﻿Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I always seem to get into trouble when I post something from SDR.


Malcolm wrote:
Revise that to:

I always seem to get into trouble when I post something.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 16th, 2015 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
alpha said:
Yes.All of that.
In my case it was.
Every day goes by i look at myself and say:"Nope.I am none of that".
Maybe i got it all wrong...who knows...

Malcolm wrote:
If you cultivate love, compassion and bodhicitta, you have not gotten anything wrong. Without these three things, Vajrayāna is just an ego trip.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 15th, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
alpha said:
It's a personal opinion based on what i have been doing so far.
I feel like an old person who coming to the end of his life is full of regrets.
I just feel like i wasted my time.

Malcolm wrote:
You regret what you have been practicing? Dharma is a waste of time?

???


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 15th, 2015 at 10:24 PM
Title: Re: Vijnana vs. Rigpa
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Rachmiel, I was thinking about this thread and it occurred to me that you might find the following teachings useful:
http://www.tersar.org/teachings-4/teachings-archive/

alpha said:
Totally depressing and hopeless


Malcolm wrote:
What and why?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 15th, 2015 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: Contradiction in Mahayana philosophy
Content:
White Lotus said:
after the five senses are dissolved it is seen that there never were five senses,

Malcolm wrote:
Ummmm....can't dissolve what never was....


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 6:42 PM
Title: Re: Pema Khandro?
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
Jikan said:
I don't particularly see how this practice differs from someone eating meat from an animal that is specifically killed for him or her.
.

Malcolm wrote:
It isn't.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
None. My point is that it's overly reductive to define the goal of the Buddhist path solely in terms of the ending of birth. If that were the case, a rock would also have met the (single) criterion; it was never born to begin with.

The way I see it -- and I realize this likely reflects lack of understanding on my part -- the goal of the Buddhist path is nirvana, and what brings about nirvana is the ending of ignorance. The ending of samsaric birth is a concomitant result; we are reborn into samsara as a result of ignorance, so when ignorance is overcome, the rebirth cycle stops.

It's a question of putting things in the right sequence.

Malcolm wrote:
You have to put in the Buddha's perspective — what is samsara? Rebirth. What causes rebirth? Ignorance. What ends ignorance? Awakening. What is the result of awakening? Nirvana. What is nirvana? The end of samsara. What is the end of samsara? The end of rebirth.
When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

"This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
The sutras I've looked at (Avatamsaka for instance) don't seem to present Buddhahood as oblivion.

Malcolm wrote:
This is because the Mahāyāna perspective on Buddhahood does not present parinirvana as a total cessation of a Buddhas' continuum. Cessation and annihilation, btw., are entirely different.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
A rock or other inanimate object is not subject to rebirth, so is it a Buddha?

Malcolm wrote:
This a pretty silly question but...

Does a rock or an other inanimate object have a mind? No. Therefore, upon what basis could they awaken?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 2:05 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, absolutely. Look at the number of references in the Pali canon where, upon attaining arhatship, arhats declare with joy, "this is my final birth..." and so on.

Lazy_eye said:
Indeed, they do make these declarations, but the non-occurrence of future births could be seen as a product of the Dharma's primary goal: the cessation of dukkha.

daverupa said:
The fact of there being arahants without psychic powers showcases that knowledge of the cessation of dukkha is not co-extensive with knowledge of individual past lives or knowledge of the falling & re-arising of beings according to kamma generally; it can be an inferential claim & not necessarily a psychic-knowledge-claim.

Malcolm wrote:
It nevertheless is the point of declaring that one will not again take rebirth.

The cessation of dukkha means there are no more causes for it to arise. Birth and death are the primary forms of dukkha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 2:03 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
...therefore, can we say that the happiness of an arahant or buddha consists only of knowing no future lives will occur?

Malcolm wrote:
Considering that even arhats are under the power of ripening karma from past lives, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 11:41 PM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
It seems to me (and please understand that I'm just a rather low-level student of the Dharma), that the significance of rebirth is directly linked to the meaning of nirvana. Nirvana is described in the suttas as "the highest happiness"; we also see it referred to as "permanent freedom" and so on. But does this "highest happiness" consist solely of the knowledge that one will never undergo another birth?

If so, it would be hard to argue with your statement.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, absolutely. Look at the number of references in the Pali canon where, upon attaining arhatship, arhats declare with joy, "this is my final birth..." and so on.

Lazy_eye said:
A materialist could achieve "nirvana" by coming to terms with the eventuality of death.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence the moral and intellectual poverty of the so-called "Secular Buddhist" approach.

Lazy_eye said:
Of course, this in itself is a complicated question, because most people don't desire oblivion at all; we fear death and desire further life. So part of Buddhism's appeal, for at least some secular Westerners, might be that it helps us with the suffering created by that fear (and the related desire). I'm not saying there aren't potential problems with this approach.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence Dharma Lite(tm)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is a slight problem here — links consciousness — sensation are all results, results of what? craving, addiction and becoming are causes, but causes of what?

We can see in this life that craving leads to addiction, which leads to sad outcomes, but that is all — and that is not uniquely Buddhist.

Lazy_eye said:
Well, I would argue this is sufficient to make a reasonable inference as to the general principle, thus providing a basis for developing śraddhā -- i.e., the conviction that the Buddha's path is indeed the way to the ending of dukkha.

Malcolm wrote:
But this is not why people come to Dharma. Most people come to Dharma because they have heard that meditation will make them more calm and relaxed. It is "accidental" if they wind up Buddhist, because Yoga very much claims the same things as Buddhism, reduce clinging, becoming more calm, ending rebirth, etc.

Lazy_eye said:
What would you identify as being uniquely Buddhist?

Malcolm wrote:
His view of and method for liberation from the cycle of rebirth we know as samsara.

Without rebirth, and Buddha's specific view of rebirth, it just isn't Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:



Malcolm wrote:
No.

MalaBeads said:
That might be the first time I actually understood the Loppon's role.

Thank you, Malcolm.

Malcolm wrote:
You are quite welcome.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
..There is a long tradition in Western discourse about the benefits of not clinging to the things of this life.

There are other approaches being free of clinging to this life found in nonbuddhist contemplative traditions.

Lazy_eye said:
In Buddhism, though, non-clinging is understood within the context of dependent origination -- is anything like that found in the other contemplative traditions you mention?

Malcolm wrote:
Samkhya presents a kind of dependent origination which collapses when it is discovered that one is clinging to what is not the self because of mistakenly making differentiations in what is not self due to the transformation of the three gunas. A species of this view is presented in the Yoga Sutras and much of the language of the Yoga sutras is shared with so called "Early Buddhism."


Lazy_eye said:
I guess we are asking the question "what is uniquely Buddhist about Buddhism"? It seems to me that it must be the knowledge gained by the Buddha during the third watch of the night.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha understood the view of dependent origination through recalling his past lives in the second watch. In the third watch he applied it through to the three realms and finally entered Vajropama samadhi.

Lazy_eye said:
If we accept the "three times" interpretation of D.O., then at least part of the process is observable in the present lifespan. To say nothing of other interpretations that see the twelvefold chain as just one particular presentation of idapaccayata.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, there is a slight problem here — links consciousness — sensation are all results, results of what? craving, addiction and becoming are causes, but causes of what?

We can see in this life that craving leads to addiction, which leads to sad outcomes, but that is all — and that is not uniquely Buddhist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Doesn't one have to know, understand and be receptive to Mahayana doctrine in the first place in order to be compelled by bodhicitta?


Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Just as for me, what compelled me was hearing about Mahāyāna emptiness. I accepted the view of emptiness long before I accepted the other parts of the Buddhas teaching.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
So, in effect, you had developed a strong conviction in karma and rebirth, and a concern about your well-being in future lives, before taking refuge. Everything up to that point was preparatory -- allowing the conditions to develop that eventually resulted in your taking refuge.

Malcolm wrote:
More or less.


Lazy_eye said:
Do you think this is somewhat unusual for a Western practitioner or is it actually more common that I am making it out to be?

Malcolm wrote:
I know many others for whom philosophy was their doorway in, like me. For others still, it was Mahāyāna bodhicitta that drew them, and so on.



Lazy_eye said:
Well, Hume taught selflessness and impermanence. Suffering is obvious to everyone. So what makes Buddhadharma compelling?

What makes you think Buddha's explanation of the cause of suffering are compelling to westerners? What about them is empirically verifiable?
The practice of non-clinging ("letting go") leads to reduction in dukkha; clinging invariably leads to suffering in the shorter or longer run.

Malcolm wrote:
And there is a long tradition in Western discourse about the benefits of not clinging to the things of this life.

Lazy_eye said:
Understanding anicca and anatta helps with the practice of non-clinging.

Malcolm wrote:
There are other approaches being free of clinging to this life found in nonbuddhist contemplative traditions.



Lazy_eye said:
On a related note, good sila and cultivation of the brahmaviharas leads to happier states of mind.

Malcolm wrote:
These are found also in the Yoga Sutras.

Lazy_eye said:
I'm not very familiar with Hume other than what I learned in high school ("if you drop the ball there's no guarantee it will hit the ground"). Did he teach not-self and impermance in ways similar to the Buddha, and did he provide a practice or a path?

Malcolm wrote:
His teaching on the non-existence of the self is strikingly similar.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
I didn't say anything about a one lifetime model, though. My claim was that anicca, anatta, dukkha and the causes of dukkha can be observed within the scope of one lifetime.


Malcolm wrote:
Well, Hume taught selflessness and impermanence. Suffering is obvious to everyone. So what makes Buddhadharma compelling?

What makes you think Buddha's explanation of the cause of suffering are compelling to westerners? What about them is empirically verifiable?

Frankly, I came to the Dharma because of hearing the Heart Sutra, and then taking an interest in Madhyamaka. It was only later, after having studied Buddhadharma for some time that I really absorbed the fact that I was a suffering sentient being and formally took refuge and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Personal responsibility, compassion and kindness are the hallmarks of a real Dharma practitioner.

Lazy_eye said:
Agree, but these qualities are important in the other major religions too. In and of themselves they don't provide a reason to choose Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in the same way.

Lazy_eye said:
The question of faith is crucial — why do we have faith in the Buddha? He taught a path where we are responsible for our own liberation.
We all have a number of choices available: faith in Jesus, faith in Mohammed, faith in Buddha. There has to be some reason for making the choice, otherwise faith rests on an unstable foundation. Because there's always the possibility that one's faith might have been misplaced. After all, there are devout Christians and devout Musilms, though from a Buddhist standpoint they are wrong. From their standpoint Buddhists are wrong. How can we know? And the stakes are higher in monotheism: a Christian might end up in the Buddhist hells due to wrong view, but not permanently.

My argument would be that the Dharma does offer a reasonable basis, because what the Buddha said about dukkha and its causes can be verified empirically. So we proceed from there.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually we cannot "empirically" verify the of the cause of dukha, because dukkha is caused by karma, and karma itself is caused by affliction. There is no dukkha that is not caused by karma. There are no means by which dukkha may be measured. Liberation itself is defined as freedom from affliction, and that too cannot be measured, so there is nothing at all "empirically verifiable" in Buddhadharma. The idea that there is, is a hangover from an earlier period of Western perceptions of Buddhism.

You might argue, Buddha said that the cause of dukkha is clinging, but here clinging itself is just affliction which gives rise to an action that results in suffering. If you restrict yourself to a one lifetime model, there is no reason to select Buddhadharma over a secular twelve steps program...

Empirical verification depends on the observable quantification of a data set. No one has ever empirically verified that Buddhadharma


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
LastLegend said:
It can be faith based. It can be based on rational approach, but this one is grasping firmly to wanting to know. One firmly believes the truth of the physical world based on the 5 senses. I think we are taking truth for granted here. We are acting like we are going to die if we can't know. Well we can't know anyway. Can we draw a certain complete conclusion/understanding about our nature and nature of reality using rational thinking?

Lazy_eye said:
I don't know.

All forms of Buddhism, as far as I know, stress the importance of trusting the Buddha. There are even some suttas which say, essentially, that trust and affinity for the Buddha can lead to stream entry even if one hasn't perfected sila. So I'm not denying its importance.

I'm just saying that since established faiths already exist in the West, faith may not be the most likely entry point into the Dharma. After all, if you already have that capability, why not just go to church? Logistically it's a lot easier -- there are plenty of churches everywhere but Buddhist centers or temples can be hard to find. I recall even the Dalai Lama has said that the locally established religion should be a good choice for most people.

So the appeal of the Dharma to (some) Westerners must in many cases be due to some other, distinctive qualities -- not the faith aspect specifically, since that can be found elsewhere.

Malcolm wrote:
The question of faith is crucial — why do we have faith in the Buddha? He taught a path where we are responsible for our own liberation. This is why Dharma appeals to the West. Personal responsibility, compassion and kindness are the hallmarks of a real Dharma practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, January 12th, 2015 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Indo-Tibetan sutra commentaries?
Content:
Will said:
Were such shastras written?  In the prajaparamita group, not counting the short ones like Heart sutra, did any Tibetan or Indian write a comprehensive line by line commentary on the 8K or 18K or 25K sutras?

How about the Avatamsaka or Lotus or Maharatnakuta - any full commentaries on these?  Any other sutra commentary examples?

Malcolm wrote:
Not line by line, but definitely there are comprehensive commentaries on the long PP sutras by Indians.

And there is an eight volume commentary on the Abhisamālaṃkara by Yagton, the longest, most comprehensive commentary on Prajñāpāramita ever written before or since.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 11th, 2015 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Why doesn't DJK accept offerings?
Content:
maybay said:
Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, great lama, but won't accept offerings. Why not? Does he feel like we're projecting something onto him. Isn't that what happens anyway?
How should I feel about something like my own birthday? Should I call blind ritual and get tough about being used as a moral pivot for my sister's party-going? Buddhist, Lama, thoughtful reserved people. We're like pillars of society. Why reject that? I don't get it.

Malcolm wrote:
Sure he will accept offerings, just make it to one  of his charitable organizations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 10th, 2015 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
In terms of my temple metaphor, you and Simon (and a few others) seem to want to barricade yourselves inside a section of the temple and stop anyone else changing it - but you are inside, with your 20th century western baggage, and that changes it already.


Malcolm wrote:
The essence of the Dharma lies in how it is practiced and explained. Of you change the explanations and practices of the awakened, you are no longer practicing Buddhadharma. There is no reason to change anything, and the Dharma is not changed merely because it is being practiced 2500 years after the nirvana of the Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 10th, 2015 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The result of afflictive karma is always suffering. Suffering is always painful, whether mental or physical.

Greg said:
That is not what is at issue.


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, actually it is. Illnesses are a part of suffering. For example, the Buddha clearly states in the Cula-kamma, that illness in this life is a karmic result of physically harming others. There are also plenty of examples from the Avadanas and so on where specific deformities are taught to to be the result of karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 9th, 2015 at 11:47 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
LastLegend said:
Not all pain is directly related to karma but all indirectly related to karma. Having this karma physical body, one is subject to pain, heat, cold, stress, sickness, old age, and death.

Paul said:
This. Pain is due to a body, a body is due to karma (and karma is due to ignorance).

Greg said:
As I understand it, you are asserting that the sutra passage is merely asserting that karma is always an indirect cause of physical pain insofar as it precipitates  having a body in the first place, but it can also sometimes be a direct cause of physical pain. But that reading doesn't really make sense, because karma is never a direct cause of physical pain without some kind of mediating cause (eg a bile disorder). So it doesn't make sense to list it with those other causes as if it was just one possible cause among several.

Malcolm wrote:
The result of afflictive karma is always suffering. Suffering is always painful, whether mental or physical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 9th, 2015 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Qianxi said:
There's a sutra ( https://suttacentral.net/en/sn36.21 ) about the possible causes of pain: bile disorders, phlegm disorders, wind disorders, an imbalance of the three, change of climate, careless behaviour, assault, and karma.  The implication being that previous karma is only one of several possible explanations for physical pain.

Malcolm wrote:
Vasubandhu asserts the Sautrantika position that disturbances of the elements of the body, which in turn comprise vatta, pitta and kapha, are vipaka.

Greg said:
Vasubandhu's assertion seems to be clearly at odds with SN 36.21.

Malcolm wrote:
In your opinion, not in mine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 8th, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That's a fair comment, but I (at least) am willing to persist since, in the larger scheme of things, this kind of dialogue is how we will (ever so slowly) fashion a Buddhism for the modern Western world.

Malcolm wrote:
I think the Buddhadharma we have is perfectly fine. As long as we rely on it, everything will be just fine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 8th, 2015 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That level of knowledge, sure. But can we know for sure why child X was born deaf or child Y was born into a family of drug-users and criminals?
And if we can't, then all we can do is respond as best we can to the circumstances we find in front of us - using our knowledge of the workings of karma to guide our present and future actions.


Malcolm wrote:
In terms of what kind of family one is born into, wealth, poverty, class, etc., this is definitely solely a result of karma. The Buddha says in the Ārya Āyuṣman Nanda Garbhāvakrānti Nirdeśa:
Then, the Bhagavan said this to Āyusman Nanda, “Nanda, when a sentient being wishes to enter the womb, if causes and conditions are perfect, a body will appropriated. However, if [the causes and conditions] are not perfect, a body will not be appropriated. If one should ask that sentient beings does not possess the conditions, it is as follows. Though a man and a woman have the mental factor of desire, and the intermediate state aggregate is present and seeking a womb, should that male and female have sexual intercourse too soon or too late or not have intercourse at that one time; or should there be some diseases in the body of either [the male or the female], there will be no ‘entry into the womb’. If family line of the male and the female are noble and their merit is great, but the intermediate state aggregate has small merit, or should the the intermediate state being have a noble family line and great merit, [65] but the male and female have small [merit] or though they both have merit, but if the accumulation of karma is not mutual, then there will be no ‘entry into the womb’.”
In terms of birth defects and so on, this can be karmic; this can also be a result of various factors in the pregnancy, genetic defects, etc. Without clairvoyance it is difficult to know.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
I would therefore prefer to set the question aside, as we were advised to by the Buddha, since it’s unconjecturable.

Malcolm wrote:
Not so. Why?  Affliction --> action --> suffering.

Kim O'Hara said:
If I’m correct in my belief that we can’t know the workings of karma, then all we can do (as good Buddhists) is to respond as skillfully and compassionately as possible to whatever situation we see in front of us.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course we can know the workings of karma — the Buddha spend a significant amount of time teaching about it. In essence it may be summed up the following way:

Affliction --> action --> suffering.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What we are talking about is that fact that the painful sensations that ripen on the body are result of negative deeds in the past, etc.

Qianxi said:
There's a sutra ( https://suttacentral.net/en/sn36.21 ) about the possible causes of pain: bile disorders, phlegm disorders, wind disorders, an imbalance of the three, change of climate, careless behaviour, assault, and karma.  The implication being that previous karma is only one of several possible explanations for physical pain.

Malcolm wrote:
Vasubandhu asserts the Sautrantika position that disturbances of the elements of the body, which in turn comprise vatta, pitta and kapha, are vipaka. Assaults can only be result of previous karma, such as when Buddha informed Angulmala that his being beaten by the mob was a ripening of his past karma. If you do not have the karma to be assaulted by someone, they can never harm you no matter how hard they try. Change of climate too can be a result of karma, because the appearance of the container universe is a reflection of our karma. If course, careless behavior, such as injuring one's toe, this I would not say is a direct result of karma.






In Alexander Berzin's http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/types_phenomena/overview_cause_effect/transcript.html (also http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/types_phenomena/causes_conditions_results.html ) of Vasubandhu's list of five kinds of result one is "Man-made results (skyes-bu byed-pa'i 'bras-bu, Skt. purushakaraphalam)"
Qianxi said:
Man-made results are what we usually associate with physical cause and effect. I banged my foot against the chair and the result of that is that I experience pain. There’s a karmic cause for why I would feel unhappy and why I experience banging my foot, but the actual cause and effect relationship of the banging of the foot and the pain is a man-made result.

Malcolm wrote:
He goes on to say that unhappiness resulting from pain is always the result of karma rather than 'man made'
Qianxi said:
If we experience unhappiness, it is definite that it is the result of destructive behavior – and that’s at least a five or six hour discussion of why that is the case, but we don’t have time for that. It’s one of the basic principles of karma.

Malcolm wrote:
I'm not very convinced by the distinction between 'pain' and 'unhappiness', but it's interesting that that seems to be the position.

Sherab Dorje said:
And still nobody has answered why some people are affected by these "other factors" while others are not.

Malcolm wrote:
I think the answer is that everyone is affected by non-karmic factors all of the time.[/quote]


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...Yes, this all described in detail in the Kosha

daverupa said:
I'm not so sure it's well-described, however:

Malcolm wrote:
It is a pretty good indicator. The happiness we are experiencing in this life is a result of positive karma we did in the past; the suffering, the result of negative karma. Likewise, the positive karma we cultivate in this life will bear fruit as happiness in future lives; the negative karma, as suffering. It is unerring.

daverupa said:
But one can then read:

AN 3.61 said:
“Bhikkhus, I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by past deeds...

daverupa said:
which seems to suggest otherwise. So this discordance is not as eye-roll-worthy as you might think, especially since kamma is not the sole causal factor that affects beings.


Malcolm wrote:
Dave, what the Buddha is criticizing is the following:
When I ask them this, they affirm it. Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is due to past deeds that you might destroy life, take what is not given, indulge in sexual activity, speak falsehood, utter divisive speech, speak harshly, indulge in idle chatter; that you might be full of longing, have a mind of ill will, and hold wrong view.’
This a kind of determinism, and is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is that fact that the painful sensations that ripen on the body are result of negative deeds in the past, etc. You can consult the Koshabhaśyam where Vasubandhu states "the essential element of vipaka is sensation...A sensation, the result of retribution of a bad action, is painful." In fact, Vasubandhu goes on to say that mental suffering is not actually a karmic ripening, per say, but arises from the physical ripening of karma on the body such that it produces a state which gives rise to mental suffering.

Rather than making wild and inappropriate accusations about how the Tibetan Buddhist understanding of karma differs from "the early material", have the humility to admit that you know very little about anything concerning Tibetan Buddhism and that you are not very interested to learn. The fact is that such things as the antarabhāva and so forth are grounded in sutras in the Agamas, making it just as "early", to invoke your favored interpretive fetish, as any thing in the Pali Canon.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 11:49 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
It might be illuminating for Malcolm or others who have had extensive contact with Tibetan or other Buddhist cultures to tell us what they have observed in terms of attitudes towards the disabled, to what extent those attitudes are informed by belief in karma-vipaka, and to what extent Buddhists are or are not helping to promote acceptance, tolerance and equal rights.

Malcolm wrote:
I have never observed anything but kindness towards disabled people, have never heard any talk about their being "at fault" for their disability. On the other hand, I have heard many Tibetans describe their own suffering in this life as a result of their own misdeeds in past lives, quite cheerfully and without any rancor.

Hell, even the Tibetan penal system in Lhasa took karma into account, assuming that in many cases it was pointless to administer a punishment for this or that crime, because the criminal was going to suffer in future lives for crimes committed in this life. This attitude lent itself to rather lenient treatments of many kinds of crimes. See Rebecca French's book on Tibetan law and jurisprudence.

I think that part of the issue is that people raised in western cultures spend of a lot of time dealing with issues of "guilt", and spend a lot of time trying to avoid feelings of guilt.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:


Concordiadiscordi said:
I agree that interdependent co-origination may be invoked as a meta-perspectival bulwark in such respects (it can be used to explain pretty much anything at a highly abstract and generalized level), but the specifics remain open to debate.

Malcolm wrote:
Dependent origination [not interdependent] and karma are two separate topics, often conflated together.


Concordiadiscordi said:
I would rather look to recent developments in the sciences and disciplines of non-linear complexity for sophisticated insights into the precisely contingent and often ambiguous nature of concrete causal dynamics/operations

Malcolm wrote:
None of them go beyond, "Where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose", etc.


Concordiadiscordi said:
Spiritually conservative justifications for disability and inequality founded upon vague notions derived from arcane texts and hearsay qualify as nothing but assumed dogma.

Malcolm wrote:
First, there is nothing vague about the Buddha's teaching on karma, it is very precise. Positive actions lead to positive results for oneself in this life and future lives, negatives actions lead to the opposite.

You either believe in Buddha's teachings on karma or you don't. If you don't, it is hard to consider yourself a follower of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 10:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is a pretty good indicator. The happiness we are experiencing in this life is a result of positive karma we did in the past; the suffering, the result of negative karma. Likewise, the positive karma we cultivate in this life will bear fruit as happiness in future lives; the negative karma, as suffering. It is unerring.

daverupa said:
Just to be comprehensive:

MN 57 said:
Puṇṇa, there are four kinds of action proclaimed by me after realising them for myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark action with dark result; there is bright action with bright result; there is dark-and-bright action with dark-and-bright result; and there is action that is neither dark nor bright with neither-dark-nor-bright result, action that leads to the destruction of action.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this all described in detail in the Kosha


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
SD said:
I was not engaging in, nor would I engage in, discrimination against people with special needs.

Kim O'Hara said:
Good! That is the most important thing here.

If you can also say that you do not and would not compound someone's suffering by telling them that it was all their own fault because they did something wrong in a past life, we have no disagreement over speech or behaviour.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
If you wish to understand how karma is understood in Tibetan Buddhism, read chapter four the the Abhidharmakoshabhasyam.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
Maybe a reasons life-to-life kamma is often portrayed as non-linearly in the suttas.

Malcolm wrote:
Karma is not presented nonlinearly in the sutras. The effects of karma do not dissipate until they ripen.

There are various factors which indicate whether a given karma will ripen in this life, or another, or are long delayed (such as karmas of a being in the rupadhātu created in the kama-dhātu which cannot ripen in the rūpadhātu and so on).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
The point is that the statement in question is (from POV of the nikayas) a misinterpretation

Malcolm wrote:
No, it is not a "misinterpretation", it is an understanding that is found in the sutra I cited for you.


Lazy_eye said:
-
It simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Our present lives are not necessarily a reliable indicator of our subsequent lives;

Malcolm wrote:
It is a pretty good indicator. The happiness we are experiencing in this life is a result of positive karma we did in the past; the suffering, the result of negative karma. Likewise, the positive karma we cultivate in this life will bear fruit as happiness in future lives; the negative karma, as suffering. It is unerring.


Lazy_eye said:
we could be living non-virtuously yet still find ourselves reborn in a happy destination because the negative kamma hasn't ripened yet, or because there is some positive kamma that continues to exert influence.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, as everyone who has bother to study the subject in detail knows.

Lazy_eye said:
A person might accrue heavy "death-proxinate" kamma at the very end of a virtuous life, with the vipaka manifesting in the next. You just don't know.

Malcolm wrote:
Such a person would be a fool, and obviously not know the difference between cultivating positive karma and avoiding negative karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
Wrong sutta, buddy. i was referring to the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html. You are quoting from the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html

As the titles suggest, the Maha presents a fuller exposition of the subject:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I am aware of that fact. The point is that the statement you are criticizing is justified on the basis of the words of the Buddha from a sutra you accept as valid. Just admit it, and move on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, January 6th, 2015 at 1:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:


Lazy_eye said:
The debate is not between "Buddhists" and "materialists." As Zhen Li and others have shown in their posts, a strongly deterministic view of karma is at odds with the nikayas. The statement "if you want to know your past life, look at your present circumstances, if you want to know what your future life will be, look at your present life" directly contradicts the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html.

Malcolm wrote:
No, in fact it does not:
2. "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"

3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."
And:
"Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to sickness, that is to say, to be one who harms beings with one's hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.nymo.html

This is exactly the intent of the statement, "if you want to know your past life, look at your present circumstances, if you want to know what your future life will be, look at your present life."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, January 4th, 2015 at 8:30 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Sherlock said:
Genetic or developmental defects are negative karma ripening.

Really, what is so objectionable about this idea?

Sherab Dorje said:
To a Buddhist it is not objectionable.  To a materialist on the other hand...

Kim O'Hara said:
What worries me about it, as one who tries to be compassionate, is how people may act as a result of believing that developmental disabilities are the result of negative karma.

To say that X deserves his/her disability and therefore shouldn't receive any special consideration or help is a failure of compassion.
"That's his/her karma and s/he just has to deal with it."
Does that sound at all familiar?
I've heard similar things far too often.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a statement of fact, we are all owners of our own karma.

Kim O'Hara said:
...the person in front of me is a suffering human being and the only response I can justify is compassion.

Malcolm wrote:
Ants are also worthy of compassion, they also are bearers of their own karma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 3rd, 2015 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Arjan Dirkse said:
For me karma is a word for cause and effect, nothing more, nothing less.

Disease or developmental disabilities do not have some misdeed from a previous life as their cause, the cause is in most cases just a genetic or developmental defect, or just bad luck (although there are conditions like lung cancer or obesity which can be caused by the actions of the patient). To link all ailments with some kind of "sin" is toxic and irrational. I wish Buddhism would be rid of it.

Malcolm wrote:
The words for cause and effect are hetu and phala.

Vipaka however is a very specific find of effect of a very specific kind of cause, namely "karma", which is in fact a positive, negative and neutral volition with corresponding positive, negative and neutral results (vipaka) in this life or some future lifetime which does not dissipate until it meets its cause for ripening, or someone attains liberation, whichever comes first.

If Buddhism were to jettison the teachings of the Buddha because someone finds this or that teaching of the Buddhas uncomfortable, dissatisfactory or not to their liking, it would no longer be "Buddhism" but would become something else instead.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, January 3rd, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Fruitzilla said:
For example, I've come across the idea that karma is the cause of all observable phenomena in the universe multiple times.

Malcolm wrote:
In general we hold to the simple principle that the present universe and everything in it down to the smallest observable particle arose as a result of the combined karma of all the sentient beings it contains.
The variety of the world comes from karma
-- Vasubandhu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, January 2nd, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
...giving what is beneficial [lit. medicinal]... Those ten factors result in many illnesses, this karma results in many illnesses.

xabir said:
Sorry I'm confused here. Why is giving what is beneficial a karma resulting in many illnesses?

Malcolm wrote:
It wad a typo, should be "not beneficial".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 1st, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Lazy_eye said:
Seems to me that any statement to the effect that "this disability was caused by non-virtuous conduct" (or other specific cause) clearly represents an attempt to delineate the precise workings of kamma, something only a Buddha would know.

Malcolm wrote:
The Karmavibhanga states:
Brahmin child, there is karma that results in a short life. There is karma that results in a long life. There is karma that results in many illnesses. There is karma that results in few illnesses. There is karma that result in an unattractiveness of complexion. There is karma that results in beauty.
There are many such teachings where the Buddha indicates that karma is involved in directly involved in illnesses, some we would term "genetic" illnesses. The Buddha continues:
In that respect, if it is asked what are the karmas resulting in many illnesses, there are ten factors that result in many illnesses: striking out with fists and palms etc.; believing it is proper to strike out with fists, palms, etc.; praising striking out with fists and palms, etc.; inflicting pain on one's father or mother; inflicting pain on an ārya; being happy when an enemy is afflicted with illness; being unhappy when an enemy recovers from an illness; giving what is beneficial [lit. medicinal], eating food without permission to eat. Those ten factors result in many illnesses, this karma results in many illnesses.
Therefore, we can see from this that martial artists should be very careful.

Anyway, there are numerous statements by the Buddha about karma being the cause of physical defects and illness. You can accept this or not.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, January 1st, 2015 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Buddhisms view on developmental disabilities
Content:
Zhen Li said:
Actually, the Buddha argued that it is well known by the world that there are simply biological causes for some things.

It is an incorrect view to hold everything to be the result of karma. Only in a round about metaphorical way can you say everything is a result of karma. Now we don't rely upon theories of bile, but the principle of a biological (non-intentional) cause for diseases is the same.
Sivaka Sutta said:
There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile [i.e., diseases and pains that come from a malfunction of the gall bladder]. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong. ...

Bile, phlegm, wind, a combination,
Season, uneven, harsh treatment,
and through the result of kamma as the eighth.

Malcolm wrote:
And the cause of vata, pitta and kapha respectively are rāga, dveśa and moha. Therefore, the indirect causes of all disease are the three afflictions. Also the three dośas in turn are the condition for the arising of three kleśas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 30th, 2014 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: Lojong: A Vajrayana Practice
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The seven points of mind training require Guru Yoga as a preliminary, etc. The instructions generally assume that one is practitioner of Secret Mantra.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I didn't realize this. I see Lojong taught  at what seems to be a sutra level of instruction though..isn't that also the case?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, take this from Gyalsey Thogme's famed commentary of the seven point's of mind training:
First, the preparation: having started with going for refuge and generating bodhicitta, offer supplications to one’s deity and Guru...
And:
The supreme method is endowed with four yogas.
First, the yoga of gathering accumulations is when suffering arises for oneself: if suffering arises for oneself, since the thought arises “I will be glad if this suffering does not exist”, at that time if you do not wish suffering and wish for happiness, think “This is a sign of breaking the cause of merit.” One must make offerings to the three jewels, praise the Sangha, offer tormas to elemental spirits, and so on, in brief, having made an effort to gather accumulations through the three doors of body, speech and mind, go for refuge and create bodhicitta, offering mandalas to the Guru and the Three Jewels and so with fervor.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 30th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Saoshun said:
Shunyata concept I think is before buddhism.


Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 29th, 2014 at 10:42 PM
Title: Re: Lojong: A Vajrayana Practice
Content:
Jikan said:
If so, then what to make of Norman Fischer's approach to lojong?

http://www.shambhala.com/training-in-compassion.html

or rather, more generally, the penetration of this practice outside of a Vajrayana context?  Is it still the same practice, or...?

Malcolm wrote:
As with everything, it is more effective when it is combined with guru yoga and so, the experience arise more rapidly and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 29th, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: "Did Machik Really Teach Chod?" by Sarah Harding
Content:
sherabpa said:
blo sbyong is actually mixed with Vajrayāna.
Interesting claim; there are arguably some vajrayana affinities in the 7 points of mind training with vajrayana, but apart from that, I don't see anything in Geshe Langthang's lojong or the Sakya Parting from the Four Attachments.  Even in the don bdun ma, there is no initiation or anything of that nature.  Could you elaborate?

Malcolm wrote:
The seven points of mind training require Guru Yoga as a preliminary, etc. The instructions generally assume that one is practitioner of Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 28th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Karma Fruit of Worldwide Abortions
Content:



Dan74 said:
This discussion may be of interest too, seeing that it takes a more compassion and less rigid position than many of the posts here seem to imply:

....

But then again, it may be more satisfying to just stick to our soapboxes...

Malcolm wrote:
First we have to decide whether abortion is himsa or ahimsa. Abortion can hardly be called ahimsa, can it? In fact abortion is the deliberate harming of one sentient being by another, in this case the harming of a child by its mother.

Every sentient is deserving of the same level of compassion no matter what they have done or what class of sentient being they are.

On the other hand, Mahāyāna ethics are more important than rigid adherence to the letter of a vow. But to undertake an action on the basis of Mahāyāna ethics, self-interest has to be absolutely absent from one's thinking.

Because abortion is himsa, harming a sentient being, it cannot be condoned by those who follow Buddhadharma in general. On the other hand, there are always special cases where there may be greater harm in prohibiting an abortion than permitting one, such as examples of severe birth defects, threat to the life of the mother and so on, impregnation through rape, incest, and so on.

So, in general, the position of Buddhadharma is that abortion is harming another sentient being as well as taking life. In general it is not only a serious breach of pratimokṣa vows to have an abortion or to encourage someone to have an abortion (and in the case of monk, results in a defeat), but it is also serious bodhisattva downfall to either have an abortion or to encourage someone to have an abortion apart from special instances.

On the other hand, there is the political fact of separation of church and state, which is necessary in any functional so-called "democracy". Though as a follower of Buddhadharma, I am personally opposed to abortion, I am also opposed to legislating religious doctrines into law. So it is something I leave to the courts and legislature to decide as a matter of social policy.

And finally, just because we followers of Buddhadharma are opposed to abortion in a general way does not mean we should adopt the angry and confrontational rhetoric of the "pro-life" movement. We should have compassion for everyone, since that's what we Mahayanis aim to do, i.e have impartial compassion for all sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 28th, 2014 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: Karma Fruit of Worldwide Abortions
Content:
Berry said:
So are you saying that if I sypathise with another woman having an abortion after she was beaten and raped by someone who murdered her parents, that I will "bear the karma of all the abortions that have ever been performed during their lifetime, and this leads them to have shortened lives, and so on " i.e. my lifetime ?

Malcolm wrote:
Sympathizing with someone for being raped and beaten is one thing. Taking a human life is another. If you approve of an abortion in only a special case, than you only bear the karma of that special case, and in this case it is also a weak karma, since it will likely be attended with regret and so, which prevents it from being a perfect karma.


Berry said:
That appears to be rather a mistaken and speculative viewpoint when reading what the Buddha had to say in  this sutta which was already mentioned earlier in the topic:

Malcolm wrote:
The workings of karma are explained in many sutras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 27th, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Trekchod
Content:
Saoshun said:
Can someone make hierarchy or list of trekchod practices?

Malcolm wrote:
There is only one practice, the four cho zhags.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 27th, 2014 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Recognising reincarnations
Content:
kirtu said:
In general only high lamas give empowerments in Sakya.  However I know of one Sakya khenpo in the US who is not the head of a lineage who does in fact give empowerments as well as a Sakya lama (a khenpo) in Europe who also gives empowerments.  But basically in Sakya almost all the time only high lamas (basically certain members of the Khon family or lineage heads of the Ngor or Tsar lineages) give empowerments.  In other words Sakya khenpos do not generally give empowerments.

Malcolm wrote:
And one should remember that the khenpos of Ngor are all from four traditional families, Luding, Thartse, Phande and one other whose name escapes me. Lama Kunga from SF is from the Thartse branch.

The khenpos of Tshar lineage also usually do give empowerments, but then there is also the Chogye Trichen incarnations as well as the Zimwok incarnations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 27th, 2014 at 9:49 PM
Title: Lojong: A Vajrayana Practice
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I've even read Mahayana Lojong trainings - a number of em in fact...which involve visualization of sectioning one's body, turning it into Nectar etc...It seems to be common enough. One in particular I can remember is in the context of Tonglen, but the visualization is not so far off from Chod or the Kusulis accumulation near as I can remember, just with no yidam involved.


Malcolm wrote:
blo sbyong is actually mixed with Vajrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 27th, 2014 at 8:02 AM
Title: Re: "Did Machik Really Teach Chod?" by Sarah Harding
Content:
conebeckham said:
there's no contradiction here between the question she poses and the genuine "authenticity" of the Lujin practice.

Jikan said:
Agreed completely, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise in my posts in this thread.


Malcolm wrote:
You are all forgetting that so called lus sbyin,  aka kusuli accumulation offering, has its roots in the Hevajra Tantra:
Having given the gift of the body
afterwards begin conduct.
The practice was already widespread. Machilk's tradition merely "Tibetanized" it with nice melodies and a big drum.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 27th, 2014 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: Karma Fruit of Worldwide Abortions
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
For all?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that. What I am pointing out is that fact that everyone who agrees with abortion and supports it bears the karma of all the abortions that have ever been performed during their lifetime, and this leads them to have shortened lives, and so on. I don't think it is a very strong karma, honestly, because most people have sincere regrets about it, and very few people feel satisfaction from the action.

But if you are opposed to abortion, then you are free from this consequence, even weak ones.

Collective ripening only befalls those who have engaged in similar actions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 26th, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Title: Re: Karma Fruit of Worldwide Abortions
Content:
Will said:
Kim, Most parts of the buddhadharma I know nothing about, so I am hoping that some deep practitioner will know of some guru or teaching that goes beyond Vasubandhu's mainly individual understanding.


Malcolm wrote:
Vasubandhu does describe collective karma in two ways, one he mentions the example of a soldier. If a group of one hundred soldiers kills a person, everyone on is that group bears the weight of the action times the number of people who participated in it, or even approved of it.

Secondly, an example of collective karma is our world. It came about because we all have similar actions, leading to not only the formation of this world, but our birth upon it.

"The variety of the world comes from action."

Thus, the action of killing, abortion being killing, leads to shortened lives, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014 at 9:42 PM
Title: Re: Dakini question
Content:
drodul said:
To which Buddha family does Sengdongma, the Lion-faced Dakini, belong?

Malcolm wrote:
Akṣobhya family.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 20th, 2014 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Frugal living
Content:
Tenso said:
Many people here as Buddhists will agree that living a frugal life is the way to go. The thing is that there are many people who spend their entire lives being frugal and end up being very miserable in old age, then they say they could of done this or that in their younger days.

My question is, is it better to have a steady work life and being able to do things one will enjoy or is it better to be a frugal cheap Buddhist who has never worked much in their lives and end up being unsatisfied wishing they could of made more money allowing them to enjoy their lives more? Not talking about having enough money to afford material possessions but having enough to travel the world, experience new and different things etc.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha himself does not recommend this for lay people. Quite the opposite, he encouraged lay people to work hard and be prosperous. A wealthy lay Sangha is a Sangha that can support the Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 20th, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The term "non-abiding nirvana" does not exist in sūtras, true, but it is a concept used to explain how nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras is different than Hinayāna nirvana.
...
Which I showed exists in the sutras such as the Lotus and so on, not merely in the Maitreyan corpus.

Astus said:
The term is not in the early sutras and it is used in Yogacara works to explain the state of the buddhas. That is, before Asanga there was no such explanation for what the sutras contain, and the sutras themselves don't actually specify.

Malcolm wrote:
Of course they do.





Astus said:
The criticism of Hinayanist nirvana-as-total-cessation is present in Mahāyāna everywhere.
Yes. And the idea of total cessation is rejected even in the Nikayas, not only in Mahayana sutras. It is actually among the set of questions not answered by the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Nevertheless, it is prevalent in many śrāvaka texts. The criticism leveled by Mahāyāna are not the words of the Buddha, but rather the teachings and understanding of his śrāvaka disciples. Please understand this distinction.


Astus said:
Since when were Buddhas ever inactive in Mahāyāna?
They do talk of parinirvana, and what people should do after the Buddha's demise, how stupas should be revered, etc. What sutras do you know that discuss the buddhas activities after their parinirvana? Besides the Lotus Sutra that does not actually say that as mentioned above already.

Malcolm wrote:
The Lankāvatara, for example, which clear indicates that the actual Buddha is the sambhogakāya, and the nirmanakāya appears here just for show.

Astus said:
This is not what happened at all.  No matter which Mahāyāna path one follows, one still has to gather the two accumulations via the bodhisattva path.
I see a significant difference between ideas that one should stay a bodhisattva indefinitely and that one can reach buddhahood even in this life. I don't see early Mahayana sutras emphasising that one should become a buddha, rather they talk about being a proper non-returning bodhisattva, someone who realises that there is actually nothing to attain, thus could become a buddha any time but chooses not to. Such a choice is nonsense if a buddha is simply a better bodhisattva.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Bodhisattvas vow to become Buddhas to teach others. That is the best way to assist sentient beings. To do that, they embark on a career that lasts eons in order to gather the merit and wisdom necessary to do this. This is all detailed very explicitly in the Ratnavali, chapter three.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 20th, 2014 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Dan74 said:
As I recall the great spat between yourself and several Zen teachers at E-Sangha came about initially due to their position on non-permanent nirvana, on nirvana as an extreme, are you now upholding the view you were previously fighting against? Or have I misunderstood?

Malcolm wrote:
You misunderstood. They were talking about a temporary nirvana.

And that is not what the argument was about, actually. The argument was "are Zen priests the equivalent of bhikṣus?" The reason is that Zen priests seem to feel they are entitled to all the privileges and recognitions to which a bhikṣu is entitled. My point of view was and is that they are lay bodhisattvas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 18th, 2014 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Mkoll said:
Essentially, to answer the question posed by the OP in the subject of the first post, the Mahayana opinion of Theravada is that it is not the complete teaching of the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this point of view is stated quite unequivocally by Nāgārjuna in the Ratnavali.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 10:04 PM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
TRC said:
However, the interesting point of why Sariputra is the butt of the joke here is actually based on a misapprehension, and this is the misunderstanding that Sariputra was the author of the Abhidharma, in which the Heart Sutra is clearly critiquing. Of course the Abhidharma was a later addition and not reflective of the early suttas and at times quite at odds with them (dharmas having substantial existence, etc). So this again is an example how prejudices can become reinforced over time and then become as if fact, based on misapprehensions.

Malcolm wrote:
In the Sarvastivāda, the dominant intellectual tradition in Indian Buddhism, Śariputra is indeed the author of some of the seven seminal Abhidharma texts.

Again, in the Mahāyāna sūtrsa, the Buddha indicates that he did not teach everything fully, not that what he taught in those śrāvaka sutras was false.

TRC said:
As you correctly point out LastLegend, “of course Sariputra understood”, there is no doubt. However, others studying the Heart Sutra obviously read this misunderstanding into it, as we can see here by Malcolm’s response.

Malcolm wrote:
Are you familiar with the Vimalakirti Nirdeśa sūtra? If so, you should be really offended, since you seem to enjoy taking offense at Mahāyāna.

TRC said:
While we are on the subject of the heart Sutra, who is considered to be the author?

Malcolm wrote:
Why, the Buddha, of course. It is through his entering samadhi that Avalokiteśvara was empowered to speak on his behalf.

TRC said:
Also, I’m still waiting a sound rebuttal explaining how the Kaccayanagotta Sutta is not directly pointing to the emptiness of all phenomena, that practitioners of early Buddhism aren’t supposed to be able to realise.

Malcolm wrote:
It is a teaching on dependent origination, not directly about emptiness. And since the dependent origination being discussed is the dependent origination of a person's continuum, explicitly it only concerns the selflessness of persons and not the selflessness of phenomena. It primarily concerns the notion of the permanence or annihilation of the self, two extremes the world is addicted to. This is why the preface to the famous passage states:
By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
In fact the passage is cited by Nāgārjuna in the chapter 15 of the MMK, his take down of Sarvastivāda substantialism, the notion that underneath appearances there is a prakriti, an unchanging nature which never changes, leading to the doctrine that all effects exist in their causes because of their misunderstanding of the Buddha's statement "everything exists in the three times."

The idea that this passage points to the heart of Madhyamaka is an idea advanced primarily by David Kalupahana. But we have very good reason to disregard Kalupahana's understanding because he completely disregarded Buddhapalita and Candarakirti's identification of which passages were stated by the opponent and which passages were to be considered Nāgārjuna's.

This passage is cited by Nāgārjuna because it cannot be rejected by his śrāvaka opponents, not because it is an end all be all statement that is the heart of Madhyamaka. There are many more salient passages in Mahāyāna sūtras which are much more explicit than this passage detailing the "middle way." He cites it because both schools hold it to be the Buddhavacana, and that is all.

In my opinion, your view of the the śravaka canon has been completely influenced by Madhyamaka [this is very common these days, since the Pali commentarial literature totally lacks any discussions of profound emptiness]. It is a pity you don't recognize that your own understanding of the śrāvaka canon actually comes from Mahāyāna.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
TRC said:
Still perpetuating the myth I see. Firstly though, you still have not addressed the quote from the Heart Sutra that refers specifically to the aggregates and consequently the falsehood it depicts of an arahant’s realisation. Secondly, as has already been quoted by a more balanced Mahayana practitioner in this thread, it is quite evident that emptiness of all phenomena is penetrated and understood in the early discourses. In fact it goes to heart of the Madhyamika view, that of the middle way between existence and non-existence.

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's teachings are one thing, what śrāvakas realize is another.

TRC said:
So here it is again:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.”


See, this is pointing directly to all phenomena (“the world”) as empty. It’s extremely explicit, it doesn’t come more direct!

Malcolm wrote:
This was addressed already by a previous citation of the Buddha:
Mahāmati, also others rouse a mind that wishes for nirvana having perceived that all things depend on a cause. However, Mahāmati, because they do not perceive the selflessness in phenomena [for them] there is no freedom.

TRC said:
And here is the Buddha now pointing directly to his doctrine (not Nagarjuna’s – his MMK was a commentary on the Buddha’s already established understanding of emptiness) on which he’s realisation of the middle way is founded on, which is of course no less than dependent arising.

Malcolm wrote:
No one is questioning the Buddha's realization.

TRC said:
So from the same http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html we have:
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling …”

Malcolm wrote:
Again:
Mahāmati, also others rouse a mind that wishes for nirvana having perceived that all things depend on a cause. However, Mahāmati, because they do not perceive the selflessness in phenomena [for them] there is no freedom.

TRC said:
So basically who cares about the commentarial texts when you have a good grasp of the early discourses? It’s all there (well for those who want to see at least), why would you rely on second-hand interpretations?

Malcolm wrote:
It is clear that the śrāvakas did not understand selflessness of phenomena from Buddha's teachings in the Nikayas/Agamas.

TRC said:
Also, you still haven’t addressed whether Zhiyi goes on to warn of getting stuck on the seventh bhumi, nirvana. Perhaps you don’t know?

Malcolm wrote:
I have not read the text in question. I generally confine myself to studying Indian texts and their Tibetan commentaries.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
TRC said:
Now you mention the Prajñāpāramitas. It seems to me, at least from my reading of the Heart Sutra, that it has a very fundamental and gross misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the awakening of the arahant. That is, it is evident that Avalokiteśvara proceeds to lecture Sariputra on the emptiness of the aggregates.

Malcolm wrote:
I assume you are referring to the various statements in Mahayāna that śrāvakas do not realize emptiness of phenomena. Indeed, the Buddha states in the Lankāvatara sūtra:
Mahāmati, also others rouse a mind that wishes for nirvana having perceived that all things depend on a cause. However, Mahāmati, because they do not perceive the selflessness in phenomena [for them] there is no freedom.
And:
Mahāmati, because liberation has a single taste, the abandonment of the obscuration of affliction of pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas might not be a difference, but they do not abandon the knowledge obscuration. The knowledge obscuration is purified through the difference of seeing the selflessness in phenomena.
Now then, on the other hand, the Buddha is not at fault here, because as Candrakirti famously states in his auto-commentary on the Madhyamakāvatara:
Someone might think, "If the selflessness of phenomena is taught in śrāvakayāna, the teaching of Mahāyāna would be pointless." That line of thought should be understood to contradict reason and citation. The selflessness in phenomena is not the only Mahāyana teaching. If it is asked why, there are the bodhisattva stages, the perfections, aspirations, great compassion and so on, as well complete dedication, the two accumulations and the dharmatā of inconceivability, As it is said in the Ratnavali:

The aspirations of bodhicitta
and the total dedication of practice
is not explained in the śrāvakayāna, 
so where will bodhisattvas [be explained]?
The topic of the bodhisattva practice
are not explained in [their] sūtras, 
but are explained in the Mahāyāna sūtras.
Therefore, they are upheld by the wise.

In order to clarify the selflessness of phenomena it is also reasonable that it is a teaching of Mahāyāna because it is held that it is extensively explained. The selflessness of phenomena is only briefly indicated in the śravakayāna. As the Ācarya said:

You have said that there is no freedom
without realizing signlessness;
therefore, you have taught that fully
in the Mahāyāna.
One can object, "But Candra says the selflessness in phenomena is taught the śrāvaka canon." Indeed he does say this, but I must point out that not even the names "selfness of persons" and selfless of phenomena" are ever heard in śrāvakayāna commentarial texts. Who has ever heard of something that can be understood without it being given a name? The fact that these two emptinesses are not identified in the commentarial literature of the śrāvaka canon is sufficient evidence to show that even the idea of two-fold emptiness is completely foreign to their understanding of Dharma. If they cannot even name it, how can they realize it? It is like assuming that someone will arrive at a destination they have never heard of, which is not on any map, and has no identifying features,and to which they have no intent to go — in short, even if they arrive in such a place they will not recognize it as a destination at all and will continue to move on since they are not looking for such a place to begin with.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 8:21 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Very simply put, Mahāyāna regards nirvana as an extreme to be avoided.

TRC said:
So nirvana is an extreme to be avoided? Why would Zhiyi be saying this then:

“As for the dharma of nirvāṇa, there are many paths of entry into it.
However, if we discuss those which are crucially essential, they do
not go beyond the two dharmas of calming and insight.”

Meditation Essential s by Kalavinka Press

Going by this and other conflicting and self-contradicting  opinions I’ve read, it seems to me Mahayana doesn’t really have a clear position about nirvana, and yet here it is dispensing it’s ill-informed definitions of what the Buddha described as nirvana in the early discourses.

Malcolm wrote:
Nirvana is something to be attained, in the sense that of course all afflictions should be ultimately eradicated (this occurs at the seventh bhumi), it is however not a state in which a bodhisattva should remain, and thus it is also an extreme to be avoided, as the Buddha points out in the Prajñāpāramita sutras and as Asanga also points out in the Mahāyānasamgraha. The Ārya-mahābherīhārakaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
"Kāśyapa, apart from the present intentional words are "parinivana of the tathaḡata", the tathāgata is permanent, stable, peaceful, eternal and is not annihilated even in parinirvana...though to some he shows the parinirvana he is not annihilated."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Very simply put, Mahāyāna regards nirvana as an extreme to be avoided. Thus the way nirvana is explained by the Buddha in Mahāyāna is markedly different than the way he explained it to śravakas. Therefore, the nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras, an extreme to be avoided, is different than the nirvana explained in the Agamas and Nikāyas, where it is presented as the ultimate desiderata.

Dan74 said:
I've never come across Nirvana described as 'an extreme to be avoided', Malcolm. Could you share some relevant sutra quotes please?

Malcolm wrote:
Āryāṣṭadaśasahasrika-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
...and never remain in either samsara or nirvana
Asanga remarks in the Mahāyānasamgraha.
"Totally abandoning the conceptuality of a bodhisattva who has not seen the truth, totally abandoning both extremes of samsara and nirvana, totally abandoning the apprehension that it is sufficient merely to abandon the obscuration of affliction..."


Dan74 said:
I remember the sravaka's or arahat's attainments described in these terms, as ultimate quiescence and not the true Nirvana,  but the issue here AFAICT is

1. do these descriptions accurately represent the Theravada or Pali Canon position?
2. is this the description of Mahayana Nirvana or is there another notion of Nirvana in the Mahayana?

Malcolm wrote:
It is, when a Buddha experiences parinirvana, according to that Hinayāna schoools, that's it for Buddha.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: How do defilements etc originate from primordial purity
Content:
jules said:
ok so the question would then be how does the non-recognition come about from pure awareness?

Malcolm wrote:
Initially this awareness is not self-aware. This is all very carefully explained in the explanation of the basis in Dzogchen. But you need to learn this from a teacher in the proper way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 17th, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: How do defilements etc originate from primordial purity
Content:
jules said:
how do ignorance, defilments, adventitious stains, bad karma etc arise from primordial purity. it seems illogical.

Malcolm wrote:
It is fairly straightforward and logical — though the mind is primordially pure, when it does not recognize it's own primordial purity it becomes entrapped in duality of self and other, and then the afflictions, karma and so on ensue.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 16th, 2014 at 11:44 PM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
TRC said:
Very simply put, Mahāyāna regards nirvana as an extreme to be avoided. Thus the way nirvana is explained by the Buddha in Mahāyāna is markedly different than the way he explained it to śravakas. Therefore, the nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras, an extreme to be avoided, is different than the nirvana explained in the Agamas and Nikāyas, where it is presented as the ultimate desiderata.

Clarence said:
Are there any other differences between Mahayana and Shravakayana in how they view Nirvana besides whether or not it is a desirable result? Do their definitions of Nirvana differ or just the way they view "it"?

Malcolm wrote:
Differing definitions of Nirvana exist among various śrāvaka schools, as well as between Mahāyāna and śrāvakas in general. Madhyamaka, for example, maintains that nirvana is emptiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 16th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but you have no proof for this, indeed, no proof that there is an "early" Mahāyāna when it comes to sūtras. The term "non-abiding nirvana" does not exist in sūtras, true, but it is a concept used to explain how nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras is different than Hinayāna nirvana.

TRC said:
Here we have nirvana which is beyond all concepts and you’re dividing it up into the nirvana of Hinayana and the nirvana of Mahayana. For real … dividing up the indivisible? Do you not see the absurdity of this line of reasoning in regards to Dharma?


Malcolm wrote:
Very simply put, Mahāyāna regards nirvana as an extreme to be avoided. Thus the way nirvana is explained by the Buddha in Mahāyāna is markedly different than the way he explained it to śravakas. Therefore, the nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras, an extreme to be avoided, is different than the nirvana explained in the Agamas and Nikāyas, where it is presented as the ultimate desiderata.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 16th, 2014 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:


Astus said:
Where this discussion has started was that I have stated that early Mahayana favoured staying a bodhisattva

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but you have no proof for this, indeed, no proof that there is an "early" Mahāyāna when it comes to sūtras. The term "non-abiding nirvana" does not exist in sūtras, true, but it is a concept used to explain how nirvana explained in Mahāyāna sutras is different than Hinayāna nirvana.

Astus said:
and one of the reasons for that was the lack of the concept of non-abiding nirvana of buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
Which I showed exists in the sutras such as the Lotus and so on, not merely in the Maitreyan corpus.

The criticism of Hinayanist nirvana-as-total-cessation is present in Mahāyāna everywhere.

Astus said:
Once buddhas got the same active position as bodhisattvas, the goal has moved to attaining buddhahood.

Malcolm wrote:
Since when were Buddhas ever inactive in Mahāyāna?

Astus said:
Then almost everyone started to regard the bodhisattva path too long and arduous and various means to attain buddhahood swiftly occurred.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not what happened at all.  No matter which Mahāyāna path one follows, one still has to gather the two accumulations via the bodhisattva path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 15th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: the lesser yogi and the greater yogi
Content:
Astus said:
So, the chapter actually tells us that on the one hand the Buddha eternally abides in no birth, that is the ultimate reality that can be seen by anyone who practises correctly. On the other hand, the longevity is the result of the merit from the bodhisattva cultivation that eventually expires. Or, the two sides actually stand for the same, that is, suchness as the Buddha's true nature.

Malcolm wrote:
What is nirvana actually? It is the cessation of afflictions that cause rebirth in the three realms.

Since the merit cultivated on the bodhisattva path is limitless, it effects will be limitless. Or are you saying there is some limit to objectless dedications and so on that is not mentioned in the sūtras.

In short, it is very clear that in Mahāyāna the nirvana enjoyed by the Buddha does not entail the absolute cessation of his continuum. Further, there are the five certainties of the Sambhogakāya, and in terms of the two rūpakāya, the Sambhogakāya is definitive, whereas the nirmanakāya shows up here and there like the illusion of an illusionist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 14th, 2014 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
rory said:
So are any women the heads or hold top positions in either Sakya or Nyingma. I pointed out that in modern Japan there is equal opportunity at the entry running a temple level, but once it comes to top power positions, it's all male.

Malcolm wrote:
HE Jetsun Kusho is the most senior women in Tibetan Buddhism.



rory said:
H.E. Sakya Jetsun Chimey Luding Rinpoche, the highest and most thoroughly trained female Buddhist teacher in the West, was born into the Drolma Podrang, or Tara Palace of the Sakya Khon family in 1938, the year of the earth tiger. She began her dharma studies at the age of five. His Holiness Sakya Trizin was born when she was six years old. According to the tradition in her family, she took novice ordination when she was "old enough to scare crows away" at the age of seven. When she was ten years old, she made her first retreat. She meditated on the form of Vajrapani known as Bhutadamara, and in one month completed one million recitations of the short mantra, HUM VAJRA PHAT, and one hundred thousand recitations of the long mantra. In her eleventh year, her father, Kunga Rinchen, sent her on her first teaching assignment. She spent the fourth through the tenth Tibetan months among the nomads on the northern plains of Tibet , giving transmissions and teachings on Phowa, or transference of consciousness, as well as conducting torma offerings, performing lhasang, or incense offerings, and giving other teachings and empowerments. The third woman in the history of Tibet to have transmitted the Lam Dre (the Path and Fruit) teachings, a fully accomplished guru and lineage holder, she is known for her teachings on Vajrayogini and is considered an emanation of that yidam of enlightened feminine energy.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.sakya-retreat.net/sakya_he.html



There are very few Sakya lineage holders. She is one of them. Her younger brother his two sons, her own son and brother, as well as her brother in law, of her cousin, HH Dagchen Rinpoche, nad a couple of the grandchildren  are the others.

Of course she has no say or interest in the monastic community, because she is a layperson. She has been acting as a lineage holder in the Sakya school since she was a teenager and gave the Lamdre teachings at Sakya.

The Sakyas have always trained promising young woman to be lineage holders. There have been many such women in the history of the Sakya School right down to Drogmi Lotsawa's own disciples in the 11th century.

There is the Shugseb lineage. This is a women's lineage connected with the Longchen Nyinthig once headed by Shugseb Jetsunma:



She was nominally connected with the Drugpa Kagyus, but Shugseb is considered an independent lineage.

rory said:
She founded the Shugseb nunnery, which is South west of Lhasa. There she established a firm body of disciples, lineage of teachings. She also encouraged the women to become ordained and be accomplished and mastered in Dzogchen realization. Her firm and main seat Shugseb and its nuns became a great example for all the female practitioner.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.drukpa-nuns.org/index.php/shugseb-jetsun

There is also Khandro Rinpoche:


rory said:
Her Eminence Mindrolling Jetsün Khandro Rinpoche was born as the eldest daughter of Kyabje Mindrolling Trichen Gyurme Künzang Wangyal, the 11th throne holder of the renowned Mindrolling lineage, one of the six main Nyingma lineages of Tibetan Buddhism. Throughout its history, some of the greatest masters of their time have been born within the Mindrolling lineage including the unique lineage of female masters known as the Jetsünma line, a remarkable Mindrolling tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.khandrorinpoche.org/jetsun-khandro-rinpoche/biography/

There are others too.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 14th, 2014 at 1:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
"History" is a uniquely western concept.

daverupa said:
Reams of Chinese texts demonstrate the opposite.
It is pretty useless for understanding Buddhadharma.
History is addressed by all who approach the Buddhadharma; there are various approaches to history, however, a text-critical approach being one. The Mahayana approach is different; but, history is not Western, and narratives about the past permeate Mahayana, put to great effect. It is hardly without use here.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that accounts of the past ineluctably fix facts in time in a material way is based on a uniquely Western point of view. That perspective really is not found in Indian and Tibetan thinking. I can't speak to Chinese culture, but I rather doubt it. Annals are not history, in the way in which we now understand the term and use it. When we say something is "historical", we mean that "it happened just that way."

Text critical approaches don't tell us nearly as much you imagine.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 14th, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
daverupa said:
Instead of seeing texts as historical documents with a context in the spread and development of Buddhism from the historical Buddha, Mahayana takes the texts as factually describing a trans-historical source that encapsulates the historical Buddha within a different context that relativizes history into a broader cosmological scheme.

Malcolm wrote:
"History" is a uniquely western concept. It is pretty useless for understanding Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 14th, 2014 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Tenso said:
My vote for the most pro woman tradition in Buddhism will go to Japanese PL. I'm reminded of the story when Honen encounters a hooker and teaches her the path of nembutsu who then goes on to dedicate her life to it and attains birth. And this was also in ancient samurai Japan when women had zero rights. Is there any other tradition that can beat that?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, Yeshe Tsogyal being raped by bandits and converting them to Dharma in the process. The number of realized women and women lineage holders in Tibetan Buddhism far outstrips any other tradition.

Loren said:
Nyingma or all the traditions?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't know about Gelug or Kagyu, but there have been many outstanding women masters in both Sakya and Nyingma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 10:55 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Tenso said:
My vote for the most pro woman tradition in Buddhism will go to Japanese PL. I'm reminded of the story when Honen encounters a hooker and teaches her the path of nembutsu who then goes on to dedicate her life to it and attains birth. And this was also in ancient samurai Japan when women had zero rights. Is there any other tradition that can beat that?

Malcolm wrote:
Sure, Yeshe Tsogyal being raped by bandits and converting them to Dharma in the process. The number of realized women and women lineage holders in Tibetan Buddhism far outstrips any other tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: No one will be turned away
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I imagine this is because when Khenpo Jigphun came here 1993, he returned to Tibetan with more than $80,000 and some people criticized him heavily for this.

dzogchungpa said:
I find that kind of strange, it's not even that much money. Was he criticized for being overly aggressive in soliciting offerings or what?

Malcolm wrote:
He was criticized for coming here just to raise funds. Khenpo Jigphun wound up being the target of a lot of misplaced jealousy in Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Why is Oral Sex Considered Sexual Misconduct?
Content:
WuMing said:
I think all of the Tibetan Buddhist schools regard oral and anal sex as inappropriate. This goes back to the Indian Buddhist tradition, e.g. the Abhidharmakosha (not entirely sure anymore about that text), or Ashvaghosha and Atisha. In Tibet one finds it in Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is the Kagyu tradition. In Patrul Rinpoche's book Words of my perfect teacher one can find it as well (Nyingma).

The reason might be that having sex using these inappropriate body parts (mouth or the anus) can only come from desire.

Malcolm wrote:
I think it has more to do with hygiene. Tulku Urgyen was once heard to remark "Why would anyone want to put their mouth there?"


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 9:55 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Furthermore, if what you say is the case, how do can you reconcile that with the fact that Śakamuni Buddha in fact attained Buddhahood eons and eons ago?

Astus said:
And the Nirvana Sutra has a similar chapter as well on the Buddha's adamantine body. I don't see why there is a need for reconciliation. It is one of the first examples of transferring the eternal dharmakaya to an eternally active buddha, although it still says that Shakyamuni never goes extinct (nirvana), that is, it is either this shore or the other.

Malcolm wrote:
However, you grandly claimed a few posts ago that non-abiding nirvana was a "late" development.  But we see here that the Buddha taught it. So?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Such teachings as this are the basis for the term "non-abiding nirvana."

Astus said:
No question about that, that from one developed the other. My point is rather that first it was the bodhisattva that was perceived as a being possessing the active force to stay in samsara, while buddhas eventually attained parinirvana, although before that they did teach and were superior to bodhisattvas. The Mahaprajnaparamitasastra says that once a bodhisattva attained irreversibility, he has a choice whether to stay with beings until the end or go for buddhahood. However, if buddhas were superior and could have also stayed with beings, then choosing to remain a bodhisattva is indeed pointless. Nevertheless, Mahayana has a number of such bodhisattvas who intentionally stick around, although interestingly (or logically) some of them are regarded as buddhas in Vajrayana (e.g. Chenrezig and Kuntuzangpo).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, Astus, I understood your point and dispute that this is the case.

The shift in bodhicittas account for this. Furthermore, if what you say is the case, how do can you reconcile that with the fact that Śakamuni Buddha in fact attained Buddhahood eons and eons ago? Doesn't the Saddharmapundarika say in fact:
Inconceivable tens of billions of eons ago
which cannot be measured, 
I attained supreme awakening, 
and I have also been explaining the Dharma...
I have demonstrated nirvana, 
describing the method in order to tame sentient beings, 
but at that time I never passed into nirvana, 
but have been teaching Dharma here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 13th, 2014 at 1:06 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This is a very rash assertion — you are posting the opinion of one modern scholar as a fact when he himself in the very quote you cite is clearly guessing. This exemplifies exactly what is wrong with modern Buddhology.

Astus said:
I don't see how it is incorrect what the quote says. Can you find the term in a PP sutra or early Madhyamaka? Just did a quick search for it (無住涅槃) in the Great PP Sutra (大般若波羅蜜多經) and no match. Then I continued and found the followings (Taisho volume, number of texts): 16 (2), 18 (2), 19 (7), 20 (4), 25 (3), 26 (2), 30 (1), 31 (8), 32 (3), 33 (5), 34 (2), 35 (2), 36 (1), 38 (1), 39 (3), 40 (5), 42 (2), 43 (3), 44 (2), 45 (4), 46 (1), 48 (1). Here's a guide to what the various volumes contain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka.

Malcolm wrote:
The term is mentioned in the Mahāyānaprasādaprabhāvana

The Āryaśālistambaka-mahāyānasūtraṭīkā by Nāgārjuna, preserved in the bstan 'gyur mentions it twice.

In any case, let us suppose that the technical term "non-abiding nirvana" is first found in the Maitreyan corpus. It is irrelevant that term is not found Madhyamaka since the treatises of Nagārjuna are almost wholly focused on faults concerning the view and at this time notion of the Buddha having achieved Buddhahood in the distant past. In the perfection of wisdom sutras and so on the idea of the dharmakāya manifesting an illusory form body to help sentient beings is fully present. For example the PP in 8000 lines states:
The Tathāgata is not seen in the rupakāya. The Tathāgata the dharmatākaya. Son of a good family, dharmatā does not come or go. Son of a good family, likewise, the Tathāgata does not arrive or leave. Son of a good family, for example, an illusionist's host of elephants, horses, chariots or infantry soldiers do not come or go. Son of a good family, in the same way the form of the Tathāgata does not come or go.
Such teachings as this are the basis for the term "non-abiding nirvana."

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


Soap-Bubble said:
P.S. One nice argument here was connected to thodgal and how mandalas and deities spontaneously manifest.

Malcolm wrote:
They do not spontaneously manifest — they manifest only with great effort, diligence and understanding. If they spontaneously manifested everyone would see them all the time and without any causes or condition and without any progression or order. But this does not happen, which is why the visions are laid in the order that they are.

Likewise, one only moves through the following progression, first one can see the nirmanakāya, then the sambhogakāya and in the end, dharmakāya -- this is the same whether one is a common Mahāyāna practitioner or a Dzogchen practitioner. The path of Dzogchen is not in reality something other than a Mahāyāna path. It is a Mahāyāna path practiced according to techniques and methods not shared with common Mahāyāna, and so therefore is part of secret mantra, as Dzogchen tantras proclaim again and again. There is no Dzogchen outside of Mahāyāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: No one will be turned away
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Interesting.

I just received a Vajrakilaya empowerment from Khenpo Sodargye and at the end it was announced that he had taken a vow not to receive any offerings on his tour of the States, so no offerings were made.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, I imagine this is because when Khenpo Jigphun came here 1993, he returned to Tibetan with more than $80,000 and some people criticized him heavily for this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Astus said:
As I have posted above, the option for non-abiding nirvana (and the trikaya doctrine) is a somewhat later development.

Malcolm wrote:
This is a very rash assertion — you are posting the opinion of one modern scholar as a fact when he himself in the very quote you cite is clearly guessing. This exemplifies exactly what is wrong with modern Buddhology.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The reality is that there are three different kinds of bodhisattva motivations spoken of in the sūtras, king-like, captain-like and shepherd-like. There really is no evidence to suppose that the shepherd-like motivation existed first, and the other two were taught later. The way this is taught in the Mahāyāna itself is that the King-like bodhicitta is for those with average capacity, with the shepherd-like motivation being for those of best capacity.

Astus said:
My knowledge is limited, but I have not yet encountered those three kinds of motivations in East Asian Buddhism, only Tibetan. Could you specify in what sutras, or even shastras (preferably those already translated to English) it is explained?

Malcolm wrote:
They are nicknames for the bodhicittas respectively of the path of accumulation, the seventh bhumi and the eighth as presented in the Sutra-alamkara.

They are very commonly discussed in Tibetan Literature, and the nicknames seem to originate with Gampopa.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
ChNN himself has said many times there is no such thing as "pure Dzogchen."

Soap-Bubble said:
I was making a distinction between the simplified body of practices and the state. Which one do you think ChNN refers to?

Malcolm wrote:
Even the "state", whatever you mean by that, is not "pure" Dzogchen. Buddhahood might be "pure" Dzogchen.

But as long as we are on a path, our Dzogchen is not "pure."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Soap-Bubble said:
I believe that this tendency of "pure dzogchen"

Malcolm wrote:
ChNN himself has said many times there is no such thing as "pure Dzogchen."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
the motivation of the bodhisattva path is infinitely superior to the motivation to become an arhat

Astus said:
By "bodhisattva career" I meant the aeons of walking the path and even delaying buddhahood intentionally. There is a difference between how buddhahood is interpreted in early and late Mahayana, and it is early Mahayana that focused on becoming a bodhisattva, while late Mahayana is focused on attaining buddhahood as soon as possible.

Malcolm wrote:
If you accept that there is such a thing as an "early" or "late" Mahāyāna, I imagine you could contrive such an explanation. The reality is that there are three different kinds of bodhisattva motivations spoken of in the sūtras, king-like, captain-like and shepherd-like. There really is no evidence to suppose that the shepherd-like motivation existed first, and the other two were taught later. The way this is taught in the Mahāyāna itself is that the King-like bodhicitta is for those with average capacity, with the shepherd-like motivation being for those of best capacity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 9:32 PM
Title: Re: No one will be turned away
Content:
Ayu said:
If somebody has deep devotion s/he should not be forced to say: "I cannot attend the teaching, because it is too expensive."

Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand people do forget that Milarepa had to say just that....and more than once.

Sherlock said:
He paid with his labour.

Malcolm wrote:
Don't you remember the episode where he had no money to give Marpa, and Dagmema gave him a piece of turquoise for the fee? When Marpa found out he was livid and threw Milarepa out.

The of course there is the famous examples of Drogmi and Rwa. They both had set fees for teachings, this much for the empowerment, this much for the intimate instruction, this much for the sadhana explanation and so on. In Tibet, prior to the institutionalization of Vajrayāna lineages, the habits of gurus were to set fees. Don't you recall that Longchenpa was depressed he could not attend the Vima Nyinthig empowerment given by Kumararaja? So Kumararaja secretly gave him the empowerment fee so he could attend. The Dorje Gotrab root text specifies it should not be given to anyone who does not fork over gold. ChNN joked about this, when he first gave the lung for the whole text.

After Vajrayāna was institutionalized then it became common for teachings like the Nyingthig Yazhi, Lamdre and so on to be freely given. But even here, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa stated that while he was able to attend the Rinchen Terzod for free, he never received any instructions on the practices it contained because he could not afford to pay for them. So the perception that Dharma was free or sponsored in Tibet is somewhat true, and also somewhat false. It is more complicated then most people realize.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: No one will be turned away
Content:
Ayu said:
If somebody has deep devotion s/he should not be forced to say: "I cannot attend the teaching, because it is too expensive."

Malcolm wrote:
On the other hand people do forget that Milarepa had to say just that....and more than once.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 8:53 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:


Dan74 said:
In Tonga I'm told, every (extended) family used to have a matriarch, typically an old unmarried aunt, who would be consulted on all important decisions and mediate in all the disputes. But the Christian missionaries saw an end to such a prominent role for women. Hooray for Western civilisation!

Malcolm wrote:
This is actually how things are in Tibet. The brother's sister wields all the matriarchal power.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
it makes them the Sravaka vehicle. I shouldn't need to defend that notion on this forum.

Astus said:
That's right, sravakas are important. If one can save oneself, that's already great. I think that those of us exposed to Mahayana teachings (sutra and tantra) can be a little fooled by the rhetoric about how superior the bodhisattvayana is. Although here I might add that the majority of popular Mahayana lineages don't emphasise the bodhisattva career, instead they promise buddhahood in this life or the next.

Malcolm wrote:
The purpose of becoming a buddha is to help others. The purpose of becoming an arhat is to help yourself. There is nothing wrong with the latter, but it cannot be compared with the former. Therefore, whether one attains buddhahoood in this life, the next left, or in three incalculable eons, the motivation of the bodhisattva path is infinitely superior to the motivation to become an arhat.

Further, the bodhisattva path is emphasized in Vajrayāna, without bodhisattva motivation is not possible to to attain buddhahood. Quite frankly, of all the Mahāyāna traditions out there today, Tibetan Buddhism emphasizes bodhicitta the most.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 7:47 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
daverupa said:
I don't seek to have the Mahayana view defended, but I do want it clearly stated.

The foundation isn't just Nikayas/Agamas, it's Agamas + certain other Mahayana texts that are the actual baseline foundation. The claim about Ni/Ag being the foundation snagged my mind a bit as it passed because saying that they are foundational is incomplete, and thus inaccurate: the practical foundation employed by Mahayana folk necessarily encompasses more than that (as does Theravada, but in quite different ways).

So, the picture I see emerging from this discussion is that the e.g. Agamas aren't foundational on their own, they are incorporated with other texts which then as a group comprise the practical Mahayana foundation. Thus, Early Buddhism forms part of the foundation for both, and other things make up the remainder of the textual mass in each case.

Malcolm wrote:
The whole edifice of the Buddha's teaching in the Agamas are the foundation for Mahāyāna. It does not mean that there are no teachings in the Agamas that are regarded as contextual/provisional, to be applied or not as the situation may warrant it. The same is the case with the relationship between Mahāyāna and Secret Mantra — the whole of Mahāyāna and the Agamas are the foundation upon which Secret Mantra rests, but this does not mean that there are no teachings in the Agamas and Vaipulya sūtras that are regarded as contextual/provisional to be applied or not as the situation may warrant it. For example, the 37 bodhipakṣadharmas, found in the Agamas and Vaipulya sūtras, are also found in Tantras. Mandalas are, from one point of view, little more than exercises in reciting various parts of Abhidharma in the form of deities.

One way to look at it is that the Agamas are the milk, the Vaipulya sūtras are the cream, and the Tantras are the butter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
I think you misunderstood the "foundation"bit.

daverupa said:
Can you expand? Malcolm says, at least in cases of Vinaya, that this foundation is to be superseded as necessary.

Malcolm wrote:
I was specifically referring to personal liberation vows and where they are contradicted by bodhisattva vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:


Bakmoon said:
I would hazard an answer by saying that things exist in a findable way in the sense that one can perceive appearances, but not further. I say this based on my own understanding of Acariya Dhammapha's subcommentary on the Atthasalini in which he says that there is nothing apart from the properties of a dhamma.


Malcolm wrote:
These properties, I assume he is using the lakkhana (Skt. Lakṣana) are precisely the kind of realism criticized buy the Buddha in Mahāyāna as dharmātman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:


Bakmoon said:
My point is that it is misleading to say that the Mahayana path is not a part of the Theravada tradition because many people would understand that to mean that the Theravada tradition doesn't have a set of Bodhisattva teachings rather than understanding it to mean that the Bodhisattva path as presented in the Theravada tradition is different from the Mahayana teachings on the same.

Malcolm wrote:
The Mahāyāna path is not part of the tradition of Theravada. Theravada may have teachings on the path of the bodhisattva, but they are not commensurate with the teachings on the bodhisattva in Mahāyāna in anyway.

For example, in Theravada bodhisattvas are barred from stream entry, in Mahāyāna they can achieve streamentry, and so on, the list of differences is endless.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I thought that it is the position of Je Tsongkhapa that the object of negation is only intrinsic existence and not mere existence. I understand that outside of Gelugpa this position is seen as non-standard, but I think it's a bit harsh to say that saying that phenomena merely exist is a rejection of the emtpiness of phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you understand what "mere existence" means?

Bakmoon said:
I can't give a perfect definition of it, but from looking at how the term is used in the context of Je Tsongkhapa's writings I take it to mean that it is a conventional  kind of existence different from intrinsic existence and is not findable under rational analysis.

Malcolm wrote:
Is any kind of existence findable from the perspective of Theravada teachings?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 2:02 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
It is not all of a piece.

When we examine the purpose of merit accumulation, we can ascertain the differences.

There are significant differences between how the bodhisattva path is understood by the Nikaya schools and how it is understood in Mahāyāna.

Devotionalism in Mahāyāna and the Śravaka schools is not a path, as it is Vajrayāna.

Bakmoon said:
I agree.

Malcolm wrote:
Mahāyāna bodhicitta simply does not exist in the Agamas, nor does the Mahāyāna path.

Bakmoon said:
That's true of the main body of the Four Nikayas for example, but the Bodhisattva path is talked about somewhat in the latter portions of the Khuddaka Nikaya in the Jatakas, Cariyapitika, and the Buddhavamsa, and it is talked about in more detail in the classical commentaries, both on these texts, and in several commentaries on the main Suttas such as in the commentary on the Samannaphala Sutta and the Ghatikara Sutta.

Bodhicitta isn't specifically identified under a single name and doctrine, but I think the concept is there in the commentaries. For example, Acarya Dhammapala in his commentary on the Cariyapitika writes:
The aspiration, made by one endowed with these eight factors, is in denotation the act of consciousness (cittuppaada) occurring together with the collection of these eight factors. Its characteristic is rightly resolving to attain the supreme enlightenment. Its function is to yearn, "Oh, may I awaken to the supreme perfect enlightenment, and bring well-being and happiness to all beings!" It is manifest as the root-cause for the requisites of enlightenment. Its proximate cause is great compassion, or the achievement of the necessary supporting conditions. Since it has as its object the inconceivable plane of the Buddhas and the welfare of the whole immeasurable world of beings, it should be seen as the loftiest, most sublime and exalted distinction of merit, endowed with immeasurable potency, the root-cause of all the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Simultaneous with its arising, the Great Man enters upon the practice of the vehicle to great enlightenment (mahaabodhiyaanapa.tipatti). He becomes fixed in his destiny, irreversible, and therefore properly gains the designation "bodhisattva." His mind becomes fully devoted to the supreme enlightenment in its completeness, and his capacity to fulfill the training in the requisites of enlightenment becomes established. For when their aspiration succeeds, the Great Men correctly investigate all the paaramiis with their self-evolved knowledge which prefigures their future attainment of omniscience. Then they undertake their practice, and fulfill them in due order, as was done by the wise Sumedha when he made his great aspiration.

Like the aspiration, great compassion (mahaakaru.naa) and skillful means (upaayakosalla) are also conditions for the paaramiis. Therein, "skillful means" is the wisdom which transforms giving (and the other nine virtues) into requisites of enlightenment. Through their great compassion and skillful means, the Great Men devote themselves to working uninterruptedly for the welfare of others without any concern for their own happiness and without any fear of the extremely difficult course of conduct that great bodhisattvas must follow. And their nature is such that they are able to promote the welfare and happiness of beings even on occasions when they are merely seen, heard of, or recollected, (since even the sight, report, or thought of them) inspires confidence. Through his wisdom the bodhisattva perfects within himself the character of a Buddha, through his compassion the ability to perform the work of a Buddha. Through wisdom he brings himself across (the stream of becoming), through compassion he leads others across. Through wisdom he understands the suffering of others, through compassion he strives to alleviate their suffering. Through wisdom he becomes disenchanted with suffering, through compassion he accepts suffering. Through wisdom he aspires for nibbaana, through compassion he remains in the round of existence. Through compassion he enters sa.msaara, through wisdom he does not delight in it. Through wisdom he destroys all attachments, but because his wisdom is accompanied by compassion he never desists from activity that benefits others. Through compassion he shakes with sympathy for all, but because his compassion is accompanied by wisdom his mind is unattached. Through wisdom he is free from "I-making" and "mine-making," through compassion he is free from lethargy and depression.
There is also a passage from the Buddhavamsa which describes how the Buddha in his previous incarnation as Sumedha took the Bodhisattva vow, but I'll have to take some time to find the passage.

Malcolm wrote:
Such discussions also exist amongst the Sarvastivadins, for example the Abhidharmakosha discusses the career of the bodhisattva. But this is really not the same as the Buddha's teaching on the bodhisattva path in Mahāyāna. For one, the concept of an awakened bodhisattva is never found in any Theravada texts at all.

Not only that, but unlike the śravaka schools, in Mahāyāna there are specific rites to undertake bodhisattva vows and commitments to which one must adhere. In other words there is a Bodhisattva vinaya that is distinct from the śravaka vinaya and supercedes where the former contradicts the latter. It is probable that śravaka understanding the bodhisattva path was influenced by Mahāyāna sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I thought that it is the position of Je Tsongkhapa that the object of negation is only intrinsic existence and not mere existence. I understand that outside of Gelugpa this position is seen as non-standard, but I think it's a bit harsh to say that saying that phenomena merely exist is a rejection of the emtpiness of phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you understand what "mere existence" means?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 11th, 2014 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Best Yidams to Remove Obstacles
Content:
Clarence said:
Which Deity would you recommend to remove obstacles?

Many thanks, C


Malcolm wrote:
Depends on the obstacle.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... things like tathāgatagarbha, Mahāyāna bodicitta, two-fold emptiness, gathering the two accumulations, the bodhisattva path, the nature of buddhahood and omniscience. What the Buddha taught in uncommon Mahāyāna Secret Mantra on top of the framework of common Mahāyāna is the special method to realize Buddhahood in a single lifetime.

daverupa said:
With Theravada, there's merit donations and merit-as-currency, protective charms, devotionalisms and venerations, the Jatakas housing Bodhisatta Path ideations alongside comparisons of Bodhisatta with Buddha... it's all of a piece, Malcolm. Theravada brings the same sort of stuff to the Agama/Nikaya table as does Mahayana, which is to say, stuff not already on the table.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not all of a piece.

When we examine the purpose of merit accumulation, we can ascertain the differences.

There are significant differences between how the bodhisattva path is understood by the Nikaya schools and how it is understood in Mahāyāna.

Devotionalism in Mahāyāna and the Śravaka schools is not a path, as it is Vajrayāna.

Mahāyāna bodhicitta simply does not exist in the Agamas, nor does the Mahāyāna path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 9:41 PM
Title: Re: Off topic: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Not quite the same, as I believe in the Mahayana Arya Sangha is defined as people who have realized emptiness to some degree, and are on the bhumis (maybe i'd have to verify the bhumis thing) not even a thing in Theravada. Though I did not know that was the case in Theravada.

Bakmoon said:
In the Theravada the eight kinds of Ariyas refers to the Sotapanna, Sakadagamin, Anagamin, and Arahant, each divided into path and fruit. I'm not sure how this maps up with the ten Bhumi model, but in the Theravada school one must attain Nirvana in order to become a Sotapanna, which seems to line up with the path of seeing, although I'm not totally sure how the details on that work.


Malcolm wrote:
It does not line up with the ten Bhumi model because what is seen and what is abandoned by seeing differ.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
This kind of emptiness was not taught by the Buddha in the Agamas and Nikayas, but was only taught by the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras.

daverupa said:
This is saying that the Sravaka stuff is not a foundation; so there seems to be a disagreement on this matter among Mahayana folk?

Malcolm wrote:
The foundational teachings the Buddha provided in the Agamas/NIkayas are things like 12 links of dependent origination, the four truths of nobles, skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus, liberation from samsara and so on. What the Buddha taught in common Mahāyāna on top of the framework provided in the Agamas and Nikayas were things like tathāgatagarbha, Mahāyāna bodicitta, two-fold emptiness, gathering the two accumulations, the bodhisattva path, the nature of buddhahood and omniscience. What the Buddha taught in uncommon Mahāyāna Secret Mantra on top of the framework of common Mahāyāna is the special method to realize Buddhahood in a single lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Celibacy & Enlightenment
Content:
sdw said:
Just a note: 'Lay' does not mean non-celibate, it means a person who is not ordained, or not part of the clergy, an amateur as opposed to a 'professional'. One would not refer to great Lamas such as Dud'jom Rinpoche, for example, as 'lay'.

Malcolm wrote:
One would refer to them as upāsakas, laymen. In this context, when it comes to the difference between being an upāsakaḥ as opposed to a bhikṣu or śramaṇera, the former is "lay," the latter are ordained. Thus both are clergy, but one are lay clergymen and the other are ordained clergymen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Obviously this doesn't mean that Theravada lines up with everything in the Madhyamaka tenet system, as there are a lot of important differences in how these teachings are laid out and in particular a lot of differences in how the two truths are understood, and emptiness is explained in much more detail in Madhyamaka texts, but I do think it's fairly clear that the Theravada school (at least in its classical formulation in the commentaries as opposed to the later abhidhamma manuals) accepts the emptiness of all phenomena in addition to the emptiness of persons.

Malcolm wrote:
I am afraid you have not understood the "emptiness of phenomena" because you state:
Phenomena are real in that they arise, yes, but not real in the sense of possessing intrinsic existence.
What is the emptiness of phenomena? The emptiness of phenomena is the absence of extremes in phenomena such as arising, ceasing, existence, nonexistence, permanent, impermanent and so on. This kind of emptiness was not taught by the Buddha in the Agamas and Nikayas, but was only taught by the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Here's a quote from Douglas Duckworth I pulled from from the NIrvana wiki:
The Lesser Vehicle does not result in the practitioner becoming a complete buddha; rather, the aim is to achieve a personal nirvana that is the total extinction of existence. The Great Vehicle, however, does result in becoming a complete buddha. A buddha remains actively engaged in enlightened activity to liberate beings for as long as samsara remains. Thus, those who accomplish the Great Vehicle do not abide in samsara due to their wisdom that sees its empty, illusory nature. Further, unlike those who attain the nirvana of the Lesser Vehicle to escape samsara, they do not abide in an isolated nirvana due to their compassion. For these reasons, in the Great Vehicle, nirvana is said to be “unlocated” or “nonabiding” (apratiṣṭhita), staying in neither samsara nor nirvana.

The above covers the big differences as I understand them, which includes the central role of Bodhicitta in full enlightenment.

Kasina said:
Fascinating.

Within Theravada, criticism is oft thrown at those who claim nibbana as a state outside of all existence.

What's your take on that?

Malcolm wrote:
Nonabiding Nirvana simply means that a Buddha never actually remains in the nirvana for ever, always acting on behalf of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 9:23 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


Sherab said:
Personally, I highly doubt that Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche intended the first interpretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Thanks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 5:34 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
what I "said" originally when I started the thread was a quote from ChNNR. Why don't you respond to that?

Malcolm wrote:
I have no need to.

gad rgyangs said:
ok I'll take that as agreement with what he is saying.


Malcolm wrote:
We do not understand him the same way, hence I responded to you, but not the original citation.

In order to be a Dzogchen practitioner, rather than a Dzogchen intellectual, you must always do three things: take refuge in the Buddha, maintain ultimate bodhicitta, and dedicate your merit. This is the essence of the practice of Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
he is clearly separating the "essence of the teachings" from the "culture or tradition" (buddhism) and stating that one must understand "the true meaning of a teaching through one's own culture" or you may confuse "the external form of a religious tradition and the essence of its message"


Malcolm wrote:
I am sorry, but I do not believe that he is saying that the essence of Dzogchen is separate from Buddhadharma.


gad rgyangs said:
here he is clearly saying that you do not have to be a buddhist to practice dzogchen, and to insist otherwise is "limited thinking" and can "create serious obstacles to true knowledge"

Malcolm wrote:
No, but by becoming a Dzogchen practitioner one becomes a practitioner of Buddhadharma. There is no way around this. Dzogchen is Prajñāpāramita, etc. It is not Paramshiva, Brahman, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
all you have said so far is basically "it can't be what he really thinks because it is different from what I think"

Malcolm wrote:
I haven't said anything of the sort. I have not been responding to what ChNN says, rather I am responding to what you say.

gad rgyangs said:
what I "said" originally when I started the thread was a quote from ChNNR. Why don't you respond to that?

Malcolm wrote:
I have no need to.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 2:20 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
all you have said so far is basically "it can't be what he really thinks because it is different from what I think"

Malcolm wrote:
I haven't said anything of the sort. I have not been responding to what ChNN says, rather I am responding to what you say.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 1:36 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
this thread being another example that even long term practitioners (gad rgyangs is one, isn't he?) either apparently fail to understand that absolutely crucial term (if mutsuk is right) or at least cannot properly express what they understand.

gad rgyangs said:
the only things I have said about rigpa are: it is an awakening. the recognition it gives is unmistakable, unshakable, and irreversible. I also said it is knowledge of our real nature or condition. I don't think any of these statements are controversial, but if any of it is unclear I would be happy to try and clarify.

Malcolm wrote:
The experience of rigpa is reversible, even if you have developed some rigpa in this life, when you die, who knows where you will end up in the next life?

Oh, sure, you can argue that the mind is not affected by any of the six realms, being inherently pure, but it is frankly stupid to claim that recognition of your state is realization. No Dzogchen tantra states that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 1:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
getting back to topic:
although i started this thread with very clear quotes of Namkhai Norbu, people are arguing with me as if they were my opinions. Go figure.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps that is because there are some people who think that you have not presented to the totality of Rinpoche's view with this citation edited from a talk translated into another language (from Italian to English) a quarter of a century ago.

gad rgyangs said:
then it should be simple for you to provide a counter-quote from a more recent publication of his in which he repudiates what he said in the quote I posted.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think you are presenting this citation in its proper context, and I don't think one can encapsulate all of Rinpoche's thoughts into an internet soundbite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
And it seems there is no easy way out: can we honestly understand the world of the Tibetan metaphor without any 'fusion of horizons'?

Malcolm wrote:
Please be precise, which metaphors are you talking about? At this point people are complaining about putative unspecified abstractions. For exampe, I don't what metaphors you are referring to as "Tibetan metaphors".

treehuggingoctopus said:
I did mention the subject-object split, but I think you can take pretty much any term from the twilight language of Dzogchen/Tantra - rig pa, for instance, this thread being another example that even long term practitioners (gad rgyangs is one, isn't he?) either apparently fail to understand that absolutely crucial term (if mutsuk is right) or at least cannot properly express what they understand.

Or the shes pa vs rnam shes vs ye shes trio, especially when explained in terms of their English 'equivalents', i.e., awareness, consciousness and wisdom.

For a still better effect try explaining the Atiyoga section of Precious Vase to a newbie to Vajrayana.

Malcolm wrote:
If you want to understand these terms it is simple:

shes pa is jñāta, rnam shes is vijñāna, and yeshe is jñāna, perhaps best way to to understand this is that latter two are subsets of the first, as is clearly explained in the sgra thal gyur tantra.

rig pa (vidyā, vedana) is a function of shes pa.

These are not metaphors, they are technical terms.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 9th, 2014 at 12:05 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
I am saying rigpa is an awakening, which would be the same for any being anytime anywhere, "realization" as you are using it seems to be a buddhist cultural construct.

Malcolm wrote:
You are not qualifying rigpa here in any. Your statement is equivalent to saying "the mind is awakening". It is a meaningless statement.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
You think rigpa means realization.
where did I say that exactly?


Malcolm wrote:
Several places above. Read your own posts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
Once you recognize your real nature, there is no turning back, or rather falling back (asleep).

Malcolm wrote:
Sure you can -- this why Vimalamitra's "vidyā that apprehends characteristics" is defined as clear non-conceptual consciousness [ shes pa ] contaminated by many cognitions, so it in fact very possible to turn back, fall away — people do it most of the time.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, rigpa is not precisely awakening at all. This is a total misconception, and this misconception is why there are so many flakey screw ups who think they are Dzogchen masters.

gad rgyangs said:
recognition of our real condition does not make one a "Dzogchen Master", especially since even people who have never heard of "dzogchen" or even "buddhism" have that condition, and may recognize it outside those traditions.
One cannot state that rigpa in its unripened stated for example, is awakening. The whole reason that basis is called "the basis" is because it has yet to be realized, that is why it is called "the basis."
rigpa is knowledge of the basis, experientally. The rest is optional.

Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is just a name for the mind — sometimes that mind knows its own state, sometimes it doesn't. When one has that kind of experience on is merely a practitioner on the path, slowly improving, applying one's understanding to the introduction.

Realization is when that knowledge is permanent and not fleeting, leading to the abandonment of the two obscurations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
mutsuk said:
I am who I am. You are just fantasizing about rigpa without a clear understanding of what it is. Rigpa is not an awakening. You are mixing plenty of levels.

gad rgyangs said:
I am speaking about awakening. If you don't like the term "rigpa" then you can call it something else, but what I am talking about is precisely what is called "rigpa" in the Dzogchen tradition.


Malcolm wrote:
Rigpa is not in itself awakening. This is why "uniripened vidyā" appropriates bodies for rebirth, as Vimalamitra clearly explains. Vidyā is just a name for the nature of the mind, which is why Vimalamitra describes vidyā as "knowing (rig) and clear (gsal)."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
define "realization"


Malcolm wrote:
See above: realization = rtogs pa = avabodha (awakening).

gad rgyangs said:
and rigpa is precisely awakening. The rest is gravy, take it or leave it as one wishes.

Malcolm wrote:
No, rigpa is not precisely awakening at all. This is a total misconception, and this misconception is why there are so many flakey screw ups who think they are Dzogchen masters.

One cannot state that rigpa in its unripened stated for example, is awakening. The whole reason that basis is called "the basis" is because it has yet to be realized, that is why it is called "the basis."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:



gad rgyangs said:
that (non-regressive knowledge of Buddhahood (Bodies and Wisdoms)) is precisely an example of cultural metaphor, found in India, Tibet and points east. It is also, for virtually (or actually) everyone who believes it, just a theory. If you can produce someone who fits this description, please do, I'd be most interested to speak with them.

Malcolm wrote:
So buddhahood is a cultural metaphor? Then so is rigpa and your argument then becomes entirely self-defeating.

gad rgyangs said:
nope. rigpa is a name for something that is not culturally conditioned, since it would be the same for any sentient being from any culture, not only on this planet, but anywhere in any dimension.

Malcolm wrote:
The same goes for Buddhahood. Anyway, rigpa is just a name for the mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
rigpa is not an understanding, it is precisely an awakening.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the progression is introduction --> recognition --> realization, not recognition --> realization.

You are missing a step. These three steps is very precisely detailed in many Dzogchen tantras and treatises.

gad rgyangs said:
define "realization"


Malcolm wrote:
See above: realization = rtogs pa = avabodha (awakening).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
rigpa is not an understanding, it is precisely an awakening.

mutsuk said:
Then you strictly have no understanding what rig-pa is. Not one inch. Sorry to say.

gad rgyangs said:
so say you. and you are who exactly, to be telling people what they do or do not understand?

Malcolm wrote:
She is comparing what you say with what the texts say and finds your presentation inconsistent with the textual tradition, therefore, she is telling you that she thinks you have no idea what you are talking about.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:21 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
that is precisely an example of cultural metaphor, found in India, Tibet and points east.

mutsuk said:
No it precisely is not. Bodies and Wisdoms are the way the Fruit manifests itself.
It is also, for virtually (or actually) everyone who believes it, just a theory.
It is a theory for people who do not practice. During the practice of the path, you have signs indicating that one experiences Bodies and Wisdoms, this is why Thögel is so crucial to Dzogchen. If you can produce someone who fits this description, please do, I'd be most interested to speak with them.
Yongdzin Rinpoche.

Malcolm wrote:
And Norbu Rinpoche.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense — Yeshe Tsogyal was prolific. There are many, many texts attributed to her.

Astus said:
Attributed to her as a terma? I don't consider that the same as being the actual author, although it is not negligible that she stands as an example of a female master.
This is also not so: Niguma, Sukhasiddhi, Siddhirajni, Laxminkara, etc., are just a few of the women authors whose works are prominent in Vajrayāna, who are also considered founders of lineages.
Machig is a historical person, and there is no reason to believe she did not author much of what has been attributed to her.
More recently there is Sera Khandro, Tara Lhamo and so on, twentieth century female authors.
They may be rare, but you are overstating the case by a considerable margin.
What level of use/importance do the writings (not the transmissions) of those four Indian female authors carry? What I could gather with a brief search is that the actual founder of the Shangpa Kagyu was Khyungpo Naljor, a male monk, who studied with two of the four yoginis. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is all irrelevant, but it seems to me that women had no better situation in Tibet than anywhere else. And even if there were some Indian woman siddhas, in their society they were not recognised as anyone important.

Malcolm wrote:
You are confusing institutions with lineages.

The founder of a Vajrayāna lineage is not the Tibetan who collected some Indian teachings and started an institution, but the awakened master who had the capacity to directly communicate with Vajradhara and pass that transmission along. These four women had that capacity which is why they all stand at the heads of lineages of Vajrayāna transmission.

These four women, five when including Macig, were recognized as important in their own milieu, which is why we have their teachings and texts with us today, which are regularly cited and commented upon to the present day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:



gad rgyangs said:
that (non-regressive knowledge of Buddhahood (Bodies and Wisdoms)) is precisely an example of cultural metaphor, found in India, Tibet and points east. It is also, for virtually (or actually) everyone who believes it, just a theory. If you can produce someone who fits this description, please do, I'd be most interested to speak with them.

Malcolm wrote:
So buddhahood is a cultural metaphor? Then so is rigpa and your argument then becomes entirely self-defeating.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
rigpa is not an understanding, it is precisely an awakening.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the progression is introduction --> recognition --> realization, not recognition --> realization.

You are missing a step. These three steps is very precisely detailed in many Dzogchen tantras and treatises.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
And it seems there is no easy way out: can we honestly understand the world of the Tibetan metaphor without any 'fusion of horizons'?

Malcolm wrote:
Please be precise, which metaphors are you talking about? At this point people are complaining about putative unspecified abstractions. For exampe, I don't what metaphors you are referring to as "Tibetan metaphors".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
although i started this thread with very clear quotes of Namkhai Norbu, people are arguing with me as if they were my opinions. Go figure.

Malcolm wrote:
Perhaps that is because there are some people who think that you have not presented to the totality of Rinpoche's view with this citation edited from a talk translated into another language (from Italian to English) a quarter of a century ago.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
mutsuk said:
This is not enough, you are mixing recognizing rigpa and realization.

gad rgyangs said:
define "realization"


Malcolm wrote:
She is saying you are confusing a shes pa, an understanding (jñatā), with a rtogs pa, an awakening (avabodha).

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
It is interesting to note that this is so much a red flag topic that few people in the thread actually respond to the issues gad rgyangs pointed out in his second post...

Malcolm wrote:
It was addressed by kyle with an avalanche of nos.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
MalaBeads said:
(who btw, I disagree with).
.


Malcolm wrote:
With what are you disagreeing?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Which Buddhist tradition has treated women the best?
Content:
Astus said:
As far as I'm aware, there is not one school or tradition that has a female lineage, nor is there any outstanding (or even not so outstanding) treatise by a woman author.

Malcolm wrote:
Nonsense — Yeshe Tsogyal was prolific. There are many, many texts attributed to her.

Astus said:
All the founders, thinkers and leaders are men. Some may cite here Machig Labdron, however, she is not much more than the legendary transmitter in Tibet of a practice that was only later canonised by male teachers (we are talking about women's social status here, not "religious stories of the past").

Malcolm wrote:
This is also not so: Niguma, Sukhasiddhi, Siddhirajni, Laxminkara, etc., are just a few of the women authors whose works are prominent in Vajrayāna, who are also considered founders of lineages.

Machig is a historical person, and there is no reason to believe she did not author much of what has been attributed to her.

More recently there is Sera Khandro, Tara Lhamo and so on, twentieth century female authors.

They may be rare, but you are overstating the case by a considerable margin.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 8:45 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana opinions of Theravada?
Content:
Bakmoon said:
I would like to add a bit to what Dan74 said in terms of the Pali texts teaching the emptiness of phenomenon in addition to the emptiness of persons. One of the clearest Suttas on this subject in my opinion would be the Phena Sutta, in which the Buddha talks about the emptiness of the five aggregates:

Malcolm wrote:
The emptiness of the five aggregates is just the emptiness of the person. The emptiness of phenomena is more than that, and includes the emptiness of unconditioned dharmas and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
What ChNNR is saying is that we, as westerners, need to find ways to express with our own metaphors the essential thing that is called "dzogchen" (not the cultural tradition, but the meaning of the word "dzogchen", the natural state). We can either mine the western tradition for metaphors that are either pointing to the same thing or are at least amenable to appropriation, or invent new ones. Probably both.

Malcolm wrote:
No, he is not saying that, and I have heard him explain many times when doing deity yoga, for example, we need to use the images that come to us because they are connected with transmission.

but maybe you want a yidam that looks like this:


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I've got time.

Malcolm wrote:
For example, he used to give old Tibetan Lamas a hard time for not giving serious teachings to Tibetan Lay people, then he discovered that a lot of Tibetan lay people are not interested in Dharma, just blessings. He once speculated that Garab Dorje might the the same person as Zhangzhung Garab, but now, he has abandoned that idea, etc. He used to insist that people only call him Norbu, now he pretty much insists that people use his proper title, and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
it means that the there is no method of experiential introduction in sutra.

Astus said:
You mean the lack of empowerment outside Vajrayana? So it's not that you disregard insight meditation, elements of what is used in Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Lamdre, is it?


Malcolm wrote:
The key difference between sutra and tantra is empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Also ChNN's own views have changed over the years, he was much less conservative when those books were edited out of talks he gave in Italian.

dzogchungpa said:
Can you be more specific about how his views have changed?
bump


Malcolm wrote:
It's too long to discuss.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 3:16 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
Dzogchen consists of one thing essentially: recognition of the natural state/our real condition/rigpa.

Malcolm wrote:
All of Buddhadharma consists of this. Dzogchen is no different.

You are making a tempest in a teapot with this whole business of "culture", focusing on the wrong thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
because it is an intellectual based on analysis, it is not experientially equivalent with Mahāmudra and Dzogchen.

Astus said:
I think I don't fully understand what you mean here. Is it that Madhyamaka does not include experiencing emptiness, or is it that their practice results in something different than what they actually teach?


Malcolm wrote:
it means that the there is no method of experiential introduction in sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Bye.wa
Content:
pemachophel said:
So is bye.wa.chu.sum, 13 times 10 million, i.e., 130 million?


Malcolm wrote:
yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 8th, 2014 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As far as tregchö goes, there is really no difference between tregchö, Kagyu Mahāmudra and the meditation the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana — all three have the same point and all three depend on the experiential view imparted during empowerment.

Astus said:
Thank you for your answers. You did not mention anything about the view reached in Madhyamaka, as I take the unity of samsara and nirvana here means Lamdre. Is that because you take it to be a purely intellectual thing, or for some other reasons?

Malcolm wrote:
Madhyamaka is philosophically the same as the view of Mahāmudra and Dzogchen, but because it is an intellectual based on analysis, it is not experientially equivalent with Mahāmudra and Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In the end, I am afraid that the Sakya master, Dezhung Ajam ( a disciple of Adzom Drugpa) was right, many people who claim to be Dzogchen practitioners are like people whose bodies are separated from their heads — in other words, their "Dzogchen" is just intellectual theory. Sadly, we see many such discussions in the internet in various forums by various people that are completely ungrounded. These people, sadly, merely block their own realization. What a pity.

Clarence said:
Apologies for ignoring the rest of your excellent post at the moment but I would like to focus on this for now. Based on the above, what would you recommend people do then? Of course, do what their Lamas tell them to do but besides that? Focus on Tantric practice and forget about Dzogchen?
I am genuinely curious as your opinion holds a lot of weight to a lot of people here.
As usual, many thanks,

Malcolm wrote:
If you are a person in the DC, you should go through the precious vase, step by step and practice everything in it, even if you have no intention of pursuing SMS — then you will have a solid basis for understanding the rest of the teachings.

If you are someone following another master, do your ngondro and whatever else he or she tells you to do.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
I don't see ChNNR denying in those quotes, or anywhere else, that Dzogchen first appeared within Buddhism, so I'm not sure why you are arguing as if he did?

Malcolm wrote:
I am not arguing with CHNN. I am pointing out that people often use ChNN citations to reinforce their own intellectual trips, taking them out of context, removing them from the thousands of other things he has said over the years.

Also ChNN's own views have changed over the years, he was much less conservative when those books were edited out of talks he gave in Italian.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:


Astus said:
1. If Dzogchen necessarily includes teachings on the channels and such, does it mean that (a) public books on Dzogchen are actually sutra level teachings on emptiness and mindfulness, (b) whoever teaches/practises Dzogchen without deity yoga and/or togal only uses the name Great Perfection but not the real transmission, and (c) semde and longde, since they don't have togal as far as I'm aware, are not really Dzogchen or just preliminaries?

Malcolm wrote:
Some public books with the name Dzogchen in the title are just sutra level teachings on emptiness and mindfulness, but politeness restrains me from naming which ones.

Sems sde at minimum requires introduction through the so called empowerment of the potentiality of vidyā (of which there are 18 connected with the dohas of 18 ancient masters), and is part of the completion stage of Mahāyoga and Anuyoga — the bodhicitta texts do not actually give much detail on the method of practice, being mainly concerned with theory and view. So called sems sde is primarily about the basis. Because the basic texts of sems sde provide little information on how it is to be practiced, there are three different systems of Sems sde practice in Tibet, each with its own preliminaries. For example, the Nyan lugs systems of Sems sde requires the regular four uncommon foundations and so on.

Longde requires initiation into the system of Ngondzog Gyalpo, and is connected with that yidam.


Astus said:
3. If the teaching on the natural state is no different from the Prajnaparamita sutras - that is, you seem to agree to the unity of Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Madhyamaka in terms of the ultimate view - is it your understanding that Dzogchen is a unique way because of its togal instructions and nothing else?

Malcolm wrote:
There are a number of things which make Dzogchen distinct, thögal is one, but there are others, the explanation of the generic basis is another, the specific preliminary practices related to thögal such as 'khor 'das ru shan and so on are others, and the general requirement for some kind of introduction either through the fourth empowerment of Mahāyoga, the ati yoga empowerment found in Anuyoga or the empowerment of the potentiality of vidyā.

As far as tregchö goes, there is really no difference between tregchö, Kagyu Mahāmudra and the meditation the view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana — all three have the same point and all three depend on the experiential view imparted during empowerment.

I also want to point out that like the rest of Vajrayāna, Dzogchen practice, path and realization completely depends on the Guru. Guru Yoga is absolutely central to Dzogchen. Without guru yoga and devotion to a realized master, no progress at all is possible in Dzogchen, none whatsoever.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 9:38 PM
Title: Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu
Content:
Malcolm/Claim 7 said:
As I understand his texts, he basically argues that only Mantrayāna leads to Buddhahood in this very body, a position also maintained in Tibetan Buddhism.

jake said:
Yes, Kukai does make the claim that those with sufficient capacity can be students of the Mantra vehicle and achieve Buddhahood in this very body. I assume this is your proposed definition for what makes a teaching “superior.”-see claim 2. (Though I suggest it is a problematic definition though remain open to the point it may be my [lack of] understanding that is problematic).

Malcolm wrote:
The point is that other teachings do not have this capacity, that is what Kobo Daishi is claiming, consistent with a long tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 9:33 PM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen only accidentally Buddhist?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
there was an interesting post here for a few minutes that then got erased that was saying that it was not accidental, because of all the religions of this planet, only Buddhism had a basic perspective that was a fertile ground for Dzogchen to appear in.  It is a very interesting question if that is the case or if other religions or philosophies could have birthed the Dzogchen view, or did in fact give rise to similar understanding? For example, is Heidegger's seinsfrage a step towards Dzogchen in a western tradition? Are some of Meister Eckhart's late sermons expressing what amounts to a Dzogchen view? I don't think these are easy "yes" or "no" questions (although I expect an avalanche of "no"s any minute... )

In any case, the quotes from Namkahi Norbu are pretty clearly saying that one does not even have to be a "Buddhist" to practice Dzogchen, in which case the cultural phenomena called "Buddhism" becomes a kind of chrysalis from which Dzogchen emerges but is perhaps not needed once it does so. That is not to say that those still attached to the cultural forms have not fought, and do not fight, tooth and nail to stop the butterfly from emerging and leaving behind the casing...

Malcolm wrote:
The Dzogchen teachings are not something found outside of Buddhadharma for the simple reason that they are a Dharma that was taught by the Buddhas no amount of intellectual posturing can change this fact. Does this mean that someone has to sign up with a card that says "Registered Buddhist" like it is a political party? No, of course not.

These days a sort of intellectual "Dzogchen" is very fashionable — but it generally arises from a misconstrual of the Dzogchen tradition divorced from the matrix in which it emerged, the religious culture of Tibet from the 9th to the 12th century. During this four centuries, Dzogchen teachings were gradually promulgated in the context of Secret Mantra. One thing that ChNN also says is that there is no such a thing as "pure Dzogchen." What he means by this is that there is no practice of Dzogchen divorced from the rest of the Buddhist path (Bonpos are just  Buddhists with a differing historical narrartive regarding the origins of their teachings). He also states in very plain language that the result of Sūtra, Tantra and Dzogchen are the same — the same buddhahood. He never makes this claim with regard to Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism and so on. Of course another intellectual fashion of the current day is that imagine that somehow there are teachings equivalent to Dzogchen in schools outside of Buddhadharma. This assertion is laughable. Beyond this, Dzogchen texts themselves take great pains to site their own teachings within the horizon of Buddhadharma, and outside the horizon of the teachings of this and that tīrthika school.

The only thing radical about Dzogchen in the end is that a few people might have the capacity recognize their own stated and live in that knowledge 24/7 obviating the need for any further path — but those of us who did not recognize that state and entered into delusion must labor away at our two obscurations, even though, as it is clearly stated in the Prajñāpāramita that when we reach the final result we will realize that there was nothing to accomplish and nothing to remove all along. In the meantime however, we soldier on because while we are under the the power of karma and afflictions there is a basis of purification and a reason for purification. This is recognized also in Dzogchen teachings, thus the reason there are so many purifications practices, purification practices for body, speech, mind and so on. The entire first chapter of the Dimension of Sound (sgra thal 'gyur) tantra consists of nothing but purification practices, including creation stage and completion stage practices, and the entire first volume of Vimalamitra's commentary to this text consists of nothing more than elaborating all these practices in detail.

As to the notion that direct introduction is sufficient, this is a gross error of understanding. As the famed Semde master Zhigpo Dudtsi points out, the only chigcharwas (instantaneous realizers) he knew of were Saraha and Lingje Repa (neither of them even Dzogchen practitioners), but that while he had sought out some other examples, he did not know of any while not ruling out the possibility that they existed. But it seems these days everyone is a chigcharwas. Further, if you are not practicing the profound teaching of thögal, one has no way of working with pure vision apart from the two stages. It is for this reason then that Tregchö is always combined with deity yoga in Dzogchen practice. As such, the practice of most so called Dzogchen practice is no different than what the Sakyapas, Gelugpas and Kagyus do, even though Nyingma sadhanas are gussied up with many fancy high sounding words. The plain reality is that most people do not have the capacity or time to practice Dzogchen in a serious way. This being the case, for example, ChNN strongly advises everyone to practice the short thun, which is a anuyoga sadhana combined with ati guruyoga. He explicitly says no one can remain in samadhi (contemplation) all the time, and so therefore, in order to do something useful, we have all these secondary practices which support samadhi, which create a container for it.

As to the the importance of tradition. There is no Dzogchen without lineage. A Dzogchen book without a live transmission is like a cellphone without a battery, it won't receive any calls. Dzogchen, as ChNN says again and again, does not live in a book, it lives in the transmission between teacher and student. That transmission is oral, symbolic and experiential. All of the different methods of empowerment, elaborate and so, are all methods of communicating that knowledge orally, symbolically and  experientially. That knowledge is no different than what is communicated through the four empowerments of the Sarma schools. While the four Dzogchen empowerments may be more detailed, and in some sense they may be a bit more profound in details, a beginner cannot comprehend this. Without a great deal of understanding of Vajrayāna, the teaching of Dzogchen is completely opaque.

The teaching of Dzogchen is not confined to paeans of praise about our natural state. It consists of detailed instructions about the human body, it's channels, functions and so on, all of which require ripening through empowerment. If Dzogchen were only about our natural state, it would not go beyond the Prajñāpāramita sūtras.

As one of the Dzogchen tantras puts it — Mahāyoga is the ground, Anuyoga is the sky, and Atiyoga is the sun and moon which illuminates both. Dzogchen is called the pinnacle not because Mahāyoga and Anuyoga are unnecessary, but because, as Rongzom points out, it is needed for making other practices fruitful. This is not different than the Lamdre contention that the experiential view of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana that comes from empowerment must be meditated prior to engaging in the two stages.

In the end, I am afraid that the Sakya master, Dezhung Ajam ( a disciple of Adzom Drugpa) was right, many people who claim to be Dzogchen practitioners are like people whose bodies are separated from their heads — in other words, their "Dzogchen" is just intellectual theory. Sadly, we see many such discussions in the internet in various forums by various people that are completely ungrounded. These people, sadly, merely block their own realization. What a pity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
He knew I hadn't.

Malcolm wrote:
Where is this Sakya Lama?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, December 7th, 2014 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:


quince said:
You are absolutely right. I love dharma, but somehow it is very difficult to accept that i might never have a family and become a mother, i am really sorry to bring that up.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would you never have a family or be a mother? One can be a householder and a Dharma practitioner.

quince said:
I didn't find a partner. I know one can practice and have a family, otherwise all practitioners would be monks and nuns, right?

Malcolm wrote:
I see. Well, I cannot help you with that. But if you are interested in the Dharma, it provides everything you need.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 11:42 PM
Title: Re: Prayer to the Dzogchen Masters
Content:
Punya said:
The asian practice of sponsoring the teachings so they are really cheap to attend is also worrisome for the same reason although I know others disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
It is very excellent if someone sponsors a teaching. This creates a lot of merit for everyone. Since this generally is not our custom in the west, however, the system of fee for service was invented. But it is not the best way.

Also the sponsorship system is loaded with potential abuse, since sponsors always get preferential treatment of one kind or another. This is true everywhere, even in Dzogchen Community.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:


quince said:
You are absolutely right. I love dharma, but somehow it is very difficult to accept that i might never have a family and become a mother, i am really sorry to bring that up.

Malcolm wrote:
Why would you never have a family or be a mother? One can be a householder and a Dharma practitioner.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:


quince said:
I haven't received any major empowerment, which is good, because I would have broken the vows many times.

Malcolm wrote:
Then you are not really qualified to do the Sakya Ngondro anyway — no wonder you are having obstacles in your practice. The Sakya Ngondro practice depends on having received the cause Hevajra Empowerment. You cannot even practice the refuge practice without this empowerment.

However, you should not feel you are not qualified to receive major empowerments. It is not hard to maintain one's vows, one does so by reciting Vajrasattva 21 times every day. There is tremendous blessing from the vows. It is better to receive them and break them, then to have never received them at all.

You can however meditate on the topics of the Three Visions, and you can do any of the other kinds of the Dharma practice such as making offering, reciting sutras like the Heart Sutra and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Title: Re: Powa hole in the skull and Guru Yoga
Content:
frank123 said:
Is it possible to develop Powa signs like the hole in the posterior fontanelle from practicing Dzogchen Guru yoga?


Malcolm wrote:
No.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
Ayu said:
How does spiritual practice disturb a nice & calm life? One can do it all nicely and calmly

quince said:
Well as i said ever since i started the ngondro all i have is this obstacles and this is meaningless.

Malcolm wrote:
Samsara is a bigger obstacle than Ngondro. Let me ask you as question, have you received any major empowerments such as Hevajra and the like, and if so from whom?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 6:00 AM
Title: Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu
Content:
Queequeg said:
Ah.

I'm curious - my reading of this is that there isn't any disagreement about Kukai's views on esoteric v. exoteric paths. However, there is a question about the relative merit of the various teachings of the Buddha themselves ie. are we to read Kukai's 10 stages as asserting relative merit of the texts associated with the various states of Mind? Or does Kukai's judgment stop short of that?


Malcolm wrote:
As I understand his texts, he basically an argues that only Mantrayāna leads to Buddhahood in this very body, a position also maintained in Tibetan Buddhism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
Yes,  why?


Malcolm wrote:
Today I just finished the rough draft of the very long commentary on the Ngondro according to the Sakya school.

I also did a Sakya ngondro. You should finish your ngondro. However, perhaps you have no tdone enough Vajrasattva. This commentary states that if you recite 400,000 then you really purify everything. Why? Because in the Kali Yuga, you have to do four times as many mantras.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu
Content:
Queequeg said:
Nothing much here except a comment from the peanut gallery...

I think its possible that there's merit to both Indrajala's and Jake's views...

My reading of Kukai - in translation by Hakeda coincides with Jake's arguments. That said, based on my knowledge of medieval sectarian rhetoric, at least from the Tendai side, Kukai's 10 Stages was certainly interpreted as a judgment of the relative merit of the various sutras, with an unmistakable bias attributed in favor of the esoteric books. I'll add, though, Kukai seems to have been walking a very fine line...

I suspect that modern scholarship on Kukai may not coincide with the manner in which he was interpreted by Shingon sectarians in the past. Japanese medieval sectarianism in general, especially when aristocratic patronage was on the line, drew out the worst in everybody. The almighty ¥ has a way of causing us to degrade ourselves... Is that better or worse than pride and attachment to one's creed? I haven't been able to parse that one out yet. (trying to lighten the mood, boys.)

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree. Kobo Daishi was clearly an advocate of the superiority of Mantrayāna.

Queequeg said:
LOL. You mind elaborating on exactly what you disagree with? So, you're saying Jake's wrong? Or that Tendai did not interpret Kukai as passing judgment. Or that you disagree with my suspicion...?

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree with Jake's arguments.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Summary of Tendai esotericism/Taimitsu
Content:
Queequeg said:
Nothing much here except a comment from the peanut gallery...

I think its possible that there's merit to both Indrajala's and Jake's views...

My reading of Kukai - in translation by Hakeda coincides with Jake's arguments. That said, based on my knowledge of medieval sectarian rhetoric, at least from the Tendai side, Kukai's 10 Stages was certainly interpreted as a judgment of the relative merit of the various sutras, with an unmistakable bias attributed in favor of the esoteric books. I'll add, though, Kukai seems to have been walking a very fine line...

I suspect that modern scholarship on Kukai may not coincide with the manner in which he was interpreted by Shingon sectarians in the past. Japanese medieval sectarianism in general, especially when aristocratic patronage was on the line, drew out the worst in everybody. The almighty ¥ has a way of causing us to degrade ourselves... Is that better or worse than pride and attachment to one's creed? I haven't been able to parse that one out yet. (trying to lighten the mood, boys.)

Malcolm wrote:
I don't agree. Kobo Daishi was clearly an advocate of the superiority of Mantrayāna.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
Ngondro is turning me upside down and no support.

But i will try taking small parts of Parting from the 4 attachments to work. Thanks for the idea.


Malcolm wrote:
Are you practicing under a Sakyapa teacher?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 1:50 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
I just can't do it. I can't help anyone. i don't have the strenght to even continue my own simple practice. i cant apparently purify my bad karma. my life, work is too intense busy.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, start from the beginning, four thoughts, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 1:11 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
It's all too complicated. And sad. Just want it all gone.


Malcolm wrote:
It is not at all complicated. Do you wish to be free of samsara and save sentient beings or not?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
If i lack devotion what could i do... I did everything that Lama told me.  Do i have to struggle for lacking devotion?

Malcolm wrote:
If one lacks devotion, but there is no real fault in the teacher, then you must examine your own mind. In any event, the best thing to do is continue with your practice. You have not finished gathering accumulations.

It is also fine if you take teachings from other qualified teachers, either in your lineage or from some other lineage.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, December 6th, 2014 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:


Ayu said:
@Malcolm: I wrote "in my point of view". There are not only good teachers out there in this world and a little bit scepticism seems to be healthy, sometimes. I'm sorry to say that.

Malcolm wrote:
Since it is very difficult to find a perfect teacher these days, the instruction is to find one whose qualities outweigh their faults by a large margin. This is not hard.

As long as one chooses one's teachers with reasonable care, then the fault of lack of devotion can only come from one's own side.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Lama and trust
Content:
quince said:
Hi,  i was wondering how much you seek the advise of your Lama? I mean do you ask him for advice for your personal life not related to dharma practice?

Also,  did somebody here doubted their Lama judging by the condition of sangha members around you?

Do you think faith is possible without trust? Can one change Lama in the middle of ngondro? Anyway i dont see him anymore he would hardly remember me. He closed our center here.  Wouldnt be a big deal to change,  would it?

I would really appreciate your input.  I dont trust my Lama anymore and i cant continue with ngondro and i still have mandala offering and Guru yoga to do.  Stopping practice feels very bad,  but i just cant force myself to continue.  Cant stop neither.  Please advice.

Ayu said:
In my point of view my ngöndro is not only connected with the lama but also especially with the Buddhas. It is possible to "change" the teacher and also to have more than one lama.
And it is quite good to continue a practice when hindrances occur - if it is really dharma practice.
(Edit: ) And however it is possible. On the other hand dharma practice should not be a stress.

Malcolm wrote:
One's gurus is the only connection with the Buddhas one has, therefore they are even more kind the Buddhas.

However, there is an instruction by the founder of the Jonang monastery, Chöje Kunpang:
“Sometimes, one meditates on a Guru in whom one has no faith, dissolve all gurus in whom one has faith into him. Sometimes, one meditates on a Guru in whom one has faith, dissolve all Guru in whom one has no faith into him. One should have the faith that all of one’s Gurus are the same.”


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
conebeckham said:
I am just using Kongtrul's text, as cited a few posts back, but he doesn't provide specific references to the original sources for those quotes.

In any case, I have no problem, personally, with a Three Turnings schema, even if it does not originate with the Indian texts.  I rely on Rangjung Dorje, mainly, for such explications.  I know there's some polemic content in Kongtrul, as well, but I have no problem with that either.


Malcolm wrote:
I don't have a problem with it either, per se, but I do think it makes for some very sloppy and groundless hermeneutics.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, this is just not true. It is found only in one, the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra.
Including Nagarjuna, if I recall.
Nope. Nagārjuna wrote nothing ...

conebeckham said:
Kongtrul cites Nagarjuna's བསྟོད་ཚོགས་. Which I know you'll find problematic.  He also cites Aryadeva's རྣལ་འབྱོར་སཔྱོད་པ་བཞི་བརྒྱ་པའི་བསྟན་བཅོས།

Malcolm wrote:
Cites it how? It is well know that some consider the dharmadhatustava to be a "third turning" text but there is no internal evidence in the text itself to presume that this is so. The 400 only has one mention of the word 'khor lo, and it refers to a fire wheel. I would really need to see the citations in question.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


lorem said:
Just the whole idea of the three turnings is pretty central to everything I've ever been taught.

Malcolm wrote:
It is important to the Nyingmapas and the Kagyus. It is not important at all to the Sakyapas since early on the Sakyapas have found the whole idea of the interpretation of the three turnings as being applicable to different phases of the Buddha's teaching career in clear contradiction with statements by Maitreya and so on as well as with reason. I am not sure whether the Gelugpas pay it much mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Well, we might all be kidding ourselves into believing all sorts of things. For instance, who is to say that you have not merely been deluded into believing your own opinion? This polemic could be rallied against anybody without getting us anywhere.
I still do not agree with you.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that I am following the opinion of the Buddha, while you are merely following your own intellectual fabrications.

Concordiadiscordi said:
Hmmm... whatever puts you to sleep at night...

Malcolm wrote:
Of course you know very well you cannot produce even a single statement by the Buddha where he extols the value of any kind of drug for the path. However, he uses people who use datura frequently as examples of delusion.

Now, given that this is a Buddhist website, it should be obvious to you that even people who have a lot of experience with various kinds of drugs are  most likely to flat out disagree with you about the usefulness of drugs on a Buddhist path.

As far as the broad majority of people here are concerned your point of view about this topic is confusion steeped in ignorance wrapped in conceit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Well, we might all be kidding ourselves into believing all sorts of things. For instance, who is to say that you have not merely been deluded into believing your own opinion? This polemic could be rallied against anybody without getting us anywhere.
I still do not agree with you.

Malcolm wrote:
The difference is that I am following the opinion of the Buddha, while you are merely following your own intellectual fabrications.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:


Concordiadiscordi said:
I don't agree with your assessment, Malcolm.

All paths are equally boundless and inexhaustible, but one can only see so far as the eye of one's practice will permit. Hence, it is not necessarily the case that entheogens promise little more than a dead end for Buddhist practitioners; rather, you have merely ceased to recognise their potential relevance for your practice.

Malcolm wrote:
You can disagree if you like, but I have met a lot of drug addled people who are just kidding themselves into believing they are practitioners of anything that resembles the path of the Buddhas.

The belief that taking drugs is part of the path of awakening is deeply rooted in ignorance. People who persist in this belief are most ignorant of the ignorant and are truly likely to take rebirth in the animal realm, at best.

Now, if you are a practitioner who occasionally trips for fun, but understands this as merely a distraction, well, then there is no real problem as long as you don't hurt anyone.

Of course, habitually taking drugs is definitely a violation of the vow against being intoxicated — there is simply no way around it.
Whatever is meditated with confusion
causes the attainment of confusion by the confused.
— Jñānasiddhi by Indrabhuti


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
lorem said:
Seems like something to ask someone like Karma Thinley Rinpoche or another Tibetan. I bet you could have an interesting talk with them about it.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans rarely study these things.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
This is not an assignation of sutras, nor does it belie my general point, which is that tnis sutra, the Samdhinirmocana merely clarifies that the second tuning because it was a subject dispute.

conebeckham said:
Fair enough, but the "Three Turnings" notion is supported in several original Indian source texts.

Malcolm wrote:
Frankly, this is just not true. It is found only in one, the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra.

conebeckham said:
Including Nagarjuna, if I recall.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. Nagārjuna wrote nothing about it.

conebeckham said:
But it seemed you questioned the entire "Three Turnings" Scheme....

Malcolm wrote:
I do, because there is nothing substantive about it at all in Indian texts. It is only mentioned once in the entire Yogacarabhumi. Other than that, the Yogacarins totally ignore it.

The Indians really did not discuss the issue of the three turnings at all, especially not the Indians you would most expect, namely the Yogacara authors, Maitreya, Asanga, Vasubandhu, etc. Not even the later Yogacara authors bring it up.

The only sustained discussion of the issue is the massive commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana sutra preserved in the bstan 'gyur by the Korean master Wen Tshegs (Wŏnch'ŭk, 613-696).He starts his text saying:
The sovereign of Dharma taught the wheel of Dharma in three aspects. The first of those was turned in the Deer Park in Varanasi for those who were devoted the śravakayāna, and the causes and results of nirvana were fully taught. This is the Dharmawheel of the four noble truths. 

The second was the teaching of the Ārya Prajñāpāramita in sixteen gatherings such as Vulture Peak and so on to those who were devoted to the Bodhisattvayāna. 

The third, the teachings of the Saṃdhinirmocana sutras and so on in pure buddhafields such as Padmagarbha and so on and impure buddhafields, to those devoted to all yānas, is the Dharmawheel of the Mahāyāna of the definitive meaning. This is to be known as the intention of the teaching of the doctrine of the Tathāgata.
Since there is nothing like this statement by any Indian scholar in any extant text, I must conclude that certain Tibetan scholars (whether they know it or not) rely solely on a 7th century Korean Buddhist discussion of this issue in order to justify their classification of this and that class of sutras as definitive or provisional. But in reality these justifications cannot be made the basis of the extant Indian source texts in both sūtra and śastra. Of course, not having studied this 1000 folio, three volume text in detail, I cannot say whether it presents Indian sources for this idea or not. But I did't see any citations of Indian masters when during the several times I have done close words searches on the text when he discusses the three turnings.

Interestingly this text defines the Avatamsaka and the Prajñāpāramita [under the influence of the Avatamsaka] both as part of the third turning, but it defines the Nirvana Sutra as the second turning. He further states that the second vehicle only removes imputation [vikalpana], whereas the third turning clarifies the three svabhāvas, and so on.

Given that he defines the Nirvana as second turning and provisional and given that he devotes only a single sentence to a discussion of tathāgatagarbha, I think it is safe to conclude that for Wen Tshegs, tathāgatagarbha is part of the provisional second turning. It would be interesting to understand how it is that the ten Tathāgatagarbha sūtras came to be regarded by some Tibetans as the essence of the third turning given this fact, because there is surely no evidence from Indian sources that they are to be treated as such.

See this link about Wen Tsheg's text and how it came to be translated into Tibetan:

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/download/8793/2700.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Once this is understood, then they are nothing more than recreational drugs, intoxicants.

lorem said:
For Buddhists I would say the majority yes. Other religions use them as "tools". Of course this is a Buddhist forum but to straight label something is kind of rude. My father-in-law was in Native American Church and consumed peyote pretty regularly and it was not recreational.

malcolm actually  said:
Once this is understood, then they are nothing more than recreational drugs, intoxicants.

If one is a Buddhist practitioner, they are a dead end. YMMV.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 12:56 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:
Kunzang Tobgyal said:
Hey Malcolm,
What do you think about the idea of one ayahuasca trip being the equivalent of twenty years of therapy? Do you think from a therapeutic point of view it could be helpful?

Malcolm wrote:
Not a big fan of either.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, December 5th, 2014 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:


Concordiadiscordi said:
Indeed, I feel that it may be largely due to our deep entrenchment in the materialistic worldview that such ordeals as are entailed by entheogens are typically conceived of as exotic by most.

Malcolm wrote:
Having taken everything, you name it, I have ingested a lot of it (Acid, Mushrooms, buttons, DMT, Ecstasy,,etc.)  entheogens only offer one insight, the mind is not an immutable entity. Once this is understood, then they are nothing more than recreational drugs, intoxicants.

If one is a Buddhist practitioner, they are a dead end. YMMV.

Shouldn't there be a great drug thread, like the rebirth and vegetarian thread?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 4th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Sherab said:
Is example wisdom from rnal 'byor mngom sum while actual wisdom is from rang rig mngom sum?

Malcolm wrote:
No, an example wisdom is not a yogapratyakṣa, that exists in the path of seeing on up, but it is nonconceptual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 4th, 2014 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Yes, when it comes to gzhan stong. However, the notion of the three turnings of the wheel and the way the sutras are divided up appear to come from the Chinese tradition via this commentary I mentioned.
In any case I am of the understanding that this presentation is not of Indian origin, but of a later Tibetan development, which is good enough for me. They need not have studied it at Nalanda for me to accept it.
This presentation, as above, is apparently a Chinese idea.

conebeckham said:
From the མདོ་སདེ་དགོངས་པ་ངེས་པར་འགྲེལ་པའི་མདོ:

"First, the four truths,
In the middle, the absence of characteristics,
Finally, the turning that excellently and thoroughly distinguishes [the provisional from the definitive. And the completely false from the actual and genuine.]"


Is that not an Indian text?

Malcolm wrote:
This is not an assignation of sutras, nor does it belie my general point, which is that tnis sutra, the Samdhinirmocana merely clarifies that the second tuning because it was a subject dispute.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 4th, 2014 at 8:16 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As Drogmi Lotsawa says, sūtra relies intellectual analysis, whereas Vajrayāna relies on direct perception.

Sherab said:
Can one has direct perception before reaching the path of seeing?

Malcolm wrote:
Below the path of seeing, example wisdom; above the path of seeing, actual wisdom. Both can be directly experienced. But an intellectual analysis is never an example wisdom.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, December 4th, 2014 at 12:00 AM
Title: Re: Enthogens: Intoxicants?
Content:
seeker242 said:
However, Buddhism is not like that.

Sherab Dorje said:
Or more to the point: Buddhism is not Shamanism.

lorem said:
Monday night (Dec 1) His Holiness did say that Tibetan Buddhism kept some of Bon and vice-versa. So there may be an argument for shamanistic traditions present in "Tibetan Buddhism"


Malcolm wrote:
HHDL meant things like smoke offerings, rituals like thread crosses, prayer flags, ransom rites, and so on, mundane rites for health and prosperity and harmonizing the environment. Also some Bonpo gods were converted into protectors like Dorje Legpa and so on.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Sherlock said:
I think Dudjom Tersar actually has limited popularity in the culturally Tibetan areas. Longchen Nyingthig is still the most popular terma cycle across Kham, Dudjom lamas are not especially famous there.

Malcolm wrote:
Dudjom Tersar is wide spread in southern Tibet like Konpo, Po, Pemakod as well as Bhutan and in the exile community.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
you have for several years pushed this idea that the gzhan stong is the official view of the Nyingma school.

smcj said:
True. That has been, and as of this posting still is, my understanding. That could change in a couple of months when I have a chance to check in with my teachers.

Malcolm wrote:
As I have pointed out to you, that understanding is false. For example, in the largest Nyingma Monastery in the world, Lharung Gar in Golok Sertha, Mipham's presentation is considered to be the modern representative of Nyingma view. In modern day Dzogchen monastery, both in and out of Tibet, as well as Namdrol Ling in South India, whose curriculum is studied? Khenpo Shenga's, who was totally opposed to gzhan stong and who preferred Gorampa. So you are perspective is skewed and uninformed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


smcj said:
It was meant to impugn his presentation of Dharma.

Malcolm wrote:
First, you have no idea what I "meant" since you are not in my mind. So it is pretty damn rude for you to make this comment.

The term was meant to point out that his presentation not part of the main trunk of the presentation of Nyingma view (i.e. Rongzom, Longchenpa, Mipham).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course. I have made that clear for many years. When someone practices Vajrayāna, intellectual constructs like Madhyamaka are of little use. As Drogmi Lotsawa says, sūtra relies intellectual analysis, whereas Vajrayāna relies on direct perception.

smcj said:
I am a regular poster here, and I have never heard you say that before. It is my understanding as well. The internet lends itself to discussion of Madhyamaka and such, not so much to Vajrayana perception, and so I think that there is an over emphasis on these discussions. It is a flaw of the medium.


Malcolm wrote:
Then you have not been paying attention.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Unknown said:
The term "outlier" is not an insult. I think you are getting a little hysterical about all of this.
It is a pejorative.

Malcolm wrote:
It certainly is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
Ngapa Yeshe Dorje was a yogi and did not care about intellectual topics like Shentong, same with KDL.
So it is possible to be a yogi and not care about Madhyamaka or Shentong, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Of course. I have made that clear for many years. When someone practices Vajrayāna, intellectual constructs like Madhyamaka are of little use. As Drogmi Lotsawa says, sūtra relies intellectual analysis, whereas Vajrayāna relies on direct perception.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
SMCJ, you are merely demonstrating your lack of knowledge and history.
Maybe I don't know my ancient history so well. But in the more recent history, like the last 24 hours, you've called the guru to several of your gurus an outlier. How's that work? Were they mistaken when they took him to be their guru? When you do your lineage prayers, isn't he someone you pray to?

Malcolm wrote:
The term "outlier" is not an insult. I think you are getting a little hysterical about all of this. The agenda is all yours, i.e, you have for several years pushed this idea that the gzhan stong is the official view of the Nyingma school. Well, it is among one of several Madhyamaka interpretations current among Nyingmapas, but it is by no means the main one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Sherlock said:
Smcj, have you actually received any Dzogchen teachings before and practised them? If not why do you keep wanting to talk about Dzogchen?

smcj said:
No, I do not have a Dzogchen practice. However I am a Shentongpa, as was Dudjom R., and that perspective is regularly dismissed in these discussions, mostly due to Malcolm's conservatism. That is not what I understand to be the normal presentation among Nyingma lamas. It is his own pet project to roll back Buddhist tenets to what was accepted in ancient India. I believe people are being misled by this overly conservative agenda.
As everyone here can see, Malcolm has issues with Dudjom's presentation.
Not really. Dudjom Rinpoche is the guru of several of my gurus.
So therefore your own gurus should be outliers too, right?

Malcolm wrote:
Well, people tend to make up their own minds about what Madhyamaka view they are going to follow, but in general, Ngapa Yeshe Dorje was a yogi and did not care about intellectual topics like Shentong, same with KDL. Otherwise, not one of the many other Nyingma Lamas I have studied with are shentongpas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014 at 12:15 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
That is not what I understand to be the normal presentation among Nyingma lamas.

Malcolm wrote:
Um, how many Nyingma lamas have you actually studied with?

The fact is that Nyingma monasteries tend to follow whatever Madhyamaka view is dominant in their region. Nyingmapas from Amdo like Shabkar and Jigme Lingpa in general follow Tsongkhapa's presentation, as is still the case today. Nyingmapas from Central Tibet (Mindroling and Dorje Drak) also tend to follow the Gelug presentation since these monasteries are very close to Gelug spheres of influence. Dzogchen Monastery follows Sakyapa approach since they are follow Khenpo Shenga and his famous 13 treatises presentation. Phalyul tries to follow Mipham, but Mipham is very similar to Sakya. Nyingmas from Kongpo like Dudjom R, and Khathok monastery tend to follow Shentong, because a) Rigzin Tsewang Norbu was from Khatok and it was from here that  he spread Shentong spread into Kagyu anyway.

SMCJ, you are merely demonstrating your lack of knowledge and history.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
... The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva states:
The sugatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate. It’s location — it is located in the center of the heart.

Sherab said:
Since the sugatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings, and since it is based on the material aggregate, and since there exists the formless realm, therefore beings in the formless realms in reality have some kind of material or form?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in the Dzogchen tradition formless realm beings are considered to have subtle material bodies.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom R. did not simply make stuff up that was not part of the tradition.


Malcolm wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that Dudjom Rinpoche is an outlier? Because in point of fact, his book is not part of the main curriculum of Nyingmapa Khenpos — it is more influential among westerners.

Lotus_Bitch said:
What texts and who's commentaries are studied in Nyingma shedras?

Malcolm wrote:
Primarily Khenpo Shenga and Mipham.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:24 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom R. did not simply make stuff up that was not part of the tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that Dudjom Rinpoche is an outlier?

smcj said:
Nope. I saw how well regarded he was during his life. Plus, usually people that are called "head of the lineage" are pretty mainstream. The thought never crossed my mind that he was anything other than a standard bearer for the tradition. (At least you didn't call him a tirthika!)

Malcolm wrote:
By outlier, I mean someone whose views are not actually standard. In fact, the Nyingmapa curriculums are either developed around MIpham or around Khen Shenga's 13 treatises.


smcj said:
As everyone here can see, Malcolm has issues with Dudjom's presentation.

Malcolm wrote:
Not really. Dudjom Rinpoche is the guru of several of my gurus.

smcj said:
In fact my impression that Dudjom R is out of step with Longchenpa comes from Malcolm, not my own reading. (Malcolm is more conservative than Dudjom.)

Malcolm wrote:
Again, this is an error of interpretation on your part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 9:54 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
Dudjom R. did not simply make stuff up that was not part of the tradition.


Malcolm wrote:
Did it ever occur to you that Dudjom Rinpoche is an outlier? Because in point of fact, his book is not part of the main curriculum of Nyingmapa Khenpos — it is more influential among westerners.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
True existence itself is an object of conceptuality, so this reasoning is very unsound.

Sherab said:
As I understand it, all nouns refer to two possibilities, the entity itself (ngo bo) and the conceptuality of the entity itself (snang ba).  [The words within ( ) are what I think are the equivalent in Tibetan.]  To say then that true existence itself is an object of conceptuality is to pre-conclude that true existence only exists as a conceptuality.  I don't think this is valid.

Also just because true existence as understood by a conceptuality appears as an impossibility, does not mean that true existence cannot exist in a way different from what is understood by a conceptuality.  One gets a sense of this when one enters into the world governed by the laws of quantum physics.

Malcolm wrote:
Such a true existence is cognitively closed to us and exists as a mere speculation.
There is no such thing as a cognition in absence of a subject and an object.
When the Buddha taught that "not seeing" is the real seeing, I thought that there are two possible ways of understanding this.  One is that he was talking about not seeing an object.  The other is that he was talking about a seeing that is not the usual seeing, i.e., he was talking about a seeing that does not require a separation into a subject and an object that some people labelled as "non-dual" cognition.
He was talking about being in a state free from extremes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


smcj said:
So Dudjom R. had no problem utilizing the 3 Turning paradigm to explain and define how Dzogchen is superior to the other yanas. Since he saw it as appropriate, so do I.

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, following the interpretation of the three turnings as explained by a Korean master, but never by any Indian master, including Maitreya, Asanga, and so on and so forth.

smcj said:
I thought you said earlier that he followed the explanation of Kongtrul R.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, when it comes to gzhan stong. However, the notion of the three turnings of the wheel and the way the sutras are divided up appear to come from the Chinese tradition via this commentary I mentioned.

smcj said:
In any case I am of the understanding that this presentation is not of Indian origin, but of a later Tibetan development, which is good enough for me. They need not have studied it at Nalanda for me to accept it.

Malcolm wrote:
This presentation, as above, is apparently a Chinese idea.

smcj said:
BTW, for anybody that doesn't know, when Tibetans come up with some way of looking at this stuff they are obliged to go back and re-interpret the major authors as if to say, "See, this is what they meant all along." So you'll have completely divergent interpretations of what should be standard texts. Nagarjuna and Asanga will be quoted and interpreted completely differently depending on who is grinding the ax at the time. That's just the way Tibet was.

Malcolm wrote:
The point is to understand who influenced whom, when and why. For example, Longchenpa states that Prasangika is the definitive view (as did Jigme Lingpa), but the third turnings sutras, by which he understood the ten tathāgatāgarbha sūtras, were the definitive sūtras. The ironic or interesting thing, is that the way Dzogchen texts treat the tathāgatagarbha is totally at odds with how it is treated in these ten sutras. So it becomes clear that Longchenpa used the sūtra tathāgatatagarbha doctrine in order to defend the validity of the Dzogchen tantras. Also of interest is that tathāgatagarbha does not really get mentioned much in the so called sems sde or klong sde, as far as I can determine. There is an interesting passage in the srog 'khor lo (wheel of life):
If one becomes stuck in limitations, it is the sugatagarbha.
On the other hand the Mind Mirror of Samantbhadra states:
The diverse miraculous display arises from state of inseparability, the ultimate sugatagarbha.
This in fact has a secret meaning. If you have received complete Dzogchen teachings, you will understand it, if not then I am sorry.

But reconcile this passage with the way sugatagarbha is taught in sūtra — The Mind Mirror of Vajrasattva states:
The sugatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate. It’s location — it is located in the center of the heart.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


smcj said:
So Dudjom R. had no problem utilizing the 3 Turning paradigm to explain and define how Dzogchen is superior to the other yanas. Since he saw it as appropriate, so do I.

Malcolm wrote:
Ironically, following the interpretation of the three turnings as explained by a Korean master, but never by any Indian master, including Maitreya, Asanga, and so on and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: i can't stop whinging and backstabbing
Content:
straightpunk said:
taranaki, new zealand


Malcolm wrote:
http://fpmt.org/centers/new-zealand/ " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Check out google, there are several dharma centers. You may have to take a drive to Auckland from time to time for teachings, but in general FPMT has many online offerings as well.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 3:48 AM
Title: Re: Bye.wa
Content:
pemachophel said:
In the Nithartha on-line Tib-Eng dictionary, it gives "11 million"  (JV) for bye.wa.sa.ya. When I just look up sa.ya, it says "million." If I just look up bye.wa, I don't get anything. My question is, what does bye.wa.gsum mean? 33 million?

Thanks.


Malcolm wrote:
30 million.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a cognition in absence of a subject and an object.

smcj said:
So you're saying non-dual awareness is a fiction?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what one means by nondual.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The problem really is what does not (sic) mean to be omniscient? To have realized the dharmakāya? If the dharmakāya is some truly existent wisdom mind that cannot be cognized by anyone…

smcj said:
I think the idea is that it cannot be cognized in a dualistic way, meaning taken as an object by a subject.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such thing as a cognition in absence of a subject and an object.

smcj said:
...then it should always arise at all times in everyone without error.
I've heard that idea put forward before. In fact, isn't it standard Dzogchen perspective?

My personal spin is that enlightenment, when achieved, is retroactive. Once you become enlightened you can see that it was there all along. The story of Asanga and Maitreya comes to mind, where after 12 years of meditation Maitreya finally appears to Asanga. Asanga asked him where he'd been all that time, to which Maitreya replies, "I've been here the whole time. You just couldn't see me." Nice parable.

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Dzogchen teaching make a clear distinction between the basis (the time of non-realization) and the result.

The real issue which causes argument is whether tathagatāgabha, a.k.a., the dharmakāya at the time of the basis, is something that is naturally perfected or something which requires development. In general, the Sakyapas for example argue that the natural perfection of the qualities of awakening in the person does not conflict with transformation in the same way the natural presence of the quality in milk which produces butter does not mitigate or render unnecessary the process of transformation which produces butter (churning). Longchenpa for example argues that while the two accumulations have always been perfected, they need to be reaccumulated in the same sense that a gem that has been lost in a swamp needs to be polished in order to restore its former luster.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
True existence itself is an object of conceptuality, so this reasoning is very unsound.

smcj said:
Could be a little awkward. I like this take on it better:
Malcolm wrote:
Our nature, suchness, does not arise; therefore, it does not cease. This is what it means to be deathless, that which is beyond arising and ceasing, suchness is indestructible.
The problem really is what does not mean to be omniscient? To have realized the dharmakāya? If the dharmakāya is some truly existent wisdom mind that cannot be cognized by anyone, then it should always arise at all times in everyone without error.

If not, then it suggests that omniscience, like everything, else, arises from causes. The difficult question is this: If omniscience arises from causes, why does it not cease? Various answers to this problem have been tendered.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 2:19 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
Madhyamaka has jurisdiction over the phenomenal universe. Shentong jurisdiction is that which cannot be taken as a subject by consciousness, the unborn, etc.
That is a patent fallacy. Gzhan stong simply says the three kāyas are innate, however this is the implication of traditional Madhyamaka as well. When it comes down to it, gzhan stong really does not offer anything that cannot be found in traditional Madhyamaka.
Khenpo Tsultrim, the go-to guy for Shentong in modern day Karma Kagyu, has this to say:

Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, p.66: This non-conceptual Wisdom Mind is not the object of the conceptualizing process and so is not negated by Madyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it can be said to be the only thing that has absolute and true existence.

It is important to understand that this true existence does not mean that it can be conceptualized. If it were even the most subtle object of the conceptual process, it could be refuted by Prasangika reasoning. The non-conceptual Wisdom Mind is not something that even supreme wisdom (Skt. prajna) can take as its object. Anything that can be an object of consciousness, however pure and refined, is dependently arising and has no true existence.

Malcolm wrote:
True existence itself is an object of conceptuality, so this reasoning is very unsound.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 at 1:18 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
smcj said:
You won't hear that from the sects that accept the 3rd Turning of the Wheel as being definitive over the 2nd Turning.
.

Malcolm wrote:
There is basically a single mention of three turnings of the wheel in the sūtras, found in the Samdhinirmocana sutra. All it says there is that the wheel turned for Mahāyānis is the meaning to be understood by all yānas, nothing more and nothing less. Why does it say this? Because Mahāyāna was disputed by the Śravakas, so the Buddha turned the Mahāyāna wheel a second time so there would be no mistakes or ambiguity. It really is just an Ekayāna teaching.

I really don't know where some Tibetans got the idea that it referred to Yogacara literature, but there is absolutely no justification for that interpretation that can be derived from Indian commentaries in the bstan 'gyur. I know this because I have looked for this doctrine there extensively. There is virtually nothing about the three turnings of the wheel to be found in the bstan 'gyur.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: mala broke
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The best thing for mālas is fifteen pound braided fishing line. It will not break even after many years of use. For example, one mala I have was restrung with this kind of line in 1994. It is still fine.

Do not use monofilament line. etc.

Also it is easy to find this kind of line in yellow, red and so on.

M

lorem said:
Cool. I restrung my wrist mala with monofilament and yeah much stronger but no longer works as wrist mala--but good for counting when i was at work.

Why the braided line?

Malcolm wrote:
It is more flexible and it is stronger.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Independent Research on Chogyam Trungpa
Content:
Jikan said:
I'd like to know if there's a sober assessment out there someplace.

Malcolm wrote:
I haven't seen one. He is either lionized or demonized.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: mala broke
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The best thing for mālas is fifteen pound braided fishing line. It will not break even after many years of use. For example, one mala I have was restrung with this kind of line in 1994. It is still fine.

Do not use monofilament line. etc.

Also it is easy to find this kind of line in yellow, red and so on.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 9:34 PM
Title: Re: Independent Research on Chogyam Trungpa
Content:
Jikan said:
I think Trungpa was more influential to the institutionalization of Buddha Dharma in the US than HHDL was until the early 1980s, and made a deeper impression into US culture at that time than HHDL did at that time.
.

Malcolm wrote:
CTR certainly made an big impression in pop culture, but his arrival in the US was nothing like Padmasambhava's arrival to Tibet. And I still think over all HHDL has had a more lasting impact, and even arguably an earlier one through Thurman, Hopkins, etc.

In the end, CTR produced Shambhala, which is a silo, like  most Dharma centers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 9:22 PM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
anjali said:
Two seemingly different approaches (deity yoga vs direct looking), both involve transformation/training in pure vision, and both are effective if properly practiced. Am I missing something? KTR mentions the path of means. Is this distinction I'm exploring in the two different approaches really about the difference between path of means and path of knowledge?

Malcolm wrote:
This is the path of self-liberation. Great if you can do it...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 9:06 PM
Title: Re: i can't stop whinging and backstabbing
Content:
Punya said:
My apologies for whatever part I played in your decision to attend this group's session straightpunk. We can't talk about nkt here but I did have this to say in relation to another group recently.

straightpunk said:
Thanks for the quote, no need to apologize, you didn't know what class i was attending and i still felt good getting out there and doing it with all my anxiety issues and so forth, which i actually overcome with (among a few other things) the help of your encouragement to do something that might help with my progress.


Malcolm wrote:
Where do you live?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 9:08 AM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:


anjali said:
It seems that the same realizations are necessary in both approaches. If this is a correct assessment, is there any reason to believe that one method is particularly more efficacious than the other?

Malcolm wrote:
The sūtra approach never works with pure vision. Hence the efficacy of the Vajrayāna approach.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 9:06 AM
Title: Re: Independent Research on Chogyam Trungpa
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Total hyperbole. HHDL is far more influential and important in the spread of Dharma in the US than Trungpa will ever be.

Jikan said:
He surely is now.


Malcolm wrote:
He always was.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 9:52 PM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
anjali said:
Is it really necessary to anthropomorphize the elements (or aggregates, or afflictions) as deities to learn to recognize the elements as not separate from our buddha-nature? Take, for example, the affliction anger and it's Buddha, Akshobhya. (Sangye Chenma is Akshobya's consort.) How does visualizing Akshobhya and doing self-generation/completion practice benefit the practitioner more than just directly arousing a sense of anger and investigating it's emptiness, and learning to experience it as an expression of the mind's nature--without the deity yoga?

Malcolm wrote:
Deity yoga cuts our afflictive relationship with the five aggregates and so on. That is why it is necessary, even for Dzogchen practitioners. This is because we cannot remain in a state of instant presence 24/7. Therefore, we use the path of transformation until we can.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 7:31 AM
Title: Re: i can't stop whinging and backstabbing
Content:


straightpunk said:
What center was this?
It wasn't at a center, there are no centers here, it was just a class that has been coning to town for the last four months or something. It is called "Modern Buddhism & Meditation for a Happier Life". It's the best thing i could find without having to drive forever.


Malcolm wrote:
This an NKT sponsored course. Run a search on New Kadampa Tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: i can't stop whinging and backstabbing
Content:
straightpunk said:
So i finally went to a community Buddhist teaching, it was very Tibetan but modernized i think. The teaching started off with this Buddha prayer meditation where the lady turned on a tape and sung, this was very uncomfortable and almost had me running out of the room, but i managed to keep an open mind and not be so judgy. After that we moved on to the teaching of some old monk (i can't remember his name) and the teaching of how anger solves nothing and patience is the antidote. It was all very relevant to me, also all about how it leads to talking about people to other people (backstabbing).
It was reassuring and good to talk to other people about these things, i threw some questions out there which i got some nice answers. The actual talking with real life people about Buddhism and these situations was great and don't regret it at all, but i don't think i got much more out of it than i have out of books and probably this forum as well...probably less
I will look out for other classes and attend them if i can, and i would love a teacher, but when asking about finding a teacher at the end of the class it doesn't sound like i would have much luck.


Malcolm wrote:
What center was this?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Independent Research on Chogyam Trungpa
Content:
Jikan said:
I'm looking for recommendations for history or biography assessing Trungpa Rinpoche's impact on Buddhism in North America, North American culture overall, or Buddhism overall.  It's not hard to find observations like this one:

Sam Bercholz said:
To see Trungpa Rinpoche is a very difficult thing because we only see this person who walked this land and taught, gave hundreds of talks, and so on. In terms of a wider perspective of history, Trungpa Rinpoche's arrival into North America in 1970 is equivalent to Padmasambhava's arrival into Tibet hundreds of years before that ... Trungpa Rinpoche's arrival in America, and what he did in those seventeen years is one of the most incredible things in Buddhist history.

Jikan said:
http://www.chronicleproject.com/stories_131.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't doubt it.  I'd just like to see an assessment coming from an outsider looking in, with more of a birds-eye perspective.  Preferably something that has survived peer-review.

Thank you in advance for any recommendations.

Malcolm wrote:
Total hyperbole. HHDL is far more influential and important in the spread of Dharma in the US than Trungpa will ever be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
lorem said:
Okay sacred outlook. The Vidyahara, The Heart of the Buddha

Reflection.

EDIT

Some books to read for people who are interested. Thanks guys!

Malcolm wrote:
Something like that, but I more had in mind a text by the great Dzogchen master,  Shabkar Tshogdrug Rangdrol that definitely should be translated, The Emanational Volume of Pure Vision, part of his Cycle of Nine Emanational Books that exists in four volumes in his collected works.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
lorem said:
The victors, the peaceful and wrathful deities.

https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Dance-Thinley-Norbu/dp/0877738858

Is the OP question why don't we just work with the elements directly?

Malcolm wrote:
It is because they are the impure vision. Even in Dzogchen it is necessary to work with pure vision.

lorem said:
tagnang? What Tibetan word for pure vision are you using here?

Malcolm wrote:
dag snang.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 3:11 AM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
lorem said:
The victors, the peaceful and wrathful deities.

https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Dance-Thinley-Norbu/dp/0877738858

Is the OP question why don't we just work with the elements directly?

Malcolm wrote:
It is because they are the impure vision. Even in Dzogchen it is necessary to work with pure vision.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 1:55 AM
Title: Re: Benefits of anthropomorphizing elements and aggregates?
Content:
Astus said:
Buddhas are perefectly enlightened beings. Ordinary beings are made of elements and aggregates. That all beings are made of buddhas is a statement connecting the beginning (samsara) with the end (nirvana). It is not that one should see a toenail as a buddha with arms, legs and a golden aura.

Malcolm wrote:
Not in sūtra...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 30th, 2014 at 1:54 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Punya said:
By what mechanism can a cognitive error continue or manifest? And as far as I can tell, you haven't answered my last question. (Sorry I have to go out now but I'll be back later to read your answer.)

Malcolm wrote:
Through the mechanism of grasping at a self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 29th, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Teachers and credentials (OT: Before teaching...)
Content:


lorem said:
I listen to Malcolm. Although I did allude to the fact that if he has concerns about the Gandenpas seeing Dorje Setrap as a wisdom protector he should talk to someone authoritative in the Geluk tradition and have it clarified.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing to clarify on this score, HHDL even states that Setrap is a mundane protector of the gyal po class, like Pehar, to whom he is subordinate, or Ta'og.

lorem said:
Okay then I will need to search for where he states this. And if so it is interesting that it has not been clarified.

Malcolm wrote:
It has been clarified — Setrab is the wrathful emanation of Brahma, so it is not possible for him to be a wisdom protector. The Dalai Lama spoke about this in several lectures concerning protectors, clarifying that even if it is held that Setrab is an emanation of Amitabha, it is no more appropriate to regard him as a wisdom protector than it is to regard the Gyalpo Ku-nga as wisdom protectors, who are held to be emanations of the five Buddha families.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 29th, 2014 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Retreat: English or Tibetan?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
didnt the tibetans translate the sadhanas in the sadhanamala and other sources from sanskrit into tibetan? why would it be better for a native english speaker to do them in tibetan?


Malcolm wrote:
If one is interested to improve one's Tibetan, recite it in Tibetan. If you don't care about improving your Tibetan, recite it in English.

Aesthetics are a secondary concern.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 29th, 2014 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: Retreat: English or Tibetan?
Content:
Losang Rabjor said:
Hello,

I am about to enter into my first retreat and although I can read Tibetan and do my short sadhana in Tibetan, the long version is a bit difficult to follow.
Would it be smart to do the long sadhana in English or try to push through with the Tibetan version?
I was told by a friend that doing the long practice in Tibetan would be of better use because doing the sadhana four times a day would greatly speed up my familiarity with the long practice. Any ideas? What about starting the retreat in English and slowly transitioning to the Tibetan version?

Thanks ahead of time for your input.


Malcolm wrote:
If you understand the visualizations, then do it in Tibetan. Even better, before your retreat, translate it into English, then do it in Tibetan.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 29th, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Punya said:
Malcolm said: Sentient beings are cognitive errors propelled through birth after birth by the root obscuration of I-making.
The Gelugpas (and maybe others) say it is the "mere I" that continues from life to life and that this "mere I" is not the "I" in this life eg Johh who lives in Britain and is a university professor etc etc or the "I" of the previous life eg Maria who lived in Spain and is a catholic nun etc etc. What does this "mere I" (or whatever other label is appropriate) consist of (the term cognitive errors doesn't make any sense to me), what is the "I" in the "mere I" that needs to be abandoned (its obviously much more subtle than the "I" of this life) and how is it explained that the "mere I" takes its specific karmic propensities from life to life and not some other "mere I"s propensities.

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are a cognitive error in the sense that the "mere I' is the mistaken habit if "I making", i.e. a sentient being is nothing more nor less than this cognitive error.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Before teaching to somebody...
Content:


lorem said:
I listen to Malcolm. Although I did allude to the fact that if he has concerns about the Gandenpas seeing Dorje Setrap as a wisdom protector he should talk to someone authoritative in the Geluk tradition and have it clarified.

Malcolm wrote:
There is nothing to clarify on this score, HHDL even states that Setrap is a mundane protector of the gyal po class, like Pehar, to whom he is subordinate, or Ta'og.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 9:44 PM
Title: Re: Book recommendations about rebirth, reincarnation
Content:
Greg said:
Nonetheless, the names of the Kings and so forth did appear to beings at one time.

Malcolm wrote:
The idea that Buddhas cannot know conventional things independently of the sense cognitions of sentient beings must be false because those cognitions themselves are relative.


Greg said:
But Buddhas do not know the hair color of the son of a barren woman because there is nothing to know. The thing in question is utterly nonexistent, having never even appeared. How is karma across lifetimes any different?

Malcolm wrote:
It is clearly different in so far as a) the Buddha clearly taught such ripening was unerring and b) your analogy is clearly false. Intentions (karmas) are obviously not like barren women.


Greg said:
As for your second point, that is like saying sky flowers have no intrinsic nature that prevents them from blooming in the sky. It is an essentially meaningless assertion that explains nothing.

Malcolm wrote:
The problem is that you are looking for a medium of transference, and Madhyamakas in general reject that there is one, apart from a dharma called a nondissipation (avipraṇāśa, chud mi za ba, which Nāgārjuna states as an opinion he prefers and defends), which functions like a debt. For example, when you borrow money or incur a debt, there is no actual medium that conveys that debt from one moment to the next. But when you owe a debt, everyone agrees that you must pay up when it is demanded of you. When it is paid, the note still exists, even though it can no longer be enforced. Likewise, when one engages in a karma, even though the act itself as ceased, a dharma called a nondissipation is created. This is why the Buddha says:
"The action of corporal beings does not dissipate
even in hundreds of eons."
Nāgar̄juna himself states:

Emptiness and non-annihilation, 
samsara and impermanence, 
the Buddha explained
the phenomena [chos] of nondissipation of karmas.

Even though karmas cease upon acting, their effect do not dissipate unless this nondissipation is removed by the path, or by moving into a dhātu where a given nondissipation is left behind because it can function in that sphere.

And this all comes about because karmas, like everything else, have no inherent nature. For which reason Candra simply says that karmas ripen because there is no nature which prevents their ripening due to fact of nondissipation.

Thus karmas are not like barren women, and do engender progeny called nondissipation.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 10:19 AM
Title: Re: Book recommendations about rebirth, reincarnation
Content:
Greg said:
How can you have saṃvrti that only appears to aryas? Isn't the definition of saṃvrti that it is the false perception of the deluded?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing is outside the omniscience of a buddha, including relative truth. They have the capacity to know the karma of others. They have all six abhijñās, so of course they know the karma of sentient beings.

Greg said:
Saṃvrti is by definition the false perception of the deluded, and nothing else. The omniscience of a buddha includes the saṃvrti that sentient beings perceive--because that is the only thing saṃvrti is. Sentient beings are not having false perceptions of the workings of karma across lifetimes, so there is nothing for the omniscience of a buddha to know. The fact that karmic action at a distance can't be accounted for in prasaṅgika is clearly a weak point in the system.

Malcolm wrote:
As for the first point, well, this obviously not the case despite the definition of samvṛiti — for example, when the Buddha says "When so on so live in such and such time, his clan name was x, the king's name was Y...", such information is not available to ordinary people. If we accept what you are claiming, someone at some time must have this idea in their minds in order for it to be known by the Buddha, thus you are placing firm restrictions on what a Buddha may know. A Buddha knows all things both in terms of their nature and their characteristics.

Secondly, karma has no intrinsic nature which prevents its ripening at a time in the future. Therefor, this is not weak link you suppose.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Ancient continents, a topic for meditation
Content:


lorem said:
I could be wrong but with him the knowledge just arose, the transcendental wisdom as such, the seeing was there.


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, you are wrong. When the Buddha was engaged in recalling his past lives, he had not yet woken up. Through remembering his past lives, he understood karma and dependent origination. Through applying the view of dependent origination he attained buddhahood.

lorem said:
Okay go halfsies. To recall past lives means he was already bodhisattva (first bhumi?). Different than us pondering.

Malcolm wrote:
No, even Hindu meditators can recall many past lives without being realized people.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Book recommendations about rebirth, reincarnation
Content:
Greg said:
How can you have saṃvrti that only appears to aryas? Isn't the definition of saṃvrti that it is the false perception of the deluded?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing is outside the omniscience of a buddha, including relative truth. They have the capacity to know the karma of others. They have all six abhijñās, so of course they know the karma of sentient beings.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Book recommendations about rebirth, reincarnation
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
The prasangika perspective on karma is that it is like a debt.

In terms of rebirth, what takes rebirth is the habit of imputing an unreal "I". This habit not only can create karma but can receive its ripening, just as by using the imputation car we can both drive it and crash it.

Karma is likened to a debt. This is Nagārjuna's preferred relative truth version of karma. Also Candrakirti accepts this.

Greg said:
Still, that is just a another, alternate metaphor, not an explanation. When it comes to saṃvrti, my understanding is that prasaṅgikas simply accept the conventions of deluded beings as dependently arisen mere appearances. But an action performed by a sentient being in one lifetime, which comes to fruition three lifetimes later, is not something that appears to anyone. So how can it be differentiated from an utter nonexistent like the son of a barren woman?

Malcolm wrote:
But such karma does appear to someone, i.e, buddha or someone with similar capacity of wisdom. It may not appear to you, but relatively speaking, many things do not appear to your which appear to others of higher or more refined faculties.

The actual dharma in question is called an avipranaśa, an "indestructable".


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Book recommendations about rebirth, reincarnation
Content:
Greg said:
I never felt like I encountered a persuasive explanation of karma & rebirth from a Prasaṅgika perspective. At the level of saṃvrti, karmic seed and ripening separated by lifetimes does not appear. At the level of paramārtha it does not exist. Therefore, like the horns of a rabbit, it must be completely wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
The prasangika perspective on karma is that it is like a debt.

In terms of rebirth, what takes rebirth is the habit of imputing an unreal "I". This habit not only can create karma but can receive its ripening, just as by using the imputation car we can both drive it and crash it.

lorem said:
Isn't potential?

Malcolm wrote:
Karma is likened to a debt. This is Nagārjuna's preferred relative truth version of karma. Also Candrakirti accepts this.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Book recommendations about rebirth, reincarnation
Content:
Greg said:
I never felt like I encountered a persuasive explanation of karma & rebirth from a Prasaṅgika perspective. At the level of saṃvrti, karmic seed and ripening separated by lifetimes does not appear. At the level of paramārtha it does not exist. Therefore, like the horns of a rabbit, it must be completely wrong.

Malcolm wrote:
The prasangika perspective on karma is that it is like a debt.

In terms of rebirth, what takes rebirth is the habit of imputing an unreal "I". This habit not only can create karma but can receive its ripening, just as by using the imputation car we can both drive it and crash it.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 27th, 2014 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Ancient continents, a topic for meditation
Content:


lorem said:
I could be wrong but with him the knowledge just arose, the transcendental wisdom as such, the seeing was there.


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, you are wrong. When the Buddha was engaged in recalling his past lives, he had not yet woken up. Through remembering his past lives, he understood karma and dependent origination. Through applying the view of dependent origination he attained buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It may not be "for common consumption" as a teaching, but it isn't hidden info either, at least not the basic presentation..it exists in a number of non-restricted books and teachings AFAIK.

Malcolm wrote:
In reality, it is something connected with empowerments. So it really should not be discussed so much in a public place, regardless of how many books it may be published in.


Johnny Dangerous said:
I'd say the cats out of the bag on that one, since we could immediately find available teachings on Google, i've heard podcasts that discuss it, etc. Are you suggesting we just stop talking about it?


Malcolm wrote:
Yeah, pretty much.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 8:23 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
It may not be "for common consumption" as a teaching, but it isn't hidden info either, at least not the basic presentation..it exists in a number of non-restricted books and teachings AFAIK.

Malcolm wrote:
In reality, it is something connected with empowerments. So it really should not be discussed so much in a public place, regardless of how many books it may be published in. As Sachen states:
In general, Secret Mantra makes dependent origination into the path. Since all dependent originations are arranged at the time of the empowerment, in the beginning it is very important to obtain completely the four empowerment from the guru. That empowerment is not merely a symbol, not merely an introduction and not merely a blessing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 8:12 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
odysseus said:
Otherwise, no comment about Malcolm´s elite club aspirations. lol

Malcolm wrote:
Vajrayāna is not an elite club, anyone can join, but it once having joined, there are many things that ought to be kept secret and for very good reason. Things like the arrangement of the five aggregates into the five families and so on are not principles that are for common consumption. As I said, if you are really interested, take it seriously, find a qualified master such as HH Dalai Lama, HH Sakya Trizin, HH Karmapa, etc., or someone whom they have appointed as a person qualified to lead students on the Vajrayāna path and begin your studies in the proper way.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
odysseus said:
OK, just please leave my scepticism aside for now, untill I find a teacher to properly clarify this. But for now, this direct comparison seems to me an impossibility right now. Yes, I see the connotations, but I won´t take these assertions for granted just like that.

Malcolm wrote:
Look, if you want to understand these things, you need to find a teacher, receive empowerment, take it seriously.

You clearly don't have any knowledge of Vajrayāna, which is fine, but your objections are coming from a place of complete ignorance about it. There are many teachings in Vajrayāna which are are not shared with common Mahāyāna. Rather than flatly saying that well informed people are wrong, use a little humility and understand that you don't know everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 26th, 2014 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:


odysseus said:
Nice schematic. But to me it looks like another way of putting everything into analytical order, like a mathematical equation.
To add it up, it´s another misinterpretation of the Dhyani Buddhas.

Come up with something better before anyone can convince me that there´s an obvious logical relationship between the five heaps and the five transcendent buddhas.

BTW, who said there´s now 5 poisons? There´s the notion of 3 poisons only (wanting, anger and unknowing). And what is Padma- and Karma-buddha-family really?

jmlee369 said:
From the Gelug Lama Chopa:
རྡོ་རྗེ་སྐྱིལ་ཀྲུང་ཚུལ་གྱིས་བཞུགས་པའི་ཕུང་པོ་རྣམ་དག་བདེ་གཤེགས་ལྔ།
dor je kyil trung tshül gyi zhug päi phung po nam dag de sheg nga
Sitting in the vajra-position, enhaloed by a five-colored rainbow.
Totally pure, your skandhas are the five sugatas
Is Panchen Losang Chokyi Gyaltsen authoritative enough of a source, or do we need to pull up the text of the Guhyasamaja Tantra for you?

Malcolm wrote:
This person obviously has no knowledge of Vajrayāna, so why are you risking your samayas buy trying to inform someone who has not been ripened?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The other thing which comes to mind is exactly why pursue another path, if one has reached the culmination of the first, unless the second path is more profound?

M

Karma Dorje said:
Sorry, missed this earlier. We have discussed this on other threads and in person: my view is that there is much that is explicit in Buddhadharma that is either implicit or missing in other paths. As such it is the most complete and direct approach to realization. Because emptiness is discussed explicitly and at length, it avoids many of the pitfalls of other paths that emphasize the awareness aspect.

For someone who has reached the goal of any of these paths, I think we can agree that all that remains is working for the welfare of others. Some bodhisattvas have renovated their own tradition, others developed new religions in places where there were none. Still others bring the view of realization to paths that either lack it completely or where it has become obscured.

Why continue to practice another path alongside one that is already complete?
Pretty much any symbol system can be used to convey the path by a mahasiddha (and many may have been the projects of prior bodhisattvas in the first place).
One can form connections to countless beings that may not have the karma to practice Buddhadharma directly and thereby hook them into eventual practice of a liberating path.
Certain practices (for example bhakti) can aid in character development.
The associated beings propitiated may bring particular temporal benefits.
Incorrigibility is entertaining.
I am sure that's not an exhaustive list, but this is the gist of why I continue to practice more than one path at the same time.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, your comments are rather self-defeating then.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
The concept of Moksha in the Hindu Religion is mainly of two types. These are personal and impersonal. Moksha is defined as the loving, eternal union with God and considered the highest perfection of existence. In Advaita philosophy Moksha is union with the oneness which Advaita advocates.

Malcolm wrote:
First, Advaita is not union with oneness. The Advaita model is that oneself is Brahmin, and always has been, described through the four Mahāvakyas:

Consciousness is Brahman
I am Brahman
That thou art
This Atman is Brahman

Son of Buddha said:
Ramanuja, an 11th century hindu philosopher, believed in the principle of vishishta dvaita (qualified non-dualism). According to Ramanuja, the individual soul is not identical with god. So, a devotee may worship god even after liberation or moksha. Moksha can be attained through bhakti (devotion), which involves the constant remembering of god or the surrender of the individual self to god.

Malcolm wrote:
Not exactly — in this philosohy, everything is part of Brahman and Brahman in the form of Ishvara is part of everything. Thus they refer to three principles which are all part of Brahman: Iśvara (Parabrahman), the sentient beings (chit-brahman) and the insentient Universe (achit-brahman). Iśvara and the personal self are identical. While not the best source, it tallies with my personal studies, thus Wiki states:
Rāmānujā chooses to take the position of universal identity. He interprets this passage to mean the subsistence of all attributes in a common underlying substratum. This is referred to as samānādhikaranya. Thus Rāmānujā says the purport of the passage is to show the unity of all beings in a common base. Ishvara (Parabrahman) who is the Cosmic Spirit for the pan-organistic body consisting of the Universe and sentient beings, is also simultaneously the innermost self (Atmān) for each individual sentient being (Jīvā). All the bodies, the Cosmic and the individual, are held in an adjectival relationship (aprthak-siddhi) in the one Isvara.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So the idea that each individual can attain a personal "Enlightenment" is something that can be found in Hinduism
Again, it is not exactly like that. Irregardless of the beliefs of the masses, the dominant philosophy of the six darshanas is Vedanta, and among the forms of Vedanta, Advaita is the dominant form.


Son of Buddha said:
There are no differences between one Buddha and another in terms of realization; there are differences in terms of aspirations, and so on., which give rise to differences in sentient beings karmic connections with this buddhafield and that, and so on. In short, everyone who becomes a Buddha starts out as a sentient being, and there is a unique rosary of clarity that continues from the time of being a sentient being through the attainment of Vajradhara which forms the relative basis for Buddhahood.
But doesn't this type of view impute a individual self upon Buddhahood? essentially the individual self(person) is actually the one who is attaining Buddhahood, wouldn't this make the individual person/self the "attainer" and Enlightenment just a "object" that is attained by the person/self?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

Relatively speaking, the Buddha states many times "When I attained awakening...", "Before I attained awakening" and "After I attained awakening" and so on. Ultimately of course there is no one who attains buddhahood, etc., and as Haribhadra points out in the Aloka Prajñāpāramitā commentary, the entire path, from beginning to end, is illusory. So this is why we must understand this through the two truths. For this reason it is said that the basis is the two truths, the path is the two accumulations, and the result is the two kāyas.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
Isn't this the same Idea as the Hindu notion that everyone has an individual soul or personality that will attain Moshka?

Malcolm wrote:
Hindus don't really have that idea.

Son of Buddha said:
also doesn't this create a duality between Buddha's? Do Buddha now all have different individual personalities? I was always taught that there is no difference between Buddha's and the only reason they have individual names is because we gave them different names to distinguish one Buddha manifestation from another, but to view them as different "Buddha's" is to create a duality in Enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:
There are no differences between one Buddha and another in terms of realization; there are differences in terms of aspirations, and so on., which give rise to differences in sentient beings karmic connections with this buddhafield and that, and so on. In short, everyone who becomes a Buddha starts out as a sentient being, and there is a unique rosary of clarity that continues from the time of being a sentient being through the attainment of Vajradhara which forms the relative basis for Buddhahood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Matylda said:
I am very reluctant to write about it, but yes indeed there is such thing within zen tradition. However it is reserved for "graduate" priests, so to say... And there is clear vision of dharmakaya, sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya as well, what is done mostly in 100day retreat which is a requirement to perform certain rituals later. Rereat may or may not be strict, however the room of the retreat person by no means could be entered by anyone else. Due to certain visual set up of special altar etc. As for the lineage... its origin is mostly tendai, some lineages come from shingon and for example in soto zen it is reserved for people who did receive dharma transmission and have sizeable training already.
Dharma transmission includes things like abhisheka and proper procedure including the use of abhisheka water, empowering the water, mantras mudras etc. etc. and taking the proper form at that time... I mean non-human form..

Malcolm wrote:
This is Mantrayāna.

Matylda said:
Well,still I guess it is not vajrayana practice...

Malcolm wrote:
As I said, then these are proper Mantrayāna practices.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 7:44 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
conebeckham said:
Well, is the "Nature of Consciousness" itself dependently arisen? Or not?  Does it belong to the subset, even if it is not?

Sherab said:
I understand it, ye she is not dependently arisen.


Malcolm wrote:
that depends on which ye shes...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 5:18 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
For me, the choice of heeding decades of personal instruction from my guru

There are clearly distinctions between one contemplative discipline and  another.  They are not anywhere nearly as yawning a chasm as intellectuals make them out to be.

Malcolm wrote:
Asserting that one's guru is/was awakened is of course a desiderata for any disciple, but you can understand our reluctance to accept this merely on your word, having never met the fellow in question, and given that your reportage is completely at odds with centuries of discourse and polemics on both sides by masters also supposedly realized in each of their respective traditions. The choice one faces is do we believe what you assert, or do we believe our own tradition?

M

Karma Dorje said:
I am not suggesting that you should accept anything at all on my say so. I am merely stating  what my incorrigibility stems from. You can believe whatever you like this week. I think you overstate the usefulness of polemics against other contemplative disciplines to beginners on the path, who by and large don't want to hear what they view as mere dogmatism, particularly when there is quite obviously so much in common with other paths.

Malcolm wrote:
First, I was not suggesting you were incorrigible, that was pointed at someone else.

It is not polemics that are the point, but freeing ourselves of conceptual constructs and their pitfalls, clearly identified. The point is not to criticize others, though this point is often lost, the point is to clearly set out the view to be realized in relief, by examining the views to be discarded one by one, step by step, lower to higher, beginning with annihilationism then all views of self and all realist views, until we discover the true meaning of freedom from proliferation ourselves.

Most of us have neither sufficient faith that devotion to a guru can be our sole remedy, no matter how realized they are, nor are we sufficiently intelligent that we can avoid erroneous views without study. Therefore, for the plodders amongst us, like myself, a careful program of study in what are incorrect paths and correct paths, lower paths and higher paths, slower paths and faster paths is a necessity, not just a desiderata. In the meantime, we cultivate the best we can, devotion to gurus we do have, since this indeed is the fastest way to liberation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
For me, the choice of heeding decades of personal instruction from my guru

There are clearly distinctions between one contemplative discipline and  another.  They are not anywhere nearly as yawning a chasm as intellectuals make them out to be.

Malcolm wrote:
Asserting that one's guru is/was awakened is of course a desiderata for any disciple, but you can understand our reluctance to accept this merely on your word, having never met the fellow in question, and given that your reportage is completely at odds with centuries of discourse and polemics on both sides by masters also supposedly realized in each of their respective traditions. The choice one faces is do we believe what you assert, or do we believe our own tradition?

The other thing which comes to mind is exactly why pursue another path, if one has reached the culmination of the first, unless the second path is more profound?

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
lorem said:
1) If you were a higher-level bodhisattva you could just enter the mandala of a deity, i.e. Tilopa and most likely Lama Shang.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope.

lorem said:
2) You do the practice with the permission of the lama to habitualize yourself until you get the empowerment and then it will ripen--hopefully into full bloom because of the prior "heavy lifting".

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. You and the lama in question just go to lower realms, as is clearly taught by the Buddha in the Mahāmudratilaka tantra among others.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Those of incorrect understanding are the tirthikas i.e. all views grasping to extremes and grasping to a self.

lorem said:
Okay so you mainly are referring to Hinduism and Jainism.

I was referring to the idea of a collective unconsciousness, which I guess is more new-age then nondual.


Malcolm wrote:
From a Buddhist perspective, there is no such thing as a collective unconscious. This is just more transpersonal bullshit.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 1:16 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The real problem is that people who come to Buddhadharma do not properly study these non-buddhist tenets, and in doing so, often unwittingly import these views into their practice, for example, imagining the basis (gzhi) is something Brahmin and so on, and concluding the Dzogchen, for example, has the same meaning as Advaita.

lorem said:
Might be clearer to say Nondualism schools are not Dzogchen. There are of course other schools also but I feel a lot of what you're saying is referring to the modern nondualism/neo-buddhist. (??)


Malcolm wrote:
Dzogchen is a part of Buddhadharma. It's basic theory is the same as the rest of Buddhadharma, i.e, suffering arises because of the false grasping to a self.

For example, the Tantra of Self-Arisen Vidyā states:
Further, samasara is as follows: 
false view and eternalist view.
The false vehicle is as follows:
held to be three hundred and sixty beliefs in a self.
And:
Likewise, the countless views of a self are included in two. Those are included in both the eternalist view and annihilationist view. Countless views of self come from those two. Likewise, son of a good family, because you have avoided entering a false path, I have summarized the views of a self and demonstrated them.
And:
The true Dharma is free from a self,
free from the extremes of the taints
of afflicted minds and so on.
And:
...since there is no appropriation, a self does not exist.
And:
All the objects and conditions of the six consciousness
depend on grasping something; 
if there is no one-sided grasping, there is bliss
free from objects grasped as “mine”,
empty of phenomena grasped as a self, 
and liberated from objects grasped as permanent.
The Tantra of Self-Liberated Vidyā states:
If one conceives of a self, it is a delusion of Māra.
And:
The one great root māra
is the concept that grasps a self.
The Union of the Sun and the Moon Tantra states:
"Beyond extremes” is not apprehending a self in things.
And:
Those of incorrect understanding are the tirthikas i.e. all views grasping to extremes and grasping to a self.
Etc., I could go on and on....but I won't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 12:47 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


lorem said:
Please define "maintain a tenet system". Thx.

Malcolm wrote:
Those who have an organized set of views and doctrines about liberation and so on, as opposed to those who are without a tenet system, i.e, the uneducated.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Quite frankly, all of my studies, with Tibetan lamas fluent in Sanskrit educated by Indian Paṇḍitas in the six darshans at Varanasi and with Hindu teachers, have done nothing but reinforce my conviction that the mountain Hindus are climbing is a complete different mountain than the one the Buddha pointed out that we should ascend.

When there are discussions about things like the basis, suchness and so on, some people who are incapable of seeing the ultimate distinctions between Buddhist and tīrthika views keep on introducing their confusion into these conversations necessitating again and again a rehash of the same points. Not for them, of course, because they are clearly incorrigible, but for the benefit of those who are beginners or who have not had the benefit of a solid education in Dharma yet.

smcj said:
You seem passionately insistent that they are different, yet you never articulate what that difference is. You'd do yourself and everyone else a favor by explaining your understanding of the situation.


Malcolm wrote:
You yourself can carefully study Yoga, Samkhya, Advaita, Nyāyā, Vaiśesika and Mimamsa and compare them with Vaibhaśika, Sautrantika, Yogacara and Madhyamaka as I have done.

I have done the heavy lifting, why should I do it for you?

But in reality it boils down to this. There are basically two kinds of views among tīrthikas: eternalist and annihilationist. Among those who follow Buddhadharma there are the three realist tenets, Vaibhaśika, Sautrantika (one can include the views of the other Nikaya schools here) and Yogacara (a species of nondual realism), and then there is Madhyamaka, the sublime Middle Way, the crown jewel of the Buddha's teaching.

The real problem is that people who come to Buddhadharma do not properly study these non-buddhist tenets, and in doing so, often unwittingly import these views into their practice, for example, imagining the basis (gzhi) is something Brahmin and so on, and concluding the Dzogchen, for example, has the same meaning as Advaita.

As far as rebutting these incorrect views, I have in fact done so for years, at length, in many places.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Jikan said:
Hi Malcolm,

It might also be helpful for beginners to clarify just what is meant by the term "tirthika" in Buddhist discourse, because it's easy for an outsider looking over my shoulder (like the one looking over my shoulder a few minutes ago) to suspect that this is a straw-man term without historical basis.  How would you rebut such a comment?

I'd always been thought that "tirthika" indicates a category in which certain kinds of positions may be lumped, not necessarily a specific school of thought or social institution or tradition

many thanks

edit:

for context, I think this issue is more extensive than one might expect... here's an example of a newly-relevant-again thread

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16819 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Malcolm wrote:
It means literally "ford-crosser" and is a term applied to non-Buddhists who maintain a tenet system.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 25th, 2014 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If there is visualization of oneself as a deity, or you invite a deity in front of you, than this is exactly what yidam practice is.

Astus said:
Do you mean that visualisation practices like those found in the Pratyutpannasamadhi Sutra and the Amitayurdhyana Sutra count as yidam practice?

Malcolm wrote:
I clarified this — and no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Astus said:
I did not mean yidams are used in practice by followers of Zen or other schools, it's just that I did not see people questioning the validity of it (except for some I have only heard of who despise Tantric/Tibetan Buddhism for some reason, but they are hardly if ever known among Western Buddhists).

Meido said:
Exactly. Again, my only statement was that Zen does not negate the existence of ishta-devata (meaning, that it does not negate the validity of such practices...which is what I took the OP's assertion to be). Shumon Mujintoron is one text that devotes some discussion to a Japanese Zen (Rinzai) view of Tendai and Shingon practices in particular, and it clearly asserts their validity as Buddhadharma (though naturally within its own hierarchy of traditions).

I am not completely unfamiliar with yidam practice. I mentioned the Marici blessing amulets only as an example of everyday Zen engagement with deities that figure in such practices (and mostly because I was literally working on their prep at that moment). The ceremony for empowering these involves mantra, mudra and embodiment as the deity. But I do not call this yidam practice, and since Zen generally doesn't use kanjo but rather takes seeing nature to be the necessary entry into practice, I do not call such things "Vajrayana", whatever their origins.

Sorry for Zen distraction in the Tibetan forum. Had meant to express support, actually.

~ Meido

Malcolm wrote:
If there is visualization of oneself as a deity, or you invite a deity in front of you, than this is exactly what yidam practice is. However, he difficulty lies in how this transmission is communicated from one generation to another. If there is no need for empowerment, i.e, if the idea is that one can simply pick up a text, recite mantras, perform mudras, and so on, this really does not qualify.

I appreciate your expression of supporrt, and understood it as such, but in order to prevent confusion these distinctions must be made.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes of course, Astus, this was never disputed.

Astus said:
Just meant as an extension of Meido's response.

Malcolm wrote:
As above, one cannot consider blessing protective amulets as falling under the heading of Vajrayāna practice, much less Yidam deity practice.

Actually, the term yi dam lha (iṣṭadevatā) is comparatively rare in Indian tantras, is more common in Indian commentaries, while of course it is ubiquitous in Tibetan writing. Nevertheless, my point was that a yidam is a path. That path is not common to common Mahāyāna such as Zen, while of course there is nothing barring anyone from practicing any of the divisions of tantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Beginning a Ngöndro
Content:
Dharmaswede said:
Dear Malcolm,

Is this translation finished? If so, is it available?

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Jens


Malcolm wrote:
I am in the process of translating the Sakya Ngondro commentary. It has a very extensive section on the four common preliminaries.
I am very nearly done with the translation, and it should be ready for publication  sometime next year. Not sure who is going to publish it but since it is being sponsored directly by HH Sakya Trizin, I am sure there will be no problem finding a publisher. When it is published, it will likely be about 350 pages long.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 9:16 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Astus said:
From the perspective of East Asian Mahayana - to what Zen belongs to - the validity of Vajrayana is rarely if ever questioned. There is even a "Secret Teaching Division" (volumes 18-21) in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka that includes all kinds of Tantric texts. In China many Vajrayana works were translated, especially during the Yuan (Mongolian) dynasty, as the court favoured Tibetan Buddhism. In Japan the Shingon school has existed since the 9th century. So, Tantric teachings and methods are recognised as valid in Mahayana beyond Tibet.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes of course, Astus, this was never disputed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 9:09 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
Oh look, another thread on Hinduism vs. Buddhism on Dharmawheel!  How positively scintillating.

Malcolm wrote:
This turn in the conversation is not about Buddhism vs. "Hinduism", it is about the fact that the tīrthikas are not talking about the same thing we are, do not have the same understanding of the basis we do and do not share the same result we achieve, not to mention their path and ours is completely different.

I understand that you have a different point of view, but I do not agree with your point of view on this score in anyway.

Quite frankly, all of my studies, with Tibetan lamas fluent in Sanskrit educated by Indian Paṇḍitas in the six darshans at Varanasi and with Hindu teachers, have done nothing but reinforce my conviction that the mountain Hindus are climbing is a complete different mountain than the one the Buddha pointed out that we should ascend.

When there are discussions about things like the basis, suchness and so on, some people who are incapable of seeing the ultimate distinctions between Buddhist and tīrthika views keep on introducing their confusion into these conversations necessitating again and again a rehash of the same points. Not for them, of course, because they are clearly incorrigible, but for the benefit of those who are beginners or who have not had the benefit of a solid education in Dharma yet.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 9:03 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Hence, unconsciousness devas as well as the four kinds of formless beings have no sensory experience at all.
We really have no way of examining the consciousness of beings in other realms than animal realm and human realm.

Ambrosius80 said:
Sure we do, abhijñās.
There are so many problems with this theory...but I don't have time to address them.
I have justified each of my claims with reasoning, quotes from Buddhist texts, and using science as help.  Lets turn the tables: prove to me that you have formed your own point of view after observation and analysis, instead of just reading from books and blindly believing what you have been told. I can guarantee that whatever reasoning you provide, I in turn will find a flaw in it. Why is that? Because there is no correct or wrong point of view, just different outlooks on the same issue. I see no reason to continue arguing like this, considering so far we have had almost exactly the same beliefs, but have used different methods to approach them.

Malcolm wrote:
We do not have anything like the same beliefs. You assert that consciousness is a form of matter, asserting that is composed of electrons (how many, — one, two, three, etc.?).  The Buddha asserts that consciousness is a dhātu separate from the four elements and space. The Buddha asserts that matter such as it is, is a mental reification, you assert matter is real, and forms the basis of consciousness and so on, thus your view does not even reach Yogacara, let alone Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 5:53 AM
Title: Re: Translation Award for Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
Content:
Zhen Li said:
There also just aren't as many western Mahayana monks as compared to Theravadan ones. The Zen folks translate their Zen writings sometimes, and Tibetan folks translate what matters to them (i.e. not usually non-Vajrayana Mahayana texts like Sutras in Tibetan).


Malcolm wrote:
Ahem....

http://84000.co " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You will find many Mahāyāna sutras here, more "every" day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No, actually there is one consciousness that acts through them serially. When you study the dhātu chapter of the kośa carefully you will observe that this is case. These six are just names for one consciousness when it acts through a given sense.

Ambrosius80 said:
But still, without our senses, we would not be conscious.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence, unconsciousness devas as well as the four kinds of formless beings have no sensory experience at all.

Ambrosius80 said:
As for my theory, I have never denied the possibility of a network of electrons forming outside a brain, anchoring to something other than brains, or even forming to another dimensions.

Malcolm wrote:
There are so many problems with this theory...but I don't have time to address them.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Guhyasamaja traces its line to Śakyāmuni Buddha. Kalacakra was taught by the Buddha in the Dhanyakataka Stupa at Amaravati at the same time he taught Prajñāpāramitā at Rajagriha.

Vajradhara is the sambhogakāya, all nirmanakāyas are emanations of the sambhogakāya.


Bakmoon said:
Thank you for your correction Malcom. I think I remember something about the Kalacakra lineage now that you mention it.

I've heard in other places that the Guhyasamaja Tantra was received by the Mahasiddha Indrabhuti from Vajradhara. Is this referring to a different lineage of the Guhyasamaja Tantra or something?

Malcolm wrote:
No, the story runs that Buddha intuited that Indrabhuti I was interested in the Dharma, so he flew there. Indrabhuti said "I am very interested in practicing Dharma but I need a method of awakening that will not require me to give up my duties as a king and husband (he had 500 wives)." Legend then has it that the Buddha bestowed upon him the Guhysamaja empowerment during which Indrabhuti fully awakened.

Most people do not understand that abhiśeka is a method of awakening. It is only if someone does not awaken fully or at all during the empowerment that it is necessary to practice sadhana.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
The same as saying one dharmakaya for all Buddhas.

Malcolm wrote:
It's really not the same thing at all.

Why? Because when it is said there is only one dharmakāya it means that realization of all Buddhas is the same, not that the continuum of all sentient beings is the same; just like saying that the nature of all fires is heat; nevertheless, every buddha's continuum is distinct and separate. This is not the case with Advaita which insists there is only one purusha for everyone, i.e. that the continuum of all sentient beings is the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Malcom, is it possible to explain a bit of what distinguishes guru veneration from guru yoga? While observing samaya of course. I feel your explanation may help help my practice. You can't have the second without the first I suppose. I think it would be fair to say that veneration is one part of guru yoga.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru yoga is a practice connected with the vajra body.

Of course there are other kinds of gurus, but for this reason and that devotion to them will not constitute a rapid path for realizing mahāmudra or dzogchen in one lifetime.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
For sure the Therveda that is popular in the west seems to have been scrubbed of syncretic and esoteric elements. A lot of times when I see people reference Therveda, it almost seems like what they are talking about is actually (usually western) Pali Canon text criticism version of it, rather than as it's practiced anywhere else.



Bakmoon said:
As a practicing Theravadin myself I find this tendancy to be rather annoying. It reeks of protestant Christianity in its mindset and methodology simply being transplanted into Buddhism which to me just seems like a disaster. I think textual criticism can help shed light into certain circumstances, but as the saying goes "when all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like nails."

Plus, all of the Anuttara Yoga Tantra lineages I've ever heard of trace themselves back to the Buddha Vajradhara or to Samantabhadra Buddha, not to Shakyamuni Buddha, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Malcolm wrote:
Guhyasamaja traces its line to Śakyāmuni Buddha. Kalacakra was taught by the Buddha in the Dhanyakataka Stupa at Amaravati at the same time he taught Prajñāpāramitā at Rajagriha.

Vajradhara is the sambhogakāya, all nirmanakāyas are emanations of the sambhogakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
[qsubset of anything. Paramatman is jiva freed from confusion.

Malcolm wrote:
Is there one parātman or many? If there is one, it is transpersonal, if it is many, then what is the difference between Saṃkhya and Advaita?

In reality, Shankara argues theres is in reality only one purusha, not many, as in the Saṃkhya system. He makes this abundantly clear in his Yogasutra commentary, as did Ramaswami when he taught us the Yoga sutras, confirming everything I thought about Advaita. Also his teacher of Advaita was the Sankaracarya of Kanchi, the old one, Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, not the new one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
You are mistaken sense perceptions for consciousness. They are not the same thing.

Ambrosius80 said:
But according to Buddhist belief, there are six forms of vijnanas; eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness and mind consciousness. Psychedelics distort most of them, if not all. "Consciousness" is formed by all of them together.


Malcolm wrote:
No, actually there is one consciousness that acts through them serially. When you study the dhātu chapter of the kośa carefully you will observe that this is case. These six are just names for one consciousness when it acts through a given sense.

In any case, the formless realm beings have no brain, so according to you, they cannot be conscious, much less exist.

Of course, if you just want to make up your own Dharma that's fine, but we won't have anything left to discuss since I am a follower of Buddha's Dharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:


lorem said:
Okay so you are saying the guru practice at the beginning of Jamgon Kongtrul's The Great Path of Awakening is actually a veneration because it is lacking some elements of the full guru sadhanas?

Malcolm wrote:
Kongtrul indicates that at the beginning of practicing mind training, one should do guru yoga as a preliminary. However, he does not detail how that is to be done.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
BrianG said:
Since we've established that Theravadian esoteric practices don't come from Vajrayana sources, I don't see why that would matter.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru Yoga is a very specific practice, with a very specific theory, with a very specific source. Calling some kind of guru veneration "guru yoga" indicates a lack of understanding of what the yoga in "guru yoga" means.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Ambrosius80 said:
Nowadays we know as a fact that consciousness is linked to the brain, as is evident when scientists have studied the effects of psychedelic drugs on humans, for example. The visions and hallucinations are caused because the drugs affect certain areas of the brain. That's why they are also called consciousness-altering drugs.

Malcolm wrote:
You are mistaken sense perceptions for consciousness. They are not the same thing.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
BrianG said:
You left out guru yoga.

Malcolm wrote:
Which requires an HYT empowerment.

BrianG said:
HYT is a Tibetan classification, and has no meaning outside of Tibetan Buddhism.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru yoga is only taught in the Guhyasamaja tantra on up.

It is not actually a Tibetan classification, the classification into four tantras comes from the Vajramāla tantra, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 1:42 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


smcj said:
This is the gist of the matter. You reject any Tibetan author that suggests anything of the sort. You have a right to do that. However since this is a public forum it is appropriate to voice dissenting opinions backed by authoritative quotations.

Malcolm wrote:
There aren't any Tibetan authors that do say anything of the kind. They all take great pains to distinguish their views from tīrthika views like Advaita. There are many westerns however who do not understand what they are reading and thus jump to incorrect conclusions, and therefore conflate tīrthika views like Advaita with Buddhadharma, such as yourself. Even the gzhan stong pas (especially the gzhan stong pas) go through great lengths to distinguish their view from the views of non-Buddhists such as Shankara. You do a disservice to them everytime you assert the contrary (based on no evidence whatsoever). Even the Bonpos spend a great deal of time differentiating their views from Advaita and so forth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


smcj said:
So evidently Kongtrul disagrees with you, as do others.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually he does not, you just do not understand what he is saying.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 1:30 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
That depends entirely on who is teaching, but of course they are not equivalents. They each derive from their own particular context. However, the terms point to the same basis.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they do not. The basis in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra teachings is not transpersonal, it is personal.

Karma Dorje said:
What is the Sanskrit term you are taking as "transpersonal"? The basis of tantric and vedantic path is always personal.

Malcolm wrote:
Brahmin is transpersonal. In others words, all jivātmans (personal selves) are just subsets, if you will, of parātman (ultimate or transpersonal self). The distinction between the two is merely apparent in other words.

This is not compatible with Dzogchen or Mahāmudra, let alone Buddhadharma, on any level.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 1:25 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
BrianG said:
You left out guru yoga.

Malcolm wrote:
Which requires an HYT empowerment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The basis in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra teachings is not transpersonal, it is personal.

smcj said:
Since you are authorized to teach about Dzogchen you are 100% entitled to put forward that position. There is plenty of commentary to support it and anyone that wants to see it that way is not in error to do so. However as has been discussed in another thread there is no consensus to that effect, specifically among later tibetan authors.


Malcolm wrote:
You don't understand the later Tibetan authors, sorry to say. The only lack of consensus is among westerners who really do not have a grasp of difficult tantric subjects, written in intentional language (i.e. coded), who are also unfamiliar with the broad range of the textual tradition and rely on tiny slices of translations of varying qualities and differing terminologies with which to form their views.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 24th, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Secret Mantra is something very specific. None of these Thai practices bear any relationship to Secret Mantra.

BrianG said:
The protection chakra/body mandala I posted above has a Sri Lankan version as well.

So what you're saying is that these practices weren't derived from previous Vajrayana practice.  Which is what I thought was likely due to the region's long history of Vajrayana practice( archaeological evidence supports Hevajra practice reaching it's historical peak during the Khmer empire ).

That means there must have been a separate esoteric transmission just for SE Asia, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, what I am saying is that these practices have no clear cut path to the presence of Vajrayāna SE Asia. They are not Vajrayāna practices, whatever else they may be.

The exoteric practice of protection amulets, protective visualizations and so on are wide spread in the Indian culture sphere. That does not make them related to Vajrayāna or even lower Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 11:31 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
BrianG said:
My guess is that you are probably resistant to this being called "tantric", due to the lack of an empowerment.  Fair enough.  Perhaps "derived from tantra, but not tantra" is more accurate.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think so. Calling these things "tantric" comes from an ignorant and anachronistic use the term from the early 20th century. In other words, the term really has no meaning. There was never any tradition in India that called itself "tantric". There are many traditions in India that followed manuals (tantras), from Ayurveda (in whose texts is found the the earliest use of the term) to Yoga, Kauala, so on and so forth.

Secret Mantra is something very specific. None of these Thai practices bear any relationship to Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: The state of Buddhism in the world
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Yes and lots of "political education" too, more of that than Dharma education, that is for sure.

Indrajala said:
In any case, the PRC is a lot more easy on Buddhist institutions in general than ever before. That's my point. There's no religious freedom of course.

Malcolm wrote:
That very much depends on where you are and of what value your monastery is to tourism. It is business, it is not support for Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet for Tibetans. It is for the bourgeois entertainment of curious Chinese tourists. And this phenomena happens in cycles, as it has since the early '80's. A period of relative relaxation, then a crack down, etc. People still flee Tibet to study in India because frankly, they can get a better education in Dharma, though arguably, if they are fortunate to come from a wealthy family, they can get a better secular education in China at this point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: The state of Buddhism in the world
Content:
Indrajala said:
They're also even paying for monasteries to be renovated in Tibet (a Tibetan Sakya monk in Nepal told me this)..

Malcolm wrote:
\

For tourism in historic regions.

Indrajala said:
He also mentioned pensions and healthcare support for monastics.

He was pretty honest. He said Sakya monks and monasteries don't get any heat from the authorities, and in fact are getting a lot of material support from the government, especially in recent years.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes and lots of "political education" too, more of that than Dharma education, that is for sure.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Title: Re: The state of Buddhism in the world
Content:
Indrajala said:
They're also even paying for monasteries to be renovated in Tibet (a Tibetan Sakya monk in Nepal told me this)..

Malcolm wrote:
\

For tourism in historic regions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
BrianG said:
... which certainly has Tantric elements -

Malcolm wrote:
This has more to do with Ayurveda and Yoga than Vajrayāna. It is more accurate to say that certain kinds of Thai Buddhism have yogic elements, rather than "tantric" elements.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no brain at the time of conception, but in order for there to be conception, a consciousness seeking rebirth must be present. Further, consciousness is not "born", one can find no origin for it at all., like all conditioned things, each stream of consciousness is beginningless.

Ambrosius80 said:
But this just supports my theory about the quantum teleportation of electrons. When one being dies, the electrons in its brain could well end up in the brain of a few weeks old fetus in the womb. There is no beginning or end to this cycle, just one candle lighting another on its last light. I am not saying that its is the brain which "creates" consciousness, I am saying that brain is the vessel that holds it in our bodies as it travels around. And there may be other ways than brains to "store" consiousness.

Malcolm wrote:
This is not how the Buddha taught it. Consciousness is a serially arising monadic entity. It appropriates a physical basis. Its seat is the in center of the body, not the brain.

Ambrosius80 said:
Karma means intention and what follows from intentions.
In other words, a causal event chain. I think we both have the same idea about karma, but just use different words to express it.

Malcolm wrote:
In Buddhadharma, cause and condition is distinct teaching from karma. The way it is taught is as follows: first cause and condition is taught, then dependent origination, then karma, and finally affliction. They should be understood in this order. If you want to understand this all properly, you need to read the Abhidharmakośabhaṣyam by Vasubandhu.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Jikan said:
Does it follow that the brain, the central nervous system and the rest of the body are epiphenomenal to consciousness, and not the reverse?

Malcolm wrote:
Even if a zygote is formed, without consciousness and its attendant praṇā-vāyu, the zygote will not quicken and develop.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 9:25 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
mikenz66 said:
Here are some references to Tantric practices in Thailand, etc.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10503 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6599 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Mike


Malcolm wrote:
None of this is "tantric". To be a "tantric" practitioner, one must be introduced the path by empowerment (abhiśeka).

BrianG said:
There are empowerments -
http://www.lersi.net/lersi-mask-initiation/

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a qualified Vajrayāna abhiśeka, this is a blessing. It is not a path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddha nature does not "come to be", it is innate.

Ambrosius80 said:
In other words born at the same time with consciousness, which is upheld by the brain.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no brain at the time of conception, but in order for there to be conception, a consciousness seeking rebirth must be present. Further, consciousness is not "born", one can find no origin for it at all., like all conditioned things, each stream of consciousness is beginningless.

Ambrosius80 said:
Up to a point, yes. But there are many things science cannot explain, rebirth, karma, rainbow body, etc.
Karma as a word means a causal event chain.

Malcolm wrote:
Karma means intention and what follows from intentions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 9:00 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:


Karma Dorje said:
That depends entirely on who is teaching, but of course they are not equivalents. They each derive from their own particular context. However, the terms point to the same basis.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they do not. The basis in Dzogchen and Mahāmudra teachings is not transpersonal, it is personal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
mikenz66 said:
Here are some references to Tantric practices in Thailand, etc.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10503 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6599 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Mike


Malcolm wrote:
None of this is "tantric". To be a "tantric" practitioner, one must be introduced the path by empowerment (abhiśeka).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Mkoll said:
I'm not an scholar or certified expert of Theravada, but from my somewhat extensive study there is no recognition of the existence of Yidams because that concept is foreign to Theravada. Similarly, it's like asking why Theravada doesn't recognize the existence of something like guru yoga. They simply aren't present.

BrianG said:
Certain sects of Theravada Buddhism in Thailand practice guru yoga.  This may have even been common before the reforms of King Mongkut, in an attempt to make Thai Buddhism seem "modern" to avoid colonization by the west.

Malcolm wrote:
Guru yoga is a very specific practice which comes from anuttarayoga tantra, it does not even exist in Yoga tantra. That said, since anutttarayoga tantra did exist at one time in Thailand, etc., it is possible some kind of degenerate guru yoga tradition persisted in Thailand.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
The OP's questions are only being partially and indirectly addressed so far. Here they are again, numbered for ease of reference:

Samanthabhadra said:
(1) Why do Theravada and Zen Buddhists do not recognize the existence of Yidams? (2) Are these Yidams symbolic creations of the human mind or do they literally exist? (3) Did the historical Buddha taught the Vajrayana Tantra? (4) If not then is Vajrayana really Buddhistic?

Kim O'Hara said:
(1) seems to have been answered by Meido, saying that Zen schools do in fact recognize the existence of Yidams. No response on Theravada, though.
(2) hasn't been answered at all.
(3) has been answered in the negative by Mkoll, with some dissenting responses.
(4) hasn't been answered at all.


Kim

Malcolm wrote:
The answer to two is no and no. The answer to four is yes. Meido's answer is problematic, and I am not sure what he imagines a "yidam" is, blessing protection amulets is not a path. A yidam is a path. 3 was answered in the following way "not in the Pali canon"; but Pali canon is not inclusive of all that the historical Budhha taught (whose history is the salient question here).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 12:25 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Jikan said:
Yes, but Brahman is said to have the characteristics of sat-chit-ananda.  (being-consciousness-bliss)

Does suchness have those same characteristics?

Karma Dorje said:
Empty essence, cognizant self-nature, compassionate responsiveness.

Of course, we can continue to play comparative religion here, but what's the point.  Isn't it against the ToS?

Malcolm wrote:
Sat cit ananda really are not equivalents to essence, nature and compassion.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 9:12 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
anjali said:
It's not possible to know Nirguna Brahman as a separate entity.

Sherab said:
If by this, Nirguna Brahman is a some all encompassing consciousness, then I have a problem with it.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, that is what Nirguna Brahman is. Not only is it all-encompassing, nothing but it exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 9:07 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Ambrosius80 said:
The consciousness of living things in basically electrons rushing through axons in the brains...

Malcolm wrote:
This is not really compatible with Buddhadharma.

Ambrosius80 said:
I don't see why, as the two are not conflicting each other in any way. I am just giving a theory how buddha-nature comes to be.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha nature does not "come to be", it is innate.

Ambrosius80 said:
The way I see it, when religion begins to compete with science or the other way around, things tend to crash and burn. As His Holiness has stated many times, Buddhism and science are so similar they can work together just fine.

Malcolm wrote:
Up to a point, yes. But there are many things science cannot explain, rebirth, karma, rainbow body, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 8:29 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Ambrosius80 said:
The consciousness of living things in basically electrons rushing through axons in the brains...

Malcolm wrote:
This is not really compatible with Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Samanthabhadra said:
Why do Theravada and Zen Buddhists do not recognize the existence of Yidams?

Meido said:
Just to point out that this is not so when it comes to Ch'an/Zen.

~ Meido

Malcolm wrote:
Chan/Zen schools don't really use iṣṭa-devatās, as they do in Shingon or Tendai, or Vajrayāna in general, it is not part of your path.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Mkoll said:
Malcolm's answer is coming from someone partial to Vajrayana.

An answer from someone partial to Theravada, like me, is that Vajrayana Tantra teachings are not part of Theravada teachings: it's not mentioned in Theravada texts, AFAIK. Simple as that.

Malcolm wrote:
And neither is Mahāyāna, hence my answer.

Mkoll said:
Right, your answer could only come from someone more partial to Vajrayana than Theravada or Mahayana (edit) in that it's part of the Vajrayana "party line," if you will.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but it is also true, from our perspective.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 6:54 AM
Title: Re: Renouncing Theravada
Content:
Jata Bharadvaja said:
Hello everybody, I've recently been at what I can only describe as a cross road really. I've slowly lost faith in the Theravada tradition, I've been seeing and reading about things such as monks owning pubs selling alcohol, doing fortune telling, magic tricks, barely meditating (if at all), getting into fist fights, doing sing song chanting etc.

Sherab Dorje said:
Damn dude, if that's the reason you want to leave the Theravada tradition I predict that your stay with Vajarayana will be even briefer! Everything you just listed is part of our daily practice!

Malcolm wrote:
Everything but the fist fights, this is Mahāyāna after all...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 6:48 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:
Mkoll said:
Malcolm's answer is coming from someone partial to Vajrayana.

An answer from someone partial to Theravada, like me, is that Vajrayana Tantra teachings are not part of Theravada teachings: it's not mentioned in Theravada texts, AFAIK. Simple as that.

Malcolm wrote:
And neither is Mahāyāna, hence my answer.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: Did the historical Buddha taught Vajrayana Tantra?
Content:



Samanthabhadra said:
Why do Theravada and Zen Buddhists do not recognize the existence of Yidams?

Malcolm wrote:
Lack of merit and pure vision.

Faith in Buddhadharma is rare.
Faith in Mahāyāna is rarer still.
Faith in Vajrayāna is even more rare than that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 23rd, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
The only thing that surprises me is that so many people have convinced themselves that they actually know exactly what everything is and how it stands.

Malcolm wrote:
I just know what the Buddha and my gurus have taught. YMMV.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Sherab said:
Did the Buddha said anywhere that suchness is dependent arising?  Or emptiness is dependent arising?

Malcolm wrote:
Āryāṣṭadaśasahasrika-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:
Dependent origination should be known as emptiness.
Ārya-mahāvajrameruśikharakūṭāgāra-dhāraṇī
Due to being imputed, imputation is also empty. Due to arising from causes and conditions, dependent origination is also empty. Due to being generated by adventitious causes and conditions, production is empty of self. In that respect, dependent origination is empty of intrinsic characteristics. Whatever is empty of intrinsic characteristics is characteristicless. Whatever is characteristicless, that is suchness. Whatever is suchness, that is unmistaken suchness. Whatever is unmistaken suchness, that is isn't anything other than suchness. Whatever isn't anything other than suchness, that is samadhi. Whatever is samadhi, that is realization. Whatever is realization, that is emptiness. Whatever is emptiness, that is sublime insight. Whatever is sublime insight, that is calm-abiding. Whatever is calm-abiding, that is complete freedom [vimokṣa]. Whatever is complete freedom, that is the middle way. Whatever is the middle way, that is without a first limit and without a second limit, cannot be apprehended, is not an apprehender, is not annihilated, is not permanent, does not arise, does not cease, is without thought, is without concept, is not independent, is not dependent, does not come, does not go, is without total affliction, without purification, does not cohere, does not separate, that is sublime insight. Whatever is sublime insight, that is without aggregates, without elements [dhātus], without sense organs, without sense gates [āyatanas], without objects, is not designated as an object, is without karma, without the result of karma —  whatever is without karma and without the result of karma, that is unsurpassed perfect awakening.
Here we can clearly see the Buddha stating that since dependent origination is empty, it is without characteristics, and whatever is without characteristics is suchness.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 at 4:33 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
Matt J said:
One might argue this is saguna Brahman (with gunas, or characteristics), not nirguna Brahman (without qualities, or characteristics).

Malcolm wrote:
Suchness is emptiness. Brahmin is not empty.

As the Buddha states in the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā:
Suchness empty of suchness is the emptiness of suchness. Whatever is emptiness, that is suchness. There is no emptiness apart from suchness. Suchness is emptiness, emptiness is suchness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 at 4:11 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
In terms of secular ethics it is well established that enlightened self-interest the best approach, i.e., in securing the needs of others, one secures one's own needs. The old, "I'll scratch your back, then you scratch mine."

Sherab Dorje said:
Okay, so according to this theory criminal fraternities are ethically sound.

Malcolm wrote:
No, not at all. Mutually helping each other secure needs and wants is what enlightened self-interest means. As one expands one's sphere more people and beings are included, until in this model, every beings needs and wants are met since it is recognized we inhabit the same sphere and all of our wellbeing depends on everyone else's.

In practice, it does not work out that way, because people are not so enlightened that working in their own self-interest actually functions this way — this the great weakness in the secular ethical model. Sooner or later selfishness trumps insight. Nevertheless, this is a working theory in secular ethics.

There are other secular ethical models, such as Kant's moral imperative and so on, which do not require belief in rebirth or religious authority of any kind. Western ethical philosophy is quite rich, and can't be reduced to the catechistic moralism of Christianity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
lorem said:
Wouldn't that be giving up on yourself and other sentient beings? (Who want's to get to the top? The only place is down)

Sherab Dorje said:
If there is no life (for me) after this one, then why would I give a damn?

Malcolm wrote:
In terms of secular ethics it is well established that enlightened self-interest the best approach, i.e., in securing the needs of others, one secures one's own needs. The old, "I'll scratch your back, then you scratch mine."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Hairs
Content:
???? said:
How Tibetans cope with the problem of hair loss?

What traditional possibilities exist? Proper diet, or special herbs?

How to do to hair stopped falling out?
and what to do to appeared more of them?

Malcolm wrote:
reduce salt intake, oil the scalp, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 21st, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:


lorem said:
EDIT I believe in rebirth but don't think you totally need to to practice the path.

Malcolm wrote:
You totally need to [accept rebirth] to practice the path. Otherwise, there is no point at all to the Buddhist path, none.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 21st, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Jesse said:
i I think rebirth is hard for people to accept mainly because;

1. it's extraordinarily hard to grasp it intellectually, if it's possible at all.
2. If you meditate on it and view it through a detached viewpoint -- "Who is there to be reborn?" Will likely be most peoples response.

All thing's are inter-dependently arisen, yet all those arisen thing's are still empty, not one thing has a self, so this delusion that we are independent beings of some permanent nature is why rebirth is hard to grasp.

All sentient beings are just made up of empty non-self stuff, yet we still exist. So essentially I think you could say we are that empty non-self stuff, and at the same time nothing at all, we are phantoms. Phantoms will continue to arise, and cease thinking they were something other than empty inter-dependent stuff.

ps. I think my brain melted writing that.

Malcolm wrote:
Sentient beings are cognitive errors propelled through birth after birth by the root obscuration of I-making.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 21st, 2014 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: Rebirth (split topic: "Ornament o.t. Great Vehicle Sutra
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
It is important to recognize that every traditional form of Buddhism carries with it a distinct and in many areas mutually exclusive presentation of the relationship of all the others.  Buddhisms are not the same. Yet Dzog Chen and the Forest Monk Tradition are very different yet surprisingly on the same track.

Malcolm wrote:
Both Dzogchen as well as Thai Buddhism (apart from Buddhadasa) accept rebirth as integral to Buddhadharma.

Leo Rivers said:
Doesn't Samsara recognition, the Bodhisattva Vow, the practice of the path of calming and insight and a recognition of the empty nature of self and phenomena comprise sufficient credentials?

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha in numerous places considers rejection of rebirth (punarbhava) to be a wrong view. It is considered a wrong view in all Buddhist traditions worthy of the name.

Leo Rivers said:
Egads, the Perfection of Wisdom insight as presented nuked the Abhidharma.

Malcolm wrote:
No. The Prajñāpāpramitā, and the school that developed around it, merely clarified the notion of emptiness on top of the basis of Buddha's Abhidharmapitika.

Leo Rivers said:
And explanations of turnings of the wheel really don't much please or invite everyone to gather under one tent.

Malcolm wrote:
First, the three turnings teaching was not important in India, judging from the lack of discussion about it by Indian masters. If you carefully read the Saṃdhinirmocana, the first turning is for śravakas, the second turning for Mahāyanis, and the third turning, which is merely a recapitulation of the second, is for everyone. In reality, the third turning teaching is actually an Ekayāna teaching, which is why it garners so little attention from Indian commentators.

Leo Rivers said:
Finding a "core Buddhism" which all agree certifies a Buddhist as a Buddhist is an idea that holds water only if you don't run the numbers. But I will avidly give an open ear and mind to any efforts in this regard.

Malcolm wrote:
There are certain tenets of Buddhadharma that are constant in all streams of Buddhadharma. Rebirth, dependent origination, karma and so on are such tenets, whether we are talking about Theravada or Sarvastivada or Dzogchen and Mahamudra, as well as everything in between.

Leo Rivers said:
On "MATERIALISM"
Many people bring the word "materialism" unwittingly with the Marxist or AntiMarxist emotional baggage to spiritual discussions.

Malcolm wrote:
When I use the term materialism, I am referring the followers of the rishi Brihaspati, the Carvaka school, specifically, and generally, to all those who imagine that upon their physical death their mind stream utterly ceases having no further causes and conditions which can support it.

Leo Rivers said:
The 5th Century Greek physical theory of Democritus of atomos "indivisible", and re-contexted in India means and seems to mean one thing.
Materialism as (politically and rhetorically) depicted in the Pali suttas as being a sub-set of annihilationism/ucchedavada
and later Marxist anti-religionist "materialism means and seems to mean another.

Malcolm wrote:
One who denies rebirth is an ucchedavadin and a materialist. Marxists also reject rebirth, etc. They are also ucchedavadins. There are many stripes ucchedavadins. Also, the ancient Carvakas wrote much of the political literature of ancient India (Kautilya, for example).

Leo Rivers said:
I am not a Marxist. Their “materialism” isn't truly scientific. It is politics. As an atheist I am not anti-religion. My "atheism" is a secondary issue to someone who believes all the phenomena witnessed in the cosmos are the outcome of natural processes, cause and effect. Sound familiar?

Malcolm wrote:
The rejection of rebirth amounts to a rejection of karma, among other things, such as the serial ripening of actions performed now on a serial, albeit impermanent, mind stream in the future. There is really no way to reconcile rejection of rebirth with the Buddha's Dharma. Further, the rejection of rebirth entails that consciousness newly arise, as indicated by your term "new beings", etc., again, completely inconsistent with the Dharma the Buddha taught in all vehicles, not merely one.

It is fine if someone does not believe in rebirth, but I question whether they can truly call themselves followers of the Buddha. You ask, "Doesn't Samsara recognition, the Bodhisattva Vow, the practice of the path of calming and insight and a recognition of the empty nature of self and phenomena comprise sufficient credentials?"

Without rebirth, there is no samsara worthy of the name, there is no cyclic existence, no 'khor ba, there no possibility that one, having been born a human being, can take rebirth in a higher realm or a lower realm, at death one simply ceases. One's birth as a human being is merely random and not connected with any accumulation of merit and so on.

Without rebirth, the bodhisattva vow is just empty verbiage, "From now until I reach the bodhimaṇḍa, the seat of awakening...", etc. Moreover, secular altruistic ethics are just fine, and are certainly more appropriate for people who do not have a deep felt faith commitment to the Dharma. There is thus no need to flatter oneself that one is a "secular" bodhisattva. Certain kinds of beliefs, such as the belief that one's consciousness is extinguished either at nirvana, in the case of śravakas, or at death, in the case of materialists are deeply incompatible with the bodhisattva aspiration.

Without rebirth, there is no transcendent insight to speak of because the purpose of insight in Buddhadharma is to burn away the traces of affliction which cause one to be reborn in samsara again and again and to cultivate omniscience in order to benefit other sentient beings from now until we reach the bodhimaṇḍa. This is the only reason we are cultivating insight into emptiness. David Hume recognized the empty nature of self and phenomena. But his insight is mundane and not transcendent, it neither eradicates obscurations nor does it lead to gathering the accumulation of wisdom, pristine consciousness (jñāna). His thought is not Buddhadharma, because Hume, at the end of the day, was a materialist. There is no point in even mentioning śamatha, because śamatha is simply one-pointedness of mind, and even animals have it.

My point is simple, physicalism, materialism, etc., whatever one wants to call it, is not compatible with Buddhadharma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 21st, 2014 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: what makes Buddhist deathlessness not eternalism?
Content:
frank123 said:
I have heard various teachers of Buddhadharma use terms like deathlessness and indestructible etc to talk about our nature.What makes this not eternalism?what is between eternalism and nihilism?

Malcolm wrote:
Our nature, suchness, does not arise; therefore, it does not cease. This is what it means to be deathless, that which is beyond arising and ceasing, suchness is indestructible.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 20th, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras
Content:
Will said:
At last, a clear translation of the Mahayana-sutra-lamkara!  Dr. Doctor and the Dharmachakra Trans. Committee have done a wondrous thing.

Paul said:
Which of the Doctor brothers did this?

Will said:
Still have not read too deeply into it, so the only quibble I have is the use of 'wakefulness' for jnana.  The conventional use of wisdom or knowledge or understanding conveys the flavor better.  Yes, they are probably trying to point out how the 'awareness' of this type of jnana is so very different from conceptional notions, but being 'awake' hardly conveys anything to non-buddhas.

Paul said:
I think 'wakefulness' is used because it is used in the Rangjung Yeshe Books texts as a term for mind essence, ie Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche's ' Present Fresh Wakefulness '.

Malcolm wrote:
Wakefulness (bodhatā) for jñāna is a huge stretch.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 20th, 2014 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
There may be so-called "Buddhists" who have doubts about or even reject rebirth, but there is no valid Buddhadharma that does.
Transfer of Merit accomplished by social transactions  plants the seeds of wholesome  transformation in the aggregate basis - this means every new being picks up discursive awareness within a global field in which everyone who has ever lived  life''s karma is spoken for.

Malcolm wrote:
This is just annihilationism. "Every new being" means that in your view there are beings that pass out of existence, this is just a view of self, albeit, an annihilationist/physicalist view.

It is definitely not what the Buddha taught.

Leo Rivers said:
In fact, in that there is no self, it is only the illusion of a self that admits a choice of conduct for ill or good will.

Malcolm wrote:
The view you espoused above is just a view of self, an annihilationist/physicalist view.

Leo Rivers said:
It is working as a finite being, not going into quiecence, that is the sacrifice of self [the self benefit of enjoying complete peace] for others. Remember - a secular Buddhist treats Buddhist models as provisional, man made things amenable to re-working, identicle in process to natural sciences.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no such things as "secular Buddhism" — merely false views and correct ones. In this respect, the view espoused above is an annihilationist/physicalist view. Therefore, false.

Leo Rivers said:
It is not rejecting principles that you are really objecting to, I suspect. It is rejecting the divine [unquestionable and final] basis of those principles. I do not deify the man Gautama any more than I deify Einstein.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually it is your rejection of these basic principles which I find objectionable — not in so far as you are not entitled to them, but inso far as that you amazingly think your rejection of these principles can be included within the meaning sphere called "Buddhadharma" as something other than delusions.

Specifically, in the context of the text under discussion, its authors would find your claim that your views are find within Buddhadharma a very curious claim, since they are clearly actually Lokayati/Carvaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 20th, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
All pre-Modern Buddhisms likely accept re-incarnation. For me the Bodhisattva Vow to practice to benefit all beings makes personal reincarnation irrelevant - who caused my pre-birth circumstances or inherits my consequences is beside the point. The point is to transform the basis of my charactor and the mutually experience world of karmas.

Malcolm wrote:
The bodhisattva vow is predicated on the principle of person rebirth or reincarnation. Without rebirth, there is no karmic world, so to speak, because there is no karma-vipaka.

Further, without rebirth, there is no way to accumulate the two accumulations necessary to achieve buddhahood, nor is there any point in making such an aspiration.

There may be so-called "Buddhists" who have doubts about or even reject rebirth, but there is no valid Buddhadharma that does. So called "Buddhists" are those who a least nominally follow Buddhadharma, but when people reject the very basic principles upon which Buddhadharma is founded, what is the point of calling them Buddhists, much less followers of Buddhadharma?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 18th, 2014 at 11:02 PM
Title: Rebirth (Collection thread)
Content:
Leo Rivers said:
I kind of think of myself as An Old Testement Mahayanist.

Malcolm wrote:
Pretty strange self-perspective coming from someone who rejects rebirth.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 18th, 2014 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Four reminders in the Mahayana?
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Reading Indestructible Truth by Reginald Ray, I came across this, and found it intriguing:

Reginald Ray in Indestructible Truth said:
...[in the Mahayana]the four reminders evolve into 1) a view of the sacredness of being 2) the immanence of death in the midst of life as a blessing 3) Karma as a vehicle for compassion, and 4) Suffering as ego's response to the energy of awareness.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Is this Ray's own extrapolation of the notion of the evolution of the Four Reminders into the Mahayana path, or is this a traditional teaching on them I have missed? It jives with me for sure, but I have never seen these notions specifically presented as coming from the Four Reminders.

Malcolm wrote:
This is Ray's own trip.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 18th, 2014 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Machig Lapdron: Shakyamuni Bodhisattva?
Content:


lorem said:
Yeah sambhogakaya beings can appear to samsaric beings just not in their sambhogakaya form.

Malcolm wrote:
That means sambhogakāyas cannot appear to ordinary beings, hence nirmanakāyas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Pringle said:
So just to clarify my own thinking with regards to the three types of Dukkha

1) Dukkha Dukkha - This would be the suffering cuased by pain, such as 'ouch i just stubbed my toe'

2) Viparinama Dukkha - This is the suffering of change due to all things being impermenant, as such even if something is giving us pleasure now, such as being in a relationship, then this will ultimatly end up as suffering like when the relationship ends

3) Sankhara Dukkha - The suffering all condition phenomona. This is due to the very nature of 'things' as being part of conditioined phonmena. So even though this really tasty food gives me pleasure now, becuase of the impermenane inherent in the food, it is not a lasting pleasure, and as such wil only result in suffering once the taste goes due to my craving the food.

so how far of the mark am I? I get the feeling im possibly getting Viparinama and Sankhara dukkha slightly confused, but not sure where the confusion lies. They both seem very similer to me, in the sense that its due to the impermenane of things that cuase the suffering (due to the attachment/craving to things).

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, you are getting these two confused. The third is the fact that things just fall apart and so therefore cannot be considered a source of happiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 10:37 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
brendan said:
@Malcolm

The claim is that Buddha's are omniscient....so there for they are aware of _any illness_ for _any_ sentient being (Buddhist or non- Buddhist)......and they have the medication for any of these illnesses....?


Malcolm wrote:
Right. What is your question?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 10:29 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
Malcolm, this is your quote "All benefit that comes to us is the blessings of the Buddhas".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because the buddhas only wish the best for sentient beings, it is therefore any benefit that befalls them is a blessing of the buddhas.

brendan said:
This is also a quote, "Yes, and there is nothing Buddhas can do about that"...So how can there even be a cognition of a wish?

Malcolm wrote:
There may be nothing Buddhas can do to intervene when sentient beings are blindly acting out of affliction and cause themselves needless injury, nevertheless, even though samsara is a terrible place, it is still possible to generate roots of virtue. All positive things that sentient beings do generate such roots, and the Buddhas teach only virtue, therefore, all positive things that happen to sentient beings are a blessing of the Buddhas because the Buddhas bless all roots of virtue as such. Every teaching, every word, which encourages sentient beings to generate virtue is the word of the Buddha, and it does not matter in which religion or secular philosophy it is found — all of them are the teaching of the Buddha, the ultimate root of such teachings come out of the very basis which gives rise to Buddhahood itself, cultivating the root of virtue and generating compassion for sentient beings. Buddhas have limitless compassion so of course they automatically "wish" the benefit of sentient beings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 6:56 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
Malcolm, this is your quote "All benefit that comes to us is the blessings of the Buddhas".

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, because the buddhas only wish the best for sentient beings, it is therefore any benefit that befalls them is a blessing of the buddhas.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
brendan said:
Malcolm, Buddhas are beyond doctors.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas are called "great physicians" for the very reason I state. And like doctors who can only treat patients who do what they say, Buddha can only help sentient beings who follow the path that they teach. As it is said:
The munis do not wash sins away, 
nor remove suffering with their hands.


brendan said:
Malcolm, not doing what they say and not following the path is also a illness.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and there is nothing Buddhas can do about that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 4:53 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
brendan said:
Malcolm, Buddhas are beyond doctors.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas are called "great physicians" for the very reason I state. And like doctors who can only treat patients who do what they say, Buddha can only help sentient beings who follow the path that they teach. As it is said:
The munis do not wash sins away, 
nor remove suffering with their hands.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
Read the accomplishments. Anyway you are a moderator so I'm sure you are aware of the claims of what Buddhas have accomplished.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe you should read them more carefully.

brendan said:
Malcolm, Buddhas are said to be able to manifest as _anything_...or as many atoms in the universe.

There is still suffering...and thanks for all your hard work and time in translating.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, and nevertheless because of our own afflictive and karmic obscurations not only are we unable to see them, but we still continue to suffer.

For example, a person with jaundice cannot see white things as white, only as yellow and so on. Buddhas offer us the medicine to cure this condition, but if we do not take it, then like the sick person who does not follow their doctor's instructions, then we have only ourselves to blame for not getting well.

In the end, brendan, we are responsible for our own liberation, there are no Buddhas to lift us out of samsara like mewling kittens being moved to a safe place by mother cat. This does not mean however that Buddhas are not all around us, benefitting us all the time in ways we cannot or will not perceive.

All harm that comes to us is a result of our afflicted vision. All benefit that comes to us is the blessings of the Buddhas — if we train with this attitude, then our attitude will improve remarkably.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Useful Events Website: dharmalist.org
Content:
Punya said:
Congratulations to all involved. May the dharma flourish!

(No reason why Dharma Wheel and Dhamma Wheel couldn't be listed there as well.)

Malcolm wrote:
They will be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
Read the accomplishments. Anyway you are a moderator so I'm sure you are aware of the claims of what Buddhas have accomplished.

Malcolm wrote:
Maybe you should read them more carefully.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
brendan said:
So why did you suggest I pray to Tara.

Malcolm wrote:
Very simply put, taking refuge in sublime beings such as Buddhas and tenth stage bodhisattvas is meritorious because they are pure, uncontaminated and free of all afflictions. This alone eliminates traces of obscuration.

brendan said:
Mahayana Buddhas apparently have accomplished the 10 Bhumis the 6 Perfections etc...im sure you know the stages of accomplishments in 10 Bhumis  as you are a translator.

Malcolm wrote:
Do you suppose that perfecting dānapāramitā, the perfection generosity means that you have removed all the poverty there is in the three realms? Of course it does not mean that. Ṥantideva addresses this qualm in the Bodhicaryāvatāra where he points out that the Bodhisattva perfected the perfection of generosity through his wish to give all virtuous things to everyone, not because he was actually able to do so. Mahāyāna is based on one's intention.

Since you are someone who has entered Mahāyāna already, it is really better if you go back to the beginning and study the teachings under a qualified teacher in a proper way. This cynicism, doubt and lack of faith is harmful to you.

brendan said:
Not to mention what the other Bhumis of Vajrayana and Dzogchen...their accomplishments are said to be for more advanced.

Malcolm wrote:
The bhumis in Vajrayāna are merely subtle refinements in omniscience, that is all, there are no special powers that Vajradhara as that a buddha on the eleventh bhumi lacks.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 13th, 2014 at 8:45 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
The claims are that Buddha/Dharma does eliminate all suffering (or course via Dependent Origination)....but considering the claims..moving the goal posts (lack of a better term) seems a very appropriate term.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you present such claims, something found in a sūtra, for example?

brendan said:
Considering the claims of Vajradhara, Garab Dorje, Buddhas etc..at what point is their view of Dependent Origination and their claims of accomplishment not poetic licence and machism.

Malcolm wrote:
Which claims? Can you bring them forward?

BTW, you have seemed awfully disappointed in Buddhadharma now for many years, and for some strange reason, you seem to only comment on my posts.

brendan said:
They clearly claim they can eliminate suffering albeit via dependent origination...so if they can do it why not just do it....why all the torture? It seems more like poetic license and machoism.  Not disappointed just find the hypocrisy a bit funny..sorry for replying to some of your posts.


Malcolm wrote:
No, this is not correct. Buddha taught that one can eliminate one's own suffering through understanding dependent origination. He never claimed to be able to remove the suffering of others. In fact, he stated in many places in both Hinayāna and Mahāyāna sutras that he had no ability to remove the suffering of others. So, you are perceiving a hypocrisy where none exists.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 8:18 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
Yes, of course. As long as sentient beings are afflicted, they will continue to suffer. Who could expect anything else. It is not the Buddha's fault that sentient beings continue to cultivate afflictions. No one ever claimed the Buddha was able to remove the suffering of sentients beings through fiat.
It's just Dependent Origination to suit ones point of view. What's the point of being omniscient having achieved limitless compassion, kindness etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhas are omniscient, not omnipotent. The criteria for even being able to meet Buddhadharma are rather slim, themselves requiring long stores of merit.


brendan said:
So what is Vajradhara or Garab Dorje or the Mahayana  Buddhas doing this very instant!

Malcolm wrote:
Helping some sentient being somewhere. Does this mean they are surgically removing that being's suffering? No, of course not. Are they teaching Dharma? Yes, since that is primary way Buddhas help sentient beings in samsara.

brendan said:
They claim they have perfect omniscience (so they know exactly what is happening this very instant), they claim they have perfect compassion, kindness, generosity etc ( so they have the tools to help any sentient being). They claim they can remember every one of their past lives ( so they clearly know all the problems).....so what more to practitioners have to do.

Malcolm wrote:
They have to practice the path, just as the buddhas before them did.

brendan said:
Next you will be suggesting I pray to Tara lol.

Malcolm wrote:
It would probably be more beneficial for you than making disappointed complaints about Buddhadharma on the internet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


brendan said:
The claims are that Buddha/Dharma does eliminate all suffering (or course via Dependent Origination)....but considering the claims..moving the goal posts (lack of a better term) seems a very appropriate term.

Malcolm wrote:
Can you present such claims, something found in a sūtra, for example?

brendan said:
Considering the claims of Vajradhara, Garab Dorje, Buddhas etc..at what point is their view of Dependent Origination and their claims of accomplishment not poetic licence and machism.

Malcolm wrote:
Which claims? Can you bring them forward?

BTW, you have seemed awfully disappointed in Buddhadharma now for many years, and for some strange reason, you seem to only comment on my posts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 6:28 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
brendan said:
How can anyone claim they have achived the 3rd Noble Truth?.....There is still suffering....so claiming that suffering has ended seems silly.

Also space is limitless so how can suffering end?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a claim that all suffering ceases, merely that one's suffering can cease.

brendan said:
I understand that...and there is still suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, of course. As long as sentient beings are afflicted, they will continue to suffer. Who could expect anything else. It is not the Buddha's fault that sentient beings continue to cultivate afflictions. No one ever claimed the Buddha was able to remove the suffering of sentients beings through fiat.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 12th, 2014 at 12:45 AM
Title: Re: Dalai Lama Quotation: No Crazy Wisdom Masters
Content:
Jikan said:
In the mid-1990s, someone referenced the current Dalai Lama as saying that he knew of no contemporary crazy wisdom masters.  I've never been able to track this reference down or verify it.  Here's as close as I've come.

http://www.tricycle.com/letters/letters-editor-winter-1993?page=0,1 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does anyone have anything that might clarify what HHDL had to say on this issue, when he said it, and what the context was?  Many thanks.

Malcolm wrote:
http://info-buddhism.com/Questioning_Advice_of_Guru_Dalai_Lama.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: Half Of Brits Say...
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
Siddhartha Gautama, surely?

Malcolm wrote:
Strictly speaking, from a Mahāyāna point of view, they start with the Dharmakāya, which transcends time and space. Nevertheless, from a relative point of view Śakyamuni began our present dispensation and he is the teacher of all who follow Buddhadharma in whatever form it may be.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
brendan said:
How can anyone claim they have achived the 3rd Noble Truth?.....There is still suffering....so claiming that suffering has ended seems silly.

Also space is limitless so how can suffering end?

Malcolm wrote:
It is not a claim that all suffering ceases, merely that one's suffering can cease.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Thanks for the response, I don't doubt people find you entertaining or informative, i've certainly learned a lot from your postings and answers myself.

I still wonder though, if you are truly as blunt in person re:Dharma as you are online, or is the context too different to even say?

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, yes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 9:41 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Jikan said:
I

Following up on Johnny D's question:  do you think the idea of being "straight up" works internationally?

Malcolm wrote:
One just has to be honest and transparent, warts and all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Quite frankly, people either have the merit to see the truth of the Dharma, or they don't. All attempts at proselytizing Dharma are doomed to failure. Therefore, the best way to be with people about the Dharma is to be straight up.

Johnny Dangerous said:
Do you teach  in person, as in group Dharma talks, etc. or just online Malcolm?

If so, i'm curious how people react to your "straight up" style in person. Sorry if the question is invasive, just trying to be "straight up" myself.

I  also find the above a strange statement, in that most folks I know, and myself have seen our views transform as time goes on..in fact, I think i've seen yours change even in the time i've been here, or at least you changed your views on things like whether you call yourself a "Buddhist" or not.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't call myself a Buddhist, but for the convenience of others I am a "Buddhist". I practice Buddhadharma.

I have taught both online as well as in person settings. As far as I know, people like listening to me blather on about the teachings because they continue to ask me to teach. Believe it or not, people find me not only informative, but also extremely entertaining. I don't promote myself very much because there are many people out there with much more merit than I who are much better teachers because of it. I also don't often accept such invitations mainly because I am busy trying to make a living as text translator (oral translators get all the glory, but we do all the work) and as a doctor of Tibetan Medicine so I don't have so much time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 9:11 AM
Title: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Jikan said:
I think this is relevant for a Buddhist board because people come here for Buddhism, whether they're interested in learning on the Dharma's terms or on their own (for now).

Malcolm wrote:
You can't learn Dharma on your own terms. It just doesn't work.

The point of the Dharma is to a) overcome the ignorance that is rooted in self-grasping so that b) one can help sentient beings achieve buddhahood.

If a doesn't happen, b never will. Therefore, it is best to be clear what Dharma is and what it is not.

Jikan said:
I agree on all these points.  I can confirm that trying to learn Dharma on my own terms was a disaster for me, and I'm thankful to the people who skillfully set me right.

The question remains:  how to best engage with people who have enough interest in Buddhism to show up on a discussion board with the word "Buddhist" in the banner, but are either just starting out or are heavily laden with--shall we say--unrealistic expectations?

Malcolm wrote:
Quite frankly, people either have the merit to see the truth of the Dharma, or they don't. All attempts at proselytizing Dharma are doomed to failure. Therefore, the best way to be with people about the Dharma is to be straight up.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 11th, 2014 at 8:55 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Jikan said:
I think this is relevant for a Buddhist board because people come here for Buddhism, whether they're interested in learning on the Dharma's terms or on their own (for now).

Malcolm wrote:
You can't learn Dharma on your own terms. It just doesn't work.

The point of the Dharma is to a) overcome the ignorance that is rooted in self-grasping so that b) one can help sentient beings achieve buddhahood.

If a doesn't happen, b never will. Therefore, it is best to be clear what Dharma is and what it is not.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
I am actually fairly convinced we all have our little moments of heresy. I do, for sure. The ego is a tricky bastard. No wonder newcomers reject, and vehemently so, such dogmas as rebirth. Please note that the fact they keep talking about it means there may be some space for realignment. If they kept their mouths shut there would be none.

[snip]

Hence we really should be careful when we post, and be particularly attentive to the way we post. If arrogance is a shortcoming of those heretical newcomers, it is at the very least as often our shortcoming as well. And if we want to help, we must do it properly, otherwise the whole thing will tragically backfire.

Jikan said:
I'd like to underscore the importance of these two points.  Really, this is the rationale for keeping an online Buddhist discussion board going (first point), and a caution with regard to being helpful about it (second point).


Malcolm wrote:
The Dharma is relatively straight forward. If you study properly, you can easily understand it. If you don't well, we often see the results of that here online.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 10th, 2014 at 4:17 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Jikan said:
What about people who haven't been taught, or who have studied a bit on their own but have become convinced they don't need to be taught--or worse, that becoming a student would hinder their progress?  These are people who have serious aspirations and must be approached with respect, even though their expectations have created some obstacles for learning.

Malcolm wrote:
Their arrogance outweighs their "serious" aspiration.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
Johnny Dangerous said:
Malcolm, If Samaya only truly comes with HYT empowerment, what are the "commitments" often attached to (presumably non-hyt) jenangs..are those not the same thing functionally as samaya?

Malcolm wrote:
There are samayas associated with the yoga tantra, but you do not receive them from a jenang, but only an abhisheka associated with that class. A person without a full HYT or YT empowerment does not possess them. A Jenang in general only comes with bodhisattva vows and a commitment to practice a mantra.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I have to admit at this point in my early Vajrayana "career" I do not get how relationships with the guru works exactly...

Malcolm wrote:
You received empowerment from a Guru. You then work with the transmission you received. If you have questions, you go and ask. Guruyoga is a special practice of highest yoga tantra, like mandala offerings. It is a way of summoning the blessings of the guru and integrating them with your mindstream. It exists in an indirect way as the master of the family in deity yoga.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I think you guys are being too hard on Rachmiel. As a newer practitioner I found some of the more hard-nosed "it must be like X or it's useless" advice I got on here was really counter productive..no offense, I know you guys know what you are talking about, and I appreciate the sentiment.. but your bedside manner really leaves something to be desired for someone new to the path, or someone having doubts about this or that etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Simple texts like the one that is the subject of this thread would never be bandied about in such a reckless manner. Doing so ruins the potential impact of the text, and its blessings, not to mention that fact that it is something that someone should hear in a proper way from a guru. Such behavior really contradicts the principles of Secret Mantra in general, to which this text belongs, since it comes from the Secret Mantra portion of the bstan 'gyur.

Johnny Dangerous said:
I've also been under the impression that plenty of people, including historical dudes, have more than one guru...so not sure how/why it would matter that Rachmiel has more than one teacher, is it just his reluctance that you're jumping on?

Malcolm wrote:
This does not apply to me. I have more than one guru, many more.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
it may seem a small thing, but when you use a locative construction like "in samsara" it cannot help but bring a whiff of reification. You know very well samsara is not a place that a sentient being finds itself in, its a state of mind. So wouldn't it be better to say "I am just as deluded that there is happiness in my samsaric mind"? Thats harder to say perhaps because its owning your state of mind rather than projecting, but it has far more potential for change. Its much easier to imagine a state of mind changing than a universe.

Malcolm wrote:
Pointless quibble.

It is a state, thus locative is perfectly appropriate.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As Maitreya says, there isn't even a pinprick of happiness in the three realms.

M

gad rgyangs said:
wow, must be gloomy at your house.

Malcolm wrote:
Nope. I am just as deluded that there is happiness in samsara as the next guy.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Queequeg said:
Does a Buddha experience happiness?

Malcolm wrote:
From the point of view of Mahāyāna, buddhas experiences only pleasurable mental sensations, i.e., bliss, and no painful physical sensations.  A Buddha is also totally free of clinging. All painful feelings of the body are the ripened result of negative karma. Buddhas have no obscuration of karma. All pleasurable feelings of the mind are the ripened result of positive actions.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
This is well-suited for my style of learning, though I wish I could have a bit more direct contact with him.

Sherab Dorje said:
I can only begin to imagine what Tilopa would have done to you if you went and said this to him.    It would probably make Naropa's beating with a sandal look like childs play!

rachmiel said:
What issue do you think Tilopa would have had with what I said?

Malcolm wrote:
Nothing, he just would not have you as a student. But this does not mean other teachers won't. And they will even cater to your expectations and neurosis out of their compassion. Whether that will benefit you of course, depends on the teacher, and how well they can help you see through the very neurosis that prevents you from making deep bond with a guru.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth however is just the object of a correct cognition, that is how it is defined, that is all it is. When sentient beings do not have that, they suffer; when they do they don't.

gad rgyangs said:
I have never seen a sentient being that didn't suffer at least some of the time, regardless of what kind of cognitions they have or don't have. It is part of the job description.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, being a sentient being involves suffering. The question before is whether suffering [duḥkha] can be considered pervasive, extending even to conditioned phenomena. The Buddha thought so, and labeled this the suffering [duḥkha] that pervades the conditioned [ saṁskāraduḥkhatā ]. He identified the suffering of change [ vipariṇāmaduḥkhatā ] as any pleasant condition such as health, happiness, and so on that was impermanent. Why? So that people could understand what duḥkha was. As Maitreya says, there isn't even a pinprick of happiness in the three realms.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The secret name of the suffering of change is sukha.

gad rgyangs said:
then its a truly delicious masochism.


Malcolm wrote:
Only if you are attached to happiness.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 12:19 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The idea that our sense cognition are automatically perceptions of "suchness" has been refuted many times by the Buddha in many sutras, so no need to repeat them here.

gad rgyangs said:
suchness is not dependent on one's cognitions or one's recognition in any way. Thats the beauty of it. true and false cognitions are just clouds passing in the sky.

Malcolm wrote:
Ultimate truth however is just the object of a correct cognition, that is how it is defined, that is all it is. When sentient beings do not have that, they suffer; when they do they don't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
all anyone ever experiences is ultimate truth, they just don't recognize it.

Malcolm wrote:
Just that nonrecognition is relative truth because it is by definition a false cognition grounded in ignorance.

gad rgyangs said:
...which is itself already ultimate truth.

Malcolm wrote:
Well, not really, not according to the definition. But you know this, and you have your problems accepting Buddhist teachings and have for years, as anyone who follows your posts knows.

The idea that our sense cognition are automatically perceptions of "suchness" has been refuted many times by the Buddha in many sutras, so no need to repeat them here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 11:26 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
If happiness is interspersed with dukkha, another level of dukkha will be our gut feeling that the happiness we are enjoying is bound to end, that it is not consummate and perfect, that simultaenously there are endless beings who lack that happiness, etc.

gad rgyangs said:
If dukkha is interspersed with happiness, another level of happiness will be out gut feeling that the suffering we are undergoing is bound to end, that it is not consummate and horrible, that simultaneously there are endless beings who lack that suffering, etc.

Malcolm wrote:
Any being who is possesses afflictions which causes rebirth in samsara is suffering by definition even if they are experiencing the most intense possible mundane bliss. Why? Because they will inevitably exhaust their merit and take rebirth in lower realms.

The secret name of the suffering of change is sukha.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:


lorem said:
But I still think he was right. If you have a genuine need for it the dakinis and dharmapalas will help.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they will not. If you are not a Vajrayāna practitioner (meaning that you maintained your samaya), they will not even heed you, let alone help you.

M

lorem said:
I think samaya though may be a little more complicated than just a definition. Case by case. I think that's why exceptions are was allowed.

There is a online teaching by HH Holiness that might clarify a little but I know you hold your view on samaya.

EDIT Not everything is at it appears

Malcolm wrote:
They are not my views. In any case, you can also read Kongtrul's Buddhist Ethics, where different approaches to samaya are evaluated and harmonized, but not one claims that one can hold samaya without an HYT empowerment of some kind. Empowerment is the sole entryway to Vajrayāna, this has been proclaimed in one voice by all the scholars of India and Tibet.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:


lorem said:
But I still think he was right. If you have a genuine need for it the dakinis and dharmapalas will help.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they will not. If you are not a Vajrayāna practitioner (meaning that you maintained your samaya), they will not even heed you, let alone help you.

M

lorem said:
I think samaya though may be a little more complicated than just a definition. Case by case. I think that's why an exception was allowed for H H Trijang Rinpoche.


Malcolm wrote:
Without empowerment, you cannot receive samayas. You need to read Sapan's Three Vows and Tsongkhapa's commentary on the Vajrayānamūlapatti. If you have no samaya, no wisdom protector from the tantras will give you aid, though of course, worldly protectors found in sūtra, etc., will.

I don't know what exception you are referring to regarding Trijiang Rinpoche.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 10:59 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
My question (not a rhetorical one!) was: is the suffering that we experience as we are resting in rigpa dukkha?

Malcolm wrote:
Dukkha is dukkha, it does not go away with awakening. Even if our dukha vanishes (and it can), there is still the dukha of others — and this the basis of Mahāyāna, the reason why in Mahāyāna there is the notion of a non-abiding nirvana where awakened people do not simply check out in a nirvanic cessation.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 10:44 PM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:


lorem said:
But I still think he was right. If you have a genuine need for it the dakinis and dharmapalas will help.

Malcolm wrote:
No, they will not. If you are not a Vajrayāna practitioner (meaning that you maintained your samaya), they will not even heed you, let alone help you.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Malcolm, the question I was trying to ask is: When we are resting in rigpa, there is no dukkha, right? Mahasukkha and dukkha cannot co-exist, can they?


Malcolm wrote:
Maybe for as long as it takes for an ant to crawl up the bridge of our nose.

Otherwise, who are we kidding? Well, ourselves for one, and definitely others.

The reality is that as long as we have impure vision, we are witnessing and experiencing suffering, both of ourselves and others. What is the basis for compassion in every Buddhist practice? The suffering or dukha of sentient beings. Does having pure vision mean having a fantasy about everything being pure? No, even if we have pure vision 24/7 we still must keep in mind that sentient beings including ourselves are under the power of affliction and karma.

Will we live forever? No. Will we get sick, die, etc. Yes. Will we be suffering? By definition, yes. Even if we are able to go beyond it through meditation, the very fact of conditioned existence is that it is suffering from top to bottom. Dzogchen is not a get out of jail free card. Dzogchen is the path of seeing how ignorance creates this state we live in, and then how to escape it. This is one of the reasons why in Dzogchen the prison metaphor is used so often.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 10:05 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Here is your "Dzogchen tawa"

treehuggingoctopus said:
What about the nonconceptual one?

Malcolm wrote:
It's no different than sūtra, in this respect. Only the path is different, but not the basic principles, as the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra indicates:
If someone does not dwell in words and does not dwell in names,
that is Prajñāpāramitā,
the transcendent state of buddhahood.
And:
Migrating beings are led with the noose of the method
to prajñā through concrete objects. 
Therefore, it is the Prajñāpāramita.
The vast dhatū of Samantabhadra
arises in the dharmatā of unceasing play. 
The dhātu of prajñā, the transcendent state, 
lacks attachment, the nature of grasping. 
Since it is nonconceptual, it is beyond speech and thought.
For example, like a magical apparition in the sky,
it is said to be free from the Dharma of expression.
Also the Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra:
Therefore, prajñāpāramitā cannot be spoken of, thought of, or expressed; not arising, unceasing, beyond thought, clearly knowing pure beneficial conduct.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
What about the Dzogchen tawa?

Malcolm wrote:
Here is your "Dzogchen tawa"
The generic basis is called “the basis of delusion” [28b]
because of ignorance and contamination.
Further, the object of knowledge itself appears tainted
because memory and thought arise in the mind.
The essence itself is contaminated by concepts
because the grasping aspect of the six minds is unceasing. 
Further, dharmakāya is bound by apprehension
due to being associated with subtle atoms.
Further, luminosity forms traces
due to the impure perception of the four conditions
And:
Having been joined with the ripening of karma, 
one takes bodies good and bad, 
one after another like a water wheel,
born into each individual class.
Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping, 
one sinks into the ocean of suffering
and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms.
One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy.
— String of Pearls Tantra


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
all anyone ever experiences is ultimate truth, they just don't recognize it.

Malcolm wrote:
Just that nonrecognition is relative truth because it is by definition a false cognition grounded in ignorance. Thus, while pretending to disagree, you actually agree.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 6:01 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Queequeg said:
Is it correct to understand that "sentient being" is a technical term? If yes, what is the Sanskrit/Pali term?

Malcolm wrote:
Sattva/satta

Queequeg said:
Can you explain how things possess the two natures? My understanding is that dharmas are empty, and so whether they are seen as they truly are or not is really located in the mind. Is there a sense in which the perception of thing is really the subject and object "meeting" half way?

Malcolm wrote:
Things have relative nature, how they appear as objects of [deluded] perceptions of an ordinary person; they have an ultimate nature, which is what an ārya perceives in equipoise, and what a buddha perceives at all times.

Candrakirti's explanation in the Madhyamakāvatāra, Introduction to Madhyamaka, can be perused with great profit.

No offense, but I find the writings of the Chinese masters too obtuse and round about in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Queequeg said:
Is it possible for a dharma to simultaneously be defiled and undefiled? What I mean by that is, and I don't mean to offend by this example, a shramana and an deeply deluded person encounter a beautiful deity who is teaching Buddhadharma. The Shramana sees the deity as a teacher and benefits from the teachings; the deluded person is overcome by lust for the deity compounding their delusions.

Or is that example flawed? Can you point out how.

Malcolm wrote:
Let me ask you, do you know what a path dharma is? If you don't, please review the 37 bodhipakṣa dharmas.

Queequeg said:
Is it possible to be a sentient being and not suffer, or is that an inherent quality of a sentient being?

Malcolm wrote:
As long as sentient being have afflictions which motivate actions, they will suffer. However, when a sentient beings is free of those afflictions, they are not really called sentient beings anymore. They are called āryas. Freedom, mokṣa, means being free of afflictions that cause rebirth in samsara, that is all it is. For as long as one takes afflictive rebirth in samsara, for that long one will experience suffering.


Queequeg said:
Am I correct to understand that the ordinary person's experience is wholly exclusive of the ultimate truth?  Is the obscuration something that blocks experience of ultimate truth, or is it something in the constitution that precludes the capacity?

Malcolm wrote:
Ordinary people never experience ultimate truth, if they do, they are not longer ordinary, having become āryas. Ultimate truth can be reasoned out, and inferred, and this is why it can be realized. However, ultimate truth is just the object of a correct cognition, just as relative truth is likewise the object of a false cognition. Since  ordinary sentient beings never have direct correct cognitions, they never experienced ultimate truth, ever, even though all things possess two natures, one relative, the other ultimate. But if someone does have a direct intuition of ultimate truth, that person has become a first stage bodhisattva [in the original Indian ten stage system, not the later Chinese 52 stage system].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 4:51 AM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:
rachmiel said:
Thanks for clarifying that.

lorem said:
It's empowerments that Lama Zhang didn't think you needed. He would watch an empowerment and then imitate it with results.

Malcolm wrote:
You will note that Lama Zhang does not have a lineage, nor a surviving school. Yes, his texts survive, but mainly as a curiosity.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 1:43 AM
Title: Re: Tilopa's Six Advices
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
"conditioned existence" is not reducible to 'suffering', despite what some buddhist traditions may say.

Malcolm wrote:
You mean, "...despite what the Buddha said."

Good luck with that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Response: it very much depends on what you mean by identical. Fire and water are identical in so far as they are both conditioned, they are not identical in so far as their properties are concerned.

Jikan said:
OK.  Let's assume we have a dozen ordinary sentient beings, then.  What do they have in common?  Their afflictions--they are all equally afflicted (equal in kind), but unequally afflicted (unequal in quality).

But let's assume that one out of those dozen is not ordinary at all, but is a realized being.  What differentiates that being from the other eleven, if anything?  If different, what is the nature of that difference?  If the same, are all twelve equally realized or equally samsaric or...?

I'm putting it this way because I think the divergences in view we see in this thread go back to these questions, and a little more clarity wouldn't hurt.

Malcolm wrote:
This is elementary, this is why the Uttaratantra states:
Wayward common people 
see the opposite of the truth;
while tathāgatas are without proliferation,
unmistaken about how things are. 
Respectively, the impure, the pure and impure, 
and the very pure, 
are called sentient beings, bodhisattvas
and tathāgatas.
Thus the difference between sentient beings, bodhisattvas and buddhas is their respective insight in the nature of reality, and that is all.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 8th, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Jikan said:
I agree with Queequeg that there's a lot more going on in Zhiyi's discussion of the Four Truths than just emptiness--and that the "lot more" is the most interesting part.  I just wanted to highlight that it was there and not negated in the perfect teaching.

A few questions follow from that.  First:  Are beings who have completely realized the perfect teaching identical to those who have not realized it--who don't "get it"?

If not, what differentiates beings who have fully integrated the view of the perfect teaching from ordinary sentient beings who are stuck to the wheel--reproducing it in themselves and through their actions?

If they are already identical, then what?


{I'm not calling Queequeg out with these questions--I mean them for everyone to discuss or not.]

Malcolm wrote:
Response: it very much depends on what you mean by identical. Fire and water are identical in so far as they are both conditioned, they are not identical in so far as their properties are concerned.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 11:01 PM
Title: Re: Different Kinds of Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Phase four comes about when RIgzin Tsewang Norbu a Nyingma abbot, terton and scholar who lived in the 18th century sought to revive Kalacakra and received Kalacakra from the Jonangpas surviving in central Tibet. He passed them onto Situ Panchen, who established both the gzhan stong view as well as the Dro system of Kalacakra at Palpung.

The basis difference among these different species of gzhan stong has to do with how whether one follows in the footsteps of Jonang, or Shakya Chogden.

M

conebeckham said:
Well, The current interest in Shentong is almost entirely due to the writings of Kongtrul, so I'd say that is Phase Five--in some sense, the phase we are currently in.  Of course, he was disciple of Situ Panchen at Palpung. When it's taught these days, Kongtrul's texts and commentaries are the ones that are most often used in the Kagyu lineage, at least.   But I believe, also, Khyentse Wangpo was a Shentongpa, was he not?

Also, Kongtrul is considered to be the Tulku of Jetsun Taranatha (amongst others, of course).

It would be interesting to explore further any relationship between the presentation of Shentong and the Tantric view espoused in Kalacakra, too.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, but Kongtrul largely follows Shakya Chogden, and not Dolbupa and Taranatha, even though he gives lip service to both of the former, what he actually presents is more consistent with Chogden.

Some people might say that Khyentse was a gzhan stong pa, but I wouldn't. His take on the treatises of Maitreya is that they concerned luminosity and the treatises of Nāgārjuna concerned emptiness. Since these two are actually synonymous from a Sakya point of view, I don't think you can call Khyentse a gzhan stong pa. He instead presents the Sakya position in a text called The Madhyamaka Instructional Manual that Harmonizes the Two Traditions, "meaning Nāgārjuna and Maitreya.

When considering the point of view of Maitreya, he states that in this system, the wisdom at the time of the basis, the luminous original nature of the mind, is the basis of samsara and nirvana. He says:

"The non-recognition of that, which manifests the appearances of dualistic delusions along with their latent traces, is this connate ignorance that is the root of the samsara. Therefore, it is very important to cut the root of this and and dissolve it into the dharmadhātu."

He identifies this wisdom or pure consciousness, the luminous nature of the mind, as the dharmadhātu. In reference to the much discussed moon metaphor, he states:

"The luminous original nature of the mind free from free from dualism is clear like a moon disc, is non-conceptual and exists in one's heart."

He never discusses this in terms of the three natures and so on, which is characteristic of gzhan stong in general, and the basis for most criticism of gzhan stong, incidentally.

When he does talk about gzhan stong, he discusses it in a series of texts I call "Three Madhyamaka views." he says:
The is the position of the great omniscient Jonang pa is discussed briefly, ultimate truth is without arising or perishing, unconditioned and beyond dependent origination. Relative truth has the character of arising and perishing, depends on cause and conditions and is conditioned.
When he presents the Sakya view, it is identical to his presentation in The Madhyamaka Instructional Manual that Harmonizes the Two Traditions.

So while Khyentse was broadminded, and so on, his own views are in line with the Sakya Gongma.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 7:14 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Queequeg said:
What is the view of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra in Indo-Tibetan circles?

Malcolm wrote:
It depends. Those who follow classical Madhyamaka tend to regard it as a secondary text. The main interpretation of it found in the Uttaratantra is what is followed by most Tibetans. There is a lot of debate about how that former text is to be understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Queequeg said:
Is it a false assumption that the Buddha's spiritual struggle took place at a particular historical time and place in which there was, more or less, this idea of the cycle of samsara? I have a very hard time imagining that his teachings would have arisen without the particular circumstances of his lifetime. Certainly possible.

Bakmoon said:
Just because something is developed within a particular context doesn't automatically mean that it is limited to that context.

Malcolm wrote:
This would have to suppose that this thing that is developed can be distinguished from its causes and conditions... and that's not possible, right? That's basic madhyamika.[/qupte]

Buddha notes that he did not invent the Dharma, but that he merely rediscovered it. Causes and conditions were favorable for a Buddha to arises to teach that Dharma, but principles like the 4NT are universal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
existence is purity, bliss, self, and eternal.

Queequeg said:
Have you encountered this doctrine before?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, in nonbuddhist schools who suffer from wrong views.

There are many eternalist positions in Chinese Buddhism that would never have come to pass if the Chinese understood the range of nonbuddhist views in India. But because they did not, many of these eternalist doctrines developed with Chinese Buddhism, especially with regards to the tathāgatagarbha teachings.

Wether you are accurately reflecting Chih I's views is another matter altogether but claiming that existence is pure, etc., is laughable and shows that a bit of study of Abhidharma might be in order here.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Queequeg said:
existence is purity, bliss, self, and eternal.
Good luck with that.
What do you mean?

Malcolm wrote:
What I mean is that existence [bhāva] impure, suffering, nonself and impermanent. Seeing the impure as pure and so on is a large part of the fact that sentient beings are caught in samsara.

So good luck with the conceptual proliferation that existence is purity, bliss, self, and eternal.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Queequeg said:
On the dukkha of fabrication - If there is no one around when a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise?

Malcolm wrote:
Whether there is someone around or not, the impermanence of trees, rocks, houses, planets, suns, galaxies and universe is all suffering of the conditioned.

As to your other point, that idea that all one's activities while a common sentient being are buddhaactivities leads to such corruptions as the Japanese Buddhist involvement in WWII.

While it is certainly true that Buddhas only see other Buddhas, we can't even perceive most sentient beings, let alone any Buddhas. Why? We have impure vision because we are contaminated with afflictions.

Queequeg said:
existence is purity, bliss, self, and eternal.

Malcolm wrote:
Good luck with that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Bakmoon said:
There's another point I'd like to make as well. You say:
As for the three aspects of dukkha - it doesn't alter my point - all three aspects have to do with subjective experience.
Just because something is subjective in the sense of being experienced doesn't mean that it is subjective in the sense of being purely a matter of personal opinion. If this weren't the case that would mean that one couldn't say anything objective whatsoever about anything involving the mind. If someone were to claim that it is not objectively true that emotions exist because they are part of personal experience, would anyone take them seriously? It can be objectively true that something is a part of experience, and that doesn't make it any less objective.


Malcolm wrote:
Another additional point is that they are the truths of nobles, not noble truths, because this is the truth that all awakened people see regardless of where they are on the path and regardless of which bodhicitta aspiration they have formed.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Queequeg said:
As for the three aspects of dukkha - it doesn't alter my point - all three aspects have to do with subjective experience.

Malcolm wrote:
No, the third form of suffering has nothing to do with personal experience, it has to do with fundamental nature of conditioned phenomena that are phenomena which belong to the path. In other words, only dharmas that belong to the path are conditioned-undefiled. All other conditioned phenomena are defiled by definition, hence they are dukha.

Queequeg said:
Calling everything Dukkha is not an attempt to describe the world in the manner of scientific inquiry.

Malcolm wrote:
When you are sick, you go to a doctor, he finds the cause. Since there is a cause, the illness can be pacified. There is a treatment for it.

The four truths of nobles are precisely such a heuristic. When you are a sentient being, you are suffering. The Dharma explains why, and how to remove it, promising that one can transcend the causes of that state.

However if you don't take your medicine nor listen to the Buddha, your illness will not be cured nor will you ever be free of suffering.

Queequeg said:
As such, its not that the True Aspect of Reality (Paramartha Satya) is essentially dukkha, but because of a fundamental nescience, our experience of the True Aspect of Reality is dukkha. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think any of you fine pious folk would disagree.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no way an experience of ultimate truth causes suffering. But ordinary people never have that experience, that is why they suffer. When they do have that experience, as bodhisattvas in the first bhumi, their suffering still exists, but for them it is now like a dream or an illusion. Further, they can then eradicated the obscurations to full buddhahood.

Queequeg said:
My understanding is that this is accounted for in the acknowledgment of Pratyekabuddhas who come to right view without Dharma taught by the Buddha.

Malcolm wrote:
Pratyekabuddhas always have come into contact with a buddha's teaching, but they aspire to achieve nirvana in a place where a buddha has not taught.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Different Kinds of Shentong
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Phase four comes about when RIgzin Tsewang Dorje, a Nyingma abbot, terton and scholar

mutsuk said:
You mean Kah thog Rig 'dzin Tshe dbang nor bu (1698-1755), right ?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, that was a typo...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, November 7th, 2014 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Different Kinds of Shentong
Content:
Bakmoon said:
Besides the Jonang school, the Kagyu school also has Shentong teachings, and also some Nyingmapas follow some form of Shentong (I've heard in some places that Ju Mipham was a Shentongpa for example, but I don't know how true that is). Could someone give a summary of how Shentong is presented and what the major differences between them of Shentong are in these different traditions?

Malcolm wrote:
The origins of gzhan stong lie in the master Tsan Kawoche. He received teachings on the six limb yoga of Kalacakra from Somanatha (though apparently the translator was not good, and he did not understand Sanskrit). The lineage of instructions of this view eventually came down to Dolbupa, who gave the first formal voice to gzhan stong teachings. They were very popular for roughy 150 years and stimulated a lot of controversy because of Dolbupa's very literal reading of many passages in sutra and tantra and unique approach to Buddhist history.

His views were hotly contested by many scholars in Sakya especially, and also in Gelug.

This is phase one.

Phase two begins with Shakya Chogden, a Sakya scholar (15th century) who took a revolutionary (for Tibet) approach to Madhyamaka and tried to reconcile the views of the Yogacara and Madhyamaka, in some of his writings declaring them both definitive.

This is phase two.

Phase three consists of Jonang Taranatha's reply to various formulations of gzhan stong view, as well as rejecting arguments against Dolbupa in particular.

This is phase three.

Phase four comes about when RIgzin Tsewang Norbu a Nyingma abbot, terton and scholar who lived in the 18th century sought to revive Kalacakra and received Kalacakra from the Jonangpas surviving in central Tibet. He passed them onto Situ Panchen, who established both the gzhan stong view as well as the Dro system of Kalacakra at Palpung.

The basis difference among these different species of gzhan stong has to do with how whether one follows in the footsteps of Jonang, or Shakya Chogden.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: can buddhist smoke anerican spirit organic ciggeretes
Content:
LastLegend said:
I will not argue, I will smoke and I will quit one day. I don't care what you say or what anybody says. Can you be more Zen than that?


Malcolm wrote:
Well, if you like inhaling Lead and Polonium 210 and spreading it around for other people to inhale, go for it —‚ but it hardly seems like bodhisattva activity to me to knowingly spread radioactive contaminates where other people can inhale them.

LastLegend said:
How many people are exposed to radioactivity in cigarettes?

According to the American Lung Association, there are about 48 million adult smokers in the U.S., and 4.8 million adolescent smokers. This means that the U.S., population, directly exposed to radioactivity in cigarette smoke, is approximately 53 million.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 80 percent of adult tobacco users started smoking as teens; 35 percent had become daily smokers by age 18. Thirty nine percent of adult smokers smoke one pack of cigarettes per day, and 20% smoke more than a pack a day.

Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S., with 443,000 deaths, or 1 of every 5 deaths, in the United States each year. And, there are 123,000 lung cancer deaths annually attributed to smoking cigarettes. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking, more than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

In addition to smokers, those exposed to secondhand or side-stream smoke have been shown to risk disease as well. In some studies, it has been found that side-stream or secondhand smoke is two to five times more concentrated in some carcinogens than the mainstream smoke inhaled by a smoker. Each year, approximately 3,400 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing the smoke of others’ cigarettes. Environmental tobacco smoke also causes an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers. Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds, including 69 known carcinogens such as formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, benzene, and radioactive polonium 210.

How does radioactive material get into a cigarette?

The tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive material, particularly lead-210 and polonium-210. The radionuclide content of tobacco leaves depends heavily on soil conditions and fertilizer use.

Soils that contain elevated radium lead to high radon gas emanations rising into the growing tobacco crop. Radon rapidly decays into a series of solid, highly radioactive metals (radon decay products). These metals cling to dust particles which in turn are collected by the sticky tobacco leaves. The sticky compound that seeps from the trichomes is not water soluble, so the particles do not wash off in the rain. There they stay, through curing process, cutting, and manufacture into cigarettes.Lead-210 and Polonium-210 can be absorbed into tobacco leaves directly from the soil. But more importantly, fine, sticky hairs (called trichomes) on both sides of tobacco leaves grab airborne radioactive particles.

For example, phosphate fertilizers, favored by the tobacco industry, contain radium and its decay products (including lead-210 and polonium-210). When phosphate fertilizer is spread on tobacco fields year after year, the concentration of lead-210 and polonium-210 in the soil rises.

Malcolm wrote:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html

So I guess it really depends on how much you care about yourself and how much you care about others.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
From having attended his retreats, read his books, watched his videos I can say that the only kinda sorta problem I have with Anam Thubten's approach is that he tends to use carrots to inspire his students. Enlightenment is the biggest and juiciest. Ground of being could be another.


Malcolm wrote:
The basis is our actual state. Buddhahood is the full realization of that state. The path is the slow integration of that state into our experience until we are done.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 9:20 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Queequeg said:
You might even find compelling resolutions to problems that have persistently surfaced over the centuries in Buddhist discourse.


Malcolm wrote:
Such as?


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Then you may not have taken the Buddha's teachings entirely to heart.

Queequeg said:
How is something like that constructive?

Malcolm wrote:
It is a question we should be constantly asking ourselves.

Queequeg said:
...The whole world is marked by suffering/suckiness. What does that mean precisely, except that one is proposing a universal framework in which to subjectively view everything. Dukkha, Dukkha, Dukkha... Take everything and see it as this single flavor of suck. Problematize everything. Why? Because you can't have a solution without a problem.

Malcolm wrote:
Three kinds of suffering were identified by the Buddha: the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change and the suffering of the conditioned. The first refers to the actual experience of pain and misery, etc. The second refers to the impermanence of all positive circumstances. The third refers to the very impermanence of condition phenomena itself. Do you see anything left out?

Queequeg said:
...what he was selling only really is effective if you agree to see things the way he wants you to see them.

Malcolm wrote:
Hence my comment about whether or not you have really taken the Buddha's teachings to heart, no excuses, no ifs, ands or buts.

Queequeg said:
I'm not an expert on Pali or Sanskrit, so I have no idea if dukkha actually refers to a quality of subjective experience, but the term "suffering" certainly does.

Malcolm wrote:
Dukha has its roots in the notion of a wheel that does not turn properly on its axle.

Queequeg said:
If everything is suffering, then photosynthesis is suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it is — it is part of the suffering of the conditioned and the suffering of change.

Queequeg said:
We're considerably expanding the meaning of suffering when we characterize a process in a plant as suffering. How about convection currents in the ocean? That's suffering, too? How about atomic fusion?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, all conditioned phenomena apart from path dharmas are suffering or conducive to suffering — this is why the Buddha says "all contaminated phenomena are suffering".

Queequeg said:
Bringing all this under the category of "Suffering" is then redefining this term that is commonly understood to refer to a particular mode of experience into a reference to the perpetual motion of everything. But that's not really what the Buddha was talking about - he was addressing people's experience of the perpetual motion, and specifically addressing the dissatisfaction in having to deal with all this change.

Malcolm wrote:
However you want to translate dukkha is fine, but generally, it is translated as "suffering", which means "to bear from below", with the obvious allusion. When you look at the Monier-Williams, it has a range of meaning of uneasy , uncomfortable , unpleasant , difficult, pain , sorrow , trouble, etc. Whether you call it suffering, pain, etc., it has the same meaning — there is no happiness anywhere in the three realms. The only way to be truly happy is to be free the from afflictions that cause rebirth in samsara.

Queequeg said:
If you don't start out thinking this is suffering, though, there is no suffering to neutralize.

Malcolm wrote:
And so worldly people continue to take rebirth in samsara because they do not recognize suffering as suffering.

Queequeg said:
There are plenty of people who never expected anything of life and wouldn't call it suffering.

Malcolm wrote:
"Ignorance is bliss".
A so called "Buddhist" school that abandons the core tenets the Buddha taught is no longer Buddhist.
Where did the Buddha demand faith in rebirth? I don't recall it.
A number of places, do your research.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
monktastic said:
What was this about? Eckhart Tolle?

"[Candice O'Denver] is not an eckhart, or a hafiz, or a maharshi."
"I have no idea, but these three are clearly spiritual geniuses."

(Links redacted in advance to That Forum That Shall Not Be Named)

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, yes, sure, in their respective traditions, of course. I did not mean that I personally derive any spiritual sustenance from these people.

Once again, context is everything.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
This was before he actually met K, I think.

Malcolm wrote:
Considering how he reacted to Krishnamurti, we can only imagine how he would have reacted to Eckhart, but I doubt it would have been good.

dzogchungpa said:
Nice.

I do believe a certain Gemini once said that Eckhart was clearly a spiritual genius.

Malcolm wrote:
That was not me. I have never read him.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
This was before he actually met K, I think.

Malcolm wrote:
Considering how he reacted to Krishnamurti, we can only imagine how he would have reacted to Eckhart, but I doubt it would have been good.

The point of course is that the one person's opinion of another persons the former does not know is rather hollow and not really indicative of anything about the latter.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 4:20 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
(Btw, while I am generally inclined to believe that it is much better to leave the core Dzogchen terms untranslated, it may be worth recalling here that Tillich took Urgrund from Boehme who had taken it from Eckhart and other Rheine mystics. And if you read Eckhart closely, his Urgrund is not quite the Absolute of an eternalist. Nor is his 'being' necessarily 'real' in the sense Prasangikas find offensive. Just saying.)

dzogchungpa said:
From http://www.chronicleproject.com/shenpen_hookham.html: I remember telling Trungpa Rinpoche at Samye Ling, at a personal interview, that I didnt know anything about Buddhism, so what should I read. He suggested I read Krishnamurti and Meister Eckhart.


Malcolm wrote:
Funny, considering his opinion of Krishnamurti...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
And for those who lack that fundamental trust but need to obtain, or discover, or even experience, *Something* that comes with emphasis and a capital S, the disappointment will probably not be ecstatic, alas.

Thanks for the quote - which also shows that as far as Anam Thubten's notion of Urgrund goes, he is far from having fallen prey to an eternalist heresy, doesn't it?

Malcolm wrote:
You will note that I never supposed that AT held such a view, merely that he naively uses a term from Christian theology which should not be used in Dzogchen specifically, and Buddhism in general.

treehuggingoctopus said:
I wasn't accusing you - or anybody else, for that matter - of claiming that AT holds eternalist views. Just happy to know he does not.

(Btw, while I am generally inclined to believe that it is much better to leave the core Dzogchen terms untranslated, it may be worth recalling here that Tillich took Urgrund from Boehme who had taken it from Eckhart and other Rheine mystics. And if you read Eckhart closely, his Urgrund is not quite the Absolute of an eternalist. Nor is his 'being' necessarily 'real' in the sense Prasangikas find offensive. Just saying.)

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, it is not the GERMAN that has the negative connotations, it is the ENGLISH that does.

"Urgrund" in German, as I understand it, does not necessarily have the same connotation as "ground of being" does in English. I am making a comment about English usage. The term "ground of being" really is not attested to before the translation of Tillich into English.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
And for those who lack that fundamental trust but need to obtain, or discover, or even experience, *Something* that comes with emphasis and a capital S, the disappointment will probably not be ecstatic, alas.

Thanks for the quote - which also shows that as far as Anam Thubten's notion of Urgrund goes, he is far from having fallen prey to an eternalist heresy, doesn't it?


Malcolm wrote:
You will note that I never supposed that AT held such a view, merely that he naively uses a term from Christian theology which should not be used in Dzogchen specifically, and Buddhism in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 2:01 AM
Title: The Truth of the First Noble Truth
Content:


Queequeg said:
So here is the problem I have with the First Noble Truth -it must be taken as an irreducible claim, along with a number of further assumptions, none of which I'm not entirely convinced about. "birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering"

Malcolm wrote:
Then you may not have taken the Buddha's teachings entirely to heart.

Queequeg said:
For one, suffering here is a qualitative, subjective characterization, which while a compelling one to an extent, is not necessarily true for everyone. There are many people who, though not enlightened by Buddhist standards, have reflected on their life, settled in equanimity, and come to a conclusion about all this - "Its life." Neither good, nor bad. It just is what it is. With that conclusion, they go on living in many different ways, taking the joys and sorrows, triumphs and tragedies, in stride. With the First Noble Truth undermined, the rest of it falls apart.

Malcolm wrote:
This is all just a mass of suffering.

Queequeg said:
We can add a footnote and say that suffering is a technical description of the unpleasant experience of perpetually changing circumstances, but that's still undermined by, "Its life." This is not even to mention people who have come to understand their own consciousness through the discoveries of neuroscience which is presenting a pretty compelling case that consciousness and everything that we think we are is a meta phenomena of brain circuitry.In this kind of context, "Life is Suffering", seems like an arbitrary assertion.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddha did not say "life is suffering", he said "sarva dukkham", everything is suffering.

Queequeg said:
Some thinkers have posited that you can't have Buddhism without belief in this model of samsaric existence.  I don't agree. Notwithstanding, a teaching that falls apart when certain unprovable assumptions are set aside is at a severe disadvantage in a claim to Truth. I don't think all Buddhist schools of thought are susceptible to this problem.

Malcolm wrote:
A so called "Buddhist" school that abandons the core tenets the Buddha taught is no longer Buddhist.

Queequeg said:
I previously referred to Nagarjuna and how he opened questions about the Four Noble Truths. He does a delicate dance in the Madhyamikakarika concerning people who use sunyata to undermine the Four Noble Truths. Maybe some people better versed in Madhyamika thought can correct me, but his response is appeal to the middle which is a dialectic tension settling on what amounts to the four noble truths as an expedient means (upaya). Are upaya Truths with a capital T? There's a whole body of discourse on this, and as best I can tell, there is no categorical answer Yes or no. Its "Yes, but..." or "No, but..."

Malcolm wrote:
He addressing the idea of inherency, not suggesting that it is all "upaya".

Queequeg said:
And then without even going deep into all the vertiginous logic of Madhyamika, we have pithy doctrines like "Samsara and Nirvana are coextensive." or "There are not two worlds, pure and impure." What does that mean for the Four Noble Truths?

Malcolm wrote:
Nāgārjuna address this as well "Samsara and nirvana, these two do not exist, instead, Nirvana is thorough knowledge of samsara."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 12:09 AM
Title: Re: Interview with Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje
Content:
lorem said:
Okay from Golden Letters looks like Dzogchen showed up in Tibet 3,600 years ago.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, this is what Bonpos believe, but since there are no Bonpo historical texts that can be dated earlier than early 11th century, (which make claims about things which happened four millennia ago) Bon claims about this are highly problematical.

In any case, this kind of thing comes down to a question of belief and religious authority.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, November 5th, 2014 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Help identifying prayer, Garchen Rinpoche Vajrakilaya 20
Content:
kng said:
Hi dharma friends

I would like to ask for your help in identifying prayer that is being sung from 02:25:25
Code: #
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/27098978
I would be very happy to have text of that prayer but I will be also very thankfull for only identifying it.

Thank you

heart said:
Melody sounds like the dewachen prayer ( http://www.tibetanlanguage.org/images/Free_Study_Aids/dewachen_prayer.pdf " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), but it is translated to english and probably longer.

/magnus

Malcolm wrote:
The Drikung in the US seem to use that melody all over the place.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
lorem said:
For anyone who ever stumbles on this thread we do love others and their religious beliefs.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, we have a soft spot in our hearts especially for those who engage in animal sacrifice (we do actually, but not for the practices themselves, but because such practices are filled with ignorance and lead people to lower realms).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Sherlock said:
Monism is eternalism, one of the mundane views Padmasambhava warned against in Garland of Views.


Malcolm wrote:
Pshaaaw, that is that old-fashioned Dzogchen, who would want anything to do with that? We like this new-fangled Dzogchen even if it is just warmed-over Hinduism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
This is a monistic presentation of reality. In some quarters this is heresy to the hilt. Q.E.D.

Malcolm wrote:
It really isn't.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
full glass.jpg
I really don't know why people are wasting their time and energy.


Malcolm wrote:
Agreed, I'm out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:


Son of Buddha said:
The False Self is the imputation of various false concepts to the True Self(saying the True self is an object, or personality)SO if one believes the True Self to be an object the size of the thumb....ect then This is called the false self/unholy self.

Malcolm wrote:
This terminology simple does not exist in this sutra and is of your own invention.

Son of Buddha said:
Glorious Great Seal Drop Tantra

Malcolm wrote:
This passage, from chapter seven of the Mahāmudratilaka tantra, concerns the completion stage and is not to be taken literally.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:24 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
But that doesn't mean that contemporary Nyingma orthodoxy (as per the Big Red Book) doesn't embrace it.

Malcolm wrote:
It doesn't. Since you don't read Tibetan texts, you really don't have any idea what "Nyingma" orthodoxy is. And it would be Rongzom, Longchenpa and Mipham, in that descending order.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 9:21 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
So what then differentiates your view from Advaita Vedanta or Samkhya yoga?

smcj said:
Little.

Malcolm wrote:
Thats' why I think you really do not understand Dzogchen, nor gzhan stong for that matter, much less Yogacara, Madhyamaka and so on.

But it is ok to be an eternalist, it's better than being a nihilist.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 6:34 AM
Title: Re: About the demon Mara
Content:
pemachophel said:
Thanks Malcolm for posting this.



Malcolm wrote:
Sure, this is an excellent little text, I mean to publish it some day.

Sherab Dorje said:
Do you mind if I steal it and translate it into Greek?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, since it is not complete. It is just a fragment.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
My dilettante's understanding is that this is a fairly modern interpretation/presentation of Dzogchen. If you want to stick with a more classical presentation that's ok too.

asunthatneversets said:
What is the basis for this theory of Atiyoga modernity leaning towards gzhan stong?

smcj said:
Well for one thing the whole "empty of other" view, regardless of sect, seems to have been a Tibetan development. It seems to have gained traction in the last few hundred years. Guy Newland has some YouTube videos that go over all that.

Malcolm wrote:
gZhan stong became popular in Karma Kagyu in the 18th century in eastern Tibet because Situ Panchen was  disciple of the abbot of Kathog, RIgzin Tsewang Norbu, who advised the former to adopt gzhan stong because it was more positive and therefore it would extend Situ Panchens' life. Because it was adopted by this powerful Karma Kagyu lama, gzhan tong was revived at Palpung near Dege, where Kongtrul studied. But of course this was not the gzhan stong of the Jonangpas, but was a rather modified version largely influenced by the Sakya master Serdog Panchen.

gzhan stong is not a heresy per se. It is regarded by many people as a mistaken way of presenting the two truths of Madhyamaka via the three natures of Yogacara.

Personally, I don't care what sutrayāna view people hold (Yogacara or Madhyamaka), because that is not the view with which Vajrayāna practitioners attain realization. The view Vajrayāna practitioners attain realization with is the experiential view inculcated during empowerment. It really does not matter much what one's intellectual predilections are (unless you are a Gelug, then it matters very much, as far as they are concerned) when it comes to Mahāyāna tenets (Yogacara or Madhyamaka) since they are somewhat irrelevant to the actual practice of Vajrayāna.

The real point in all of this is that there are some people who follow gzhan stong views who reify jñāna as something which truly exists, and this deeply contradicts Dzogchen view, as indicated by the opening passages of the Unwritten Tantra states:
Hey, hey, apparent yet non existent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated  pure consciousness; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, wisdom does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.
But you really cannot understand this without studying and practicing under a real master.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 6:05 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:


smcj said:
I understand Malcolm's resistance to all this. He sees it as a classic heresy.

Malcolm wrote:
I don't think it as a heresy at all. I just think that you really don't understand Dudjom Rinpoche's perspective at all because you have an emotional adherence to a philosophical view common these days among Karma Kagyus.

For example, the doctrine of tathāgatagarbha is found in both sūtra and Dzogchen. However, if you compared the actual doctrine of tathāgatagarbha in Dzogchen compared to that of sūtra you would scratch your head in astonishment.

Even though the teaching of tathāgatagarbha in Dzogchen radically goes beyond how it is presented in sūtra, nevertheless, the tathāgatagarbha sutra citations are used (especially by Longchenpa) as a preliminary step for preparing (intellectual) people to understand tathāgatagarbha in Dzogchen.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
As you know, since we have already discussed it elsewhere, Dudjom R. said that Madhyamaka was great for an intellectual approach to emptiness, and Great Madhyamaka/Shentong was good for discussing emptiness from a meditational/experiential perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
But it is still sutra.

smcj said:
According to D.R., Great Madhyamaka is not subject to intellectual analysis the way Prasangika Madhyamaka is, and is approached through faith. If you wish I will find the quote. It is a Google search away. But since you know about it already I don't see the reason to make the effort.

Malcolm wrote:
Have you actually examined the presentation of the two truths through the three natures advanced by gzhan stong pas? It is utterly absurd to claim that gzhan stong is immune from the charge of being an intellectual tenet system. If faith in gzhan stong is required, it is because very few people actually understand it, despite the legions of people who claim allegiance to it.

smcj said:
here is no "direct introduction" in Shentong.

Malcolm wrote:
That makes it intellectual and analytical.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I already explained this to you as well. He is not saying that the gzhan stong presentation of Madhyamaka is equivalent to Dzogchen. He is actually saying it is deficient and inferior.

smcj said:
Well, he does continue, and it is a little more nuanced. p.300 continues...:

Therefore, the conclusive intention of the the Two Promulgators actually abides without contradiction in the nature of the Great Perfection. This intention comprises the unaltered intention of the "Collection of Madhyamaka Reasoning", which consist of the commentaries on the intermediate promulgation by the sublime and supreme Nagarjuna; and his [Collection of Eulogies} including the "Eulogy to the Expanse of Reality", and the commentaries by the regent Maitreya, the sublime and supreme Asanga, and his brother [Vasubandhu] and so forth, which together form the intention of the final [promulgation]. If one were to ask why this is the case, it is because these masters did not claim anything other than the profound abiding nature of natural reality, and because the Great Perfection itself is none other than that.
(underlining mine)

In the footnotes it says the "Two Promulgators" are Nagarjuna and Asanga. Also I believe "Eulogy to the Expanse of Reality" has been translated into English as "In Praise of Dharmadhatu", which is a Shentong book.

As a Karma Kagyu I interpret what he just said to be akin to Kongtrul's position that any understanding of Shentong has to be predicated on an understanding of Madhyamaka, meaning that phenomena need to be seen as self-empty before you can see them as "images on the magic mirror".

Malcolm wrote:
1) It is not so simple to say that Dharmadhātustava is a 'gzhan stong' book, just like one cannot declare the Uttaratantra a "gzhan stong" book. For example:
Having abandoned concepts and investigation, 
the absence of the inherent existence of phenomena itself
is meditated as the dharmadhātu.
2) It is also not erroneous to state that the reality the Buddha describes in the sutra is the same reality presented in Dzogchen.

3) Therefore, your attempt to prove that Dudjom R's presentation subsumes his understanding of Dzogchen under gzhan stong is not proven, far from it.

What is at stake here is how that "natural reality" is to be experienced and realized. All approaches to the middle way in sutra, no matter whether you take Nāgārjuna or Maitryanatha's approach are analytical and intellectual, that is the problem with spros bral, gzhan stong, dge lug madhyamaka and so on — they are all analytical, philosophical approaches to reality. This is ultimately the difference between sutra and tantra, as the great translator Drogmi pointed, the view of sutra is intellectual, the view of mantra is experiential. Even if gzhan stong were the most refined, most detailed, highest, most sublime approach to sūtra, it would be still be intellectual and analytical and therefore quite coarse and inferior compared to the experiential view of mantra.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As I pointed out to you, when it comes to the nine yānas, each yāna has it's own view.

smcj said:
Yes! On pages 294-300 he goes through the lower 8 yanas and their views. What I just quoted on p. 300 is his view of Dzogchen specifically as juxtaposed with--and superior to--the lower 8 yanks. That view is what makes Dzogchen superior! (Hence the title of the chapter: Superiority of Atiyoga.)

Malcolm wrote:
I already explained this to you as well. He is not saying that the gzhan stong presentation of Madhyamaka is equivalent to Dzogchen. He is actually saying it is deficient and inferior.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 12:49 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Of course, Dudjom Rinpoche followed his own teachers in this respect, and he embraced the Karma Kagyu presentation of gzhan stong when it comes to the view of Madhyamaka.

smcj said:
Exactly. Like I said before; it is a more modern development.

Malcolm wrote:
What you are conflating however is Dudjom R.'s sutrayāna views with his Vajrayāna views. As I pointed out to you, when it comes to the nine yānas, each yāna has it's own view. In the Bodhisattvayāna Madhyamaka is considered the highest view. Then of course we can disagree about what Madhyamaka means, but it is very plainly stated in all Dzogchen texts that the view of Dzogchen surpasses the views of the eight lower yanas.

So while Dzogchen masters can argue about the various merits of this or that interpretation of Madhyamaka, in the end their view will be Dzogchen and not Madhyamaka, no matter whether they prefer gzhan stong Madhyamaka (Dudjom R, Kongtrul), Gelug Prasanga (Jigme Lingpa) or Pre-Gelug Prasanga (Longchenpa, etc.)  Gorampa (Khenpo Shenga, etc.) and the views of the eight lower yanas will always be subordinate to the view of Dzogchen in their eyes.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
From "The Big Red Book", the chapter on "Superiority of Atiyoga" (a.k.a. Dzogchen), p.300:

Now concerning this natural expression of the Great Perfection: The Sugata, during the intermediate promulgation of the transmitted precepts (a.k.a self-emptiness) did not reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, though he did extensively teach the inconceivable, abiding nature without referring to symbols of elaborate conception. And, during the final promulgation (a.k.a other-emptiness), though he did reveal the structure of the fundamental reality, he did not teach the characteristic path through which it is actualized.
(formatting mine)

So yes, Dudjom R. did not claim that his Great Madhyamaka/Shentong view was a path. It was just a view.

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what this passage means. It is not a reference to so called rang stong and gzhan stong.

It is a reference to the fact that tathagātagarbha teachings (a vital part of Dzogchen), according to Longchenpa, are part of the so called third turning of the wheel (a turning so important that it garners virtually no comments at all from the Indian authors preserved in the bstan 'gyur).

However, as I have pointed out, when the sole source (Samdhinirmocana sutra) for the notion of three turnings is actually examined, it is merely a restatement of the doctrine of the second turning in unequivocal terms.

However, Longchenpa never explains the tathagatagarbha according to the gzhan stong system, and he clearly explains the three own natures as belong to cittamatra which he considers inferior to Madhyamaka.

When he treats the issues of Madhyamaka and the tathāgatagarbha, he clearly states in the sgrub mtha' mdzod that Prasanga Madhyamaka is the definitive view of Mahāyāna and that the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras are the definitive sutras.

Of course, Dudjom Rinpoche followed his own teachers in this respect, and he embraced the Karma Kagyu presentation of gzhan stong when it comes to the view of Madhyamaka.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
lorem said:
Sky-gazing. Yell PHAT really loud and forceful then rest

alpha said:
No,... dont do that.

Malcolm wrote:
Seriously.  This place is becoming like a sandbox for children.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Tuesday, November 4th, 2014 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Of course. But his Great Madhyamaka/Shentong view was his presentation/interpretation for discussing meditational experiences. He said that self=emptiness was for intellectual applications. He did not limit his Great Madhyamaka interpretations to Mahayoga and Anuyoga meditational experiences. It is his Atiyoga positions too.


Malcolm wrote:
It was his presentation for sutra level meditational experience only. The funny of course is that the meditation experience under discussion is actually identical to the so called rang stong experience. It is only is post-equipoise intellectual discussion that one differentiates these two approaches (which actually have no validity outside the gzhan stong presentation).


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 11:48 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Lotus_Bitch said:
Dudjom Rinpoche had a preference for shengtong, but clearly, as was quoted in my post: he distinguishes the view of Dzogchen from sutra.

smcj said:
Of course.
He was an adherent of shengtong on the level of sutra only.
So you're saying that he backtracked to Yogacara with his Dzogchen view? Care to cite?

Malcolm wrote:
What I am saying is that there are different interpretations of sutra level Madhyamaka. His preference is gzhan stong, just as Jigme Lingpa's was Tsongkhapa's view. However, in terms of their ultimate view, both Dudjom Rinpoche and Jigme Lingpa were Dzogchenpas.

You are suffering from an idea promulgated amongst many non-Nyingmapas that there is no difference in view between sutra and tantra, and that the view of sutra that you have is the same view that you apply in tantra. But this is not true in the Nyingma school, where each of the nine yanas has its own view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 10:47 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Provisional, according to you.

Malcolm wrote:
Provisional according to the the Buddha in the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa sutra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
What sense does it make to establish suchness as a "self", someone's identity?

Son of Buddha said:
I didn't establish the True Self as someones Identity, nor do the Sutras.

Malcolm wrote:
First of all, the term "true self" as opposed to the "false self" does not occur in any Buddhist text. It is a pop Hindu terminology.



Son of Buddha said:
So if Substantial means that which is truly real, Truly existent, not illusory, Then yes Enlightenment/True Self is Substantial.

Malcolm wrote:
Substantial in this case means self held by non-Buddhists immediately preceding the passage you cite:


"...The self maintained by vulgar children is held to be the size of a thumb, the size a white mustard seed or the size of an atom. Since such a self was not mentioned by the Tathāgata, even though he explains that there is no self in phenomena, it is not that there is truly no self. The "self" is any dharma that is true, pure, permanently existing, independent, unchanging and undying, that is what is called "self", just as that great physician is skilled in using milk as medicine."

So, here the Buddha is not teaching a substantial self like the some other nonbuddhists do, as I said before.

The other important point is that Buddha taught selflessness in order to tame nonbuddhists. If you run around saying that Buddha taught a self, then how will nonbuddhists be able to distinguish the self they taught from the suchness as the real nature of phenomena? This is why even still, despite what provisional texts like the Nirvana sutra say, the central teaching of the Buddha is selfless of persons and phenomena.

People who run around saying that Buddha taught "enlightenment" as the "true self" really do a disservice to sentient beings who have not been cured of wrong views of the self. In fact the Buddha did not teach self or selflessness as a definitive teaching.

The Nirvana sutra's use of the term "self" is a play on words, where the meaning of atman as a transmigrating self (rejected by the Buddha) is contra posed with the meaning of atman as "nature" (emptiness, suchness, etc.). If however, one suggests that the meaning of this is all the qualities of Buddhahood fully exist from the beginning with the continuums of sentient beings, rather than as an inherent potential, then your position is no different than non-buddhists who assert a substantial self.

And anyway, we have already seen that the the Buddha defined self as jñāna, meaning the nature of consciousness itself.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 8:42 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
From p.8 of the "Early Buddhism and Mahayana" thread:
dzogchungpa said:
Was Dudjom Rinpoche a gzhan stong pa?

Malcolm wrote:
He was a gzhan stong pa, yes. But not really in the same way that Dolbupa was.
Yes, of course Dudjom R. promoted the Kongtrul version of the gzhan stong view, but that has nothing to do with Dzogchen. There is no "gzhan stong" Dzogchen. There is only Dzogchen, and it has its own view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
lorem said:
Just real quick what are the metaphysical thoughts Buddha said not to try to ponder?

Mkoll said:
Since no one's answered you, I'll give it a go from my more Theravada-inclined perspective. I'm aware this is the Nyingma forum, and I'm not sure if the Nyingma tradition also upholds these teachings.

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, it does. A total of three hundred and sixty incorrect positions are listed in such text as the Rigpa Rangshar, but only sixty of them are presented explicitly.

Mkoll said:
Further, samasara is as follows: [53/b]
false view and eternalist view.
The false vehicle is as follows:
held to be three hundred and sixty beliefs in a self.
Three hundred are explained  to be in the dhātu:
sixty are explained in the following way:
1) the Samkhya who speak falsely
2) the Vaiśeṣikas who advocate intrinsic causation
Kumārila the great and the advocates of deviation
holders of the treatises of Aviddhakarṇa
the Guhyas who rely on five fires
6) those who burn their bodies with sesame oil soaked ignited cotton
7) (and of) trident asceticism.
8) (There is) the asceticism of offering and gatherings
9) The asceticism of removing the flesh from the body
10) the conduct of appearing like a dog
Likewise, through a slight clairvoyance,
of how the blessings of the buddhas appear,
there is the practice of false asceticism.


The partial views are like so:
the view of a creator
taking the creator as the path
13) those who show the meaning of eternalism
14) those advocate unchanging permanence
15) those who advocate conditional permanence
16) those who advocate the cause as permanent
17) those who advocate the result as permanent
18) those who assert the path depends on permanence
19) those who assert conduct as eternal [54/a]
20) those who assert annihilation in which there is no ultimate eternity
21) those who have the aspect of eternalists

22) those who place importance on inauthentic evil mantras
23) those who place important on fortune-telling and divination
24) those who place importance on insignificant magic
those who rush into debate
those who practice asceticism
27) those who are attached to this world
28) those who are attached to their own activities
29) those who wear wool
30) those who wear cotton robes of invincibility
31) those who make insignia important
32) those who advocate depending on actions
33) those who refute others with their knowledge
34) those who advocate annihilation without a cause
35) those who advocate total voidness
36) those who advocate the view of the interrupted cause and interrupted result
37) those who advocate the interrupted path and interrupted wisdom
38) those who advocate great permanent annihilation
39) those who advocate the annihilationism of path, the permanent annihilation of the result
40) those who advocate the annihilationist view of false thinking
those who advocate the great void of annihilation.

42) There are the Vedantins advocating secrecy
43) the tīrthikās who deviate in equal ways
44) the  tīrthikās of mental appearances
45) the tīrthikās who grasp deluded vision
46) tīrthikās who generate hatred
47) tīrthikās whose claim mind has shape [54/b]
48) tīrthikās who say grasping is meaningless
49) tīrthikās of deviant claims,
50) tīrthikās who say permanence is meaningless,
51) Kani and 52) Mātsarya
53) Bhasira and 54) Kaśiśa
55) Saṃbhira and 56)Dhasiṅg
57) Kati and 58) Sangha
Śaṅgkari and 60) Dheśaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:


Sherab Dorje said:
—Thig-le kun-gsal chen-po’i rgyud

Malcolm wrote:
http://greatmiddleway.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/the-ground-of-all/ [/quote]

There is a reason why sems sde is considered inferior to man ngag sde.

Some Dzogchen tantras assert that the youthful vase body exist in the human body with tiny little eyes and so on. As I said, it is not easy to understand Dzogchen (not least of all because there are three main traditions, and each tradition has its own tantras and lineage, etc.)  and differentiate veiled rhetorical statements like the one cited here from the actual core of the teachings. Then of course, you have to ferret out why Longchenpa cites this text in his ngal gso skor gsum and so on. It is not sufficient to cherry pick a citation from a book loaded onto the web without attribution.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:


alpha said:
Does this mean that Elio has erroneous views ?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that.

alpha said:
Ok.You didnt ...
But do you agree with his views from the paragraph above ?

Malcolm wrote:
Not %100, mainly because it is a somewhat incomplete explanation and lacks important nuances, such as the fact that all the appearances of Mt. Meru, houses, trees, etc., arise from ignorance, from NOT recognizing one's basis.

In any case, getting at such nuances is really impossible here since a) a lot of people are just invested in their own trips and do not want to really understand Dzogchen b) they should really be understood from a qualified teacher.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:


alpha said:
Does this mean that Elio has erroneous views ?

Malcolm wrote:
I didn't say that.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 1:33 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
At the risk of being a bore and reposting the same quotes over and over:


Malcolm wrote:
You are just repeating over and over again your misconstrual of teachings you have never received and never practiced.

Over and out.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 12:42 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
As I have already written, there are many Dzogchen masters that have a different presentation/intepretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, they don't. But you really do not understand what you are reading because you are not very familiar with this tradition.

smcj said:
Well, be that as it may, you do. And elsewhere here at DW you've admitted that Dudjom R. held a Great Madhyamaka/empty of other view of Dzogchen.

Malcolm wrote:
I did no such thing. Dudjom Rinpoche, like Jigme Lingpa (an adherent of Tsongkhapa's interpretation of Madhyamaka) before him, did not conflate his preferred interpretation of Madhyamaka with Dzogchen and there are very important reasons for this.

Dudjom Rinpoche, like Jigme Lingpa, Longchenpa and so on before him, states very clearly that tenets like Madhyamaka and so on obscure the meaning of Atiyoga when he introduces the superiority of Atiyoga in the big red book.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Monday, November 3rd, 2014 at 12:06 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
As I have already written, there are many Dzogchen masters that have a different presentation/intepretation.

Malcolm wrote:
Actually, they don't. But you really do not understand what you are reading because you are not very familiar with this tradition.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
...

Malcolm wrote:
SMCJ, you simply do not understand what you are reading,

I will leave you this this statement by one of the most important masters of the Dzogchen tradition, Nyima Bum (12th century):

As such, because the basis, one’s unfabricated mind, arose as the essence of the sole reality, there is no need to search elsewhere for the place etc., i.e. it is called self-originated pristine consciousness [ye shes].


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 11:04 PM
Title: Re: Interview with Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje
Content:
lorem said:
Even Dolpopa and Tsongkhapa. Does it really matter from the side of a practitioner? I actually like Dolpopa's view but Tsongkhapa's rings true also. I've never thought it nihilistic as such. Just not conceptually available and who can describe the undescribable. Can't be put into words.

asunthatneversets said:
Tsongkhapa and Dolbupa represent both the main gsar ma views; (i) gelug, and (ii) gzhan stong. The rnying ma view that Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje is discussing is (iii) spros bral, which is different from Tsongkhapa's Gelug and Dolbupa's gzhan stong.

Malcolm wrote:
Huh?

Most Madhyamakas before Tsongkhapas time were spros bral pas, and the Sakya school still is representative of that view, as is Mipham and Khenpo Shengga (who both studied Madhyamaka with Sakyapas).

I would not say that the main gsar ma view is represented by Gelug and Jonang approaches, since the Kagyus in general (Karma, Drugpa, Drikung, etc.) are all over the place when it comes to how they understand Madhyamaka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 10:56 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
Something existed before sentient beings and mind entered the scene.

Malcolm wrote:
Short answer, no.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: A closer look into empowerments
Content:
Malcolm's said:
Any way, sutras do not require lungs.

lorem said:
Yes I agree but seen several instances of Gelukpa giving them.

Recording is still up for debate IMHO.


Malcolm wrote:
As to the first point, there is a lung for the whole of the bka' 'gyur and the bstan 'gyur, even so, sūtras do not require a lung to be read. Tantras, on the other hand, generally do, or at least one has to have had a major empowerment otherwise you are not supposed to even look at them, much less things like vajras and bells.

As to the second point, one cannot receive a lung from a recording. Why? Because mantras and so on cannot be transmitted this way. Believing that you can receive a lung from a recording is similar with believing that you can get light from a lamp without plugging it into a wall. There is no direct living connection with the source. This is why lungs and empowerments from recorded media are not valid means of transmission.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: A closer look into empowerments
Content:


lorem said:
The MP3 recording I feel is up for debate. Was Sutra yes. Was a lung. I was participating.

Malcolm wrote:
One cannot received a lung from a recording. Any way, sutras do not require lungs.

A lung is an authorization to read; no one needs permission to read a sūtra or even to recite the dharanis found therein.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 10:10 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
Does Buddhism discuss -- or even acknowledge -- that which is not of mind? Does it have a cosmology, an explanation for the nature of all that is?

Malcolm wrote:
Depends on what you mean. Buddhism maintains that the universe comes about again and again because the collective karma of all sentient beings.

In terms of the actual nature of things, Mahāyāna Buddhism explains that everything is empty, without self.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
And the nature of that which is not our minds ... is Buddhism interested in that?
Not sure what you mean.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 8:52 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:


Anders said:
So  basically, no good reason other than "The Buddha said it."

Malcolm wrote:
But the Buddha did not say it, because the Buddha, as Trungpa correctly observes, never taught any self that could be substantially established and merely used the term "self" as a rhetorical device.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 8:36 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to point to a moon that is right in front of your face. In other words, your approach is too intellectual. It is not grounded in experience. Animals have choiceless awareness, that is not what we are trying to discover.

rachmiel said:
What *are* we trying to discover?

Malcolm wrote:
The nature of our minds.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 8:27 PM
Title: Re: A closer look into empowerments
Content:
lorem said:
I would kneel down before His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Karmapa and swear that I received transmission of the Golden Light Sutra from Ven Kirti Tsenshab Rinpoche in the awake and dreaming states from MP3 audio.

Malcolm wrote:
It's a sūtra, it does not have a formal transmission as in Vajrayāna.

lorem said:
I just remember H E Garchen Rinpoche saying that no matter what anyone thought on this subject to please leave his students alone or something similar.

Malcolm wrote:
No one is hassling Garchen Rinpoche's students and I personally have nothing but the highest respect for Garchen Rinpoche, having received empowerments from him in person.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: A closer look into empowerments
Content:
Jikan said:
We thought it appropriate that Khenpo's email should basically have the last word.

Malcolm wrote:
In this case it was an evasion, and I can understand why, since the correct answer is actually no, one cannot receive an empowerment from a recording.

Privileging someone's answer because of their title, in absence of any clear scriptural precedent or reasoning is pretty lame.


T. Chokyi said:
It would follow then that you can't give a or receive a transmission in the dream state either, yet Nyala Rinpoche Rigdzin Changchub Dorje told CHNN when CHNN asked for transmission that he had been given the transmission already by dream, it was given in a dream before they met, only thing is CHNN had his own doubts about receiving it that way why? because it was not "his dream". CHNN gives this true story many times during Open Webcast as you know.

Malcolm wrote:
The key difference, of course, is that a recording is an inert pattern stored on a hard disk somewhere, and Chanchub Dorje was a fully realized person. The Buddhas see sentient beings as Buddhas, but we still need to do our own work and wake up to our own nature. The Buddhas cannot "give" us empowerments that we are not aware of. Empowerments are not given, they are received. That means active participation by two people at the same time. And as you know, ChNN himself has stated numerous that empowerments and introductions and even lungs cannot be received from recordings.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 8:19 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
As we can see, we do not need to take the Buddha literally on the point of the self, because if we did, we would be left with the negative consequence that we should all have all the perfect qualities of buddhas and bodhisattvas present fully formed in our mind streams. Anyone can see this is not so.


This naturally pure basic constituent of a one-gone-thus, ultimate
truth, thusness, has no previously existent flaws of afflictions to
be removed because freedom from all adventitious defilements.
from. the start is its nature,
And similarly it does not have the least factor of qualities of.purification
to be set up because the status of the ultimate qualities
of the powers and so forth being spontaneously established from
the start and being indivisible is its nature.

The Buddha Nature is the very nature of all living beings, for the Buddha this nature is Fully realized(Pure Enlightenment with no flaws nor marks of the 3 poisons, greed anger or ignorance)

For Samsaric beings This very nature(Buddha Nature) resides in all of us in its pure "form" naturally perfect(our true nature our true self), yet it is obscured by adventious defilements that make up and constitute a living samsaric being.

So what it comes down to is (1) Enlightenment in its perfect state with no defilements obscuring it.(BuddhaHood)
and (2) Enlightenment in its perfect state with defilements obscuring it(Samsaric beings)

The thusness that itself abides as the fruit of purification in a
buddha abides as the basis of purification in sentient beings, and the thusness
that itself abides as the basis of purification in sentient beings abides as
the fruit of purification in a buddha because with respect to the thusness of
sentient beings and of buddhas there is not the slightest difference of entity,
just as there is not the slightest difference in entity in the space pervading all
of where there are and are not clouds. Hence, the naturally pure thusness is,
due to the person, together with defilement and also without defilement
and is, due to the person, the basis of purification and also the fruit of purification.
Consequently, it is necessary to become skilled in the profound
essentials of flawless non-contradiction.(Dolpopa)

Malcolm wrote:
What sense does it make to establish suchness as a "self", someone's identity?

Nāgārjuna:
Whatever is the nature of the Tathāgāta,
that is the nature of the world;
Since the Tathāgata has no nature,
the world too has no nature.
Yiou can say, as Candrakīrti does, that this naturelessness is a nature, you can say that tathāta, śunyatā, dharmatā, etc., are all pure, free of affliction from the beginning, etc. But since they are not substantially established, calling them a "self" is merely a Buddhist rhetorical device to frame the substantially established self of the non-Buddhists as a falsity.


Son of Buddha said:
So Trungpa is perfectly in accord with the Buddha because the way some people these days present the teachings of the Buddha in the Nirvana sutra is quite distorted, presenting the teaching of the Nirvana Sutra in the manner of the worldly interpretation of permanence, bliss, self and purity and leading others astray.
M
Define what the worldly interpretation of this view is?

Malcolm wrote:
[/quote]

As above, that the self taught in the Nirvana sūtra is a substantially established self, rather than a mere rhetorical device.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Polygamy / Polyandry & Buddhism
Content:
Zhen Li said:
So what's the conclusion? Is Polygamy and Polyandry acceptable in Buddhism?


Malcolm wrote:
Completely acceptable. Buddha had many wives, and in some parts of Central Tibet, several brothers will marry one woman.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
A pointer needs to signify on some level for the pointee, or it is of no use. If you point at the moon, I need to have a clue that you are pointing to ... the moon, rather than pointing arbitrarily, to nothing that I can see/feel.

Malcolm wrote:
Then for you it is useless to discuss this on the internet. You need to find this out directly from your teacher. If it is important to you, then you will make the effort, otherwise, you are wasting people's valuable time.

rachmiel said:
Woah! Your pointer doesn't happen to speak to me. Plenty of others do. If I'm wasting your valuable time, please feel free to not invest any more in this thread.


Malcolm wrote:
There is no need to point to a moon that is right in front of your face. In other words, your approach is too intellectual. It is not grounded in experience. Animals have choiceless awareness, that is not what we are trying to discover.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014 at 1:23 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
What I meant was: I didn't understand Malcolm's pointer. "Don't correct thoughts" doesn't do anything for me, it just sits there.

Malcolm wrote:
That is what it is supposed to do (the mind), it just sits there without being altered or corrected in anyway.

rachmiel said:
A pointer needs to signify on some level for the pointee, or it is of no use. If you point at the moon, I need to have a clue that you are pointing to ... the moon, rather than pointing arbitrarily, to nothing that I can see/feel.


Malcolm wrote:
Then for you it is useless to discuss this on the internet. You need to find this out directly from your teacher. If it is important to you, then you will make the effort, otherwise, you are wasting people's valuable time.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 11:30 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
Good one!

What I meant was: I didn't understand Malcolm's pointer. "Don't correct thoughts" doesn't do anything for me, it just sits there.

Malcolm wrote:
That is what it is supposed to do (the mind), it just sits there without being altered or corrected in anyway.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
Please elaborate.


Malcolm wrote:
For example, when sitting in meditation, you hear someone mowing the lawn, you don't try to block out the sound, you do not try to focus on your breath for example, to lessen the distraction, you don't follow the distraction of the lawn mower, you just sit there without trying to change your thoughts or block your thoughts. In other words, you leave your mind unmodified. When you do so the distraction of the sound of the lawn mower will disappear.

For example, you smell nice incense in the shrine room, yo do not you don't try to block out the smell, you do not try to focus on your breath for example, to lessen the distraction, you don't follow the distraction of the scent, you just sit there without trying to change your thoughts or block your thoughts. In other words, you leave your mind unmodified. When you do so the distraction of the scent will disappear.

etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
How does one "leave mind alone?"

Mind is all we see, know, experience ... right?

Malcolm wrote:
You don't try to correct your thoughts.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Title: Re: Sapan and Gampopa
Content:
lorem said:
Why do he and others hold the view that pointing out instructions are valid only if one has abisheka?

Malcolm wrote:
That is not what he is saying. He is saying that pointing out instructions do not have the ability to ripen one to practice mahāmudra in absence of a proper Abhisheka.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa, Tathagatagarbha, and "True Self"
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Chapter 11 Nirvana Sutra

Malcolm wrote:
States the following:

Child of a good family, "buddhanature" is ultimate emptiness. Ultimate emptiness is "wisdom." In that respect, "empty" is not perceived to be either empty or not empty.  Through discerning wisdom [prajñā] all that is empty, not empty, permanent, impermanent, suffering, bliss, self and non-self is seen. "Empty" is  all samsara. "Not-empty" is parinirvana. Samsara is in the range of the selfless, "self" is parinirvana. To see everything as empty; but not see what is not empty is  not "the middle path." To not see everything as in the range of the selfless, but not see the self is not "the middle path". "The middle path" is buddhanature.

Of course, now we meed to understand what wisdom, jñāna, is according to this text. After giving a description of various samadhis, the Buddha then earlier in the text:

"Wisdom" is to be understood as the buddhanature that exists in all sentient beings".

Further, when we consider the four categories of permanence, bliss, self and purity, the Buddha states:

For the worldly there is permanence, bliss, self and purity. Also for the transcendent there is permanence, bliss, self and purity. Worldly Dharmas are expressible, but meaningless. Transcendent Dharmas are expressible and also meaningful. 

If it is asked why that is so, since Worldly Dharmas possessing four distortions, the meaning cannot be realized. If it is asked how so? Their perception is distorted, their mind is distorted and their view is distorted, and because of these three distortions, the worldly see bliss as suffering, see the permanent as impermanent, see the self as not a self, and see the pure and impure, thus these are distortions. Because of distortions the worldly speak the words [permanence, bliss, self and purity] but do not understand the meaning. 

In that respect, if it is asked what the meaning is, the selfless is "samsara"; self is the "Tathāgata"; impermanent is the śravakas and pratyekabuddhas; permanent is the dharmakāya of the Tathāgata. Suffering is all tīrthikas; bliss is parinirvana; impurity is conditioned phenomena; purity is the pure dharmas of the buddhas and bodhisattvas. Therefore, this is undistorted.

As we can see, we do not need to take the Buddha literally on the point of the self, because if we did, we would be left with the negative consequence that we should all have all the perfect qualities of buddhas and bodhisattvas present fully formed in our mind streams. Anyone can see this is not so.

So Trungpa is perfectly in accord with the Buddha because the way some people these days present the teachings of the Buddha in the Nirvana sutra is quite distorted, presenting the teaching of the Nirvana Sutra in the manner of the worldly interpretation of permanence, bliss, self and purity and leading others astray.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:



dzogchungpa said:
Appears to be this:
http://www.tbrc.org/#!rid=O2MS813%7CO2MS813C2O0183$W2MS813

Malcolm wrote:
Correct, but not everyone has access to TBRC.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
What is the name of the Tibetan text, and is it available online somehwere?

Malcolm wrote:
This is from the section on the view I cited. Enjoy.

The passage is on the third page at the very end of the section on view, right before he quotes Sakya Pandita.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:


treehuggingoctopus said:
Good enough for me. Is it Seize questions à un maître dzogchen?


Malcolm wrote:
no clue, i read it in Tibetan


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that.

--ChNN, Questions and Answers on the Great Perfection

treehuggingoctopus said:
Malcolm, is the text you are quoting from available anywhere? Has it been published?


Malcolm wrote:
In French only.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Your primordial state [basis] is yours.

alpha said:
If the primordial base is individual to each sentient being how is it possible that methods like hum sgrub of dorje drollo work and why do they work ?
Or why do we come across so many expressions in the dzogchen tantras like the essence of all the sugatas is none other then the essence of your own primordial state?If is none other is shared which is heresy.Is there a way of thinking about individual bases without falling into the error of thinking about it as an  separate entity ?I know it is empty but if is empty then it can only be shared and empty.

Malcolm wrote:
The essence of all fires is heat. That does not mean all fires are the same.

The basis is not an entity at all, which is the point.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 1:24 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I understand that you have a kind of nominalist, anti-"mystical" bent but, honestly, when I read this passage, from "On The Nature Of Samantabhadra: A Conversation with Chögyal Namkhai Norbu", the epilogue to "The Supreme Source": Question: But if all beings are Samantabhadra, can we say that there are infinite Samantabhadras?
Answer: We could also think that there are infinite Samantabhadras, but when we are in the state of Samantabhadra, what does "infinite" mean? This is already a limited viewpoint. The true condition is beyond numbers. If we think in terms of an "individual being" this means that we are limiting, and consequently everything becomes complicated. If we want to understand, then we must not limit.
Question: In every tantra there is a dialogue, such as the dialogue between dharmakaya and sambhogakaya in the Kunjed Gyalpo tantra. What is the real meaning of this?
Answer: It is a way of communicating knowledge. The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is the Adibuddha, or "primordial Buddha," Kunjed Gyalpo.
Question: Is the state of Adibuddha, or Kunjed Gyalpo, something universal, present in all beings?
Answer: The state of Kunjed Gyalpo is knowledge, and in knowledge there is not even the concept of "one and two," otherwise we have already entered into dualism. Also the concept of "individual" presupposes dualistic vision. But Samantabhadra is beyond all this, isn't he?
it just doesn't seem to be the same view.


Malcolm wrote:
Your primordial state [basis] is yours. Your rigpa is yours. It does not belong to someone else, was not created by Samantabhadra, God, Chance, or anything else. As long as one persists in reifying the basis, for that long one will never understand Dzogchen teachings.

BTW:

The view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that.

--ChNN, Questions and Answers on the Great Perfection


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Shang Rinpoche dharma transmission and lecture in Melbou
Content:


Ayu said:
In the Lamrim teaching from Che Tsongkhapa (11th century)

Malcolm wrote:
Late 14th, early fifteenth, actually.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Put another way, all fires are  similarly hot, but there is no "ground of fire" from which all fires arise.

dzogchungpa said:
It is kind of interesting how they're all so similar though, don't you think?

Malcolm wrote:
Similar causes and conditions result in similar effects. If you see your real nature, the six realms are the six dhatus of Samantabhadra, if you don't, the six dhātus of Samantabhadra are the six realms. As Nāgārjuna states in the MMK:
Samsara is not a little bit different than nirvana, 
nirvana is not at little bit different than samsara;
whatever is the limit of nirvana, 
that is the limit of samsara.
A little difference between those two
does not even have the slightest existence.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
If there is an mind for every sentient being, there is a basis for every sentient being.This is why they basis is defined as being beyond one or many. It is beyond being one, since there is a diversity of sentient beings; it is beyond being many, since the basis is generic, and exists the same way in each sentient being.

dzogchungpa said:
So, basically, you're saying that "the basis" is just a way of referring to the fact that sentient beings are sentient?

Malcolm wrote:
The basis [primordial state] is a way of describing how we become buddhas by recognizing our real state or sentient beings by not recognizing that state, as well as describing how our real nature is whether we recognize it or not.

As described above, the term "ground of being" was coined by Tillich as a term for God. Hence it is not a proper term to be used in Buddhadharma at all.

Put another way, all fires are  similarly hot, but there is no "ground of fire" from which all fires arise.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, November 1st, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As a marginalia in the rig pa rang shar tantra states:
“The original basis” is undetermined and can appear in any way. It is not impeded in anyway, has no fixed nature, it’s essence is unchanging, it is unperturbed by nature, the luminosity of wisdom. Also that light is able to appear as everything and is capable of performing functions. It is empty of a self and what belongs to a self, the dharmin of unchanging emptiness is not determined in clarity. Further, the ultimate essence that does not change in a defined instant is beyond words.
This is a perfect definition.
"Dharmin" means the subject of a reasoned discussion. A "defined instant" means an instant predicated on having arising, ceasing and abiding (and such instants are rejected even in Yogacara).

So it means here that the basis, ones own unfabricated mind, has no fixed form or nature and is essentially timeless since time is also not established.

dzogchungpa said:
I still don't understand what "not determined in clarity " means. Also, it doesn't say the basis, which I assume = the ultimate essence, is timeless but rather that it is "beyond words". Also, while we're at it, there's one of these bases for each sentient being, right?

Malcolm wrote:
It means that the emptiness of the mind is not fixed in the clarity of the mind.

The whole passage concerns a definition the original basis, thog ma gzhi.

If there is an mind for every sentient being, there is a basis for every sentient being.This is why they basis is defined as being beyond one or many. It is beyond being one, since there is a diversity of sentient beings; it is beyond being many, since the basis is generic, and exists the same way in each sentient being.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As a marginalia in the rig pa rang shar tantra states:
“The original basis” is undetermined and can appear in any way. It is not impeded in anyway, has no fixed nature, it’s essence is unchanging, it is unperturbed by nature, the luminosity of wisdom. Also that light is able to appear as everything and is capable of performing functions. It is empty of a self and what belongs to a self, the dharmin of unchanging emptiness is not determined in clarity. Further, the ultimate essence that does not change in a defined instant is beyond words.
This is a perfect definition.

dzogchungpa said:
It might be perfect, but I don't understand it. What do the phrases "the dharmin of unchanging emptiness is not determined in clarity" and "the ultimate essence that does not change in a defined instant" mean?

Malcolm wrote:
"Dharmin" means the subject of a reasoned discussion. A "defined instant" means an instant predicated on having arising, ceasing and abiding (and such instants are rejected even in Yogacara).

So it means here that the basis, ones own unfabricated mind, has no fixed form or nature and is essentially timeless since time is also not established.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: About the demon Mara
Content:
pemachophel said:
Thanks Malcolm for posting this.



Malcolm wrote:
Sure, this is an excellent little text, I mean to publish it some day.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
As a marginalia in the rig pa rang shar tantra states:
“The original basis” is undetermined and can appear in any way. It is not impeded in anyway, has no fixed nature, it’s essence is unchanging, it is unperturbed by nature, the luminosity of wisdom. Also that light is able to appear as everything and is capable of performing functions. It is empty of a self and what belongs to a self, the dharmin of unchanging emptiness is not determined in clarity. Further, the ultimate essence that does not change in a defined instant is beyond words.
This is a perfect definition.

dzogchungpa said:
It might be perfect, but I don't understand it.

Malcolm wrote:
It is referring to your own unfabricated mind.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
I'm glad to hear that you have been able to maintain a strong relationship with your Guru all these years while seeing him so infrequently. Knowing that this is possible for another person makes me think it could work for me.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not really necessary to have a close personal relationship with one's teacher. It is useful however to travel now and again to serve him or her. As the Mahāsiddha Virupa states "The guru is the profound path."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: About the demon Mara
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
From Replies to Nyang Tingzin Zangpo:
Again Guru Rinpoche said:
“There are as many Dharma practitioners as stars in the sky, but few are without the obstacles of māra, like the sun and moon. If one is without the obstacles of māra, it would be easy to attain liberation in a single year. Therefore, necessary to recognize māra and overthrow him.

In the beginning, when one is staying in the city of samsara’s suffering, also one’s faith in Dharma is slight; carried away by the “māra of laziness”, one is angry at enemies, loving to friends, one thinks of mutual satisfaction, one is distracted by mundane activities, one is not mindful of death. Because of the activities of deluded appearances one remains in procrastination. That is called “māra”.
The method of overpowering that māra is to seek out a qualified Guru, the cause of unimpaired faith. Meditate on death and impermanence, the cause of unimpaired diligence. Having established one’s priorities, flee towards the Dharma.

At that time, māras turning one’s thinking in the wrong direction will arise. Some will manifest as one’s kin and companions, “Don’t practice Dharma” they will say and will cause obstacles by various means. Some will manifest as terrifying enemies or manifest as competitors and property. Since the human life of deceptions is exposed, slipping away day after day, and in the end one sinks deeper into the mire of samsara. To subdue it, having entrusted one’s mind to the jewel of the Guru, it is necessary to have the resolve not to seek advice from secular counselors. [8/a]

When one arrives in the presence of the Guru, the māra who accompanies doubts arises. The sign of his entry is to not perceive the qualities of the Guru. Even subtle faults are perceived. Incorrect views regarding his practice of interpretable deeds arise.

Thinking it is necessary to go to hell after giving whatever donations were received to the Dharma is a māra. To subdue it, develop the thought of the Guru as a Buddha.

At that time, the māra of turning away from Dharma arises. One will think of women, wealth, business, be deceitful and hoard.  The sign of the entry of that māra is one will give up one’s Dharma clothes, companions, and Dharma practice. One will not wish to listen to Dharma. One’s behavior will be mundane and one will have attachments and aversions. One will be greatly attached to evil alcohol. One will turn one’s back on the teachings of the Buddha. To subdue it, develop perseverance towards the Dharma, sublime of the sublime. One should be diligent whatever profound Dharma to which one is inclined. Remain very far away from women and irreligious activities. It is important to think about the liberation accounts of one’s predecessors.

At that time, the māra of being jaded about hearing different Dharmas will arise necessarily. The sign of his entry is one speaks proudly “I made this request for this Dharma.” There isn’t an intellectual understanding because one has not understood the meaning. Because one understands empty words alone, one explains secret words in public. Despite whatever profound meaning is explained, one thinks “I have heard it before” and certain knowledge does not arise. One does not reach perfection in Dharma, that is a called a māra.  To subdue it, one must engage in hearing and contemplation as before again and again, and truly integrate the meaning of Dharma.

At that time, māra of seeking many qualities enters. Since one understands qualities, māra is disguised as benefactors and students. On their arrival, one doesn’t engage in practice. One becomes conceited about one’s learning, and one sees oneself as important. One becomes attached to wealth. Obstacles preventing one from traveling the path of Dharma are created. The method of subduing it is, stay in mountain retreat for a long time, and change all other activities which will not realize the Dharma.

At that time, the māra of tenets will arrive. Having arrived as a Dharma of five poisons with the biases of oneself and others, give up the jealousies of tenets, train in unbiased pure vision.

At that time, when meditating on the deity, the māra of having doubts about the deity enters. Concepts about taking and putting down the deity, and is it good or bad arise. [9/a] Wishing to subdue demons with power, with completing the approach, hurrying the activities, practicing subjugation and evil mantras, to tame the māra of animosity with the wisdom deity, whatever deity one meditates, do not meditate with or without characteristics, but develop only the inner radiance of awareness and be steady in one’s commitments of the three doors.

If one is freed from that māra, once again when one is meditating the channels and winds, the māra of introducing obstacles to practice arises, creating obstacles to spiritual practice, even slight suffering is unbearable. One stops that practice and later one is apprehensive of doing it. For that, meditate on the faults of samsara and one will be free from obstacles.

If one is free from that, again, enhancing great bliss, the dākinī māra arrives. Having accepted mantra, the woman bears children. Since one cannot care for them, various non-virtues occur. Cut the snares of attachment to her, what one does not have one needn’t protect.

If one is free from that, when meditating emptiness, the māra of emptiness arising as an enemy occurs. “Nothing is accomplished” and one confuses good deeds and misdeeds. One will have not faith in the Three Jewels. One will not arouse compassion for sentient beings. For that, one should increase virtue and purify misdeeds. One should train in pure vision, devoted faith, dependent origination and inseparable emptiness and compassion.

Further, the māra of compassion arising as an enemy is that without oneself being liberated one rushes to help migrating beings, and delay in accomplishment, etc., occurs. So to avoid that, develop aspirational bodhicitta and be relaxed about engaged bodhicitta.

If one is free from that, the māra of predictions arising as an enemy occurs. Impersonating one’s deity or Guru, when such predictions occur in one’s experience or in dreams as “Help migrating beings!” and “One will become accomplished if one has helped migrating beings”, etc., for that dissolve the wisdom being, if it remains clearly, it is the deity or Guru. But if it does not remain clearly, it is a māra and an obstacle. One should determine that with certainty.

If free from that, because the māra of ascetic conduct arises as an enemy, one wanders continually in towns, some are drunks, others show crazy behavior, others are lewd, behavior which is not correspond with the sublime Dharma occurs.  To counter act that, [10/a] stay in one place, meditate on candali, be impartial towards the eight dharmas.

Otherwise, the obstacles of māra while one has not obtained perfect Buddhahood are endless, and also the explanations which follow. Having given up material things, if one practices one pointedly, no kind of obstacle or māra will affect one.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No. Dzogchen does not assert an underlying monistic 'ground of being'.

smcj said:
You may be right. But you've got to admit that a lot of the time it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.

Malcolm wrote:
No, but it is true that a lot of westerners spend a lot of time surgically altering swans into ducks.

As a marginalia in the rig pa rang shar tantra states:
“The original basis” is undetermined and can appear in any way. It is not impeded in anyway, has no fixed nature, it’s essence is unchanging, it is unperturbed by nature, the luminosity of wisdom. Also that light is able to appear as everything and is capable of performing functions. It is empty of a self and what belongs to a self, the dharmin of unchanging emptiness is not determined in clarity. Further, the ultimate essence that does not change in a defined instant is beyond words.
This is a perfect definition.

The problem with most of these conversations about the Dharma on the internet, is that we are looking at these teachings, especially a teaching like Dzogchen, through an incredibly narrow aperture, assuming that the one glint we see of the teachings represents the whole.

We are also in a time where foreign teachers try to communicate with students using terms in English without an educated background in Western Philosophy, and Theology and so imply things they have no intention of implying.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 8:00 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
rachmiel said:
A quick zoom over to Wikipedia revealed this:

Some Mahayana and Dzogchen traditions of Buddhism, however, do assert an underlying monistic 'ground of being' or tathagatagarbha, which is stated to be indestructibly present in all beings and phenomena.

Malcolm wrote:
No. Dzogchen does not assert an underlying monistic 'ground of being'. This is why Dzogchen spends so much time refuting such a ground.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Kongtrul was famous for being a Shentongpa. I think what he said should be assumed to be from the "empty of other" perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
No, what he says should be understood from the Dzogchen perspective, since it is about Dzogchen. Kongtrul did not subordinate his understanding of Dzogchen to gzhan stong. If anything, it is the opposite.

smcj said:
As I posted earlier in this thread: Jamgon Kongtrul "Treasury of Knowledge: Book 1 'Myriad Worlds'" p.204:

What is the fundamental nature of the original, primordial ground of being, before buddhas appear by realizing it and before sentient beings appear by not realizing it? To answer this, the tradition of Great Perfection states that…
For those reading this that are not familiar with that particular book, it is Kongtrul's dissertation on the different cosmologies for the universe. He starts with Mt. Meru and the like, and ends up with a description of "how the universe is" from the Dzogchen perspective. The above quote would be hard to characterize as anything other than Great Madhyamaka/Shentong, and it is specifically predicated on Dzogchen. So I don't buy that he saw Dzogchen as being anything other than an "empty of other"/Great Madhyamaka/Shentong perspective.

Kongtrul is one authority. He is not the only authority. Other equally prestigious authorities disagree. That's 100% ok. The only "correct way to see it" is whatever way a qualified teacher decides a specific student needs to hear about it. I know of teachers that tell one student one thing and another student something else entirely. You're not going to get that kind of customized presentation here on the internet. But in any case, like it or not, the "empty of other" school of thought does exist within Tibetan philosophical tradition.

Malcolm wrote:
The term "ground of being" appears nowhere in the text.

The text uses the term "ye thog gzhi", i.e. "primordial, original basis."


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
Kongtrul was famous for being a Shentongpa. I think what he said should be assumed to be from the "empty of other" perspective.

Malcolm wrote:
No, what he says should be understood from the Dzogchen perspective, since it is about Dzogchen. Kongtrul did not subordinate his understanding of Dzogchen to gzhan stong. If anything, it is the opposite.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Jikan said:
Malcolm, going back to the OP here for context:


When this teacher is using the phrase "ground of being," is he simply using an inappropriate term to translate something (ka dag, say)?  Or do are you saying this is a symptom of a misunderstanding on this teacher's part--that he's slipped over into eternalism?

Malcolm wrote:
As for the first part, definitely yes; as for the second, possibly — it rather depends on what he understands about Vedanta in general.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 3:57 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So is this referring to Dharmadhatu or Dharmakaya?

Malcolm wrote:
ka dag = dharmakāya of the basis.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 3:51 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:



Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 3:50 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
smcj said:
From Jamgon Kongtrul "Treasury of Knowledge: Book 1 'Myriad Worlds'" p.205:

The primordial purity of the original ground is the domain of a practitioner of the path (of Great Perfection) who is free from the erroneous biases of conceiving (the ground) in various artificial ways and who has the correct (understanding) of the ground a primordial purity.

Malcolm wrote:
Ka dag is simply defined as emptiness free from extremes as he says here:
(The primordial purity of the ground) wholly transcends words, concepts, and formulations, and surpasses the limitations of existing or not existing.


smcj said:
The nature of the ground is primordially pure.

Malcolm wrote:
I.e. it is emptiness free from extremes. 

Existing neither as cyclic life nor perfect peace, it remains primordially empty.


smcj said:
Personally I like the english word "premise" better than "base" or "ground", but that's just me.

Malcolm wrote:
The word is sthana (basis, support)  in Sanskrit, not pratijñā (premise)


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Btw, I have heard Anam Thubten use the word "brahman" in this context.

Malcolm wrote:
Tibetans are also not immune to misconceptions. Sad, considering how carefully Dzogchen texts dismantle Advaita, etc.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Residing in the ground of being
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no "ground of being" described in any Buddhist text. The term is not appropriate in Buddhist discourse, and was imported into Dharma by mistake.

The term is a Christian theological term coined by Paul Tillich.

I wrote elsewhere on this site:
In terms of the origins of the term, it was indeed coined by Tillich to show that "God must be called the infinite power of being which resists the threat of nonbeing." [Systematic Theology, Vol. pg. 64] You can see why such borrowing is tempting, "The ground of being has the character of self-manifestation; it has logos character" [Systematic Theology, Vol.1 pg. 158]

A large problem for people who are approaching Dzogchen is that they fall back into classical western philosophical categories. Indeed, Günther wrote once that Dzogchen essentially is not different than Parmenides's theory that whatever was contingent as non-being and whatever is permanent is being. Tillich writes:

"The Orphics, the Pythagoreans, Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides were driven to their philosophy by the awareness that the world they encountered lack ultimate reality. But only in Plato does the contrast between existential and the essential being become an ontological and ethical problem. Existence for Plato is the realm of mere opinion, error, and evil. It lacks true reality. True being is essential being and is present in the realm of eternal ideas, i.e., in essences. In order to reach essential being, man must rise above existence. He must return to the essential realm from which he fell into existence, In this way man's existence, is standing out of potentiality, is judged as a fall from what he essentially is. The potential is the essential, and to exist, i.e., to stand out of potentiality, is the lost of true essentiuality...In God there is no difference between essential and existential being. This implies the split is not ultimately valid and that is has no relevance for the ground of being itself. God is eternally what he is. [Systematic Theology, Vol.2 ppg. 21-22]

Examining this kind of presentation that the term "ground of being" arose out of, it is easy to see why those who are not trained in Indo-Tibetan scholastics as well as Western Philosophy will be very attracted to terms like "ground of being" in relationship to the term "basis" or gzhi.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 1:21 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.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: Practice of Setrap
Content:
lorem said:
EDIT:

about Shri Devi. 2 armed Queen of War Sickle Is Sarasvati and Marpa 4 armed Vetali is Lakshmi.

I guess in dharmakaya all the same but that would be saying 6-arm, 4-arm, and Bernagchen are all the same. (Chenrezi, Samantabhadra, Vajrapani)

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, they are. Their aspect only differs in terms of their appearance to us based on our own deluded perceptions and needs.

But in reality the wisdom continuum of buddhas are all the same.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 12:26 AM
Title: Samaya in Vajrayāna
Content:
lorem said:
Okay. Makes sense. Berzin's samaya is to clarify. Our's is not. I dig that.

EDIT: But as Buddhism comes to the West it may change. Internet society very open about things and the whole social justice aspect very strong in psyche/culture(?)

EDIT 2: Yes. Four-faced Mahakala could not be shown, only in Brahmin form, but Geluk changed that.

Malcolm wrote:
As for the second point, no, the Gelugp's didn't change that. One still should never display the form of Caturmukha Mahākala.

Samayas don't change just because the teachings are brought from one culture to another — for example, the samayas did not change their character because Tibetans imported Vajrayāna from India. Therefore, we should not expect them to be mutable just because we live in the West.

Samayas are something taught in the tantras. Regardless of what others may do, I encourage people to follow them according to how they have been understood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 12:03 AM
Title: Re: The tantric vow not to disparage women
Content:
lorem said:
They are totally set out in detail on the Berzin site. Not secret.

EDIT: you visit someone and they have thangkha uncovered or see shrine basically know pretty much everything about their practice (to some extent just making a point)

Malcolm wrote:
Right, nevertheless, they are actually secret and should not be discussed, just as pictures of yidams and so on should not be exposed to those without empowerment and so on.

Some people actually care about samaya, though these days, most seem to think it is optional.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 30th, 2014 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: The tantric vow not to disparage women
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
We are not really supposed to talk about tantric vows.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 8:57 PM
Title: Re: Yeti-Bigfoot
Content:
reddust said:
I know this a silly question. I was wondering what the Tibetans think of their Bigfoot called Yeti?


Malcolm wrote:
"Yeti" is the Tibetan name for the very rare Himalayan brown bear, and that is all.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 4:43 AM
Title: Re: Practice of Setrap
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Some say Palden Lhamo is worldly, others say otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
Śrī Devi is a wisdom protector.

Konchog1 said:
While on the topic, is there a difference between all the Sri Devis? For example, the Sri Devi popular among the Gelug, and the Sri Devi of Marpa? Are they the same deity or different?


Malcolm wrote:
Same devi, different manifestations. All wisdom devatās have the same continuum, i.e., the dharmakāya.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: Practice of Setrap
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Some say Kalarupa is worldly, others say otherwise.

Some say Palden Lhamo is worldly, others say otherwise.

As for oracles, I have heard the same. I have also heard that worldly protectors like Pehar don't have oracles because they are too powerful, and entering a medium's body would kill the person.

lorem said:
Damchen is Manjushri.
Palden Lhamo is 10th level bodhisattva
Nechung Oracle is Pehar.

Konchog1 said:
I had heard Nechung was Dorje Drakden, a minister of Pehar.

Similar to how Palden Lhamo has no oracle, but there is an oracle for the Tenma goddesses in her retinue.

Malcolm wrote:
The Tenma are worldly.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Practice of Setrap
Content:
Konchog1 said:
Worldly or not is an interesting issue.

Some say Kalarupa is worldly, others say otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
Kalarupa is a worldly manifestation of Yamantaka.

Konchog1 said:
Some say Palden Lhamo is worldly, others say otherwise.

Malcolm wrote:
Śrī Devi is a wisdom protector.

Konchog1 said:
As for oracles, I have heard the same. I have also heard that worldly protectors like Pehar don't have oracles because they are too powerful, and entering a medium's body would kill the person.

Malcolm wrote:
Pehar has oracles.

Very confusing.

Konchog1 said:
As for Setrap,

Malcolm wrote:
Setrap has an oracle, therefore, worldly. Setrap was introduced by Nyan Lotsawa, it is a new school protector, no relationship nor samaya with Guru Rinpoche.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 29th, 2014 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Practice of Setrap
Content:



qwerty13 said:
I give you more backround. Once I started to seriously think about dropping this pratice I felt pain around my heart area and various other locations in my body. Nothing very serious, but I really felt for a moment that everything is not  right. Its not like little painfull tingling, but  worse, more like something turning painfully couple of times inside my heart area. I had to stop for a moment to let the feeling go away. After the pain went away,  I felt myself little weak for a couple of minutes. But after that i started to feel that I am returning to "normal" state. This may not be entirely related, but Alexander Brezin says in his web archive that if one disparages ones teacher or breaks up with him/her in a negative way (negative way: not keeping polite distance, but just running away with remorse) then it can cause autoimmunological diseases,mental and physical suffering.   So that came to my mind when I was feeling these symptoms.
.

Malcolm wrote:
Setrap is a gyalpo. People who do Gyalpo practices often suffer from anxiety, paranoia and in particular, snying rlung.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 24th, 2014 at 6:15 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
No he is not calling for the slaughter of actual children, this is not his intention. All protector cycles have prayers with imagery just as violent. It is part and parcel of the rhetoric of violence that permeates the religious imagery of protector practices and smad las rites in general. I could cite (and won't) innumerable gore-filled examples where samaya breakers and their off-spring are subject to just as fierce imprecations.

Vajrasvapna said:
A prayer to harm the persons who break theirs vows is something other than a prayer to cause harm to innocent children and servants. The children were a threat to Buddhism or just to the power of the Dalai Lama and his order?


Malcolm wrote:
The prayer was directed not at people, but spirits causing people to act against there samaya, hence the reason it was addressed to Tsi'u mar.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 19th, 2014 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Sherab said:
In short you are merely saying that the conditioned and the unconditioned being mere conventional designations are in the end illusions or unreal.  And so, sentient beings, the tathagatagarbha and even the trikaya are all illusions or all unreal.  That is rather extreme don't you think?

Malcolm wrote:
It is less extreme than the converse, i.e., that sentient beings, tathāgatagarbha and the three kāyas are true existents or real.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Sunday, October 19th, 2014 at 9:55 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
Honestly, I don't see what 'atmaparamita' could mean then. Here is Mipham's description of it, from "Gateway To Knowledge" Vol 4: Transcendent sublime identity is the attainment of the transformation into the very wisdom that encompasses all of existence and peace, the nature of all phenomena. This transcends the extreme of provisional insubstantiality-differentiated from the substantial existence of self in terms of the mere non-existence of self-and in so doing, utterly quells all such conceptual complexities.

This great identity is the wisdom body of space-like equality, which exercises mastery over all phenomena. It is the transformed locus of the entire unfathomable and matchless ocean of undefiled qualities such as the ten powers and the ten masteries. It is the sublime basis for spontaneously accomplishing the two benefits.
('atmaparamita'= "transcendent sublime identity")

Malcolm wrote:
The transcendent sublime nature is the attainment of the transformation into the very wisdom that encompasses all of existence and peace, the nature of all phenomena. This transcends the extreme of provisional insubstantiality-differentiated from the substantial existence of self in terms of the mere non-existence of self-and in so doing, utterly quells all such conceptual complexities.

This great nature is the wisdom body of space-like equality, which exercises mastery over all phenomena. It is the transformed locus of the entire unfathomable and matchless ocean of undefiled qualities such as the ten powers and the ten masteries. It is the sublime basis for spontaneously accomplishing the two benefits.[/quote]
('atmaparamita'= "transcendent sublime nature")

"Identity" is a little different than a "self", even so.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Translating "atma" as "self" in this context is a misfortunate error when in fact the term simply means "nature" in this context as numerous usages prove.

dzogchungpa said:
So, what would you say the difference between "self" and "nature" is in this context?

Malcolm wrote:
"A self" is a bearer of identity, a nature is something like heat for fire.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Oh your right my bad I posted the wrong thing......


Queen Srimala Sutra
13. Intrinsic Purity of the Mind

"Lord, samsára is based on the Tathágata-garbha. It was with reference to the Tathágata-garbha that the Lord pointed out and explained, '[It is] without limit in the past.' Since there is the Tathágata-garbha, there is reason for speaking of 'cyclical flow' (samsára).

Therefore the Tathágata-garbha is the support, the holder, the base of constructed [Buddha natures] that are non-discrete, not dissociated, and knowing as liberated from the stores [of defilement]; and furthermore is the support, the holder, the base of external constructed natures that are discrete, dissociated, and knowing as not liberated.

Malcolm wrote:
Samsara does not equal conditioned phenomena. Why? Because if it did, there could be no pure conditioned phenomena such as path dharmas. People frequently confuse these two things much to their detriment. In other words, all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, but not all conditioned phenomena are impure.

Furthermore, indeed all conditioned phenomena are intrinsically pure, and it is just this intrinsic purity of the mind that sutras refer to as tathagātatagarbha. It is this purity which is the basis for all buddhaqualities. Translating "atma" as "self" in this context is a misfortunate error when in fact the term simply means "nature" in this context as numerous usages prove. Tagathāgarbha is indeed pure, permanent, blissful, and a nature, but it is not a thing per se., it it also not a "self" and using that term and applying too tathāgatagarbha is just confusing. Further, claiming it is source of impure conditioned phenomena is also a category error. On the other hand, rhetorically samsara can be "based" on tathāgatagarbha since the non-recognition of one's real state does result on wandering in samsara.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
The term "ground" (gzhi, sthana) is much misunderstood.

dzogchungpa said:
Could you clarify its meaning for us?

Malcolm wrote:
From a version of introduction to my forthcoming book:
...the generic basis [spyi gzhi], which is initially defined by Vimalamitra in the section on the nidānas as “one’s own unfabricated mind” [rang sems ma bcos pa]. This crucial point made in the text should not be ignored, for it would appear that Vimala’s stance contradicts the modern tendency to interpret the generic basis as a transpersonal entity of some kind, leading to the proposition that “the universe is an intelligent entity” and so on.
And:
...what is intended by the term “original basis” [ye gzhi] is a pristine empty cognizance or nous. By the use of the term ye shes as a key descriptor for the basis, Dzogchen texts are referring to a noetic potentiality of consciousness which is innate even when defined as “originally pure” or empty, for otherwise it would become very difficult to account for the arising of buddhas and sentient beings in the second topic, the arising of delusion.
And:
The third hard question is the issue of the temporality of the basis. Since time does not apply to the original basis, we must regard the use of terms such as “original,” “primordial” and so on as indicating a state in which time is irrelevant, rather than an actual conventional historical epoch or starting point existing countless infinities of eons ago. From such a perspective the placing of the original basis on a temporal spectrum is therefore a didactic myth. The net effect of this understanding is that the basis is the state of phenomena as they appear, in that all phenomena, both external and internal, appear out of an empty noetic potential.
And

dzogchungpa said:
Having defined the basis, what is being described is a description of reality just as it is. Buddhas are those who unerringly recognize this, and specifically, the idealized buddha known as Samantabhadra recognizes this not only in absence of a teacher, but without ever becoming a sentient being.

Malcolm wrote:
And:
The third topic defines sugatagarbha as no other than the basis present in sentient beings. In other words, the sugatagarbha defines how the basis is instantiated in sentient beings, and how vidyā exists in the body.
And:
Only the seventh position is considered to be flawless, in that the basis is defined as “great originally purity” (ka dag chen po):
Dharmatā, original purity, is free from all proliferation. Since it is unaffected by ignorance, it is free from all obscurations.
In reality, the basis really just refers to the union of the two truths:

The Mahāyānapathakrama by Subhagavajra states: So called “tantras” are tantras because of connection, and further, because they connected the basis, the method and the result. When divided, there are two kinds— tantras of words and tantras of meaning. Words are sounds. There are three in meaning— the tantra of the basis, the tantra of method and the tantra of the result. Now then, the tantra of the basis is the nature of the two truths; the method is the two stages; and the result is the two kaȳas, the dharmakāya and rūpakāya. Therefore, since the result is obtained when the method is cultivated in dependence on the basis, a tantra is so called because it connects.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
conebeckham said:
"Beyond dualistic experience, reality's original nature
Is free from all formulation, the innate character of luminosity."

Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo


Malcolm wrote:
Right the innate characteristic of gsal ba is spros bral, but that does not make gsal ba a "source".

The term "ground" (gzhi, sthana) is much misunderstood.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 4:12 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Brahmans held that self was the 5 aggregate body and that 5 aggregate body was permanent.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is a completely incorrect misrepresentation of what "brahmins" held.

Son of Buddha said:
No its not, it was common teachings back in  the Buddhas day which is why the Buddha spent so much time teaching that the 5 aggregates were not self.

Malcolm wrote:
People in general tend to believe that the body is the self -- however, at this times, brahmins held many beliefs, traditionally numbered 62.





Son of Buddha said:
Malcolm
There is no difference between this view and the view of Advaita, which holds that Brahman, not ever non existent, uncreated, unconditioned, permanent, bliss, eternal, pure, True Self, etc. is the ground for phenomena.
So.... and the View of Advaita is considered to be copied straight from Buddhism (even hindu rivals at that time pointed that out)

Malcolm wrote:
This does not address the problem that I pointed out. Also, Gaudapada did not copy Buddhist views so much as borrow Buddhist arguments to refute the dualist views of other nonbuddhists. Shankara of course hotly rejected the idea that he was borrowing Mahāyāna and there is little resemblance between what is actually taught in Mahāyāna and Advaita.



Son of Buddha said:
In reality created, conditioned, impermanent, non-eternal and so on phenomena cannot have an uncreated, unconditioned, permanent ground (because a series is impossible, etc., all the faults which belong to positing a permanent creator, etc.) Those Buddhists who hold such a view have erred into eternalism.
So maitreya was an eternalist?
Maitreyas Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes say:***
"Not existent, and not non-existent,"

Malcolm wrote:
This is not a citation affirming any sort of a ground at all.


Son of Buddha said:
and moreover the thought of all the statements in a great many stainless texts of the middle way of being devoid of the extremes of existence and non existence is that:
*Since all dependently arisen conventionalities do not really exist, when one realizes this, one does not fall to an extreme of existence and is released from the extreme of superimposition.
* Since the ultimate noumenon that is beyond dependent arising is never non-existent, when one realizes this, one does not fall to an extreme of non-existence and is released from the extreme of deprecation.

Malcolm wrote:
These are not citations asserting some existent, permanent ground.

Son of Buddha said:
There is no problem,Samsara is begingless As is Enlightenment. I stated Enlightenment is the ground and foundation for Samsara not that Enlightenment created samsara, For as long as Enlightenment has been the illusion of Samsara that mirrors Enlightenment has been. (the unconditioned/conditioned aspects of samsara is taught in the Queen Srimala Sutra)

Malcolm wrote:
The "ground" of samsara is ignorance, not enlightenment. It may be the case that there is no suchness to discover outside of samsara, but in that case, this does not make suchness a "ground" per se out of which phenomena arise. The root and basis of samsara is just the non-recognition of how things are. But this does not mean that there is some unconditioned enlightened pleroma out of which the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are produced.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 2:26 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Son of Buddha said:
Brahmans held that self was the 5 aggregate body and that 5 aggregate body was permanent.

Malcolm wrote:
No, this is a completely incorrect misrepresentation of what "brahmins" held.

Son of Buddha said:
In the Buddhist Sutras the Tathagatagarbha is said to be the ground/foundation for all phenomenon, not ever non existent, uncreated, unconditioned, permanent, bliss, eternal, pure, True Self, beyond dependent arising, what is truely real and not illusion and permanent Wisdom.

Malcolm wrote:
There is no difference between this view and the view of Advaita, which holds that Brahman, not ever non existent, uncreated, unconditioned, permanent, bliss, eternal, pure, True Self, etc. is the ground for phenomena.

In reality created, conditioned, impermanent, non-eternal and so on phenomena cannot have an uncreated, unconditioned, permanent ground (because a series is impossible, etc., all the faults which belong to positing a permanent creator, etc.) Those Buddhists who hold such a view have erred into eternalism.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
Buddhaqualities may be inherent in the dharmakāya, but only buddhas can see the dharmakāya, just as only buddhas can see tathagātagarbha. Thus one cannot evade the two accumulations, whether it takes three incalculable eons as in common Mahayāna, or on one lifetime, as in Secret Mantra.

Astus said:
That may be so. But it would be hard to find any existing Mahayana school of the common type. Tiantai, Huayan and especially Chan teaches a sudden path, while Pure Land teaches liberation in the next life. Only those who deny buddha-nature, i.e. the followers of Xuanzang, talk about a minimal three aeons.

Malcolm wrote:
They can teach whatever they like, but all the schools you mention are sutrayāna schools and are thus common Mahāyāna, teaching no methods not found in sūtra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Saturday, October 18th, 2014 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: So what is the Tathagatagarbha?
Content:
Astus said:
[Practically speaking, since the buddha qualities are inherent, it becomes possible to skip aeons of accumulating merit, so we have all the "enlightenment in this body" teachings as the mainstream of Mahayana.

Malcolm wrote:
Buddhaqualities may be inherent in the dharmakāya, but only buddhas can see the dharmakāya, just as only buddhas can see tathagātagarbha. Thus one cannot evade the two accumulations, whether it takes three incalculable eons as in common Mahayāna, or on one lifetime, as in Secret Mantra.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
kirtu said:
It would be less difficult in an academic paper because it can be treated from a religious studies perspective.  You are a smart man.  You can figure it out.

Malcolm wrote:
I have other more pressing things to do, and I don't write academic papers.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Friday, October 17th, 2014 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
Malcolm wrote:
I would have to explain too many details, many of which are bound by samaya (for exampe, how to explain to an outsider the ritual language of extreme violence found in so many protector petitions?).

cloudburst said:
How would one explain this? People seem relieved that it is just a prayer to a protector, but the fifth Dalai Lama would have believed this to be a real entity who could be influenced by his prayers, just like a warlord. Given this, isn't it just as disturbing that this religious man is calling for children to be slaughtered? How can we understand his intention?


Malcolm wrote:
No he is not calling for the slaughter of actual children, this is not his intention. All protector cycles have prayers with imagery just as violent. It is part and parcel of the rhetoric of violence that permeates the religious imagery of protector practices and smad las rites in general. I could cite (and won't) innumerable gore-filled examples where samaya breakers and their off-spring are subject to just as fierce imprecations.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Mahakala Practice Mahayoga
Content:
lorem said:
I would give them the benefit of the doubt but hard for me to check accuracy when I can't read the sources but thought they were holding to a Sakya/academic view.

Malcolm wrote:
I give them the benefit of the doubt, but in a project as large, and given that it is only one person, it is not surprising that there are errors here and there, and some of them are rather large especially when writing about non-Sakyapa art.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 11:20 PM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
Greg said:
I don't think the point is particularly to change Nichols' or Sperling's mind, I think the point is to have a published correction in a reputable source that is accessible to everyone. Plenty of people would be persuaded by this.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not a reputable source. You would need someone like Thurman for that.

M

Greg said:
Thurman has his own credibility problems, but yes an academic would probably be ideal. However, if the Times published your letter to the editor, that would be worthwhile.


Malcolm wrote:
Seriously, I am not the right person for the job.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
Greg said:
I don't think the point is particularly to change Nichols' or Sperling's mind, I think the point is to have a published correction in a reputable source that is accessible to everyone. Plenty of people would be persuaded by this.

Malcolm wrote:
I am not a reputable source. You would need someone like Thurman for that.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:


kirtu said:
Yes it is.  If the academics get something egregiously wrong it is in fact the job of translators and Dharma teachers to correct the issue.  You could publish a paper in something like the Journal of Buddhist Ethics along with a few other translators/Western Dharma teachers. Or you could write an article concerning the misinterpretation and publish it in a magazine like Tricycle.  But this kind of misinterpretation needs to be addressed.

Kirt

Malcolm wrote:
Sorry Kirt, but no. Here is why -- I spent years correcting Dogyal advocates and so no — did I convince anyone of anything? No.

Further, in order to correct someone like the writer of the op-ed, I would have to explain too many details, many of which are bound by samaya (for exampe, how to explain to an outsider the ritual language of extreme violence found in so many protector petitions?).

And as far as correcting Sperling goes, that also is just a waste of time since he won't listen.

M


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 6:27 PM
Title: Re: Mahakala Practice Mahayoga
Content:
cck123 said:
Hi,

i got a jenang for an Six armed Mahakala from Rinchen Terdzo (ThukChen Pema GyuTrul Drawa Cycle, not Shangpa Chagdrupa) and thought this should be an Mahayoga/Anuttarayoga empowerment.
On Himalayanart.com there is mentioned that Six armed Mahakala is a Kriyayogatantra practice, which would mean that there a very different commitments for practicing/reciting the Mantra.

Can you help me with some info? Do i need to be vegetarian for reciting the Mantra? Or are there no commitments with jenang?

Best wishes
Chris

Malcolm wrote:
It is highest yoga tantra. Himalayan art has many errors.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 8:27 AM
Title: Re: Re Tsen God
Content:
pemachophel said:
Anyone know anything about a Protector named Tsen God (not God)?


Malcolm wrote:
Btsan rgod just means wild brtsan.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 8:13 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
Jikan said:
We're talking about an article in a book from 1996, right?

1996?

Surely this has been corrected in the scholarship already.


Malcolm wrote:
Nope.

Jikan said:
If so, then Buddhist Studies is an anemic discipline indeed.

Malcolm wrote:
Just spread very thin...


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:


Malcolm wrote:
Sperling conflates two distinct epochs in the Fifth's life, disturbances in Tsang that also tally with disturbances caused by Dogyal, and the events of Tsang war in 1640.

Moreover, Sperling does not state to whom he sent these instructions, but it is clear when the letter is read in full it was sent to Tsi'u dmar. Now of course it is too late, because this misinformation now shows up on many web sites.

kirtu said:
But since your fingers are not broken you can inform Kristof and Sperling (and in the later case in an academic forum) of the errant reading.

Kirt


Malcolm wrote:
Not my job.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 5:57 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
Jikan said:
We're talking about an article in a book from 1996, right?

1996?

Surely this has been corrected in the scholarship already.


Malcolm wrote:
Nope.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:


Greg said:
According to Sperling it is 5DL's report of the instructions that he sent to a military force directing them to attack Tsang. Hard to see how that is purely rhetorical.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not such a letter. It is a letter of petition to Tsi'u dmar po to quell disturbances in Tsang.

It states:

"Pleased to composed a letter of vajra words of the Yakṣa Tsi'u dmar po,the general of the arrogant ones appointed by the great master of Glorious Oddiyāna, the union of all the buddhas, as the protector of the doctrine and the profound treasures in the valleys surrounded by the Himalayas, headed by the temple of Zab Yangs Migyur Lhundrup (Samye)..."

It ends with:

"Please pacify all the negativities of this time such as the illness, wars and famines 
of Pur rgyal and Tibet, and increase happiness, 
fully increase the doctrine of scripture and realization, 
effortlessly accomplish the wishes of me, the Vidyādhara..."

etc.

As I said, these lines are rhetorical.

This kind of scholarship is very irresponsible on Sperling's part.

Greg said:
It certainly looks less bad if it is in fact a supplication to a dharmapāla and not an actual directive to smash babies off of rocks. And that is certainly extremely sneaky and misleading of Sperling to phrase things the way he did. But the fact that he actually did orchestrate a military campaign is probably enough for Kristof's point to stand.

Malcolm wrote:
By 1660 (the date of the above cited letter), the Fifth was firmly in control of Tibet.

Sperling conflates two distinct epochs in the Fifth's life, disturbances in Tsang that also tally with disturbances caused by Dogyal, and the events of Tsang war in 1640.

Moreover, Sperling does not state to whom he sent these instructions, but it is clear when the letter is read in full it was sent to Tsi'u dmar. Now of course it is too late, because this misinformation now shows up on many web sites.

In 1640, he was only 23 and fully controlled by the regent, Sonam Chophel, who waged war against the King of Tsang in the Fifth's name.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:


Greg said:
According to Sperling it is 5DL's report of the instructions that he sent to a military force directing them to attack Tsang. Hard to see how that is purely rhetorical.

Malcolm wrote:
It is not such a letter. It is a letter of petition to Tsi'u dmar po to quell disturbances in Tsang.

It states:

"Pleased to composed a letter of vajra words of the Yakṣa Tsi'u dmar po,the general of the arrogant ones appointed by the great master of Glorious Oddiyāna, the union of all the buddhas, as the protector of the doctrine and the profound treasures in the valleys surrounded by the Himalayas, headed by the temple of Zab Yangs Migyur Lhundrup (Samye)..."

It ends with:

"Please pacify all the negativities of this time such as the illness, wars and famines 
of Pur rgyal and Tibet, and increase happiness, 
fully increase the doctrine of scripture and realization, 
effortlessly accomplish the wishes of me, the Vidyādhara..."

etc.

As I said, these lines are rhetorical.

This kind of scholarship is very irresponsible on Sperling's part.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Thursday, October 16th, 2014 at 12:32 AM
Title: Re: Mindfulness is powerful,But keep religion out of it
Content:
Sherab Dorje said:
So he's an expert on Dzogchen too?  Anything else?

Malcolm wrote:
He was a student of Tulku Orgyen's. His affection for Dzogchen has been consistent, despite the fact that his materialism is utterly at odds with Dzogchen view.


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 15th, 2014 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Taking and giving/Tonglen/Chöd/New Age
Content:
Concordiadiscordi said:
Perhaps it isn't possible to guage the value, singificance, purpose, or reach of tonglen.

Malcolm wrote:
The supreme training of bodhicitta, 
the bodhicitta of exchanging oneself with others,
is said said to the essence of the teachings.
-- Sakya Pandita


Author: Malcolm
Date: Wednesday, October 15th, 2014 at 7:48 PM
Title: Re: claim about Fifth Dalai Lama
Content:
drodul said:
Nicholas Kristof writes in a recent column that the Fifth Dalai Lama ordered children to be massacred in 1660 ( http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-diversity-of-islam.html?referrer= " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .) What, if anything, is he talking about?


Malcolm wrote:
It's purely rhetorical.


