayana, which does lead to annuttarasamyaksambodhi.  This means the purpose and function of the three yanas is to lead beings to annuttarasamyaksambodhi.

To my mind, as of this moment, 2 must be false if 1 is true.  All three lead to Mahayana and therefore to annuttarasamyaksambodhi.  There's one Dharma path but different maps and landmarks, if that analogy makes sense.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Qq's post and Malcolm's objection to it.

If I'm mistaken, I invite the gallery to set me right.

Queequeg said:
The intervening cause that reconciles 1 and 2 is the Buddha delivering the sobering message - "Everything I've taught you is upaya. Here is what's really going on." The rich man's son was always the rich man's son, but he thought he was something else. The rich man treated him as a servant, but that was only because the son thought that was all he was. The father contrived the whole charade for the son's benefit, but there was one reality all along, and in the father's mind, one end. The son on the other hand is conducting himself within the paradigm of a servant until the father declares, "It was all a put on!" That charade was never going to lead to the son realizing his real identity. Sooner or later, the father had to pierce the fiction and reveal the truth. Once the son knows who he really is, the servant paradigm is shattered. Same thing - once the Buddha tells the sravaka, "That whole Hinayana was a story I told you because you think so little of yourself the only thing that would satisfy you was to annihilate desire, etc." How could Sariputra go back to the sravaka path once he hears he's destined for Buddhahood, and always was? The Phantom City has been dispelled, and Sariputra finds himself back on the trail. All he can do is say, with realization casting his entire sravaka endeavor in a new light, "Ohhhhh..... that's what that was...."

Malcolm wrote:
In his commentary on the Lankāvatara Sūtra, Vasubandhu opines:

To the immature, three vehicles, one vehicle, and no vehicle are taught; but to the āryas, the truth of the three vehicles is taught as nondual dharmatā.

On the other hand, Asvabhāva writes in his Extensive Commentary on the Ornament of Mahāyāna Sūtras:
Since it is culmination of all vehicles, it is called Mahāyāna; since there is no other special vehicle beyond that, it is called Ekayāna.

So from this point of view, Ekayāna is the bodhisattva path of perfections, and nothing else.

On the Madhyamaka team, the only thing Vimuktisena writes in his massive commentary on the Abhisamayālaṃkāra:

Since dharmatā is undifferentiated, all paths are the Ekayāna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Awakening kundalini?
Content:
SunWuKong said:
Milarepa was a sorcerer who used his powers to murder his own family. He must have been the most unhappy person on earth. Then he found a Guru, but his guru rejected him. He persisted and eventually became the Milarepa we know and love today. It says a lot about the power of redemption offered through the Buddhist tradition

Malcolm wrote:
Milarepa never murdered anyone in his own family. He was never rejected by his guru. Virtually everything Tsang Nyon Heruka has to say about Milarepa's life is completely false Apart from the songs TNH collected, there is very little truth in his account of Milarepa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Pure Land teachings from a Zen perspective
Content:


Dharma Flower said:
Insisting that Amida either exists or does not exist, when seen in light of the Lankavatara Sutra, is an unnecessary dualistic distinction. The One Mind in all things just is, no matter what name or form we ascribe to it.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no One Mind in the Lanka or any other sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but I think you have zero understanding of the real situation with respect to NK. You do understand we are mobilizing for a war there?
In the very possible eventuality that hostilities do breakout we’ll be screwed, all of us.

Minobu said:
i fear you are right...but the we? i think it is a small group of militarists and trump .
Why is SK shaking hands with Kim's sister in front of the world.

Are they, the Two koreas, using the whole Olympic peace opening ceremony and joined team to put pressure to quash this intended war by the USA's administration as of late.

it certainly opposing views being put out ..and the Korea's seem to have very little say in what happens...

NK asked for oil to get a ferry back home...SK said it had to ask permission from USA.

the most precarious set of politics ever...


also i think the stock market is a real sign of what could happen, people are getting their money out slowly while making gains computer generated..for each rise of 300 you get a 1000 dump..it will go to 19,000 and hang there....gold will be at an all time high...people are heading for the hills...

Malcolm wrote:
What I had in mind was fallout and millions of dead Koreans. The stockmarket is hardly a consideration in the event true hostilities breakout.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


Minobu said:
do you see God the Creator as a false teaching, something made up and not real . something to control populace?

Malcolm wrote:
It's erroneous but I also don't think that people picking up the banner of Buddhism will help anything at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Indeed. However  Zhiyi could not have read  Candra.

DGA said:
How so?

Malcolm wrote:
Candra lived in the 9th century.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 10th, 2018 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:
Simon E. said:
If you want to practice Vajrayana you have to have a teacher. Who may or may not be a monk. She might be a married woman with children.

Malcolm wrote:
She might be a women married to another women.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:
SunWuKong said:
Following a guru is important in some traditions but not all. I’d never give up being responsible for my own choices, anyway. I consider it to be a cop-out.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what following a guru is about. All Buddhist tradition emphasize the crucial importance of a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 11:19 AM
Title: Re: Goodbye
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Excerpt from a peterson speech:
And the other thing that's so interesting is that lobsters knew all this stuff. They cleaned their rooms 20 million years ago.


Malcolm wrote:
Obviously, someone needs to do a cutup of Peterson's speeches ala Gyson and Burroughs. This shit is great.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 11:09 AM
Title: Re: Goodbye
Content:
“Malcolm” said:
All Buddhist discipline takes these ten natural principles based on our body, voice, and mind as the foundation for all vows, and so on. When we add bodhicitta on top of this, we arrive at the Mahāyāna path. This is why all Mahāyāna practice, including Dzogchen, takes the motivation to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings as the basis for the path.

Nonharming -- bodhicitta -- insight. These three are the essence of Mahāyāna ethics.

Wayfarer said:
I couldn’t possibly disagree with any of that, as I think it’s perfectly true. But in respect of Nāgārjuna’s teaching of śūnyatā - if this says that nothing is real, or nothing truly exists, does this also apply to the elements of the Buddhist path, as outlined here? Or would that be a misunderstanding?

Malcolm wrote:
As Haribhadra pointed out, the path, from beginning to end, is an illusion, like anything else produced from conditions, such as mirages, optical illusions, and so on. The appearances that we see have no essence when they appear, and if they are sought out, they are only found with respect to how solid our own clinging to our own sense of self is. In other words, the more real we imagine our personal self to be, the more real we imagine phenomena to be. And when we have understood that our personal self really is just a designation upon shifting conditions, which are composed of still more shifting conditions, we simultaneously can understand that about all other appearances, and sever our clinging. In the meantime, we observe conventions and do not assume these illusory conditions don't have rules and apparent consequences. But it isn't fixed or real in any meaningful, ontological, way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 11:00 AM
Title: Re: Are Pure Land and Nichiren Buddhisms Compatible With Each Other?
Content:
rory said:
I think we're casting back our ideas of of the predominance of Amida's pure land onto the past. As before Honen: monks practiced to get to a variety of Pure Land and yes that was a real ongoing practice and Nichiren has the Pure Land of Tranquil Light. According to single practice Pure Land schools such as Jodo Shu and Jodo Shinshu there is only one important pure land (they wouldn't deny the existence of others) Kannon sama has her own Pure Land of Mt. Potalaka, and that's totally fine too!
gassho
Rory

Admin_PC said:
Yah, but 浄土宗 Pure Land school, 浄土教 Pure Land teachings - always referred explicitly to teachings centered around Sukhavati.
Saying otherwise is historical revisionism.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetan Buddhism has an extremely strong pure land component-- but it is not obvious because it is just part of the architecture of all Tibetan schools; especially Nyingma. In the Nyingma school, Amitabha is regarded as being the dharmakāya; Avalokiteśvara is the sambhogakāya; and Guru Padmasambhava is the nirmanakāya. They all have their own buddhafields; but Amitabha's is indivisible from Akaniṣṭha Ghanavyuha. Avalokiteśvara's is Mt. Potala in S. India. Guru Padmasambhava's buddhafield is on the continent of cannibals, the southwest continent of Camara (likely Madagascar).

By invoking any one of these aspects of the three kāyas, one invokes all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Queequeg said:
Here is the way Ekayana is understood in East Asian Lotus Traditions - namely Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren.

There is one vehicle - the Buddhayana. In response to the needs of the various beings, the Buddha, employing upaya, teaches the Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, and Bodhisattvayana. The Sravakayana is characterized by the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, etc. what we usually associate with Hinayana. The Pratyekabuddhayana is characterized by wisdom of pratityasamutpada, particularly through the teaching of the 12 linked chain of causation. The Bodhisattvayana is characterized by the teaching on the Six Paramita and the gradual path of 3 eons. None of these is a real path; all three of these are upaya. They, in themselves, do not lead to annuttarasamyaksambodhi. Only the Buddhayana leads to annuttarasamyaksambodhi. These three vehicles lead along the path, but only incompletely. And actually, the Buddhayana encompasses these teachings, without any caveat, but these teachings do not encompass the Buddhayana. Neither do these teachings necessarily encompass each other. For instance, in some interpretations of the Bodhisattvayana, Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Icchantika are precluded from ever attaining Buddhahood. Hence, that form of the Bodhisattvayana is called a Separate or Distinct teaching. All paths eventually lead to the pure Buddhayana, meaning, at some point, beings are told that the path they tread is upaya and that what they have always already been treading was the Buddhayana. That the three are provisional, and only the Buddhayana is real. This is the teaching called the Lotus. It is taught from time time, but not all the time.

In the third chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha tells the famous parable of the burning house. In short, a father finds his children obliviously playing in a burning house. He tries to get them out by pointing out the danger, but they don't listen. He contrives to tell them that there are goat, deer and ox carts outside, and if they would only come outside he would give each their own cart. The children come running out, but there are no carts. The father is happy because his children are safe, but now the children are demanding the carts. The father is then so happy he gives all the children great ox carts far beyond anything they expected and they ride off into the sunset.

The three carts that are promised are the sravakayana, pratyekabuddhayana, and bodhisattvayana. They don't actually exist. But, if people undertake these paths, they will be delivered from the burning house. Once they're out, the Buddha gives them the Buddhayana which is far beyond what they could have hoped for.

“O Śāriputra! You should know that the buddhas, with the power of skillful means, teach the single buddha vehicle, dividing and teaching it as three.”

Several other parables convey similar messages - for instance the parable of the phantom city.

The real controversy is about whether the Bodhisattvayana and the Buddhayana are actually the same. Both are referred to as Mahayana. However, in what is called the Honmon, or original gate teachings, meaning the second half of the Lotus Sutra, there comes a point when the assembly of bodhisattvas that includes Maitreya, Manjusri, Avalokitesvara, etc. etc., Bodhisattvas that are on the path of the six paramita, are stumped by a myriad of bodhisattvas who erupt out of the ground and which the Buddha identifies as his disciples since his enlightenment. Maitreya and the assembly cannot understand this, describing it like a young man introducing an old man as his son. This indicates that the bodhisattva who are the foremost in the assembly actually are limited. These bodhisattvas until that point still believe that Shakyamuni first attained enlightenment in Gaya.

This is where the bodhisattvayana is demonstrated to be an incomplete path - even Maitreya who is supposed to be the next Buddha doesn't realize that the path he treads is so limited.

In the next Chapter, the Buddha explains his life span which is understood to be eternal, and that all beings, are on this Buddhayana whether they realize it or not, all destined for Buddhahood. The Bodhisattvas don't even know the full scope of this path, let alone sravaka or pratyekabuddha.

I am sure there will be disagreement and critique, moaning about "This is not how the Indians understand it!"

All well and good. There really is nothing to argue about. This is it. This is fact. This is what Ekayana and the Three Vehicles means in East Asian Lotus discourse. Whatever you think about it is opinion.

Malcolm wrote:
This statement below is indefensible.

Queequeg said:
There is one vehicle - the Buddhayana. In response to the needs of the various beings, the Buddha, employing upaya, teaches the Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, and Bodhisattvayana. The Sravakayana is characterized by the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, etc. what we usually associate with Hinayana. The Pratyekabuddhayana is characterized by wisdom of pratityasamutpada, particularly through the teaching of the 12 linked chain of causation. The Bodhisattvayana is characterized by the teaching on the Six Paramita and the gradual path of 3 eons. None of these is a real path; all three of these are upaya. They, in themselves, do not lead to annuttarasamyaksambodhi.



Malcolm wrote:
And this can only be a rhetorical device at best

Queequeg said:
This is where the bodhisattvayana is demonstrated to be an incomplete path - even Maitreya who is supposed to be the next Buddha doesn't realize that the path he treads is so limited.

Malcolm wrote:
Maitreya, like Śākyamuni, is presently a nirmankāya, who will succeed Śākyamuni as the fifth in line of the 1002 buddhas of this fortunate eon. It is impossible for Maitreya to possess the ignorance you attribute to him. If Maitreya, a nirmankāya, possesses such ignorance, so does Śakyamuni, a nirmankāya. So that part of your narrative, friend is inconsistent.  And save me the sermon about "The Buddha for this time and place." A nirmanak̄ya is a nirmanakāya is a nirmanakāya — they are either omniscient about the three times and everything in it, or they are not. Also, one can easily discover that Mañjuśrī attained full buddhahood countless eons ago, so claiming that he or any other bodhisattva belonging to the eight close sons, or even of the tenth bhumi were under the impression than Śākyamuni Buddha first attained buddhahood at Bodhgaya is totally ridiculous. It just means you ignore everything every other Mahāyāna sūtra has to say.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 10:37 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Queequeg said:
These bodhisattvas until that point still believe that Shakyamuni first attained enlightenment in Gaya.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they don't. Whatever gives you this idea?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 10:29 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:



DGA said:
I don't see much daylight between the position you are describing, Malcolm, and the Tientai position.

Coëmgenu said:
The position is almost completely the same. I need to assemble some quotes but I see them as identical.

DGA said:
An amusing image emerges:

Young Zhiyi reads Chandrakirti (in Kumarajiva's translation).  He notices the passage Malcolm has referred to, including the reference to the Lotus Sutra.

Reflecting on this passage, he reflects on the significance of the Lotus Sutra (in Kumarajiva's translation) with regard to the various vehicles.

It's not difficult to envision this as the kernel for Zhiyi's thinking on ekayana, the five periods, the supremacy of the Lotus Sutra, and so on.

This is just speculation on my part.  Some scholar with a serious interest in this topic could excavate it, though.

Malcolm wrote:
Indeed. However  Zhiyi could not have read  Candra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
marting said:
Yes, yes. The nastiness of the outcome is well understood and being evaluated by the U.S. side. Really beside the point. If the U.S. is forced to defend itself from NK, it will. End of story.

Malcolm wrote:
Wag the dog...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
How do you propose one emotional being help other emotional being Buddhists who, for instance, reject rebirth, don't take refuge in the Three Jewels, say suffering is just a bad attitude, etc.? I'm glad to see any connection to the Dharma, but the Eight Freedoms and Ten Endowments don't come by every lifetime. The question from what I can see comes down to where do we place authority rather than only what makes us emotionally comfortable.

marting said:
Very good questions. I don't think we can help anyone accept the Dharma. This can only come from their own volition, tempered of course with the karmic propensity to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, a point I have made many times, with surprising pushback from some.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 6:02 AM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:
Ricky said:
The only authority should be what's written in the texts. Gurus are difficult to trust these days with all the chaos and scandals going on.

Malcolm wrote:
Which texts?

Ricky said:
Pali canon and mahayana sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
What about tantras?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:
Ricky said:
The only authority should be what's written in the texts. Gurus are difficult to trust these days with all the chaos and scandals going on.

Malcolm wrote:
Which texts?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Yes, but in a space where Buddhists specifically come together to discuss the Dharma, it's a little different don't you think? I wouldn't be a Buddhist today without many fine individuals helping and answering questions along the way.

Malcolm wrote:
We all really have a hard time even agreeing on what Buddhadharma is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Seeing Things As They Are
Content:



Way-Fun said:
In the context of that post, "things as they are" indicates things the clear seeing...

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are qualifying your initial statement.

Way-Fun said:
It wanted to be qualified.

Malcolm wrote:
No, it needed to be qualified.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 4:13 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


Minobu said:
The piece shows when a government and it's people follow false teachings the people and the land suffers.

Malcolm wrote:
Which false teaching would that be?

Coëmgenu said:
Art of the Deal.

Malcolm wrote:
good one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Authority. A Reflection.
Content:



Jeff H said:
But how is a statement like "everything is just based on our own damn opinion" reconciled with the indispensable need for a qualified teacher -- which, I think, is the topic of this thread.

Malcolm wrote:
Whether someone is qualified or not is based on our opinion. We can seek others opinions, but in the end, whether we accept their opinion or not is based completely on our own point of view, our own opinions. We can rely on credentials, certificates, and titles, but in the end, whether we think they are of value is just our own concept. We do our best.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Seeing Things As They Are
Content:
seeker242 said:
If one sees things as they are, then how can one even have delusions to begin with? As the very definition of "seeing things as they are" means "non-delusional"?


Simon E. said:
This.
Absolutely. Things 'as they are' are free from delusions. We impose the delusions and then do not see things as they are. 'Things' are not delusional. We are.

Way-Fun said:
In the context of that post, "things as they are" indicates things the clear seeing...

Malcolm wrote:
Now you are qualifying your initial statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 3:29 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


Minobu said:
The piece shows when a government and it's people follow false teachings the people and the land suffers.

Malcolm wrote:
Which false teaching would that be?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Pure vision, what's up with?
Content:
Kim said:
Sure. I guess this interpretation by Kunzang Dechen Lingpa (who I assume you referred to) is rather unique, since tertonship usually refers to someone who has been original disciple of GR.

Malcolm wrote:
KDL was such a person as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 9th, 2018 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:



Minobu said:
the piece holds up to today in your very country.

Malcolm wrote:
How is it relevant to the US?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Goodbye
Content:
weitsicht said:
I still somehow hope that there at least in spacetime is the last eternal value left.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is that conditioned entities are in spacetime. If spacetime were unconditioned, it could not contain conditioned entities because any relationship between a conditioned entity and an unconditioned entity is impossible.

With respect to Buddhist values -- they are based on "natural" law, i.e. that the ten nonvirtues contribute in general to overall misery and the ten virtues contribute to overall happiness. All Buddhist discipline takes these ten natural principles based on our body, voice, and mind as the foundation for all vows, and so on. When we add bodhicitta on top of this, we arrive at the Mahāyāna path. This is why all Mahāyāna practice, including Dzogchen, takes the motivation to attain buddhahood for all sentient beings as the basis for the path.

Nonharming -- bodhicitta -- insight. These three are the essence of Mahāyāna ethics.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Pure vision, what's up with?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
My late teacher, an important terton, said if you want to be a terton, the only real requirement is faith in Guru Rinpoche. If you supplicate him strongly enough with genuine compassion for sentient beings, then you might be able to reveal terma.

Kim said:
How does this fit with the traditional view of who can be tertons (GR's direct disciples)?

Malcolm wrote:
All termas are revealed through GP's blessings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 11:43 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Queequeg said:
None of these is a real path; all three of these are upaya. They, in themselves, do not lead to annuttarasamyaksambodhi.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a questionable assertion. While it may accurately represent what the schools you mention maintain, it is not an easily defensible assertion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 11:35 AM
Title: Re: Seventeen Tantras Volume 1 & 2
Content:
Fa Dao said:
And all 17 will be translated by you?

Malcolm wrote:
That's my plan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 11:29 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the white elephant (not ox)

Coëmgenu said:
Is this from the Nepalese LS?

Malcolm wrote:
no its my error, based on a hasty misreading of a secondary source in Tibetan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


Minobu said:
i still am hoping for malcolm's sake thats all bullshit and he can give us a definitive source to the fact Pabongka was using upaya in his  criticizes , which also are claimed by the other side of the sectarian war.

Malcolm wrote:
I was reporting the views of others, for the third time.

Minobu said:
well i think thats unfair to do that in this sectarian war you back...just saying..

Malcolm wrote:
You can think whatever you like, friend. I am not in your brain pulling the strings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
DGA said:
Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana)

Coëmgenu said:
And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?

DGA said:
Yes, I understand the Mahayana to be the ekayana.  In the last analysis, the two terms are fungible into each other.

I don't think that the ekayana is found in all three provisional paths so much as all three provisional paths are means to the end of leading beings to Mahayana and hence Buddhahood.  Maybe that is a distinction without a difference.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, if you follow Candra's logic, the one path is based on the fact that everyone realizes the dharmadhātu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 5:00 AM
Title: Re: Seventeen Tantras Volume 1 & 2
Content:
Sennin said:
I have read that the rigpa rang shar has eighty-six chapters; and is first in the list of tantras listed in the dra tal gyur.
So I'm assuming this is one of the most exhaustive given the length of the text?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is the longest of all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You love flinging the critique that has zero calories since you never back your shit up. But you should take that to the other thread, since you are the expert.

Queequeg said:
LOL. Zero calories? Pot, meet kettle.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, tastes great, less filling. From my point of view, the Kamakura period was a period of intense sectarian conflict in Japanese Buddhism, perhaps a reflection of social conditions, but sectarian nevertheless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
The LS, like the Buddha, teaches a one vehicle path. Not two. Not three. Not four.

Malcolm wrote:
This is highly debatable, which is why there is debate about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The lens of sectarianism is problematic when projected onto what was going on during the Kamakura period.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, you have no idea how much Buddhist history I have studied, including Japanese Buddhist history.

Second of all, sectarianism is sectarianism. It is not problematical at all to observe it in Kamakura Buddhism. Dogen was also sectarian, pretty firmly so. It's par for the course for people who are invested in their own ideology or someone else's to be sectarian.

So let's not be naive and pretend that sectarianism isn't rife in Buddhism, everywhere.

Queequeg said:
You'll have to pardon me. Your obtuse exchanges on Ekayana understood in East Asia going on in other sub-forums at present, a pretty important topic in Japanese Buddhism, give me reason to suspect your studies are limited.

Malcolm wrote:
You can think whatever you like. It has nothing to with reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Coëmgenu said:
But look at the placement of the macron in ekayanamagga.

Malcolm wrote:
Meaning son, the meaning.

Coëmgenu said:
The location of the placement of the macron is rather important. It determines the semantic value of the compound, or the meaning. For instance: ekayana with a macron on the second a is "one vehicle". Ekayana with the macron on the first a is not.

Malcolm wrote:
Somehow my reply did not take. It is more likely that the long vowel sandhi (eka ayana) was shifted when this term was translated from Prakrit to Sanskrit, i.e. Pali ekāyana -->Sanskrit ekayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


Minobu said:
i still am hoping for malcolm's sake thats all bullshit and he can give us a definitive source to the fact Pabongka was using upaya in his  criticizes , which also are claimed by the other side of the sectarian war.

Malcolm wrote:
I was reporting the views of others, for the third time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Coëmgenu said:
One note of pedantry here: ekayāna is a Sinicism. It doesn't appear in Pāli.

Chinese translators read ekāyana in Sanskritic texts & mistranslated it as ekayāna (一乘).

Malcolm wrote:
Ahem:

Concentration means keeping the mind firmly centered in a single object — the direct path (ekayana-magga) — not letting it tip, lean, or waver under the influence of its preoccupations, whether good or bad, past or future; keeping the mind honest and upright.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/strength.html

Ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo = "This is the only way, O bhikkhus." Why did the Blessed One teach this Discourse? Because of the ability of the people of the Kurus to take in deep doctrine.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

Etc.

Coëmgenu said:
But look at the placement of the macron in ekayanamagga.

Malcolm wrote:
Meaning son, the meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Vasectomy
Content:


Pema Rigdzin said:
sbyor lam is consort practice? I'm only nearing 42, so don't think I'm too old for much, but I'm afraid my wife would not be qualified for it, so not in the plans. Would the procedure affect practices like tummo, done as secondary practices for a Dzogchen practitioner?


Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.

Pema Rigdzin said:
Cool, thanks for the input! As an aside, what's the reasoning for such a young age cut-off for consort practice?

Malcolm wrote:
After 26, your nadis start degenerating, 220  a week or so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Minobu said:
when malcolm refers to Nichiren's writing as bile and talks of the rishuonkukoron ...he should discuss the writing and not just call it bile...

Malcolm wrote:
I did not refer to the writing as bile, I said he, Nichiren, expressed bile towards Honen in his writing. Get it straight, cowboy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I should add, that in Pali scriptures, ekayāna refers to the direct path.

Coëmgenu said:
One note of pedantry here: ekayāna is a Sinicism. It doesn't appear in Pāli.

Chinese translators read ekāyana in Sanskritic texts & mistranslated it as ekayāna (一乘).

Malcolm wrote:
Ahem:

Concentration means keeping the mind firmly centered in a single object — the direct path (ekayana-magga) — not letting it tip, lean, or waver under the influence of its preoccupations, whether good or bad, past or future; keeping the mind honest and upright.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/strength.html

Ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo = "This is the only way, O bhikkhus." Why did the Blessed One teach this Discourse? Because of the ability of the people of the Kurus to take in deep doctrine.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

Etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 3:19 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
That is a novel interpretation.

Coëmgenu said:
It just seems like Tiāntāi afaik. If it is horribly misinformed, I am similarly congruently misinformed, and me and Queequeg do not PM in order to synchronize our misconceptions. The only thing I might disagree with is "inconceivable to anyone within the three vehicles".

marting said:
Are there four or three yanas in the LS?

Malcolm wrote:
That seems to depend on whether you are Indian or Chinese.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:


jake said:
Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.

DGA said:
Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana)

Coëmgenu said:
And therein lies the controverted point: is the Mahāyāna the ekayāna?

When I read the LS, I see three provisional paths outlined and one definitive path.

The three provisional paths being pratyayasaṃbodhiyāna, śrāvakayāna,& bodhisattvayāna. I see one definitive path: buddhayāna, the ekayāna, found in all three.

Is bodhisattvayāna provisional, I suppose, is the question at hand?

Malcolm wrote:
This is not how it is understood by Candrakīrti. Candra, the preeminent representative of Nāgārjuna's school in India, understands Mahāyāna = Ekayāna.

Maitreyanath understands the Ekayāna idea to require interpretation, thus, not definitive.

There is no fourth yāna. Even Vajrayāna is just part of Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:



Minobu said:
i was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.

Anyway back to source  the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.

you said


it's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.

Minobu said:
I asked you twice now a third.
Where do you get where you claim pabongka was using upaya as the reason for the criticisms .

i asked for source for i fear some would think you just shot that fake news  out to bolster your stance in the discussion with "Q".

Malcolm wrote:
I am not required to report to you where and when I have had this or that conversation with Gelug apologists for Pabhongkha. It is sufficient that I have had them and now report them to you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
The lens of sectarianism is problematic when projected onto what was going on during the Kamakura period.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, you have no idea how much Buddhist history I have studied, including Japanese Buddhist history.

Second of all, sectarianism is sectarianism. It is not problematical at all to observe it in Kamakura Buddhism. Dogen was also sectarian, pretty firmly so. It's par for the course for people who are invested in their own ideology or someone else's to be sectarian.

So let's not be naive and pretend that sectarianism isn't rife in Buddhism, everywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Pure vision, what's up with?
Content:
climb-up said:
I wonder if anyone can tell me a little about Pure Vision transmissions (if I even have the terminology correct) and how they are received and verified.
I'm not so much interested in how one lama might verify another lama's pure vision (unless that is part of the process), because I know that these can be controversial and there can be disagreements, but about a lama or practitioner receives and verifies these.

Is it common for lamas to receive pure visions as part of their three year retreat, or through their practice in general?
Are these visions sought, or do they just arise?
How are they differentiate from a very strong imaginary experience?

(Just to be clear,  ...I have received no pure visions and am not trying to verify any, just very interested in this process).

florin said:
You need to be a reancarnation of someone who has had the very rare privilege of having been personally chosen by Padmasambhava to receive the transmissions of said treasures.
These are some of his disciples. When the time comes for these treasures to be revealed the disciple should enter a period of retreat where he meets Padmasambhava himself in a vission or a dream and where past memories of empowerments and details about the terma to be revealed are awakened.
I guess the way this happens is not set in stone but this is how, more or less, Ratna Lingpa explains it.

climb-up said:
This is to be a terton right?
Or is it the same to receive a pure vision?

Malcolm wrote:
My late teacher, an important terton, said if you want to be a terton, the only real requirement is faith in Guru Rinpoche. If you supplicate him strongly enough with genuine compassion for sentient beings, then you might be able to reveal terma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Pure vision, what's up with?
Content:
Thomas Amundsen said:
Pure visions may be a little less "regulated" than termas. But my understanding of termas is that there are some checks and balances in the tradition, it's not completely wild and hairy. For one, I believe a terton must be a reincarnation of one of Padmasambhava's 25 disciples. Secondly, there are six (up to nine?) terma lineages that must be intact for a terma to be considered valid. One of those is a prophesy lineage. The terton should have already been prophesied by Guru Rinpoche that they would reveal this teaching at a particular time and place. Some of these prophesies really are quite detailed.

Malcolm wrote:
Most of these rules are later elaborations.

Thomas Amundsen said:
Ah, that makes sense. Later like 14th century, or much more recent?

Malcolm wrote:
It is cumulative, each generation added more rules.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 8th, 2018 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
I just want to make clear, he had no sectarian perspective when he was making his criticisms because he had no sect.


Malcolm wrote:
Oh, come on. Of course he had a sectarian perspective, he was raised and educated in the Tendai tradition. It is pretty hard to read Risshōankokuron and not be surprised by the bile Nichiren expresses towards Honen's Jodo Shu.

He would have been appalled at Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 11:15 PM
Title: Re: Pure vision, what's up with?
Content:
Thomas Amundsen said:
Pure visions may be a little less "regulated" than termas. But my understanding of termas is that there are some checks and balances in the tradition, it's not completely wild and hairy. For one, I believe a terton must be a reincarnation of one of Padmasambhava's 25 disciples. Secondly, there are six (up to nine?) terma lineages that must be intact for a terma to be considered valid. One of those is a prophesy lineage. The terton should have already been prophesied by Guru Rinpoche that they would reveal this teaching at a particular time and place. Some of these prophesies really are quite detailed.

Malcolm wrote:
Most of these rules are later elaborations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Seeing Things As They Are
Content:
Way-Fun said:
When reality is as it already is, you are already free, as you are.

Malcolm wrote:
When is reality not as it is? Thus, your own statement is self-contradictory since despite the fact that reality is already as it is, sentient beings still suffer from afflictions and karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Is Zen Buddhism the "Successor" of Classic Taoism?
Content:
Astus said:
Please look at Chengguan's words:

豈言象之能至。故云迥出。又借斯亡絶以遣言思。 (T36n1736_p0002b19)
Words may resemble very much. But the cause (behind it) is very different. We borrow the words but not accept their meaning.
言有濫同釋教者。皆是佛法之餘。 (T35n1735_p0521 b15-16)
Those who go too far and equate [false teachings] with Buddhism are all outside of the Buddhadharma.
無得求一時之小名。渾三教之一致。習邪見之毒種。為地獄之深因。開無明之源流。遏種智之玄路。誡之誡之。(T36n1736_p0107 a11-13)
Do not seek after the trivial reputation of a single age and confuse the three teachings as one. Studying the poisonous seeds of false views is a deep cause for being born in hell, opens up the wellspring of ignorance, and blocks of the road to omniscience. Take heed! Take heed!

Guifeng Zongmi on Confucianism and Daoism:

"The main thrust of the non-Buddhist teachings, however, is to establish the conduct for humanity, not to inquire into its ultimate origin. The myriad things discussed in the two teachings are limited to the phenomenal world. Although they point to the great Dao as the root, they do not completely explain agreeability and adversity, arising and ceasing, purity and defilement, or causes and conditions. Consequently, those who practice these teachings are not aware that the doctrines are provisional and cling to them as perfect teachings."
(Treatise on the Origin of Humanity, in Three Short Treatises, BDK ed, p 149)

Dogen wrote:

"no student of Kongzi and Laozi has ever fathomed the Buddha-Dharma. People today of the great kingdom of Song mostly uphold the principle of agreement between Kongzi and Laozi and the Buddha’s truth. It is the gravest of wrong views"
"Kongzi, Laozi, Zhuangzi, Huizi, and suchlike are just common people. They could not reach the level of even a srotāpanna of the Small Vehicle; how much less could they reach the level of the second [effect] or the third [effect] or an arhat of the fourth [effect]? That students, however, out of ignorance, put them on a par with the buddhas, is “in the midst of delusion, deepening delusion.” Kongzi and Laozi are not only ignorant of the three times and ignorant of the many kalpas; they are not able to know one instant of mindfulness and not able to know one moment of the mind. They do not bear comparison even with the gods of the sun and the moon and they cannot equal the four great kings and the hosts of gods. Whether in the secular sphere or beyond the secular sphere, [seen] in comparison with the World-honored One, they are straying in delusion."
(Shizen-biku, in SBGZ, BDK ed, vol 4, p 268, 275-276)

Malcolm wrote:
Yup.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:



Minobu said:
i was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.

Anyway back to source  the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.

you said


it's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.

ItsRaining said:
Just wondering, what is it like now? Is Gelug still the predominant philosophical view in Tibet?


Malcolm wrote:
For a long while, study of the Gelug school was predominant in academia. This is not the case anymore. Also, since the Ganden Phodrang was toppled, you could not say that in Tibet Gelug is the dominant school now.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 10:00 PM
Title: Re: Vasectomy
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
It would have no unavoidable, permanent detrimental effect on my practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. You are too old for sbyor lam anyway, right?

Pema Rigdzin said:
sbyor lam is consort practice? I'm only nearing 42, so don't think I'm too old for much, but I'm afraid my wife would not be qualified for it, so not in the plans. Would the procedure affect practices like tummo, done as secondary practices for a Dzogchen practitioner?


Malcolm wrote:
Not at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Vasectomy
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
It would have no unavoidable, permanent detrimental effect on my practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. You are too old for sbyor lam anyway, right?

Pema Rigdzin said:
sbyor lam is consort practice? I'm only nearing 42, so don't think I'm too old for much, but I'm afraid my wife would not be qualified for it, so not in the plans. Would the procedure affect practices like tummo, done as secondary practices for a Dzogchen practitioner?

Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, you are too old. 26 is the cutoff point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 12:03 PM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:



marting said:
Blame Kim.

Malcolm wrote:
That’s naive.

marting said:
Thanks for catching that. Forgot to add, "...and blame China." I'll leave it up to you to decide which is the worst offender of the two.

Malcolm wrote:
Have you ever actually been there? China, I mean.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 11:11 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:



marting said:
Sometimes you have to stand up to the bully, and https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/14/north-korea-1976-axe-murder-incident-215605

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but I think you have zero understanding of the real situation with respect to NK. You do understand we are mobilizing for a war there? In the very possible eventuality that hostilities do breakout we’ll be screwed, all of us.

marting said:
Blame Kim.

Malcolm wrote:
That’s naive.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 10:15 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
marting said:
You can try, but hard to justify the actions of bullies.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump isn’t a bully? After all, his button is bigger than Kim’s.

marting said:
Sometimes you have to stand up to the bully, and https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/14/north-korea-1976-axe-murder-incident-215605

Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but I think you have zero understanding of the real situation with respect to NK. You do understand we are mobilizing for a war there? In the very possible eventuality that hostilities do breakout we’ll be screwed, all of us.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 8:33 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
marting said:
You can try, but hard to justify the actions of bullies.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump isn’t a bully? After all, his button is bigger than Kim’s.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 8:31 AM
Title: Re: Vasectomy
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
It would have no unavoidable, permanent detrimental effect on my practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. You are too old for sbyor lam anyway, right?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:



DGA said:
Trump just passed an insane tax cut bill.  He's throwing money at the already rich.  That's why he's tolerated.  Mitt Romney couldn't do it,  but Trump could squeak into office and get this done for reasons we don't need to get into but have everything to do with idiot baby boomers.

Handing already rich people a big ol' wad of capital, among other things, spurs inflation.  Fears of inflation open onto bearish markets.  And here we are.

Mantrik said:
But I thought it was all spin.  The tax cut was less than Obama's according to UK media, just another way for Trump to lie to his dimwitted supporters.

Queequeg said:
Its a strange tax cut. For people at the bottom and the top it will make a difference. For most in the middle, its pretty much a wash. Small business owners will like this, unless they're accountants and lawyers. It also changes tax incentives. I understand, have not confirmed, it is favorable toward real estate investments at the expense of other types of investments... Gee, I wonder who put those provisions in there?


Malcolm wrote:
And gold courses, don't forger the oppressed golf course owners who are finally going to get those much needed deductions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Vasectomy
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Recently my wife floated the idea of me getting a vasectomy once we've either had our second and last child, or once we've decided we're gonna be one and done. She wasn't insistent, so that's not an issue, and I can't help but sympathize with her position of all other methods of birth control being basically all on her. But my concern is whether a surgery like this would be damaging to practice of Secret Mantra in general, and Dzogchen in particular. What say you, Malcolm, and others? Anyone spoke to their lama about this? I know my wife would take yet another one for the team if I told her it would be harmful to my practice. But would it?

Malcolm wrote:
Go for it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
marting said:
United States has done nothing to North Korea for decades. The image that they want nuclear weapons because they feel threatened from the United States is a pretense. Stop buying it.

Malcolm wrote:
The United States has put the screws on NK so tightly the people are starving because in Kim's paranoia, he'd rather buy weapons than food. Developing nukes is also part of the their constitution, BTW.

marting said:
Worth mentioning also that you're oblivious to Russia and China's tireless moves to check mate the U.S. off the world stage, economically, militarily, and politically, and the role a nuclear NK will play in that.

Malcolm wrote:
This is largely due to Trump's signaling that the US is withdrawing from its world leadership role with all this "America First" nonsense. And we know that Trump has a hardon for Putin. Trump buys into all this nationalist crap that Bannon was spinning. And all this "lets bring jobs back" is crap too. Who wants those jobs? No one. No one wants $9000 iphones either. There are no coal jobs that are going to be created. We are far from being "checkmated" by China and Russia on any score, in pure military terms. And our economy is still the largest in the world and will continue to be so. Our economy, as of 2017, is 24.32 percent of the world economy. Now, let that sink in because while we only have 324 million +- people, China's economy is only 14.84 percent of the world economy with 1.4 billion people. Russia's economy is the same size as Italy's. So please, dispense with the ridiculous exaggerations about how our economic, military, and political place in the world is so precarious. We, along with Western Europe are the wealthiest, most technically advanced countries in the world. But Trump has no understanding of this and is throwing it away based on trying to make white people in middle America happy with jobs they will never have again. He is selling them snake oil, and if you have a brain in your head, you know it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...all he wants to do is dismantle everything the black guy did.

marting said:
Who, the guy that did nothing whatsoever about North Korea during his tenure?

Malcolm wrote:
North Korea is not a problem that will be solved by ramping up aggression. I am not sure you really understand what motivates them and why they hate the Unite States so much. Did you completely forget all principles of Dharma?

Hostilities aren't stilled
	through hostility,
	regardless.
Hostilities are stilled
through non-hostility:
	this, an unending truth.

The people in this Adminstration are the most incompetent set of political appointees in I cannot remember how long.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
DGA said:
Pence could go full Caligula, though, when it's his turn.

Malcolm wrote:
I see him more going the Torquemada route, myself. "Kill them all, God will know his own."

Queequeg said:
All with that plastic smile.

His holocaust remembrance tweet was a travesty.

What a creep.

Malcolm wrote:
This whole administration is a travesty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 5:30 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:



marting said:
More embarrassing is the inability to acknowledge corrosive ideologies advanced by capable, aggressive state actors.

Malcolm wrote:
The flawed ideology at work here is the ideology of a deeply incompetent administration that defunds the state dept and refuses to send qualified diplomats to S. Korea.

marting said:
No, no, you're missing the invisible gorill...who am I kidding, you're already in the advanced stages of anti-Trumpiritis. Carry on.



Malcolm wrote:
The man is a boob who does not understand anything at all about how foreign policy works, don't even get me started on what a fool he is about the EPA, and so on. He is such a racist asshole, all he wants to do is dismantle everything the black guy did.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 5:02 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
DGA said:
Pence could go full Caligula, though, when it's his turn.

Malcolm wrote:
I see him more going the Torquemada route, myself. "Kill them all, God will know his own."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:



Minobu said:
source please.


Malcolm wrote:
Source of what? Pabhongkha's sectarian remarks?

Minobu said:
i was unaware of his sectarianism...i read his liberation in the palm of your hand ..and well i never was clued into the gelugpa nygma wars you discuss.

Anyway back to source  the question;
No, that people use upaya as a means to justify his remarks.

you said
Queequeg said:
Those critiques were upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
That's what people say about Pabhongkha's criticisms too;
M

Minobu said:
it's the first i heard and wonder if this is actual or just something "You Feel"

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I have heard Gelugpas explain away his remarks as being related only to the fact that many Gelugpas in eastern Tibet were all becoming interested in Dzogchen, and he did not like that. He also did not like the so called Rime movement. He regarded it as a threat the Gelug intellectual hegemony in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
Mantrik said:
When the US sneezes, we all catch a cold.
Global indexes also fell.
In the UK we have the same issue - interest rates are set to rise so investment in shares becomes less attractive.

This stuff doesn't astound me.

What astounds me is that our UK economy took a major hit when the BREXIT process commenced, quite rightly recognising an insane plunge into the abyss.  Meanwhile,  in the US, the markets seemed blind to the election of an insane sociopath ....... just because he happened to lie about favouring big businesses and actually meant bribing anyone who would pay him off once he was ousted.

Queequeg said:
The Roman Empire endured under some truly pathetic leaders for a very long time... Historians credit the system Augustus left in place. Despite the lunatic in the White House, the rest of the government grinds along.
On that theme... I wonder if there is an argument to be made that Mueller/FBI/Justice Department is to Trump as Praetorian Guard is to Caligula...

Malcolm wrote:
More like Nero, I'd say...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:56 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Those critiques were upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
That's what people say about Pabhongkha's criticisms too;
M

Minobu said:
source please.


Malcolm wrote:
Source of what? Pabhongkha's sectarian remarks?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:



DGA said:
OK.  I haven't studied Yogacara in any detail at all, so I wouldn't know.

I should have made my point differently.  I don't know of any contemporary school of Mahayana that would claim that practitioners of sravakayana, even those who attain the goal of arhatship, do not eventually wind up practicing Mahayana and then attaining Buddhahood.  Are there any such schools today?

jake said:
Hi DGA,

The way you've phrased the paragraph above has triggered a question. Is your understanding of Ekayana that the other two vehicles lead to the Mahayana and then Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Or that all three vehicles lead, eventually, to Anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Sorry if this is 'off topic' in the thread, recognizing of course the broad scope of this thread.

DGA said:
Good one.  My comments so far in this thread don't account for pratyekabuddhas.  I've never met one so I can't say first hand.  In fact, I'm just parroting what little I know of the Mahayana party line.  Here's my best shot at that question.

I think you have to practice Mahayana (which is the same as Ekayana) in order to become a Samyaksambuddha.  Which means that pratyekabuddhas don't attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi, because they haven't practiced Mahayana.  Or is it possible for a pratyekabuddha to practice Mahayana?   I don't know.

I think all sentient beings have Buddhahood available to them, and that the different schemes of different vehicles are little more than temporarily useful fictions or taxonomies.

I invite anyone with the patience to correct any mistakes I've made to do so.

Malcolm wrote:
See this post:


https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=27709&start=240#p434368


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Those critiques were upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
That's what people say about Pabhongkha's criticisms too; I don't buy it personally. There is upāya, there is also grasping to views. I consider Pabhongkha and Nichiren's condemnations of other schools to be examples of the latter. YMMV.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
If all you have is madhyamika, I think the tendency is to be run into an emptiness pit. You have to return to the middle and allow for conventions, tentatively recognize dharmas, knowing their dependently arisen nature.

marting said:
I understand that Madhyamaka means "middle."

Malcolm wrote:
In general, it is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. But this does not mean there is something else between these two.


Whatever arises in dependence, 
that is explained to be emptiness;
that is a dependent designation, 
that itself is the middle way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
marting said:
Which leads me to wonder...what is beyond mere Madhyamaka?


Malcolm wrote:
Nothing, nothing surpasses Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
If all you have is madhyamika, I think the tendency is to be run into an emptiness pit. You have to return to the middle and allow for conventions, tentatively recognize dharmas, knowing their dependently arisen nature.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no middle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 3:02 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
You mean, Sudden and Perfect?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I would never describe mantrayāna in those terms. Mantrayāna is not sudden, it simply collapses the path of a buddha from three incalculable eons into one, seven, or 16 lifetimes depending on diligence, based on its special methods, creation and completion stage. Hence, Mantrayāna, aka uncommon Mahāyāna, is distinguished from common Mahāyāna solely by its method, but not by its view.

Queequeg said:
I was being a little facetious.

For the record - Sudden and Perfect in Tiantai is not the same as the notion of Sudden and Perfect where someone is enlightened in a Eureka moment.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I know. I respect the intellectual edifice that Zhiyi erected. But he makes historical assumptions I don't share.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
marting said:
To my limited understanding, Madhyamaka does indeed disabuse one of bias.

Queequeg said:
Agreed. AFAIK, Madhyamika is just an analysis that undermines any effort to establish a self-existent dharma. Efforts have been made over the millennia to make it something more, and they are bound to be undermined by the very thing they're trying to build something out of.

In East Asia, Nagarjuna is understood as teaching more than merely Madhyamika. The commentary on the Prajna Paramita Sutra attributed to Nagarjuna is probably as influential, if not more so.

Malcolm wrote:
But it too is just Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Anyways, it seems we never get around to actual doctrines because people get hung up on the rhetoric.

Malcolm wrote:
That means the rhetoric is in the way. It is one of the problems Gelugpas have with Pabhongakha, actually. Non-Gelugpas just can't forget that Pabhongkha stated in his letters, that all other Buddhists apart from his school were all going to hell, and so on. Then Gelugpas get mad and claim we are getting hung up on rhetoric. Moreover, there are more than just a few Gelugpas who double down on the rhetoric, and I see the same thing happening among Nichirenistas. This is complicated by the fact that Nichiren Buddhism itself has a complicated history, with factions and differing ideologies, from peaceful drum bangers who build Nirvana Stupas around to the world, to aggressive street preachers (at least there were in the '80's).

Queequeg said:
I'm not going to disavow Nichiren's rhetoric.

Malcolm wrote:
You ought to. It's pure, undiluted sectarianism.

Queequeg said:
I do think it is appropriate against materialists and nihilists whose influence is posing an existential threat to humanity.

Malcolm wrote:
I personally think religious people are a much greater existential threat to humanity than materialists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You brought up Nisgardatta as someone who both advocated dependent origination and nonduality. I pointed out this was impossible.

fuki said:
I did not, I was asked if I found it in his teachings, the answer was yes due to practise, ofcourse I see the impossibility you demonstrate however theorized, framed with a particular agenda, I'm not an idiot (well not in that way)
Yes, because every time you do, Advaita will be found to be eternalist, advocating ultimate being, and therefore incompatible with the practice of Buddhadharma. There is nothing useful in Advaita for those who practice Buddhadharma, other than to be examined and shown to be a source of faulty views and a deviation. We don't even need to discuss Yoga, Samkhya, etc., since these darshanas have been well refuted. I've studied these things with Hindu masters of them, they have no problem with the incompatibility of Buddhadharma with Samkhya and Advaita, or the incompatibility of Advaita witn Samkhya and Buddhadharma and so on. They cheerfully acknowledge that there are clear differences and that they need to respected.
I already said they were different.
You didn't get the "Mu" reference, well not its function.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand what the Japanese equivalent to A is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
Ricky said:
I really don't know much about it, just saw the price for a big name like that and was shocked.

Queequeg said:
Yeah, crown jewel of the American business world was run into the ground... IBM turned it around, but they are no longer making Business Machines. GE could regroup, but its probably not going to be making everything from jet engines to financial products. Even at its price now, you could lose money before you make money.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, Buffet is out of GE completely.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
unless of course one practices secret mantra.

Queequeg said:
You mean, Sudden and Perfect?

Malcolm wrote:
No, I would never describe mantrayāna in those terms. Mantrayāna is not sudden, it simply collapses the path of a buddha from three incalculable eons into one, seven, or 16 lifetimes depending on diligence, based on its special methods, creation and completion stage. Hence, Mantrayāna, aka uncommon Mahāyāna, is distinguished from common Mahāyāna solely by its method, but not by its view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
Not positing a fourth. The three are upaya - the Buddhayana is taught in varying degrees of incompleteness in response to the needs of the beings.


Malcolm wrote:
You are: you are saying that the three vehicles are not complete, and that there is a fourth which is.

Queequeg said:
No. The three are conventions, upaya. There is one complete vehicle.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is called Mahāyāna, which leads full buddhahood; and that takes three asamkheyakalpas to traverse, unless of course one practices secret mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



marting said:
Curious also: are you positing a fourth? For the record I couldn't find "Buddhayana" in the index of the paper you linked to.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he is.

This thread should really be split into a thread called Ekayāna: controversies and continuities.

Queequeg said:
Not positing a fourth. The three are upaya - the Buddhayana is taught in varying degrees of incompleteness in response to the needs of the beings.


Malcolm wrote:
You are: you are saying that the three vehicles are not complete, and that there is a fourth which is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
marting said:
The Buddhayana is inconceivable to anyone within the three vehicles, even the bodhisattvayana.
Curious also: are you positing a fourth? For the record I couldn't find "Buddhayana" in the index of the paper you linked to.

Queequeg said:
Buddhayana is referred to as Sudden and Complete/Perfect/Round.

Malcolm wrote:
Unfortunately, Queequeg generally retreats into Tien tai private language about this issue.

But suffice it to say that what Indians took one vehicle to mean, and its subsequent understanding in Tibet, and what is means to Tientai folk are not really commensurate.

For us, Mahāyāna itself is the one vehicle; for them the one vehicle is sudden, perfect, complete awakening, which as far as I know has never happened for anyone, anywhere, at anytime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
marting said:
The Buddhayana is inconceivable to anyone within the three vehicles, even the bodhisattvayana.
Curious also: are you positing a fourth? For the record I couldn't find "Buddhayana" in the index of the paper you linked to.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, he is.

This thread should really be split into a thread called Ekayāna: controversies and continuities.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
The awakening of the pratyekabuddha does not equal the awakening of a Buddha. It is of an inferior nature.

Malcolm wrote:
If this were the case it would mean the dharmadhātu had levels and grades. But as above, we can see this is false, which is why according to Candrakīrti, the liberation of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas are the same in terms of liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


jake said:
In your tradition, how would you describe this forth jeweled cart, the one pulled by a great white ox? Sorry to say, I remain rather ignorant of the specifics of the Tibetan traditions. (I also realize there are differing perspectives on what constitutes ekayana in Japanese traditions...)

jake

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "fourth" cart. There is only one cart, Mahāyāna, the practice of the six perfections which takes three incalculable eons. The jeweled cart drawn by the white elephant (not ox) is the result of Mahāyāna practice, buddhahood.

For example, the Lanka states:

"There are no other vehicles,
I teach only one vehicle;
but in order to guide the immature,
I explain different vehicles.

Candrakīrti observes:

"It is said ''There are persons for one vehicle and three,' but ultimately, there is only one vehicle. The teaching of Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna and Mahāyāna is for the purpose of introducing sentient beings."

He then clarifies what this means for him:

Because there are no divisions in the dharmadhātu, those [three] were explained for introducing [sentient beings]. Ārya Nāgārjuna states:

Because there are no divisions in the dharmadhātu, 
there are no divisions in vehicles;
the teaching of three vehicles
is for introducing sentient beings.

In that case, since the dharmadhātu is uniform, and because śrāvakas and so on do not differentiate the dharmadhātu, the vehicle is only one. Since there is traversing, there is a so-called vehicle, and because the absence of an entity of self of śrāvakas and so one are the same, there is one vehicle. Since this is traversed, it is a vehicle. Since they are equivalent in liberation, there is one vehicle."

Candra then goes on to point out that Yogacārins like Maitreyanatha regard the one vehicle teaching as interpretable and not definitive. He summarizes his statement however by stating, " As such, the character of the Mahāyāna is established as the Ekayāna. " In other words, Candra defines the one vehicle from the standpoint of reality, the dharmadhātu, and since reality is one, the means of realizing it must all be the same.

In other words, for Madhyamaka, Mahāyāna is the Ekayāna, there is no Ekayāna apart from Mahāyāna. This is basically how the Ekayāna is understood in Tibet as well, since we are all Madhyamaka here, of the Prasaṅga variety, apart from some people that follow gzhan stong.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
I never said there was a non-duality, like in my previous post which you didn't quote.
You brought up Nisgardatta as someone who both advocated dependent origination and nonduality. I pointed out this was impossible.

I'm not gonna engage the advaita-buddhadharma differences.
Yes, because every time you do, Advaita will be found to be eternalist, advocating ultimate being, and therefore incompatible with the practice of Buddhadharma. There is nothing useful in Advaita for those who practice Buddhadharma, other than to be examined and shown to be a source of faulty views and a deviation. We don't even need to discuss Yoga, Samkhya, etc., since these darshanas have been well refuted. I've studied these things with Hindu masters of them, they have no problem with the incompatibility of Buddhadharma with Samkhya and Advaita, or the incompatibility of Advaita witn Samkhya and Buddhadharma and so on. They cheerfully acknowledge that there are clear differences and that they need to respected.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
Queequeg said:
AMZN... Its expensive, but until the regulators start trying to break it up, they'll just keep bringing their capital to the table and disrupting industries with inefficiencies... very interested to see what they are going to do to the health insurance industry...

Malcolm wrote:
Buy a fund to take advantage of amazon. It is too volatile on the best of days for most people's comfort.

Apple has much better fundamentals. P/E ratio	16.22, Mkt. cap 811.89B

Amazon - P/E ratio 226.99, Mkt cap 675.09B

In other words, if you buy Amazon, you are paying $226.99 for every dollar of asset value. This is not a bargain. Amazon is way, way, over priced. Same with Tesla. It's a suckers bet.

Queequeg said:
Fair points about AMZN and TSLA. They are at the high end of value and would not recommend buying right now - wait for a pull back - but I would argue these aren't really bets on the companies and so traditional valuations are not going to tell the whole story - they're bets on Bezos and Musk and emerging business and product innovations that are in uncharted territory. Bezos has the better track record, and until the regulators start to come down on AMZN, I don't see their expansion slowing.

I agree on AAPL. Solid financials and in terms of product, they've got a cult - the Apple Store aesthetic looks like such a nice and pleasant future! I want to live there!

In general, though, I would not recommend jumping into the market new right now if you've never been. There are aspects of this market that are really weird and could blow up. Do your homework. Get in slow. Like Malcolm touched on, start with funds, and as you get a feel for what's going on, focus on industries that you can relate to, and then you can start placing specialized bets.

Actually, investing is a great dharma practice in certain respects. You need to cultivate detachment and equanimity. Attachments can get you killed.


Malcolm wrote:
Take a long view, and understand that over a long period of time, the market typically averages out to a 10-11 percent return, subtract inflation, and you have your real return (hence the panic over inflation in the market for the past couple of trading days). Stocks are not for most people. This is why Buffet always tells people to put their money in funds that track the major indexes. Right now, a 50/50 or 60/40 split between domestic and foreign equities is a good way to go, keep 15 percent in bonds, and 5 percent in cash. Also, Fidelity and Vanguard are selling total portfolios where one can simply invest in one fund according to one's stomach for risk, which is balanced accordingly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is the heart of your error, and it is at the heart of many who subscribe to nondualism, as if there were some nondual reality. There is not. I see this happen over and over again.

Dependent origination is rejected by all Advaitans because the logic of dependent origination does not permit one to advance an ontologically meaningful nondualism.

"Nondual" in Mahāyāna means either the absence of outer objects or it means the absence of the basic pair of existence and nonexistence.

M

fuki said:
Mu


Malcolm wrote:
You should really take the time to discover why Shantaraksita rejected Shankaracharya's embrace of nonarising. It was not because of sectarianism, it is was because Advaitans propose, including Nisgardatta, that reality is a all pervasive nondual consciousness. Nisgardatta's point of view is not compatible with http://www.nonduality.com/asmi2.htm:
To identify oneself with the particular is all the sin there is. The impersonal is real, the personal appears and disappears. "I am" is the impersonal Being. "I am this" is the person. The person is relative, and the pure Being fundamental.
This is completely incompatible with dependent origination. I am surprised you do not understand this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, February 7th, 2018 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:


fuki said:
No not the same.


Yes, non-duality and the void of own-being of that which arise, is at the heart of his teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the heart of your error, and it is at the heart of many who subscribe to nondualism, as if there were some nondual reality. There is not. I see this happen over and over again.

Dependent origination is rejected by all Advaitans because the logic of dependent origination does not permit one to advance an ontologically meaningful nondualism.

"Nondual" in Mahāyāna means either the absence of outer objects or it means the absence of the basic pair of existence and nonexistence.

M

Simon E. said:
Precisely so.

Malcolm wrote:
Time for people to read the Heart Sūtra again, or even better, the http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/ratnagunasamcayagatha.pdf. I just wish there were a better translation than this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
Queequeg said:
AMZN... Its expensive, but until the regulators start trying to break it up, they'll just keep bringing their capital to the table and disrupting industries with inefficiencies... very interested to see what they are going to do to the health insurance industry...

Malcolm wrote:
Buy a fund to take advantage of amazon. It is too volatile on the best of days for most people's comfort.

Apple has much better fundamentals. P/E ratio	16.22, Mkt. cap 811.89B

Amazon - P/E ratio 226.99, Mkt cap 675.09B

In other words, if you buy Amazon, you are paying $226.99 for every dollar of asset value. This is not a bargain. Amazon is way, way, over priced. Same with Tesla. It's a suckers bet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:


Soma999 said:
Everyone is right from his own point of view.

Malcolm wrote:
This does not mean everyone is "right."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Simon E. said:
So in your view are Nisargadatta Maharaj's teachings the same as Buddhadharma?

fuki said:
No not the same.
Do they include Dependant Origination for example?
Yes, non-duality and the void of own-being of that which arise, is at the heart of his teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
This is the heart of your error, and it is at the heart of many who subscribe to nondualism, as if there were some nondual reality. There is not. I see this happen over and over again.

Dependent origination is rejected by all Advaitans because the logic of dependent origination does not permit one to advance an ontologically meaningful nondualism.

"Nondual" in Mahāyāna means either the absence of outer objects or it means the absence of the basic pair of existence and nonexistence.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
fuki said:
hence they cannot describe the real-in-itself.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no "real-in-itself." This is just an importation of Kantian transcendental idealism into Nāgārjuna. But it is a wrong interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:



Wayfarer said:
The way Nāgārjuna is presented often is nihilistic. To say that nothing is real, or nothing exists, is nihilist, and it's also not what Nāgārjuna says.

Malcolm wrote:
He does say nothing is real. He does not say nothing exists.

fuki said:
"The task of philosophy is to show that reality conceived within the relativity-field is conceptual, and hence it has no essence of its own, i.e., it is not what it would be in itself"
- Nagarjuna

Understanding Nagar. is actually the true middle way, which is neither the extremes nor the middle, since the middle only designates the extremes.

Malcolm wrote:
Where is this from? The translation is a little strange.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
Queequeg said:
Anyways, it seems we never get around to actual doctrines because people get hung up on the rhetoric.

Malcolm wrote:
That means the rhetoric is in the way. It is one of the problems Gelugpas have with Pabhongakha, actually. Non-Gelugpas just can't forget that Pabhongkha stated in his letters, that all other Buddhists apart from his school were all going to hell, and so on. Then Gelugpas get mad and claim we are getting hung up on rhetoric. Moreover, there are more than just a few Gelugpas who double down on the rhetoric, and I see the same thing happening among Nichirenistas. This is complicated by the fact that Nichiren Buddhism itself has a complicated history, with factions and differing ideologies, from peaceful drum bangers who build Nirvana Stupas around to the world, to aggressive street preachers (at least there were in the '80's).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:


fuki said:
Q: What is the right view?
A: To perceive without perceiving any object whatsoever is the right view.

Malcolm wrote:
This is absolutely correct, but there is a right way to arrive at this view of no view, and a wrong way.

The right way is to analyze phenomena and find that there are no phenomena which stand up to analysis. The wrong way is to take this "no view" as a statement of dogma and start barking it at everything you see.

Now, in the West we have many people training in Zen who do not even know the rudiments of Buddhadharma. This was not the case in China and Japan, where Zen/Chan training was engaged in by people who were well trained in Sūtra, Abhidharma, and so on.

So, it is not surprising in the least that in Zen circles there are people who are unable to distinguish at all what is Buddhadharma and why it is truly unique in the world. The same thing is true of Vipassana.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Wayfarer has an aversion to Nāgārjuna, he understands it to be a form of nihilism.

Wayfarer said:
The way Nāgārjuna is presented often is nihilistic. To say that nothing is real, or nothing exists, is nihilist, and it's also not what Nāgārjuna says.

Malcolm wrote:
He does say nothing is real. He does not say nothing exists.


Wayfarer said:
Which is that things are empty of own-being, not merely or simply non-existent. Empty =/= non-existent. There are degrees of reality, that is why there can be 'two truths'.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the two truths are measure of how veridical a cognition is, it does not say anything at all about entities per se.


Wayfarer said:
I recognise and salute the superiority of the Buddha, otherwise I wouldn't consider myself Buddhist. But I can't agree with the statement that Buddhism is the only source of truth.

Malcolm wrote:
So you think that other traditions permit people to a degree of realization which is absolutely commensurate, say, with the path of seeing in Mahāyāna?


Wayfarer said:
What I see in the world's' wisdom traditions, are accounts of the encounter with the Infinite, which is clearly embodied in Mahayana Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Always knew you were a perennialist at heart.

Wayfarer said:
Buddhists have the best way of dealing with it - most consistent, most logical, and most profound. That's why I consider myself Buddhist.  But it doesn't make everyone else's understanding wrong -  that is just the kind of attitude that caused me to leave Christianity.

Malcolm wrote:
With respect to the nature of reality, all other religious understanding of it is wrong. If you believe otherwise, this means that you also believe that awakening has nothing to do with view. That is knowledge obscuration I hope you someday overcome. There is no common basis between Buddhadharma and tirthīka religions. HH Dalai Lama happily admits this, and with a grin, for example, is happy to state "When my Christian brothers want to talk to me about emptiness, I tell them emptiness is not their business."

This does not mean that all world religions are not based in some sense of moral responsibility and compassion for others, but compassion cannot eradicate afflictions which cause rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:


No_Mind said:
How far a leap is it from mind stream to universal soul?


Malcolm wrote:
It's an uncrossable abyss.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
marting said:
I think I follow: that the three would not be treading the path of Buddhayana without the Buddha? Just wanted to double check.

With the ekayana perspective can the three paths arise without the Buddha?

(Maybe the hang-up is that I'm just trying to understand the subject better. I'm not arguing.)

Queequeg said:
Right, the message of the Lotus seems to be that the Buddha teaches three paths to prepare beings for the Buddhayana.

Malcolm wrote:
I see, now you have retreated from your previous statement of certitude to "seems to be."

Queequeg said:
The Buddha is considered eternal, so the paths are eternal.

Malcolm wrote:
You are referring to the rūpakāya? If so, this is just not so. With respect to this assertion, the Buddha states in the PP in 100,000 lines:

If matter…is a phenomena that is permanent, stable, eternal and unchanging, this Mahāyāna Dharma would not be able to overwhelm the world with its devas, humans, asuras and gandharvas. Because matter…is a phenomena that is impermanent, unstable, transient and changing, this Mahāyāna Dharma is able to overwhelm the world with its devas, humans, asuras and gandharvas.

BTW, some Buddhas, like Sikhin, never ordain a monastic Sangha. So, just how are all paths eternal?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
Ekayana in the Lotus means that even when the Buddha teaches the the three vehicles he is actually teaching the one Buddhayana. Those on the sravakayana are taught arhatship and are aiming for arhatship; pratyekabuddhayana are aiming for pratyekabuddhahood; bodhisattvayana are taught a particular ideal of Buddhahood culminating after 3 eons of practice and they aim for that particular conception of Buddhahood. The actual goal of the Ekayana is not known within these paths. The Buddha is preparing them all to receive the Buddhayana. The Buddhayana is inconceivable to anyone within the three vehicles, even the bodhisattvayana.

Malcolm wrote:
That is a novel interpretation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:


marting said:
Very dependent on whether or not one caught the anti-Trump fever last year.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump is fool, leading other fools.

marting said:
More embarrassing is the inability to acknowledge corrosive ideologies advanced by capable, aggressive state actors.

Malcolm wrote:
The flawed ideology at work here is the ideology of a deeply incompetent administration that defunds the state dept and refuses to send qualified diplomats to S. Korea.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 8:32 PM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Aapl


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:



Queequeg said:
The thread drifted off topic and addressed the OP really only on the first page. If you want to inflame passions, as you did in the OP of that post ("You can read the article for a full catalogue to see if Nichiren sent any patriarchs of your tradition to hell..."), that's your prerogative. Its the way you put things that draws your intent into question.

Malcolm wrote:
Your post basically claims there is only one correct understanding and one correct practice. You do understand why some of us think this position is risible?

Queequeg said:
If you're not seeking bodhi, you're doing it wrong. Is that a controversial statement from a Buddhist perspective?

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that your guy claims if you don't seek bodhi his way, you're out. That is the risible part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:


Norwegian said:
As someone who goes for refuge to the Buddha, I have accepted the Buddha (indeed any Buddha) as the ultimate authority on Buddhadharma.

The Buddha then stating that outside of his teachings there is no liberation, means it's highly arrogant of me to question that statement (in the sense of implying that the Buddha is mistaken, and yet still after that say that I go for refuge to the Buddha). Or, if not arrogant, then just ignorant (how can I know more about these things than the Buddha himself?). The Buddha is a Buddha. This is supposed to mean something. If the Buddha says something, then I listen to it.

My attitude is that if I don't understand something, then I want to understand why it is so and so, instead of just discarding it. So far this has not disappointed me or let me down.


Malcolm wrote:
The other reason why Wayfarer is completely mistaken on this point is that he believes there is something ultimate beyond phenomena which must be realized. He thinks the unborn, etc. refers to something real.

Norwegian said:
And for however long you hold that kind of view, for that long you'll remain mistaken. It is honestly quite straightforward: A basic study of Madhyamaka should dispense with that kind of view (of there being something truly real, somehow).

Malcolm wrote:
Wayfarer has an aversion to Nāgārjuna, he understands it to be a form of nihilism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
“Malcolm” said:
The other reason why Wayfarer is completely mistaken on this point is that he believes there is something ultimate beyond phenomena which must be realized. He thinks the unborn, etc. refers to something real.

Wayfarer said:
It is not something, but also not nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
And thus you stuck in the third extreme, positing something which is not nothing but also not something, which is just the extreme of existence restated.


Wayfarer said:
But that’s not the reason. It’s because we all have to get along in a pluralistic world. Most of my relatives are Christian (or post-Christian). My sons both had Bible readings at their weddings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but this a Buddhist forum, and not your parlor. In your parlor, I wouldn't even discuss Buddhism, unless there was clear interest.

I don't discuss Buddhism with people unless they show interest.

Here, it is a different story. We are here to discuss Buddhadharma, and part of that discussion involves why Buddhadharma is unique and why it alone offers ultimate freedom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:



Queequeg said:
The thread drifted off topic and addressed the OP really only on the first page. If you want to inflame passions, as you did in the OP of that post ("You can read the article for a full catalogue to see if Nichiren sent any patriarchs of your tradition to hell..."), that's your prerogative. Its the way you put things that draws your intent into question.

Malcolm wrote:
Your post basically claims there is only one correct understanding and one correct practice. You do understand why some of us think this position is risible?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Dan74 said:
No Mind,

I find the approach as outlined here quite rigid as well. Life/spiritual practice are organic, not formulaic. Signposts (as in the Dharma) and one-to-one guidance from a teacher who knows your heart are vital, I agree, but any dogmatic approach as to what one needs (without even knowing where one is coming from) is naive at best.

Fora being the way they are, the view you are exposed here is symptomatic of this Forum's culture rather than what you are likely to hear in Vajrayana or Zen centres (in my experience), especially as a newcomer.

_/|\_

Malcolm wrote:
Also, these days most people are just into what feels good.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Dan74 said:
No Mind,

I find the approach as outlined here quite rigid as well. Life/spiritual practice are organic, not formulaic. Signposts (as in the Dharma) and one-to-one guidance from a teacher who knows your heart are vital, I agree, but any dogmatic approach as to what one needs (without even knowing where one is coming from) is naive at best.

Fora being the way they are, the view you are exposed here is symptomatic of this Forum's culture rather than what you are likely to hear in Vajrayana or Zen centres (in my experience), especially as a newcomer.

_/|\_

Malcolm wrote:
Everyone needs right view to practice Dharma. There is no way out otherwise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I don't agree with any form of 'religious triumphalism' - this way is the only way. We live in a pluralistic society which can accommodate many ways. And besides:
I have taught the Dharma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dharma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dharmas, to say nothing of Adharmas.

Norwegian said:
As someone who goes for refuge to the Buddha, I have accepted the Buddha (indeed any Buddha) as the ultimate authority on Buddhadharma.

The Buddha then stating that outside of his teachings there is no liberation, means it's highly arrogant of me to question that statement (in the sense of implying that the Buddha is mistaken, and yet still after that say that I go for refuge to the Buddha). Or, if not arrogant, then just ignorant (how can I know more about these things than the Buddha himself?). The Buddha is a Buddha. This is supposed to mean something. If the Buddha says something, then I listen to it.

My attitude is that if I don't understand something, then I want to understand why it is so and so, instead of just discarding it. So far this has not disappointed me or let me down.


Malcolm wrote:
The other reason why Wayfarer is completely mistaken on this point is that he believes there is something ultimate beyond phenomena which must be realized. He thinks the unborn, etc. refers to something real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
The ultimate goal is not Buddhist or Hindu or Christian, those distinctions only exist in the domain of phenomena. .

Tiago Simões said:
And given that we are not Buddhas, the domain of phenomena is all we have to play with.

Malcolm wrote:
Moerover, as the Sabba sutta points out, there nothing other than the domain of phenomena, and those are included completely within in the twelve āyatanas.

Another way to put it is that all compounded and uncompounded phenomena are included in one aggregate, one sense base, and one sense element, that is, the material aggregate, the mental sense base, and the dharma sense element. There are no phenomena outside of these three groups.

When we study Dharma in a proper way, we will abandon the notion that there is liberation for those outside of the Dharma. If we do not study Dharma in the proper way, maintaining the delusion that there is liberation for those outside of Buddhadharma is not only mistaken, but it is mistaken compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 5:41 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If liberation does not come from right view, than liberation has no cause and can arise at any time in anyone, whether they realized emptiness or not.

Kunga Lhadzom said:
But it would arise, if the karma for it ripened...maybe they practiced in a past life ?

Also if there is no begining. ...no cause to cause a begining....why couldn't liberation arise spontaneously ?

Malcolm wrote:
Why? It is because of the innate grasping at a nonexistent self which has not been eradicated by the realization of the emptiness of persons and phenomena that liberation cannot arise spontaneously. Since every other religion posits some kind of self as an ultimate reality, liberation is not possible for them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And exactly the same thing is being said of Christianity on Christian forums, and I don't accept that, either. I think liberation is ultimately beyond religions altogether - it is what they are pointing out, or pointing to, but as the parable says, they are 'fingers pointing at the moon'. The ultimate goal is not Buddhist or Hindu or Christian, those distinctions only exist in the domain of phenomena. But I'm not going to get into a long polemical debate about it.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, so for you liberation is not dependent on view, but something other mystical thingymabob that you cannot describe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Largest one day drop in U.S. stock market - in history
Content:
DNS said:
The U.S. DJIA dropped 1,175 points today after dropping 665 last Friday. It is the largest single day drop in U.S. history, however, in terms of percentage drop, it was -4.6% which is still very far from the -22.6% on 10-19-1987.

The pundits say it is because the jobs market is looking good, the economy is doing well, so the stock investors fear interest rates will be going up several times this year. That just makes me glad not to be part of that group, that wishes ill for the common workers, so that the Fed will keep interest rates low. Of course, I am sure there are some investors who don't think like that, but that was the general consensus among the pundits.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a buying opportunity. The world economy is growing. Fundamentals of the economy are great.

The market dropped because if interest rates rise, money becomes more expensive, and this affects returns on investments made with borrowed money. At a micro level this is nothing, but at the macro level, mutual fund level, this gets very expensive very quickly.

This will cause some investors to move their money into bonds, since yields are going to rise. Of course, let's hope the new Fed chair keeps his head and is super cautious about raising the Fed rates.

This is not a dis on workers, but there is some risk of inflation, because we are at nearly "full" employment. If borrowing money becomes expensive, this makes commercial paper more expensive, and this can have an adverse affect on jobs and growth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I don't agree with any form of 'religious triumphalism' - this way is the only way. We live in a pluralistic society which can accommodate many ways.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course, many sentient beings have different karma, and thus follow many paths, but without right view, liberation just is not possible. That right view exists only in Buddhadharma.

If liberation does not come from right view, than liberation has no cause and can arise at any time in anyone, whether they realized emptiness or not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Again, Kyle, this is too narrow. But I am not going to discuss it here other than to say one does not need to be an ārya to be said to know Dzogchen directly and experientially. You are mixing up sūtra and Dzogchen here.

krodha said:
I was attempting to offer an example of another distinction that is somewhat similar in nature.

In any case seems this conversation has probably ran its course.

The distinction isn't important anyway but Dawai Gocha's blatant refusal to even consider its merits is a bit strange to me.

Malcolm wrote:
I understand, it is just that the special feature of Dzogchen is that ordinary people are able to recognize their dharmatā experientially in a direct perception without having realized emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:



krodha said:
And the "Dzogchenpa" distinction allows both of us to maintain our points of view in a rather harmonious way.

Dawai Gocha said:
Maybe check out my second post that wasn't approved until later, it might be worth entertaining.

Seems 'dzogchenpa' can be used in both contexts. Both dictionaries define it as 'practitioners of dzogchen' and teachers have used it in this way.

krodha said:
The main point is again, that "Dzogchen" is the living and experiential dimension of equipoise. Those who have known Dzogchen are awakened individuals.

Even within the scope of the buddhadharma, there are "practitioners of the buddhadharma" and then there are those who have awakened, given the title "ārya." In the same way only those who have awakened to their nature have come to know "Dzogchen," and those who have not yet awakened cannot be said to know the meaning of "dzogchen."

Nevertheless they are practicing to create circumstances that are conducive to awakening. Those who have awakened and have lapsed back into their relative condition are also creating conducive circumstances to continually re-visit said equipoise, as that is the entire point.

Just as in the buddhadharma the distinction of an ārya is made, I feel it is appropriate to make the distinction we are discussing. The āryas of the world have tasted chocolate so to speak, they have an experiential, working knowledge of that taste. Those who have not tasted chocolate do not possess that knowledge.

This all started because I said "as an alleged atiyogin, you know X to be the case." You then asked what I meant by "alleged" and this is what I mean, as someone who has allegedly tasted chocolate, you possess an experiential knowledge of that taste. Likewise a yogin of ati, or a "Dzogchenpa" is someone who, if they aren't knowing it constantly, has at least awakened to know "Dzogchen."


Malcolm wrote:
Again, Kyle, this is too narrow. But I am not going to discuss it here other than to say one does not need to be an ārya to be said to know Dzogchen directly and experientially. You are mixing up sūtra and Dzogchen here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
No Mind explained his perspective right at the outset. It is mistaken. If no one sets him straight, he will continue in that misconception.

It is no more kind to allow someone to continue in a misconception than it is to allow a lost traveller to continue on their way without pointing out the correct path to their destination.

Time is passing and we are living in time.

fuki said:
I understand your angle of vision, yet I'm more cautious with people I do not have established a deeper connection with yet (or are not aware of yet).
Besides I'm a member of zen forums where actual qualified teachers, which I am not, can adress misconceptions better then I. Even if I would say things correctly according to the dharma it does not mean it would function correctly it might have an undesirable effect. So my speech differs when I know someone better and have established a deeper connection. Blindly expounding the dharma to anyone who appears can also be a disservice to the dharma. We all differ in our approach, when a practisioner has seen through the cause and can drop self-grasping the gateway into Ch'an will naturally open. Again I am not a teacher and ofcourse right understanding is vital it is not always the time and place for me to adress it, it might be different for you. No opposition there, what is kind or not kind cannot be predicted, it is wisdom which gives compassion its direction, for me always adressing everyone's misconception can be like releasing a bird with one broken wing, which is then also my resposibility if it plummets to the ground. So when it doesn't come naturally I maintain silence. But again I wish your guidance and practise or anyone's will be of service to all sentient beings.

Malcolm wrote:
My attitude is that Buddhadharma is very precise. It is easy to measure what is in accordance with Buddhadharma and what is not. This is a forum for discussing that. Therefore, if someone offers a view that absolutely contradicts Buddhadharma, it is quite permissible, and even desirable, for that contradiction to be pointed out. I generally find that in the end people appreciate being corrected, even if in the beginning they are a little offended.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 1:45 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
fuki said:
I fear anything I will say will cause more division in the minds of ppl leading to more grasping, hence dukkha.

Malcolm wrote:
The aim of precision about this point is to eliminate the concepts that lead to grasping and clinging.

One does not eliminate views by proffering more views.

Dependent origination itself is the elimination of views. No Mind should understand this point a little better than he does at present.

And just to be clear, Nāgārjuna states:

Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world. 
Since the Tathāgata has no nature, the world too has no nature.

fuki said:
Malcolm, I've been a practisioner of buddhadharma for 20 years and you cannot force a flower to bloom, as you know it depends on causes and conditions. It isn't my flavour to speak in a manner like you do, as in "he should understand this point" I'm not sure if that would motivate him to deepen his practise and understanding, but again I cannot predict if it will or will not since that depends on a myriad of conditions. Perhaps you are of service to motivate him but putting in "shoulds" usually don't. It's no critique to you I value your assistence in the dharma but it's not my style of speech so I won't discuss that point. If you would adress my understanding of the dharma I would engage but I never talk about the understanding or non-understanding of others.

Malcolm wrote:
No Mind explained his perspective right at the outset. It is mistaken. If no one sets him straight, he will continue in that misconception.

It is no more kind to allow someone to continue in a misconception than it is to allow a lost traveller to continue on their way without pointing out the correct path to their destination.

Time is passing and we are living in time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:



No_Mind said:
Probably because I am a relative newcomer to Buddhism (I became a Theravadan Buddhist in mid-2013 and I am an entirely self taught Buddhist) I do not yet subscribe to such a rigid view. Perhaps in time I will.

Malcolm wrote:
You need a teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana Is Not Diluted Theravada.
Content:
Simon E. said:
The Theravada is a valid vehicle in its own right for those whose ambition is Arhatship. But it has a different set of aims than does the Mahayana.

Coëmgenu said:
This is something one agrees with, for instance, if one is coming from a Tibetan perspective.

The notion that the śrāvakayāna leads anywhere other than anuttarāsamyaksaṃbodhi is not a universal Mahāyāna belief.

DGA said:
Can you give an example or two of a tradition that holes that the sravakayana doesn't lead, eventually, to Mahayana and hence to Buddhahood?

I can't think of one.

Malcolm wrote:
Yogacāra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Wall Gazing
Content:
Astus said:
In Bodhidharma's case "wall gazing" likely meant not a physical posture but maintaining the mind like a wall, that is, without discrimination or attachment to emotions and ideas.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the Tibetan translation of Bodhidharma's account, the Chinese term "facing a wall" is translated as "Facing reality."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
fuki said:
I fear anything I will say will cause more division in the minds of ppl leading to more grasping, hence dukkha.

Malcolm wrote:
The aim of precision about this point is to eliminate the concepts that lead to grasping and clinging.

One does not eliminate views by proffering more views.

Dependent origination itself is the elimination of views. No Mind should understand this point a little better than he does at present.

And just to be clear, Nāgārjuna states:

Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world. 
Since the Tathāgata has no nature, the world too has no nature.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
No_Mind said:
Not with intention to ruffle any more feathers ..

I personally think there is no inherent contradiction between believing in DO (to understand punarbhava ) and Buddha's teachings and also believing in "the underlying natural order of the Universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe due to it being non conceptual yet evident" and/or "single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe."

Malcolm wrote:
This contradicts the view of the Buddha in its entirety.

No_Mind said:
I doubt it



Malcolm wrote:
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

There is nothing at all behind the diversity of the world other than the actions of sentient beings which produce it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Jeff H said:
I consider myself to be on a spiritual path, but I don’t know how far along that path I will get in this life. When I look back on my life now, I can construct a narrative of that path twisting and turning through many religious, non-religious, and anti-religious processes, all leading to Buddhism – where I am now. If I look at any phase of this life, or if I project that trajectory over many lifetimes, how far did I get in any single lifetime? Those specific limits define discrete pinnacles and nadirs of my personal journey. But they all contributed to the possibility of realizing my complete potential.

I believe Buddhism holds the key, and Buddhists I respect very highly tell me it is possible to gain certainty of that. But even if I had such certainty, I don’t think it would be appropriate to diminish non-Buddhist paths or to claim exclusivity. In fact, every religion does that. But the One True Path should be above that, confident that it’s veracity will be recognized by those who arrive at its doors by whatever means. Those prior means are contributory and complementary.

Malcolm wrote:
Āryadeva states quite clear that realization is based on view. It is not diminishing other paths to point out that the Buddadharma is unique with respect to this view of empty dependent origination, and that from this perspective, it is not possible to be free from the afflictions that drive rebirth without realizing the meaning of empty dependent origination. We also do not need to apologize for asserting that without the eightfold path, liberation is not possible. We can also acknowledge that other paths have different baseline assumptions that are at odds with ours, have visions of liberation which are not consistent with ours, and therefore, propose results which are not commensurate with ours.

Jeff H said:
My position is based on considering the experiences of others. I don’t dispute the importance of view, but it has no meaning to someone who isn’t ready to see it.

Malcolm wrote:
Such a person is in a dark house.


Jeff H said:
And, yes, as a spiritual “end game” I’d agree that no other religion offers true liberation. But for the vast majority of people trying to make sense of conventional life, liberation in the Buddhist sense is not even a remote possibility. However, from their perspective, that doesn’t diminish whatever beliefs and efforts they make now that may someday get them to that point.

Malcolm wrote:
Such people are like blind people trying to find their way.


Jeff H said:
I don’t advocate apologies or refraining from pointing out differences. As illustrated in the Gelug treatment of the Tenet Systems, all wrong views can ultimately lead to right view. In my journey, I had questions about Christianity which Christianity couldn’t answer for me but Buddhism has. That was one of the ways in which Christianity was a great benefit to my discovery of Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
The study of tenet systems is crucial. But its purpose is to lead one from the darkness of ignorance into light of the Buddha's Dharma. It is not the case that any of the nonbuddhist paths are part of the continuum to liberation. To the extent that people on nonbuddhist paths cultivate love and compassion, they will experience higher states of rebirth. But this is just not enough.


Jeff H said:
Some of us need to flounder around awhile and can’t be rushed. Guided, yes; rushed, berated, and cajoled, no.

Malcolm wrote:
Samsara has neither a beginning nor and end. So there is plenty of time for people to buzz around samsara like bees stuck in a jar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, February 6th, 2018 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Kunga Lhadzom said:
What if you didn't practice any religion, only wanted with all your heart to know the truth, and strived to be a good human being,and  had incredible love and compassion .....wouldn't the Buddha's and Bodhisattva"s be able to see you and understand you, and have the compassion to guide you, even though you didn't practice any rituals, or religion or belief system?

No_Mind said:
My pov exactly.

Shall we say Mother Teresa's attainments are zero because she was not a Budddhist.


Malcolm wrote:
Dharmakīrti points out that compassion does not have the force to eliminate afflictions. So while certainly in many quarters Mother Theresa is regarded as a saint, from the point of view of Buddhadharma she cannot be accepted as realized person. There is nothing in her life that suggests she understood anything about the Buddha's view of reality.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Jeff H said:
I consider myself to be on a spiritual path, but I don’t know how far along that path I will get in this life. When I look back on my life now, I can construct a narrative of that path twisting and turning through many religious, non-religious, and anti-religious processes, all leading to Buddhism – where I am now. If I look at any phase of this life, or if I project that trajectory over many lifetimes, how far did I get in any single lifetime? Those specific limits define discrete pinnacles and nadirs of my personal journey. But they all contributed to the possibility of realizing my complete potential.

I believe Buddhism holds the key, and Buddhists I respect very highly tell me it is possible to gain certainty of that. But even if I had such certainty, I don’t think it would be appropriate to diminish non-Buddhist paths or to claim exclusivity. In fact, every religion does that. But the One True Path should be above that, confident that it’s veracity will be recognized by those who arrive at its doors by whatever means. Those prior means are contributory and complementary.

Malcolm wrote:
Āryadeva states quite clear that realization is based on view. It is not diminishing other paths to point out that the Buddadharma is unique with respect to this view of empty dependent origination, and that from this perspective, it is not possible to be free from the afflictions that drive rebirth without realizing the meaning of empty dependent origination. We also do not need to apologize for asserting that without the eightfold path, liberation is not possible. We can also acknowledge that other paths have different baseline assumptions that are at odds with ours, have visions of liberation which are not consistent with ours, and therefore, propose results which are not commensurate with ours.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Ancestor worship from a Mahayana POV
Content:
Admin_PC said:
To be clear, I was talking about references like:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/pv/pv.1.05.than.html (from the Petavatthu of the Khuddaka Nikaya) - offerings benefit dead relatives.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.177.than.html (from the Anguttara Nikaya) - which dead relatives can receive offerings.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html (from the Digha Nikaya) - offering alms on behalf of dead relatives.

Since the OP is about Mahayana, the obvious sutra references are:
The Ksitigarbha Sutra
The Ullambana Sutra
Fascicle 40 of the Avatamsaka

Malcolm wrote:
That is quite a bit different than making offerings to ancestors. For example, it includes one's deceased children, deceased siblings, and so on. No doubt one can try to relieve the suffering of one's deceased relatives by making offerings of sur while they are in the bardo. But such people do not even need to be related to you as well.

As Merriam-Webster defines the term:
Definition of ancestor worship: the custom of venerating deceased ancestors who are considered still a part of the family and whose spirits are believed to have the power to intervene in the affairs of the living.
There are remnants of this in Tibetan culture in the form of rgyal po spirits -- almost every Tibetan family has something like this. But it is not part of Buddhadharma, it is a hangover from pre-buddhist Tibetan folk religion, and I suspect that it is the same in China, and Japan. In Shinto, there is definitely an idea of ancestor veneration in the form of the Kami.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Where is Sakyamuni Buddha?
Content:



heart said:
Seriously, you want to have a discussion about the words reality and truth? I am not interested.

/magnus

DGA said:
That's OK.  I think it's an important distinction, but not all of us agree.

heart said:
Do you think relative truth is an reality, yes or no?

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
Relative truth is a mistaken cognition about a given thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
No_Mind said:
Not with intention to ruffle any more feathers ..

I personally think there is no inherent contradiction between believing in DO (to understand punarbhava ) and Buddha's teachings and also believing in "the underlying natural order of the Universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe due to it being non conceptual yet evident" and/or "single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe."

Malcolm wrote:
This contradicts the view of the Buddha in its entirety.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 10:25 PM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
rory said:
Of course this is what Malcolm et al. is about: the Lotus Sutra undermines suppositions of TB, ideas about everybody becoming a buddha, karmic transfer by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, Jizo preaching in Hell to all beings, animals, insects all sentient beings being equal to humans goes against their school and I daresay their egos.

DGA said:
Returning to this ^^

How does the Lotus Sutra undermine any supposition of any school of Tibetan Buddhism?  What aspect of the Lotus Sutra are you referring to?  What supposition are you referring to?  And how is any of this warranted to the topic at hand?

If anyone cares to follow me down this rabbit hole, consider the posts below as a starting point:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=27263&start=20#p422334


Malcolm wrote:
Her statements is a misconception piled upon misconception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: "All Buddha-Nature is One"
Content:
DGA said:
"all Buddha-nature is one"

Astus said:
Buddha-nature is a quality, not an object, and that quality is emptiness.

florin said:
Qualities can only be thought of as existing in relation to something isn't it ?
So what is budha nature the quality of ?

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: sang and serkyem practice
Content:



Lukeinaz said:
Yeah, I only ask because in the sang and serkyem booklet it says "for Sangchod you should prepare serkyem".  I am still confused about what that means.

Malcolm wrote:
Means you need to make a serkyem for the offerings also. Sang and serkhyem are commonly done in the morning, after which one has a tea break with tea prepared for the rite.

When doing serkhyem in the evening, one also needs to have cups set out for the participants so they all have a little wine at the end. If doing intense Ngaggong or something, you need to take breaks, and during breaks, one has a drink -- this is the mthong brgyud, the seeing lineage.

Adamantine said:
Is that corresponding to making an inner offering to inner dharmapalas?


Malcolm wrote:
No, it is literally having a drink with the The Jewels and the protectors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
florin said:
According to CNNr you "finally become a dzogchen practitioner" when you have achieved the level of released shine  or the ability to integrate with circumstances.

Malcolm wrote:
That is one of the that things he has said, but not the only thing he has said on this issue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 11:33 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Dawai Gocha said:
Just don't see the point in establishing this rigid intellectual trapping of the word. They have Theravadins, Mahayanists, Tantrikas, etc., but those in dzogchen lineages can't be called dzogchenpas? Doesn't seem to make sense.

We have tulkus in our lineage and even at a few years old, I don't have a problem calling them dzogchenpas.

krodha said:
The point being made is that there are (i) those who actually possess a knowledge of their nature and (ii) those who don't.

Those who possess that knowledge [rig pa] have come to directly know the meaning of "Dzogchen." The same cannot be said for those who haven't.

Malcolm wrote:
Yup, but let’s be sure not to turn that nature into an object too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:



marting said:
I think a simpler explanation is that they were dealing with the real world around them.

Malcolm wrote:
"Dealing with the real world around them" is not karma hall pass.

marting said:
Stuff happens and they need to deal with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Rulers all go to hell. It’s the price they all pay for power in this life.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 11:03 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
DGA said:
I don't think the leadership in Pyongyang is crazy.  It's weird and it's bad, no doubt, but it's not crazy.  It's highly consistent.  It's not erratic.  And that's  one reason why the Trump administration's approach to NK is such a disaster.

More on this:

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/26/north-korea-donald-trump-kim-jong-un/

TharpaChodron said:
North and South Korea are joining together (so I hear) for the first time in a long while at the Olympics.  I'm no fan of Trump, but what if all this bluster and drama brought the two sides together and ironically brought about more peace?  I may be just talking crazy, but stranger things have happened.

DGA said:
Yes, and that aligns with what I've read and heard from South Koreans:  the sentiment is that US policy and presence is a bigger impediment to peace than anything the North might think or do.  That's how the people are feeling.  Consequently, there is a beginning of rapproachment between North and South, implicitly against the US.

I really, really, really don't want to see a war on the Korean peninsula.  It would be a bloodbath and could initiate a global conflict that none of us even want to think about.

Malcolm wrote:
It would be a disaster of biblical proportion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Title: Re: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Gross simplifications.

Right in your reply itself you admit that Hindus seek the atman while Buddhists talk about AN atman.

Lucas Oliveira said:
Yes

many Catholics developed virtues before finding the Buddha's teachings and this helped these people on the Buddhist path

the same with Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists and various people of other religions.

so I think it right to say that other religions can help people on the Buddhist path.



Malcolm wrote:
Religions, including Buddhism, are only as good or bad, kind or mean, as the people who practice them.

The realization of Buddhadharma is unsurpassable in meaning and benefit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
MiphamFan said:
I'm not advocating for war, but it seems like the Mahayana relationship with violence is a bit more complex than the complete condemnation of it in the Pali Canon. There is that famous story of the captain and the potential mass murderer, and plenty of episodes of Mahayana/Vajrayana masters seeming to endorse violent force in some contexts: https://info-buddhism.com/Orientalism_Violence_Tibetan_Buddhism_Elliot_Sperling.html

marting said:
I think a simpler explanation is that they were dealing with the real world around them.

Malcolm wrote:
"Dealing with the real world around them" is not karma hall pass.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:12 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Way-Fun said:
Yes, of course.

Fear-as-fear is the feeling of not wanting to be afraid. In that case there is a thing, 'fear,' a place, 'here and now,' a person, 'me,' and 'I' want it to go away from 'here' in the immediate future, where that very same 'I' will soon be, so that I can go back to the way I was before I was afraid.  Without a construing a 'here' and 'me,' and so on, what remains?  When you know fear intimately, without conceptual elaboration, it is not-fear.

The Bodhisattva of Fear (you) awakens fear (you) through the dharma gate of fear (you).
You (fear) awaken you (fear) through the dharma gate of you (fear).
Fear is not afraid, desire does not want, thought doesn't know.

Grigoris said:
You are posting in the academic discussion sub-forum of a Buddhist board, so please quote a Buddhist source for your theory or I will be forced to delete your post.

kirtu said:
The general flow of exposition follows Zen Buddhist teisho form.  You can find numerous published teisho saying essentially this.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
This isn't a Zendo.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 7:09 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha said:
The first instance of recognizing said nature is the point that "practicing Dzogchen" begins, at least in my understanding.


Malcolm wrote:
This is when you become a Dzogchenpa, not just a Dzogchen practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:


marting said:
Very dependent on whether or not one caught the anti-Trump fever last year.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump is fool, leading other fools.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Trump is an aggressive fool, and he wants to start a nuclear war with someone.

marting said:
No.

http://thehill.com/opinion/international/370904-enabled-by-china-north-korea-is-still-a-bully-with-impunity
Meanwhile, President Trump has broken from recent tradition by not pandering, yet he is criticized as the one inciting tensions. Enabler China will cheer on the regime at its 70th anniversary commemoration in September. Bullies don’t call out bullies; they need each other.
Yes.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, no. Osth is not a particularly reliable source.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/20/pakistan-outs-three-us-cia-station-chiefs-in-three-years/


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
Aryjna said:
ChNNR says in 'Longchenpa's Advice from the Heart' At the beginning, we may dwell in our real potentiality or real nature for five or ten seconds in a period of twenty-four hours. Then, applying the practice more and more, we may be able to remain for some minutes, then for some hours, thus becoming Dzogchen yogins.
That would probably exclude a large percentage of the people who are practicing Dzogchen.

krodha said:
The first instance of recognizing said nature is the point that "practicing Dzogchen" begins, at least in my understanding.

The path [lam] consists of fluctuating between equipoise and post-equipoise, which is what Rinpoche is referring to.

Whether that excludes a large percentage I'm not sure.

Malcolm wrote:
This is too narrow a definition. If you are practicing practices characteristic of Dzogchen, etc., then you are a Dzogchen practitioner.

For example, if you are solely a practitioner of Lamdre, you are not a Dzogchen practitioner. On the other hand, there is no difference in meaning between Dzogchen trekcho, Kagyu Mahamudra, the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:49 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Well, obviously, it means whatever Malcolm says it means.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. See my post above.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: What Does It Actually Mean to Practice Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha said:
My point was this: I wouldn't call someone a mechanic if they have never touched a car engine. These individuals may be practitioners engaged in sadhānas, sure. Aspirants, certainly. But yogins of ati, I personally feel that is something different.

Even if they claim to be practicing tregcho and so on, how do I know what they are doing? One can claim to be practicing tregcho yet merely be sitting, distracted, in something that merely resembles samatha. Similarly, one can claim to be practicing thogal, yet just be sitting there, completely distracted, enjoying a light show. There is no way to tell who is applying these views accurately.

That being the case, are the individuals in question practicing Dzogchen? Outwardly it may appear that way. Inwardly though, where it truly matters, I cannot say. For all I know they may be just like someone dressed up in a police officer costume, outwardly appearing as such, yet in actuality not so.

In any case, for asking this question I've now been labeled: arrogant, pedantic, lost, a teapot filled with poison, a mess, and was told: Knowing your real name I'll also encourage others to stay clear.


Malcolm wrote:
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's answer to this is simple— if you are doing practices which are included in the Dzogchen path, and that includes such preliminaries as creation, completion, rushan, and so on, you are a Dzogchen practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Malcolm is right actually.

Do you think Xi Jinping managed to carry out his anti-corruption measures without ruffling feathers? Bo Xilai is only the most prominent official he cracked down on.

Malcolm wrote:
From what I understand, the anti-corruption charges, while addressing real issues, are a cover for a turf war between four major political factions in China.

MiphamFan said:
Yeah, of course.

Another divide within China is between the old school Marxists and the liberals in power. Liberals in the (original) economic sense.

China is yuuuuuge, it is silly to assume it is united.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, liberalizing the economy is dangerous to entrenched power -- this is why European monarchs resisted it for so long.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
TharpaChodron said:
I don't think it will ever happen.  If anything, this seems more like political posturing, a la Reagan era "Star Wars." Smoke and mirrors.  Both sides are poking a proverbial hornets nest and like Cuba, Russia, China...too much at stake to instigate an huge imbalance in global politics.  The US works with China too much to flex on their little watch dog.

Malcolm wrote:
Trump is an aggressive fool, and he wants to start a nuclear war with someone. You don't recall that one of his first questions "to the generals" was "why can't we use them?"

I only hope to Buddha that Mattis or someone tackles the f&^%ing guy when he tries to press the button.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Malcolm is right actually.

Do you think Xi Jinping managed to carry out his anti-corruption measures without ruffling feathers? Bo Xilai is only the most prominent official he cracked down on.

Malcolm wrote:
From what I understand, the anti-corruption charges, while addressing real issues, are a cover for a turf war between four major political factions in China.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
China is not as stable as you think.

marting said:
I'm not sure about your assessment.

Malcolm wrote:
No country with  50 major ethnic groups that are under constant harassment can be considered stable.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:23 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
marting said:
Malcolm, we're talking about China, one of the most prosperous if not the most prosperous economy in the world and in the last few years has quickly and decisively consolidated power into the hands of a life-long dictator. You still think building up a country's economy will solve these problems?

Maybe I need some more coffee...


Malcolm wrote:
China is not as stable as you think. There is a massive turf war happening. What we see on the outside is not a reflection of what is going in inside.

However, Trump's trade policies with respect to China, as well as the rest of our trade partners are nothing short of absurd and foolish.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
kirtu said:
On top of that we have real lunatics making decisions both in Washington and Pyongyang.

Malcolm wrote:
We don't agree on much when it comes to the US, but we agree on this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 6:06 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If the US wanted to solve this problem, just as in Cuba, they could have implemented something like a Marshall plan to build up the economy of NK.

marting said:
Right...we naively thought this would work with China. And to consider Cuba has been targeting U.S. diplomats leaving a number of them http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-diplomats-cuba-havana-embassy-deaf-secret-sonic-device-attacks-headaches-concussion-brain-injury-a7925376.html. Same old, same old there. In any case I love reading backseat policy making.

Malcolm wrote:
Ummm, we have tortured Cuba since the revolution. We bombed NK into the f*&^ing stone age. You wonder why they hate us.

With respect to China and Russia, what do you suggest? That we keep them economically isolated? If so, our military budget, rather than being half of what we now spend, would be 90 percent.

The kinds of foreign policies we pursued in the 1950's and 1960's were not economically feasible.

There is only one way to create democratic countries: step one, lift them up economically; step two; encourage them to develop democratic institutions; step three, encourage them to liberalize their economies.

Neither China nor Russia have liberal economies, and in the end, this is what will bring about their downfall.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Why did Mahayana and Vajrayana masters of the past such as the Great Fifth and Amoghavajra use war magic though?

Malcolm wrote:
They used it as a means of coping with their own afflictions, and the afflictions of their patrons.

MiphamFan said:
OK, let's put aside the Great Fifth but what about more peaceful types of war magic just for defence as Amoghavajra used?

He didn't target the invading armies specifically, just did a rite to bring peace AFAIK. The same rite has still been done in Japan.


Malcolm wrote:
There are four activities; pacification is the first. We use these four all the time; the target is still the same -- why? It is because of the affliction in our own minds that sentient beings appear to us as friends and enemies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:43 AM
Title: Re: Translate text from translation
Content:
weitsicht said:
Hi,

assume there is a tibetan Buddhist text I have in English.
I'd like to translate this into German because it seems it hasn't been yet.

Would it be considered OK if I'd do so, I mean not knowing Tibetan hence not being able to check about deviations that would alter the words chosen then in German language?

Malcolm wrote:
You could, but you would need to have it checked by someone who knows Tibetan against Tibetan to make sure you do not deviate from the meaning.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
DGA said:
It's a wag-the-dog, in other words.  And it's a repulsive strategic consideration:  to wage war with the intention of improving one's potential margin in Congress.

marting said:
I don't think this will be a factor in the decision.

Malcolm wrote:
I think this is the only factor in the decision. If the US wanted to solve this problem, just as in Cuba, they could have implemented something like a Marshall plan to build up the economy of NK. Instead we are starving them. As the Buddha said:
Thus from goods not being bestowed on the destitute, poverty... stealing... violence... murder... lying... evil-speaking... immorality grew rife.
Theft and killing lead to false speech, jealousy, adultery, incest and perverted lust...
We should not expect positive outcomes from crippling sanctions. It did not work in Iraq; it did not work with Iran; and it will not work with North Korea. It just causes these economies to focus all their GDP on their militaries at the expense of civilians. Arguably, Russian interference in our political process is also a result of sanctions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Why did Mahayana and Vajrayana masters of the past such as the Great Fifth and Amoghavajra use war magic though?

Malcolm wrote:
They used it as a means of coping with their own afflictions, and the afflictions of their patrons.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
marting said:
Say you think the United States has been the most benevolent actor on the world stage out of all the contenders and you'll be looked at as nuts these days.

Malcolm wrote:
I happen to agree with you, which is why the Trump Presidency is such a shame. He has disowned the economic and political stability the US afforded the world (despite a sometimes checkered foreign policy) and has actively aided and abetted the forces of illiberalism to rise to the forefront. But part of that stability was assured because the Soviets and the Chinese had closed economies, and the US dominated the world in trade. With opening of China and the downfall of the Soviet Union, globalization has had the predictable effect of transitioning manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor markets without providing many Americans with jobs in their place. But the ridiculous rhetoric of the Trump administration has been neatly refuted by Dave Chapelle, who pointed out we don't want jobs "to come back" from China because we don't want $9,000 Iphones and $1000 NIkes.

Global trade liberalization is a fact, and we can do it well or poorly, but we cannot sit out the game.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: Potential for War in Korea: Causes and Conditions
Content:
DGA said:
You may be familiar with the proposal made within the Trump administration for a "bloody nose" strategy viz. North Korea.  The idea is for US forces to make limited military strikes on North Korean targets with the intention of weakening and embarrassing the Kim regime, but in such a way as to somehow avoid a reprisal.  That's impossible, by the way.  More on that below.

More urgently, consider the implicit motivation for such an action:
White House National Security Council senior director for Asian affairs Matthew Pottinger reportedly said in a recent closed-door meeting with US experts on Korean Peninsula issues that a limited strike on the North might help in the midterm elections.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/830615.html?utm_content=buffer0b588&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

It's a wag-the-dog, in other words.  And it's a repulsive strategic consideration:  to wage war with the intention of improving one's potential margin in Congress.

here are some analyses explaining why the "bloody nose" idea is destined to failure and highly dangerous to global security.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/01/the-cataclysm-that-would-follow-a-bloody-nose-strike-in-north-korea/551924/

https://www.axios.com/why-a-bloody-nose-strike-1517590458-9d68a429-20b5-41f7-be8a-c26c1560605f.html

Malcolm wrote:
The use of the poison of atomic weapons that have the power to destroy in a single second the presence of the Buddha’s teachings and the lives of sentient beings on this great earth of ours, and every bit of goodness in the universe and its inhabitants, will destroy the human race. The time when these extremely lethal weapons never seen before will be used is not far off—signs and indications are growing each day. So, moved irrepressibly by insupportable sadness and intense fear, we must call out like children wailing for their mothers to the one who can stop this: Orgyen Padma.

http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/chatral-rinpoche/rishis-maledictory-incantation


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
Ricky said:
At the same time you should probably consider yourself lucky to have taken birth in it.


Malcolm wrote:
I am quite sure luck had nothing to do with it. We don't believe in luck in Buddhadharma, as it happens.

Ricky said:
Good karma I mean.

Thanks for all the Buddha quotes by the way.


Malcolm wrote:
Sure, the article where these quotes are drawn from is well thought out and should really be understood by all Buddhists, everywhere.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
Ricky said:
At the same time you should probably consider yourself lucky to have taken birth in it.


Malcolm wrote:
I am quite sure luck had nothing to do with it. We don't believe in luck in Buddhadharma, as it happens.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Four Dharma Seals
Content:
weitsicht said:
To whom this may be of interest:

The phycicist claims two thing being uncompounded: time and space.

There's where the difference lies.
Maybe in the future a new elementary particle for time will solve that?

We'll see.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither time nor space in physics are uncompounded since they both are subject to change and modification.

weitsicht said:
Hmmm -you mean that second kind of space as mentioned in your January 29th post?


Malcolm wrote:
Yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
rory said:
If Malcolm and DGA really want to understand Nichiren Buddhism they they should join the Zhiyi study group; Nichiren relied entirely on Zhiyi and Tendai philosophy which would explain the totality of NMRK. Unless they do not want to do the work but merely criticize and undermine people's faith.
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
Rory, you do realize that DGA is an ordained Tendai priest, who used run a Tendai group in DC, affiliated with the Tendai monastery in Upstate NY? Hence his name, Jikan, which he generally prefers to go by, rather than Daniel. Jikan is very open minded, he has even studied Tibetan Buddhism, unlike you.

rory said:
As far as I know DGA was ordained a  NY Betsuin doshu, meaning a kind of assistant priest, it's a preliminary ordination that you get when you start out.  I have no idea what his training entailed as the NY Betsuin does thing differently than Japan. I don't think he is a priest anymore but I could be wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
My point was only that Jikan actually has a lot of experience with Tendai. So while you can castigate me all you like, I thought it was a little strange to harsh out on Jikan.


rory said:
Rev. Jikai is a Tendai Shu priest, meaning he is an acarya; he went through esoteric training on Mt. Hiei. He also reads Japanese and Chinese, which I don't think DGA has.

Malcolm wrote:
I wasn't comparing them, merely pointing out that Jikan is not a hick from the sticks.


rory said:
If DGA understood Zhiyi and the intellectual background he would know where Nichiren is coming from, Queequeg certainly does, and he certainly would have understood our other conversation:\

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=27263&p=423053#p423053
but you're invited Malcolm
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: sang and serkyem practice
Content:



Lukeinaz said:
so you would have a drink from cup on altar and then put it outside?

Malcolm wrote:
No, you have a serkyen cup for the alter, and you have your own cup, When you are done, you drink your tea; and after take the shrine tea out.

Lukeinaz said:
Cheers!

Malcolm wrote:
Exactly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 3:27 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:
rory said:
If Malcolm and DGA really want to understand Nichiren Buddhism they they should join the Zhiyi study group; Nichiren relied entirely on Zhiyi and Tendai philosophy which would explain the totality of NMRK. Unless they do not want to do the work but merely criticize and undermine people's faith.
gassho
Rory

Malcolm wrote:
Rory, you do realize that DGA is an ordained Tendai priest, who used run a Tendai group in DC, affiliated with the Tendai monastery in Upstate NY? Hence his name, Jikan, which he generally prefers to go by, rather than Daniel. Jikan is very open minded, he has even studied Tibetan Buddhism, unlike you.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: sang and serkyem practice
Content:
Lukeinaz said:
A couple questions  about ChNN's sang and serkyem.

Can the serkyem materials be offered as well if you are just doing a sang offering?

heart said:
I never seen that done, I am not sure why you would do that.
For serkyem, does the practitioner consume any part of the offering when finished, or does it all go outside?

Thanks!
No, it is all going outside.

/magnus

Lukeinaz said:
Yeah, I only ask because in the sang and serkyem booklet it says "for Sangchod you should prepare serkyem".  I am still confused about what that means.

Malcolm wrote:
Means you need to make a serkyem for the offerings also. Sang and serkhyem are commonly done in the morning, after which one has a tea break with tea prepared for the rite.

When doing serkhyem in the evening, one also needs to have cups set out for the participants so they all have a little wine at the end. If doing intense Ngaggong or something, you need to take breaks, and during breaks, one has a drink -- this is the mthong brgyud, the seeing lineage.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: sang and serkyem practice
Content:
jay said:
Thanks magnus- Yes, it is ChNN's pratice. I'm  really looking forward to it. I dont have any sang at the momment, but have some green tara incense from bhutan. Would it be ok to use that? In the book, it says to empower the sang water...how do i do that?


I'm hoping a nice glass of merlot appeases my guests

J

Malcolm wrote:
You can grind up ceder needles, or use sage (smudge stick), or use artemesia, etc. Typically, with ser khyem, you would use tea in the morning, booze at night. You also have to have a drink as well, of either tea or booze.

Lukeinaz said:
so you would have a drink from cup on altar and then put it outside?

Malcolm wrote:
No, you have a serkyen cup for the alter, and you have your own cup, When you are done, you drink your tea; and after take the shrine tea out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 1:57 AM
Title: Re: Sutras Extolling Benefits of Calm Abiding?
Content:
WeiHan said:
I'll be grateful if anyone can point to me the following which I'll describe.

I know of sutras that extol the benefits for a great variety of practices such as reciting the names of various Buddhas, developing loving kindness, refraining from 10 non-virtuous deeds, practicing generosity and developing bodhicitta etc...

However, probably I am not very erudite, I can't think of any sutras that extol the benefits of calm abiding meditation or even insight meditation. This doesn't click too well with understanding as calm abiding and insight meditation are crucial ingredient along the path for many schools in Buddhism. I'll be thankful if anybody help me out with this.

Malcolm wrote:
The Bodhisattva Pitika Sūtra is pretty comprehensive in this regard.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Contradicting sutras
Content:
cj39 said:
The five grave offenses include things like killing ones parents, drawing the blood of a Buddha, causing a monk our nun to fall, or creating a schism within the Sangha.  With the exception of the last one, these are fairly easy to avoid.

Malcolm wrote:
The last one is extremely easy to avoid since a schism in the Sangha (sanghabheda) can only be committed by a fully ordained bhikṣu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
shaunc said:
We don't live in a Buddhist utopia. In this world there is evil and you have to box on with the best of them.
There's plenty of Buddhist countries out there and they all have a military, a police force and a judicial system.
Yes, I agree, if everyone in the world followed the dharma there would be not much use for these institutions but not everybody does so society has to protect itself from oppressors.

Ricky said:
I agree, in a practical functioning society you need military and police. I probably wouldn't be enjoying all these freedoms and privileges today if it wasn't for all those who sacrificed their lives fighting tyranny and oppression. Everyone including buddhists should be grateful for that.

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, but if you are referring to the United States, our country was built on slavery and ethnic cleansing by a European minority whose only virtue was creating civil institutions that were able to evolve (albeit imperfectly) beyond the narrow limits imagined by the founders. So lets not get carried away with all the freedom fighting rhetoric. I personally think that democracy based on liberal economics is the way to go, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking that the US is some paragon of virtue. It really isn't.

Yes, we need police and an army, or course, and yes, like any country, the US has a right to defend itself. The Buddha said:

This, dear son, that you, leaning on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting and revering it, doing homage to it, hallowing it, being yourself a Dhamma-banner, a Dhamma-signal, having the Dhamma as your master, should provide the right watch, ward and protection for your own folk, for the army, for the nobles, for vassals and brahmans and householders, for town and country dwellers, for the religious world and for beasts and birds.

The Buddha observed that if a country is in the side of virtue, any attack against it will be https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html:

5. And the Blessed One addressed the brahman Vassakara in these words: "Once, brahman, I dwelt at Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine, and there it was that I taught the Vajjis these seven conditions leading to (a nation's) welfare. [5] So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline."

Thereupon the brahman Vassakara spoke thus to the Blessed One: "If the Vajjis, Venerable Gotama, were endowed with only one or another of these conditions leading to welfare, their growth would have to be expected, not their decline. What then of all the seven? No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do."

"Do as now seems fit to you, brahman." And the brahman Vassakara, the chief minister of Magadha, approving of the Blessed One's words and delighted by them, rose from his seat and departed.


Victory is suffering:

Victory breeds hatred,
The defeated live in pain.
Happily the peaceful live,
Giving up victory and defeat.

Dhp. v. 201


The Buddha in fact recommends social welfare, unlike the present policies of this adminstration:


But perchance his majesty might think: "I'll soon put a stop to these scoundrels' game by degradation and banishment and fines and bonds and death." But their license cannot be satisfactorily put a stop to so. The remnant left unpunished would still go on harassing the realm. Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty give food and seed corn. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty give capital. Whosoever there be in the king's realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm; the king's revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace pleased with one another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors.


In other words, Roosevelt's New Deal, Johnson's Great Society, Obama's Quantitative Easing policies and Obamacare are precisely the kind of policies the Buddha recommends for a peaceful society.

It is the neglect of the poor that Buddha describes as the downfall of society:

Thus from goods not being bestowed on the destitute, poverty... stealing... violence... murder... lying... evil-speaking... immorality grew rife.
Theft and killing lead to false speech, jealousy, adultery, incest and perverted lust...

Everything above comes from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/harris/wheel392.html#fnt-45.

The Buddha said nothing in Mahāyāna sūtras that adds anything to this at all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: What is an existential threat to Dharma?
Content:



Coëmgenu said:
My unfinished degree in ethnomusicology just fell off the wall it currently isn't hanging on when I read that.

Are you quite sure?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am quite sure. Hand bells, thighbone trumpets, and damarus, yes, these come from India.

The rest, the massive horns (dung chen), the large drums (rnga chen), the misnamed rgya ling (Indian horn) is actually a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorna, of Persian origin. The cymbal is definitely of Persian/Central Asian origin, called sil snyan in Tibetan. Then the is the Bonpo bell called a Shang (Zang in Persian) and so on.

The reason for this is simple. Tibetan adopted Nestorian monastic customs and hierarchies in Tibetan monasteries. Persia was the major cultural influence on Western Tibet, aka Zhang Zhung empire, where power in the Himalayas was concentrated until the 7th century with the rise of the Yarlung Dynasty.

Coëmgenu said:
Nestorian monastics using musical instruments? Were they allowed the usage of musical instruments? This is very interesting to me. Where is this substantiated?

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry, that is not what I meant to imply -- what I meant to imply was only that Central Asia is the source for much of Tibetan culture, and monastic musical idiom is no different. The music of Tibetan monasteries is war music, actually. It comes from Tibetan armies, they copied it from Central Asians like so much else in the deep fiber of Tibetan cultural influences. Basically, Tibetans adapted their "brass band" music to monastic uses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Nepalese Lotus Sūtra
Content:
Coëmgenu said:
Is anyone aware of English translations of specifically the Nepalese or Gilgit Lotus Sūtra, rather than the more common Chinese recension?

Is the only translation of the Nepalese LS the French one from the 1800s?

Malcolm wrote:
It is definitely not as definitive as Kumarajiva's translation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: sang and serkyem practice
Content:
jay said:
Thanks magnus- Yes, it is ChNN's pratice. I'm  really looking forward to it. I dont have any sang at the momment, but have some green tara incense from bhutan. Would it be ok to use that? In the book, it says to empower the sang water...how do i do that?


I'm hoping a nice glass of merlot appeases my guests

J

Malcolm wrote:
You can grind up ceder needles, or use sage (smudge stick), or use artemesia, etc. Typically, with ser khyem, you would use tea in the morning, booze at night. You also have to have a drink as well, of either tea or booze.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: What is an existential threat to Dharma?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
for example, Tibetan monastic music, which ultimately derives from Persian martial music

Coëmgenu said:
My unfinished degree in ethnomusicology just fell off the wall it currently isn't hanging on when I read that.

Are you quite sure?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am quite sure. Hand bells, thighbone trumpets, and damarus, yes, these come from India.

The rest, the massive horns (dung chen), the large drums (rnga chen), the misnamed rgya ling (Indian horn) is actually a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorna, of Persian origin. The cymbal is definitely of Persian/Central Asian origin, called sil snyan in Tibetan. Then the is the Bonpo bell called a Shang (Zang in Persian) and so on.

The reason for this is simple. Tibetan adopted Nestorian monastic customs and hierarchies in Tibetan monasteries. Persia was the major cultural influence on Western Tibet, aka Zhang Zhung empire, where power in the Himalayas was concentrated until the 7th century with the rise of the Yarlung Dynasty.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:34 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Thomas Amundsen said:
Are you saying that the Lotus Sutra contradicts, say, Chapter Thirteen of the Guhyagarbha tantra? I had always thought they were compatible if interpreted in some kind of subtle way (i.e. the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayanas necessarily funneling into the bodhisattvayana).

Malcolm wrote:
As you know, the Guhygarbha's statment, "Incorrect realization, partial realization, and not realizing perfectly," refers respectively to nonbuddhists, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and those who practice the common Mahāyāna.

However, in the Indian treatises, "ekayāna" means different things. For example, in the Lankāvatāra, ekayāna does not include all the other vehicles. "The One Vehicle" refers to Mahāyāna only because it has not been obtained in the past by others. It is stated that it is because of the karmic traces and knowledge obscuration śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have that the Buddha teaches three vehicles, and that the teaching of one vehicle is actually only for Mahāyānis. Given that the Lanka was set down quite some time later than the Saddharmapundarika, we can understand this as a response to it. Likewise, the Nirvana responds to the prediction of all sentient beings as capable of attaining Buddhahood in Saddharmapundarika with the notion of the icchantika, while at the same time promoting tathāgatagarbha, as contradictory as that may seem.

Thomas Amundsen said:
Very interesting! Thanks, Loppon!


Malcolm wrote:
I should add, that in Pali scriptures, ekayāna refers to the direct path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, February 5th, 2018 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


Queequeg said:
That thread does not really contribute anything here at all.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure it does.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 11:59 AM
Title: Re: Ancestor worship from a Mahayana POV
Content:
Admin_PC said:
Pali Sutas have a few references to making offerings to ancestors, even if only the hungry ghosts can collect.

Malcolm wrote:
There are references to ancestral offerings, but they refer to mundane rites belonging to a group, in so far as they do not involve killing.

I’ve never noticed offerings to ancestors mentioned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
Simon E. said:
The TOS says quite clearly that 'this is a forum for the discussion of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism' and also 'this is not a comparative religion site'
I think we should respect that.

Malcolm wrote:
Just riding the fence, Simon, making sure no cattle rustlers were stealing from the herd.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Now, as far as I am concerned, if one's practice of the path is not grounded on the view of dependent origination, one will not be able to understand reality properly, and one will not be able to wake up. Dependent origination is the "original nature" of everything and there is no "original nature" apart from dependent origination.

fuki said:
I agree, but again practise in other paths are not excluded from seeing DO and I've personally known an advaita teacher who taught this, sure it might be the exception to the rule, but just our other talk (don't know/non-dwelling/net neti) we seem to agree about many points but also speak past each other. DO teachings might appear in buddhadharma but its not an exclusive to buddhadharma since there is no division in reality, so its nonsensical to say that outside of buddhadharma ppl cant awaken or are never grounded in DO, you might have not met them but ok. DO has no trademark it might be recorded as we know in Buddhism but depended origination is realized in daily life not by effort of the intellect. Again I agree it is an exception to the "rule" but the claim that there are no realized ppl outside of buddhadharma I could not make, Im sure I can find ancient books where the earth was still flat, or better that it couldnt possibly ever be round.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no teaching of dependent origination outside Buddhadharma. It is the Buddha's unique teaching, and does not exist in other traditons, and is in fact explicitly rejected in the source texts of Advaita and so on, fiercely rejected by Shankaracarya, etc.

I really cannot know what this person you refer to taught. But if they taught there was some truly existent ultimate reality then they were not teaching from the view point of dependent origination. No one who accepts and teaches dependent origination accepts there is such a reality.

The Samkhya teachings, which are the underlying structure for Hindu teachings in general, have something which might seem to be dependent origination, but it isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha sat on a hillside under a dead tree watching Kapilavastu being sacked and his relatives being enslaved by King Ajatasatru after having dissuaded Ajatasatru on an earlier occasion from invading.

What we do in Mahāyāna in response to pure evil is keep our eyes open and act as witnesses.

Ricky said:
So basically just sit there and watch while your whole town gets massacred by savages. I don't think this is a very practical response for some reason.


Malcolm wrote:
It depends on your understanding the real situation of samsara. If you don't understand— you join in, pick sides, and go to three lower realms. This is called having a one-lifetime view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Is NMRK the definitive Buddhist path?
Content:


DGA said:
Actually, I think it was me who was careless in reading your conversation in that other thread.

What other practices would be involved viz. NMRK apart from chanting?  I recognize this may be a stupid question, but I'm trying to come to a better understanding of your perspective.

Thank you for taking the time.


Malcolm wrote:
I once went to hear a Shingon monk, Jomyo Tanaka Sensei, his description of Buddhism in Japan was amusing:
In Zen we have "just sit," the mudra of the body; in Nichiren, we have "just chant," the mudra of speech; in Pure Land we have "just faith," the mudra of the mind; but in Shingon we have all three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:36 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is that they are commenting on a passage of an event which never happened, apart from Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision." Why do we know this? Gampopa's bio reports that Mila was the son of a widower, not a widow. Much of the account in this "autobiography" is about real as Harry Potter.

liuzg150181 said:
So much what we assume to know abt Milarepa's life nowadays is nothing but Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision."?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes. You need to read Peter Alan Roberts book on Rechungpa where he discusses at length the process by which Milarepa's biography is slowly altered over time, culminating in Tsang Nyon Heruka's fantasy novel. This, btw, does not mean that TNH's book is without literary merit -- quite the contrary. But we cannot rely on it for accurate information about Milarepa (or Marpa, etc.)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
fuki said:
Even if that is so Malcolm (I'm not asserting or denying historical accuracy at all) then what is recorded is clearly words depended on condition and circumstances of the time when the Buddha was alive, afterall the dharma is fluid, not fixed. I also know realized Buddhist masters today who will not say that it is not possible that there are realized ppl "outside" of Buddhadharma which I cannot ignore just because it is recorded in ancient texts. But really for me it doesnt matter if it is recorded in sutras whether there are realized ppl outside of buddhadharma or not, but I wont say its impossible only because it says so according to a sutra. But again it makes no difference to me, it doesnt affect practise. So I'm not in negation to what you claim, I also wouldnt assert it.

I made my reply to No Mind according to observed patterns I witnessed on the interweb, I rejoice in anyone who seeks to realize original nature, I'm just "afraid" his interest in Buddhism gets distracted from the usual trolling of ppl of demotivating him due to blindly locking him up in a mental "Hindu" picture. I hope I'm wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha was pretty clear what Dharma and Discipline would contain awakened people, a Dharma and Discipline that contained the eightfold path. That path starts from right view.

Now, it is possible that someone, in isolation, based on having meditated Buddhist instructions in a past life, may in this life, for example, recall those and based on this attain awakening, a so-called pratyekabuddha. But they do not teach.

Now, as far as I am concerned, if one's practice of the path is not grounded on the view of dependent origination, one will not be able to understand reality properly, and one will not be able to wake up. Dependent origination is the "original nature" of everything and there is no "original nature" apart from dependent origination.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:13 AM
Title: Re: Four Dharma Seals
Content:
weitsicht said:
To whom this may be of interest:

The phycicist claims two thing being uncompounded: time and space.

There's where the difference lies.
Maybe in the future a new elementary particle for time will solve that?

We'll see.

Malcolm wrote:
Neither time nor space in physics are uncompounded since they both are subject to change and modification.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
Ricky said:
All I want to know is what is the Mahayana response when dealing with pure evil.

Bristollad said:
What is pure evil?  Every sentient being has buddha nature.

Malcolm wrote:
As pointed out in another thread; the tathāgatagarbha theory is largely enumerated in the Nirvana Sūtra, the same sūtra that proposes a class of beings called icchantikas. Even Candrakīrti, while rejecting this theory in the face of it, admits there are some beings who are so evil, with so much bad karma, they will never attain liberation.

The Nirvana Sūtra also is the only Buddhist sūtra which advances something like a Buddhist concept of a just war.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
javier.espinoza.t said:
Buddha taught non-violence.
Buddha did not taught violence.

Btw every single war in human history is motivated on wealth stealing, all the other motivations are politician excuses. You want to play the asura game? Go ahead, follow the advice of fools who perpetuate suffering, but know that there are always bad  consequences.

Ricky said:
Nobody is talking about joining the military here. All I want to know is what is the Mahayana response when dealing with pure evil.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha sat on a hillside under a dead tree watching Kapilavastu being sacked and his relatives being enslaved by King Ajatasatru after having dissuaded Ajatasatru on an earlier occasion from invading.

What we do in Mahāyāna in response to pure evil is keep our eyes open and act as witnesses.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This means there are no realized people at all outside of Buddhadharma.

fuki said:
Also there is zero proof that is what the Buddha actually said neither of us can know this, it's an assumption.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not at all the case. This is like claiming there is zero proof the Rig Veda survived intact as a oral text in more or less its present form for the past 3500 years.

The methods used by Buddhist monks during the time of the Buddha to memorize and then transmit what he said were very precise and specific, and frankly, their memories were trained to an amazingly high degree. There is too much agreement between what we have in the Agamas and the Pali Canon to imagine that the Buddha's words were not faithfully preserved. This does not mean there was no variation, or that no distortions crept in. But this particular assertion of the Buddha is so wide spread in so many different sūtras and suttas, that it cannot be ignored in the facile manner you have attempted to do so here.

No one who seriously studies these things refuses to acknowledge that the Agamas and the Pali Canon are a good record of what the Buddha taught his students in person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Bristollad said:
Autobiographies are a primary genre in Tibetan literature. The autobiographies are by people who are held to be of high spiritual attainment (e.g., Gyatso, 1998, 103). It might seem incoherent for an enlightened Buddhist to write an autobiography — how can one affirm an autobiography while denying the self?
It is certainly clear that these texts make liberal use of the first person singular. The official rejoinder to this alleged incoherence is that these works treat the author as merely a “conventional” person, not an enduring ultimate self. It is possible to speak of persons in this merely conventional fashion, but Tibetan autobiographies suggest that this is not always consistently upheld. Often in these works, the author is reporting a past experience, and the recollections certainly do not seem to present the distanced perspective afforded by thinking that there really is no persisting self. Rather, they suggest a clear identification with the past experiencer. Consider, for instance, the most famous work in this tradition,The Life of Milarepa. We find the author describing a scene from years earlier in which he had returned to his ancestral home and found human bones among a heap of rags. He writes,

When I realized they were the bones of my mother, I was so overcome with grief that I could hardly stand it. I could not think, I could not speak, and an overwhelming sense of longing and sadness swept over me. (Quintman, 2010, p. 118; see also Shabkar, 1994, p. 32; Kongtrul, 2003; 172–3)

This passage is hardly a dispassionate report that a conventional person consisting of fleeting traits included a set of perceptions. Instead, it seems to be a recollection of a devastating personal experience. It is most plausible that Milarepa, in reflecting on this terrible event, could not suppress the sense that he had the experience of discovering his mother’s bones, even if, in a different register, he would deny that there is
any self in which he consists, or that he is now the same person who endured that experience.
It seems like they thought that someone who has conquered self-grasping (Milarepa) should be suffering from depersonalisation disorder.
One would hope that Jay Garfield at least would know the differences between the approaches of the different TB schools.

Malcolm wrote:
The funny thing is that they are commenting on a passage of an event which never happened, apart from Tsang Nyon Heruka's imagination, a.k.a., "pure vision." Why do we know this? Gampopa's bio reports that Mila was the son of a widower, not a widow. Much of the account in this "autobiography" is about real as Harry Potter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Hello All
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Among those who do not agree, the Buddha.

fuki said:
Sit a while with case 32 of the gateless gate

Malcolm wrote:
This didactic story does not contradict what the Buddha has clearly stated in many sutras:  to whit, outside of his Dharma and Discipline there are no realized person, no stream entrants, once-returners, never-returners, nor arhats. This means there are no realized people at all outside of Buddhadharma. As much as we may be fond of and recognize the value of some nonbuddhist masters, the height of their wisdom and words do not even reach the bottom slopes of the Buddha's incomparable wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Former Pentagon UFO official: 'We may not be alone'
Content:


Dan74 said:
Were the Germans of 1939 wiser than the Germans of 1812 (Beethoven meets Goethe)? I don't know. I don't think there is conclusive evidence that we really learn from history, or at least that it sticks. Look at our history. 3000 years and we make the same mistakes over and over...

Malcolm wrote:
Evidence shows that people really only have at best a two generation memory. We only live 80 years or so. Without books, very little knowledge gets transferred from one generation to another, and what manages to get transferred is easily lost when an oral culture faces crisis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, February 4th, 2018 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It's easier to move the thread to the lounge.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 11:32 PM
Title: Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
[Note: Split from https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27799&p=434014#p433657. This topic cuts a fine line. Although DW doesn't allow discussion of other paths per se, a general discussion about complementing Buddhist practice with non-Buddhist practices, views, etc should be ok. At least let's give it a try.]

fuki said:
To me many religions/philosophies/practises can compliment each other but most on forums will not agree. So be ready for that.

Malcolm wrote:
Among those who do not agree, the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 12:07 PM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
Pratyekabuddahood ≠ Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
According to your tradition it does, since there is only one vehicle and not three. In fact, Candrakīrti cites the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka in support of this verse.

ItsRaining said:
Lmao, do you know what the "One Vehicle" refereed to in his tradition actually means?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 8:10 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
Bro... I don't even

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.

Which one is it?

Thomas Amundsen said:
Are you saying that the Lotus Sutra contradicts, say, Chapter Thirteen of the Guhyagarbha tantra? I had always thought they were compatible if interpreted in some kind of subtle way (i.e. the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayanas necessarily funneling into the bodhisattvayana).

Malcolm wrote:
As you know, the Guhygarbha's statment, "Incorrect realization, partial realization, and not realizing perfectly," refers respectively to nonbuddhists, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and those who practice the common Mahāyāna.

However, in the Indian treatises, "ekayāna" means different things. For example, in the Lankāvatāra, ekayāna does not include all the other vehicles. "The One Vehicle" refers to Mahāyāna only because it has not been obtained in the past by others. It is stated that it is because of the karmic traces and knowledge obscuration śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have that the Buddha teaches three vehicles, and that the teaching of one vehicle is actually only for Mahāyānis. Given that the Lanka was set down quite some time later than the Saddharmapundarika, we can understand this as a response to it. Likewise, the Nirvana responds to the prediction of all sentient beings as capable of attaining Buddhahood in Saddharmapundarika with the notion of the icchantika, while at the same time promoting tathāgatagarbha, as contradictory as that may seem.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
According to your tradition it does, since there is only one vehicle and not three. In fact, Candrakīrti cites the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka in support of this verse.

Queequeg said:
Bro... I don't even

Malcolm wrote:
Well, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.

Which one is it?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
My position is, if you take any element away, the Buddha or one's own effort, Buddhahood is not happening.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently Nāgārjuna disagrees, in MMK:18, final verse:

If the perfect buddha does not arise and the śrāvakas vanish, 
even so, the wisdom of the pratyekabuddhas will arise without support.

Queequeg said:
Pratyekabuddahood ≠ Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
According to your tradition it does, since there is only one vehicle and not three. In fact, Candrakīrti cites the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka in support of this verse.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Robot Buddhist Priests in Japan
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
What's next? Empowerment,direct introduction and pointing out using robots?
Well alot of people on this forum advocate for empowerment over the computer so...

Malcolm wrote:
Not from computers...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
My position is, if you take any element away, the Buddha or one's own effort, Buddhahood is not happening.

Malcolm wrote:
Apparently Nāgārjuna disagrees, in MMK:18, final verse:

If the perfect buddha does not arise and the śrāvakas vanish, 
even so, the wisdom of the pratyekabuddhas will arise without support.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, February 3rd, 2018 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Younge Khachab Rimpoche
Content:
Josef said:
I'm surprised he is still around.
I would advise people to keep their distance from this one.
There is a significant and particularly gross controversy.

Temicco said:
Why is nobody actually expanding on what controversy there is?

Malcolm wrote:
Out of respect for the privacy of those involved. That is all I have to say about it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 11:01 PM
Title: Upāya (continued from another thread)
Content:
Queequeg said:
Even the particular text of the Lotus as we know it is upaya. I have no problem with that.

Malcolm wrote:
Then it is not definitive and requires interpretation.

Queequeg said:
The Buddha actually asserts this in the Sutra. Its why Nichiren could collapse the Lotus, and the entire corpus of all teachings of the Buddhas, anytime, anywhere, into the title.

Malcolm wrote:
The practice of collapsing the meaning of texts into their titles is a pan-Indian hermeneutical device. It is not unique to Nichiren, nor even to Buddhism.

Queequeg said:
Its the name given to the Buddha's most sacred teaching at this time and place.

Malcolm wrote:
Such statements are statements of sentiment and not fact.

Queequeg said:
There is a definitive teaching. It finds expression in innumerable ways.

Malcolm wrote:
Those expressions cannot be definitive if they are innumerable. Since they are not definitive, the teaching they purport to express cannot be definitive either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 12:43 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
War is always bad and everyone who dies fighting in one goes to hell because of the terrible state of mind that war is.

Fortyeightvows said:
Really? How about Guan Yu?

Also, I've heard that people who die doing something heroic will often be reborn in the heaven of the heavenly kings. Like someone who dies while trying to saves lives, or maybe fighting in a just war....?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha is pretty clear on this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 12:01 PM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
DGA said:
This is good DharmaWheel.



dzogchungpa said:
It's one of the finest displays of upāya I've seen on this board to date.

DGA said:
This thread has it all

*whimsical use of the quote function

*passive-aggressive posturing and, later,  almost-aggressive counter-posturing by the same user against him- or herself

*I'm not sure what upāya means anymore

*generalizing from the particular

*and, with this post, meta-discussion


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 11:45 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana and War
Content:
Ricky said:
What would be the Mahayana position on war?

Can the wars that were fought against nazis, japan, jihadi terrorists, communists be justified in any way?

Malcolm wrote:
War is always bad and everyone who dies ifighting in one goes to hell because of the terrible state of mind that war is.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Queequeg said:
Could you flesh that out?

marting said:
Do you think anything or anyone outside your own actions and efforts can save you from samsara?

Queequeg said:
Sure. Guidance and instruction of the sages. That's one part. Which is essential. Then there are my own actions and efforts which are also essential. Both are necessary.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what the Buddha said. He said, "One cannot wash away misdeeds with water. I cannot remove your suffering with my hand. I cannot bestow liberation upon you, but I can show you a path."

Buddhas can show a path. But the only thing essential is your own practice.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:27 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The Nirvana Sūtra follows the Lotus, supposedly. In terms of text criticism it was definitely written later. So why would the Buddha reverse his position?

Queequeg said:
Upaya.


Malcolm wrote:
I see, so then we don't really need to take the Lotus Sūtra's prediction seriously at all, since it too can just be labeled "upāya."

Which means it is not definitive, since no upāya is ever definitive.

And this completely undermines your whole school, in terms of all the "definitive" rhetoric, in terms of how important the Lotus is, i.e., the king of all sūtras, with nothing more definitive or complete, etc. Same with the infinite life span trope, and primordial buddhahood trope.

Basically, you've reduced yourself to the position that "Anything said in any sūtra is merely upāya, and none of it can be said to be definitive."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:25 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In a general way what, "there is some identity between some distant being in the past and a buddha in the present."

Queequeg said:
Doesn't compute. Can't parse the rest.

Malcolm wrote:
You said:
In a very general way, yes. Doesn't mean that connection is direct.
I am not sure what part of my question/statement you are replying to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
Right. Except, Buddhood is not completely left to chance since there are actors tipping the scales (Buddhas and bodhisattvas).

Losal Samten said:
One can only be leant on if one has the karma for it to happen, and if someone has continually shite karma as to never encounter the Dharma etc. (due to the infinite probability deal) then it can still pass them by.


Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamakas generally reject the idea of icchantikas in principle, but admit that there are some sentient beings who are so awful that they might as well be icchantikas because the chance they will meet Dharma is slim to none.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:18 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Queequeg said:
Indeed. The Lotus opens Buddhahood to Icchantikas, and the Mahaparinirvana condemns them. Are there such things as Icchantikas? I believe the answer to that is, "no". Icchantikas are like balls on a eunuch.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are happy that the Buddha reverses himself on the question of icchantikas? First there isn't, but finally there is? How do you square this with your assertion that the Nirvana Sūtra is definitive?

Queequeg said:
Relatively, its not definitive. The Lotus is, in comparison. You know, "forty and more years", "has taught, will teach".

Malcolm wrote:
The Nirvana Sūtra follows the Lotus, supposedly. In terms of text criticism it was definitely written later. So why would the Buddha reverse his position?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:15 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You keep asserting there is some identity between some distant being in the past and a buddha in the present. There is a continuum from sentient being hood to buddhahood (the relative, clear aspect of the mind), but there is no identity there, no being at point a who becomes a buddha at point z.

There is a discontinuity in so far as what was once afflicted is no longer afflicted. But this does not mean that all or even any actions undertaken while in a state of affliction have any bearing at all in becoming free from affliction.

But your point seems to be that whatever one does while a sentient being inevitably leads to buddhahood. That, in my opinion, would be a very strange view.

Queequeg said:
In a very general way, yes. Doesn't mean that connection is direct.

Malcolm wrote:
In a general way what, "there is some identity between some distant being in the past and a buddha in the present."

If so, there is no identity at all between some moment in a continuum distant eons ago and the present. It contradicts the very basis of dependent origination to claim so.

"All phenomena lack identity."


Queequeg said:
Augustine isn't Augustine without his sinful past. The Lotus doesn't grow on the high, dry plateau.

Malcolm wrote:
Conversations like these merely confirm my long held opinion that the Prajñāpāramitā is the definitive common Mahāyāna teaching, and everything else needs to interpretation.

Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svāhā.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
That does not follow in the least, which is why Greg pointed out that the three poisons which lead to negative karma cannot be construed as paths to Buddhahood.

The path to buddhahood begins with compassion as an indirect cause, but the direct cause is the 37 adjuncts of awakening, beginning with the five faculties and so on.

Queequeg said:
So is it correct to posit a break in the continuity of the being who turns from haphazardly coursing in samsara and turning toward Buddhahood?

marting said:
On a serious note I don't think anyone else can sketch out a picture of the path to Buddhahood as succinctly and poetically as Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche's http://ibc.ac.th/faqing/files/progressive-stages-of-meditation-on-emptiness2014.pdf.

Malcolm wrote:
If you like gzhan stong, maybe.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Queequeg said:
Indeed. The Lotus opens Buddhahood to Icchantikas, and the Mahaparinirvana condemns them. Are there such things as Icchantikas? I believe the answer to that is, "no". Icchantikas are like balls on a eunuch.

Malcolm wrote:
So you are happy that the Buddha reverses himself on the question of icchantikas? First there isn't, but finally there is? How do you square this with your assertion that the Nirvana Sūtra is definitive?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
every moment along the way since the infinite past is related to that event of Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not follow in the least, which is why Greg pointed out that the three poisons which lead to negative karma cannot be construed as paths to Buddhahood.

The path to buddhahood begins with compassion as an indirect cause, but the direct cause is the 37 adjuncts of awakening, beginning with the five faculties and so on.

Queequeg said:
So is it correct to posit a break in the continuity of the being who turns from haphazardly coursing in samsara and turning toward Buddhahood?

Malcolm wrote:
You keep asserting there is some identity between some distant being in the past and a buddha in the present. There is a continuum from sentient being hood to buddhahood (the relative, clear aspect of the mind), but there is no identity there, no being at point a who becomes a buddha at point z.

There is a discontinuity in so far as what was once afflicted is no longer afflicted. But this does not mean that all or even any actions undertaken while in a state of affliction have any bearing at all in becoming free from affliction.

But your point seems to be that whatever one does while a sentient being inevitably leads to buddhahood. That, in my opinion, would be a very strange view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: The straying of new sentient beings
Content:
Sherab said:
I'm in the camp of those who think that new beings can arise because of the following:
(1) beings are countable phenomena and therefore can never be countably infinite in reality.


Malcolm wrote:
There is a teaching of the Buddha somewhere that the sattvadhātu, while infinite in number, is fixed, and does not increase.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
The Buddha taught that we are all to be Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe. If you happen to accept that text. The Buddha also taught there were those who would never attain Buddhahood, so-called icchantkas, in a text you accept as proving the authority of the text you uphold as the Bees Knees of Buddhism.

Seems like a real contradiction to me, that is, in the last sūtra traditionally considered by Mahāyānis to have been taught by the Buddha, the Nirvana Sūtra, he teaches repeatedly on the impossibility of icchantkas attaining buddhahood, after having predicted all sentient beings for full buddhahood in the Saddharmapundarika. Don't see how you square that one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
But you don't need to do anything to wake up since it is predetermined.

Queequeg said:
Your words, not mine. Can't help ya.

Malcolm wrote:
If buddhahood is predetermined, there is no point to doing anything about it. You used the word "determined," not I.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 6:24 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
every moment along the way since the infinite past is related to that event of Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
That does not follow in the least, which is why Greg pointed out that the three poisons which lead to negative karma cannot be construed as paths to Buddhahood.

The path to buddhahood begins with compassion as an indirect cause, but the direct cause is the 37 adjuncts of awakening, beginning with the five faculties and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
There still seems to be "free will".

Malcolm wrote:
There is?

Queequeg said:
I don't know what to call it. Hence the quotation marks. Uncertainty?
And even if it is completely fatalistic and determined, that would not change the need to make efforts. One still must go through the motions.
Why? What would be the point?

To wake up.

Malcolm wrote:
But you don't need to do anything to wake up since it is predetermined.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 5:23 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
There still seems to be "free will".

Malcolm wrote:
There is?

Queequeg said:
And even if it is completely fatalistic and determined, that would not change the need to make efforts. One still must go through the motions.

Malcolm wrote:
Why? What would be the point?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
I don't think 'expedients' is standing for anything here. 'Expedient', in addtion to being an adjective, is also a noun. However "This very bad English." is definitely bad English.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, a typo flame? How lame. Surely there are better things you can occupy yourself with.


dzogchungpa said:
Yeah, I really should get a life, shouldn't I?

Malcolm wrote:
I am sure you have a life. On the other hand, your time here could be spent more productively than the constant sniping you seem to get off on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


dzogchungpa said:
I don't think 'expedients' is standing for anything here. 'Expedient', in addtion to being an adjective, is also a noun. However "This very bad English." is definitely bad English.

Malcolm wrote:
Really, a typo flame? How lame. Surely there are better things you can occupy yourself with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 2:04 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
Can the Dharmakaya preach to an assembly of sentient beings? That's a serious question.

Malcolm wrote:
The dharmakāya has no form.

Queequeg said:
Regarding the commentary, its one commentary, by a fella who probably was Xuanzang's student and who had a vested interest in the three vehicles v. one vehicle debates and which maybe was composed in Chinese and translated into Tibetan.

Malcolm wrote:
I cited Vasubandhu's commentary, not Prithvibandhu's.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
There are those who practice the four kinds of supernormal power. While practicing these powers, they are always mindful of these practices so as to keep them in good memory. When one so desires, he can prolong his life on the basis of his power for as long as the remaining duration of the current eon.

Grigoris said:
Yup, that quote seems to cover it.  The one from the Lotus Sutra seems to be referring to the Dharmakaya though.  At least that is how it reads to me.

Malcolm wrote:
According to the Indian commentarial literature, it is a reference to the sambhogakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, February 2nd, 2018 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:



Queequeg said:
That's my understanding. A particular emanation could endure eternally.

Grigoris said:
Do you have a scriptural source for this?

Queequeg said:
There's this from the Agamas, which falls short of "eternal", but suggests the Buddha's nirmanakaya could endure to the end of the eon:
There are those who practice the four kinds of supernormal power. While practicing these powers, they are always mindful of these practices so as to keep them in good memory. When one so desires, he can prolong his life on the basis of his power for as long as the remaining duration of the current eon.

O Ānanda, the Buddha has already practiced these four supernormal powers on many occasions and, being mindful of these experiences, he does not forget the use of them. If it is necessary, the Tathāgata can extend his life span for the remaining duration of the present eon, so that he may remove darkness, benefit the world, and make heavenly gods happier.
Ananda didn't take the hint to ask the Buddha to remain, so the Buddha let go.

Malcolm wrote:
Not precisely. It is recorded in various sources that the Buddha extended his life for three months.


Queequeg said:
Then in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha explains that his life span is of incalculable duration - nitya - and actually endures through the end of the eon.
Since I attained buddhahood,
Immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads
Of koṭis of incalculable kalpas have passed.
I have been constantly teaching the Dharma,
Through these immeasurable kalpas,
Leading and inspiring
Innumerable koṭis of sentient beings
And enabling them to enter the buddha path.
Using skillful means
I have manifested the state of nirvana
To bring sentient beings to this path...


Malcolm wrote:
This passage is the one that the Prithvibandhu commentary (irrespective of its source) asserts is describing the nirmanakāya with the characteristics of a Sambhoghakāya. Vasubandhu is in agreement:

“My pure land does not decay yet living beings perceive its conflagration” means the true pure land of the enjoyment buddha, the Tathāgata, is incorporated in the highest truth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: What is a Man?
Content:


Monlam Tharchin said:
"Doesn't affect me" also isn't true for many women whose spaces, resources, and groups are being pressured into accepting newly minted women as both equally oppressed and as the new authorities on womanhood. The backlash against the Women's March is an example.

Malcolm wrote:
It is generational. About ten years ago, in my area a controversy was stirred up because a transwomen wanted to join the local moon lodge. Naturally, the older women-born women were uncomfortable with this. But the younger women demanded they allow this person to attend because she self-identified as female and had undergone surgery. This kind of issue has plagued at women's festivals, immortalized in an episode of Transparent where Maura Pfefferman is not allowed to attend the Idlewild Womyn's Music Festival, but has to hang out at the https://tv.avclub.com/transparent-goes-to-a-feminist-music-festival-in-a-seas-1798186990.

Genesis P. Orridge-Breyer's project of https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-reinventions-of-genesis-breyer-p-orridge may be of interest to some.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Queequeg said:
Its not merely overthrowing or blurring distinctions.

Does the Buddha remember his past lives? Yes or no? If he does, then there is a connection between the Buddha's past as an ordinary being and the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Queequeg said:
Is Buddhahood the fruit of Bodhisattva Practice?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course.


Queequeg said:
They say that when you become a Buddha, one realizes that they had been awakened all along. Distinctions are then seen to be insubstantial.

Malcolm wrote:
Here, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.


Queequeg said:
There are different levels of view here. They don't all fit neatly with the other. That doesn't mean they are false.

Malcolm wrote:
And you just provided the proof that your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Queequeg said:
Eradicating ignorance does not efface the path to Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Sounds nice, but I am not sure of your point here.


Queequeg said:
Contrary to what you think, I'm not playing games. I don't play games with Dharma. I joke, but I don't play games. You really ought to refrain from speculating about other's motivation. Its rude.

Malcolm wrote:
DW itself is just a big game, and we are the players.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Laughter or Martyrdom
Content:
The Cicada said:
Vimalakirti: A venerable and enlightened bodhisattva living within society as a successful layman. And people couldn't stand that guy.

Malcolm wrote:
What gives you the idea that people did not like Vimalakīrti?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some people think the people who think I am an asshole are assholes.


dzogchungpa said:
While this is probably true, I don't see how it is relevant.

Malcolm wrote:
This thread veered massively off topic ages ago, so everything and nothing is relevant.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Take Nichiren's Buddhism, I think his claim that chanting NMRK is the definitive Buddhist path is rubbish.

Queequeg said:
Well, you misunderstand it. That interpretation of Nichiren is not correct. But that's not the point.

Malcolm wrote:
No I don't, and it is-- heard it hundreds of times from Nichirenistas. But as you say, it is not the point.


Queequeg said:
Which raises the question, when is a teaching attributed to the Buddha an upāya, and when is it the opposite?
You leave out some alternate options - in some cases, the Buddha's teachings are upaya to some, inert to others. In other cases, they carry different meaning to different listeners. They're also, in all those cases, perfect expressions of Buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Not according to Rogowcop and other people who waffle on endlessly about the "For forty years I have not told the truth."

Queequeg said:
I'm not sure that the Buddha's teaching could ever be the opposite of upaya.

Malcolm wrote:
This just brings up the question of what is a teaching of the Buddha and what is not. Big can of worms.




Queequeg said:
What I wrote was that there is no moment in the boundless lifespan of a being which can be distinguished from that being's Buddhahood. Buddha sees the entirety of his past, infinite lives.

Malcolm wrote:
A sentient being is by definition under control of the three afflictions and the two obscurations. Buddhas have no afflictions or obscurations. The distinguishing moment is the attainment of vajropama samadhi, which eradicates every last trace of afflictive and knowledge obscurations.

I know it is fun to follow intellectual theories which try to overthrow or blur this distinction, but they are intellectual theories only with no practical application.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Queequeg said:
Formations are for suckers.

So doesn't think the god dwelling in neither thought nor no thought.

Formations are expedients. So understands the Buddha's good little student.

Grigoris said:
This makes no sense.  Is it meant to be gibberish, is that it's purpose?

Malcolm wrote:
He is being clever. Those in the highest formless āyatana, neither perception nor nonperception have only one thought which causes their birth in that formless realm, that is, " neither perception nor nonperception." Since they lack vitarka and vicara, they have no means of having any other thought since they cannot switch objects until the karma that sustains their life force in that āyatana expires and they fall into the hells.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Some people think the people who think I am an asshole are assholes.

Queequeg said:
Are you bragging about your fan club? Do they follow you on twitter?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't do twitter. I don't really do facebook either. This place is the primary extent of my social media engagement.



Queequeg said:
I like a good tall tale just as much as the next guy.
Some people call those tales "upaya".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they do. But not every upāya is for every person. Take Nichiren's Buddhism, I think his claim that chanting NMRK is the definitive Buddhist path is rubbish. So it is not an upāya for me. Rory thinks Tibetan Buddhism is rubbish. Obviously not an upāya for her. Dhammawheel thinks are we are all nucking futs, so obviously Mahāyāna is not an upāya for them.

Which raises the question, when is a teaching attributed to the Buddha an upāya, and when is it the opposite?

All formations, including the Dharma, are impermanent.


Umm, no. The Buddha predicts everyone for full buddhahood because sentient beings have no fixed nature as sentient beings. It has nothing to do with some random cause. There are two causes for attaining buddhahood: merit and wisdom accumulations, and there is no third cause.
Nothing I wrote contradicts that.
Claiming some random event set one on the path to Buddhahood, pretty much does.

Instead, it is pretty clear that one event and one event only sets one on the path of buddhahood -- the impossible wish to take on the sufferings of others out of compassion (impossible, because it is impossible for someone else's karma to ripen upon oneself, for any reason). It is for this reason that in his Madhyamakāvatāra, Candrakīrti praises compassion before he praises buddhas and bodhisattvas.

I think these are different things.
The criteria with which we understand Dharma is pretty different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:


Queequeg said:
The basis for suggesting "everything is a method" is because in some context, every experience causally results in bodhi. That connection might be eons in length, but that connection is there, nonetheless.

Malcolm wrote:
In this case, "upāya" refers to the Buddha's teaching for some sentient being. For example, we might say that Buddhas twelve deeds were skillful means for śrāvakas, to give them confidence that freedom was actually a possibility. The Sea Captain bodhisattva's murder of the thief is regarded as a skillful means, etc. There are whole sūtras on the subject.


Queequeg said:
Its why the Buddha can look at any being and predict their Buddhahood. That's the gradual version.

Malcolm wrote:
Umm, no. The Buddha predicts everyone for full buddhahood because sentient beings have no fixed nature as sentient beings. It has nothing to do with some random cause. There are two causes for attaining buddhahood: merit and wisdom accumulations, and there is no third cause.


Queequeg said:
There's also the sudden version in which any stimulus has the potential of triggering awakening, immediately.

Malcolm wrote:
I have heard about so called sudden awakening, but I have never encountered anyone who actually experienced this, apart from crazy people who claim to be so-called cig car bas, sudden realizers. It is possible, I suppose. Seems to be rather rare.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 4:23 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
One of the unfortunate things about hell is that no one can see anyone else, all one can hear is their screams. There really is no way to set an example for anyone.

The Bodhisattva earned merit through his act, and set himself on the long road to buddhahood. He neither set an example for anyone while in hell, nor did he have an example, beyond his own moment of pity for others based on his own suffering.

Anyway, you don't really take Dharma that seriously because you are just into promulgating your own version of Buddhism, and you try to twist everything into the Buddhist narrative you have signed up for.

Queequeg said:
Kindly back up, dude. It is remarkable what kind of a problem you have with anyone who doesn't immediately bow to your remarks.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't have a problem with anyone, whether they like my remarks or not.


Queequeg said:
Please tell about this moment of pity.

Malcolm wrote:
There really aren't many details. So speculating about the Bodhisattvas moment of pity in hell is just speculation. He had a moment of pity, and it set him on the bodhisattva path, according to some traditional Mahāyāna accounts. The other detail about this is that at that time, the Buddha of that epoch was a buddha from the same clan, the Śākya. You have to love the absolute disregard Indians had for time. This even happened many mahākalpas ago, but still the Indias thought there was a Śākya clan millions upon millions of eons ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Method, means. That is all it means. Nothing more. See my edit of last post.

Queequeg said:
How do methods manifest?
You guys are using translations that are pretty ancient, superseded by improvements in understanding in all areas of Buddhist studies. It is a problem not just for you, but for example, for everyone who uses the term "enlightenment" for bodhi. It is just not right on any level.
As I've stopped trying to keep up with PC names for things and people, I've stopped trying to keep up on Buddhist vocabulary in translation. Luckily, language is fungible and a word like expedient could be (abusively, perhaps) expanded to encompass "upaya". It may present some problems in  leading to understanding... so I suppose I should make an effort to update my language... I hope others will make allowances for my arcane language as one might give an old man a pass on calling people "colored" when it is completely free of malice.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not old, and I don't give people passes for using racist terms.

Anyway, old bad translations have a way of never disappearing, unfortunately.

The point about upāya is that it is a method or a means. It is skillful when it correct applied to a given situation, and unskillful when it is not.

But just saying "everything is a method" is somewhat lame. Why? Because there is also wisdom, prajñā. A method without wisdom cannot be skillful in anyway. Wisdom without method is ineffective at doing anything. So you need both. When you have both method and wisdom, your methods will be skillful, adroit, and appropriate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You guys are using translations that are pretty ancient, superseded by improvements in understanding in all areas of Buddhist studies. It is a problem not just for you, but for example, for everyone who uses the term "enlightenment" for bodhi. It is just not right on any level.

Thomas Amundsen said:
What is your preferred translation of bodhi?

Malcolm wrote:
Awakening, of course, since that is actually what the word means. The Tibetan translation of Buddha, sangs rgyas, reflects this, actually. The translation of bodhi itself into Tibetan, does not. The latter means "perfect (byang) comprehension (chub)."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
When I give you water because you are thirsty, I am not absorbing your suffering, but I am relieving it.

Queequeg said:
And in showing kindness, one presents an example to emulate... and so emulating we commence our long climb out of hell. Where did we learn that kindness?

Malcolm wrote:
One of the unfortunate things about hell is that no one can see anyone else, all one can hear is their screams. There really is no way to set an example for anyone.

The Bodhisattva earned merit through his act, and set himself on the long road to buddhahood. He neither set an example for anyone while in hell, nor did he have an example, beyond his own moment of pity for others based on his own suffering.

Anyway, you don't really take Dharma that seriously because you are just into promulgating your own version of Buddhism, and you try to twist everything into the Buddhist narrative you have signed up for.


